Письмо профессора Ганса Эренберга прот.С.Булгакову о православии и протестантизме и ответ прот.С.Булгакова 43

Dear fellow priest! It is a deplorable habit among Christians of different denominations, when they mutually compare their internal constitutions and compete in strength and ability, to arrive at favorable conclusions about themselves and unfavorable ones about others. It’s also good when they take the matter seriously, whereas usually they don’t even do this and, without showing the slightest attention to others, are content with self-glorification. For most Christians, Christianity of other fraternal faiths is terra incognita (unknown land (lat.) - Ed.) and this applies not only to simply educated people, but even to theologians. While these latter sort through all the religions of the globe, they pass without attention their own, albeit hostile to them, but still brothers in faith; As for the Jews, there is no need to talk about them. As a result, mutual knowledge of each other is very weak among the Christian world itself - ignorance from ignorance, on the contrary, is unusually great. It sometimes seemed to me that it must be incredibly difficult to get used to a kindred and at the same time alien essence. It is, in fact, infinitely difficult - for two reasons: firstly, because you constantly come across something that is closely familiar, but at the same time requires a different approach and, falling onto the slippery path of comparison with your own values, you fall off it; secondly, because it is relatively easy to get used to an alien spiritual way of life and an unfamiliar inner life - moreover, without risking objectivity. In relation to some idolater or even a Buddhist, I will not easily fall into the temptation of narcissism and “giving oneself what is due”, a different question if the matter concerns faith, which, like mine, is rooted in the Bible. It is also extremely difficult to separate what deserves love from what does not deserve it, since we are talking about one’s own churchliness, the same thing, however, as with a patriotic approach to one’s own nationality. Behind the joy of one’s Church and behind the love for it, spiritual pharisaism and personal self-exaltation are often hidden. They are always associated with ossification of religious life, impoverishment, lethargy and weakness of faith. And this is why every isolated church is threatened by precisely these dangers: the very existence alongside it of another church, even a secondary one, unbridles evil passions and clouds the source of high and noble feelings of piety. There cannot be true and genuine piety until all of us Christians are of the same faith. We still somehow tolerate the existence of paganism, but believers in the Revelation of God and the Bible cannot tolerate a plurality of churches. And yet we cannot eliminate it; It would not lead to anything if someone renounced his confession: he would only end up in another, equally isolated, even if it called itself super-confessional. Therefore, each of us must strive to become higher than religion, without leaving it, but on the contrary, pouring into it the fullness of super-confessionalism. For this, theology needs a doctrine of religions that can be said to be truly Christian. But is this possible while the comparison is only one-sided? That is why I am writing to you and asking you to respond to my letter in order to avoid such one-sidedness. After all, only mutual comparison is valid. Until both sides being compared speak out, the conclusions are dictated by only one, and this is not Christian, and besides, there is no point. It is possible that the conditions for such a comparison are particularly favorable for both of us. With my book on "Eastern Christianity" I seem to have exposed myself too much to suspicions of one-sidedness and excessive sympathy for your Church in Protestant circles for me to risk the reproach from your Church circles for prejudice against my own beliefs. You and your like-minded people, on the other hand, show, as far as I know you, such impartiality in inter-confessional issues that it seems to me that we can have reason to hope for success. There is another special reason that prompts me to do this. As you, of course, reliably know, on the territory of your own Church there are not only hotbeds of evangelical teaching, but also widespread propaganda, which has recently enjoyed significant success. You are familiar with the Stundist movement and it would be extremely valuable for me to know what you actually think about it. Only then could I fully understand your attitude towards evangelical Christianity, since you always judge a Church somewhat differently when observing it at home or meeting it in a foreign land. Therefore, for example, I am afraid that the comparative tolerance with which we usually treat your Church is not explained mainly by the fact that it has no adherents in Germany and that it does not conduct propaganda. You see the opposite. – Of course, one can evaluate the Church very differently, depending on whether we are talking about its internal values ​​or the meaning of the propaganda it leads, but we are faced with the question of both. So, assuming that the topic of the Evangelical Church, at least in the form of Stundism, or more precisely, Pietism, is acute for you, I think that I can, even must spiritually raise the question in its broadest form, namely, about the relationship of our Churches. Since in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, which historically stands between us, we both have no real possibility of comparison, firstly, because it would not take a sufficiently serious part in it, and secondly, because in this case there is no need for it, then despite its significance, unity and integrity it should be left aside. It’s important for me to talk with you about “piety.” Piety can be individual and corporate: the piety of individuals and the entire people. Before us are two types of piety, your Orthodox, and our pietistic. We also have pre-pietistic piety, but there is no point in talking about it, because... it has little meaning, being devoid of effective force transmitted from person to person. Only in the form of pietism did Protestantism cease to be exclusively protesting and take on an independent position. – The only trouble is that this pietistic piety is very one-sided (as you can notice among the Stundists, although I don’t know whether Russian Stundists are completely similar to German ones) and therefore has become a party matter, which I myself, not being a Stundist, try to look at as much as possible from a non-party point of view. In short, Orthodox piety seems to me to be ecclesiastical, while pietistic piety is extra-ecclesiastical and therefore individual; and this brings me back again to the original opposition. Christianity had to first become a Church, that is, take a material, in other words, a political form and create its own spirituality; This form is hierarchy, spirituality is dogma. Orthodox piety is based on hierarchy and dogma, while the piety of the Pietists is based on the Bible alone. What does it mean? Of course, the Bible also occupies a certain place among you, but only as a holy book, and not entering into piety as its direct content - in this it does not differ from an icon; nevertheless, the Bible is present, since without it there would be neither hierarchy nor dogma, while these latter are the products, so to speak, of faith in the Bible: thus, the Bible stands behind hierarchy and dogma, but piety does not know about this, even if it knew... With us - we leave the historical aside here - on the contrary: the Reformation eliminated the hierarchy and, although this is not openly recognized, also eliminated dogma - in order to clear the way to the Bible; she succeeded, and pietism is inexorable in this regard. As a result of this, the Bible, which stands, as it were, in the background, in Pietism stands in front of everything, having nothing behind it. All the piety of Pietism lies, therefore, on one plane, which makes it unattractive (I would like to return to this later) and somehow alien in many of its manifestations, and yet they have - the Bible! The question now arises before me: is it possible to preserve the Bible in such a way that it serves as more than just a background, and piety retains that duality, without which it is condemned to degeneration? To approach this question closer, I raise the question of the people, since, as it will now become clear, they are identical to them. It is impossible to say without reservations that the Church and the people, the Church as an institution, are one and the same: one can safely say the opposite, that is, that they are never essentially the same thing, even though they should have merged into one - Protestantism elevates this dream to an imaginary reality. If you cross out the Church, what remains is the church people. Our Church consists only of the people who gather in the church, as a result of which the beliefs of those praying have taken the place of doctrine. Our Church is not a people's Church - it is a people, but not the people about which the so-called populists speak: all these are illusions or paganisms; people - a body of believers. Therefore, the opposition - this is the whole point of liberalism - went from top to bottom against the hierarchy below (the movement of pastors). Thus, we have a reverse church sociology - our Church is governed from below. The people, the church people, rule in spite of the superintendents and sovereign bishops, who, although they ruled, but per nefas (lawlessly (Latin) - Ed.) You, as Dostoevsky so vividly expressed it, always ask the question: how to approach the people? Although you have a church people, the Church is not based on them, but they were based on the Church. This can also explain the fact that Stundism was successful for you mainly among the people. I heard in “Light of the East” circles that educated Russian people always turn to Orthodoxy when returning to faith, while less educated people always turn to Stunda. And this success is caused by the Bible, probably only by it, and therefore is a very serious matter, especially since we are not talking about any of the small Russian sects. This time I limit myself to the question of the place occupied by the people in church life, from which the question of piety will subsequently flow. The latter is my main goal, but it is impossible to approach it without first tackling the first question. Please tell me your opinion about him, which will be extremely valuable to me, and then I could afford to continue our comparisons. Professor and pastor G. Ehrenberg is credited with publishing two volumes of “Oestliches Christentum” (“Eastern Christianity” (German) – Ed.), in which he introduced the Germans to Russian religious thought. He also owns articles very sympathetic to Orthodoxy. – Ed. Published by “The Path”... No. 5. October-November 1926. pp.87–92. – Approx. edit