Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), on the “Church and the World” program on the Rossiya-24 TV channel, said in February 2021 that the Russian Orthodox Church does not exclude the possibility of canonizing Archpriest Alexander Men, who was called during his lifetime "Apostle of the intelligentsia." At the same time, Metropolitan Hilarion called Father Alexander an outstanding missionary of his time, who had to preach in the difficult conditions of the Soviet period: “His death was tragic, and I think that if it is proven that it was martyric, he can be canonized as a martyr,” said the Metropolitan.
The books of the late Archpriest Alexander Men were once published in huge editions. However, those who read them should know that although Fr. Alexander was a priest of the Orthodox Church, in his works there are many ideas and provisions that contradict the basic truths of the Orthodox faith. One of the reasons for this, apparently, is that Fr. Alexander was strongly influenced by non-Orthodox Western theology — both Catholic and Protestant.
Let us recall that the main criterion that guides the Russian Church when canonizing a saint is, among other things, his impeccable confession of the Orthodox faith . The numerous works of Archpriest Alexander Men contain a considerable number of outright anti-Orthodox judgments that are incompatible with the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Christ.
– For me, the religious worldview cannot be conceived in any other way than in terms of evolution.
Archpriest Alexander Men [16].
That's what it's all about, Father Alexander. Now it’s clear... which forces are dark for you and which are light. Darkness for you, Father Alexander, is traditional Russian patristic Orthodoxy in all its mature forms, which it has achieved in the process of its historical development.
Metropolitan Anthony (Melnikov) [3].
1. Historical preamble
Archpriest Alexander Men is one of the most prominent church figures in Russia in the second half of the 20th century. His popularity was due to the exceptional status received in the USSR. Father Alexander had personal support in the West and was directly connected with the dissident movement and foreign media. He was published repeatedly in Brussels and Paris and as a result turned out to be a fairly well-known social and church figure.
The prosperity of this “disgraced archpriest” took place during the period of dominance of state atheism, when most other clergy had no opportunity either to publish their theological works or even to openly preach the Word of God from the pulpit. This area was under the strict control of commissioners for religious affairs (sometimes, to be honest, they acted through the church-hierarchical structure).
The January 2015 issue of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate is crowned with an article with an eloquent title: “The year of memory of Archpriest Alexander Men” [7, p. 94]. Today there is a lot of talk about his “missionary” and “educational” activities. Everyone knows about his terrible bloody death. Unfortunately, not a single official Orthodox publication presented materials devoted to the consideration of the dogmatic position of the “persecuted” priest.
This analysis, however, is necessary to develop an objective attitude towards his spiritual heritage. In our small study of the creativity of Fr. Alexander, we will devote our attention to one specific topic — his attitude to the theological problem of understanding the teaching of evolution.
Alarming publications containing criticism of his theological views repeatedly appeared in print [2, 3, 29, 6]. Unfortunately, they were usually perceived as the private judgment of individuals, and not as the voice of the conciliar Church.
Father Alexander, of course, was a “man of broad views.” His activities can be viewed from various positions - from social, political, national, ecumenical, and theological. Starting a conversation about Catholicism or Baptism, and even about the spiritual practice of yogis or psychics, Fr. Alexander Men showed a certain tolerance. He tried not to say “no,” but very often showed unjustified tolerance even to openly anti-Christian teachings and movements. Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev very aptly described him, saying that in every audience he strived to be “Father yes” [14, p. 81].
At the same time, Archpriest Alexander always remained a conscious evolutionist. His confession of evolutionism was a manifestation of faith, a deep inner conviction.
His spiritual formation was influenced greatly by the founder of teleological evolutionism, P.T. de Chardin, who was highly revered by him. To the translation into Russian of Teilhard’s book “The Divine Environment” by Fr. A. Men, as the executive editor, wrote a solid preface in which he glorified “the bright appearance of this monk-scientist and prophet-humanist” [21, p. XXIV]. He did not skimp on praise and high spiritual appreciation of the “outstanding scientist and thinker” [21, p. V] who is also “the direct successor of the biblical prophets” [21, p. XX] – Teilhard: “He is a highly significant phenomenon” [21, p. V].
Answering the question, “what does the teaching of Teilhard de Chardin give to modern Christian consciousness,” Rev. Alexander highlighted three points.
"1. ...He points to the love of God as the leading force in the evolution of the noosphere .
2. Teilhard, with his scientific synthesis, helps the emerging dialogue between Christians and non-Christians. For many Marxists, Christianity is understandable and even acceptable in the form of Teilhardism.
3. Teilhard’s synthesis makes its contribution to the construction of a holistic Christian worldview ” [21, p. XXIV].
The only part of this assessment of Teilhardism we can agree with, is that it is completely “understandable and even acceptable” for non-Christians (including Marxists) — since down-to-earth and primitive Teilhardism, unlike the apostolic Orthodox teaching, does not represent a stumblingblock for Jews, nor foolishness for Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23).
Everything else is in Fr. Alexander's words seems inaccurate. In our opinion, the expressions “love of God” and “evolution of the noosphere” as mutually defining concepts should not be used in the same sentence. Ecumenical “dialogue” based on evolutionism between “Christians” and non-Christians is a sin for the former, and a disaster for the latter. We cannot recognize any “Christian worldview,” much less a “holistic” one, in the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin.
Our book “The Orthodox Doctrine of Creation and the Theory of Evolution” [4] shows that evolutionism as a worldview is not compatible with Patristic Orthodoxy. Therefore, every “Christian evolutionist” deviates in one direction or another from church teaching. Teilhard had a bias towards pantheism, and Fr. Alexander Men had a bias towards the ancient heresy of Manichaeism.
2. About the Manichaean content of the teachings of Archpriest Alexander Men
According to Orthodox dogmatic teaching, there is one God — the Creator. In contrast to this catholic idea, the ancient Manichaean heresy asserted the existence of two supreme gods — light and dark. These deities are in constant mutual confrontation and share among themselves the honor that Christians attribute to the One Good God — the Creator and Almighty.
The philosophical encyclopedia notes: “According to the Manichaean doctrine, the basis of the universe is the irreconcilable struggle of two principles — Light and Darkness. As a result of the battle of these principles, particles of Light were enslaved by Darkness. The Earth was created in the area of mixing Light and Darkness, and people whose souls are involved in the Light must help the supreme god, the Father of greatness, free the particles of Light and again separate the Light from the Darkness” [24].
The biblical description of Creation does not contain anything similar to “struggle”, “battle”, or any opposition to the will of the One God the Creator. Without any resistance or “struggle,” heaven and earth arose from nothingness (Gen. 1:1). Obeying the word of the Creator, light appeared on the first day: And God said: let there be light! And there was light (Gen. 1:3), on the third day - green plants (Gen. 1:11), on the fifth - the inhabitants of the waters (Gen. 1:20), on the sixth - land animals (Gen. 1:24).
There was no “struggle” during the creation of man. Holy Scripture mentions the Eternal Council of the Holy Trinity (Gen. 1:26) — and this was the majestic Council of Divine Concord, immortalized in the famous icon of St. Andrei Rublev, and not what could be called the dialectical “overcoming chaos by logos.”
However, Rev. Alexander Men wrote:
“Creation is the overcoming of chaos by logos, which reaches a conscious level in man and is directed towards the future. So, struggle is the law of world creation, the dialectic of the formation of a creature” [17, p. 82].
The author proposes a certain cosmogony in which Creation is described as the “becoming of a creature” in struggle. Moreover, this “struggle” has been declared the “law of peacemaking”!
Where in Scripture does it say anything like this? The first chapter of the Book of Genesis does not say that anything in the primordial world was not good. On the contrary, the expression: "and God saw... that it was good" is repeated in a sixfold refrain (verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The seventh time, summing up God's completed creation, the Bible gives an excellent assessment of the work of God's hands: "And God saw everything that was created: and this was very good" (Genesis 1:31).
St. John Chrysostom says,
“Just as Scripture said about each of the created things: and God saw that it was good , so now, when everything was done and the work of the sixth day was completed, when the one who was to use all creatures had already been created, it says: and God saw everything that was created: and behold, it was very good... So, when the Lord, who brought from non-existence into existence, called His creations good, then who would dare, even if he was filled with insane conceit, to open his mouth and contradict what God said? [13, p. 79]
The expression “not good” (in Hebrew – לא טוב, lo tov ) occurs in the Bible for the first time after the description of the creation of Adam, and in a very remarkable context: It is not good (לא טוב) for man to be one (Gen. 2:18).
So, the position of Fr. Alexander strongly disagrees with the Word of God and with the teaching of the Holy Fathers.
Orthodox theology relates the imperfection of the world not to its Creation by God, but to the theme of the Fall. The violation of Divine harmony was associated with the free will of rational beings created by God — both Angels and humans.
The dogmatic mistake of Archpriest Alexander Men is that he introduces into Creation the action not only of God, but of fallen nature - Chaos:
“The chaotic state of the world did not stem from the Creator, but was already a violation of His will. Something mysterious has distorted the harmony of creation" [18, p. 31].
The words of Archpriest Alexander Men organically correlate with the Manichaean teaching, as presented by L.A. Tikhomirov: “The basis of the teachings of Manes is the dualism of Zoroaster. From eternity there have been two opposing kingdoms: good or light - and evil or darkness. In the first, the Good God rules, and in the second, the Evil Demon. There is an eternal struggle between both kingdoms. Even before the beginning of our world process, the forces of the Evil Kingdom, seduced by the beauty of light, attacked his kingdom, and to repel them, the Father of Light produced a special creature - a Heavenly Man, something like the Adam Kadmon of Kabbalah, whom the Manichaeans also call Christ and even Jesus" [27, With. 195].
The entire process of Creation took place in the opposition of two principles: the will of God and Chaos, and Chaos “did not stem from the Creator.” Thus, for Rev. Alexander, Creation is the result of the struggle between the forces of light (the Divine Logos) and the forces of darkness (chaos), and this confrontation, being initial, continues to this day and is “aimed at the future”. “Each stage of evolution is a kind of step towards overcoming chaos and decay, and at the top of this staircase, a source of new vital energy, hitherto unknown to the Earth, appears. If in the biosphere the battlefield is the material layer of the universe, then at the level of the noosphere, creatures armed with a spiritual charge enter the battle against disintegration” [20], [17, p. 122].
Here, instead of the biblical Creation, the Manichaean struggle between the forces of Good and Evil, manifested at different “steps” or “levels” of evolution, is described.
Creation in the proper ecclesiastical understanding of Archpriest Alexander Men replaces it with the concept of the “Big Bang” (the first “step to overcoming chaos”) with the subsequent creation of life and mind (the next “steps to overcoming chaos”) [17, pp. 90–95]. He writes about it in more detail like this:
“At the moment of “explosion”, stable units of elementary matter are formed from matter through sudden transformation. “Pre-life,” hidden, “radial” energy, leads the material world along the path of complexity. Evolution begins long before living organisms” [21, p. XVI].
Father Alexander interprets the darkness over the abyss (Gen. 1, 2) quite in a Manichaean way - as the presence of forces contrary to God.
The teachers of the Church understood darkness completely differently.
St. Ephraim the Syrian:
“On the evening of the first night, the heavens and the earth were created, the abyss was created with them, the clouds were created, and they, spreading over everything, brought about the dark night. And after this shadow covered everything for twelve hours, light was created, and it dispelled the darkness that was spread over the waters” [11, p. 213].
Saint John Chrysostom:
“It was they who covered the face of the earth, i.e. the darkness and abyss of water. From here we learn that everything visible was an abyss of water, covered with darkness, and an all-wise Creator was needed to stop all this disorder and bring everything into a beautiful form” [13, p. 15].
Saint Ambrose of Milan:
“There was darkness, which is the simple absence of light. There was darkness, for the air itself was gloomy. And the water was under the dark clouds, like dark water in the cloudy darkness. And behold, darkness was over the abyss of water. However, this darkness cannot be regarded as evil, because God did not create evil” [1, p. 37].
Saint Basil the Great also wrote about the inadmissibility of such a reading of the Six Days:
“They interpret that darkness is an evil force, or better yet, evil itself, which has its own beginning, opposite and counteracting God’s goodness... And on this assumption, what evil and godless teachings have been built! What tyrant oxen (Acts 20:29), scattering God’s flock, rushed against souls, starting from this short word! Isn't this where the Marcions come from? Isn't Valentina from here? Isn’t this where the vile heresy of the Manichaeans comes from, which, if anyone calls rottenness in the churches, will not err in the decency of the name? [5, p. 27–28].
One can completely agree with the assessment of priest Daniel Sysoev, who wrote about the theology of Archpriest Alexander Men: “This teaching is obvious Manichaeism” [26, p. 51]. Archpriest Sergius Antiminsov also rightly wrote: “In the works of Father Alexander one can find ideas ... of Manichaeism — that the world was created as a result of the struggle between the forces of good and evil” [2, p. 199]. The author refers to treatises [19, p. 594; 18, p. 30–31].
Each act of “evolutionary creation,” according to Archpriest Alexander Men, took place with God in the fight against the forces of the devil and was perceived as another “victory of God”:
“Evolution has passed through several important stages. First the creation of structure... God creates structures that resist chaos. Then He says: “let the water produce a living soul” — a new thing is created, unprecedented in the universe — living beings that conquer chaos even more, and, finally, rational a being endowed with the image and likeness of the Creator. Man in his flesh on earth, he must curb chaos even more " [22, p. 304].
It turns out that God is only concerned with the fact that through “evolutionary creation” He comes up with more and more new means to combat the devil’s chaos: He creates successful “structures that resist chaos” (though it is not entirely clear how they achieve this), then, after a series of difficult tactical attacks, he finally equips a “reasonable being”, a warrior who must “bridle the chaos even more” to fight the devil.
But such a view is incompatible with the Orthodox Church teaching on Creation. Creative acts were performed by God not for the sake of the need to “fight the devil,” but solely out of the abundance of love and wisdom of the Creator. God acted freely and unhindered during Creation. Neither the devil, nor chaos, nor any creature could interfere with Him. Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov) correctly writes: “The Church considers only the infinite goodness of the Creator to be the motivation for creation. The goal of creation, on the one hand, is the Glory of the Creator, and on the other, the bliss of creatures” [15, p. 369].
According to Fr. Alexander Men, the confrontation between God and the devil exists from the beginning. The devil-chaos, directing “destructive forces”, confronts God the Creator at the very beginning of the creation of primary matter in the process of “cosmic progress”:
“Although even then cosmic progress began to be hampered by destructive forces, the principles of order resisted the flow that was dragging the universe toward death. Elementary particles, atoms, and molecules with their amazing complexity and harmony heralded the beginning of the ordering of world structures" [17, p. 93].
So, nothing living had yet been created, only “elementary particles, atoms and molecules,” but the forces of evil were already dragging the universe “toward death”! Does this picture really describe what is called " good " in the biblical context? How can we even connect with the Holy Scripture the idea that “cosmic progress” is hampered by “destructive forces”? This is a purely Manichaean view of creation.
Deacon Vladimir Vasilik expressed a critical opinion about Rev. Alexander Men:
Unfortunately, Father Alexander at times reached Manichaeism and Gnosticism. Commenting on the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis, he, in particular, noted the following: “And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering above the waters. Here we see that God seems to be fighting with a certain dark principle, just as in Babylonian myths the bright god Marduk fought with the monster Tiamat.” Where do we see this in the Bible, where do we see this in patristic interpretations? Nothing like this! We see only the unsettled state of matter and the preparation for the beginning of creation, and that’s all. Such fabrications clearly smack of theosophy. Such blatant statements, which destroy not only the faith of the Church, but are also unscientific, can be found in Father Alexander very, very much [6].
According to the concept of both Men and Mani [1], the devil and all the forces of evil had power in the world before the creation of man and even before the creation of animals and plants. After this, is it any wonder that everything that appeared before man on earth turned out to be subject to death and decay? And where did the Garden of Eden come from? And was this strange Paradise planted in the East by someone (either Marduk alone, or together with Tiamat) (Genesis 2:8)?
3. Biblical “mythology” and myth-making
Archpriest Alexander Men did not consider the Bible to be a historically reliable book. He wrote:
“We do not know who wrote the first lines of the Bible in Hebrew, which sound like a great and eternal poem” [22, p. 28].
Fr. Alexander believed that at least five to seven centuries passed from the time of the prophet Moses until the writing of the Book of Genesis:
“This is a tradition dating back to the ancient prophet Moses, who lived thirteen centuries BC, and, if written down, was probably between the eighth and sixth centuries BC” [ibid.].
Father Alexander Men taught that the Bible is a collection of “eastern legends”:
“The Bible uses the colors of the great ancient eastern legends and creates this fresco, as I said, so that all generations, all peoples can see the same truth, each at his own level, both the philosopher and the baby, and the savage, and the civilized person.” [22, p. 35].
