Author: orthodoxaustralia

Your Grace, dear Vladika Laurus,

Bless!

Thank you for your letters and the copy of Fr. Levs letter (which I am returning with this). Fr. Lev sent us none of the letters exchanged in this controversy, and we were sent a copy of his letter and Br. Isaac s reply by someone else. In general, Fr. Lev has not been in contact with us for over a year, I think, and his last letters to us were so strange and irrational that we did not even try to answer them. Some time ago he sent a letter to Alexey Young violently disagreeing with several of our articles (especially the article on Prof. Andreyev, for some reason) and saying that we, together with other “Russians,” are in serious error and are making an “occult cult of 19th-century Russia.” He has not tried to write us politely and charitably expressing his disagreement with us about these things; I think this is because his disagreement is primarily emotional and not theological, despite what he says about it.

Fr. Lev has long impressed us as being quite unbalanced emotionally; even Fr. Neketas has had trouble with him in this regard, even though he supports Fr. Lev’s publications because they express the Boston “party-line.” But we also do not have a high opinion of him as a “theologian.” Several years ago Fr. Panteleimon of Boston told me that Fr. Lev apparently does not understand Russian very well; he simply re-works the translations of his friend Vassily, but is not able to translate for himself. I believe his knowledge of theology is of the same kind; he takes the ideas of someone else (mostly Fr. Panteleimon) and expresses them in his own way, thereby shining in the reflected “glory” of Fr. Panteleimon, as it were, but he himself is not a theological thinker, and sometimes he makes astonishing errors, as in his recent letters on the state of souls after death. In general, I think he is like a “barometer” of the opinions of our “Greek convert” wing: some of the things which Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Neketas, and others believe but would not say except within their own “party,” Fr. Lev speaks out for everyone to hear.

What disturbs us most about the statements of Fr. Lev (and our “Greeks” in general) is not as much the opinions he expresses as the exalted, superior tone in which he expresses them, reflected in the name-calling he and our Greeks indulge in—accusing the rest of us (“Russians”) of being under “Western influence,” being “naive” and “untheological,” believing in “moral fables,” etc. This seems to us not a theological spirit at all, but just intellectual conceit.

I don’t think Fr. Lev will be satisfied with any answer to his outrageous protests against the traditional Orthodox teaching on life after death. Some of the points he raises are treated in our articles on “The Soul After Death”—but not in a controversial way; most of the rest of these articles will be simply the teaching of Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov, especially on the “Toll-houses,” and I think the subject is clearly enough presented by him to satisfy everyone except Fr. Lev and other “reformers.”

Fr. Gregory of Boston visited us lately, and left a bad impression on us also. For him monasticism seems to be some kind of “formula,” but without love or any real idea of struggle. The “training” that Fr. Panteleimon gives his monks seems to be bound up with a cold, calculating self-centeredness—far from the real monastic spirit as we understand it. Fr. George Cheremetiev also visited us— and, just the contrary, we felt very close to him. He also, just like we, finds that Fr. Dimitry Dudko has just the right spirit for us today. Fr. Gregory wants to start a monastery in California, but both our bishops are against it, and Fr. Herman spoke very sharply with him against it.

We are in contact with some people in the Old Calendar jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in America (and Greece also), and they are horrified to learn that our Sobor of Bishops has “broken communion” with them. Is this really true? There are many good people with them, who are closer to our Russian spirit than Fr. Panteleimon (even though their bishops may sometimes act irresponsibly) and it would be heartbreaking if we were to abandon them now.

We are very grateful for your concern for us, and ask your prayers for us. Besides our printing, we now serve several mission points in California and Oregon with Divine Liturgy once every month or two. In a few days, God willing, we will be sending our book “Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky” to the binder, after several years of printing (this is the book Br. Macarius [was] working on last summer when he stayed with us).

With love and respect in Christ,

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

Christ is in our midst!

From Fr. Auxentios we receive the impression that my last letter to you has caused a feeling of some hopelessness regarding any emergence from your state of isolation and any normal relationship with the priests and faithful of our Russian Church Abroad. I would like to correct the impression I seem to have given you, and at the same time give you a few words of encouragement as you prepare to begin your new life in Ohio.

In advising you to continue your “hidden” way of life, I did not really have in mind that you should always be as isolated as you are now. In fact, on the contrary, we would like to see you gradually enter into more contact with the members of our Church. My meaning was rather that you should always place first the leading of your own independent way of life, and let the relations with others develop gradually, take care of themselves so to speak. By the very nature of the situation in our Russian Church Abroad today, your very existence has a “political” significance, whether you wish it or not; but this need not be any overwhelming obstacle. Your existence is now becoming known in our Church, as we have recently heard, so you cannot really hide in any case.

——-

Now, some days after starting to write this letter, we received Fr. Auxentios’ new letter, telling about your illness. May Christ our God heal and preserve you for many years of service in His Holy Church! We will be praying for you.

Thank you for the Xerox—we had not seen this document before, although we had seen another one of about the same time and with the same basic content. We had assumed that you were aware of such statements, and now we understand better how deep must be your sense of isolation. This document gives the general principle which governs the relationship of our Synod to yours; but in practice, of course, there may be local complications owing to the attitudes of the Greeks who are with us, who are unfortunately rather political-minded. This is why we have advised you to go slowly in your contacts with our clergy.

At the present time there is occurring something of a “reaction” in our Church against the over-zealousness (almost fanaticism) of some of our Greeks, and their political involvements. Several years ago one could say that Fr. Panteleimon was “setting the tone” for a large part of our Church; but today, his influence is restricted to a “political party” within the Church, and no longer is his position such a central one. We ourselves would like to see a quite different “tone” prevail in our Church, but without having to battle against our Greeks to do it. Our two-part article on Blessed Augustine is an attempt in this direction—to correct the onesidedness of some upstart “theological experts” without engaging in a battle over it, pointing rather to the ordinary Christian virtues of moderation, forgiveness, tolerance, etc.—which are often lost sight of when the emphasis is placed on “correctness.”

As you begin to come into contact with more of our clergy (as I suppose you will in Ohio), you could help us in establishing a more moderate and normal Orthodox tone, especially among our converts who are still so immature and easily diverted from the path of a profounder Orthodoxy. Your very existence as “Greeks” who are not “fanatical,” who do not follow the “party-line” of our own Greeks,” but also do not engage in polemics with them—could help many to have a more balanced Orthodox outlook and place our “Greek party” in its proper place. Among many of our younger (especially Russian) priests there is already a good beginning in the direction of establishing such a tone.

I was planning to visit my mother in San Diego this summer, and had hoped to be able to come and visit you at the same time. Now, as it seems, my visit will be probably later in the summer. If by any chance you would be coming as far up the coast as Monterey (where a friend of ours says he saw you in church some time ago) before you leave, perhaps a meeting could still be arranged.

In any case, please know that our prayers and best wishes are with you. Your experience up to now has not been in vain; precisely such suffering and anguish gives understanding that is much needed in our days. Do not be afraid, by the way, to get into contact with Fr. Theodore in Cleveland; we would only advise not “involving” him to the extent of asking to use his church (for which he would have to ask his bishops permission in any case, which would further complicate matters).

Asking your prayers,

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.s. A problem that could conceivably arise concerning yours and our jurisdictions: Some of those who have been “fanaticised” by some of the attitudes of our Greeks have now been expressing dissatisfaction with our Synod as too weak, compromising, etc. In Geneva Fr. Basile Sakkos (Fr. Ps offspring) has left our Church (to join the Mathewites, I believe) and in England a new group of fresh converts has just joined the Mathewites. Fr. P. and the priests with him would not do such a thing, if I understand them righdy, but some of this followers might. Presently there is a very unstable follower of his in Canada, Deacon Lev Puhalo, who has been spreading tales of the supposed lack of strictness of most of our bishops; he is now being challenged on a ridiculous accusation he has made against the teaching of life after death as printed in Orthodox Life and The Orthodox Word, and it is entirely conceivable that he could suddenly decide to solve his problems by changing jurisdictions—in which case he might appeal to Metropolitan Akakios. Please keep this in mind, and if necessary warn His Eminence of the mentality of those who might want to make such a change—they will only bring him misery. A good and close cooperation between us would be the best answer to such problems, and with time we believe this could come about.

Dear Father Chrysostomos,

In truth Christ is risen!

Thank you for your letter and kind gift. Regarding Fr. Theodore in Cleveland: I believe he is not a “fanatic” regarding Fr. Panteleimon, but still he has ties with him and your serving with him in any case would produce “complications.” Sadly, this is the way it is with most of the English-speaking wing of our Church. There are only a few “fanatic” partisans of Fr. P., but few have as yet come to see the whole meaning of his “movement,” in its negative as well as positive aspects. Those who see this are usually those who have suffered as a result of his political orientation, or have seen the suffering of others. To those who have not gone through something like this, it is difficult to speak directly about him. We have tried to set a different tone in our publications for several years now (that is, different from Fr. Panteleimon’s), but this is seen only gradually. In the meantime, most of our convert priests are not capable of being very objective about the “Greek” question, and would probably be afraid of holding an opinion different from Fr. Ps. There is a further complication in that Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal has never been very well-disposed to Metropolitan Akakios. We hope and pray that with time and greater maturity all this will change for the better.

In the meantime, your friends in our Church will probably continue to be more or less “secret.” But spiritually this is probably not bad. We feel the signs of the times point more and more to a coming “catacomb” existence, whatever form it may take, and the more we can prepare for it now the better. I think you should have no hesitation in having Sunday services in your own building, even temporary or unfinished; it would probably even be helpful to those who attend to participate in your struggles in establishing yourself.

You will probably go through many trials and difficulties in your new location, the devil’s envy being what it is. May Christ our God strengthen you to bear them courageously. Every such monastery or community we look on as a part of the future catacomb “network” of strugglers for true Orthodoxy; probably in those times (if they will really be as critical as they look from here) the “jurisdictional” question will recede into the background. However, be assured that even now Fr. P. himself cannot deny that, at least theoretically, we are in full communion with the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios; the complications are owing to politics and rivalries, from which you do well to remove yourselves as far as possible.

If you are ever in need of help, please let us know.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Mr. Stamos,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you.

Thank you for your letter. Even though you express basic disagreements with us in it, we are glad that you have spoken frankly of your feelings, as in the long run this is the best path to mutual understanding and, if possible, agreement.

The questions you raise are very deep; the differences between our and your attitudes are the result of many years of apparently a quite different experience. I can understand how some of the statements in our articles might shock you coming “out of the blue,” as it were; but if you were more familiar with what has been happening in the Orthodox world in the 20th century I think you would find our words rather milder and more moderate. As a matter of fact, we have deliberately taken a very moderate stand, in comparison with some of the positions both to the “left” and “right” of us. You grieve over the “division and alienation” which our publication seems to represent. I assure you that we grieve together with you over this—but this division and alienation have been in our Orthodox Church now for fifty years and more. It is not our doing; we are only commenting on it. I agree with you 100% that we all need more love—we must constantly force our cold hearts to this, both for our friends and our enemies, and also our persecutors, where such exist.

But the answer to this sad division and alienation is by no means simple. You yourself seem to express in your letter a certain disturbance over the fact that in the very act of your writing about our disagreements with some Orthodox Patriarchs, you yourself are expressing disagreement with us! I myself think we should not be very disturbed over these disagreements; they exist and we should frankly admit it and try to have the most Christian and Orthodox response to them.

The fact of, not merely disagreements, but actual schism is, alas, all to real in the 20th-century Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece since 1924 has been split in two. About one-fourth of the people of Greece, and probably over half of the monks and nuns, belong to the “Old Calendarist” jurisdictions which have refused to follow the innovations of the latest Patriarchs of Constantinople and have broken communion with them. For this they have suffered persecutions, imprisonments, even martyrdom at the hands of their Orthodox brothers—the Greek government, supported by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the State Church of Greece. The latter (the “New Calendarist” churches) have excommunicated the Old Calendarists, proclaiming their Holy Mysteries to be without grace; until very recently (and perhaps even now, I don’t know) children born of Old Calendarists marriages were officially registered with the government as “illegitimate”—something even the Protestants do not suffer in Greece. In return, the Old Calendarists have excommunicated the New Calendarists, and some of them (but not all) have declared and believe their Mysteries to by without grace. There are entirely separate Orthodox hierarchies in Greece, neither thus having any communion with the other.

I give you this example for your reflection. Such a grievous state of division and alienation is a fact of today’s Greek Orthodox Church. What is to be our Christian attitude to it? Shall we be silent,’ or neutral?-—This is hardly possible, since every Orthodox Christian must receive the Holy Mysteries somewhere, and he cannot receive them in both of the divided Greek Churches. (In America, there are only a few Old Calendarist churches, so the question may seem remote to most people here; but for the Greek people as a whole it is an urgent question.) What should a bishop or priest do? He must instruct the people; even if he says nothing at all, the very fact that he belongs to the “Old” or the “New” Calendarists places him in the position of either proclaiming loyalty to the “old” tradition of Orthodoxy, or else agreeing (to some degree) with the path of modernization and abandonment of the “old” ways.

A similar state of division exists in the Russian Church, although it has not taken the extreme forms of the Greek schism. The Patriarch of Moscow and the leading bishops openly preach communism (both in the political and in a religious sense) and brazenly lie to the world about “freedom of religion” in Russia. We know that most of them do so under compulsion, and therefore we do not judge them too harshly. We in the Russian Church Abroad have our own bishops and have no communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, leaving its final judgment to a future council of bishops in a free Russia (which we pray will one day exist). But priests and laymen in the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia itself are today loudly protesting the anti-Christian acts of their own bishops, and some even proclaim that the Church there is governed by communist agents in bishops’ robes. At the same time there exists a Catacomb Church which for fifty years has had no communion with the Patriarchate and is mercilessly persecuted by the Soviet government (we have published much material on these new martyrs in The Orthodox Word). Again—a sad state of division and alienation. How can we be neutral, unless by retreating into the cowardly state of being “uncommitted” which is so common today?

The martyrs and confessors in Russia write to us that the best hope for them right now is the loud protest of free people against their persecutors. I personally would feel myself a betrayer of my brothers in Christ there if I were not to use the opportunity given me to speak the truth about them; but to do this I cannot help but contradict the lies of their bishops who say even now that “there is no persecution of religion in the USSR; those who suffer are only political criminals.” I do not feel in the least that I am sinning against the commandment of loving my brethren by doing this. On the contrary, my silence would betray love, and would only help the deliberate campaign of the Moscow church representatives to silence and exert influence on the Orthodox Churches of the free world.

I would hope that you can understand all this, even if you may not agree with our position.

The fulfillment of Gods commandment of love is by no means an easy or a simple thing. There are many “hard sayings” in the Holy Scriptures which seem (superficially) a direct contradiction of love. To those who do not do good works our Lord Jesus Christ says: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Even to many who prophesy and work miracles in His name, our Lord shall say: “I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). Our Saviour tells us sternly: “Suppose 4ye that I am come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three; the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father,” etc. (Luke 12:51-53). St. John, the Apostle of love, writes of those who have not right belief; “If anyone come to you and bring not this teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting, for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (II John 10-11). St. Paul warns against new teachings: “If any man preach to you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

I am sure you know these and other “hard sayings” of the Scriptures and have reflected on them; I only cite them here (without going into interpretations of them) in the hope that you will not be too ill-disposed towards some of the seemingly uncharitable statements you have found in our publications. In writing them I assure you that we are trying to follow the Gospel, to the best of our knowledge and in obedience to the teaching of many bishops, martyrs, and confessors of our own times, both in the Greek and Russian Churches, both abroad and in America.

In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been innumerable cases of “hard words” spoken by defenders of Christ’s truth. I will give you only one example: In 1439, the Greek Church accepted Roman Catholicism at the false Council of Florence. One Greek bishop (St. Mark of Ephesus) refused to sign the decree of Union, accused those who accepted the Union, aroused the people against it, refused to allow the Patriarch of Constantinople even to be present at his funeral—all of these “negative” things he did out of love for Orthodoxy, and because of him the Greek people is still Orthodoxy today; if they had followed those who preached “peace” at that time, the Greek people would be Roman Catholics today and thus, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, deprived of the grace of God. (The Russian Church at that time refused to accept the Union, and broke off communion with the Greek Church until the Patriarch of Constantinople himself renounced the Union and returned to Orthodoxy.) Such champions of Orthodoxy are precisely the ones the Orthodox Church has canonized and accepts as her standard of how to act when the Faith is threatened.

There is no need to multiply such historical examples; I am sure you understand the point I am making. I am well aware, to be sure, that there can be a “fanatical” approach to this whole subject, and we condemn it as much as you. I only hope you can see the principles on the basis of which we try to speak.

I am sorry that our words have given you the impression that our attitude is “schismatic” and that we regard everyone but ourselves as un-Orthodox. That is certainly not what we have intended to convey. However, there is no benefit to any of us from hiding the truth: the hierarchy in Russia (and some other Communist countries) is indeed enslaved by the godless and does the will of the government; many people in Russia and in the Moscow Patriarchate itself have admitted it. And further, I don’t see how it can be denied that those in the free world who fraternize with the atheist-controlled church leaders and thus aid the atheist purposes which they pursue in the free world—rare larking in seriousness and responsibility. Such people are acting according to the wisdom of this world, not the wisdom of Christ and His Church. We (and many others) say such things because we hope that Orthodox people (and even these leaders themselves, if possible) will see this and become serious about their Christian responsibility; if nothing is said, the false path which Orthodox leaders are now pursuing will continue without opposition until a new “union” is proclaimed, which will deprive Orthodox people of their birthright and inheritance and—unless by a miracle of God—of the very salvation of their souls. Our differences with those who are preparing the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” are very deep and will not improve by silence; they involve a whole different view of Christ, the Church, and salvation. In mentioning a few of the leading Orthodox hierarchs by name we (following many of our bishops and confessors) are merely warning the Orthodox people whom not to follow. We say little of the priests who have to follow these leaders (we know that many of them do so with a disturbed conscience), and nothing about laymen, who generally are much less aware of what is going on and are much less responsible for it.

From your letter I understand that you are afraid that the tone of our publications and missionary work will cause—or already has caused—discord among the small number of Orthodox Christians in Redding. You mention specifically Mrs. Harvey and the Romingers. Let me say a word here about each of them.

I think it is possible that you are misinterpreting Mrs. Harvey’s attitude. She has her own attitude (shared by most devout Russians) about church life, and I doubt that she would want to participate in church life based on some other attitude. Since you seem to have a different approach to church life, it is only natural that she would not be attracted by it. But this is certainly not a matter of her being any kind of “fanatic” or thinking herself “more Orthodox” than you or others; far from it. She, like many Russians in America, has suffered much: the godless took her homeland, her parents had to flee abroad under very difficult circumstances, she herself was born in exile in a totally strange land, then she was forced to flee even that refuge. Russians who go through such experiences and traumas, if they are religious, cling to their Faith as their dearest possession and are very closely attached to their bishops and priests. For them the question of church life is primarily based on trust and personal loving contact with their bishop or priest. Often church life takes place in the catacombs or near-catacombs; at best, in difficult immigrant circumstances. The question of church organization, church building, etc,—has a very secondary place in their oulook on Christian life, and they see that when there is enough peace and quiet for these questions to come to the fore, the same worldly influences, empty disputes and wrangling enter into Orthodox church life as in any other church organization, and so they most often are just not interested in these things, and will even flee the opportunity to take part in them. If she gives you the impression that she is “avoiding your fellowship,” it is probably as a result of this attitude and nothing else.

As for the Romingers, they visited us today and both Fr. Herman and I discussed some church questions with them. They seem open to understanding our point of view on these questions, but they are level-headed people and the concern they have over these questions is a real one, proceeding from the questions themselves and not from any opinion we may have about them. They also wish not to sin against love, and not to judge anyone—but also not to adopt a misleading “peace and love” which merely hide problems that really exist and are urgent. We are not at all trying to “press” them into adopting our opinions on various questions; this is a matter of their free choice.

Whatever you may think of all this, I hope that you at least understand our point of view a little better. As for the situation in Redding, I will be frank with you. Our Archbishop has blessed us to open a mission station at Mrs. Harvey’s, and we will have occasional services there. This will not be any “organized parish,” but just a mission station to serve (to begin with) those people in Redding and outlying towns who already come occasionally to our monastery for services.

With regard to “jurisdictions,” we are in full communion with the Greek Old-Calendarist jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios in Athens and with the Catacomb Church in Russia; with other jurisdictions our relations are strained, and in some cases broken altogether (owing to the sad history of 20th-century Orthodoxy, outlined above). Our Church as a whole simply refuses to accept the excommunications hurled by the various jurisdictions against each other under the heated circumstances of controversy; but on the other hand a state of free intercommunion does not exist between us. In our own case, we would not be able to concelebrate with the priests of any other jurisdiction; as for laymen (whose responsibility in these sad divisions is much less, but who still must be striving to be conscious and responsible Christians), those who wish to receive Holy Communion must go to confession first and must be prepared to accept instruction from the priest in preserving oneself in true Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox people today, at least in America, do not seem very open to taking such guidance, and would find our approach too “strict.” To name but one problem that could arise: many decrees of the Greek and Russian Churches in the 20th century have forbidden the giving of Holy Communion to members of masonic lodges. In open disobedience to these decrees, many priests and even bishops of several jurisdictions do give Communion to them, our Church does not. We are no “fanatics” on this question, but we are required to explain to Orthodox Christians who in their ignorance have joined masonic lodges, that there are religious aspects to masonry which make it incompatible with membership in the Orthodox Church.

Judging from your letter, you will not find what I have said very consoling. The Romingers told us that you wish to have a “soft” (I don’t recall their exact word) approach to Orthodox Christians in Redding so as not to frighten anyone away. I can tell you frankly that anyone who is easily “frightened” at such things as we have written will probably not be at home with us. In our experience, rather few of the Orthodox Christians in any given locality have much interest in the services of our Russian Church Abroad and in our attitude towards church questions; most find us indeed too “strict” and “hard.” We understand this and try to keep quietly going our own way, at the same time warning our own faithful about what is happening in the Church. If you wish to have your own services or organized parish in the Greek Archdiocese, we will certainly not interfere or indulge in any “jurisdictional rivalry.”

Now, after saying all this to you, I really have not told you what is in my heart. Why all this “strictness” and lack of full communion? Is it some kind of phariseeism? I pray that it is not, and believe it is not. We (and the bishops and confessors whose path we follow) fear more than anything else the loss of our eternal souls and those of the flock who follow us. Our times are critical; the devil is going about devouring the souls of Orthodox Christians; a false religion of “peace and harmony” is being spread in order to prepare for the reign of Antichrist, who, as the Gospel and whole new Testament clearly teaches, is to come before the end of the world and take by a subtle seduction—so subtle that “even the elect will be deceived, if it were possible”—all but the “little flock” which Christ our Saviour will find when He comes. With all this in mind, and with the experience of anti-Christianity in action which those of us in the Russian Church have had either directly or through our close ones—our whole tone and approach is and has to be urgent and uncompromising—although always within the bonds of love, “speaking the truth in love” as far as we are able. We do not expect many in America to understand or follow us—sadly, because we believe that this is the authentic Christian Orthodoxy handed down to us by our Saviour through His Apostles and all His Saints.

Having said all this, I repeat that you are welcome to join us in any of our services. We will be reading the Twelve Gospels of the Passion (in English) on Thursday evening at about 7 p.m.; the bringing out of the epitaphion will be on Good Friday at 2 p.m. (but the Lamentations service will be not in the evening but only early in the morning, 2 a.m., following monastic tradition); Liturgy Great Saturday about 11 a.m., and midnight Matins and Liturgy on Pascha itself. If after all that I have written here, there remain differences in our approach to the Faith, these differences have not yet gone so far that it is impossible for us to pray together. The question of receiving Holy Communion is something deeper; this is a spiritual question which our Superior, Father Herman, decides individually in confession. In cases of the dying, of course we will not refuse Holy Communion to any baptized Orthodox Christian who desires it and repents of his sins.

No matter what you may think of all this, I hope that our relation will continue to be a friendly one.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Andrew,

May the blessing of our Lord be with you! Please forgive us also for our offenses against you. May God forgive and enlighten us all!

Your letters, especially the last one (of Forgiveness Sunday), are saddening, as has been the whole course of church life in England recently. Actually, your situation is a reflection of a much larger ailment in the Church body.

When Fr. Herman identified the writer of the Boston epistle as “not believing in God,” he was of course speaking a little strongly. Reduced to plain prose, this statement means: this was not written with love and pastoral concern, but with a coldly calculating mind that is smug in its own “correctness” and relishes the opportunity to spread this “party line” to others—with now already disastrous results. We do not know Fr. Alexis personally, but judging from the epistles of other Boston monks whom we do know, the writers of these cold documents are invariable themselves better (at least potentially) than their “message.” The whole history of Fr. Panteleimon and his charismatic appeal to a certain kind of convert is a history of the immaturity of Orthodox Christians in our times, as well as of the anarchic church atmosphere, which is unable of itself to correct such exaggerations before they cause damage.

The wave that brought Fr. Panteleimon to the fore now seems to be subsiding (certainly his popularity among Russians is at a low ebb), and the events in England may well be his “waterloo” as a church “power.” Of course, he will not just go away, and I doubt that he will start his own jurisdiction (though he or his followers might force him into that position); but the “problem” which he represents can and should be faced now without doing personal battle with him. Many people now have been awakened to Orthodoxy and to the need for a true Orthodoxy, without modernistic distortions; even those who are too “zealous” can yet mature and overcome the mistakes of youth. The number of eager ears willing to listen to the message of Orthodoxy in English has never been greater.

Your work has been and should continue to be one of the voices that point to sound Orthodoxy. Perhaps you think your contribution is very modest. But believe me, in these times of universal coldness and calculation, the mere existence of someone (and more so a printed organ) who cares (about saints, and monasteries, about the suffering people of Russia, etc.) is a great help to everyone who is struggling on the Orthodox path.

So much for the general situation. About you personally, of course, I can’t give any definitive answer. However, I do know that in spiritual life it is often precisely in seemingly “impossible” conditions that one really begins to grow; then one has to become more sensitive, think less of getting one’s own will and ask what is God’s will, learn to see a little deeper into the reality around one—and all this through suffering, both one’s own and that of others. I can well imagine what Fr. Marks move alone has caused you.

І have not seen Fr. Alexis’ letter to you, but I can imagine its content, judging from his earlier epistles and having some idea of what goes on in the mind of an inexperienced person placed in a position of authority (the seeming conflict between the need to be “humble” and the need to “assert ones authority for the general good”). He probably has an exalted picture of the “oneness of mind” which everyone “should” have today, and little practical experience of getting along with those who disagree with you. Surely some kind of modus vivendi is possible? There is, after all, a certain difference between a real spiritual father—with whom one has a certain oneness of mind and can be fully open—and the simple spiritual authorities who are placed over one in the Church but with whom one need not actually have much contact. As for a confessor, if you do not have a trusted spiritual father, then you can “make do” until God grants you one, I.e., confess (if need be) in rather general terms until you find someone to whom you can open your soul more fully.

Without judging Father Mark, I think you would make a bad mistake if you followed him. If you wish to continue speaking to Orthodox Christians through the printed word (especially about things in Russia), I think that you will feel a difference in your freedom, whether or not your ecclesiastical superiors would give you “advice” and “hints” as to how to express yourself. And as for Archbishop Athenagoras—well, Archimandrite Cyprian of Fili has well written that when the squabbles among the small flock of “true Orthodox” are set beside our differences with the modernists, there is no doubt which part we have to choose. Our Church Outside of Russia is in an ideal position to speak the truth freely to the world, at least a small portion of which is eager for the truth; how sad that our petty passions and squabbles so often ruin this great opportunity!

Still, the starting place should always be with me. the cause of my misfortunes is first of all my own sins and shortcomings, and often God heals me through the sufferings He allows me to endure.

May God give you strength in your trials and courage to continue your good work. I think in all of this, despite appearances, God is helping us to a deeper, truer Christianity. So much of our Orthodoxy today is so self-righteous and smug, or at least lukewarm and comfortable, that we need to be shaken up a little. May God only grant that His sheep not be lost!

Are you still planning to come to California for Pascha? Alexey says that you might come later. I was able to travel to Etna last week and serve the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts for the first time in their chapel. We will be happy to see you whenever you can come.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Priestmonk Seraphim

P.s. Is The Orthodox Word getting through to you? We sent out no. 76 early in Feb., and no. 77 a few days ago.

P.p.s. Regarding the question of Western saints in the Calendar. We would agree with what you say about the impossibility of including some few Western “saints” in Orthodox Calendars (Nicholas I, Charlemagne); but such ones are really very few. Why not a conciliatory attitude towards Augustine of Canterbury and Wilfred: By the way, the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad did give official approval to the veneration of St. Anschar of Hamburg—in the early 1950 s, I believe, as reported in The Orthodox Word, 1971, March-April.

Dear Father Hilarion,

Christ is in our midst!

Many thanks for your kind letters and Xeroxes of recent weeks. I think we never sent you a list of things we intend to publish, so here is a list of those we can think of now:

Life and Epistles of Bishop Damascene of Glukhov, new martyr.
Life of St. Andrew Fool for Christ.
Life of St. Paphnutius of Borovsk.
Life of St. Tikhon of Kaluga.
Bishop Simon of China (1933).
Bishop Iona of Manchuria (1925).
Letters of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and perhaps Episdes also.
Life of Sts. Boris and Gleb.
A series on Elders of Optina, one by one. Zosima is being translated.
Life of St. Photios of Constantinople.
Life of St. Theodore the Studite.
Life of St. Niphon of Cyprus.
Life of St. Brigit of Ireland.
Life of St. Columba of Ireland.
Life of St. John the Baptist.
Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
Glinsk Monastery Ascetics

How are you with the life of St. Maximus the Confessor? Is it coming out soon?

The article on angels in the new Orthodox Life—isn’t it translated straight from Fr. Michael Pomazansky’s Dogmatic Theology? That should be noted; but in any case we’re working on the whole book and hope to have it out this year. We’ve also done Abba Dorotheus, but now hear that the Cistercians have published it, so will have to see what their translation looks like. Are there any special translation projects at the monastery now? Is anyone working on Vladika Averky’s commentaries? on Father Constantine’s Pastoral Theology?

Would you be able to come to visit us when you go to Alberta? We would love to see you.

Please pray for us. May Christ our God strengthen you in your labors and grant you courage and good-hearted struggle!

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Priest-monk Seraphim

Dear Brother in Christ, Andrew,

Many thanks for your letter and the informative “jottings.” The situation indeed is not healthy, but if Vladimir and Olga are indeed going to go “off the deep end,” it might make others stop and think, especially Fr. Alexis. We certainly hope that the responsibility and the practical needs of his position will tone down his “zeal,” which certainly, in the cases you have mentioned, goes beyond anything necessary or proper. Our Church as a whole (and certainly almost all bishops and priests, apart from the Boston wing) does not believe Moscow and New Calendarists to be without grace. Those who wish to believe this as their personal opinion are not persecuted for it, but they certainly cannot make such an opinion obligatory on others. The two cases you mention would have cased no problem among any non-Boston clergy; our Church’s policy of non-communion with Moscow is certainly not threatened by an occasional death-bed communion of someone who is unaware of the jurisdictional differences, and no issue need be made over it. Unfortunately, the whole Boston approach to such questions seems to remain very “academic.”

However, I do hope our recent articles are not received as “broadsides.” We do feel it necessary to say some things clearly, so as to remove confusions for those who might think that “Boston” speaks for the whole Church; but we still do hope that Fr. Panteleimon (with whom we recently exchanged friendly letters) will come to see that there are valid viewpoints other than his own. We need to pray more for this, or the whole meaning of the witness of the Church Abroad is in danger of being submerged.

We rejoice in you being restored to communion, and heartily approve of Fr. Marks thinking on the subject. Truly, the letter of the law is to be respected, but the spirit is what is essential.

Please pray for us. In case I didn’t mention it before, we sent you 25 calendars about a week before Western Christmas.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Priest-monk Seraphim

P.s. We’ve just received your new letter on the subject of Metr. Philaret’s ruling. Could you send us a copy of the English and Russian text, with signature of the Metropolitan? (If there is no such Russian text, I don’t see how the ruling can be believed; the Metropolitan does not understand English.)

We agree with your comments on the situation, and indeed all sound elements in the Church think that way. The policy of our bishops has always been to speak the truth loudly for all to hear, but to leave the question of interjurisdictional relations to take care of itself on the local level. Some of our clergy have no contact with other jurisdictions, but others do, and this has caused no problem until now.

In any case, any ruling directed to clergy need not concern laymen, who certainly should be able to continue praying with those in other jurisdictions and to visit their churches.

We are in contact with several Greek Old-Calendar clergy, who tell us of the disastrous effects of their bishops’ rulings made in the name of “strictness” which only produce discord, and we are as concerned as you about this. Please keep us informed.

How to Survive as an Orthodox Christian in the World Lecture

A. Introd.: pilgrims will go back to world—here we are protected, have our rhythm, segregated community, oneness of mind, services, Lit. to inspire and recharge—but how to continue inspired in world and remain Orth (w ones children)?

B. This question arises bee. our way of life is so diff. from worlds. Not just a matter of evils + temptations in world, esp. for children, but diff. fr. everyday consciousness. Our aim and way of life totally diff from world’s. Forming Orth corns no answer either—no com. can help but feel pressure of surrounding world. Bec. of times, impression is created that “real world” is everyday pagan world, and Orth, world fights losing battle against it. Then how can one survive as Ortho Chr.?

C. Let us take a warning fr. a characteristic phen of our times—fruitless fig trees. Person can be very zealous as Orth Chr., read much, go to sem. or mon.— + then cool off, get bored, + even when he remains as Ortho Chr., is in a state of constant dissatisfaction or boredom. Same th. can happen to a person who was never too zealous, but has simply learned to take Chr ty for granted. This is t. sickness of one who has becomes too familiar w. t. Faith, + bee. of outward familiarity loses inward meaning of it. Such people are worldly, self-satisfied, and “know better”—they have been conquered by world around them, are formally Orth but without t fruits of true Chr’ty. This is quenched spirit of wh Apostle Paul speaks, symbolizing absence of H. Sp.

D. How do we avoid this pitfall and remain zealous Chrs.?

1. It helps, of course, to have spir. fr. for confession + guidance, regular attendance at ch. services, reception of Holy Mysteries, regular prayer at home. But one can do all this + still be fruitless.

2. A hint: St. John Chry.: “He who doesn’t read spir. bks. can’t save his soul.”

3. What is function of reading spir. bks? They put us in contact w age-old spir. trad., give us spir. formation of cons., develop our mind in Chr. path. Attraction of surrounding world is one of different consciousness, that wh “everyone believes”—we must be in constant contact w. what Ch. believes.

4. Once one gets used to spir. reading, new world opens up—one is constantly learning, no room for boredom (that is only for those who already “know everyth”).

a. Lives of Sts.—constantly new discoveries in how men have pleased God. We meet those w. whom we hope to be in paradise. Vlad. John encouraged knowl + ven. of W. Sts.—as source of inspir. Sts. Romulus and Lepucinus—spir. of Rus. Thebaid in 5th c. Gaul.

b. Spir. writings—to learn ABC’s of spir. life wh. we constantly forget. Can be read again + again as we gain in exper. If we are always learning, these bks are always fresh.

1. St. John of Kron.

2. Unseen Warfare, + others of Bp. Theophan (most not in Engl.)

3. Desert Frs.—among monks, but t passions + virtues described are universally Chr., Lausiac Hist. Para, Dialogues

3a. St. Macar. Great.

4. Ladder—esp. for Lent.

5. Coms, on Scriptures.—St. Greg. Diog has excellent ones. Vlad. Aver.

6. Many more not transl.—but these are beg.

A person reading such bks, preferably keeping journal of extracts fr. them, is bldg a world of his own—not private world, but t real world of Orth Chr’ty thru t ages. This perhaps our main weapon against worldliness wh surrounds us.

Dear Father Ioannikios,

Christ is in our midst!

A few notes on our continuing “dialogues on evolution” many thanks for your two letters (one to Br. Makarios).

1. Concerning “day-age”—I agree entirely with the proposal to measure them “not chronologically but theologically.” I only suggest we be consistent in doing so. Dr. Kalomiros and others, when they say that “day-age” or “a thousand years in the sight of God is as one day” immediately conclude that the way is open to accepting the “geologic ages” with their fabulous millions of years as compatible with the Genesis “days.” They thus measure the “ages” quite “chronologically”—which makes not one bit more sense than the fundamentalists’ “24 hour days.” The best position, I think, on this point is that of Blessed Augustine: “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (City of God, XI, 6.) The eight “day,” we know, is to be without end; the seventh “day” is a definite duration of at least some thousands of years; the first six “days,” if they could be measured chronologically at all (and we shouldn’t say they absolutely couldn’t be, since such Fathers as St. Ephraim of Syria say they could), might be 24-hours long, or perhaps of some other duration. We should only be aware of the mystery of those first “days” which eludes our precise apprehension.

2. The question of the “age of the earth” is a different question, raised by science (which cannot give it a completely satisfactory answer) and touching on Revelation and certain theological questions. From the point of view of Biblical interpretation, this question is dependent on a more fundamental one: “the age of mankind.” Here the text of Genesis does not need to fear the evidence of science; and since modern science does talk about this, we have to have an intelligent answer to the opinion concerning the “millions of years” which, supposedly, not merely “galaxies” existed, but even man himself and his near “ancestors” have been walking on earth. One cannot escape the question of the existence of man in chronological time (since both Genesis with its patristic interpreters and science seem to be talking about the same kind of “years” we know) by reference to the formation of galaxies and the relativity of time—the “primordial galaxies” themselves are a product of the scientific speculations of modern thinkers, and neither more or less deserving of credence than ancient Greek speculations concerning the origin of the world.

3. This raises another fundamental question: how much should we use science in a commentary on Genesis? I would say, as a very minimum: we must know enough about science and its modern speculations to have an answer to those who use it to “disprove Genesis.” Thus its chief function today is perhaps negative. But beyond that, I think that our attitude should be that of St. Basil in his Hexaemeron: the legitimate conclusions of science should be used whenever they help the task of interpreting the sacred text. The “science-phobia” which has been caused among some Orthodox Christians by the false use of science on the part of anti-Christians should be overcome. In the case of evolution, I don’t see how the question can be discussed at all without a basic knowledge of the “scientific proofs” for and against. I don’t mean we should become passionately attached to them or place them on the same level as theology—we should just be aware of them and know how to assess their relative value. The “scientific creationists” are very helpful in this regard, because they have hunted up evidence which had been selectively disregarded by pre-disposed evolutionists (for example, the remarkable evidence of an earth “under 10,000 years old,” which must definitely be weighted against the evidence for an earth much older; the overlapping human and dinosaur tracks in Texas, etc.)

4. But is the question of the age of the human race (some 7000 or 8000 years vs. a million or more years) really theological, or important? You doubt whether it is. I offer two observations:

a. The Holy Fathers (probably unanimously) certainly have no doubt that the chronology of the Old Testament, from Adam onwards, is to be accepted “literally.” They did not have the fundamentalist’s over-concern for chronological precision, but even the most mystical Fathers (St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.) were quite certain that Adam lived literally 900 years, that there were some 5500 years (“more or less”) between the creation and the Birth of Christ, etc. (Blessed Augustine has a good discussion as to the differences between the Greek and Hebrew chronologies— the thousand years “more or less” didn’t bother him any more than it did the other Fathers—but the assertion that Adam lived a million or more years ago, and that thus the Old (and New) Testament chronology is quite arbitrary or fanciful, could not but have evoked numerous patristic discussions.) Can we be so trusting of the conclusions of modern science (especially if we have a basic knowledge of radiometric dating procedures and the philosophy underlying them!) as to totally overturn the Patristic opinion? Dr. Kalomiros and other Orthodox evolutionists say we should, without a second thought—I would say this is dangerous presumption, and an intrusion of dubious science into the realm of revealed truth. When Dr. K. dismisses the patristic interpretation of the ОТ chronology as “Jewish rationalism,” I even begin to wonder what his basic attitude to the Fathers is? It seems to have an element of disrespect, to say the least.

b. More important (more theological): one’s picture of reality, of the world, definitely influences one’s view of God. I offer you (very briefly) two pictures (“models”) of man and his world:

(1) Man created some 7000-8000 years ago, separately from other creatures (not descended from others), dispassionate by nature (in soul and body), with Eve miraculously created from his rib (in a way we can not describe with scientific precision, as St. John Chrysostom indicates), in a world of creatures with natures basically stable and not in process of becoming other natures. Much could be said on separate details of this picture, and knowledge of many of the details can never be precise, but basically: it does not contradict the text of Genesis and is harmonious with the Orthodox view of God.

(2) Man descended from lower creatures, passionate by his origin and nature, becoming dispassionate in paradise (when grace brought him out of his bestial state, according to Kalomiros) at a moment very hazy chronologically and theologically (today Roman Catholic evolutionists deny paradise altogether because they can’t reconcile it with evolutionary philosophy), existing in his fallen state perhaps a million or more years, during which time he gradually came up from savagery to civilization, the record of him in the ОТ being extremely sketchy and not to be taken seriously when it speaks of “years”; the world around man being in a constant state of change and ascent from one nature to another, and this whole process being explainable (“more or less”) by science, except for the original impulse of creation itself (which produced a rather undifferentiated mass with the “potentiality” of all future developments). (Kalomiros insists there is nothing “miraculous” about the Six Days of creation—they all proceeded according to scientific laws!). This picture, that of “theistic” or “God- guided” evolution, can be reconciled with the text of Genesis and its patristic interpretation only by means of many jumps and improvisations and wholesale disregard of patristic evidence. The chief reason, I suspect, why it does not give the horrors to Orthodox believers in “God-guided evolution” (as, for example, Fr. Neketas Palassis professes himself to be)—is simply because they put their heads in the sand and don’t bother to think about it at all, because of a very unhealthy science-phobia. But my point here is: is not one’s view of God basically affected by such a picture of the world? For example, the view of an “Orthodox evolutionist” like Theodosius Dobzhansky (in his address on receiving an honorary doctorate from St. Vladimir’s Seminary!) utterly denies the Providence of God in the world; his “God” is the Deist God. St. John Damascene (following St. Gregory of Nyssa and others) states that it is unworthy of God to believe that He created man’s body and soul in separate moments, as if He did not have power for the whole act at once; this act of creation was simultaneous; here the text of Genesis is not to be interpreted literally or “chronologically” (Kalomiros specifically denies this—his interpretation of St. Seraphim’s words would collapse otherwise!). How much less worthy of God, then, to believe that He created only some kind of material ocean of potentiality and left everything to “evolve by itself” according to natural laws!

All this, as you can see, is an informal discussion presented for your reflection—precise citations will have to be given when I have time.

5. A different point, from your letter to Br. Makarios. On the “coats of skin”—yes, I recall that St. Gregory the Theologian also gives the interpretation (as his personal opinion) that these could signify the “coarse flesh” of Adam after his fall. A very important point, bound up with the curse and the change in the nature of the world and man, as opposed to the “very good” (i.e. incorrupt) state in the beginning. Dr. Kalomiros says: the world was obviously corrupt and mortal before Adam’s fall; it was only incorrupt in God’s idea of it before the actual creation, the “first creation” as opposed to the “second creation” of St. Gregory of Nyssa. As opposed to this, one could collect patristic evidence (for example, St. Simeon the New Theol., Homily 45, where it is very explicit) that shows, the material creation (and not just paradise) before Adam’s fall to be incorrupt and without death. But here I think we should beware taking the opposite side from Kalomiros and thinking we know with “scientific certainty” (as he thinks he does) what the nature of material reality was before the fall. Bishop Theophan the Recluse (in his commentary on Rom. 8:21) has a word of caution on this. I think it is enough to point out the different state of the world before the fall, its rather mysterious nature (to us who never saw it), and the inappropriateness of applying the law of scientific “uniformitarianism” to it. (Andreyev makes this point.)

6. A final point for now: it seems to me that in the “intellectual space” where science and theology overlap (a good description!) in the question of evolution, there are two quite different spheres of conflict and/or agreement between them:

a. Everything related to the “Six Days” and in general the state of the world before Adam: this is shrouded in some mystery (because of the different state of the world then) and it would be foolish for us to try to be “scientifically precise” about it. This is the biggest mistake of Kalomiros (and also of many fundamentalists). The creation of Adam from the dust is a mystery (for example); we can’t picture it. But still we can know enough of it from the Fathers to avoid unworthy opinions about it. (It was instantaneous; Adam came from no other creature; etc.) The evolutionists remove the mystery from it—all is according to scientifically-known natural processes; from an Orthodox person, this is inexcusable rationalism.

b. Everything related to Adam after his fall—i.e., human history as a whole—is much more accessible to us according to our present knowledge. Thus, a discussion of the “chronology” of the Six Days is useless; but the “chronology” of mankind from Adam on down is accessible to us, limited only by physical factors (documents, paleontology, archeology). Here we should apply our God-given minds to find the most worthy explanations of the supposed “conflicts” between Genesis and paleontology. And this means: reading the patristic commentaries, and understanding the scientific evidence.

I’ve already used up my time. I look forward to your next comments.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Dear Father Ioannikios,

Christ is in our midst!

Glory be to God, Brother Makarios arrived safely and is getting into the rhythm of our life here. Please pray that his summer stay will be fruitful—for him and us.

About “evolution”—we were glad to have your comments. If you really want to see them so much, and Dr. Kalomiros has already distributed his letters, we could sent you copies, after we’ve made our reply to his second letter. But really, this correspondence has not been very fruitful at all. At first we were encouraged by the fact that he was willing to discuss the matter at all (which few Orthodox seem to want to do), and we responded to him in a tone that we thought was roughly the same as his own, not fearing to be corrected on any mistakes we might make, but hoping that— although starting almost poles apart—we might in the end “work out” this question in friendly debate and come rather close together by the end of it. But we see now that our reply seems only to have offended him (perhaps most of all he disliked our strong implication that he is probably just as much under “Western influence” as the rest of us poor mortals!), and his second letter offers almost no chance for an extension of the debate. Our reply will probably be short (whenever we get a chance even for that!) and will have to begin by pointing out some of the contradictions he had fallen into himself, with little hope of even getting him interested in some of the more basic questions which (as I recall) haven’t even been mentioned yet by either of us.

But for now (leaping at the chance to chew this question a little more!) I will only give you a few of my own observations, not on “evolution” itself, but on the approach to it, which seems so difficult but is so essential.

First of all, we were very disappointed in all the three Boston letters on the subject which we have seen. There is very little there that we would disagree with—save for the flippant tone in some places—but they never really get to the question of evolution at all, and they are certainly not the Orthodox answer or approach to the question which Fr. Ephraim had promised to give. In fact, these letters reveal a distinct attempt not to approach the question at all, but rather to stay above it, with a rather superior air. Symptomatic is Fr. Ephraim’s confession (either there or elsewhere) that he has never read T. de Chardin and doesn’t need to, as also his evident ignorance of the whole scientific side of the question. (The “funny cartoon” he included has nothing to do with any “new findings,” for example, but was old news 80 years ago.) Likewise with Dr. Kalomiros: he prides himself on knowing nothing at all of Western teachings on evolution (apart from what he regards as “scientific facts”) and insists that we pay attention only to what he teaches on the subject, which is “patristic.”

1. This brings us to Axiom no. 1 in our approach to the question (not the most important one, but first in order of discussion): the question of evolution can’t be discussed at all if one doesn’t have a basic grasp of the scientific side of it (the “scientific proofs” of evolution) as well as the broader philosophy of evolution based on it (T. de Chardin, etc.). This is precisely what the Boston Fathers seem to be afraid of, and in general our Orthodox theologians also (including Fr. Michael Pomazansky if I’m not mistaken): once you get into “science,” the theologian is out of his depth, there are endless fruitless debates, etc. I think this is why Dr. Kalomiros’ evolution articles in the Greek religious press stirred up uneasiness but no distinct protests: because “theologians” in general just don’t know how to handle the scientific side.

By this I don’t mean that one has to be a scientific specialist in order to discuss the scientific side of the question—the scientific side is not the most important one, and specialists usually trip themselves up by concentrating too much on it; but if one isn’t sufficiently aware of the scientific side one won’t be able to grasp the question in its full scope. One can’t say with assurance, for example, whether man has been on earth some seven or eight thousand years (“more or less,” as the Fathers often say) if one is totally ignorant of the principle of radiometric dating, geologic strata, etc., which “prove” that man is “millions of years” old. And such knowledge is not esoteric at all—the basic principles of radiometric dating (enough to know its strong and weak points) can be explained in a rather short article. And the question of whether man has been on earth for some thousands of years or some millions of years is one that certainly touches on some basic Orthodox questions—whether the genealogies of the Scripture are actually genealogies (as all the Fathers certainly believed) or just sketchy lists with many long blanks in them; whether some of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament (if these are not genealogies) might not be “symbols” instead of concrete people; whether Adam himself ever existed (especially in view of what seems the prevailing theory now among evolutionists—“polygenism,” that new species begin in many pairs simultaneously); etc. This is just a sample to show that to get anywhere in this question one must have a basic, layman’s awareness of the scientific evidences for and against evolution. If one is reasonably objective and not out to “prove ones point” at any cost, such questions need not arouse passionate debates. As a basic principle, of course, we must assume that scientific truth (as opposed to various opinions and prejudices) can not contradict revealed truth, if only we understand them both correctly.

Your point—to start with basic theological principles—I think is good, and these should always be fundamental. And one must always be well aware of the different modes of knowledge and not mix them up. The trouble is, the question of evolution is so complex that one isn’t always aware which aspect of it has ceased to be scientific and has intruded on theology or philosophy, or exactly where the real conflicts arise. There, I think it is very important, as a second axiom:

2. To be aware of the basic philosophies underlying or derived from evolutionism and various other views of origins. The evolutionary philosophy of “up from the beasts” certainly seems irreconcilable with the Christian view of “fall from paradise,” and our whole view of history will certainly be determined by which why we believe! The Catholics used to solve this problem with a deus ex machina: when the body had evolved sufficiently, God “specially created” a soul for it—there evolution is correct, and so is Genesis, broadly interpreted. Kalomiros has basically the same view, though he has more patristic vocabulary to describe it—but such views are very artificial and contrived: the Christians wait for the latest evolutionary hypothesis and twist the text of Genesis to fit in with it. This won’t do! An awareness of how evolutionary philosophers (such as T. de Chardin) view the whole question of evolution, while it may not solve any specific question, will still give a broader view of the whole intellectual background behind evolution.

Axiom 3: The whole question of Genesis can not be well approached by Orthodox people without appealing to the basic Orthodox sources: the Holy Fathers. Especially valuable: the Hexaemera of St. Basil and St. Ambrose; commentaries on Genesis by St. John Chrysostom and (perhaps less important because they are more “fundamentalistic” and easier to “dismiss”) St. Ephraim the Syrian; Homilies on Adam, paradise, and the first-created world by St. Simeon the New Theologian ( especially homily 45 in the Theophan the Recluse edition of 1894 or so), St. Gregory the Sinaite (in the Russian Philocalia), St. Abba Dorotheus (Instruction I); commentaries of various Fathers on related passages of Scripture (for example, Romans 8:19-22 concerning the “vanity” or “corruption” of the post-Adamic world) or St. Gregory the Theologian on the Genealogies of Christ); Homilies on the subject of the Resurrection, or whenever the question of “seed” or “growth” is discussed; treatises on the origin of man (St. Gregory of Nyssa); patristic discussions on reincarnation and the pre-existence of souls (which are philosophically related to the question of evolution); etc.

About Dr. Kalomiros: our second reply to him will point out where we think he went astray in his patristic interpretations. But our general impression of his two letters (which we won’t write him directly for fear of offending him again) is this:

1. He is very unprepared to discuss the question either scientifically or philosophically. He is unaware of Western discussions of the subject and is only concerned to stand “superior” to them— which one can’t do if one isn’t aware of them. It is abundantly obvious from his two letters that he (and probably Greek scientists in general) is far behind the West, and he is holding to scientific and philosophical positions long abandoned or in process of revision by Western scientists themselves. As one example: his defense of Haeckel’s “recapitulation” theory of the human embryo: today’s evolutionary textbooks of embryology dismiss it as a 19th century fantasy, but Kalomiros not only clings to it as an “obvious proof” of evolution, but even forbids us to discuss any scientific questions with him until we get advanced degrees in the physical sciences (a typical refuge of someone who doesn’t want a free discussion of the subject)! He is not aware, either, of the less dogmatic spirit which many evolutionary scientists now have, nor of the immense number of scientists (with advanced degrees!) who now have abandoned evolution entirely or are skeptical of it.

2. He is theologically unprepared for such a discussion—something which surprised us most of all. Even after promising us that he was going to reply only after reading all the basic patristic texts on the subject, he still bases his whole argument on two or three patristic texts, very one-sidedly interpreted, and does not even answer a number of our patristic citations (which are only a small part of the patristic passages we have found). His St. Gregory of Nyssa quote says nothing whatever of evolution unless you read it into the passage; and the St. Seraphim quote certainly does not sustain his interpretation, wherein he does precisely what he accused us of doing—taking “chronologically” words which are “ontological” in reference.

When I say that Dr. Kalomiros is “unprepared,” I do not of course mean that he is incapable of discussing the question—merely that he is so prejudiced in advance (with a complex about being “inferior” to “Western wisdom”) that he does not view the question at all objectively.

Still, despite all this, we are not at all pessimistic of the possibility of viewing the question of evolution fairly objectively. I would say that a good Orthodox approach to the subject is that of I. M. Andreyev—a man well-equipped scientifically, as well as philosophically, who is not afraid of coming to conclusions that most scientists (being in step with the intellectual fashions that generally govern science) might not agree with. But he has said only a few things on the subject (in his Apologetics)— that mankind can not be more than 8000 years old, that the laws of nature before the fall were different than those now in force, and therefore are not subject to Reliable scientific interpretation, etc. I would say that his simple equation of “day” with “periods,” however, is too loose—in fact, this question of “days” seems to be deeper than either fundamentalists or liberals have made it, and unfortunately it is one of the evolutionary questions that is still emotionally charged for some people (you mean 6 24-hour days!?—I quoted St. Ephraim’s very “fundamentalistic” view of this question to Dr. Kalomiros, without precisely agreeing with him—and Dr. Kalomiros dismissed it by saying “he was using the science of his time.” But since the science of St. Ephraim’s time most certainly did not teach that the world was created in six 24-hour days (with 12 hours between each creative “moment”), I can only assume that Dr. Kalomiros is not prepared to examine patristic evidence very objectively, using any excuse to dismiss whatever doesn’t agree with his one views.)

I would strongly suspect that Fr. Michael Pomazansky would prefer not to make any general comments on the question of evolution—however, if you gave him specific questions touching on theology, you might get answers. But then again, he might be so afraid of the scientific side that he might hesitate even here.

This letter is already too long. Unfortunately, I just won’t have time for some while to set down the patristic quotes I have found up to now. But some time perhaps I will get the time. You might be interested in some of the publications of the “Institute for Creation Research” in San Diego, especially books like Scientific Creationism (public school—i.e. non-religious edition) which present only scientific evidence without reference to religion. Their presentation of the “Creation Model” is a promising approach to a more objective view of the whole question. Their religious views, of course, suffer from the general short-sightedness of fundamentalism (in particular, their unawareness of the whole patristic field of commentary on Genesis—but most Orthodox people have a similar lack of awareness!). I’m enclosing two of their pamphlets, with their address so you can order some of their books if you want.

I would like to keep up this discussion, a little at a time, if you wish to.

Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim