Author: orthodoxaustralia

Dear Father Demetrios,

CHRIST IS IN OUR MIDST!

Just a note to ask you to return the display about our monastery and missions, if you haven’t already sent it back to Etna. We haven’t even seen it ourselves, so please send it here.

I’m sorry you have to return so many of our books, but even more sorry to see the prejudice against them in that part of the country. Even the Russian Conference in San Francisco bought many times more than that, because they haven’t been told that we are “apostates,” “betrayers,” and all the rest. Fr. Panteleimon must be behind it, since he has told us not to send any more books of any kind to the monastery and has canceled The Orthodox Word (besides demanding that we pay for Psalters, incense and everything else—save for a few supplies—that he use to give so abundantly).

Can’t you and some like-minded priests do anything about this drying up of Christian love? The latest scandal over Elder Tavrion is a disgrace—the hate campaign in the Greek parishes (even extending to some of our innocent Russian ladies in Portland, who are supposed to sign ready-made letters against us!) simply cannot be reconciled with any kind of Orthodoxy. Fortunately, our bishops have again come out with an appropriate statement that sets things straight, and it is significant that, besides warning clergy and laymen who uncharitably judge their own Metropolitan, they warn over the danger of a “schism” if this “know-better” mentality continues.

I have no hope whatever that our Greek clergy will take this warning to heart; they seem determined to push our whole Church into the soulless, heartless, pharisaical dead-end into which they have already pushed themselves. Undoubtedly they are calculating that priests like you will unthinkingly follow them into schism, leaving only a lot of “stupid Russians” in the Synod.

Can’t you and other priests like you who still have not been totally alienated by the Greeks, speak up before the fatal step is made? Tell them they have to humble themselves, cease thinking they know so much more than the whole of Church tradition, start being truly obedient to bishops and the church authority, and cease their Gestapo-GPU tactics against sincere priests and bishops who may happen to disagree with their party line. Judging from this last outburst, the schism is close, and I’m afraid the “silent majority” of our priests and laymen will only heave a sigh of relief when the troublemakers are gone—leaving behind them a bad harvest of ill will, and continuing their name-calling and hatred in a louder tone from their new “jurisdiction.”

May God preserve us from all of this! Please forgive my frankness, but I feel the time is very late, and anyone who can do anything had better do it now. I know God will continue to preserve His Church and I believe He will prosper the true Orthodox mission which is just beginning in our Church; the 150-200 souls who attended our pilgrimage and courses this year are eager to learn more, and not at all caught up in the artificial fanaticism that the Greeks propagate. But the tragedy of souls caught in a self-willed schism will be incalculable.

Please pray for us, as we do for you with love. May God grant true love and peace to His much-suffering Church, both here and in the atheist lands!

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Photios,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

I have heard from several people who were present at the recent Orthodox conference in Pennsylvania that you are planning to print a book by Dr. Kalomiros on creation and evolution. From one of these persons I heard that this book is to include excerpts from my correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros on these subjects in 1973. On the chance that this rumor might be true, please let me tell you the following:

This correspondence was strictly a private one between Dr. Kalomiros and myself. I specifically asked him not to send copies of it to anyone, so that we might work out our seeming differences on this subject and come to some fruitful agreement about it—something which simply cannot be done if outsiders are reading it, spreading rumors about a “dispute,” and in general putting this subject into the gossip route. I was very sad to find out at that time that, despite my plea, he had indeed sent out copies, and “xeroxes of xeroxes” were being read by a number of people who were interested in it precisely as a “dispute.” I was further saddened by the fact that Dr. Kalomiros, despite my several pleas to him to do so, has absolutely refused to have any contact with me since that time, evidently regarding my letter (which was quite frank and outspoken, and was intended for his eyes alone) as some kind of “insult” to him. I myself benefitted from the correspondence, changed several of my own opinions, and believed at that time that if only we could have continued the correspondence then we might have come up with something worth giving to the larger Orthodox reading public.

Given these circumstances, I think you can understand why I am absolutely opposed to the publication of any part of my correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros on this subject. I can only see it as an attempt to cause more dispute among Orthodox Christians and to sow discord among the small flock of Christ. There is enough of that already without adding more fuel to the fire. If Dr. Kalomiros wishes to publish something on this subject, let him do so in a spirit of peace, and with no reference to the disagreements which I once had with him on the subject. For my part, all I can do is categorically forbid any quotation from my letter. And if I am to be referred to in any way in this proposed book (since this would undoubtedly be for a disputatious purpose), I would ask you to send me a copy of the material for approval before publication, so that there will not be another of those senseless disputes that are dividing our flocks.