This approach obviously equates both pious people and apostates in the perception of biblical Truth, puts both Saints and false teachers (even heresiarchs) on the same level, and does not make a difference between Christ (the incarnate Truth) and the pagan Pilate asking Him: What is Truth? (John 18:38).
Mythological characters — Archpriest Alexander considered not only Adam and all the antediluvian forefathers to be mythological characters, but also Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job the Long-Suffering, Jonah, and other biblical prophets to be mythological as well.
Let us note that this position is one step removed from the recognition of the “myth” of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose reality He Himself compares with the historicity of the Old Testament righteous: As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40). In the apostles we can also find historical parallels between the ancient prophets and Jesus of Nazareth: You have heard the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord, for the Lord is abundant in mercy and generous (James 6:11).
For Fr. Alexander, the Word of God is not an expression of truth, but a “myth”:
“The language of the first chapter of the Bible is the language of Myth” [17, p. 87].
On the contrary, he perceived the evolutionary hypothesis (which should rightly be considered an example of pseudoscientific mythology) as if it were ultimate truth:
“Darwin’s theory responded to the general tendency to seek a natural explanation for the origin of the world and man” [17, p. 88].
Thus, declaring the Bible a “myth” and accepting at face value the hypothesis of evolution, which contradicts the Holy Scriptures, Rev. Alexander Men began to create his own mythology - both anti-biblical and pseudoscientific. The main thesis of the new teaching should be called an “amendment” to the First part of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This new “amendment” comes down to distorting the generally accepted pair category “Creator – creation” and replacing it with the alien patristic concept of “continuing creation” [17, p. 89].
Let us explain that the traditional church point of view is the recognition of God as the Creator, who created the entire world in six biblical days and completed His work of Creation on the seventh day.
St. John of Damascus:
“He wanted to create everything, and it was created. He wants the world to continue its existence, and it continues, and everything happens according to His will” [12, p. 124–125]
Father Alexander taught fundamentally differently:
“Creation is not over yet , it is still ongoing, and man can either continue it or destroy it and thereby become an opponent of God’s plans” [22, p. 107].
He clearly confused the concepts of “Creation” and “Providence” when he argued that “the creativity of the Creator of the world is not a one-time act, but is the constant presence of His power in the world” [22, p. 104].
The division in God of the qualities of Creator and Provider is characteristic of Orthodox dogma. The mixture of these Divine attributes, as we noted in the book “The Orthodox Doctrine of Creation and the Theory of Evolution” [4, p. 116], is typical of some heresies.
Archpriest Alexander wrote about “creation through evolution”:
“The fact that creation is carried out through evolution is a fact of enormous importance. It means that the destructive effect of Chaos is overcome by the principles of organization and progressive complication.
This confrontation is a visible aspect of what can be called the victory of Logos over Chaos” [17, p. 90].
The last conclusion is a typical example of modern myth-making. “A fact of enormous importance” here refers to the author’s very dubious fabrication. The scientific form of reasoning captivates some scientists and theologians, creating the illusion of the truth and indestructibility of this colossus with feet of clay.
4. “Six days” in Menevian style
Archpriest Alexander Men loved to “confirm” the narrative of the Holy Scriptures with scientific hypotheses. The inconsistency of such a scientistic “theology” and such “science” is obvious. He mixed Biblical Revelation with popular pseudoscientific ideas, as a result of which a picture emerged that was neither Orthodox nor scientific.
The spiritual core of this Menevian cosmology, as we noted above, is the Manichaean heresy (the struggle of “Logos with Chaos”). The outer shell of the new teaching of Archpriest Alexander is one of the forms of evolutionary scientism.
Let us give an example of a typical argument from Fr. Alexander Men about the Creation of the world [17, pp. 93–95], accompanying it with our comments.
“Let us mentally imagine the picture of creation through evolution in the light of faith and in the light of knowledge...”
The expression “creation through evolution” is incorrect. The process of Creation describes the prehistoric state of the world. The laws that were in effect during the first creative week of God (Six Days) are not known to science and are closed to our knowledge. In accordance with the teachings of the Church, one should speak not of creation “by evolution,” but of creation through the instantaneous implementation of the commands of Almighty God.
Therefore, it is unacceptable and pointless to set before science the task of studying the “specific content” of the Creation process.
However, the author writes:
“...Revelation tells us about the essence and direction of the process, science is trying to understand its specific content .
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH, THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND EMPTY, AND DARKNESS WAS OVER THE ABYSS.
Several billion years ago, the state of matter was little similar to what it is today. It is believed to have been a clot of super-dense matter..."
This interpretation is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. The author could not decide what he wants to tell the reader — about what happened “in the beginning”, or about the state of matter “several billion years ago”? According to the Holy Scriptures, in the beginning there was God, but there was no matter (Gen. 1:1; 2 Macc. 7:28). Does Fr. Alexander comment on whether the picture is biblical? Why doesn't he even mention the Creator of all things "visible and invisible"?
“...LET THERE BE LIGHT!
Here, in the emptiness of nothingness, the flame of matter flared up. A cosmic explosion of indescribable power brought her out of her primary state. From its center, space unfolded like a gigantic sphere, masses of hot matter rushed through it, increasing the speed of their flight with every second. This happened several billion years ago..."
Actually, according to the Bible, there was darkness over the originally created earth and the Spirit of God hovered above the water (Genesis 1:2). Yet in the description from Fr. Alexander neither the earth nor the Holy Spirit are mentioned. Only an “explosion of indescribable power”...
But the matter before the explosion is attributed to the presence of some kind of “primary state”. Thus, we are clearly not talking about creation from nothing, but about creation from some primary substance.
“...Galaxies, stars, planets, our Earth... For hundreds of millions of years it rushed along its destined path in world space, making its tireless run around the Sun. For millions of years it was a lifeless stone, lost in the deserts of space. But an extraordinary fate awaited her — to become the island of Life and the center of Reason..."
Again there is a problem when this is compared with the Book of Genesis. The sun appeared on the fourth day (Genesis 1:6), that is, after the creation of our planet. The Earth could not have been “performing its tireless run” for three days around a non-existent (not yet created) celestial body — and it especially could not have done this for “hundreds of millions of years.”
But the main difference is that, according to the Bible, before the creation of the Sun and the Moon, the Earth was not a “lifeless stone” — all green plants were already blooming and bearing fruit on it (Genesis 1:11).
Saint Basil the Great:
“Everything was preceded by heaven and earth; after them light was created, night and day were distinguished; then again the firmament and the appearance of land; then the water is united into a permanent and definite assembly; the earth was filled with its own products, growing countless kinds of herbs and becoming enriched with plants of all kinds. But the sun and moon did not yet exist, so that those ignorant of God would not call the sun the chief and father of light, and would not consider it to be the creator of earthly growths” [5, p. 87].
Let us note that the teachers of the Church call supporters of the natural origin of life “ignorant of God.”
Archpriest Alexander Men continues:
“...LET WATER PRODUCE A LIVING SOUL.
The day when the first tiny living creatures appeared in the warm waters of the primeval ocean became the moment of the invasion of the world by a new, hitherto unprecedented creative energy... From the primary creatures, threads stretched to countless species that inhabited the sea, land and air...”
Two questions arise. First of all, a “natural science” question: It is not clear — how is it that “the first... living beings appeared”?
The second question, “theological”: does the Holy Scripture even give the slightest hint about these evolutionary genetic “threads”? Were not all living creatures created according to their kind (Gen. 1:21)? And certainly, land animals, according to the Bible, did not appear from the sea - those who lived in the “warm waters of the primeval ocean”, but from the earth: And God said: let the earth bring forth the living soul according to its kind... and so it shall be (Gen. 1:24).
“... The first vertebrates that entered land had five-fingered limbs with an opposable thumb. In swimmers, these limbs turned into flippers (water lizards, seals, cetaceans), in predators - into paws with claws, in bats - into wings, in herbivores - into hooves. And only creatures that, throughout all geological eras, retained the original structure of their limbs escaped narrow specialization. They laid the foundation for the chain of animals that gave rise to the bodily form of man ...”
So, Rev. Alexander confesses that the foundation of the “physical form of man” is laid in the “chain of animals.” Written in black and white. It was not “God” who created man. Not from the “dust of the earth” (Gen. 2:7). Man descended from the “first vertebrates”, “preserving” (as the learned archpriest claims) “the original structure of the limbs”...
There is not a single word of scientific truth here. There is not a single thought here that is in tune with the patristic interpretation of the biblical Six Days, but some kind of parody of scientific reasoning and profanation of Christian anthropology. It is difficult to determine what genre this description belongs to: either the free imagination of the author, or nonsense in the style of “notes of a madman,” or a “new revelation” with a claim to true knowledge? It is not clear who this inept pseudoscientific popularization is intended for.
“...The third creative act shook the universe when a highly organized being became the bearer of a spiritual personality and, thanks to this, ceased to be an animal. Among the wild humanoid creatures with fleeing foreheads and gloomy overhanging brow ridges, Homo Sapiens appeared ... "
These words contain the entire “anthropology” of Archpriest Alexander Men: man is a creature that once “ceased to be an animal.”
One can only be amazed that all the statements quoted above by Fr. Alexander are his “interpretation” of the text of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis!
5. “Scientific justification” for the evolutionary origin of man
Archpriest Alexander Men wrote:
“The specific paths of human genetic development, the evolution of the body from the smallest creatures in the primeval ocean to the perfect human-like body, which received the eternal gift of mind, spirit, consciousness, this gift is not from nature ” [22, p. 33].
It clearly speaks of the “evolution of the body” that we have “by nature.” By the way, he says the origin of man is not derived from the dust of the earth, but from the “primeval ocean.”
Father Alexander taught:
“You can understand where our ability to think comes from,” ask a biologist , and he will tell you how the process of oxygen absorption began in the first land animals. And we are their heirs " [22, p. 160].
A brilliant example of scientistic reasoning: “ask a biologist”! And as a result, man, without any reason, was declared the “heir” of the first simplest organisms.
Another source of knowledge offers us the Word of God: Who put wisdom in the heart, or who gave meaning to the mind? (Job 38:36)
The creation of man, according to Archpriest Alexander Men, was neither a quick matter nor localized in space. It was extended over billions of years and parsecs of the universe:
“I am convinced that such a complex creature as man, his organism, he had to be prepared by a colossal number of processes that took place in the vast universe. In order to create one thinking humanity, apparently, it was necessary to launch such a gigantic uranium cauldron as our galaxy, and, perhaps, our entire universe” [22, pp. 163–164].
Note that there is no God in this picture. Man is created by a “colossal number of processes.” The role of the Creator has been forgotten. At best, it can be reduced (as with the deists) only to “starting such a gigantic cauldron." Moreover, man is connected by origin with all other creatures in the universe. Father Alexander was not embarrassed that the biblical point of view is different — man was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:31) from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7), and not from other species.
The Biblical expressions “sixth day” and “from the dust of the earth” were perceived allegorically by Fr. Alexander. Based on this understanding, he wrote:
“Man is created on the same day as animals. This means that he is connected with them, he is their brother ” [22, p. 30].
If an heir to the throne was born in the royal chambers “on the same day” as a puppy was born in the kennel, should we really declare them both “brothers”?
Affirming family ties between humans and animals, Fr. Alexander Men, like his teacher, Fr. T. de Chardin, denied the historical existence of the biblical Adam — the first man. At the same time, there was a certain difference in the positions of the two evolutionary thinkers. Teilhard proceeded from the fact that it is impossible to correctly identify the “first man” using scientific methods and meant by "Adam" the generic concept of “many forefathers.” Archpriest Alexander Men, on the contrary, understood Adam as “the unity of man.” He recognized Adam as a totality of people — “humanity” — and wrote that Adam is not a separate person, but “the whole soul of humanity” [18, p. 34], “a certain set contained in unity” [19, p. 557].
Archpriest Alexander defended Teilhard against criticism contained in Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humanigeneris, which condemned Chardin's interpretation of Adam "as a plurality of forefathers." In particular, Fr. Alexander Men wrote:
“He does not exclude the understanding of “Adam” as being "all men"; the Pope meant a collective replacing the unity of “Adam.” If “Adam” is the total unity of man, then the very alternative of “one” and “many” is removed. Sin struck “Adam” inasmuch as it struck all men” [21, p. XIX].
It should be said with all certainty that Pope Pius XII understood Teilhard quite adequately, since the French anthropologist really dissolved the first man in the clan (herd) community. But Fr. Alexander imposed such a “mystical” interpretation that was completely alien to Teilhard. But even such an artificial “defense” could not reconcile the new evolutionary teaching with church tradition. Archpriest Alexander Men unauthorizedly used the concepts of “all men” and “all mankind”, alien to patristic thought, and probably drawn by him from Kabbalistic sources.
In Orthodox theology, even in the era of the Ecumenical Councils, the concepts of nature (φυσις) and hypostasis (υποστασις) were clearly developed. The Holy Fathers tried to avoid such terms that could lead to duality of understanding, due either to the confusion of one personality with other personalities, or with nature. Father Alexander Men retreated from this tradition when he began to manipulate the concept of Adam being “all men,” which does not correspond to either “nature” (essence) or “hypostasis” (face, personality).
In the treatise “Archpriest Alexander Men as a commentator on the Holy Scriptures,” Father Alexander is given the correct assessment: “There is a distortion of thought, significant from the point of view of Orthodox doctrine: the concepts of “nature” and “hypostasis” are confused. The confusion of these concepts in ancient times led to heresies - it was on this “ideology” that Christological heresies arose - Nestorianism, Monophysitism, iconoclasm" [2, p. 193].
6. “Theological justification” for the evolutionary origin of man
Father Alexander Men extremely rarely referred to the statements of the Holy Fathers and did not seek to substantiate his thoughts with their opinions. Much more often he resorted to quotes from non-Orthodox people.
Thus, in his book “Son of Man” [23] the bibliographic list is (not counting dictionaries and reference books) 669 titles. Of these, the section “Patristic Commentaries” fits into 10 paragraphs (from No. 72 to No. 82), which is only 1.5% of the total number of quotations presented by the author. Thus, the opinion of the Holy Fathers is almost completely dissolved in the muddy stream of other views on the content of the Gospel narrative!
Once, in his theological discussions, Archpriest Alexander nevertheless made an attempt to find himself an ally among the teachers of the Church and settled on the authoritative opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa. This is what he wrote:
“According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, Adam is not so much a single personality as a representative of "all men", the integral soul of all humanity” [18, p. 34].
The reference was given to Chapter XVI of the treatise “On the Structure of Man” and looked quite convincing on the surface.
However, here the Cappadocian father is credited with an opinion that he did not express, and words for which he was not responsible.
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in verses 26–27 of the 1st chapter of the book of Genesis, sees the creation of human nature: “Let us create,” says God, “man in Our image and likeness ... And God created man... in the image of God He created him (Genesis 1:26 –27). The image of God, contemplated in all human nature, has been completed" [8, p. 69–70].
Many Holy Fathers perceived these biblical verses in a similar way. As an example, we can cite the translations of the LXX interpreters into Greek and of Saints Cyril and Methodius into Slavic languages, in which in these verses the Hebrew word אָדם is rendered as “man” and not as “Adam”.
However, it does not in any way follow from what has been said that the created man was not a “single personality,” but some kind of “All-men” [2] or “the whole soul of all mankind.” This is the opinion of Fr. Alexandra Men, but such a “thought” (and, most importantly, such an expression!) is not found in St. Gregory of Nyssa, nor from any of the Holy Fathers.
From the fact that the above biblical verses speak of God’s creation of human nature, it does not in any way follow that the primordial Adam was not a person. On the contrary, he was, and the Bible does not allow us to doubt it. To Fr. Alexander can be directed to the words of the Holy Fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council: “Behold, you have torn out this testimony of the holy father incoherently; it is indecent for the Orthodox to disfigure the sayings of the Holy Fathers in such a way, tearing them out incoherently; this is rather the work of heretics” [10, p. 117].
By the way, refuting the non-Orthodox judgment of Fr. Alexandra Men, Saint Gregory of Nyssa himself, to whom the modernist archpriest referred, clearly expounds the Church’s opinion on this topic. “The word, saying: God create man (Gen. 1:27), by the vagueness of the designation, indicates the entire human nature. After all, here the created thing is not called “Adam”, as in the subsequent narrative, but the name of the created man is not specific, but general” [8, p. 65]. The statement is clearly made regarding the “created man” and his “nature”. It is about his nature, not about the “All-Man”, and not about the “whole soul of all mankind.”
Saint Gregory of Nyssa even more clearly reveals his theological opinion on this issue when he claims that Adam was a historical figure: “Abel came into existence through generation... Adam did this without generation” [9, p. 299].
Atheists have tried to prove that the person of Jesus Christ “did not exist”. Meanwhile, both Archpriest Alexander Men and some other modernizing theologians similarly argued that Adam “did not exist” as a person. But both of them are denounced by the Holy Fathers, who confess in the apostolic way: "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." (1 Cor. 15:47–48).
7. “Alpha” and “Omega” in an evolutionary way
Archpriest Alexander Men taught in an unorthodox way about the Beginning and the End — about the creation of sinless man in the imperishable world in the Beginning, and about the resurrection of the dead and the Kingdom of Heaven in the End.
We obviously do not live in a heavenly world, and for us predation, parasitism, disease, and death have become the usual “norm”. But Orthodox doctrine, based on the testimony of Holy Scripture, asserts that the primordial world was in a different, incorrupt state.
Archpriest Alexander did not share this teaching of the Church. He was convinced that in the world before Adam and Eve, corruption and murder were widespread. On the contrary, he spoke skeptically and even ironically about the appearance of death and suffering in the world as a result of the fall of man:
“...But this means seeing in two individuals such a huge force that because of them the state of things has changed not only on the entire planet, but throughout the entire universe” [19, p. 549].
The irony is not entirely appropriate, considering that we are talking about the denial of the very basis of the Christian faith. The Fall of Adam and Eve (“two individuals”) indeed, as the Orthodox Church teaches, had a significance on a cosmic scale. A comparable event, on the same universal level, could only be the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, offered on Golgotha. With the fall of Adam, death entered the world. With the Resurrection of Christ, death on a universal scale was defeated by the death of the God-man. This is a key dogmatic theme in Orthodox doctrine.
Regarding the above reasoning by Rev. Alexander, Fr. Sergius Antiminsov reasonably noted: “These are the usual arguments of an unbelieving mind, which finds it difficult to humble itself in order to accept the Divine truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures” [2, p. 213].
Archpriest Alexander Men taught that death reigned on earth even before Adam (in his terminology, before “humanity”). He stated:
“Death in nature is universal,” and then he rhetorically asked: “Can we then say that death was introduced into nature by man?” [19, p. 571].
In our opinion, a Christian cannot say or think differently. Orthodox people should not forget the clear words of the Apostle: by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin (Rom. 5:12).
Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria explains: “Sin and death entered the world through one man Adam, and again by one man, Christ, they were eliminated” [28, p. 74].
Archpriest Alexander Men denied that the Fall was a specific act associated with the responsibility of a specific person — the primordial Adam. Fr. Alexander also denied the historicity of Adam. He taught that original sin had its own “history”, its own evolution. This opinion was undoubtedly formed under the influence of the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin. It is noteworthy that this position turned out to be quite compatible with Manichaean ideas, according to which good and evil ruled the world before the creation of man. Therefore, it is not surprising that death reigned in the universe before the appearance of people (in biblical terms - before the appearance of Adam, in Menevsky - before the appearance of the “All-Man”). It is natural, according to this concept, that man from the very beginning of his appearance was subject to the effects of death. And this means that death is not a consequence of the fall of the forefathers. It is “normal” and “natural” in a world where an evil and a good god co-reign.
Needless to say, this spiritual position is not compatible with the Christian faith.
Hieromartyr Seraphim (Chichagov): “If the history of the Fall is nothing more than a legend, as an invented beginning of subsequent, known world events, then no redemption of the human race by the Son of God would have been required, and the union of people with God would never have been broken” [25, p. 229].
Patristic thought, in full agreement with the Divine Biblical Revelation, distinguishes the act of the Fall of the forefathers from its consequences; distinguishes the original sin of Adam, associated with disobeying the commandment given in Paradise, from our other sins; distinguishes the prosperous state of the original world from the earth in its current state, cursed for the sin of Adam (Gen. 3:17); and distinguishes the primordial sinless Adam from man in the current state of sadness, sickness, and decay.
* * *
Equally far from the patristic teaching is the opinion of Archpriest Alexander about the future of humanity, which he associated with “spiritual evolution”:
“The evolution of man as a biological species has ended... Spiritual evolution has begun. It is painful and difficult, like any evolution. And the saints, the great heroes of the spirit — being those, again, spiritual mutants — constitute the spiritual vanguard of humanity" [22, p. 235].
The expression “spiritual mutant”, in the mouth of Fr. Alexander, should be considered high praise (a good preparation for an akathist in honor of Archpriest Alexander Men himself — “Rejoice, spiritual mutant, constituting the vanguard of humanity!”).
There is no way to recognize his thoughts as being anywhere close to the Orthodox tradition of the Holy Fathers. The world is moving not towards the Kingdom of Heaven, but towards an apocalyptic end. The Holy Scripture points us not to the noosphere, but to the Last Judgment. Progress is leading humanity at a rapid pace not into the Kingdom of Christ, but into the kingdom of the Antichrist.
Like all evolutionists, Fr. Alexander Men taught in an unorthodox way about the Alpha and Omega points — about the Beginning and the End. According to the biblical and patristic concept, it is God Himself who acts in these boundary conditions, and not the natural laws of the world (and not the paired Manichaean deity, subordinate to the Eastern principle of “yin-yang”). The desire to see the beginning and end points of the development of the universe as predominantly the action of ordinary natural forces (or “spiritual struggle”) distorts the Christian idea of God as the Creator and as the coming Judge. By depriving the Triune God of the qualities of being the Creator of the world and the speedy Maker of its history, Archpriest Alexander actually taught about another god — not the One professed by the Apostolic Church.
As a consequence of this, Fr. Alexander attributed qualities to the Lord Jesus Christ, which are foreign to Orthodox doctrine. His "Christ" is not the "True God of True God " as confessed in the Nicene Creed. His “Christ” represents the next stage in the evolution of the universe. He is a participant in the evolutionary process, its central figure. In contrast to traditional church teaching, Men’s “Christ” is presented neither as a Savior nor as a Redeemer, but as a factor in the evolution of the universe, giving it a new direction and leading it to a new level of evolutionary development:
“The appearance of the Messiah in the world turns the secret levers of the evolution of humanity and the world, man goes to a new, final phase of his development” [20], [22, p. 304].
Rev. Alexander Men spoke about Christ the Savior in a completely evolutionary sense:
“Christ did not come to life, but changed, therefore the Holy Apostle Paul says that we will all change. This is a transformation, a mutation, a new stage of Evolution” [22, p. 163].
So, according to the new teaching of Fr. Alexander Men, the Risen Christ represents the next stage of evolution from amoeba to homo sapiens — and further on to the noosphere! There is no need to say that the Apostle Paul did not mean anything like this, but wrote about the change in the nature of the human body on the day of the Second Terrible Coming of the Lord: Behold, I tell you a mystery: for we will not all sleep, but we will all change ; soon, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet; The trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise incorruptible, and we will be changed (1 Cor. 15:51-52).
The absence of changes in the Savior is evidenced by the apostolic statement: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8).
* * *
The given examples of archpriest Alexander Men's distortion of Orthodox doctrine are not isolated rare exceptions or accidental reservations in his extensive spiritual heritage. Being a convinced bearer of evolutionist ideology, he always brought an evolutionist meaning to the conversation about God — when talking about Creation, when talking about the Incarnation, when talking about the Resurrection, and also when talking about Judgment.
Therefore, the decision taken by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to republish the works of Archpriest Alexander Men without critically examining the numerous theological errors contained in his treatises will certainly bring spiritual harm to the Orthodox reader, accustomed to trusting church censorship.
The only justification for Father Alexander that can sometimes be heard from his admirers and followers is the remark that he was “not a theologian, but a missionary.” Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, in particular, wrote about this in the article “Alexander Men: the Lost Missionary”: “At the origins of almost any heresy lies a sincere missionary effort. Heresiarchs are not pests. They are just missionaries... [14, p. 94]".
Literature:
1. St. Ambrose of Milan, Six days // Divine revelation and modern science. Almanac. Issue 1. M.: Pilgrim, 2001.
2. Antiminsov Sergey, prot. Archpriest Alexander Men as a commentator on the Holy Scriptures // Networks of “renewed Orthodoxy”. M., 1995 http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/110/
3. Anthony (Melnikov) Met. An open letter to priest Alexander Men. http://prav.ortox.ru/informaciya/stati/otkrytoe-pismo/
4. Bufeev Konstantin, prot . Orthodox doctrine of Creation and the theory of evolution. M.: Missionary and educational Center "SHESTODNEV" - Russian Publishing Center named in honor of St. Basil the Great - Russian Pilgrim. 2014
http://click.shestodnev.ru/kniga11
5. St. Basil the Great, Conversations on the six days // Creations Part 1. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1900.
6. Vasilik Vladimir, deacon. In memory of Archpriest Alexander Men. http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2010/9/07/pamyati_protoiereya_aleksandra_menya/
7. “The year of memory of Archpriest Alexander Men” // ZhMP. January 2015.
8. St. Gregory of Nyssa, About the structure of man. SPb.: Axiom. 1995.
9. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Creations. t. 3.M. 1862.
10. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T.3, 4. St. Petersburg. 1993.
11. St. Ephraim the Syrian, Interpretation of the Book of Genesis // Creations. T.6. Sergiev Posad, 1901 // Reprint: M., 1995.
12. St. John of Damascus, An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. St. Petersburg 1894.
13. St. John Chrysostom, Discourses on the book of Genesis. Creations. T. 4. Book. 1. St. Petersburg. 1898.
14. Kuraev Andrey, deacon. Alexander Men: lost missionary // On the theology of Archpriest Alexander Men. Zhytomyr: NIKA. 1999
15. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology. T.1. St. Petersburg, 1857.
16. Makarov Mark. Archpriest Alexander Men. Be a Christian. Interview and last lecture. ANNO DOMINI. 1994
17. Men Alexander, prot. History of religion. T.1. Origins of religion. M.: Publishing house of the Soviet-British joint venture SLOVO/SLOVO. 1991
18. Men Alexander, prot. How to read the Bible. Brussels, 1981
19. Men Alexander, prot. Magic and monotheism. Brussels, 1997
20. Men Alexander, prot. Magic, occultism, Christianity. From books, lectures and conversations. M.: Foundation named after. What about me. 1996, http://ihavebook.org/books/10084/magiya-okkultizm-christianstvo.html
21. Men Alexander, prot. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Christian and scientist // Preface to the book by P. Teilhard de Chardin “The Divine Environment”. M.: "Renaissance". 1992
22. Men Alexander, prot. Good news. Lectures. M.: JSC "Vita-center". 1991
23. Men Alexander, prot. Son of man. M.: IPC "Vita". 1991
24. New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V.S. Stepina. 2001.http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/2676/MANICHEISM
25. Seraphim (Chichagov), Metropolitan. sschmch. Thy will be done. Part 1. Seek the kingdom of God. M.-SPb.: Pilgrim – Neva-Ladoga-Onega, Rurik. 1993.
26. Sysoev Daniel, deacon. The chronicle has begun. M., 1999.
27. Tikhomirov L.A. _ Religious and philosophical foundations of history. M., 1997.
28. Theophylact of Bulgaria, archbishop, blessed. Interpretations of the Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul. M.: Skeet, 1993.
29. Six days against evolution // Collection of articles. M.: Palomnik, 2000.
[1] The author asks the reader to apologize for the involuntary pun: Manichaeism - Menichaeism .
[2] This word is clearly not taken from a patristic source, but, apparently, from Kabbalah.
Take action! Resist the assault from the rainbow mafia: