Butler UniversityDigital Commons @ Butler University

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

2004

The Modernity of KhomiakovPaul ValliereButler University, pvallier@butler.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers

Part of the History of Christianity Commons

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. Formore information, please contact fgaede@butler.edu.

Recommended Citation"The Modernity of Khomiakov." A.S. Khomiakov: Poet, Philosopher, Theologian, ed. Vladimir Tsurikov ( Jordanville, New York: HolyTrinity Seminary Press, 2004), pp. 129-144.

to the nineteenth, during which Orthodox think­

,ed protestant arguments against Roman Catholi­

~urnents against protestant writers. Khomiakov's

Jtion was to the questions which still continue to

Ie Christianity: "Where is the Church? Who are

. are her limits? What gifts does she have to give

loes she lead us to her Lord?" It was in reaction

miakov developed his articulate ecclesiology of

Church in time and space, but above all in love

al word is a word of hope:

of the Church are only temporary designa­

rch ought not to be accused of pride for call­

odox, for she also calls herself Holy. When

.hall have disappeared, there will be no fur­

e name Orthodox: for then there will be no

;tianity, and there will remain but Christians.

rch shall have extended herself, or the ful.

inS shall have entered into her, then all local

!cease; for the Church is not bound up with

:1 neither boasts herself of any particular see

preserves the inheritance of Pagan pride: but

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic; knowing

iVorld belongs to her, and that any locality

temporarily serve for the glorification of the

according to his unsearchable will."83

,"weSlern captivity" and also lhe foremosl exponenl of the "neo.patns­-lhe eulminalion of the end of lhis period of intellectual and spiritual :eplion of Florovsky's work. see Marc Raeff. "Enlicements and Rifts: n Intellectual Historian: in Andrew Blane (ed.). Georges Florovsky: hodox Churchman. Creslwood. NY: Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Not a Harmony 0/ Discords

The Modernity of Khomiakov

Paul Valliere

When considering a theologian from the past, one inevitably

faces the challenge of distinguishing between the enduring and the

ephemeral in his or her work. The Gospel is eternal; but theologians

are not, nor are theologies. In an Orthodox theological context the

search for the eternal typically focuses on sacred tradition. One looks

for those moments when the theologian speaks not in his own voice,

but in the voice of the fathers, the voice of the church.

In the case of Khomiakov and the other Russian religious philoso­

phers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, identifying

the traditional element is a difficult task for a reason which becomes

more obvious as one becomes better acquainted with their work:

Khomiakov and the other Russian religious philosophers were not tra­

ditional thinkers. They were modern thinkers, and modern concepts

profoundly conditioned the traditional element in their thought. At

first inspection, indeed, the passing appears to outweigh the eternal

in them, for is not the "modem" by definition the modus, the way or

fashion of the moment, "now" as opposed to "always and forever?"

To pursue a discussion of Khomiakov in these terms, of course,

one must substantiate the premise that Khomiakov was a modern,

not a traditional thinker. Or if this is too adversative a way of put­

ting it-since a person can be modern and traditional at the same

time-one must at least demonstrate that Khomiakov's theology

Paul Valliere 129

was unprecedented in important respects, whatever traditional

features it might also have manifested.

The first evidence of the modernity of Khomiakov is so obvious

that many observers look right past it. It is the fact that he engaged

in theology at all. One can appreciate this point by considering Kho­

miakov as a social and historical type. In most respects he conformed

to a traditional pattern. He was a prosperous Russian nobleman,

devoted to tsar and country, trained in arms, indeed distinguished

in the armed service of his country, absorbed in the management of

his estates, passionately devoted to hunting, to his family and to the

Orthodox Church, which he viewed as the one true church of God

on earth. Ever since the Middle Ages one could fmd men like this in

Russia. To be sure, Khomiakov's personal gifts were exceptional and

set him apart from the generality of his class. But his pursuits were

not untypical, except for the one with which this paper is concerned,

namely, his theological project. The latter was unprecedented because

before modern times-or for that matter before Khomiakov's own

generation-Russian Orthodox noblemen did not busy themselves

with theology and certainly did not produce it. This fact should not

lead us to question their piety, of course. Pious Orthodox noblemen

could be found all over Russia in every generation, but they did not

express their faith by reading or writing theology. For that matter,

even the secular clergy was scarcely active in the theological sphere.

Theology was the business of hierarchs and monks, the latter in par­

ticular when one considers that the most important idiom for theol­

ogy in Russia was not verbal theology, and certainly not scholarly

theology, but iconography, umozrenie v kraskakh (contemplation

in colors) in Evgeny Trubetskoi's immortal characterization; and

iconographers were for the most part monastics.

What changed this situation? Why did Khomiakov and a few

other Orthodox laymen of his time decide to assume theological

responsibilities? The cause was as much external as internal to their

piety. Khomiakov's theology was not the natural, organic and har­

monious unfolding of his Orthodox spirituality. It was a response to

130 The M odemily of Khomiakou

an external challenge, a crisis. His theology w

same basic concern as his broader intellectual p

Slavophilism. The concern was to denne Russi;

place, and Russia's and Orthodoxy's mission,

ing, aggressively expanding European civiliza

Khomiakov and his fellows saw it, modern Eurc

on a collision course with the values which they

countrymen held dear. Khomiakov's theology w

instance because it was a response 10 modernit~

The responsive character of Khomiakov's tr

in the texts he left us. Except for the celebrated

is One" -more about that in a moment-ill<

theological writings take the form of letters or c

to Western European interlocutors, Catholic

little of Khomiakov' s theology represents ace

thodox partners, past or present. This is the re

censorship-why so many of his theological wri

French or English, and why Russian theologiar

over the adequacy of the Russian editions of hi

reads Khomiakov's theological essays in Russ

not reading Khomiakov at all, but Iurii Samarin I

or Vasilii Lur' e or others. This leads to many f

the tendentiousness of the editors and translat(

pIer it would be jf Khomiakov had just been a

Russians, an Orthodox addressing Orthodox.

that. His theological voice was directed also to

own. He pursued a conversation beyond the bl

Orthodox tradition.

The case involves more than the purely forr.

Khomiakov's theology. Khomiakov's confront

Christianity affected the substance of his thougl

Pauline features of his theology are an example e

abiding attachment to the writings of Paul has Ie

One of his later projects was to make a complete

Paul Valliere

tn important respects, whatever traditional

) have manifested.

: of the modernity of Khomiakov is so obvious

ook right past it. It is the fact that he engaged

~ can appreciate this point by considering Kho­

I historical type. In most respects he conformed

rn. He was a prosperous Russian nobleman,

ountry, trained in arms, indeed distinguished

)f his country, absorbed in the management of

dy devoted to hunting, to his family and to the

hich he viewed as the one true church of God

he Middle Ages one could find men like this in

:homiakov's personal gifts were exceptional and

e generality of his class. But his pursuits were

for the one with which this paper is concerned,

II project. The latter was unprecedented because

-or for that matter before Khomiakov's own

1 Orthodox noblemen did not busy themselves

~tainly did not produce it. This fact should not

eir piety, of course. Pious Orthodox noblemen

er Russia in every generation, but they did not

f reading or writing theology. For that matter,

~ was scarcely active in the theological sphere.

siness of hierarchs and monks, the latter in par­

siders that the most important idiom for theol­

)t verbal theology, and certainly not scholarly

raphy, umozrenie v kraskakh (contemplation

Trubetskoi's immortal characterization; and

or the most part monastics.

his situation? Why did Khomiakov and a few

nen of his time decide to assume theological

. cause was as much external as internal to their

theology was not the natural, organic and har­

f his Orthodox spirituality. It was a response to

The ModemilY 0/ Khomiakov

an external challenge, a crisis. His theology was prompted by the

same basic concern as his broader intellectual project, usually called

Slavophilism. The concern was to define Russia's and Orthodoxy's

place, and Russia's and Orthodoxy's mission, in the rapidly chang­

ing, aggressively expanding European civilization of his time. As

Khomiakov and his fellows saw it, modern European civilization was

on a collision course with the values which they and their Orthodox

countrymen held dear. Khomiakov's theology was modern in the first

instance because it was a response 10 modernity.

The responsive character of Khomiakov's theologizing is evident

in the texts he left us. Except for the celebrated essay, "The Church

is One" -more about that in a moment-most of Khomiakov's

theological writings take the form of letters or other kinds of replies

to Western European interlocutors, Catholic or Protestant. Very

little of Khomiakov's theology represents a conversation with Or­

thodox partners, past or present. This is the reason-not counting

censorship-why so many of his theological writings were written in

French or English, and why Russian theologians to this day quarrel

over the adequacy of the Russian editions of his works. When one

reads Khomiakov's theological essays in Russian, one is generally

not reading Khomiakov at all, but Iurii Samarin or Giliarov-Platonov

or Vasilii Lur'e or others. This leads to many problems because of

the tendentiousness of the editors and translators. How much sim­

pler it would be if Khomiakov had just been a Russian addressing

Russians, an Orthodox addressing Orthodox. But he was not just

that. His theological voice was directed also to a world outside his

own. He pursued a conversation beyond the boundaries of historic

Orthodox tradition.

The case involves more than the purely formal characteristics of

Khomiakov's theology. Khomiakov's confrontation with Western

Christianity affected the substance of his thought. The pronounced

Pauline features of his theology are an example of this. Khomiakov's

abiding attachment to the writings of Paul has long been recognized.

One of his later projects was to make a complete Russian translation

Paul Valliere 131

1

of Paul's letters. a project cut short by his untimely death. Khomi­

akov's Paulinism cannot be explained simply as an "elective affinity"

between him and the apostle, although a spiritual kinship certainly

existed. One must reckon also with the Pauline spirituality of the

modern German Protestant theologians whom Khomiakov read so

carefully. The exegetical note which Khomiakov wrote on Phil. 2:6

provides solid evidence for this claim. Besides the connection with

German Protestant exegetes (F. C. Baur and others), the text also

provides early evidence of the "kenotic" theme in Russian theology,

a distinctively modern theme introduced by Protestant theologians

and developed in distinctive ways by the Russians. The note on Phi­

lippians is also the place where Khomiakov offers his translation (i.e.,

exegesis) of Paul "absolutely apart from any authority," as he puts

it-a protestantizing declaration of exegetical independence which

we should not exaggerate, but not ignore, either.1

Modern influences figure also in "The Church is One." While

we may never know exactly what prompted Khomiakov to write his

famous essay, we do know that it owes a debt to the Roman Catholic

theologian Johann Adam Mohler (1796-1838), a contemporary of

Khomiakov's who lectured at the University of Tubingen and later at

Munich. Mohler's most important work appeared in 1825 when the

author was only twenty-nine years old: The Unity of the Church, or,

the Principle of Catholicism Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries. The book was one of the first

attempts to develop a more experiential, Spirit-filled understanding

of the church in modern Roman Catholicism, an understanding of

the church not just as a historical and juridical institution but in terms

of spiritual fellowship, or communion.2

1 See "Zamelka na leksl poslaniia Aposlola Pavia k Glippiilsam,"' in A. S. Khomiakov. Sochinen;ia V dvukh tomakh (Moscow: MoskovslUi GlosolslUi lond, hdate1'stvo "Medinm", 1994) 2:328·29 448:~9. "Eleclive affinilY· is S. S. Khoruzhii's characterizalion in "Khomiakov i P';~lsip sobor: nosh, Posle p.reryua: put; russko; Ii/osolii (SI. Pelersburg: lzdalcl'slvo "Aleleiia", 1994), 23. 1 See Johann Adam Mohler. Unily in the Church or The Principle 0/ Catholicism. Presented in Ihe Spirit 0/ the CI,urch Fathers 0/ Ihe First Three Cellturies. ed. and trans. by Peler C. Erb (Washing. lon, D.C.: The Calholic Univen;;ly of America Press. 1996); and Serge Bolshakofr, The Doctrine 0/ [he Unity 0/ the Church in the Works 0/ Khomyakov alld Moehler (London: Sociely for Promol· ing Chrisl;an Knowledge. 1946).

132 The Modemily 0/ Khomiakov

The notion of communion (koinonia) as the

is associated today with John Zizioulas' now-cl

Communion. In it Zizioulas cites Khomiako\o

nost' as one of the harbingers of his own ecclesic

admiration for Khomiakov in the Orthodox the

day rests in the main on this feature of his thou

suppose that Khomiakov's ecc!esiological insig

nonia ecclesiology-merely expressed what eVI

knows and experiences as the church. However,

not account for the perceived novelty of Khon

in its time, its status as a conceptual break-tl

therefore, one must consider the role of factors e

which, when combined with the internal deter

the synthesis of elements found in Khomiakov

The unprecedented prominence of the Holy

discourse about the church in "The Church is

demands explanation. The dogma itself was th

work with, of course. But what energized it? M

is not a sufficient cause, since one also wants to

pneumatology in Mohler. Or to put the questic

led a significant number of European theologian

nineteenth century to recover-and in some s(

promise of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit for tl­

ecclesiology in particular? Who put"Spirit" 0

pean thought and sensibility in Khomiakov's c(

The answer, it seems to me, is: the Germ

phers did. It was the Romantics who resurreclt

and religious sciences and reconceived these dis

senscha/len. Moreover, the Romantic philosc

to undertake their project by exactly the same

crisis that captured Khomiakov's attention:

globalizing challenge to revealed truths and 1

J See John Zizionlas. Be.;,,!: as Communion: Siudies in Personho New York: SI. Vladim.r's Seminary Press. 1985). 124.

Paul Valliere

'oject cut short by his untimely death. Khomi­

not be explained simply as an "elective affinity"

~ apostle, although a spiritual kinship certainly

eckon also with the Pauline spirituality of the

ltestant theologians whom Khomiakov read so

:ical note which Khomiakov wrote on Phil. 2:6

Ice for this claim. Besides the connection with

~xegetes (F. C. Baur and others), the text also

lce of the "kenotic" theme in Russian theology,

n theme introduced by Protestant theologians

.inctive ways by the Russians. The note on Phi­

Ice where Khomiakov offers his translation (i.e.,

)solutely apart from any authority," as he puts

: declaration of exegetical independence which

~rate, but not ignore, either. 1

es figure also in "The Church is One." While

~xactly what prompted Khomiakov to write his

know that it owes a debt to the Roman Catholic

dam Mohler (1796-1838), a contemporary of

tured at the University of Tubingen and later at

ost important work appeared in 1825 when the

ty-nine years old: The Unity of the Church, or,

lolicism Presented in the Spirit of the Church "hree Centuries. The book was one of the first

I more experiential, Spirit-filled understanding

lern Roman Catholicism, an understanding of

a historical and juridical institution but in terms . ?

I, or commUnIon.­

liia Apostola PavIa k filippiitsam." in A. S. Khomiakov, Soch;neniia oskovskii filosofskii fond, Izdatel'stvo "Medium". 1994), 2:328.29, S. S. Khon"h,i's characterizalion ill "Khomiakov i priIllsip sobor·

skoi lilo,olii (St. Petersbnrg: lmatel'slvo "Aleteiia", 1994),23. nily in /he Church or The Principle 0/ Ca/holicism. Presenled in rhe the First Three Cen/uries, ed. and trans. by Peler C. Erb (Washing. 'rsity of America Press, 1996); and Serge Boishakoff, The Doc/rine 1< Work, 0/ Khom!/akov and Moehler (London: Society for Promot. l).

The ModernilY 0/ Khomiakov

The notion of communion (koinonia) as the being of the church

is associated today with John Zizioulas' now-classic work, Being as

Communion. In it Zizioulas cites Khomiakov's concept of sobor­nose as one of the harbingers of his own ecclesiology. J Arguably, the

admiration for Khomiakov in the Orthodox theological world of our

day rests in the main on this feature of his thought. It is tempting to

suppose that Khomiakov's ecclesiological insight-the germ of koi­nonia ecclesiology-merely expressed what every Orthodox person

knows and experiences as the church. However, this explanation does

not account for the perceived novelty of Khomiakov's ecclesiology

in its time, its status as a conceptual break-through, Once again,

therefore, one must consider the role of factors external to Orthodoxy

which, when combined with the internal determinants, account for

the synthesis of elements found in Khomiakov.

The unprecedented prominence of the Holy Spirit in Khomiakov's

discourse about the church in "The Church is One" is the fact that

demands explanation. The dogma itself was there for Khomiakov to

work with, of course. But what energized it? Mohler's pneumatology

is not a sufficient cause, since one also wants to know what energized

pneumatology in Mohler. Or to put the question more broadly, what

led a significant number of European theologians in the first half of the

nineteenth century to recover-and in some sense to discover-the

promise of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit for theology in general and

ecclesiology in particular? Who put "Spirit" on the agenda of Euro­

pean thought and sensibility in Khomiakov's century, and why?

The answer, it seems to me, is: the German Romantic philoso­

phers did. It was the Romantics who resurrected Geist in the human

and religious sciences and reconceived these disciplines as Geisteswis­senschaften. Moreover, the Romantic philosophers were prompted

to undertake their project by exactly the same historical and cultural

crisis that captured Khomiakov's attention: the secularizing and

globalizing challenge to revealed truths and historic institutions in

J See John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies In Personhood and Ihe Church (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 198»). 124.

Paul Valliere 133

]

modern times. During the Enlightenment and especially with the

rise of industrial civilization, the security of the established churches

began to be undermined, as did the scientific veracity of the Christian

religion. Neither objectivist apologetics nor the argument from the

political utility of established religion were very successful apologetic

tools, not least because they lacked vital theological resonance. The

Romantics broke with these approaches by setting out the case for

the experiential truth of the Christian religion. Romantic apologetics

proclaimed the relevance of Christian doctrine to human subjectivity

or, as we usually say today, personhood. "The Church is One" is an

early example of this kind of apologetics in Orthodox theology.

That the Spirit is an experiential principle in "The Church is

One" can be sensed in a phrase in the essay which adumbrates an

important development in twentieth-century Orthodox theology.

Discussing faith, hope and charity as gifts of the Spirit and em­

phasizing their interrelatedness, Khomiakov speaks of the zhivoe Predanie and zhivoe edinstvo of the church-the "living Tradi­

tion" and "living unity" of the church.4 If in "The Church is One"

Khomiakov had simply affirmed the "tradition" and "unity" of

the church, there would be nothing special about the essay. After

eighteen hundred years of Christianity, the world did not have

to be told that the Church is one and that it preserves a sacred

tradition. Khomiakov's originality lay in his application of the ad"

jective "living" to the categories of unity and tradition, hence also

in the implication that unity and tradition may be "dead". To be

sure, the Holy Spirit had always been confessed in the Creed as

zhiuoluoriashchii, "life-giving." What Khomiakov did was to take

this vitalistic descriptor seriously in practical terms and use it to

energize the being-the tradition and unity-of the church. An

experientialization of ecclesiology was the result. In this way Kho"

miakov anticipated Zizioulas' insight into the difference between

the "institution" and the"constitution" of the church:

< "Tserkov' odna," Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh. 2:9.

134 The Modernity of Khomiakov

Christ in -stitutes and the Spirit con-stitu' The difference between these two prepo con- can be enormous ecclesiologically. ­

is something presented to us as a fact, ill!

accompli. As such, it is a provocation to 0

"con-stitution" is something that involves us something we accept freely, because we tal

5emergence.

While not formulated as clearly as it is ir

tinction is implicit in Khomiakov's paradoxiC(

Church is One" that "the visible church is vi

liever."6 With this formulation Khomiakov rejl

the visible church with the empirical church. 1

is the institution with its organization, rituals, I the visible church is this institution when it i

Spirit through faith-something that happens

wherever it occurs.

The experientialism of Khomiakov's eccl

the more apparent by the absence of patristi,

Church is One." Tradition may be present i

fathers are not. This contrasts, incidentally, wi

announced already in the subtitle of his boo

Catholicism Presented in the Spirit of the CJ First Three Centuries. Mohler can be link

patristic studies which began in the nineteen

confessions. Khomiakov's connection to the

much more tenuous'?

; Being as Communion, 140. • "Tserkov' odna," Sochineniia v duukh tomakh, 2:12. , Even Ivan Kireevskii, who Lhrough his association with OpLina Her early cenLers of the patrisLic revival in Rnssia. incorporates lillIe paLr and ior this reaSOn IS excoriaLed aloog wi Lh Khomiakov by crilics SOl

Lhodox Ecclesiology according La Alexis Khomiakov (1804.1860), logical Review 2 (1956):71. Romanides Lakes wong excepLion to possible de renouveler la philo.ophie des sainLs Peres sous I'aspect 'I'" r"pondail aux questions de son Lemps eL de I. culLure parmi laquelle ell rendered by A. Gratieux, A.S. Khomiakov ct Ie movement sJavophi du Ceri. 1939), 2:214.15).

Paul Valliere

ing the Enlightenment and especially with the

lization, the security of the established churches

ined, as did the scientific veracity of the Christian

,jectivist apologetics nor the argument from the

lablished religion were very successful apologetic

.use they lacked vital theological resonance. The

ith these approaches by setting out the case for

nof the Christian religion. Romantic apologetics

rance of Christian doctrine to human subjectivity

I today, personhood. "The Church is One" is an

is kind of apologetics in Orthodox theology.

. is an experiential principle in "The Church is

d in a phrase in the essay which adumbrates an

ment in twentieth~century Orthodox theology.

lOpe and charity as gifts of the Spirit and em~

:rrelatedness, Khomiakov speaks of the zhivoe 'oe edinslvo of the church-the "living Tradi~

nity" of the church. 4 If in "The Church is One"

Imply affirmed the "tradition" and "unity" of

lOuld be nothing special about the essay. After

years of Christianity, the world did not have

Church is one and that it preserves a sacred

<ov's originality lay in his application of the ad~

he categories of unity and tradition, hence also

that unity and tradition may be "dead". To be

lrit had always been confessed in the Creed as

"life-giving." What Khomiakov did was to take

iptor seriously in practical terms and use it to

-the tradition and unity-of the church. An

of ecclesiology was the result. In this way Kho­

I Zizioulas' insight into the difference between

ld the"constitution" of the church:

'iia v duukh fomahh, 2:9.

The Modemily 0/ KhomiakolJ

Christ in-stitutes and the Spirit con-stitutes [the church]. The difference between these two prepositions: in~ and

con- can be enormous ecclesiologically. The "institution" is something presented to us as a fact, more or less a fait­

accompli. As such, it is a provocation to our freedom. The "con-stitution" is something that involves us in its very being, something we accept freely, because we take part in its very

semergence.

While not formulated as clearly as it is in Zizioulas, this dis­

tinction is implicit in Khomiakov's paradoxical statement in "The

Church is One" that "the visible church is visible only to the be­

liever."6 With this formulation Khomiakov rejects the conflation of

the visible church with the empirical church. The empirical church

is the institution with its organization, rituals, history and tradition;

the visible church is this institution when it is constituted by the

Spirit through faith-something that happens anew whenever and

wherever it occurs.

The experientialism of Khomiakov's ecclesiology is made all

the more apparent by the absence of patristic discourse in "The

Church is One." 1iadition may be present in his essay, but the

fathers are not. This contrasts, incidentally, with Mohler's method,

announced already in the subtitle of his book: The Principle of

Catholicism Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the

First Three Centuries. Mohler can be linked to the revival of

patristic studies which began in the nineteenth century in several

confessions. Khomiakov's connection to the patristic revival was

much more tenuous. 7

) ReiTl.!? as Comrrtl.miorl, 140.

" "Tserkov' odna," Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh. 2:12. ; Even Ivan Kireevskii, who lhrough hIS association wilh OpLina HenniLage wa.< linked La one of Lhe early cenlers of the paLristic revival in Russia, incorporales hulc palristic discourse into his Wlilings and for Lhis reason is excoriated along WIth Khorniakov by Crilics such as John S. Romanides. "Or· lhodox Ecclesiology according 10 Alexis Khomiakov (1804.1860)," The Greek OrJhodo> Theo­logical Rwiew 2 (1956):71. Romanides lakes slrong except IOU 10 Kireevskii's view lhal "ii esllln· possible de renouveler la philosophie des sainLs Peres sous l'aspecL 'Ill'elle avaiL de leur temps .... Elle repondail au.~ qneslious de sOlllemps el de la euilure j)<1nni laC]uelle elle se developpai'" (Kireevskii as rendered by A Cratieux. AS. Khorniakou elle movemenl slavophile. 2 vol,. [Paris: Les Editions du Ceri, 1939J. 2:214-15).

Paul Valliere 135

i

136

A. S. Khomiakov. From Polnoe sobranie sochinenii

Alekseia Stepanouicha Khomiakoua.(Moscow:

Universitetskaia tipograhia, 1900). Rare and Illustrated Collections, Slavic & Baltic Division, NYPL. Courtesy of Hee-Gwone Yoo and Edward Kasinec.

The Modemity 0/ KhomiakolJ

This does not mean that Khomiakov was

history of the church. He was very interested in

way than most Orthodox theologians in our a

rary Orthodox theologians, benefiting from tr.

scholarship of the twentieth century, view the

tradition. Khomiakov was less interested in

toric tradition-something which he took for g

church as a historical force: a force not just in

society, politics and culture as well. Orthodoxy

in Khomiakov's philosophy of history or, as the:

riosophy-the search for the sophia, the inner

of the historical process.

One does not hear much about historioso{:

ology these days. The greatest Orthodox voicE

seventy years-Florovsky, Lossky, Meyenda

others-were not concerned with it and in som

hostile to it. They were historians, not philoso{:

historical discipline of patristics displaced sp

historical process in their work.

Things were very different with Khomiak

the apogee of philosophy of history in Europe

bound to the project also through his connec

Idealism, the fountainhead of all the great ninl

losophies of history. Moreover, the Romanti

history was integrally connected with their relil

of the most besetting sins of religion in the eYE

rationalists was its particularism. The creeds

the historic churches held fast seemed hopei

obscure to them. The Romantics by contrast,

sense discovering the historical and contingent

experience, gave the religious attachment to pa

on life. Historicist apologetics reinforced exper:

In both cases, the relevance of faith to human I lived was demonstrated in a powerful new wa~

Paul Valliere

cov. From Polnoe sobranie sochinenii

novicha Khomiakova. (Moscow: .a tipografiia, 1900). Rare and Illustrated avic & Baltic Division, NYPL. Courtesy ~ Yoo and Edward Kasinec.

The Modernity of Khomiakov

This does not mean that Khomiakov was uninterested in the

history of the church. He was very interested in it, but in a different

way than most Orthodox theologians in our own day. Contempo~

rary Orthodox theologians, benefiting from the profound patristic

scholarship of the twentieth century, view the church as a historic

tradition. Khomiakov was less interested in the church as a his­

toric tradition-something which he took for granted-than in the

church as a historical force: a force not just in personal life, but in

society, politics and culture as well. Orthodoxy played a crucial role

in Khomiakov's philosophy of history or, as the Russians say, histo­

riosophy-the search for the sophia, the inner meaning and design,

of the historical process.

One does not hear much about historiosophy in Orthodox the~

ology these days. The greatest Orthodox voices of the last sixty or

seventy years-Florovsky, Lossky, Meyendorff, Ware and most

others-were not concerned with it and in some cases were actively

hostile to it. They were historians, not philosophers of history. The

historical discipline of patristics displaced speculation about the

historical process in their work.

Things were very different with Khomiakov. He lived during

the apogee of philosophy of history in European thought and was

bound to the project also through his connection with Romantic

Idealism, the fountainhead of all the great nineteenth-century phi­

losophies of history. Moreover, the Romantics' fascination with

history was integrally connected with their religious interests. One

of the most besetting sins of religion in the eyes of Enlightenment

rationalists was its particularism. The creeds and rituals to which

the historic churches held fast seemed hopelessly arbitrary and

obscure to them. The Romantics by contrast, discerning and in a

sense discovering the historical and contingent character of human

experience, gave the religious attachment to particulars a new lease

on life. Historicist apologetics reinforced experientialist apologetics.

In both cases, the relevance of faith to human life as it was actually

lived was demonstrated in a powerful new way.

Paul Valliere 137

Khomiakov was deeply invested in the philosophy of history

along Romantic lines and "had apparently formulated his historical

views before he turned to theology."8 The sprawling compendium

of essays on mythology, religion, language and folklore on which

he worked for over fifteen years, Semiramida, places him clearly

in the Romantic and specifically Schellingian project of "philoso­

phy of mythology" -mythology being the bridge between history

and religion as the Romantics construed them. Semiramida. or Noles on Uni[)ersal History as Khomiakov called it, is a work one

does not hear about in contemporary Orthodox appreciations of Khomiakov, and with good reason. There is little in it to warm the

hearts of patristically-schooled theologians. The speculative heart of the work, the distinction between the "Iranian" (free, spiritual)

and "Cushite" (authoritarian, materialistic) forces of world history,

does not appear to engage Orthodox theological values except in a very general way. Are we not therefore dealing with arbitrary and

passing features of Khomiakov's thought, interesting in terms of

his time and place perhaps, but irrelevant to the tradition of the

church? Who, indeed, does not wish that Semiramida was only 18 pages long like 'The Church is One," and that "The Church

is One" was hundreds pages long like Semiramida!

Most of Semiramida is indeed negligible today, however im­

portant it seemed to Khomiakov. Yet the distinction between the

passing and the enduring in this instance is not as clear-cut as one might suppose. The sticlcing point is Khomiakov's Slavophilism,

a stumbling block which must be reckoned with. Integrally con­

nected to Khomiakov's historiosophy, Slavophilism cannot by any

stretch of the imagination be construed as a traditional or patristic enterprise, It was a modern invention. For this reason Orthodox

6 Nicholas V. Riasanovsky. "A. S. Khomiakov's Religious Thoughl," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 23, no. 2 (1979), 98. Note also Sulluer's observalion as he begins his exposilion of Khomiakov's lhought: "Das Geschichlswerk isl der Niederschl'4l vou allem geisligen Schaffen A. S. Chomjakovs in seiner erslen Penode; in keiner Disziplin liissl sich seine Posilion auiweisen, wenn man lIichl von diesen Aufzeichnungen ausgehl." Ernsl Christoph SUllne" Offellbanmg, Gnade und Kirche bei A. S. Chomjakov, Das oslliche Chris/enlum (Neue Folge), vol. 20 (Wiirzburg: Augustinu. Verlag. 1967). 27.

138 The Modernity of Khomiakou

theologians might decide to ignore it just as til

cultural-philosophical musings in Semiramid

they would err. The reason is that Slavophilism of Khomiakov's religious vision and personal

Khomiakov regarded Slavdom-for all practi

sia-as the venue by which Orthodoxy was I

historical force, a force which would reveal the

destiny of the historical process. Obviously the)

to reject this speculative-historical proposition

ence has not borne it out, and the prospects I our own time are remote at best. But Siavop

as a speculative, historiosophical proposition

sionary project, that is to say, as a means of l

outside the fold, a vehicle for carrying the Orl

the world. And Slavophilism was an ethicalJ to ground society-his own but also world so

ciples of the Gospel (sobornost'). Construed

Slavophile project cannot be ignored in a the!

of Khomiakov's legacy.

Andrzej Walicki's discussion of Khomiako

on Slavophilism is pertinent here. "The con dogmas," Walicki writes, "interested Khom}

as he thought them a symbolic expression oj

Church, which for him was above all an ideal

antidote to the social atomization and spiritu the contemporary world."9 While this statern

bit extreme- because there is no reason to n

interest in dogma in this way-Walicki ne... extremely important point. For Khomiakov,

and social content; it implied an ethical and sc

an ecclesiastical project. Hence, "Slavophile

9 Andnej Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy: His/O/y of a Cam Cenlury Russian Thought, trans. Hilda Andrews-Rusiecka (Nolre Noire Dame Pre.<s, 1989),188.

Paul Valliere

lS deeply invested in the philosophy of history

es and "had apparently fonnulated his historical

ned to theology."8 The sprawling compendium

)Iogy, religion, language and folklore on which

fifteen years, Scmiramida, places him clearly

ld specifically Schellingian project of "philoso­

-mythology being the bridge between history

: Romantics construed them. Scmiramida, or

r History as Khomiakov called it, is a work one

lt in contemporary Orthodox appreciations of

ith good reason. There is little in it to warm the

Iy-schooled theologians. The speculative heart

itinction between the "Iranian" (free, spiritual)

.horitarian, materialistic) forces of world history,

engage Orthodox theological values except in a

~e we not therefore dealing with arbitrary and

Khomiakov's thought, interesting in terms of

perhaps, but irrelevant to the tradition of the

ced, does not wish that S cmiramida was only

"The Church is One," and that "The Church

eds pages long like Scmiramida!

amida is indeed negligible today, however im­

o Khomiakov. Yet the distinction between the

luring in this instance is not as clear-cut as one

e sticking point is Khomiakov's Slavophilism,

which must be reckoned with. Integrally con­

ov's historiosophy, Slavophilism cannot by any

nation be construed as a traditional or patristic

modern invention. For this reason Orthodox

·'A. S. Khomiakov's Religious Thought," 51. Vladimirs Theological

• 98. NOle also Sutlner's observation as he begins his exposilion of Geschichlswerk ist der Niederschlag von aUem geistigen Schaffcn A.

,n Periode; in kemer Disziplin lassl sich sein.. Position aufweisen, wenn ,chnungen ausgeht." Emst Chrisloph SUllner, O!ferrbarung. Cllade

,iakov. Das as/fiche Chrislerrl~m (Neue Folge), vol. 20 (Wurzburg: 7.

The Modernity of KhomiaRolJ

theologians might decide to ignore it just as they ignore the other

cultural-philosophical musings in Scmiramida. But in doing so

they would err. The reason is that Slavophilism stands at the heart

of Khomiakov's religious vision and personal theological pathos.

Khomiakov regarded Slavdom-for all practical purposes, Rus­

sia-as the venue by which Orthodoxy was to become a world­

historical force, a force which would reveal the inner meaning and

destiny of the historical process. Obviously there are many reasons

to reject this speculative-historical proposition. Historical experi­

ence has not borne it out, and the prospects for its fulfillment in

our own time are remote at best. But Slavophilism was not just

as a speculative, historiosophical proposition. It was also a mis­

sionary project, that is to say, as a means of sharing Orthodoxy

outside the fold, a vehicle for carrying the Orthodox Gospel into

the world. And Slavophilism was an ethical project, an attempt

to ground society-his own but also world society-on the prin­

ciples of the Gospel (sobomosl'). Construed in these terms the

Slavophile project cannot be ignored in a theological assessment

of Khomiakov's legacy.

Andrzej Walicki's discussion of Khomiakov in his classic work

on Slavophilism is pertinent here. "The content and history of

dogmas," Walicki writes, "interested Khomyakov only in so far

as he thought them a symbolic expression of the essence of the

Church, which for him was above all an ideal social organism, an

antidote to the social atomization and spiritual disintegration of

the contemporary world."9 While this statement as it stands is a

bit extreme-because there is no reason to restrict Khomiakov's

interest in dogma in this way-Walicki nevertheless makes an

extremely important point. For Khomiakov, dogma had ethical

and social content; it implied an ethical and social project, not just

an ecclesiastical project. Hence, "Slavophile ecclesiology cannot

9 Andrzej Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy: Hislory of a COllServalive Ulopia in NineleenJh­

Ccnllul) Russia" Though I, lrillls. Hilda Andrews-Rusiecka (Notre Dame, IndIana: University of Noire Dame Press, 1989).188.

Paut Valliere 139

be discussed in isolation from Slavophile social philosophy-there

are in fact very close analogies between the Slavophiles' reflections

on the church and their conception of the secular norms governing

sociallife."lO Nikolai Berdiaev called attention to the same facet of

Slavophile theology. "The Slavophiles were, to use a contempo­

rary expression, pragmatists in theology. In a certain sense, their

religious philosophy was a philosophy of action; it was directed

against intellectualism in theology."l1 And I would add, against

contemplationism, that is to say, against a purely contemplative

appropriation of the Gospel.

In contemporary Orthodox evaluations there is a tendency to

value Khomiakov's ecclesiological vision while ignoring his social and

political vision. This one-sidedness distorts Khomiakov's project, for

his vision of sobornost' was as much a recipe for the regeneration of

society as it was an ecclesiological doctrine. In fact, he regarded these

two projects-the social and the ecclesial-as mutually relevant, in­

deed as necessary to each other. Both were concerned to effectuate

the same norm of life, namely, the reconciliation of freedom and unity

through love. Khomiakov was sure that, without the church, no earthly

society would ever approximate this norm. But he was also convinced

that without a social and historical mission, the church falls short of

being what it called to be. Unlike many later Orthodox theologians,

Khomiakov did not see a tragic break between church and society, or

between church and world. He saw a practical continuum grounded

in the ethical imperative of the Gospel to "love one another."

This theological pragmatism, as Berdiaev called it, is another

token of the modernity of Khomiakov. The nineteenth century prided

10 Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy. 197. 11 "From Aleksei Slepanovieh Khomiakov [by Nikolai Beediaev L' On Spiritual Unify: A Slavo­phile Reader, Irans. and ed. Bori. Jakim and Raben Bird (Hudson, NY: Lindislame Books, 1998), 332. In his int.roduclioll to On Spiritual Unity Bird makes a similar point .bout concreteness-or at leasl the aspiration lo It-in Slavophilism when he observes: "While Slavophile phJosophicaJ thought largely look cermau Idealism as its point of departure, the demand for realism and his­toricism provoked a search for the roots of Russian dislluclivcuess" (p. 11). Likewise KhoruzJ,ii. who wriles of "the concrele-expenenlial, nol abslract-speculative ch.racter of Khomiakov's thought,· Posle pereryva, 19.

140 The Modernity of KhomiakotJ

itself on being a practical age, an age of actio I

lion or contemplation. With his ethical seriOUSI

the reform, Khomiakov shared this Zeitgeist. F

does not do justice to his legacy by construing:

the timeless communion of the church and disre.

historical projects. Or to put it another way, 0

tice to Khomiakov by focusing on communion a

community.12 Khomiakov's Slavophilism was an

the implications of communion for community ir

We may reject ninety-nine per cent of it as irrele,

place; but if we reject one hundred per cent of i

we reject the type of project Khomiakovenvisic

something fundamental in his theology: the voca

tion in the world and for the world. The form in '

this vocation, in effect a kind of social Gospel, is

of the modernity of Khomiakov.

The deflection of theological attention towa

away from community leads to an overly spiril

ecclesialized view of sobornost'. To be sure, in

early twentieth centuries Khomiakov's theology'

opposite tendency. In that period, as Sergei Kl

"the social aspect, the treatment of sobomost' as

existence, over time came to the fore, leaving l

logical meaning of the concept marginalized and I

.1 The distinction is Ulken from John H. Erickson, "The Orthodox ( Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Or/hodox Canon Law and Church Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991), 20, where he wriles that ·Ortl.ndo, need Lo rediscover the implic.alions of communion for communily, lest 0

and 'myslical theology' degenerate into dile1l8.l1lish escapism, and our caricature idolized by the legalist and scomed by the 8.I,archisl." Il Poslc pereryva, 27. One might add that the CaSe was even more can cates in that the lreatment of sobomosl' as a principle of social exislenc sions about social and political life as such bUl wi/hin the reclesiologi namely, in the elaboration of sobornos( as a "democralic" principle il lalter view was (lOpular among liberal and radical advocates of church twentieth cenlUlY. A similar developmeul occurred in connection wi(~

concepl of sensus fidclium following its rehabilitation al Vatican II. f(

the problem wilh some reference to Khomiakov see Matthew Lawrenco Solx>most' aud Opport uuilies for Roman Catholic aud Orlhodox Un' sis, University 01 Saint Mary of the Lake, Mundeleiu Seminary, 2003

Paul Valliere

:ion from Slavophile social philosophy-there

analogies between the Slavophiles' reflections

leir conception of the secular nonns governing

Berdiaev called attention to the same facet of

"The Slavophiles were, to use a contempo­

gmatists in theology. In a certain sense, their

, was a philosophy of action; it was directed

;m in theology. "11 And I would add, against

hat is to say, against a purely contemplative

Gospel.

, Orthodox evaluations there is a tendency to

:clesiological vision while ignoring his social and

one-sidedness distorts Khomiakov's project, for

st' was as much a recipe for the regeneration of

:clesiological doctrine. In fact, he regarded these

,cial and the ecclesial-as mutually relevant, in-

each other. Both were concerned to effectuate

, namely, the reconciliation of freedom and unity

lkov was sure that, without the church, no earthly

,proximate this norm. But he was also convinced

and historical mission, the church falls short of

o be. Unlike many later Orthodox theologians,

ee a tragic break between church and society, or

world. He saw a practical continuum grounded

ive of the Gospel to "love one another."

pragmatism, as Berdiaev called it, is another

y of Khomiakov. The nineteenth century prided

,trollersy.197. KhomioRoll [by Nikolai Berdiaev}: On Spiritual Unify: A Slal'o­)ri,Jakim and Robert Bird (Hudson. NY: Lindisfame Books, 1998), 1 Spiritual Unily Bird makes a similar point about concreteness-or ill Slavophilism when he observes: "\VIiile Slavophile philosophical IJcali,m as its poim of departure. the demand (or realism and his­Ihe roOIS of RUSSian disLincLiveness" (p, 11). Likewise Khoruzhii,

Jerieulial, not abstract-speculative characLer of Khomiakov's Lhonght:

The ModernilY 0/ Khomiakov

itself on being a practical age, an age of action, not just specula­

tion or contemplation. With his ethical seriousness and interest in

the reform, Khomiakov shared this Zeitgeist. For this reason, one

does not do justice to his legacy by construing it solely in terms of

the timeless communion of the church and disregarding its author's

historical projects. Or to put it another way, one does not do jus­

tice to Khomiakov by focusing on communion and forgetting about

community. 12 Khomiakov's Slavophilism was an attempt to work out

the implications of communion for community in his time and place.

We may reject ninety-nine per cent of it as irrelevant to our time and

place; but if we reject one hundred per cent of it-that is to say, if

we reject the type of project Khomiakov envisioned-we will miss

something fundamental in his theology: the vocation of Christian ac­

tion in the world and for the world. The form in which he articulates

this vocation, in effect a kind of social Gospel, is yet another feature

of the modernity of Khomiakov.

The deflection of theological attention toward communion and

away from community leads to an overly spiritualized and overly

ecclesialized view of sobomosl'. To be sure, in the nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries Khomiakov's theology was distorted by the

opposite tendency. In that period, as Sergei Khoruzhii has written,

"the social aspect, the treatment of sobomosi' as a principle of social

existence, over time came to the fore, leaving the original ecclesio­

logical meaning of the concept marginalized and even forgotten."13 In

12 The disLinction is laken from John H. Ericksou, "The Orthodox Canonical Tradition: in The Challenge of Our Past: Studies irl Or/hodo> Canon Low and Church History (Crestwood. NY: SI. Vladimir', SeminaI)' Press, 1991), 20, where he writes that "Orthodox Christians todaydesperaLely need lo redlSCQVer the implicaLions of communion for communily, lest onr much-vaunled 'Sp}riLnaJily'

aud 'mystical theology' degenerate iulo dilenanlish escapi,m, and anI' church community inLO thaL cancature idolized by the legaliSI anJ scorned by (he anarchisl." lJ Posle perenJua, 27. One might add thaL the case wa, even more complicaLed than Khornzhii mdl­cates in Lhal Ihe treatmenl of sobomos" as a pnncipk of social existence occurred not only 10 discus­sions about social and political life as snch but within the ecclesiological diSCUSSIon of the concept. namely, in the elaboration of sobomos( as a ,. democratic" principle in the life oi the church. The laner view was popular among liberal and radical advocaLes of church relonn in Russia in the early twenlieth century. A similar development occurred in connecLion with the relaled Romar) CaLholic eoncept of sensus fidelill'" following its rehabilitation al Vatican n. For an interesLing di,cnssion of the problem with ,orne reference to Khomiakov sec Manhew Lawrence O' Leary, •Sensus fideliu",. Sobomos( and Opportunities for Roman Catholic and Orthodox Understanding: Licentiate The­sis, University of Saint Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary. 2003.

Paul Valliere 141

I

recent decades, however, the opposite has occurred: the ecclesiologi­

cal meaning of sobomost' has displaced and virtually swallowed up

the social and political message. This appropriation of Khomiakov

is as much of a mistake as the earlier one. Khomiakov's Slavophil­

ism challenges this one-sidedness by making it clear that the unity

he sought was not just mystical but also social and historical. This is

what Slavophile "wholeness" was about: not just wpoleness of spirit,

and certainly not just wholeness of mind, but wholeness of life, in­

cluding common life in the secular world. Mother (now Saint) Maria

Skobtsova captured the point exactly in her essay on Khomiakov:

"Ideally the whole world, on all levels beginning with the simple and

guileless level of people's everyday working life and ending with

the heights of the religious life of the spirit, should be built on the

principle of sobomost' which obliterates intellectualism and opens

the way for all the capacities and characteristics of the whole person

to manifest themselves. "14 That a natural- born activist like Mother

Maria was drawn to Khomiakov's thought is indirect evidence of its

pragmatism (in Berdiaev's sense of the word).

Many pages in Khomiakov illustrate his passion for action

and witness in the everyday world. So, for example, in his "Let­

ter to the Serbs" he advises his fellow Slavs, among other things,

to retain their distinctive national costume. "Custom, it seems,

consists of little things, but it is not a little thing. What sort of

importance could there be in a piece of clothing, for example? Is

the manner in which one is dressed and the design of the pieces

of cloth with which one covers oneself of any importance? Is it

not something quite dead and incapable of affecting life? That

is what people say in our country, but do not believe them. Such

is the nobility of the human soul that even that which is dead

receives a living meaning from it and in turn influences [human]

life. "15 More than Slavophile mythology is at work in these lines.

HE. Skoblsova, A. Khomiakov (Paris: YMCA Press, 1929), 42. l; Nicolas Berdiaev, Khomiakov. ""vi deA. S. KIlOrniakov, LeUre au, serbes, lrans. Valentine and Jean-Claude Marcade in collaboration wilh Emma Sebald (Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme. [1988]). 184.

142 The Modernity of Khomiakou

A realistic ethical intelligence is at work. Kho

that the temporal, the passing, can and in somt

vessel of the eternal.

Khomiakov's pragmatism has implication:

Orthodox ecclesiology_ In Being as Communi

tifies as one of the great unfinished tasks of (

ogy the "synthesis between Christology and pI

is to say, an understanding of how the chur<

Christ" can be also "a charismatic society," or

in-stituted by Christ and preserved in ecclesia

a~so be con-stituted ever anew by the Holy Sj

theology is pertinent to this issue because of

his witness to the charismatic being of the chu

which, incidentally, precipitated trenchant a

cisms of him by Florovsky and others for all,

the christological, sacramental and institutio

the church.16

Zizioulas' call for a synthesis of christo

tology is apt, but one may question how he

achieved. What is needed, Zizioulas writes,

tion of communion to its ontological conclus

ontology of communion. "17 But what if the sy

institution and free inspiration is not somett

accomplished within the ecclesia itself, in the

of communion, but something which is acce

the creative activity of believers--the laos Iheo,

where they actually live and bear witness to

not in the ecclesia alone, but along the bour

l6 See John S. Rornanides, "Orthodox Ecclesiology according to Alexi: The Creek Orthodox Theological Review 2 (1956): 57.73. Riasan lension between Khorniakov and his crilics in ecclesiology bears a ccn reI belween liberal and traditionalist Catholics in posl.Vatican 11 Calh, Religions Thonght," 99). " Being as Communion, 141.

Paul Valliere

~ver, the opposite has occurred: the ecclesiologi­

'nos( has displaced and virtually swallowed up

:al message. This appropriation of Khomiakov

ake as the earlier one. Khomiakov's Slavophil­

me-sidedness by making it clear that the unity

,t mystical but also social and historical. This is

oleness" was about: not just wholeness of spirit,

;t wholeness of mind, but wholeness of life, in­

in the secular world. Mother (now Saint) Maria

the point exactly in her essay on Khomiakov:

)rld, on all levels beginning with the simple and

ople's everyday working life and ending with

:ligious life of the spirit, should be built on the

'st' which obliterates intellectualism and opens

Ipacities and characteristics of the whole person 'es. "14 That a natural-born activist like Mother

Khomiakov's thought is indirect evidence of its

jiaev's sense of the word).

Khomiakov illustrate his passion for action

;veryday world. So, for example, in his "Let­

~ advises his fellow Slavs, among other things,

nctive national costume. "Custom, it seems,

ngs, but it is not a little thing. What sort of

lere be in a piece of clothing, for example? Is

h one is dressed and the design of the pieces

lone covers oneself of any importance? Is it

e dead and incapable of affecting life? That

n our country, but do not believe them. Such

1e human soul that even that which is dead

'aning from it and in turn influences [human]

;Iavophile mythology is at work in these lines.

av Wans: YMCA Press, 1929), 42. ov.•uivi de A. S. Khomiakov. Lellre aux .erbe•. ttans. Valentine and ,horation with Emma Sebald (Lausanne: L:Ag-e d'Homme. [1988]),

The Modernity of Khomiakov

A realistic ethical intelligence is at work. Khomiakov recognized

that the temporal, the passing, can and in some sense must be the

vessel of the eternal.

Khomiakov's pragmatism has implications for contemporary

Orthodox ecclesiology. In Being as Communion, Zizioulas iden­

tifies as one of the great unfinished tasks of Orthodox ecclesiol­

ogy the "synthesis between Christology and pneumatology," that

is to say, an understanding of how the church as "the body of

Christ" can be also" a charismatic society," or how the church as

in-stituted by Christ and preserved in ecclesiastical tradition can

also be con-stituted ever anew by the Holy Spirit. Khomiakov's

theology is pertinent to this issue because of the forcefulness of

his witness to the charismatic being of the church, a forcefulness

which, incidentally, precipitated trenchant and persistent criti­

cisms of him by Florovsky and others for allegedly minimizing

the christological, sacramental and institutional dimensions of

the church. 16

Zizioulas' call for a synthesis of christology and pneuma­

tology is apt, but one may question how he thinks it is to be

achieved. What is needed, Zizioulas writes, "is to push the no­

tion of communion to its ontological conclusions. We need an

ontology of communion."17 But what if the synthesis of ecclesial

institution and free inspiration is not something which can be

accomplished within the ecclesia itself, in the ontological depths

of communion, but something which is accomplished through

the creative activity of believers--the laos theou-in the contexts

where they actually live and bear witness to the Gospel, hence

not in the ccclcsia alone, but along the boundary between the

... See John S Romanides, "Orlhodox Ecdesiology according 10 AleXIs Khomiakov (1804.1860)," The Creek Orllrodox Tbeological Review 2 (1956): 57-73. Riasanovsky has observed that the tension between Khomiakov and his critics \Il ecdeSlology bears a certaiu resemblance to the quar· rei belIX'eenlibe,aJ and traditionalisl Catholics in post.Vaticau II Catholicism ("A. S. Khomiakov's Religious Thought: 99). 11 Being as Communion, 141.

Paul Valliere 143

ecclesia and the world?18 If so, then the synthesis of christology

and pneumatology happens whenever and wherever communion

passes over into community. If this is the case, then what Or­

thodox ecclesiology needs today is not more ontology, but more

ethics and more mission. I believe Khomiakov would have found

this suggestion congenial.

18 In passing, as a parenthetical addition to his call for an onLology of communion, Zizioulas acknowl. edges "Lhe rediscovery of the importauce of the laos of God and the local Church" as elements which

"can help even the Orthodox themselves to be faithful to Lheir ideuLity" (Being as Communion, 141), But he does not develop this suggestion: and what laos and local church have to do with ontology is not c.lear, for these are not ontological coucepts,

144 The Modemily 0/ Khomiakov

B 1987 r. 5I BnepBble ony6AHKOBaA 60}

3arAaBHeM «DyrnKHH H XOMHKOB»I. B HeH Bl

paCCMaTpHBaAHCb 3nH30,lJ,bI 06rgeHHH BeAH]

Koro CAaBjiH0<flHAa, YKa3bIBaAHCb HCTOqHHl\j

H3yqeHHji Bonpoca. B KaqeCTBe O,lJ,HOrO H3

Ha3BaHbI TaK Ha3blBaeMble «3anHcKH A. 0 ceT», ony6AHKOBaHHble B KOHge XIX BeKa e

HHKoAaeBHoH2. DO,lJ,AHHHOCTb aTHX «3anH

H ocnapHBaeTC5I, H B03M01KHOCTb HcnOAb30B

MeMyapHoro HCTOqHHKa cOMHHTeAbHa3• Om

HO, qaCTH'IHO <flaAbCH<flHgHpOBaHbl ,lJ,O'"iepbH

TOpa5I npH HX COCTaBAeHHH, O,lJ,HaKO, nOAb30B

,lJ,OWe,lJ,lllHMH ,lJ,0 Hac nO,lJ,AHHHbIMH MaTepHaj

B TOH qaCTH, KOTOpeut OTHOCHTC5I K XOMHKI

,lJ,OCTaTO'lHO BblCOKa, - BO BCjiKOM cAyqae, ji I

6eHHoro «BMewaTeAbCTBa» O. H. CMHpHOB

Bo-nepBbIX, CBe,lJ,eHHji, TaM co06r,geHHbl

TOMy, '"iTO M01KHO np0'lHTaTb B nO,lJ,AHHHbIX Be

I BpeMeHHHK nywKHHCKO>t KOMHeCHH. BJ>LH. 21..1\.,1987. C. 24-4 1 3aJlHCKH A O. CMHPHOBOH. YPolKlleHHo>t Poccer (1-13 3anHeHPI~

1.2. Cn6.• 1895. nepene~. OrA. Vl3/J..: M., 1999. .L\a>.ee WfTHpye J CnoA CBeafHH>t no 3TO>t HpooAeMe CM.: KpeCToBa .1\. B. K Bonpo BaeMJ>IX «3anHcoK" A. O. CMHpHOBO>t; nJ>llHOB A. C. «,LJ,e>tcTDI eM.... / / 3anHeKH A. O. CMHpHOOO>t, YP0lK.<leHHOH POCCeT. M., 19

B. A. K..Ow.eAeB