Reconsidering Sergius Bulgakov as a Theologian of the Eucharist

Daniel Kisliakov
PhD Candidate, University of Divinity

ANZATS Conference, Brisbane, 4 July, 2018.

1
Abstract

Geopolitical change at the start of the 20th century wrought significant change to the study of

theology. After the Russian Revolution, exiled intellectuals found their way to the West and

connected with like-minded scholars. One of these was Sergius Bulgakov, whose life was

particularly complex: beginning as a Marxist and later returning to Orthodox Christianity, he

became one of the most prominent, and contentious, theologians of the Russian diaspora. He

forged ecumenical connections, including with the Fellowship of St Alban and St. Sergius.

Traditionally, scholars have categorised him with the so-called “Russian School”, largely due

to his sophiology. But scholars have come to question the accuracy of this categorisation. For

example, Andrew Louth has proposed that Bulgakov be regarded as a theologian of the

eucharist. Consideration of period documents confirms Bulgakov’s eucharistic consciousness,

especially with ecumenism, corroborating Louth’s hypothesis. More research is justified into

an important direction in the study of Russian diaspora theology.

2
As the memory of the 20th century increasingly becomes the subject of history, historians are

increasingly revisiting a time which, from a Christian perspective, is beginning to stand out as

one in which there was a great recovery of elements of Christianity which for a time had been

lost. Faced with the calamity of the two World Wars, the geopolitical status quo gave way to

a new order. Empires which at certain times seemed impregnable were no longer there, and

across Europe new countries emerged, many of which did not know independence for

centuries.

The calamity of this period also drove a newfound need for meaning and purpose.

Developments in theology across Europe, in large part, no longer conformed to the norms to

which they had become accustomed. “Back to the future” might have been a fitting slogan for

the period. Referring to earlier Christianity increasingly became a path of renewal, of

revitalising the faith for an era which seemed to have need of it more than ever before.

To be sure, this did not begin in the 20th century. In the 19 th century, the protagonists of

the Oxford Movement revitalised parts of the Church of England by paying close attention to

early Christianity and the writings of the Church Fathers.1 But in the 20th century, this

tendency grew and became international. In France, Ressourcement Theologie emerged,

culminating in the establishment of Sources Chretiennes by Jesuits in 1942. The protagonists

of this movement, Jean Danielou and Henri de Lubac, came to be some of the most well-

regarded Catholic theologians of the 20th century.2 They featured prominently in preparations

for the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. This was paralleled by a similar revitalisation of

German theology. The more calamitous the geopolitical environment became, it seems, the

greater the thirst for God.

1
Encyclopedia Britannica, “Oxford Movement”. https://www.britannica.com/event/Oxford-movement
Accessed 14-5-2018.
2
David Greenstock, “Thomism and the New Theology”, Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 13 (1970):
572.

3
Eastern Orthodoxy was no exception. Uniquely for the Russian Orthodox, this was

accompanied by the experiences of Revolution and exile. In the 1920s, communities of

Russian emigres began to spring up in major European centres: in Prague, Berlin, Belgrade,

Paris, and in London. While several European cities became known as cultural centres of the

emerging Russian diaspora, Paris began to stand out as a vibrant, dynamic centre of theology.

The critical year of 1925 marked the establishment of the famous St. Serge Institute of

Orthodox Theology in Paris. These were the years in which, it might be said, Eastern

Orthodoxy encountered the West in a decisive way for the very first time.

It is difficult to overestimate how much modern Orthodox theology owes a debt of

gratitude to the St. Serge Institute of Orthodox Theology, a small secluded institute of the 19th

arrondissement, or district of suburban Paris. Prominent members of its founding faculty

included theological luminaries of the Russian diaspora such as Sergius Bulgakov, its

founding dean, Nicholas Berdaiev, Pavel Florensky, Vladimir Lossky and Georges

Florovsky. Each of these deserves to be appraised in his own right, each for his unique

contribution to the development of 20th century theology. Anybody with a cursory

understanding of this history also recognises in each of these names some of the defining

perspectives of the theological debates that were a hallmark of this era. A comprehensive

assessment of all of this, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. In this short presentation

I will focus on a particular aspect the most prolific, and in the view of many scholars, the

most significant of all of these personalities. I will be speaking of Fr Sergius Bulgakov and

the development of his eucharistic theology. In particular, I would like to draw attention to

the ways in which historians at present are reassessing that which we once thought was

known about this great theologian. This reveals yet another aspect of the curious development

of Christian theology of that epoch, which in my view is only beginning to be thoroughly

understood.

4
 For those unfamiliar with Bulgakov, I will begin with a brief biographical overview.

Sergius Bulgakov was born in a clerical family in 1871 in a provincial area south of

Moscow. Belonging to a clerical family in Imperial Russia typically meant that priesthood

was passed from father to son across multiple generations. Bulgakov’s family was no

different. His clerical roots could apparently be traced back to the time of Ivan the Terrible. 3

Bulgakov attended seminary as a teenager after completing the local parochial school.

However, he subsequently refused to attend theological academy. 4

Instead, he enrolled at Moscow University, where he read law, economics, philology,

philosophy and literature. This period spawned his interest in Marxism. Bulgakov’s specialty,

however, was economics. In 1895, he published a review of the third instalment of Das

Kapital, which by then had been published posthumously by Friedrich Engels. Two years

later, Bulgakov published his first book on the subject of market economics in capitalist

modes of production. This made him an influential Marxist.5 In an article on Bulgakov’s

involvement in ecumenism, Brandon Gallaher observes that textbook seminary education in

Imperial Russia did not interest him very much.6 Hence his involvement with radical

movements, which, it might seem, was not typical of the great theologians of the 20th century.

Bulgakov’s stint as a Marxist, however, did not last long. In 1901, he moved to Kiev

where he started lecturing at university. 7 His charisma was evidenced by the fact that he was

able to draw up to a thousand people to public lectures at any given time. At this time he also

began to read Dostoyevsky and Soloviev.8 His drift from Marxism is revealed in an essay, Ot

marksisma k idealizmu, in which he details his adoption of Idealism as his guiding

3
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”, Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches Review,
24:1 (2002): 27.
4
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 28.
5
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 28.
6
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 28.
7
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 29.
8
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 29.

5
philosophical principle. His final break from Marx came in 1906 when he published another

essay, Karl Marks kak religioznyi tip, which translates as “Karl Marx as a Religious Type”.9

In this essay, he charged Marx with religious motives, which, he argued, were clothed in

militant atheism. Marxism was flawed, he also argued, because it elevated class hatred at the

expense of universal love. 10 Bulgakov was briefly involved in politics, serving as a deputy to

the second Duma convened by Tsar Nicholas II after the disturbances of the so-called “1905

Revolution”.

Bulgakov’s eventual return to Christianity took place during a visit to a monastery in a

remote part of northern Russia, where he partook of the eucharist for the first time in many

years. 11 In 1917, he was involved with the Church Council that restored the office of

Patriarch. Bulgakov was finally ordained to the priesthood in 1918. After the Bolshevik

Revolution, he was expelled from the Soviet Union on the so-called Philosophy Steamer.

Passing through Istanbul and Prague, Bulgakov eventually settled in Paris, where he served

as dean of St. Serge from 1925 until his eventual death in 1944.

This time spent in the West is where most scholars direct their attention. To an extent,

the expulsion of a great number of intellectuals by the Soviet regime brought long-standing

debates of the Russian intelligentsia into new focus. Since the 19th century, a favoured

subject of Russian intellectuals was the nature of differences, real or perceived, between East

and West: Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy did this from a literary standpoint, while Khomiakov and

Soloviev did this from the perspective of religious philosophy. All of these intellectuals,

however, also thought deeply about the relationship between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western

Christianity. But in the 19th century, such discussions were contained by the relative security

9
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 31.
10
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 31.
11
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 31.

6
of the Russian Empire. Some intellectuals fell out with the Tsar, but that was nothing

compared to the violence that followed the 1917 Revolutions. While some exiles entertained

the idea of returning home, exile was effectively permanent. This brought the encounter

between the Russian intelligentsia and the West into a focus that was sharper than ever

before.

Here, Bulgakov came into his own. His personal experiences of tragedy12 were no less

than anybody else whose existence had been uprooted, and yet, a sense of purpose energised

him, at least to the same extent as was the case when he was younger. Few things motivated

Bulgakov more than the opportunity to stand side by side with Christians in the West. To his

good fortune, Western Christianity was eager for this as well. Bulgakov presented a paper at

the inaugural Anglo-Russian Congress in January 1926, and in the following year, he

presented at the first international conference on faith and order in Switzerland, which was a

precursor to the World Council of Churches. 13 His position as the dean of the only Orthodox

theological institute in Western Europe14 placed him in the position of being a spokesman, as

it were, of Orthodoxy in the West.

It is during this time that we see the evolution of Bulgakov the great theologian. This is

clear from his involvement with early ecumenism. In England, he was an enthusiastic

participant in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, a society dedicated to fellowship

between Orthodox and Anglican theologians predominantly, but lay people as well. Original

documents from the Fellowship are an interesting read, because they reveal the emergent

sense of hope that captivated Christians at this time. It would be misleading to contend that

all participants of such gatherings were of one mind; yet, as we work from the 1920s to the

12
Andrew Louth speaks in detail about Bulgakov’s personal experience of tragedy, including the death of his
first son. Andrew Louth, “Father Sergii Bulgakov”, talk at the 2016 conference of the Institute of Orthodox
Christian Studies “Contemporary Fathers and Mothers of the Church”, 29-31 August, 2016.
13
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 43.
14
Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 43.

7
1930s, hope for eventual unity begins to grow organically. This is revealed in the warmth of

interaction between participants, the emerging depth of theological insight, and in Bulgakov’s

case, the eucharistic subtext that begins to emerge.

In the early days of the Fellowship a decision was taken to start a journal. Those in

ecumenical circles might be familiar with the journal Sobornost; however, its predecessor, the

Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, better reveals the sentiments of some

of the protagonists of early ecumenical movement. Their disposition was one of both

apprehension and excitement. The Orthodox and the Anglicans were not yet accustomed to

interacting with each other: however, both saw great potential in the endeavour because both

sides offered something that the other desired to have. There was also a sense of urgency.

Rather comically, the editorial of the first edition of the journal actually requested that

readers not write back if they have something good to say. People were to write only when

they had criticisms, the editor declaring that “letters of general interest or criticisms of

articles will be gladly received.”15 There was thus a keen desire to “get on with it”.

This is an apt characterisation of the sentiment that Bulgakov could be identified by at this

time.

Observing Bulgakov’s contribution to the journal, a pattern emerges, which, in my

view, reflects Bulgakov’s deepening engagement with his Orthodox and Anglican

counterparts. This takes place, roughly speaking, between 1929 and 1934. These years, we

might observe, correspond with calamitous events in the world: the collapse of the stock

market, the Great Depression, and the rise of Nazism. The degree to which these events

impacted on Bulgakov’s thinking is difficult to discern, except to say that in an article at the

end of this period, when praising Europe for its freedom, Bulgakov observes that “society

15
“Editorial”, Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St Sergius, 1 (June 1928): 1.

8
shudders involuntarily when these rights are violated as, for instance, in contemporary

Germany.”16 Yet, when we observe the style and content of Bulgakov’s writings until then, a

number of distinct features can be identified. These, in my view, reflect the evolving

interaction between Bulgakov and his counterparts.

The first is a noticeable development in the quality of the dialogue. Initially, Bulgakov

wrote about subjects that, on face value, were of elementary interest to an ecumenical

audience. For example, after the Feast of the Annunciation in 1929, Bulgakov offered an

exegesis of the feast by drawing attention to a curious Russian icon in which the Archangel

Gabriel held a cross when meeting the Mother of God. Bulgakov observed how this icon

draws attention to the meaning of the Feast: the meeting of the Archangel with the Mother of

God is actually about the Cross that is to come.17 Bulgakov published a similar homily the

following year on the Feast of Pentecost. Much of his focus was on the day the Holy Spirit,

which in the Orthodox calendar is on the day after Pentecost. In relation to the Day of the

Holy Spirit, Bulgakov observed that:

…one must comprehend the meaning and power not only of the words of the Church, but

likewise of its very silence. This feast-day is like a sealed icon or a sealed book – a dumb

mystery, which shall be revealed beyond the boundary of this age, when the universal

Pentecost shall be evident to the whole of creation, and God shall reign all in all. 18

Comparing each of these homilies, the pattern emerges in which Bulgakov goes beyond fact

and chronology and interprets everything in relation to Christ’s overall salvific action. All is

interpreted in light of its ultimate theological meaning. This constitutes, in essence, an

16
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”, The Journal of the
Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 21 (September 1933): 10.
17
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Passion’s Annunciation”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius,
4 (March 1929): 23.
18
Sergius Bulgakov, “A Word on Pentecost”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 9
(June 1930): 28.

9
eschatological hermeneutic. Aidan Nichols observes this quality in Paul Evdokimov,

Bulgakov’s student and protege. It is clear, however, that this actually appeared in Bulgakov

at an earlier stage.

Another aspect that emerges from Bulgakov’s work is what might be referred to as a

deep sense of eucharistic consciousness. Recently, Professor Andrew Louth of Duhram

Unversity contended that much of our understanding of Bulgakov requires reassessment.

During most of the 20th century, Bulgakov was judged principally by his connection to

sophiology – the notion of Divine Wisdom, which has roots in Byzantine and Russian

spirituality. This was adapted by Bulgakov in the formulation of some his theology.

This emphasis, however, largely resulted from the legacy of the so-called Sophia Affair

of 1935. The motivations behind the division that followed that event were in fact predicted

by Bulgakov two years earlier. When describing the eucharist and its relationship to social

problems, he posed the question, why can’t unanimity in the social and in the political

spheres follow from unity in faith? 19 His answer was that one does not follow the other

because divisions in the Church are typically motivated by politics. Indeed, discomfort with

Bulgakov and his theology has much to do with the politics of the Russian diaspora. A

comprehensive scholarly appraisal of Bulgakov and his theology remains elusive to this

day. 20

Yet, Louth’s approach to Bulgakov presents a unique opportunity to reappraise him and

his legacy. Typically, the development of eucharistic theology in the Orthodox Church is

attributed to Alexander Schmemann or Nicholas Afanasiev. But did knowledge of the

19
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”: 20.
20
Despite much being written about him, Bulgakov remains one of the most enigmatic personalities of modern
Orthodox theology. Brandon Gallaher observes that given the impact of the Sophia Affair and the complexities
of Bulgakov’s life and circumstances, a comprehensive appraisal of it, as well as of Bulgakov as a theologian, is
yet to be written. Anastassy Gallaher, “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”: 24.

10
eucharist, this eucharistic consciousness, not already begin with Bulgakov? Louth’s argument

is loosely based on eyewitness testimony of Bulgakov’s personality and disposition at the end

of his life, especially in his role as spiritual father to numerous people. Some of these left

detailed eyewitness testimony after Bulgakov’s passing in 1944. 21 Following this line of

argument, my contention is that the same can also be observed in many of his writings.

Consideration of Bulgakov’s early ecumenical writings reveals this. Reading through

the Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Bulgakov’s early writings reveal a

sense of the urgency for Christian unity. Bulgakov’s article “On Primitive Christianity” 22

reveals his affinity with the pre-Nicaean Church: there, he identified a simplicity that he

believed uniquely reflected authentic Christianity in comparison to the Church of modernity.

Bulgakov carried this into other writings. In “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of

Modern Society”, Bulgakov lauded the unity of the early Church, its Sobornost23 – thus

borrowing a Russian word from the 19th century customarily used to characterise the organic

nature of the unity of the Church. Bulgakov stressed that the unity of the early Christianity

was not confined to actual worship, but spread into people’s reality, or, in Bulgakov’s words,

“to recast all in the fire of Church love.”24 Unity was effective because of its connection with

the eucharist. Bulgakov explained it thus:

In Christian life all is sanctified by prayer… But Eucharistic prayer and Eucharistic

consecration involve something greater than prayer alone. Through them our whole life

is absorbed in the increase of the Body of Christ and is thus brought into contact with

21
Andrew Louth, “Father Sergii Bulgakov”.
22
Sergius Bulgakov, “On Primitive Christianity”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 14
(December 1931).
23
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”: 13.
24
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”: 13

11
 Him. And the Ascended Christ resides in the Church in His humanity and with His

humanity. This conclusion springs from the very essence of the Eucharistic dogma. 25

Bulgakov’s eucharistic contentions were similarly revealed in an article on the subject of

ecumenism, “By Jacob’s Well”. 26 Returning to the early Christian theme, Bulgakov argued

that the unity of the Church was not something to be achieved, but something that was

already present. The actual obstacle to Church unity, then, was entrenched human

institutionalism. Passing through the differences that divided Orthodox from Catholic and

Protestant, Bulgakov’s conclusion was that the path to unity “does not lie through

tournaments between theologians of the East and of the West, but through a reunion before

the Altar.”27 Christians must awaken to the fact that unity is achieved by standing before

Christ, realising unity in Him who is, detached from all of that which does not belong in that

space. Bulgakov set the challenge in his conclusion that:

The priesthood of the East and of the West must realise itself as one priesthood,

celebrating the one Eucharist, and, if the minds of the priests can become aflame with

this idea, all barriers would fall. 28

Attributing primacy to the unifying power and authority of the eucharist is thus the defining

feature of Bulgakov’s approach to ecumenism. In 1934, he proposed that partial

intercommunion be established between Orthodox and Anglican members of the Fellowship

of St. Alban and St. Sergius that were in dogmatic agreement. The proposal, however, was

problematic and was not ratified. Yet, the primacy that Bulgakov attributed to the eucharist in

defining the approach that the Church should take on social matters, in forging a path forward

25
Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”: 18
26
Sergius Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well: On the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and
Sacraments”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 22 (December 1933).
27
Sergius Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well: On the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and
Sacraments”: 17.
28
Sergius Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well: On the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and
Sacraments”: 17.

12
with ecumenism, and in facilitating unity between Orthodox and Anglican members of the

fellowship, all speaks of a person who stands aside from the typical association that is made

between him and sophiology. Fundamentally, it supports Louth’s contention that Bulgakov

had deep eucharistic understanding. When considering his place in the revival of Christian

theology in first half of the 20th century as a whole, this aspect deserves due consideration as

we come to terms with a particularly dynamic, though as yet largely unstudied period in

Church history.

13
Bibliography

Bulgakov, Sergius. “A Word on Pentecost”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St.

Sergius, 9 (June 1930):27-31

Bulgakov, Sergius. “By Jacob’s Well: On the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and

Sacraments”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 22 (December 1933): 7-

17.

Bulgakov, Sergius. “On Primitive Christianity”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St.

Sergius, 14 (December 1931).

Bulgakov, Sergius. “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society”, The Journal of the

Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 21 (September 1933): 10-21.

Bulgakov, Sergius. “The Passion’s Annunciation”, The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St.

Sergius, 4 (March 1929): 22-25.

“Editorial”, Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St Sergius, 1 (June 1928): 1

Encyclopedia Britannica, “Oxford Movement”. https://www.britannica.com/event/Oxford-movement

Accessed 14-5-2018.

Gallaher, Anastassy. “Bulgakov’s Ecumenical Thought”, Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches

Review, 24:1 (2002): 24-55.

Greenstock, David. “Thomism and the New Theology”, Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 13

(1970): 572.

Louth, Andrew. “Father Sergii Bulgakov”, talk at the 2016 conference of the Institute of Orthodox

Christian Studies “Contemporary Fathers and Mothers of the Church”, 29-31 August, 2016.

14