If all this is a groundless rumor, of course, please disregard this letter. My only concern is to avoid an unnecessary public “fight” between members of one and the same Orthodox Church. In essence these questions can be discussed without any “fight,” calmly and with respect for differing opinions; but the correspondence between Dr. Kalomiros and myself contains expressions (on both sides) that can too easily be interpreted as a “fight” by outsiders. This is why I wished, and still wish, it to be a private matter.

Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Gregory,

Christ is in our midst!

Many thanks for your letter. We have heard from several others also of the “party” spirit at the Pennsylvania conference, which is sad but is now what we have come to expect. We plan no public disputes over anything, and I pray that God will keep us out of being dragged into any; there will be no peace in the Church until we are all able to stand a little above the issues of the day and have a little tolerance for differing opinions. Easier said than done! Just now we hear of the big outcry our Greeks have raised against our article on Elder Tavrion, the “final straw” being that the Metropolitan himself sent and endorsed it for publication. Father George Macris in Portland is trying to force our old Russian parishioners there (who attend his English services when we can’t come for a Slavonic service) to write letters of protest to the Metropolitan, and the poor old ladies don’t understand what it’s all about! What a narrow strait-jacket of logic they want to force us into, and how little it suits the real needs of the Orthodox mission today! We plan no answer tjo this outcry, but presume the bishops will sooner or later have to make a statement that we do not regard the Moscow and other Churches as “without grace,” even if it might cause the schism of our Greeks. We plan nothing further on Blessed Augustine either, apart from re-issuance of our earlier articles on him; those who hate him do so for personal reasons and won’t be convinced by anything we could say.

We had a very successful Pilgrimage here, with many more pilgrims than expected (150 the first day, and nearly 200 people altogether during the week). There were no “super-correct” zealots noticeable, no protests against the frequent mention of suffering believers in Russia (including a talk on a courageous priest [Fr. George Calciu] of the Romanian Patriarchate)—just normal people awaking to the need for a deeper Orthodoxy (or to the need for Orthodoxy at all—there were several converts made during the Pilgrimage, and two baptisms of older converts). I think there are big things just beginning to happen in the soul of America (parallel to the awakening in Russia), and we should be there to guide all those we can into Orthodoxy. There is also a beginning of awakening in Orthodox of other jurisdictions through contact with our Church, and this should certainly be encouraged by not pushing them away with statements that they have no grace, etc. In view of all this, our Greeks are just not “where it’s at”—they’re fighting windmills with their jesuitical logic and justifying their own “purity,” while what is needed is loving and aware hearts to help the suffering and searching and bring them to Christ.

Why don’t you come out for next year’s Pilgrimage? I think it will expand your horizons about the missionary field.

We haven’t heard from David Pirkle. I would be interested to hear how he was confused by the Pennsylvania conference, since we occasionally have to encounter such cases.

I’m sorry to hear of your experience with Arsenius; things like that can be humbling! But God is stronger than our weakness! I hope you aren’t being tempted to move to the big city—? Stay where you are, and you will see it bear fruit.

Many thanks for The Sacramental Life. I read it and liked it, with only two questions: As far as I know, our Russian Church has never heard of the “re-chrismation” the Greeks practice (probably picked up by them under the Turkish Yoke), and I wonder if it might not become a temptation for our “super-correct” ones. Also, on p. 72, I wonder if the phrase “even in some sense of becoming God” might not better read: “even in some sense of becoming divine.” Could you send us 20 copies against a supply of something you need? (Our money situation right now is probably as bad as yours; we are still many thousands short of what we need to print Dogmatic Theology, but are starting anyway.)

May God preserve you strong in your trials, and thanking Him for them. Please pray for us all. My greetings to Matushka and the children.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

our Grace, dear Vladika Gregory,

Blagoslovite!

We have heard from several sources that the Greek clergy in our Church are making a rather loud protest against our recent articles on Archimandrite Tavrion (The Orthodox Word #96). The main article was sent us by Metropolitan Philaret specifically for publication, and we printed also his short letter which stated this fact. We thought that the Metropolitans statement would prevent any adverse comment and would cause our Greek clergy to begin to rethink their own fanatical position with regard to the church situation in Russia.

Unfortunately, the result was something quite different, and the past two issues of Orthodox Christian Witness have contained articles by Father Michael Azkoul and by Holy Transfiguration Monastery which not only make statements very disrespectful towards the Metropolitans statement, but also set forth an ecclesiology which I believe is totally foreign to our Russian Church Outside of Russia: that the Orthodox Churches of Moscow and Constantinople (and presumably all the other Local Orthodox Churches, which are in communion with them) are without grace, that their “bishops are no bishops,” etc.

These are statements of such a serious kind that if they are allowed to go uncorrected they will create the strong impression that our Church has indeed become what our enemies would like to think it is: a sect.

Our Greeks would very much like everyone to think that all the converts and non-Russians in our Church, and many of the Russians also, share their fanatical views. We have just heard from one of our parishioners in the Portland area (where someone from our monastery goes occasionally to serve the Liturgy in Slavonic) that Father George Macris is insisting that the Russians there (who attend the English-language parish when there is no Slavonic service) write or sign letters of protest to ^ the Metropolitan against our articles; this has caused much confusion among the Russians, who cannot understand what this is all about.

We ourselves have received only two letters of protest against our issue #96, both of them from persons thoroughly under the influence of our Greeks; all other responses have been favorable— in fact, those who have responded have found the image of Father Tavrion to be a very inspiring one. I am enclosing my reply to Dr. John Johnstone concerning his letter of protest to the Metropolitan, which perhaps you have seen.

I think I mentioned once before in a letter to you that the “silent majority” of the members of our Church, both clergy and laymen, both Russians and converts—does not follow the fanatical party-line of our Greeks. We (and very many with us) certainly hope that the loudness of the outcry of our Greeks will not cause any statement on the part of our Church leadership that could be interpreted as favorable in any way to the cause of fanaticism such as our Greeks are now preaching so loudly. Our Russian Church Outside of Russia can continue to be a beacon-light to the other Orthodox Churchs—but it will not be so if we become a sect such as our Greeks would make us out to be (and a sect which would only be warring with other small “sects” in Greece—for our Greeks have no oneness at all with the Old Calendar movement in Greece).

Please forgive my boldness in speaking so frankly. I have done so knowing that the non-fanatics in our Church (the vast majority, I am sure) are not organized and do not think it their business to make loud (and sometimes coerced) statements in the manner of our Greeks.

Asking your prayers and blessing,

With love and respect in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. We recently concluded a very successful week of lectures and courses in our summer St. Herman Pilgrimage. About 150 people attended the first day, and nearly 200 were present at some time during the week (most of them converts). We noted that in virtually none of them was there the “super-correct,” “know-it-all” attitude which is promoted by our Greeks; all, on the contrary, were eager to learn and most respectful of the authority of our bishops, two of whom (Bishops Alypy and Lauras) were present at some time.

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Blagoslovite!

First of all, Father Herman and all the brethren send you heartfelt congratulations on your namesday. Spasi, Christe Bozhe! Thank you very much also for your recent visit to us, which was very much appreciated by our pilgrims. Our pilgrimage seems to have been a great success, with much interest aroused in gaining a deeper knowledge of Orthodoxy.

This past Saturday and Sunday we were visited by Basil Voytan and his parents and had a long discussion with them over his future. He does not want to do anything else but prepare himself for service in the Church, but he is also very much afraid of the depression which came over, him last year in Jordanville (and lasted for months), based upon idleness, inability to apply what he reads in spiritual books to the reality of his life, etc. He is presently in a “bored” state, and without close supervision he is afraid (and we agree) that he will lose all interest in serving the Church.

Therefore, we informed him of what you had told us about the correspondence courses that will soon be set up, and of the possibility of receiving a Jordanville degree without being present at the seminary for all five years of courses. We proposed (in the presence of his parents) that he spend the next school year here with us doing all the Jordanville course work he can do, under our guidance. After praying and receiving Holy communion the next day, he accepted this proposal and is preparing to come here in a few weeks.

With your blessing, we would like to give him as much of the second and third year course materials as he can handle (this will depend on his facility in Russian, which we haven’t tested yet). We have the list of books for the third-year course; is there a similar list for the second year? If you approve of this plan, what would be required to do for him to be enrolled in the seminary?—write papers, take examinations, etc.?

From what we know of him over the past several years, Basil seems to be a highly gifted and motivated boy who could easily perform the necessary work; and under close supervision we believe his emotional problem (which seems to be bound up with immaturity) can also be handled.

Please let us know your opinion of all this, so that we will know what to give him when he comes. We plan to give him a strict regime, with certain hours every day for study, and personal help as needed.

Asking your holy prayers,

With love and respect in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. We hear that our Greeks have risen up in protest against our article on Elder Tavrion, and that the Synod is going to discuss it. I hope the bishops will have in mind that those who are protesting are doing so because they think, as Father Michael Azkoul wrote in the Orthodox Christian Witness of August 10/23, that “heresy has negated these ancient Sees. There is no ‘church,’ hence no Mysteries” in the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople. I think our Greeks must be about to leave us because of our “apostasy”!

Dear Dr. Johnstone.

May the blessing of the Lord by with you!

Thank you for your letter of August 10/23 and the copy of your letter to Metropolitan Philaret. We do appreciate your sending it.

I am sad to hear that you find The Orthodox Word, no. 96 so greatly disturbing. I honestly think the content of the issue does not warrant such a strong reaction. The real issue involved is surely no more than the propriety of presenting as an Orthodox model a priest who was, after all, a member of the Soviet Church, with which we have no communion (and with which, as our issue 96 states quite clearly, we should have no communion).

Articles on Archimandrite Tavrion, Fr. Dimitry Dudko, and other courageous priests of the Soviet Church have appeared for several years in the Russian-language church periodicals published in Jordanville, and there has been on outcry in our Church; it is generally understood that this is a matter of personal choice, and those who would prefer to keep the “strict line” and not even mention such priests have not shown any particular disturbance when others (such as ourselves) have considered the words and actions of these priests as having a posidve value for us in the West. Our readers, judging from our mail, have generally agreed with us in this. The reason there has been no outcry, I think, is quite simply because our disagreement over the small question of propriety is outweighed by our much greater agreement on the nature of the Church, the stand of our Russian Church Outside of Russia, etc.

The outcry and the disturbance come, rather, from converts to our Church like yourself who, it would seem, find their disagreement to be much deeper. This disagreement may be seen in some of the value judgments you make in your letter to the Metropolitan: a bishop in the Soviet Church is a “pseudo-bishop,” “Soviet bishops are no bishops.” Your disagreement with us, therefore, is a deep one over ecclesiology; evidently you agree with Fr. Michael Azkoul who recently stated (Orthodox Christian Witness, Aug, 10/23) that “heresy has negated these ancient Sees. There is no ‘church,’ hence no Mysteries” in the Churches of Moscow and Constantinople.

I hope you are aware that our Russian Church Outside of Russia has never taught and does not now teach this; this is an opinion which has been introduced into our midst by some converts who think themselves wiser than our bishops. I am sorry that you seem not to see the obvious meaning of our Church’s not having communion with the Soviet Church: that way we stay free of politics and do not bind ourselves to bishops who are not free and who are often forced to betray the truth. But to state that this Church has no grace is a presumption our bishops have never dared to make. This view, in my opinion, is not at all the result of a sound or strict ecclesiology, but is the result of a too-strict logic (a typical disease of our Western mentality) being applied where it does not fit. I do think that the comfortableness of our Western life (in particular, the absence of the agonizing choices that sometimes present themselves to clergy in Russia) only helps one to be “strictly logical” without seeing the whole context of church life in Soviet Russia. I believe the statement on the church situation in the “Catacomb Epistle” printed in our same issue no. 96 says nicely what needs to be said on this subject, and I would encourage you to study it more closely, without hastening to think that it contradicts itself; it sets forth the very position of our Russian Church Abroad: no communion with the Soviet Patriarchate, but no statement about “lack of grace,” and compassion for those who have no other source of church life. This is surely the position of our Metropolitan Philaret, who in sending us the material on Archimandrite Tavrion for publication was not in the least inconsistent with his strict stand against the Soviet bishops.

Can’t we agree on this much and let our disagreements be over small points? If not, I fear the schism that is brewing in our midst on the part of those who really think they “know better” than our bishops. I can already see in Fr. Michael’s sermon in Orthodox Christian Witness the beginnings of exaggerations which can serve to accelerate a schism: certainly none of us who admire Fr. Tavrion think that he attempted, or that one can, “join the Moscow church in order to save it”; we have no “enthusiasm for the Moscow church” (I regard that as simple slander); we are not engaging in any kind of “muddled thinking,” “twaddle,” or “sophistry”—but the use of such language certainly shows that he is not well disposed to understand the position of Metropolitan Philaret and the rest of us.

I pray that, since you are so interested in this question, you will not be satisfied with a superficial answer, and will not press “logical deductions” that take the place of real ecclesiology, but will study the question more deeply in the statements of our Russian bishops (both of the Catacomb Church and the Russian Church Abroad—see, for example, our bishops’ statements in The Orthodox Word, 1976, no. 5, pp. 160-166). I think you will find that the position of our bishops has not changed at all; rather, what has been uncovered is that you (and those who think like you) were not of one mind with our bishops in the past, and you are only now finding this out. I pray that you will find that you can be of one mind with our bishops; their attitude is really just about the only sound one in the Orthodox world today, even if it is not always easy to “define” it to our very Western, modern minds.

Please forgive me if anything I have said here has in any way offended you; I have certainly not intended to do so, and hope that there will be continued peace between us all in the Russian Church Abroad. Please pray for us all.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul],

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter. I am frankly happy to see someone with your views on Blessed Augustine willing to do something besides hit him (and all of us who have any respect for him) over the head.

You ask for cooperation on what seems to be a “thorough study” of Bl. Augustine. I really wonder about the value of such a study—for someone who wishes to expose the source of “Western influence” in Orthodox theology, this detailed analysis itself seems so terribly Western!

If your attempt is to find our Augustine’s real place in the Orthodox Church, I think your approach is all wrong. It assumes that “we moderns” are the ones who can do this—that we can “know better” than anyone in the Orthodox past. I don’t think so. I have a deep distrust of all of us who are writing on theological subjects today—we are more under “Western influence” than anyone before, and the less we are aware of it, the more obnoxious our “Westernism” becomes. Our whole cold, academic, and often disdainfiil approach to theology is so remote from the Fathers, so foreign to them. Let us admit this and try not to be so presumptuous (I speak for myself also).

I have no time (and probably not the sources) to find out how much St. Photios.or St. Mark read of Bl. Augustine. I would suspect that St. Photios had read rather little apart from the texts under dispute, and St. Mark probably more (in fact, St. Mark can probably be shown to be under Augustine’s “influence” in some way if you search hard enough!—his disciple Gennadius, after all, was the translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek). Undoubtedly their respect for Augustine was based on the general respect for him in the Church, especially in the West from the very beginning.

And this brings up the only real question I think you might fruitfully research: what did the Western Church think of Blessed Augustine in the centuries when it was Orthodox? The West knew him as one of their own Fathers; it knew his writings well, including the disputes over them. What did the Western Fathers who were linked with the East think of him? We know St. Cassian’s opinion—he challenged (politely) Augustine’s teaching on grace while accepting his authority on other questions. St. Vincent of Lerins’ argument is more with the immoderate followers of Augustine. In neither case was there talk of “heresy,” or of someone who was totally un-Orthodox. St. Faustus of Lerins—if anyone, he should be an enemy of Augustine, but the evidence seems to the contrary. St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Gregory the Great—admirers of Augustine, while not following his exaggerations on grace. I don’t mention some of the enthusiastic followers of Augustine.

There is room for research here in Latin sources, but no research can overthrow the obvious fact (it seems to me)—the Orthodox West accepted him as a Father. If he’s really a “heretic,” then doesn’t the whole West go down the drain with him? I’m sure you can find enough signs of “Western mentality” in Gregory the Great, for example, to disqualify him as a Father and Saint in the eyes of many of today’s Orthodox scholars—he also is accepted in the East on the basis of his general reputation in the West, and on the basis of his Dialogues (which I’m sure a few would now question as having a right to be called an Orthodox book).

I think the “heresy hunt” over Augustine reveals at least two major faults in todays Orthodox scholars who are pursuing it:

1. A profound insecurity over their own Orthodoxy, born of the uncertainties of our times, the betrayal of ecumenism, and their own purely Western education. Here Augustine is a “scapegoat”—hit him hard enough and it proves how Orthodox you yourself really are!

2. An incipient sectarian consciousness—in attacking Augustine so bitterly, one not only attacks the whole Orthodox West of the early centuries, but also a great many Orthodox thinkers of recent centuries and today. I could name you bishops in our Church who think like Augustine on a number of points—are they, then, “heretics” too? I think some of our anti-Augustinians are coming close to this conclusion, and thus close to schism and the formation of an “Orthodox” sect that prides itself on the correctness of its intellectual views. A number of people have already left our Russian Church Abroad for the Mathewites after being infected with this consciousness (not just over the issue of Augustine—the Mathewites are more pro-Augustine than anyone in our Church—but over the whole idea of “intellectual correctness” as an ideal).

I myself am no great admirer of Augustine’s doctrines. He does indeed have that Western “super-logicalness” which the Eastern Fathers don’t have (the same “super-logicalness” which the critics of Augustine today display so abundantly!). The one main lovable and Orthodox thing about him is his Orthodox feeling, piety, love for Christ, which comes out so strongly in his non-dogmatic works like the Confessions (the Russian Fathers also love the Soliloquies). To destroy Augustine, as today’s critics are trying to do, is to help destroy also this piety and love for Christ—these are too “simple” for today’s intellectuals (even though they also claim to be “pious” in their own way). Today it is Augustine; tomorrow (and it’s already begun) the attack will be on the “simple” bishops and priests of our Church. The anti-Augustine movement is a step towards schism and further disorders in the Orthodox Church.

Let us assume that one’s exegesis of Romans 5:12 is incorrect; that one believes like Augustine on the transmission of original sin; that one knows little of the difference between the “transcendent” and the “economic” Trinity and sometimes confuses them. Can’t one still be Orthodox? Does one have to shout so loudly one’s “correctness” on such matters, and one’s disdain (and this disdain is strongly felt!) for those who believe thus? In the history of the Church, opinions such as these which disagree with the consensus of the Church have not been a cause for heresy hunts. Recognizing our fallible human nature, the Fathers of the past have kept the best Orthodox views and left in silence such private views which have not tried to proclaim themselves the only Orthodox views.

I myself fear the cold hearts of the “intellectually correct” much more than any errors you might find in Augustine. I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to “correct theology”!); I feel in Augustine the love of Christ.

Forgive me for my frankness, but I think you probably welcome it. I have spoken from the heart, and I hope you will not pass this letter around so it can be put in various “files” and picked apart for its undoubted shortcomings.

May God preserve us all in His grace! Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. An important point I didn’t specify in the letter above—the extreme criticism of Augustine show such a lack of trust in the Orthodox Fathers and bishops of the past who accepted him as a Father (including the whole Orthodox West before the Schism). This lack of trust is a symptom of the coldness of heart of our times.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Brother in Christ, George,

IN TRUTH HE IS RISEN!

Enclosed is the first copy of “The Light of Orthodoxy” which you sent us. I looked through it and have pointed out in pencil in the text two or three places which I thought might cause you some trouble. However, I simply have no time (and Father Herman has less) to really “censor” the whole text, let alone all the issues you will be putting out.

We really can’t think of anyone who might have the time and opportunity to serve as your advisor in this project. However, even such an advisor will be no guarantee that you won’t get into trouble by publishing something unfitting. The recent publications scandal to which you refer was caused not by failure to consult with others (his advisors apparently share his errors), but by the extremely arrogant and pompous tone with which he tried to instruct others, even those who are much more rooted in Orthodoxy than he. In glancing through your publication I did not notice such a tone, and I doubt that you would cause much controversy, save perhaps in the points I have noted in the text.

In general I would have only one word of advice for you: be very humble in your confession of Orthodoxy, and avoid “dogmatizing” on points that might be controversial among Orthodox Christians.

May God be your help in your efforts.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Vanya [Danz, John D’Anci?],

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

To be frank, it was a great relief for us to receive your two letters and hear that you had left the monastery in Boston, despite the difficult spiritual experience this may be for you. Just a few days before receiving your first letter I was expressing regret that I had helped get you into that situation, and if I were able to get a message through to you it would be: leave that monastery.

I say this not because of our “political” differences with Fr. Panteleimon and his ‘monks—that is a secondary matter (but it is, of course, serious enough, since it is probably going to cause them to leave our Church). But Misha’s letter to Fr. Herman was so spiritually wrong (for its presumption, criticism, “knowing better,” “being spiritual while looking in a mirror,” etc.) that we have finally been forced to a sad conclusion: there is something wrong with Fr. Panteleimon himself (it must be him, because all the letters from there breathe the same spirit, as if written by the same person—even though some of the writers we know personally to be not like that at all). We were afraid that out of simplicity and trust you would be molded by this atmosphere and end up sounding the same way.

Our acquaintance with Fr. Panteleimon and some of his monks (and some who have left him) has given us food for some sobering thoughts about Orthodox monasticism in the American atmosphere. I think one general conclusion is this: the idea of “super-strictness” in monastic training is really not workable in our times; it produces too much fakery and posing. It is much better to emphasize simple faith and love and the basic Christian virtues, and work on the monastic life a little at a time, even though this is accompanied by a certain looseness in discipline. This is basically what Jordanville is about, although it is not much emphasized or talked about there, which results in the fact that many there seem to be unaware of it and don’t work much on it.

Fr. Gregory of Denver spent two days with us last year, enough to see his spiritual profile and warn you: STAY AWAY FROM HIM! He has disagreements with Fr. Panteleimon, but he has been completely formed by him, and there’s something wrong: super-strictness without the loving flexibility our Russian monks have, even without a strict monastic “training.”

Don’t give up on monasticism. You stuck it out a year in Boston, and that was a valuable experience in spite of the problems. Don’t be in a rush to decide, but see how you like the life in Jordanville. If you’re able to fit in all right, then probably you should stay there (if only to avoid the temptation to “run” again). If not, you’re welcome to come to us (we’d love to have you)—but if you do, it should be with the resolve to spend a year here and then see what the next step might be. We have a little “monastic corpus” now with three cells, away from the main monastery buildings (where our younger boys and short-term residents stay). Our two ryassophore monks are living now in this “corpus,” but one of them will be leaving soon: Fr. Peter from Jordanville came last Pascha to spend a year, and he’s decided to return (he’s a little too “smart” for our conditions and he thinks we’re really not “monastic” enough for him). If you stay in Jordanville, Fr. Hilarion will cause you the fewest complications as a spiritual father, and Fr. Theodosius (a simply monk who teaches in the seminary) is a sober person to talk to.

Pray for us, and let us know how you are. Please remember us especially at Pascha, as we will remember you. God is with us!

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Alexey,

Christ is in our midst!

I’ve had a bad cold this week and have kept to my cell, and therefore have had time for a few reflections on our mission, church life, etc.

First of all, I’ve looked at some of the recent Orthodox periodicals—and on the whole, what a dreary collection of texts. There is very little life anywhere, and so much emphasis on externals, bishops, splendid services, etc. The OCA’s Orthodox Church, it is true, talks a lot about mission, stewardship, responsibility, etc., and I began to wonder why I didn’t like it (maybe I’m just prejudiced or jealous?). But then I looked at the latest Orthodox America—and what a difference! Every page has something for the soul, something to learn and be inspired by; but the Orth. Church only talks about things that might be inspiring (if they were genuine), while giving nothing whatever for the soul. It’s like a two-dimensional facade with nothing at all behind it.

Therefore, not to be proud, but to see things the way they are—what you and we all are trying to do is extremely important in the real missionary sense, no matter how little support some may give it.

I say this having also in mind Fr. Panagiotes’ letter. Perhaps it is uncharitable of me, but my first thought on hearing of it was: if they wish to think that way, I would rather have them as enemies than as “friends” who speak well but are ready to stab you in the back. The whole course of the last years’ events with our Greeks has been positive, I think, in that it has brought concealed attitudes to light and removed the sugary “friendship” which is so frustrating. Recently Fr. Isaac wrote from Boston that we send them “too many” Orthodox Words—five is plenty, and they sent back most of the Calendars we sent them. The year before Fr. Ephraim had already said they didn’t need any of our books (although we sent some since then to individual monks), and now they can give us Psalters and Ladders only with 20% discount. The message is clear: They have their view of Orthodoxy and don’t want anything to do with ours.

But they, it is now obvious, are a small minority. Our subscriptions constantly increase, and almost no one has cancelled over our “controversial” articles. (One person in Boston threatened to do so over our seeming “attacks” on Boston, but after my letter did renew.) Most people in the Church who read English publications are either with us or at least are not against us; only a small, narrow group is opposed. We’ll just have to leave this group to itself and speak to everyone else. We have already broken the ice on “forbidden” topics, and should continue to pay no heed to what the Greeks think about the Shroud, evolution, etc. Public opinion in our Church was almost paralyzed for a while by these “forbidden” subjects, but I think if we lead the way the air will be made healthier for everyone.

Thinking about my Genesis course this summer, I was rereading part of Dr. Kalomiros’ letters. How discouraging! One loses all inspiration to get tangled up in this subject, seeing how he handles it. And really, the tone is just like Deacon Lev’s. I wondered why, and Fr. Herman answered me: They’re trying to keep up with the “advanced” fashions of the universities; and I think that’s probably the answer. Especially Kalomiros’ repeated insistence (Deacon Lev says the same thing) over how many have “lost their souls” because of literal interpretations of Genesis—that is, we have to give them Genesis on their level, changing the truth if need be so as not to offend them or give them more than they can chew. But anyone who is really converted to Christianity will surely begin to rethink this whole intellectual outlook, won’t he? Isn’t the real problem that Dr. Kalomiros, Deacon Lev, and others are intellectuals who haven’t been fully converted, or have brought their intellectual baggage with them into Orthodoxy—the same thing they accuse others of? This was the disease of the Russian intellectual converts earlier in this century, and I think our Greeks fall into the same category.

Therefore, I am plowing ahead with Genesis according to the Holy Fathers, realizing that it may cause more waves among the Greeks (and name-calling—but I’m already a “theosophist” and can’t get much worse than that!), especially since it will be “competition” to Dr. Kalomiros’ talk in Pennsylvania.

Speaking of Genesis, I see no reason why this course on Genesis couldn’t be turned into the main portion of our long-lost “evolution” book. The whole outline of it now becomes clear to me. It should be called something positive (no evolution in the title), such as “Genesis, Creation and Early Man: An Orthodox View,” and the first and main part should be simply an Orthodox interpretation (according to St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim, etc) of the first chapters of Genesis, discussing “problems” raised by modern men in the course of the discussion. Then, as the secondary thought (less than half the book), a discussion of the whole question of evolution, something like this:

1. Evolution as a scientific theory: the “proofs” of evolution. This would be a brief discussion of everything people think proves evolution—just enough to show that these aren’t really proofs at all, and evolution can neither be proved nor disproved. The chapter you’ve already written should take care of most of this already, perhaps even shortened to make our contact with the scientific side of the question as brief as possible, since this is the most debatable part of it.

2. Evolution as popular science—basically your chapter on “Early Man” to show how textbooks fill in the “gaps” of scientific knowledge and present a picture much more solid than any facts warrant. Eugene Zavarin will be satisfied to see we aren’t using a highschool textbook as a scientific treatise, but only showing how evolution filters down to this level.

3. Evolution as mythology and cosmic speculation, —some remarks on Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” television series and book. I add this here because one of our subscribers just sent a dipping about this, which seems to be much in the air now, and it seems typical of the way evolution is preached today as dogma and almost religion. What do yo think of this? Are you familiar with this series?

4. Where did the idea of evolution come from?—to explain how it got in the air. I’ve written about half of this already.

5. “Christian” evolution and T. de Chardin—your article. (Or maybe ch.s 4 and 5 should be reversed.)

6. The new reaction against evolution: towards a Christian-inspired scientific approach to origins, with citations from the Creationist literature.

I think this basically takes in the work we’ve done over the past eight years. If we can carry it through, it should be a pioneering work which will make this question at least discussable among Orthodox Christians, many of whom are concerned but just don’t know where to begin to think it through. What do you think? Any ideas or discussions? I will be working on the whole first part for the summer course, and maybe you and I could look over and organize the rest of it sometime this summer. Then it will be timely to print it, especially since the subject will be somewhat in the air with my and Kalomiros’ talks.

Rereading Kalomiros’ letters, I see that there is something quite basic at stake in our differences with the Greeks. In this particular case, it is obvious that Kalomiros has no intention whatever to humble himself before the mind of the Fathers. He “knows better” than they, and therefore he easily categorizes as “absurd” opinions which they held because he himself has thought it out better, with the aid of modern science. In this case he is broader than the Fathers; in most cases, perhaps, our Greeks are narrower—but it is their own wisdom that they trust and which they wish to impose on others. Our key is—sticking to the wisdom of the Church, trusting our own Fathers and the Holy Fathers who lived before. People are ready to hear this.

Please pray for Catechumen Genevieve (Timothy Shell’s Mimi), whom, God willing, we will baptize this Pascha, and Catechumen Andrew (Robert Kencis), who will probably be baptized sooner. Before Lent begins, please forgive me and us all for our sins against you in thought, word, and deed. May God forgive and have mercy on us all, and grant us all a profitable Lent!

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim