St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches

I recently participated in a discussion with an Old Calendarist, and several issues came up that I was not able to fully respond to in the course of the discussion. I intend to write a series of responses on various issues that were raised, but the first one I want to cover is the question of how St. John of Shanghai viewed the Moscow Patriarchate, and other local Orthodox Churches.

The reason why this matters is that those who have gone into schism with the various "True Orthodox" groups try to argue that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) today has changed its positions on the key issues that resulted in ROCOR being functionally independent during the time of the Soviet Union. However, the evidence shows that the position that ROCOR takes today is the same position that St. John of Shanghai took. And St. John of Shanghai is not just a guy with an opinion. He was a very prominent bishop of ROCOR during his lifetime, and he is now universally venerated as a Saint by everyone who is Orthodox. Now, it is certainly true that there were people in ROCOR who took more extreme views, but unless someone wants to argue that St. John was a modernist, ecumenist, or a Sergianist, they cannot credibly argue that the positions he took were betrayals of ROCOR.

St. John was a monarchist, he was very conservative, and was a staunch defender of the Faith and Traditions of the Church, but unlike the extremists, he was not a sectarian or schismatic. He consistently took a charitable stance when it came to the various parts of the Russian Church which became separated by their differing responses to the Soviet attempts to destroy the Church. He likewise maintained good relations with other Orthodox local Churches.

During my roughly 35 years in ROCOR, I have had the opportunity to get to know three people who knew St. John well, and none of them separated from ROCOR when it reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate, nor did they hold the extreme views these folks are advocating.

St. John was one of several Russian Bishops who were in China during and after World War II. At the end of the war, not having had any communications with ROCOR's central authority for a very long time, and having been led to believe that ROCOR had ceased to function, St. John, along with the other bishops in China, agreed to come under the authority of the newly elected Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow. Obviously, had he believed the Moscow Patriarchate was a graceless Church, he would never have done this. 

Here is what St. John had to say about this at the time, as quoted in the article The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong, by Archpriest Dionysy Pozdnyaev:

"The Diocese of Peking had to resolve the question of its jurisdictional status independently. Saint John of Shanghai, Vicar Bishop of the Diocese of Peking, and a lawyer by training and expert in canon law, convinced Archbishop Victor, his ruling bishop, to adopt the new jurisdiction. On July 31, 1945, he wrote to him:

“[…] Following the decision of the Diocese of Harbin, and in view of the absence, for a number of years, of information about the Synod of the Church Abroad, any other solution would make our diocese entirely independent and autocephalous. There is no canonical foundation for this type of independence since there are no doubts as to the canonicity of the newly recognized Patriarch. Relations with the [Moscow –tr.] church hierarchy are also possible, with the result that the Decree of November 7, 1920 is not applicable. At present, there are no grounds for us to remain a self-governing diocese, and we ought to follow the same course as the Diocese of Harbin. The name of the Chair of the Synod of the Church Abroad ought still to be commemorated at services, since, according to the 14th Canon of the First-Second Local Council, one may not arbitrarily cease commemorating the name of his Metropolitan Bishop. The commemoration of the name of the Patriarch, however, […] must be immediately introduced throughout the whole diocese by a Decree of yours.”

Archbishop Victor agreed with Saint John’s proposal and, in August 1945, he sent a request by telegram to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow asking to receive him and Bishop John into his jurisdiction. The Hong Kong Deanery followed its ruling bishop in adopting the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate."

For some historical context, it should be noted that the leader of the Soviet Union at this time was no less than Joseph Stalin, who had severely persecuted the Church, and murdered millions for their faith in the attempt to remove all religion from the USSR, although World War II forced him to reverse course, and after the war, the Church was given a level of freedom it had not had in a long time.

St. John began immediately to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I, but a response by the Patriarch to Archbishop Victor's petition was delayed by the effects of the war. And in the meantime, St. John received a telegram informing him that ROCOR had not ceased to exist, and so he alone, among all the bishops in China decided to resume commemorating Metropolitan Anastasy of ROCOR as his primate, as had been the previous practice.

He explained his change in decision to his flock as follows:

“The governing authorities of the Church Abroad have seen fit that the Church should continue to take responsibility for our pastoral care, and has notified us of this fact as well as informing His Eminence the Head of the Mission of it. Consequently, we do not consider it possible to take any decisions in relation to this question without the instruction and approval of the authorities of the Russian Church Abroad. As late as the Council of 1938, in which we took part, it was decreed that when the time will come for us to return to our native land, the hierarchs of the Church Abroad should not act separately, but rather the entire Church Abroad should present an account to an All-Russian Council of the acts it has performed while living in forced separation. Communications concerning the restoration of full canonical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, received by Archbishop Victor on Great Saturday in response to his request to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis last August (1945), were a cause of sincere joy for us, since they allowed us a glimpse of the beginnings of mutual understanding between two parts of the Russian Church divided by a border, and of the possibility of mutual support of two centers that gather the Russian people together as one, inside and outside our Fatherland. If they can strive together towards a single common goal and act separately according to the conditions in which each finds itself, the Church inside Russia and the Church abroad will be better able to achieve both their common aims and the particular ones that each has, up to the point when a complete reunion will be made possible. At present, the Church inside Russia has to heal the wounds that militant atheism has inflicted upon it and free itself from the bonds that are impeding the fullness of its internal and external functioning. The goal of the Church Abroad is to prevent the children of the Russian Orthodox Church from becoming dispersed, and to preserve the spiritual values that they have brought with them from their homeland, as well as to spread Orthodoxy in the countries where they are living. This was indeed the purpose of the acts of the Synod of Hierarchs of the Church Abroad that took place in the city Munich, under Allied occupation, on the anniversary of the defeat of Germany” (Quoted in "The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong," Emphasis added).

Archbishop Victor issued a decree relieving St. John of his duties, but St. John announced in a sermon that he had no intention of abiding by that decree. He took seriously his oath of obedience to the Synod of ROCOR at the time of his consecration as a bishop, and so said:

“I will submit to this decree only if it can be demonstrated to me, by way of Sacred Scripture and the law of any one country, that oath-breaking is a virtue and keeping one’s oath is a grave sin.”

So he did not take this action because he came to realize that the Moscow Patriarchate was a pseudo-Church. In fact, he stated just the opposite, but he was obliged to not enter into union with the Moscow Patriarchate, apart from the Synod he had pledged his obedience to.

The extremists argue that St. John was isolated in China, and so he was unaware of the crimes of the Soviets and the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate. This seems rather unlikely, since he was living near the central headquarters of ROCOR until he was consecrated a bishop in 1934 and sent to China. But in any case, he had many years to learn whatever he might not have known about these issues before he wrote his "History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad," in 1960, and in that text, he doesn't even use the words "Sergianism" or "Sergianist." In fact, Fr. Peter Perekrestov noted he never used those words in any of his writings:

“In no article, no homily that has come down to us, no letter of which we are aware, did Holy Hierarch St John (Maximovitch) ever use the term “Sergianists"” ("The Church's Helmsman, Both Then and Now, is the Almighty Spirit of God," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

What we find instead are the most charitable interpretations of the actions of Metropolitan Sergius. Here are all the paragraphs in that text in which he mentions Metropolitan Sergius:

After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in Russia and abroad continued to regard him as her head and his name was commemorated at Divine services in all churches. Then Metropolitan Sergius became his Substitute. At this time certain differences arose among the Russian hierarchs abroad, and an appeal was made to Metropolitan Sergius with the request that he make a decision on them. This allowed Metropolitan Sergius to express his view on the situation of the part of the Russian Church that was abroad. Addressing himself in a general letter to the bishops abroad on September 12, 1926, he wrote:

"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the Moscow Patriarch, as a general principle, be the leader of the ecclesiastical life of Orthodox emigrants?... The good of church affairs themselves demands that you, by a common consent, should establish for yourselves a central organ of church administration which is sufficiently authoritative to resolve all misunderstandings and differences and which has the power to put a stop to any misunderstanding and every disobedience without appealing for our support..." In this letter, which is filled with love for his fellow bishops abroad, he says: "We shall scarcely see each other again in the present life, but I may hope by God's mercy that we shall see each other in the future life."

This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true. Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime as a genuinely lawful Russian regime which was concerned for the people's good, a regime "whose joys are our joys, and whose sorrows are our sorrows" (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime.

This document was in complete contradiction with his view expressed nine months before this, that the Moscow Patriarchate could not direct the ecclesiastical life of emigrants. If for those in Russia who were undergoing terrible sufferings there might be conditions that would mitigate their moral capitulation to the cruel regime — just as the church canons at the time of the [ancient] persecutions mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ after terrible sufferings — nonetheless, for those who were in freedom and comparative safety there were no mitigating circumstances or justification or even meaning at all in such a signature. It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus remove responsibility from himself.

However, Metropolitan Evlogy with his vicars and Bishop Benjamin of Sebastopol did indeed submit to the Ukase. Meanwhile, in Russia itself there were courageous confessors from among the imprisoned bishops and likewise among those who remained in freedom, who declared to Metropolitan Sergius that they did not accept the concordat with the atheist regime that was persecuting the Church. Many of them even broke off communion in prayer with Metropolitan Sergius as one who had "fallen" and had entered into league with the atheists, and a part of the clergy and laity in Russia followed them. The atheist Soviet regime cruelly persecuted such steadfast hierarchs and their followers. The Soviet regime, while not fulfilling the promises to Metropolitan Sergius which had caused him to make the concordat with it, at the same time deprived of freedom, banished, and even executed many of those who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.

Among those who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration of loyalty to the Soviet regime were the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (whose Substitute Metropolitan Sergius was), Metropolitans Agathangel of Yaroslavl and Cyril of Kazan (who had been indicated by Patriarch Tikhon as possible Locum Tenenses of the Patriarchal Throne in case Peter should be unable to exercise his office), Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, and many other well-known hierarchs. Indeed, Metropolitan Sergius himself had thought exactly like them not long before his signing of the Declaration for the reasons already mentioned.

The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius brought no benefit to the Church. The persecutions not only did not cease, but they even increased. To the other accusations which the Soviet regime made against clergy and laymen was added yet one more — not recognizing the Declaration. At the same time churches without number were closed throughout Russia. Within a few years almost all churches were destroyed or put to various other uses. Whole provinces remained without a single church. Concentration camps and places of forced labor held thousands of clergy, a significant part of which never regained freedom, being executed there or dying from excessive labors and deprivations. Even the children of priests and all believing laymen were persecuted.

The Russian Church Outside of Russia was spiritually one with these persecuted believers. Except for the several hierarchs already mentioned, all the rest, headed by Metropolitan Anthony, flatly refused to give signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime, and they came out with an open denunciation. Moreover, Metropolitan Anthony, who very much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his behavior.

Like the bishops and faithful inside Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so too the part of the Russian Church that was abroad did not cease to belong to the Russian Church. They all, just as before, remained in spiritual union with the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, who was languishing in a desert place in the far north. His name was commemorated in all Russian churches abroad. In all these churches there were also prayers for the suffering brethren in the Homeland, for their deliverance from the atheist regime, and for the repose of those who had been martyred by the regime. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Evlogy, who had given the signature of loyalty to the Soviet regime which had been demanded by Metropolitan Sergius, was invited to a service of prayer in England for the suffering Russian Church, and he took part in it. This was interpreted as an act against the Soviet regime, and he was forbidden to serve by Metropolitan Sergius. Not wishing to submit to this decree, but at the same time not wishing to acknowledge his guilt before the Russian Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive him and his flock temporarily into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was done.

Notwithstanding the departure from the Church Abroad — and, one may say, from the Russian Church altogether — of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon with their followers, the Russian Orthdox Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church. She has enjoyed the attention of the Most Holy Patriarchs and the other hierarchs of her sister Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Varnava of Serbia showed special attention to her and strove to return to the Russian Church Abroad those bishops who had separated from her, and he was likewise an intermediary between her and Metropolitan Sergius, whom he respected and loved as the rector of his days in the Academy. However, soon he had to become convinced that Metropolitan Sergius was in the hands of the Church's enemies and that his actions were harmful to her, concerning which he wrote to him directly.

...At first this change did not bring any alterations in the situation of the Russian Church Abroad. She continued to exist and act as before, being governed by the "Decree" which had been accepted under the chairmanship of Patriarch Varnava, and everywhere she enjoyed externally all her former rights. In 1937, the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, died in banishment, and apparently not long before this, or soon afterwards, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, who was supposed to become Locum Tenens after Metropolitan Peter, likewise died in banishment. The Patriarchal Synod of Moscow, composed of bishops invited by Metropolitan Sergius, confirmed the latter as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. At this time the Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of total desolation. There were only twenty bishops in freedom, and the majority of churches were closed, destroyed, or turned to some other use. Whole provinces and vast expanses had not a single church. Relics and wonderworking icons were taken to museums. The majority of the clergy that remained were in banishment, at forced labor, or lived concealing their rank, earning for themselves a pitiful living by any kind of work and only secretly celebrating services at the homes of faithful laymen.

At the same time Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise given to the Soviet regime, continued to affirm that there was no persecution against the Church in Russia. The Church Abroad, which was no longer subject to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, remained in her previous relationship to him, feeling herself to be spiritually one with the suffering Mother Church, and as before offering prayer for her and her suffering brethren" (Emphasis added).

There is one other letter by St. John that we have in English that addresses the question, from September 13, 1963:

If someone began to talk in Metropolitan Anthony’s  [First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Khrapovitskii] presence about “wrong actions by the Church,” he would stop them, pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy cannot be attributed to the Church, since the hierarchy is not the whole Church, even though it speaks on its behalf. On the See of Constantinople, [there sat] Paul the Confessor, Makedonios, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorios, Proclus, Flavian, Germanos. Some [of them] shone with holiness and Orthodoxy, others were heresiarchs, yet the Church remained Orthodox. During Iconoclasm, after the expulsion of Severinus, Nikephoros and others, not only their sees, but also the majority of episcopal ones were replaced by Arians. Other Churches did not even have communion with [the Byzantine Church], according to the testimony of the St. Paul, who abandoned heresy and the [patriarchal] throne, not wanting to have communion with the iconoclasts, but still the Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people and especially the guardsmen and officials were carried away into iconoclasm.

So, it is now understandable when the expression “Soviet Church” is used by ordinary people who are less familiar with church language, but it is not suitable for responsible and theological conversations. When the entire hierarchy of Southwestern Rusʹ embraced Uniatism [after the Brest union of 1596], the Church continued to exist in the person of the faithful Orthodox people, who, after much suffering, restored their hierarchy. Therefore, it is more correct to speak not of a “Soviet Church,” which cannot exist in the correct understanding of the word “Church,” but about the hierarchy that is in the service of the Soviet government. The attitude toward this hierarchy may be the same as toward other representatives of that government. Their rank gives them the opportunity to act with great authority and replace the voice of the suffering Russian Church and misleads those who think to learn from them about the actual position of the Church in Russia. Of course, among them there are also conscious traitors, and those who simply do not find the strength to fight the surrounding environment and went with the flow: this is a matter of their personal responsibility, but in general, it is the apparatus of the theomachist Soviet regime. While there is only one hierarchy in the liturgical area, for Grace acts independently of personal dignity, in the socio-political area this hierarchy serves is a cover for Soviet atheistic activities. Therefore, those abroad and those who join its ranks become deliberate accomplices of that power. ("Did the Byzantine Church Cease to be the Church During Iconoclasm?" Emphasis added).

It is clear from this letter that St. John did not think people in the west should voluntarily join the Moscow Patriarchate, under the circumstances of the time, but it is also clear that he did not think the Russian Church that the bishops of the MP headed was a false Church. The bishops of the MP had varying degrees of responsibility, for which they would have to account to God, but that the grace of the Church was not dependent on the worthiness of the bishops. To say otherwise is to espouse the heresy of Donatism.

The Donatist controversy arose at the end of the last Roman persecution. There was a bishop in North Africa that the Donatists accused of being a traditor, which was a person who handed books or sacred vessels over to the Romans to be destroyed. The bishop in question denied this charge, but the Church determined that it was heretical to question the sacraments of a bishop in good standing, even if he in fact was guilty of such sins, and lied about them to boot, because the grace of the Sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of those who perform them -- it depends on the Church having authorized them to perform them. Were this not the case, one could never be sure that they ever received grace-filled Sacraments, because they could never know what secret sins a bishop or priest might be harboring within themselves. And so, until and unless a bishop is deposed from office, as long as he is acting on behalf of the Church, his sacraments have the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I have also come across two bishops who knew St. John, who both gave testimony to St. John's views on the Moscow Patriarchate:

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva:

"As far as the Moscow Patriarchate was concerned, Vladyka avoided extreme positions, witnessed by his letter to Fr Dimitri Dudko: “The late Archbishop John, whom we all respected and loved, would say ‘the official Church in Russia, of course, possesses grace, though one bishop or another might conduct themselves poorly.’” (Quoted in "A Brief Biography of Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich, +1993) of Geneva and Western Europe," by Bernard le Caro).

Bishop Basil Rodzianko:

"I thought that I would remain forever cut off from my parents and that I would be behind the Iron Curtain and never meet them, but then I suddenly left for Paris, after I had been released from a communist Yugoslav prison and, one might say, "advised" in quotation marks to leave Yugoslavia (this was after Tito had quarreled with Stalin). and in Paris itself he left the station - where? - to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and there I was offered to serve. And the first thing I said after the first meeting, the first tears of mutual tears, I said openly and directly to Vladyka John, that I could not in my conscience throw a stone at the Russian Orthodox Church, as many did in the Diaspora, its Patriarch and its hierarchs. Do you know what he told me? He told me: "Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church. Therefore, as a Serbian cleric, you can serve wherever you want – in the canonical Churches, of course – and come and serve with me." This is how the unforgettable Vladyka John Maximovich acted with me in his holiness, in his truly authentic blessed vision" (Machine translation of "About Vladyka John," by Bishop Basil Rodzianko, Emphasis added).

When it comes to how St. John viewed other local Orthodox Churches, we likewise see that he was always guided by charity. I know from Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff) of blessed memory that St. John had the practice on Holy Saturday, of visiting every Orthodox parish in San Francisco and venerating the Epitaphios (Plashchanitsa) that would have been in the center of every Church on that day. He clearly did not see these other jurisdictions, even ones with a checkered history with ROCOR (like the American Metropolia (which became the Orthodox Church in America), as false Churches.

While in France, Archbishop Peter told us the story of an elderly Russian couple that had met late in life, and had only one son, who was in the French Army, and had foolishly killed himself, playing Russian roulette. The parents were of course devastated. They attended a parish that was under the "Evlogians" (the Russian Exarchate), which had once been part of ROCOR, but went into schism, and joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many in ROCOR considered them to be graceless schismatics. In any case, no sooner had the parents received the telegram with this devastating news, they heard a knock on the door, and St. John was there to console them. They never knew how he could have found out, because they had only just found out themselves, but St. John had spiritual insight that didn't require a telegram (see "Remembrances of St. John of Shanghai," by Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff), around the 42 minute mark).

We know that St. John held such views about the "Evlogians" from no less than Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who held very different views on them, as well as on the Moscow Patriarchate, and the OCA):

"And I do not understand the position adopted in this matter by the late Vladyka John [St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco -ed.], a true servant and man of God. Why did he not “dot the i’s”  from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians all the unrighteousness of their path and position!" ("A Letter of Met. Philaret to Mother Magdalina," Emphasis added).

Contrary to the extremists, St. John was not in favor of breaking off communion with other local Churches, even when they were plagued by serious theological or canonical problems:

"In 1939, in his report "The Status of the Orthodox Church after the War", St. John considered that: "We (the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad – Protopriest P.P.) must stand firmly on the foundation of the Church’s canons and not with those who are straying from them. In former times for the exposure of canonical irregularities in a Local Church canonical communion was broken with her. The Russian Church Abroad cannot act in this way, in so far as her status has not been clearly defined. For this reason she must not break communion with the other Churches, if they do not take this step first. But, while maintaining communion, {the Church Abroad} must not remain silent over violations against the righteousness of the Church" (Bishop John of Shanghai, "The State of the Orthodox Church After the War," Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400. Quoted in "St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco and His View of the Russian Church in the 20th Century," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

The problems the Russian Church faced were in many ways unprecedented, and not everyone in the Russian Church agreed on how to respond. And divisions were intentionally stoked by the Soviets who wanted to divide the Russian Church, so it could more easily destroy it. In Russia itself, you had the official Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, the Catacomb Church, which largely considered the MP to be traitors, and thus without grace, and then you had those who took a middle road -- not accepting the policies of the MP, but also not condemning it entirely. The Catacomb Church blamed the MP for their persecution. Many in the MP, who were also suffering under persecution, had animosity towards those in the Catacomb Church. Outside of Russia, there were a couple of periods in which most Russian bishops were united, but we ended up with at least four groups: Those under the MP, ROCOR, the Paris Exarchate, and the American Metropolia (which became the OCA). Unfortunately, there was a lot of animosity between all of these groups -- and again, this was exactly what the Soviets wanted.

St. John of Shanghai was one of those people who was able to view people that he disagreed with charitably. He recognized that most were trying to do what they thought best, under the circumstances, and so was not quick to condemn. It is understandable, that people like Metropolitan Philaret, whose father died in a Soviet gulag would have a hard time taking a charitable view of the Moscow Patriarchate (even though his father was himself a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate). But on the feast of the Transfiguration this year we will mark 34 years since the Soviet Union came to an end. Most of the extremists I see getting worked up about condemning the Moscow Patriarchate are converts with no family who were murdered by the Communists, and most are not even old enough to remember when the Soviet Union was still in existence. 

I am old enough to remember the Soviet Union, and my wife has many family members who were murdered by Communists (which nearly included her father) -- though not in the Soviet Union -- they were murdered by the Chinese Communists, and not because of religious issues. This, however, goes to show that Communists didn't need "Sergianists" to enable them to engage in mass murder. This is what Communists do when they take power. 

After more than three decades, it is time for us to try to view what happened during the Soviet period with some historical perspective and dispassion, but also with Christian charity, as did St. John. The Soviets tried to destroy the Church. They failed.

О которых не молится ни один из верующих

Original English Text

Прерванная традиция

Мы с женой православные уже 34 года, но мы оба из неправославных семей, и поскольку за эти годы мы потеряли родственников, мы стали часто использовать Акафист за упокой усопших. Этот Акафист возносится за всех умерших, как православных, так и неправославных, христиан и нехристиан. Он особенно возносится за тех, кто умер при трагических обстоятельствах, таких как самоубийство. За тех, кто умер без покаяния, тех, кто умер в юном возрасте и т. д. Я нашёл в нём большой источник утешения.

Но есть в этом Акафисте одна строка, которая напоминает трагедию иного рода. Заключительная молитва начинается так: «Боже духов и всякия плоти, смерть поправый и диавола упразднивый, и живот миру Твоему даровавый! Сам Господи, упокой души усопших рабов Твоих...» И далее следует длинный список категорий усопших, о которых молятся, и среди них мы молимся «о всех, кто повелел и просил нас молиться о них, о которых нет молящегося из верующих...»

Когда я молюсь этими словами, я не могу не думать о многих пожилых россиянах, которых я знал на протяжении многих лет, у которых нет потомков, которые были бы активными членами Православной Церкви. Хотя они и происходили из семей, которые сохраняли веру на протяжении многих веков, эта длинная череда верных христиан пришла к трагическому концу, когда они не смогли передать веру своим собственным детям и внукам.

Как это происходит?

В случаях, которые я наблюдал на протяжении многих лет, проблема, как правило, заключалась не в том, что родители не пытались передать им Веру. Они водили своих детей в Церковь. Они пытались научить их Вере так, как они сами ее получили от своих родителей. Проблема была в основном в двух вещах. Во-первых, я думаю, что они недооценили некоторые токсичные аспекты американской культуры, особенно в том, что касается государственного образования в Соединенных Штатах. И эта проблема свойственна не только русским, но иммигранты в целом более склонны считать, что наши школы на самом деле нацелены на предоставление хорошего образования, и они часто не осознают, насколько враждебно школы стали относиться ко всему, что хоть отдаленно напоминает традиционное христианское мировоззрение. Но другая проблема — это неспособность понять, что их дети, как правило, вырастут, не понимая русский язык так же хорошо, как их родители, а следующее поколение, как правило, вырастет, вообще не понимая русского языка. Не говоря уже о церковнославянском, который даже носителям русского языка трудно понять, если они выросли, не посещая богослужений.

Когда русские отправились в Китай после большевистской революции, они смогли основать русские колонии, которые в значительной степени воспроизвели лучшие аспекты русской культуры, но это стало возможным благодаря тому факту, что ни один китаец не считал их или их детей китайцами, даже если они родились там и могли говорить по-китайски как местные жители. Америка, с другой стороны, является очень гостеприимной культурой, и к людям, которые являются иммигрантами, но становятся гражданами и принимают Америку, уже относятся как к американцам. И их дети, следовательно, вырастают, считая себя американцами, и все остальные тоже думают о них как об американцах. Но вместе с этой гостеприимной чертой американской культуры присутствует много тонкого давления, направленного на ассимиляцию. Хотя страны Западной Европы более гостеприимны к иммигрантам, чем раньше, у них нет ничего похожего на ту динамику, которая есть у нас здесь. Следствием всего этого является то, что семье очень трудно поддерживать использование языка, отличного от английского. Я не против семей, пытающихся сохранить передать своим новым поколениям второй язык. Мы делали это в моей семье. Моя жена китаянка. Наши дети выросли, говоря на китайском языке. Мои внуки также растут, говоря на китайском языке. Однако моя младшая дочь не говорит на китайском так же хорошо, как моя старшая дочь, и мои внуки вряд ли будут говорить на нем так же хорошо, как их родители.

Я, конечно же, надеюсь, что они будут говорить на китайском так же хорошо или лучше, и я думаю, что стоит приложить усилия, чтобы плыть против течения и воспитывать детей, говорящих на втором языке, потому что это значительно облегчит им изучение любого другого языка в будущем. Но реальность такова, что это требует больших усилий, и большинство семей вообще не будут прилагать усилий, необходимых для передачи второго языка. Не говоря уже о том, чтобы вырастить детей, которые понимают этот второй язык так же хорошо, как носитель языка.

Когда я стал православным, я состоял в приходе, где говорили по-английски, за исключением редких ектений или праздничных тропарей на славянском. Но когда мы с женой вернулись в Хьюстон, где мы и встретились, единственным приходом РПЦЗ во всем штате Техас в то время был приход Св. Владимира, где в Литургии в основном использовался славянский язык. Если бы это был первый приход, который я посетил до того, как стал православным, не уверен, что я бы обратился. Просто потому, что было бы трудно следить за службами на языке, которого я не знал. 

Но, приняв веру, мы пошли туда, и в какой-то момент я преподавал в классе воскресной школы. К тому времени я немного выучил славянский и подумал, что будет полезно научить детей некоторым основным славянским фразам из служб. Я начал с того, что спросил их: «Знает ли кто-нибудь, что означает «Господи, помилуй»? Никто из них не знал. А если вы не знаете, что означает «Господи, помилуй» (что значит «Господи, помилуй»), то вы, скорее всего, ничего не знаете по-славянски.

Моя семья посещала церковь Святого Владимира около шести лет, и за это время я начал замечать закономерность. Дети добросовестно приходили со своими родителями, но когда они становились подростками, я начинал видеть их только изредка, если вообще видел. Очевидно, они становились достаточно взрослыми, чтобы сопротивляться посещениям церкви, и их родители в конце концов уставали и переставали заставлять их ходить. Я знаю семьи, которые ходили в церковь не пропуская служб, и во многих случаях их дети также добросовестно посещали церковь, но их внуков, как правило, мы уже не видели в храме. Были некоторые исключения, но эти исключения были редки.

Вот, собственно, почему я так упорно стремился основать приход с преподаванием на английском языке. У меня были собственные дети, о которых нужно было заботиться, и я отказывался смотреть, как мои дети растут, не понимая служб, и увидеть, как они уходят из Церкви, когда я больше не смогу заставить их ходить в Церковь. А так, слава Богу, все мои потомки — активные православные христиане, и я сделаю все возможное, чтобы так и оставалось.

Это верно, что проблема токсичной антихристианской культуры, которая стала доминировать в Америке, может быть причиной отпадения некоторых детей от Веры, потому что вы можете наблюдать, как это происходит по всему религиозному спектру в стране. Но когда вы видите, что к третьему поколению от церкви отходят почти 100% детей, то проблема заключается не только в токсичной культуре. Я думаю, это можно объяснить только тем, что многие из наших приходов не смогли перейти на использование английского в качестве основного языка на богослужениях.

Что нам с этим делать?

Проблема иммигрантских церквей и языка не является уникальной для православия. Когда я встретил свою жену, она посещала китайскую баптистскую церковь. И китайские баптистские церкви столкнулись с теми же проблемами. Они существуют, потому что есть китайцы, которые не говорят на английском как на своем родном языке, и поэтому, естественно, хотят ходить в церкви, где службы проходят на их языке. Но эти церкви пришли к пониманию того, что второе и третье поколения их членов не будут хорошо понимать китайский язык, и если они хотят выжить, им придется начать переходить на английский (см. «Этнические церкви добавляют английский для 2-го и 3-го поколений», Baptist Press, 2019).

Русская Православная Церковь Заграницей, членом которой я являюсь уже более трех десятилетий, достигла большого прогресса в использовании английского языка за то время, что я в ней нахожусь, — большего прогресса, чем я мог бы надеяться в 90-х годах. Но у нас все еще есть приходы, которые упорно продолжают использовать исключительно славянский язык, и это проблема. Это проблема не только потому, что это препятствие для людей, которые могут захотеть обратиться в веру, как это сделал я, но это проблема даже если бы единственной нашей целью было удержать детей русских в вере их родителей. Я не думаю, что каждый приход должен быть в первую очередь сосредоточен на привлечении новообращённых, хотя считаю, что все они должны быть приветливы к ним. Однако самой первой целью каждого прихода должно быть передать веру своим собственным детям. И если бы РПЦЗ удалось сохранить хотя бы половину детей, которые родились в ней после Второй мировой войны, мы были бы гораздо более большей церковью, чем сегодня. На самом деле, если бы не новая иммиграция, многие наши приходы давно бы закрылись.

Как минимум, я думаю, что каждый приход должен проводить половину служб на английском языке. Другое решение этой проблемы — проводить параллельные службы, одну на английском и одну на славянском. Те приходы, которые это делают, также проводят объединенные службы, и поэтому дети, растущие в таких приходах, будут слышать службы на английском языке, по крайней мере иногда, и, таким образом, по крайней мере, будут знать, что есть возможность проводить службы на их родном языке. 

Наш приход был основан как англоязычный, но поскольку у нас сейчас много русских и украинцев, мы проводим славянскую литургию раз в месяц по субботам. Если бы не было другого прихода РПЦЗ в зоне досягаемости, я бы, вероятно, чувствовал себя обязанным хотя бы немного использовать славянский язык в наших регулярных службах. Я полностью понимаю желание русских молиться на языке своих сердец, и христианская любовь должна побуждать нас стараться быть уступчивыми друг другу, но любовь к нашим детям также должна побуждать нас подходить к этим вопросам такими способами, которые, скорее всего, действительно сработают как в сохранении веры наших детей, так и в общении с теми, кто еще не является православным вокруг нас.

Я не виню приезжающих сюда русских иммигрантов-мирян за то, что они не понимают необходимости использования английского языка на наших богослужениях, но те из нас, кто прожил здесь достаточно долго, чтобы увидеть, к чему это привело за последние 75 лет, должны начать поступать иначе, чем мы делали раньше. Потому что мы уже знаем, что приходы, использующие исключительно славянский язык, — это верный путь к потере наших детей для Веры. И нет ничего важнее, чем предотвратить это, не повторяя ошибок прошлого в будущем и наблюдая, как лучшая часть еще одного или двух поколений наших детей уходит из Церкви. 

Обновление: Обновление: Кто-то прислал мне текст проповеди святителя Николая (Велимировича), которая имеет отношение к вопросам, затронутым выше. Эта проповедь была произнесена где-то между 1946 годом (когда он прибыл в Соединенные Штаты) и 1956 годом (когда он скончался), и поэтому он сказал эти вещи по крайней мере 68 лет назад, но они показывают, что даже тогда эти проблемы возникали и нуждались в решении. Вот, в частности, что он говорит ранних иммигрантах, которые принесли Православие в Соединенные Штаты:

«Увы, последнее из этих старых православных поколений быстро уходит. Их сыновья и внуки, их дочери и внучки теперь выходят на поле. И это новое поколение родилось в Америке. Они хорошо говорят по-английски, но мало или совсем не говорят по-гречески, по-сербски, по-русски, по-румынски, по-сирийски или по-албански. И неудивительно: они учились в американских школах, многие из них служили в армии США, они выросли в соответствии с американскими стандартами жизни, их сердца не разделены между двумя странами. Они по природе американцы и намерены оставаться американцами. Соответственно, у них есть некоторые требования по отношению к Церкви своих отцов.

Они хотят, чтобы английский заменил национальные языки в церковных службах. Они желают слышать проповеди на английском языке. Это законное желание. Наши мудрые священники каждой национальной православной церкви в этой стране уже проповедуют как на английском, так и на своем национальном языке. Они находятся в трудном положении в настоящее время, поскольку они должны, с одной стороны, быть внимательными к пожилым людям (старым поколениям мам и пап), которые плохо понимают английский, а с другой стороны, они готовы отвечать желаниям и нуждам молодых поколений. В этом вопросе я думаю, что эволюция лучше революции, поскольку Церковь является матерью и старых, и молодых» (Святитель Николай Велимирович о Православии в Америке и его будущем).

None Among the Believing

Русский перевод

Failed Handoff

My wife and I have been Orthodox for 34 years now, but we both come from families that were not Orthodox, and so as we have lost family members over the years, we have come to use the Akathist for the Repose of the Departed a lot. This Akathist prays for all who have died, both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox, Christian and Non-Christian. It specifically prays for those who have died under tragic circumstances, such as suicide, those who died without repentance, those who died in their youth, etc. I have found it to be a great source of consolation.

But there is one line in this Akathist that brings to mind a tragedy of a different kind. The final prayer begins: "O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death and overthrown the devil and given life to Thy world!  Do Thou Thyself, O Lord, give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants...." And then it runs through a long list of categories of the departed that are being prayed for, and among them, we pray "for all who enjoined and asked us to pray for them, for whom there is none among the believing to pray for them..."

When I pray these words I cannot but think of many elderly Russians I have known over the years who have no descendants who are still active members of the Orthodox Church. Though they came from families that maintained the faith for many centuries, that long line of faithful Christians came to a tragic end when they failed to successfully pass on the faith to their own children and grandchildren.

How Does This Happen?

In the cases that I have observed over the years, the problem has not generally been that the parents made no attempt to pass on the Faith. They took their children to Church. They tried to teach them the Faith as they had received it from their own parents. The problem has been primarily two things. First, I think they have underestimated some of the toxic aspects of American culture, particularly as it has affected public education in the United States -- and that is a problem that is not unique to Russians, but immigrants are more prone to assume our schools are actually focused on providing a good education, and they are often unaware of how hostile they have become to anything remotely like a traditional Christian worldview. But the other problem is a failure to understand that their children will generally grow up not understanding Russian as well as their parents, and the next generation will generally grow up without understanding Russian at all -- not to mention Church Slavonic, which is difficult for even native speaking Russians to understand if they did not grow up attending the services.

When Russians went to China after the Bolshevik Revolution, they were able to establish Russian colonies that largely reproduced the best aspects of Russian culture, but this was made possible by the fact that no Chinese would think of them or their children as Chinese, even if they were born there and could speak Chinese like a native. America, on the other hand is a very welcoming culture, and people who are immigrants, but who become citizens and embrace America are already treated as being Americans, and their children consequently grow up thinking of themselves as American, and with everyone else thinking of them as Americans too. But along with this welcoming feature of American culture comes a lot of subtle pressure to assimilate. Though western European countries are more welcoming than they used to be to immigrants, they do not have anything like the same dynamic that we have here. The consequence of all of this is that it is very difficult for a family to maintain the use of a language other than English.

I am not opposed to families trying to pass on a second language. We have done that in my family. My wife is Chinese. Our children grew up speaking Chinese. My grandchildren also have been growing up speaking Chinese. However, my younger daughter doesn't speak Chinese as well as my older daughter, and my grandchildren are not likely to speak it as well as their parents. I hope they do as well or better, and I think it is worth the effort to swim upstream, so to speak, and raise children to speak a second language because it makes it a lot easier for them to learn any other language down the road. But the reality is that this takes a lot of effort, and most families are not going to put forth the effort necessary to pass on a second language at all, much less are they likely to raise children who understand that second language as well as a native speaker.

When I became Orthodox, it was in a parish that used English aside from doing an occasional litany or festal troparion in Slavonic. But when my wife and I moved back to Houston, where we met, the only ROCOR parish in the entire state of Texas, at the time, was St. Vladimir, which used mostly Slavonic in the Liturgy. Had that been the first parish I visited before I became Orthodox, I am not sure that I would have converted... simply because it would have been hard to follow the services in a language I did not know. But having embraced the Faith, we went there, and at one point I taught a Sunday School class. I had learned some Slavonic by this time, and I thought it would be helpful to teach the children some basic Slavonic phrases from the services. I began by asking them "Does anyone know what "Gospodi pomiluj [Господи, помилуй]" means? None of them knew. And if you don't know what "Gospodi pomiluj" means (which is "Lord, have mercy"), you most likely don't know anything in Slavonic.

My family attended St. Vladimir for about six years, and during that time, I began to see a pattern. Children would faithfully come with their parents, but when they hit their teens, I would begin to see them only infrequently, if at all. Evidently, they got old enough to fight going to Church, and their parents would finally be worn down and stop making them go. I know of families that were in Church without fail, and in many cases, their children likewise were faithful in their attendance, but their grandchildren were generally nowhere to be seen. There were some exceptions, but those exceptions were rare.

This was, as a matter of fact, why I pushed as hard as I did to establish an English language parish. I had my own children to be concerned with, and I refused to watch my children grow up without understanding the services, and to see them walk away from the Church when I was no longer able to make them to go to Church. As it is, thanks be to God, all of my descendants are active Orthodox Christians, and as long as I have anything to say about it, I will do what I can to keep it that way.

While it is true that the problem of the toxic antichristian culture that has come to dominate America can be blamed for some of the children who fall away from the Faith -- because you can see this happen across the religious spectrum in this country. But when you see something close to 100% of the children falling away by the third generation, that is not just the toxic culture that is the problem. I think this can only be explained by the failure of so many of our parishes to transition into using English as a primary language in the services.

What Should We Do About It?

The problem of immigrant churches and language is not unique to Orthodoxy. When I met my wife, she was attending a Chinese Baptist church. And Chinese Baptist churches have had to navigate the same issues. They exist, because there are Chinese people who do not speak English as their primary language, and so naturally want to go to churches that have services in their language. But these Churches have come to realize that the second and third generations of their members will not understand Chinese well, and if they want to survive, they have to begin transitioning into English (See "Ethnic churches add English for 2nd & 3rd generations," Baptist Press, 2019).

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which I have been a member of for more than three decades now, has made a lot of progress, when it comes to using English, during the time I have been in it -- more progress than I would have dared to hope for back in the 90's. But we still have parishes that persist in using Slavonic exclusively, and this is a problem. It is not just a problem because it is a barrier to people who might want to convert to the Faith like I did, but it is a problem if the only goal we had was to keep the children of Russians in the Faith. I don't think every parish needs to be primarily focused on reaching new converts, though I think they should all be welcoming to them, but the very first goal of every parish should be to pass the faith on to their own children. And if ROCOR had managed to keep even half of the children that were born into it since World War II, we would be a much larger jurisdiction than we are today. In fact, were it not for new immigration, many or our parishes would have closed a long time ago.

At a minimum, I think every parish should be doing half of the services in English. Another solution to this problem is having parallel services, one in English and one in Slavonic. Those parishes that do this also have combined services, and so children growing up in parishes like that would hear the services in English at least some of the time, and so would at least know that there was an option for having the services in their primary language. 

Our parish was established as an English language parish, but since we have a lot of Russians and Ukrainians now, we do a Slavonic Liturgy once a month on a Saturday. Were there not another ROCOR parish within a reasonable drive, I would probably feel obligated to do at least some Slavonic in our regular services. I completely understand the desire for Russians to want to pray in the language of their hearts, and Christian love should compel us to try to be accommodating of one another, but love for our children should also compel us to approach these questions in ways that are most likely to actually work in both preserving the faith our children, and reaching out to those who are not already Orthodox around us.

I don't blame Russian immigrant laymen who come here for not understanding the need for using English in our services, but those of us who have lived here long enough to see how this has played out over the past 75 years should start doing something different than we have been doing, because we know that parishes using Slavonic exclusively is a recipe for losing our children to the Faith, and there is nothing more important than preventing that by not repeating the mistakes of the past into the future, and seeing the better part of another generation or two of our children walk away from the Church. 

Update: Someone sent me the text of a sermon by St. Nikolai (Velimirovich) that is pertinent to the issues addressed above. This sermon was delivered sometime between 1946 (when he arrived in the United States) and 1956 (when he reposed), and so he said these things at least 68 years ago, but they do show that even back then, these issues were emerging, and were in need of being addressed. He says in part, speaking of the earlier immigrants who brought Orthodoxy to the United States:

"Alas, the last of these old Orthodox generations is rapidly passing away. Their sons and grandsons, and their daughters and granddaughters are now coming to the field. And this new generation is American born. They speak good English but little or no Greek, Serbian, Russian, Rumanian, Syrian or Albanian. And no wonder: They attended American schools, many of them served in the US army, they have grown in conformity with the American standard of living, their hearts are not divided between two countries. They are naturally Americans, and they intend to remain American. Accordingly, they have some demands respecting the Church of their fathers.

They want English to replace national languages in church services. They desire to hear sermons in English. This is a legitimate desire. Our wise priests of every national Orthodox Church in this country are already preaching in both English and in their respective national tongue. They are in a difficult position at present, for they have on one hand to be considerate of the elderly (elderly generations of Moms and Pops) who do not understand English well, and on the other hand they are willing to respond to the desire and need of the younger generations. In this matter I think evolution is better than revolution, for the Church is the mother of both the old and the young" (St Nikolai Velimirovich on Orthodoxy in America & Its Future).

Romans Chapter 1 & 2

We are currently doing a study of the Book of Romans via Google Meets, which I intend to post to our parish channel on YouTube. Unfortunately, I didn't hit the record button for the last session, which went back over a few things from chapter 1, and then covered chapter 2. Here is a summary of a few things covered in that session:

In our first session, we discussed the fact that St. Paul is largely concerned with the problem of the relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. In the second session, I pointed out how the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius probably forms the backdrop of this problem. Suetonius records that Claudius ordered all the Jews to leave Rome, because they were rioting over a certain "Chrestus." This most likely means that the Jews in Rome were having violent disagreements about whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah. So while all the Jewish Christians, including Ss. Priscilla and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:1-18), were gone, the Roman Church became a Gentile Church over night, but when Claudius died, the Jews were allowed to return, and so Jewish Christians, who had been running things in the Church would likely have had some difficulties adjusting to a now Gentile Church. We know from the final chapter of Romans that St. Paul knew many of these Jews, and no doubt heard about these problems from them, and so this was at least in large part the occasion for St. Paul writing this letter.

I also went back and talked a but about Romans1:17, because I was side tracked in first session, by my microphone problem, and so forgot to point out a few things.

Romans 1:17 says: 

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

This is a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4, which neither follows exactly the Septuagint or the Masoretic Hebrew text.

The Hebrew text of Habakkuk 2:4, as we now have it, reads:  

"Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith" (KJV)

The Septuagint Greek text reads:

"If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith" (Brenton LXX).

One other thing I pointed out is that one could translate the Hebrew text as the NET Bible does: 

"Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness." 

St. Paul phrases the text in such a way that it could be taken in both senses -- that the righteous is justified by his faith, and by God's faithfulness. And it also could be understood to encompass both that the righteous man is justified by faith, and by being faithful. We will be getting into this in more detail later, when we talk about the relationship between faith and works.

On Romans Chapter 2, I have preached three sermons which cover some of the same ground I covered in session 2:

To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile (Romans 2:1-11)

Conscience (Romans 2:12-16)

Circumcision of the Heart (Romans 2:17-29)

You can also read St. John Chrysostom's Fifth and Sixth homilies, which cover Romans 2.

Should Orthodox Christians Vote? Two Contemporary Saints Answer

 

I often hear Orthodox Christians who are understandably frustrated with our political system make statements like: "Why should I vote? What difference does it make?" We have two contemporary saints that comment on the subject.

In the biography "Saint Paisios of Mount Athos," by Hieromonk Isaac (which I highly recommend), we find St. Paisios dealing with similar comments. When asked how to vote, he would say:

“Vote for the one you believe it is best; the one who loves God and our country.” 

But when he would hear the answer: "They are all the same, Father." he would reply:

"Well, look here. All olive trees are the same; all of them are affected by the same disease called dakos. However, some are affected 100% by it, others 80% and others 50%. Since we are in need of olive trees, we have to look for the ones that are affected the least. When we go to vote, we should always bear in mind two things: a) how much the candidate loves God and is thus a conscious member of the Church, and b) how much he loves his country and look solely after its interests and not his own. If someone uses another criterion to vote, he is acting out of self-interests and is not behaving like a true Christian. Later on, divine justice will allow him to pay for his mistake."

When this quote has been cited, the response some make is that we live in a Non-Orthodox country, and so don't have people who love God, like St. Paisios is referring to. But this brings us to the second contemporary saint who commented on this subject, and said almost the same thing, but was speaking about American elections. The Elder Ephraim has not been officially glorified yet, but he undoubtedly will be. Back during the 2008 presidential election, a group of people asked him how they should vote. A person who knew the Elder (whom I know well and consider a trustworthy source) said that the Elder told them that they should vote for John McCain. Several people became very indignant because they favored Obama, and so they began to point out all the bad things John McCain had done. Then he said:

“Look, they both have horns, you have to vote for the one with the smaller horns.”

John McCain was a very flawed candidate. He was a neocon who supported many wars that brought death and devastation to many people around the globe. However, he did have a pro-life record in terms of his votes related to abortion, and that is perhaps why the Elder considered his horns to be smaller. The choice in that election was certainly not a slam dunk question, but the Elder taught people to vote, and what criteria they should use.

Not everyone is going to agree who has the smallest horns in an election, but we should pray that God would give us the wisdom to make discerning choices. 

In order to vote, you of course need to register to vote. Which you can do online. Prior to an election, if you live in Harris County, you can view the ballot ahead of time, and then do your own digging to determine who to vote for. Personally, I use voter guides put out by pro-life Christians, such as the Link Letter, or the Houston Area Pastors Council. I don't always go with their recommendations, but especially in primaries, where there are many candidates that I don't know anything else about, these voter guides give me some idea of how to sift through the options.

If you live in Harris County, you can also find where you can vote in early voting, or on election day by going to Harris Votes. If you live in one of the surrounding counties, there are probably similar websites run by your county clerk's office.

One other thing to consider, if you don't think it matters who you vote for, consider how different states and counties reacted to the Covid lockdowns. Some closed business and churches, and had very repressive policies... some even preventing people from sitting on their own porch. Obviously, it mattered a lot then, and it didn't just matter who was in the White House, which is why you should pay attention to local elections, because in many ways those officials have a lot more power over your daily life than anyone in Washington, D.C.

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev on Interracial Marriage

 

“…all mankind originated from a single root. All men are brothers not figuratively, but literally. Hence, all attempts to develop racist or nationalistic theories are utter foolishness. All nations came forth from the hand of the One Creator. All of them are under His care, and no one will escape from His Judgment. Hence, all attempts to introduce various prohibitions against interracial or international marriages or interaction are not pleasing to the Creator, except for the purpose of preventing joint rebellion against God (for example, modern globalization)” (Priest Daniel Sysoev, A Chronicle of  the Beginning: From the Creation of the World to the Exodus, (New Jersey: Daniel Sysoev Inc., 2023), P.  259).

Stump the Priest: "Indeed He is Risen!" or "Truly He is Risen!"?

 

Question: "Why do some Orthodox respond to "Christ is Risen!" with "Indeed He is Risen!" but others say, "Truly He is Risen!"? Which one is correct?"

Both responses are perfectly good translations of the responses in Greek and Slavonic. But "Truly He is Risen!" is most likely based on the Greek response, and "Indeed He is Risen!" is most likely based on the Slavonic.

The oldest English Orthodox text of the Paschal services that I have been able to find actually differs slightly from both. The Service book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, which was translated by. Isabel Hapgood, and was originally published in 1906, and then published in a corrected edition in 1922, uses the phrase: "He is risen indeed!"

In Greek, the response is Alithos Anesti! (Αληθώς Ανέστη!), and the most natural translation of the Greek word "Alithos" would be "Truly." However, in Slavonic the response is Voistinu Voskrese! (Воистину Воскрес!), and the word "Воистину" has the prefix, "Во" which means "in" followed by "истину" which means "truth." So you could translate it literally as "In Truth," but "Indeed" is probably a more elegant way to translate it. In any case, that is how Isabell Hapgood translated it, and although we did not keep her phrasing exactly, it probably influenced the form we now commonly use.

I hope someone writes a good book on the history of English translations of Orthodox liturgical texts, because you can see that usage has evolved. For example, Hapgood translated "Theotokos" as "Birth giver of God," which is a good literal translation, but most English speaking Orthodox today simply use "Theotokos," which has been in English usage as theological term since at least 1868. On the other hand, it is interesting that Hapgood's translation of the Paschal Troparion ("Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life") is what is most commonly used today. So over time, what seems to work best in English bubbles to the surface, and we settle on particular translations.

How James 2:18-24 Parallels Romans 3:27-4:22 According to James Dunn

Yesterday I participated in a discussion with one other Orthodox person and two Protestants on the question of Justification, and in particular, about whether the Scriptures teach the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide).

One point that I raised was the parallels between Romans 3:27-4:22 and James 2:18-24, according to  the Protestant Biblical commentator Dr. James D. G. Dunn, who as it turns out was a Wesleyan Biblical scholar, though I bought his commentary on Romans, I simply bought it because I knew many consider it to be the best Protestant commentary on Romans. Here is the chart that he included in his commentary, laying out the parallels, which he of course discussed in far greater detail:

                                                                 Romans           James

Issue posed in terms of faith and works  3:27-28            2:18

Significance of claiming “God is one”   3:29-30            2:19

Appeal to Abraham as test case              4:1-2                2:20-22

Citation of proof text – Gen 15:6           4:3                    2:20-22

Interpretation of Gen 15:6                      4:4-21              2:23

Conclusion                                              4:22                 2:24

 (James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8, vol. 38a (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), p. 197).

The fact that James 2 so closely and precisely parallels Romans 3 and 4 cannot be merely coincidental, and so what we have is St. James commenting on what St. Paul wrote -- not to contradict St. Paul, but to correct a misunderstanding of what St. Paul was saying. And so when St. James says "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), he is directly contradicting the notion that St. Paul taught justification by faith alone. He did teach that we are justified by faith, but not by faith alone. Rather, as he says in Galatians 5:6, true faith is faith that "works by love," or as St. James also says, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17).

What Dunn and many of the Fathers who comment on Romans point out is that St. Paul was not talking about "works" in general, as Protestants have generally taken it, but he is dealing with Jews (both those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and those who did not) as having a privileged position with God because of their adherence to the Law of Moses, and the ceremonial aspects of that Law in particular. His point in Romans 3 and 4 was that it is only on the basis of faith in what Christ did for us on the Cross that anyone is saved, and not on the basis of "the works of the law," which was the observance of the rules and rituals of the Mosaic covenant. He was not arguing that we are saved by "Faith alone," regardless of whether we are faithful to God's commandments, as they are properly understood in the light of the Gospel.

Texas Monthly Hit Piece on Russian Orthodoxy in Texas

Note: The article in question is so over the top that I considered not responding to it directly, but I think the people in my parish, and people who have been part of the parish in the past, or will become part of it in the future will need to understand what happened with this article, and what to make of it.

Sometime last year, Meagan Clark Saliashvili contacted me about whether I would agree to be interviewed for an article she was writing for Texas Monthly on the growth of Orthodoxy in Texas. Meagan is an independent reporter who is a convert to Orthodoxy, married to a Georgian man, and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. I was not unaware of the liberal bent to her past reporting, but I hoped since she was a recent convert that she would be honest and sincere, even though I had reasons to doubt she would be. However, I figured if she was going to write a hit piece, it probably wouldn't matter whether I spoke to her or not, and speaking to her might help. 

As it turned out, the article was not about the growth of Orthodoxy in Texas at all, but was in fact an extremely biased attempt to paint me, my parish, and other Orthodox Christians as racists, conspiracy theorists, and authoritarians. However, the fact that I did talk to her, and allowed her to visit my parish resulted in her putting in many details that contradicted much of what she was trying to accomplish. I am not sure if these things were included in the original version of the story or not, but I was contacted by a fact checker from Texas Monthly (a first from any news outlet I have ever interacted with) and pointed out to him a number of relevant facts that did in fact appear in the article as published. On the other hand, I did not anticipate how this would negatively impact some people in the parish, and that is my biggest regret about agreeing to this.

The extreme bias of the article did not take long to appear, however. The title of the article is itself one of the most ridiculous titles I have ever seen in my life: 

"Inspired by the Confederacy and Czarist Russia, “Ortho Bros” Are on the Rise: A Houston-area priest is part of a group of religious leaders and media figures who draw followers interested in conspiracy theories and authoritarian government."

Of the hundreds of inquirers I have encountered over the years, most of them would not have known what "Czarism" even was or how to pronounce the word when they first began coming to my parish. And discussing the Confederacy is something I don't bring in at all to my discussions about the Orthodox Faith with such inquirers. What I teach and preach is the Tradition of the Church, what it means to be an Orthodox Christian, and how to draw closer to God -- and that is what is in fact drawing people into the Church.

Apparently, to Meagan, thinking that the COVID lockdowns were a bad idea makes one a conspiracy theorist. But those she cites as authorities on Orthodoxy believe in conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Putin and Trump conspired to steal the 2016 election. And while Orthodox Christians are free to have their own views about how the government ought to be run, most of the people I encounter believe that the government we have right now is already too authoritarian... they are hardly begging for more. 

Why put all of that into the title? To make sure people who just read the titles know that Russian Orthodox Christians are scarry bad people.

Secondly, just look at the photo of me that they used for this article. My Church is a very well-lit Church. When this photo was taken, not only was the Church bright with natural light, the photographer had a lot of additional lights shining in my face. The fact that they made the picture so dark was clearly intended to communicate that this article was about something sinister.

The way words were used throughout the article were consistently designed to paint a negative picture of me and my parish. My parishioners don't walk into Church, they "shuffle" in. I don't wear vestments when serving; I wear a "cape." The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia did not reunite with the Church inside of Russia in 2007 because the issues that kept us apart were finally resolved; it was "at Russian president Vladimir Putin’s request." 

I lived through the time before, during, and after the reconciliation of the Russian Church in 2007, and it did not happen because Putin requested it. He had no pull over those outside of Russia. This was an issue that had been on the table for years, and it happened because the time for it to happen had come, and both sides wanted it to happen.

Somehow my sermon on the day that Meagan visited, which was about the slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians, and the Church's traditional understanding of itself as Israel in contrast to Protestant Dispensationalists who are cheering on the slaughter of Palestinians because of their bad theology, but which nevertheless called for us to not hate other people, was portrayed as if it were mere political commentary, to which my parishioners just nodded along to in some unthinking way. I would invite those who haven't heard that sermon to listen to it, and to judge for themselves.

Meagan suggested that I have people in my "orbit" that are "white supremacists." I have asked her to name them, because if she could point me to anyone who actually held such views, I would want to make sure that their bishop knew about it and dealt with them. But so far, she has named no one, but the smear remains.

She described my spiritual journey into Orthodoxy in ways that were dismissive. I would invite anyone interested in the facts to read my article on the subject: A Pilgrim’s Podvig.

I am quoted as saying: "I think the reason there’s been this big influx since the lockdowns is a lot of people have a sense that things are going in a very bad direction quickly, and they’re trying to grab on to something firm." But then Meagan editorializes, and writes "For Whiteford, that something firm is often certain aspects of traditional Southern culture."

This is not at all true. That something firm is the Orthodox Faith. Anyone who has read what I have written and heard what I have said would know that this is what I was referring to, but instead Meagan has to distort what I was saying so she can shift the focus to what she wants to talk about and further distort things.

She writes:

"During a recent talk in North Carolina, he spoke of the spiritual benefits of agrarianism and asserted that the legacy of the Confederacy has been misconstrued—he believes the Civil War wasn’t primarily fought over slavery. “Bad things happened, and we should never defend those things,” he noted. “But it would be the height of ingratitude for me to throw my ancestors under the bus, particularly when I don’t have any reason to believe that they did anything that they understood to be wrong, at least not in a grossly immoral way.”

The talk that I gave was entitled "Southern Agrarianism and Moldova." I think Meagan thinks that "agrarianism" has something to do with the Confederacy or white supremacy, but it doesn't -- it's a much broader concept. When the Texas Monthly Fact checker called me, he asked me about this, and I pointed out that Southern Agrarian writers came to prominence in the 1920's and 30's, but that the best known contemporary Southern Agrarian writer is Wendell Berry, who is often thought of as an environmentalist. Perhaps the article would have been even more distorted if I had not pointed this out, but that still seems to be her underlying assumption. In that talk, I mentioned the Confederacy only once, while talking about the racial diversity in the South, when I pointed out that the last Confederate general to surrender was Stand Watie, the chief of the Cherokee Nation. But as the title of the talk suggests, the focus of the talk was to discuss the lessons we could learn from Moldova, which is an Orthodox country with a largely agrarian culture. I would suggest that those who would like to listen to my talk, listen to it in its entirety.

But when Meagan says that I "asserted that the legacy of the Confederacy has been misconstrued—he believes the Civil War wasn’t primarily fought over slavery. “Bad things happened, and we should never defend those things,” he noted. “But it would be the height of ingratitude for me to throw my ancestors under the bus, particularly when I don’t have any reason to believe that they did anything that they understood to be wrong, at least not in a grossly immoral way," she is again misrepresenting what I said. Fortunately, the comments she is alluding to were from the question-and-answer period, and you can listen to what I actually said in context here:

You can listen to another comment from the question-and-answer period that was along similar lines, by clicking here.

I don't think that the Civil War was fought for the purpose of abolishing slavery, and I say that for historical reasons that I have laid out before. If I am wrong on the facts I point to, I would be happy to have someone correct me and provide me with the evidence to the contrary, but there are many historians who have reached the same conclusions I have. And yes, I don't support destroying historical monuments and artifacts, because that is what Bolsheviks do -- not people who care about history. No one has to agree with me. My position on this is not a matter of Orthodox Dogma, to be sure. I don't hate anyone because they come to other conclusions on the matter. I believe in being tolerant of other people's opinions. 

Further on, Meagan wrote:

"It’s difficult to determine how many of St. Jonah’s congregants are in accord with Whiteford’s ideology and how many are devoted to the church for more traditional reasons. But it was clear that fringe ideas, including conspiracy theories, are welcome, from anti-vax stances to prepping for apocalyptic scenarios."

What is odd about this is that Meagan has not provided any evidence that I have an ideology, much less that I have imposed it on anyone else, nor has she described what that ideology might be. I would be very interested to learn what that ideology is supposed to be, because I believe ideological thinking of any sort is wrong in principle, and is contrary to a Traditional Christian Mindset. People in my parish hold a wide variety of views on a great many topics, and I don't tell them what they can or cannot think as long as they don't advocate for something contrary to the teachings of the Church. I have people who are very conservative, but I also have people who are politically on the left. Again, I believe in being tolerant of other people.

The article suggested that I somehow support the establishment of a monarchy in the United States. I have never suggested any such thing, as you can see from this answer I gave to a question on the subject: Why Monarchy Won't Work in America.

Meagan made mention of an "anonymous Reddit user who in 2020 posted a call to burn down the “misogynistic xenophobic homophobic St Jonah Russian Orthodox Church.” (Nothing seems to have come of the threat, which Whiteford speculates may have been planted by the FBI.)" 

She makes it sound like this terrorist threat against my Church was no big deal. But let me quote from a review I did of Sarah Riccardi-Swarz's book which tried to portray members of ROCOR as being Putin's fifth column in the United States:

"In June of 2020, my parish had a serious terroristic threat from someone who referred to our parish as "St. Jonah Russian Orthodox Church," despite the fact that we never use "Russian" in the name of our parish, though we make no secret about being part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. When that happened, I called the FBI, as well as the local Constables office. The local authorities were very responsive, but the FBI never called me back. I mentioned what had happened to a Protestant minister I know who is fairly well connected. He contacted our Lt. Governor, and he called the FBI. Only then did I get a call back, but in the end, they did almost nothing to track down the person who had made these threats, though he had an online profile that should not have been hard to track down, and he was certainly living in this area. This year, on Old Calendar Annunciation, I finally received a visit from an FBI agent (nearly two years later), who began by mentioning what had happened in 2020, and who said that they just wanted to make sure everything was OK, given tensions around the war in Ukraine. He asked if I would agree to talk to him, and I did. His line of questioning had almost nothing to do with the safety and security of my parish. It was all about what contacts I may have had with the Russian Consulate in Houston, whether the Russian government had any influence over my Church, and things of that nature. Recent history has shown that you don't have to actually be guilty of anything for the FBI to put you in jail. So obviously, this attention is unwelcome, though it would have been nice if they had been more interested in my parish in June of 2020. 

I have speculated that perhaps the guy who made this threat was an FBI asset that was trolling to see who would respond to his call to burn my Church down. I entertain that possibility only because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the FBI to have tracked this guy down, had they any inclination to do so, but they didn't, and so the question is why didn't they? I don't claim to know the truth about what happened, I only know that it is very odd as it is.

Then Meagan talks about a specific family in my parish and introduces that paragraph with "Not everyone who comes to Whiteford’s church is looking to get involved in political or ideological battles." I was told by the family that spent about three hours talking with her, they talked about homesteading and homeschooling, and the Faith, but that Meagan kept trying to get them to talk about politics. They told her that they don't come to Church to talk politics, but it was Meagan who kept bringing the subject up in the first place.

The fact is no one has come to my parish looking to get involved in political or ideological battles, except perhaps Meagan herself, but the way she words this suggests that this family is exceptional. They are not exceptional in why they have come to my parish, nor in why they have stayed.

It is a shame that a person who ostensibly is an Orthodox Christian, and who assured me that she was doing an article to talk about the growth of Orthodoxy in Texas decided to instead use the occasion to attack people she doesn't agree with. 

The day after this article was posted people in my parish were contacted by a scammer claiming to be me, who was wanting to get access to our parish directory. We don't know what this person's intentions are, but we can reasonably assume that the intentions are not good. When you vilify Russian Orthodox Christians, and paint them as Putin stooges, who are somehow associated with white supremacists despite wanting to establish a Spanish speaking parish, co-authoring statements against racism and preaching sermons about how we can't hate people, unhinged people might decide to do something that results in real people getting hurt. I hope that people like Meagan will keep their responsibility for that kind of reaction in mind in the future.