Quote of the week: Alexander Schmemann on the Heresy of Secularism
What we have to understand first of all, is that the problem under discussion is complicated by something our well-intentioned “conservatives” do not comprehend, in spite of all their denouncing and condemning of secularism. It is the fact of the very real connection between secularism—its origin and its development—and Christianity. Secularism—we must again and again stress this—is a “stepchild” of Christianity, as are, in the last analysis, all secular ideologies which today dominate the world—not, as is claimed by the Western apostles of a Christian acceptance of secularism, a legitimate child, but a heresy. Heresy, however, is always the distortion, the exaggeration, and therefore the mutilation of something true, the affirmation of one “choice” (aizesis means choice in Greek), one element at the expense of the others, the breaking up of the catholicity of Truth. But then heresy is also always a question addressed to the Church, and which requires, in order to be answered, an effort of Christian thought and conscience. To condemn heresy is relatively easy. What is much more difficult is to detect the question it implies, and to give this question an adequate answer. Such, however, was always the Church’s dealing with “heresies”—they always provoked an effort of creativity within the church so that the condemnation became ultimately a widening and deepening of Christian faith itself. To fight Arianism St. Athanasius advocated the term consubstantial, which earlier, and within a different theological context, was condemned as heretical. Because of this he was violently opposed, not only by Arians but by “conservatives,” who saw in him an innovator and a “modernist.” Ultimately, however, it became clear that it was he who saved Orthodoxy, and that the blind “conservatives” consciously or unconsciously helped the Arians. Thus, if secularism is, as I’m convinced, the great heresy of our own time, it requires from the church not mere anathemas, and certainly not compromises, but above an effort of understanding so it may ultimately be overcome by truth.
From “Worship in a Secular Age,” For the Life of the World, pages 127-128.
For the record, Father Robert Barron makes a very similar point at the beginning of The Priority of Christ, with particular reference to the Flannery O’Connor short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find.”
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
Is having a secular government merely a practical compromise in a pluralistic society, or is it “heretical”?
I’m not sure this makes any sense.
First, what conservatives is he talking about? He needs to be a bit more clear with his terms. Does he mean everyone who is not a progressive? Or what?
Second, Secularism is only a Christian heresy if you accept his expansion of the term heresy to mean anything that breaks apart the “catholicity of truth”. In this broad sense every religion other than orthodox Catholicism would be heresy. I doubt most people would call Islam a Christian heresy, but it would be appropriate with the definition the author uses in this quotation.
Finally, of course Christians cannot just exclaim “anathema!” to secularists. I’m not sure who thinks such a ridiculous thing. I certainly don’t know any conservatives who do, nor any liberals. As the author suggests, Secularism must be overcome by truth through understanding.
But fanciful sounding cheap shots at putative allies are not helpful to any cause save the one of increased intellectual disorder.
David,
I don’t know enough about Schmemann’s politics to comment on that. Maybe someone who knows him better could chime in? I suspect he was not overly interested in politics when he wrote this.
Zach,
The “conservatives” in question here are those who denounce secularism at every step, but fail to understand the historical connection between Christianity and secularism. The idea of an arena where God could be totally fenced out of everyday life emerged in Christian nations, not anywhere else.
The idea is that “conservatives” often end up simply mirroring the position they oppose rather than understanding the deeper problem. It happened with Arianism and it happened again after Berengar. To disagree with the heretics on their own grounds usually isn’t enough. In fact, the easiest way to fight a Nestorian is to become a monophysite. The grounds themselves must be challenged.
If that’s the case then it seems I was correct in my original comment: the conservatives he’s speaking of in this post are a straw man; they do not exist. The remark about conservatives is a cheap shot and debases the larger point he is trying to make, which is fine in itself.
And you’re probably right when you say “The idea of an arena where God could be totally fenced out of everyday life emerged in Christian nations, not anywhere else. ” But this does not mean that secularism is a Christian heresy.
Zach,
I’m not sure how you conclude that these “conservatives” are straw men. You don’t think there are people who constantly denounce secularism, but fail to see the real connection between secularism and Christianity? Really?
I would invite you to have a look at Father Barron’s book if you have time. He covers this in the first chapter, then spends the rest of it attempting just what Schmemann recommends in his final sentence. I wonder if you might be more sympathetic to Schmemann’s point after reading Barron’s analysis of secular modernity’s relationship with Christianity?
Brett,
Sure, I think that there are people who fail to see that secularism and Christianity are connected. Do I think intellectual mistake this has anything to do with one’s political opinions? No, not really. I think the author is taking a cheap shot at his intellectual opponents and I think it’s rather pathetic.
I know that modernity and Christianity have a deep and complicated relationship. I agree with Flannery O’Connor, who said that America is not a Christian nation, and not an anti-Christian nation, but a Christ-Haunted nation. I think that you could say the same thing about “modernity”.
I am going to read Father Barron’s book because I love Father Barron and I didn’t know he had a book.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Question, Is a secular government a reaction to the failure of the Christian faith to exhibit God’s love for all human beings? In other words if the Catholic is living her or his life less than what Christ instructs us to do, which is to give up everything for him, then are we anathema, and is the development of secularism an attempt to correct that condition?
Zach,
I don’t think Schmemann is talking about political opinions at all, let alone taking a cheap shot. He is talking about a constituency in the Church (and particularly within his own, Orthodox, church) that spends all its time denouncing secularism without understanding it. On many political issues Schmemann himself would be considered quite “conservative.”
As for Father Barron, he has several good books. The Priority of Christ is his heaviest by far. His short work, Eucharist, is a rather exceptional piece of adult catechesis.
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Store/Books.aspx
And maybe check out the piece by Schmemann too, if you have access to a theological library. It is a short appendice, though the whole book is quite worth one’s time. I suspect you would really like it, even though your initial response was negatively colored by his use of a political term in a non-political context.
Much of the piece is available here.
Well, if that’s the case, I have no issues with this except that the word conservative is abused.
Thank you for clarifying.
I wouldn’t say “abused.” Just used in an unfamiliar context. “Conservative” can mean many things, and the way Schmemann uses it is perfectly legitimate. I find it hard to think what else he should call such a constituency. He did at least put it in quotes.