Hopko and Schmemann?

[Wryetui]

God bless you all, brothers. I am happy to post here again, and I really hope that you all are fine and healthy.

I have a question that I thought it would be better to post here since I believe you are more familiarized with the question. I have read in a group online that is considered "Orthodox" that Fr. Thomas Hopko and Fr. Schmemann are heretics and should be avoided, which troubled me very much since they are two of my favourite modern theologians of our Church. What do you think?

Christ is in our midst!

 

[All4Christ]

God bless you all, brothers. I am happy to post here again, and I really hope that you all are fine and healthy.

I have a question that I thought it would be better to post here since I believe you are more familiarized with the question. I have read in a group online that is considered "Orthodox" that Fr. Thomas Hopko and Fr. Schmemann are heretics and should be avoided, which troubled me very much since they are two of my favourite modern theologians of our Church. What do you think?

Christ is in our midst!

Personally, I have never heard that. They are some the best modern theologians imho. They aren't infallible, but they truly made a positive difference and contributed much to Orthodoxy.

My priest recommended them to me as well.

 

[gzt]

I think you found a group online that you should avoid. Seriously. Shake the dust off your feet.

 

[gzt]

Fr Thomas Hopko has produced a large body of work. If you're looking at his podcasts, some of it is perhaps somewhat off-the-cuff and not as well-prepared as it could be. If you apply the most critical eye to such a large body of work, you might find some mis-statements, but he was a good and faithful Orthodox Christian seeking the truth. You shouldn't take any person's body of work as infallible. He has several books which were more carefully reviewed and prepared than his podcasts.

Fr Alexander Schmemann was writing in a particular time and place and while a lot of his works are somewhat universal some of his concrete suggestions were more understandable in their milieu.

In a lot of places on the Internet, there's a kind of "piety competition" where people work to signal their belonging in some tribe of the best whatevers out there, and so there's a kind of performative traditionalism which includes bashing figures that aren't of the right fashion (eg, Hopko and Schmemann). There are of course counterparts in other communities. This is toxic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

in my personal opinion, avoided? no. used with discernment? yes. we should not discount everything someone writes just because of a few errors there might be in his theology, but at the same time we should not simply embrace what someone says just because he is Orthodox.

so while I don't agree with everything Frs Schmemann and Hopko have written, I think the good far outweighs the bad. remember bishops determine heretics, not Internet forums.

 

[All4Christ]

This is one reason we do not consider humans to be infallible (other than our Lord Himself, of course). God gave us the Church to help keep our theology on track through His Grace and help, but individuals are not infallible. While we can't consider their works to be infallible, there certainly are many good things to learn from them. They both were excellent teachers and theologians.

Another thought - even the canonized saints were not perfect. At times, their theology may not be 100% correct every moment of every day. However, they continued to follow God and to become more like Him, even if they wrote something that wasn't 100% accurate.

 

[rusmeister]

in my personal opinion, avoided? no. used with discernment? yes. we should not discount everything someone writes just because of a few errors there might be in his theology, but at the same time we should not simply embrace what someone says just because he is Orthodox.

so while I don't agree with everything Frs Schmemann and Hopko have written, I think the good far outweighs the bad. remember bishops determine heretics, not Internet forums.

Agreed. Everyone's mostly right, but Matt's nailed it. At first, I saw only good and great stuff and was enthralled; later I found a few things that were "Uh..."; but the upshot is that they are both incredibly helpful. There are legitimate criticisms, but regarding great men I've taken to saying that you shouldn't criticise them until you first grasp that they are great men.

Snape summed it up in HP6:
"Dumbledore IS a great wizard. Only a fool would think otherwise."

 

[GregConstantine]

God bless you all, brothers. I am happy to post here again, and I really hope that you all are fine and healthy.

I have a question that I thought it would be better to post here since I believe you are more familiarized with the question. I have read in a group online that is considered "Orthodox" that Fr. Thomas Hopko and Fr. Schmemann are heretics and should be avoided, which troubled me very much since they are two of my favourite modern theologians of our Church. What do you think?

Christ is in our midst!

"I have read in a group online"

That there is the problem.

Please remember that there is a tremendous amount of anonymity on the internet. Anyone can go online and say anything. I'd bet that the online Orthodox communities are a very tiny minority of the total Orthodox population.

Please do not rely on Orthodox internet groups as your primary source on Orthodoxy.

Please get involved in a local parish and get to know people and develop in person relationships with them.

If you cannot do that for whatever reason (distance, no Orthodox parish nearby) then find one or two Orthodox people that are solid and communicate with them on a regular basis and go only to them for the bulk of your questions, concerns, etc.

Pay these people no mind and do not allow them to cause you to despair.

 

[jckstraw72]

Pretty sure I know which group you're talking about. While they do go overboard at times, it's important to note that they actually have very solid reasons for disliking Frs. Hopko and Schmemann. There is no doubt that Fr. Hopko has some statements in print that are heretical, and Fr. Schmemann's journals have a good number of passages that are really quite shocking. Even our Patristics prof, Dr. Christopher Veniamin, who certainly has no reputation as a fanatic, had no problem saying Fr. Hopko was a crypto-Nestorian, and really had no time for either of the two.

All that just to say that just because something is on an online forum, and just because the people in that forum lose their decorum sometimes, doesn't mean the content of what they say is without merit.

But, then again, I also think there is good from both of them. Fr. Schmemann's "Great Lent" is really quite excellent, and although it's been many years since I read "For the Life of the Worl," I recall gaining some good insights from it.

Fr. Hopko was a very inspiring speaker. ArmyMatt and I had the blessing of meeting him and hearing him preach/speak at Transfiguration Monastery several times. His lecture "The Word of the Cross" is, in my opinion, excellent. He had a healthier attitude towards monasticism than did Fr. Schmemann, and even was the guest homilist at the 20th anniversary celebration for Fr. Seraphim Rose.

I think it's good to remember that people don't have to be all good or all bad. Origen is a heretic, and yet he also has an undoubted positive influence on our theology. Heck, I'm even just crazy enough to think that Rasputin was neither the devil incarnate, nor a saint, but somewhere in the middle.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I can say that Dr Veniamin was never shy about his misgivings of some errors in Fr Tom's theology as jckstraw pointed out, he would also point out the contributions of guys like Fr Tom and Fr Alexander to Orthodoxy.

 

[Wryetui]

Thank you a lot for your comments, they really were helpful. My spiritual father recommended them to me without any problem and here, in Romania, there is a very positive attitude towards them (I say this because of the amount of works of theirs translated that we have) but you really did help me in saying that no one is infallible. Even now I am reading some exegesis of the pauline epistles by Theodoret of Cyrus, which everyone knows what is he considered. Thank you, again, and God bless you all!

 

[All4Christ]

Pretty sure I know which group you're talking about. While they do go overboard at times, it's important to note that they actually have very solid reasons for disliking Frs. Hopko and Schmemann. There is no doubt that Fr. Hopko has some statements in print that are heretical, and Fr. Schmemann's journals have a good number of passages that are really quite shocking. Even our Patristics prof, Dr. Christopher Venimain, who certainly has no reputation as a fanatic, had no problem saying Fr. Hopko was a crypto-Nestorian, and really had no time for either of the two.

All that just to say that just because something is on an online forum, and just because the people in that forum lose their decorum sometimes, doesn't mean the content of what they say is without merit.

But, then again, I also think there is good from both of them. Fr. Schmemann's "Great Lent" is really quite excellent, and although it's been many years since I read "For the Life of the Worl," I recall gaining some good insights from it.

Fr. Hopko was a very inspiring speaker. ArmyMatt and I had the blessing of meeting him and hearing him preach/speak at Transfiguration Monastery several times. His lecture "The Word of the Cross" is, in my opinion, excellent. He had a healthier attitude towards monasticism than did Fr. Schmemann, and even was the guest homilist at the 20th anniversary celebration for Fr. Seraphim Rose.

I think it's good to remember that people don't have to be all good or all bad. Origen is a heretic, and yet he also has an undoubted positive influence on our theology. Heck, I'm even just crazy enough to think that Rasputin was neither the devil incarnate, nor a saint, but somewhere in the middle.

If there are modern-day Orthodox books that promote some form of heresy, published by Orthodox book publishers, why aren't the heresies addressed before publishing? Do Orthodox theologians typically have their works verified by peer review (or perhaps bishops?), or do they just publish it without review?

Just curious

ETA: In particular, i am thinking about a book published by an Orthodox seminary that seems to promote a form of universalism. This isn't a book by Fr Alexander Schmemann or Fr Thomas Hopko.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Schmemann and Hopko are also my two favourite modern theologians. Schmemann's Great Lent is an invaluable resource during Lent and The Eucharist is terrific.

Both he and Hopko are above all just great pastors. I like them so much, that I suspect if they are heretics, then so am I. What "real, genuine, authentic" Orthodox would say such a thing?

 

[ArmyMatt]

from what I have seen, I think one of the reasons some iffy stuff can come out is because often the errors are posted in personal reflections or personal practice. Fr Tom often would point out that he very well could be wrong, and to neglect him if he is wrong.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Schmemann and Hopko are also my two favourite modern theologians. Schmemann's Great Lent is an invaluable resource during Lent and The Eucharist is terrific.

Both he and Hopko are above all just great pastors. I like them so much, that I suspect if they are heretics, then so am I. What "real, genuine, authentic" Orthodox would say such a thing?

whether or not someone is or is not a heretic is not based on how you emotionally feel about him. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was a good friend of Nestorius, yet he still anathematized him.

and I would say, I am good friends with one of the prominent members of that group, and he had no problem calling me out a few times when I went down the old heresy trail.

 

[rusmeister]

It is very easy, in a capacity as an authoritative teacher in the Church, to come close to or even cross lines into wrong teaching, which is what heresy is.
There are legitimate criticisms, and they must be assessed in degree. Not everything is black and white. Shmemann is flat-out a model of gratitude, the key to joy, for us. Hopko is a model of speaking to modern pluralist Americans who swallow truths more easily if they think the speaker doesn't sound dogmatically sure of them. (His mannerisms ("I don't know", "It seems to me", etc when speaking about definitive dogma) drive me crazy, but I get their effectiveness in the environment we live in today.)

It is possible to go too far in something. And usually, in my experience, it is in the direction of one of two equal and opposite errors. A person can, for example, say that "only Orthodox can be saved". Or they can take the opposite tack of ecumenism and say that it doesn't matter whether you are in the Orthodox Church or not.
Or they might teach that every word in the Bible has to be taken literally, that there is no metaphor or allegory, or the opposite error of saying that many or most miraculous events described are only metaphor or allegory.

Hopko was a thoroughgoing evolutionist. He believed that modern science, a result of modern education, produces truth about our origins that must be reconciled with patristic teaching, even to the point of belittling the latter. I still hope to write a criticism of his podcast on "the Slippery Slope", in which he was right about the specific case he defended, and wrong in denying and deriding the concept in general.

Shmemann was an ecumenist. He did believe in the Orthodox Church, but swung too far in the direction of "it doesn't matter".

Heck, I even found hints in Met Antony Bloom that he might have supported women's ordination, and more than hints in Met Kallistos Ware.

Such tend to be linchpins for "liberal" folk in the Church, and while they themselves did/do not teach such things as teachers like Fr Robert Arida have been trying to introduce (the legitimacy of homosexuality in the Church), their tendencies were influential in such directions.

I would stress the vital role Shmemann played in revitalizing the Orthodox Church in America, of turning it from a moribund club of isolationist immigrants to a thing that reaches out to Americans and fulfills "the Great Commission", and Hopko's continuation of that, combined with his down-to-earth relatability that Americans so desperately need, and let's face it, we really couldn't perceive Shmemann as American.

So there's no simple verdict. But overall, there is definitely much more good than bad, but you need to understand that they were "only human", and what exactly they went wrong in, even while being incredibly and deeply right about so many other things.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

It is very easy, in a capacity as an authoritative teacher in the Church, to come close to or even cross lines into wrong teaching, which is what heresy is.
There are legitimate criticisms, and they must be assessed in degree. Not everything is black and white. Shmemann is flat-out a model of gratitude, the key to joy, for us. Hopko is a model of speaking to modern pluralist Americans who swallow truths more easily if they think the speaker doesn't sound dogmatically sure of them. (His mannerisms ("I don't know", "It seems to me", etc when speaking about definitive dogma) drive me crazy, but I get their effectiveness in the environment we live in today.)

It is possible to go too far in something. And usually, in my experience, it is in the direction of one of two equal and opposite errors. A person can, for example, say that "only Orthodox can be saved". Or they can take the opposite tack of ecumenism and say that it doesn't matter whether you are in the Orthodox Church or not.
Or they might teach that every word in the Bible has to be taken literally, that there is no metaphor or allegory, or the opposite error of saying that many or most miraculous events described are only metaphor or allegory.

Hopko was a thoroughgoing evolutionist. He believed that modern science, a result of modern education, produces truth about our origins that must be reconciled with patristic teaching, even to the point of belittling the latter. I still hope to write a criticism of his podcast on "the Slippery Slope", in which he was right about the specific case he defended, and wrong in denying and deriding the concept in general.

Shmemann was an ecumenist. He did believe in the Orthodox Church, but swung too far in the direction of "it doesn't matter".

Heck, I even found hints in Met Antony Bloom that he might have supported women's ordination, and more than hints in Met Kallistos Ware.

Such tend to be linchpins for "liberal" folk in the Church, and while they themselves did/do not teach such things as teachers like Fr Robert Arida have been trying to introduce (the legitimacy of homosexuality in the Church), their tendencies were influential in such directions.

I would stress the vital role Shmemann played in revitalizing the Orthodox Church in America, of turning it from a moribund club of isolationist immigrants to a thing that reaches out to Americans and fulfills "the Great Commission", and Hopko's continuation of that, combined with his down-to-earth relatability that Americans so desperately need, and let's face it, we really couldn't perceive Shmemann as American.

So there's no simple verdict. But overall, there is definitely much more good than bad, but you need to understand that they were "only human", and what exactly they went wrong in, even while being incredibly and deeply right about so many other things.

That's a terrific treatment.

My only quibble is that when you say that "there is definitely much more good than bad", this is praise but it is rather faint. What single Orthodox preacher is infallible? Who never teaches error? Our beloved St. John Chrysostom can be criticised for his harsh expressions about Jews, yet we don't hesitate to praise him as a saint.

Can we not just say the "simple verdict" that they were both excellent Orthodox theologians and pastors, knowing always that they, like all Orthodox before them, were not infallible and did occasionally teach something that does not square with the consensus of the faith?

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

whether or not someone is or is not a heretic is not based on how you emotionally feel about him. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was a good friend of Nestorius, yet he still anathematized him.

and I would say, I am good friends with one of the prominent members of that group, and he had no problem calling me out a few times when I went down the old heresy trail.

I'm not judging them based on emotion; I like them because I have read them, agree with them and have learnt from them.

And they are not infallible. We should point out where they fall short of Orthodoxy as delivered to us.

But, returning to the OP, I think calling Fathers Schmemann or Hopko a "heretic" is reckless and does a great disservice to their memory. I would condemn an Internet group that does that.

 

[rusmeister]

That's a terrific treatment.

My only quibble is that when you say that "there is definitely much more good than bad", this is praise but it is rather faint. What single Orthodox preacher is infallible? Who never teaches error? Our beloved St. John Chrysostom can be criticised for his harsh expressions about Jews, yet we don't hesitate to praise him as a saint.

Can we not just say the "simple verdict" that they were both excellent Orthodox theologians and pastors, knowing always that they, like all Orthodox before them, were not infallible and did occasionally teach something that does not square with the consensus of the faith?

Yes, I think we can say that.
I would only clarify your words by saying that there are tendencies in the Church, of people who, like all of us, come into the Church infected with the ideas of the world, and as some of St John Chrysostoms words could be used by anti-Jews to behave badly towards Jews in our time, so can some of the ideas of the great men of our time be used to advance bad ideas of the world into the Church. Divorce is already widespread, and quickly granted in the Church. The pressure to ordinate women and to achieve tolerance of same-sex relations in the name of Christian charity are other examples of this. So is the idea of changing Tradition to what is popular under words like "a living Tradition", much the same way that in the secular world, people seek to change the American Constitution by speaking of it as a "living document", and that springs directly from evolutionism : once the idea of continual change from "we know not what to we know not what" is introduced as a principle, then all Tradition and tradition falls under attack, with emotional adjectives and fallacies like "carved in stone", "stuck in the past", etc. There is real division brewing in the Church; we hear all the time about Orthodox "fundamentalists" vs "liberals", and so the dangers of error in teaching by serious and authoritative voices in the Church is real, as is the danger of doing nothing out of fear of error, which can itself be error (that, in my opinion, is the course Met Tikhon took in response to the Arida scandal).

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Yes, I think we can say that.
I would only clarify your words by saying that there are tendencies in the Church, of people who, like all of us, come into the Church infected with the ideas of the world, and as some of St John Chrysostoms words could be used by anti-Jews to behave badly towards Jews in our time, so can some of the ideas of the great men of our time be used to advance bad ideas of the world into the Church. Divorce is already widespread, and quickly granted in the Church. The pressure to ordinate women and to achieve tolerance of same-sex relations in the name of Christian charity are other examples of this. So is the idea of changing Tradition to what is popular under words like "a living Tradition", much the same way that in the secular world, people seek to change the American Constitution by speaking of it as a "living document", and that springs directly from evolutionism : once the idea of continual change from "we know not what to we know not what" is introduced as a principle, then all Tradition and tradition falls under attack, with emotional adjectives and fallacies like "carved in stone", "stuck in the past", etc. There is real division brewing in the Church; we hear all the time about Orthodox "fundamentalists" vs "liberals", and so the dangers of error in teaching by serious and authoritative voices in the Church is real, as is the danger of doing nothing out of fear of error, which can itself be error (that, in my opinion, is the course Met Tikhon took in response to the Arida scandal).

Totally agree. Reminds me of the "The Three Trojan Horses" article I read recently. Touchstone Archives: Three Trojan Horses