Author: orthodoxaustralia

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Brother in Christ, Andrew [Bond],

Thank you for the copy of your “sorrowful epistle” to Vladika Nikodem. What you describe there is indeed but one case of a very widespread problem now in our Church, a diversion from the devil “on the right side,” as it were, and it will require much patience and prayer and level-headedness to stay afloat in the stormy sea which it is causing. I will tell you something based on our own experience in America.

This “zeal not according to understanding,” about which Archbishop Averky has warned in his sermons, is by no means limited to baptizing those coming from other Orthodox jurisdictions or (most shocking of all) re-baptizing those who have already been receiving Holy Communion in our Church for months or years—it is a whole mentality which insists on being “always right” and looking disdainfully on all who disagree as “not really Orthodox.” This attitude is revealed, for example, in the recent totally pointless attacks made by some of our Greek priests in America against Blessed Augustine. It is well known in the Orthodox Church that Bl. Augustine made mistakes, went “too far” on some points—but the Church has never called him a heretic or denied him the name of Father, as is quite clear from the evidence of one Ecumenical Council (perhaps two, but I can’t find the second reference yet), St. Photios the Great (who is repeating explicit on this point), St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, and our own Archbishop John Maximovitch. Yet some now seek to prove “how Orthodox I am” by calling him heretic and various other evil names.

If this mentality were allowed to “take over” in our Church it would mean not merely isolation for us (about which, in itself, we are not very upset, because it is obvious that “world Orthodoxy” is crumbling, losing its identity), but also, much more importantly^^ losing of Orthodox tradition itself, losing the contact with those who have handed Orthodoxy down to us, for the sake of an abstract “Orthodoxy” which exists only in the minds of the “zealot party.” The over-emphasis on the “Western captivity” of Orthodox theology in recent centuries is a symptom of the same mentality. Orthodox tradition was transmitted in those centuries, despite certain outward Westernisms, but our new “zealots” literally wish to throw out or at least regard with utmost disdain virtually all the great Fathers of those centuries—Metr. Philaret of Moscow, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Bp. Theophanes the Recluse, and others. (They haven’t attacked Bp. Ignatius Brianchaninov yet, but only because they can’t read Russian; but St. Macarius of Corinth will obviously have to go with St. Nikodemus, especially if—as I strongly suspect—his book on “Continual Communion” comes from Latin sources. A well-balanced Orthodoxy can easily take any foreign influences that come and straighten them out, make them Orthodox; but a one-sided “party-line” cuts itself off from the real mainstream of Orthodoxy.)

We have heard of a few mistaken “re-baptisms” in America and have asked several of our bishops about them. In every case, as it turns out, the diocesan bishop was not informed of the circumstances of the case. Recently some wished to see such a “rebaptism” performed in our Western American diocese, but our Archbishop Anthony wisely refused to allow it, in which we gave him our full support—for indeed, it would have been tantamount to an open declaration of the absence of Grace in the Greek Archdiocese. Our bishops, by the way (whether at the 1974 Sobor or later, I don’t know) explicitly refused to make such a declaration when asked to do so by one of the Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions (the Auxentios group, unfortunately, which has recently joined the Mathewites in this opinion, although on less fanatical grounds).

This “zealot” mentality, in America at least (and largely in England too, I suspect), is almost entirely due to the influence of Fr. Panteleimon of Boston. In our personal meetings with Fr. Panteleimon we have not found him to be a “fanatic,” but those under his influence are quite mercilessly so. Sadly, this group is now forming a kind of independent psychological “diocese” within our Church, and they have no respect whatever for the bishops who disagree with them. This means trouble ahead, and you are certainly right that we are sitting on a volcano.

However, let me tell you this: we know well a number of bishops and the views of most of the rest—and we don’t know a single one who would approve of “re-baptisms” such as you describe. I very much doubt that Vladika Nikodem would approve either, if he were fully informed, and any problem you may have with him is more likely to be owing to the way your attitude has been presented to him as “insubordination,” “undermining priestly authority,” etc. In that case it is above all important for you to show yourself as meek and obedient and not insisting on “being right” for its own sake (in the new “zealot” sense)—without, of course, giving up your basic position—which is certainly in accord with what our bishops and soundest priests believe.

Regarding our Church as a whole, I do not think you need to fear an “extremist takeover.” Our bishops are quite moderate, and I think it is safe to say that their earlier “fascination” (for bishops are also a little subject to “fashions”!) with Fr. Panteleimon (as at the 1971 Sobor) is a thing of the past. In general, Fr. Panteleimon has lost his influence almost everywhere (Greece and Mt. Athos also)—except in one place: over the young people, both converts and Western-born native Orthodox; for he offers them some “simple” answers to complex questions, and that is very attractive to those a little uncertain and shaky in their faith. (These are precisely the ones, by the way, who think they will “put everything right” by getting baptized all over again!) These young people are now the ones who are beginning to fill the places of the departing generation of Russians (in our Church), and this is a source of danger for the future of our Church.

I do not know what more to say of your specific “incident,” but I do hope you will place it in the perspective of the whole Church situation today. One would like to avoid a direct “battle” with the “new-zealot” mentality, if possible, because there are many good people now under this influence who can eventually come back to a sounder Orthodoxy if only they aren’t prematurely forced to “defend” their mistaken idea of Orthodoxy. Above all for us who have the printed word at our disposal, I think it is important to strive to inculcate respect both for our bishops and older priests, and for the whole theological tradition of recent centuries. In the name of “anti-scholasticism” the “zealots” are throwing out the whole baby together with the bath water! They virtually boast that they alone are “great theologians” who have just now re-discovered a lost theological tradition; but actually their theology is remarkably crude and simplistic, especially when put beside the writings of a truly great theologian in the unbroken Orthodox tradition—our own Father Michael Pomazansky of Jordanville, who is subtle, refined, deep—and totally overlooked by the “bright young theologians.” Of course, the “language gap” is also an unfortunate factor here, as it is in the whole situation I have described here. We must strive all the harder to make the influence of the real Orthodoxy more deeply and widely felt—and then the emergence of sudden “know-it-alls” will be taken more in stride by the Church as a whole.

By the way, at the Synod you should be in contact first of all with the Secretary, Bishop Laurus (who now is being greatly slandered by the “zealots”)—his position is quite moderate and sound, and he is doing superhuman work for the good of the Church in most difficult circumstances.

To all this I would only add: let us also beware of the temptations on the “left side.” We do not need to declare fanatically that we are the “only Orthodox left,” but let us also be aware of the process of apostasy that is taking possession of virtually all the Orthodox Churches now, and to which we too can fall if we are not sober and cautious. Our own Sobor of Bishops some years back already “discouraged” communion with the Greek Archdiocese, and our own Bishop Nektary of Seattle is for us a model of sound moderation when he warns us that some of our bishops are doing a little too much for the sake of being “recognized by world Orthodoxy.” Perhaps the best description of our Church’s status at the present time is something like “moderate, sober,—and aloof.” But in practice this is a difficult path to follow.

We ask your prayers for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. We are sending you another parcel of Northern Thebaids. You can give away the damaged ones. We will also begin sending you one copy of The Orthodox Word by airmail, hoping to hear some response from you on the articles we will be printing in the months ahead.

Dear Christopher,

We will be expecting you in May. Only please write again shortly before you come to confirm the time and date.

Yes, the Sobor has daily Liturgy.

Archbishop Averky reposed on Tuesday before Palm Sunday and was buried on the eve of Lazarus Saturday. A righteous man, little valued. We must now present his teaching—please pray that we can do it fittingly. The burden becomes much heavier for us now.

Br. Laurence reached the end of his 3-year monastic trial and never attained the trust and oneness of soul and mind necessary for our way of life. So he left just before Pascha and will go to Jordanville. Pray for him. We are thus physically alone, but determined to continue and speak the truth until they come and shoot us down.

I don’t know whether Vlad. Nektary will be back in San Francisco (from Seatde) by May 17 or not. You’ll have to find out then. Father Herman went with him and Vladika Anthony for the funeral in Jordanville.

May God grant to you to grow in the Faith and bear fruit—many are falling away. Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,

David brought us Nina’s note saying that she wants to send copies of Fr. John’s letter to Fr. George Grabbe and Fr. Panteleimon; and she is confused about whether to send also an “invitation” to Fr. John with the letters. Good heavens! If she is going to go on like this there is sure disaster ahead. How would you like Fr. Panteleimon as the “overseer” of your community?—that is what is coming if Fr. John comes. (Nina told us that Fr. Neketas is strongly agitating to get all the “American” parishes into a separate organization.)

I’ve sent her a letter bawling her out, and most of all for treating her own bishop as a mere figurehead who “doesn’t understand” the needs of Americans, etc. Vladika Anthony does not want Fr. John in his diocese right now, and his reasons are better than Nina suspects. Don’t let her get you embroiled in her “convert syndrome” with all its problems. I told her that she has no right to usurp the bishop’s rights by “arranging” priests for his diocese—that is his affair and it should go only through him.

With Vladika Averky’s repose, Laurence’s departure (probably as soon as Fr. Herman comes back), and the three young converts (including David) who have visited us this week—I sigh and think, is it worth it to get across the real understanding of Orthodoxy, when there are so many now who “know better,” and the ones who don’t are as weak as spaghetti? Or maybe, as our young Thomas once brightly suggested: If everyone else thinks differently, then maybe we’re really wrong? But then I think of Vladika Averky, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, and all that older generation that is now almost gone—and I want to weep for the young “know-it-alls” that have missed the point. But the understanding comes only through suffering, and how many can do that?

Pray for us. We trust in God and the prayers of Vladika John.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Nina,

David brought your note. Forgive my frankness—but why in the world do you want to send copies of Father John’s letter anywhere? Fr. George [Grabbe] already knows from the Synod, if he is supposed to know; and please don’t involve Fr. Panteleimon in anything to do with Etna. No matter what, that will mean disaster for Alexey—which I don’t think you understand yet.

As for Fr. John and Etna—please do not even think of any “invitations.” Quite apart from anything else, it is quite obvious that Vladika Anthony does not want him in his diocese at this time, and he will be extremely upset at any “negotiations” to this effect without his knowledge. (And we will probably be blamed for it.)

I hope that you are aware that you are now living in the diocese of Vladika Anthony, and that when it is a question of priests and parishes it is his will that is done and must be respected. One may disagree with bishops, and in extreme need even “fight” with them; but one is never to usurp their rights or try to “arrange” things without them, as though they were mere figureheads. One should be in fear and trembling before bishops, and never free or familiar. I fear that some of our “American Orthodoxy” in the Synod is doing just that—organizing psychological-spiritual dioceses of their own, and treating bishops as figureheads who “don’t understand.” God gave them to us, and if there are sometimes difficulties, that also is for our benefit and salvation, and we must approach them with spiritual means.

Please do not make Etna into parish and diocese business—didn’t you go there to escape things like that? You’ve taken the busy-busy church world with you. Be patient. What you want will come in God’s time, if it is truly His will; just don’t think you are so wise.

This comes from me; Fr. Herman would probably say it stronger! As far as we know, he made his connections all right and is in Jordanville to say farewell to his Abba [Archbishop Averky]. This is a great, great loss to us. We thank God that we were able to present him as a “living link” while he was still alive rather than (as is usual) waiting until he is gone before starting to appreciate him.

Forgive me. Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Brother in Christ, Nicholas [Eastman?],

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. I pray you are faring well in the Fast and will be prepared to meet the Holy Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour. This is spiritually a very rich part of the year for us, with the long services, the special Lenten tone of life, the readings from the Holy Fathers. I imagine all the readings there are in Russian, but I hope that somehow you are able to get benefit from this practice of readings during the services. Here we have been reading the Ladder, the Lausiac History, Abba Dorotheus, and the Life of the Fathers of St. Gregory of Tours. Reading some of these books over again every year only puts them deeper into one’s Orthodox consciousness, and there are always “new” things there no matter how often one has read them—which, of course, only shows how dense we are and how much we need such things.

I hope that in the midst of your learning (which we pray may be very fruitful!) you are also getting the feel for that which can’t be directly taught—the tone of Orthodox life and thought which comes “between the lines” as it were, the respect for the older generation which is handing down the sacred treasure of Orthodoxy, the approach to the teaching of the Holy Fathers which should be not academic but practical, and should see beyond superficial “disputes” to the deeper meaning of the Patristic teaching. The Patristic “experts” of the newer school miss this, and this is a great temptation in our Church now also, since everyone is now affected to some degree or other by the soul-less academic air around us. Of late we have noticed how shallow has been the discussion of Blessed Augustine—a cold, calculating approach to him which would either condescendingly “accept” him or else “throw him out of the calendar” based solely on an abstract analysis of his teaching. But the true Orthodox perspective is, first of all, to distrust ones abstract “theological” outlook and ask: what do our elders think; what did recent Fathers think? And taking these opinions respectfully, one then begins to put together the picture for oneself. But the “new theologians,” when they hear that our recent fathers such as St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain or our own Archbishop John had great respect for Blessed Augustine, can only say with disdain— “they were under Western influence”—and throw out their weighty opinions with a quite “Western” lack of feeling and understanding. Anyone who has read Bl. Augustine’s Confessions with Sympathy will not readily want to “throw him out of the calendar”—for he will see in this book precisely that fiery zeal and love which is precisely what is so lacking in our Orthodox life today! Have you read this book, by the way?—you should. Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov, in his 19th century Patrology, while setting forth clearly Bl. Augustine’s mistakes—or rather, overemphases—still highly praises this book for its warmth and piety. And perhaps Bl. Augustine’s very “Westernness” makes him more relevant for us today who are submerged in the West and its way of thought; it is surely pride for us to think that we will read only the great “Eastern” and “mystical” books.

Well, I didn’t really mean to digress so much on this subject. But at least you know that we are thinking of you and are very anxious for you to get the maximum from your seminary and monastery experience. Above all, keep your heart open to learn to be a little detached from the many intellectual arguments and currents that buzz about our Church. Let us know how you are doing. Pray for us— we have started to print the book on the Life of Blessed Paisius, which is an immense project for us. (Tell that to Br. Macarius—he asked us about it and I don’t think I’ve answered him yet.)

With love in Christ,
S. M.

(St. Alexis the Man of God)

Dear Alexey,

Again, congratulations on your namesday. May Christ our God preserve you ever in His

grace.

We were encouraged by your dream of our “library”—at least it exists somewhere\ As a matter of fact, we’ve been thinking of it much of late, but a more urgent project is a small addition to our printshop in order to store our Paisius book, etc. Now that we’ve started printing in earnest, our several hundred pages of lead is turning into several tons of paper, and it’s becoming a major problem! Also, the Religion of the Future must now be printed, and we were sobered to realize that with the new printing (which we hope to do through your printer in Oregon, which will save us at least $100, depending on how many we print) there will be between 4000 and 5000 copies in circulation, if one includes the original printing in The Orthodox Word. It is obvious that there is real interest in the real Orthodoxy. What is disappointing is to discover how little “follow-through” there is—i.e., the story of our numerous convert failures. We have not heard again from Paul Bartlett; most likely he will indeed try to find his “answers” from Boston et al, for he wants, first of all, some kind of “security” that does not touch or change or commit him too much. There does not seem to be much more hope for the other graduates of our “academy” last summer either. They’ve all stayed in contact with us, but it’s obvious that Christopher is well on the way to becoming an “Orthodox floater,” and Fr. Symeon is well on the way to making the rounds of the “disillusioned convert syndrome” who can find peace nowhere. We pray that they will survive, but their own background and the world atmosphere conspire strongly against them. Paul Bassett continues in his dreams, but at least he does stay in one place, Jordanville, and we just now received from him, and were much touched, a battery charger for our tape-recorder batteries!

Did you notice that you Were quoted in the Witness? Does that amount to the diplomatic recognition of a revolutionary government?

God willing, the last OW for 1976 [meaning 1975] will be out next week, and the first one for the new year should be out not too long after, but probably only after Pascha. We will be filling several issues with Orthodox Gaul, and of course there may be quibblers, considering the fact that these saints “aren’t in the Calendar,” and also that the shade of Blessed Augustine looms over several of the great figures of this time. Concerning the first point, we were greatly relieved by Vladika Nektary’s reaction—he asked only one question: were they recognized as saints then by the Roman Church? If so, then of course they are Orthodox—with perhaps a very few exceptions who should be investigated separately. Concerning the second point we have been a little apprehensive over the “Boston reaction,” purely from the point of view of the “static” that it could cause. It was therefore with immense relief that we received a few days ago Fr. Neketas’ newest reprint, of Fr. George Grabbe’s article on Orthodox education of children, where “Saint Prosper of Aquitaine” is favorably quoted! The one “fanatical” supported of Bl. Augustine’s doctrine of grace in 5th century Gaul! He is the one figure of this time whom we would hesitate to call Saint without further research (which we will be doing soon)—but even then we would like to believe that he is simply “over-emphasizing” rather than giving a false teaching. Fr. Michael Azkoul’s brief article on Blessed Augustine in the new True Vine, by the way, is rather poor purely from the point of view of sources: he doesn’t know where to look to find what the Orthodox view of him is.

But apart from static, the air of 5th and 6th century Gaul is extremely invigorating and inspiring, and purely Orthodox, even down to details of iconography (what we know of it, for the icons themselves have almost entirely disappeared), vestments, etc. St. Gregory of Tours is such a rich source that it is not necessary to “reconstruct” the Orthodox spirit of this time; it is as well known to us as the spirit of the East at the same time, and his books are really of the same caliber as the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great, the Lausiac History, Spiritual Meadow, etc. If only God would give us a few more years of the golden opportunity we now have, we could use Gaul as a “beachhead” to give a powerful dose of Orthodox England and Ireland as well! Or perhaps you could do this! Let your trip this summer be for a beginning of an Orthodox awareness of the English past not only for you yourself, but for others as well; by the prayers of Vladika John may this trip be fruitful. I myself would love to sit here and translate the complete works of St. Gregory of Tours (which all exist in a very literal French version to aid my very feeble Latin), as well as several other basic texts of that time which we have in Russian. Sometimes we allow ourselves to dream, not only of a completed library, but of two or three brothers one in mind with us who could double or triple our translating and printing work; and then sober reality tells us that we are probably achieving maximum efficiency precisely by the “suffering through” which we are doing. I somehow have the feeling that we are “pre-digesting” the food for a number of seekers, and if we chewed too much they would begin to get sick!

I haven’t gone back to Kalomiros’ letter, and probably won’t attempt a reply before summer. The letter, although I find its tone distasteful, is helpful, because it shows the reaction that our “evolution book” would have had in some quarters if it hadn’t first been tested by this correspondence. This will help us to avoid “onesidedness.” I have the impression Kalomiros demonstrates quite a bit of rationalism himself; he writes not as from within a tradition himself, But as one who is striving to get into the tradition. Our uninterrupted Russian tradition, for all its real and supposed Westernisms, has a strength and resiliency which the “rediscoverers of tradition” do not have. May God help us to express these things in a way that can be accepted and assimilated today.

Fr. Michael Pomazansky, by the way, in his recent articles (at the age of 86!), shows that he is quite aware of this problem.

God willing, Vladika Nektary will be serving the Pre-sanctified Liturgy the week after next; if so, we will call you as soon as it is definite.

Pray for us.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Dr. Kalomiros,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We received your new letter on evolution. I have read it only once and it will be a long time before I will be able to answer it in detail. However, in general I will say this: I find it very helpful because I see that I have made some mistakes and expressed some things imprecisely, which you have corrected. I see also that you have made some mistakes, and you have accused me of saying things I did not say at all!—about these I will write later. Most of all, I am glad to see that you have expressed yourself in this letter much more clearly on some points than in you first letter, and therefore some of my criticisms do not apply to the kind of evolution in which you believe. But you did not express these points clearly in your first letter, and therefore I do not think I can be made entirely to blame for misunderstanding your position.

However, I am unhappy concerning the tone of your letter. You treat me as if I am your enemy, and say that I have been “dishonest” in my reply. I assure you that this is not so. My reply was very strongly worded, I admit, because there was nothing in your first letter to inform me that you did not share some of the worst errors of the evolutionists here in the West; and you spoke with such self- assurance that I did not know how to begin discussing the issue of evolution with you without expressing some things very strongly. I was not writing for publication, and therefore I was not afraid to make mistakes, trusting that you would correct these in a charitable spirit if you found them.

Now, however, I do not know if it is possible to continue this discussion or not. You have placed me in a “category”: I am a “fundamentalist,” a “literalist,” I am “against science” and under “Western influence.” I am afraid that anything I may now say, you will dismiss as of no value. If so, there is no point in my even replying to your letter; your mind is already make up about me and you will not listen to whatever I may say. I hope that this is not so, because you are the first Orthodox evolutionist I have found who is willing to discuss this question at all, and I think both of us could gain greatly by continuing this discussion. But I will have to tell you clearly that, despite your impression, I am not a fundamentalist, nor am I “against science”; quite the contrary.

But you are placing an impossible limitation to this discussion when you say (p. 12): “I would discuss evolution with you from the scientific point of view only if you had some diploma of one of the biological or geological branches of natural science.” Since you wish it to be so, I of course can say nothing. But let me quote one of your scientific statements (p. 11): “The stages of the embryo in the uterus are exactly the stages of life’s evolution upon earth. This is so exact that even the gills of our ancient ancestors, the fishes, exist in the foetus of even the most perfected animals of the solid earth, the mammals.” And now let me quote two statements made in scientific journals and textbooks by scientists possessing advanced degrees in their specialties:

1. “Haeckel’s recapitulation theory (which is exactly what you have described to me as an unquestioned scientific fact) has been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” (Walter J. Boch, biologist of Columbia University, New York, in the article “Evolution by Orderly Law,” in Science, Vol. 164, May 4, 1969, p. 684.)

2. “The type of analogical thinking that leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all “convincing or even very interesting to biologists.” (Prof. С. H. Waddington, University of Edinburgh, in Principles of Embryology, 1965, p. 10.)

I do not bring these examples in order to debate this theory with you; I do so only in order to show you that something which you accept as undisputed scientific fact is not only disputed but even denied by reputable scientists, many of whom are themselves evolutionists! The same is true of some other “scientific facts” which you cite, and which you refuse to allow me to discuss with you.

Despite your accusation, I am not ‘‘against science. ” I do not have an advanced degree in science, but I have taken college courses in zoology and done considerable reading in scientific sources on the theory and facts of evolution. I have read the Life book on Evolution and found it very disappointing, because I hoped to find in it demonstrations of facts (because I am sincerely interested to know whether evolution is true or not!), and instead I found only diagrams and pictures and descriptions which are not convincing to anyone with an open mind, but only to someone who already believes in evolution on other grounds. Your mind is evidently closed on this subject, and you seem to be unaware of the great mass of scientific literature in recent years which is highly critical of the evolutionary theory, which talks about relegating it to poetry and metaphors instead of scientific theory (Prof. Constance, professor of botany at the University of California, Berkeley), or even deny its validity altogether. If you wish (but it is quite pointless!), I could indeed compile a list of hundreds (if not thousands) of reputable scientists who now either disbelieve in evolution entirely or state that it is highly questionable as a scientific theory. Many of them state quite openly (evidently Greece is still behind the West in this regard) that a “literal” creation in six 24-hour days is one possible interpretation of the scientific facts which we now have. (Although you will recall that I wrote in my first letter that this question is not one of the first importance, in my opinion.) There is also now much scientific evidence that the world is no older than 8 to 10,000 years. (I do not say that this is “scientifically proved”—I say only what scientists themselves now say—that there are some undisputed scientific facts which make sense only if the world is very young.) Are you going to tell me that I am crazy or “against science” when I can quote doctors of geological and biological sciences (Many of whom are not “fundamentalists”) who say things like this? If so, then there is no point discussing the issue further, because that would mean that you yourself are against science, are against an impartial and objective examination of scientific facts. I pray that this is not so, for then your views on evolution would be worthless, being only the creation of your own imagination.

I do not wish to discuss in detail with you any of the scientific evidence for or against evolution—there are others who can do this much better than I. I only ask, to begin with, that you allow me to send you one book, written by a scientific specialist (in geology, I believe), who has given his views at lectures to geological societies here in America, that contains, in a rather balanced discussion, criticisms of the many weak points of the evolutionary theory. I do not agree with everything written there (it is on a somewhat popular, college-age level), but it does give us a beginning for possible further discussion. Religion is not mentioned in this book, which discusses only scientific evidence. If you are willing to read this book, or at least some chapters of it which interest you, with a reasonably open “scientific” mind—then it will be possible to continue our discussion.

Please be assured that I am not at all disrespectful of your views; if my previous letter seemed harsh to you, I sincerely ask your forgiveness and beg that we both can continue this discussion in a more moderate tone. From your other letters I see that we have much in common in our approach in Orthodoxy. We are both very interested in the evolutionary question, and the fact that we approach it in such different ways means that our discussion of it could be very fruitful. If we both approach it with an open mind, I am even persuaded that we can finally come to a basic agreement on it—assuming also, of course, that we are both willing to accept criticism and recognize and correct our errors, whether of theology or science or philosophy. Both of us are obviously under “Western influences” of various kinds—we can see it in you just as you can see it in me. But must we therefore cease to live and talk because of that and just accept what some “experts” are going to tell us is the Orthodox teaching? Who today is not under Western influence?—that is the air we breathe, and we can hardly help being influenced by it. But let us battle together against it and try to come to the truth.

I assure you of my utmost respect.

With love in Christ our Saviour,
Seraphim, monk

P.s. Alexey Young has informed me that you have sent him a copy of your letter to us. We have already discussed this question with him and were planning to show him your letter anyway. But I hope that you have sent a copy to no one else. Later we can share with others the results of our discussion; but to expose our preliminary writings to outsiders now would only cause many unnecessary comments and even “disputes”!

Dear Alexey,

Just a note to accompany the (separately mailed) American Scientist and Xeroxes. Eugene Zavarin has sent his first general comments on the “scientific” part of our evolution study, to be followed by a detailed criticism. He has two main criticisms:

(1) He thinks the “author” (we didn’t tell him who wrote it) is too harsh on the dating systems—he will comment more fully on this.

(2) In general, while the article is “well written and displays familiarity with scientific facts well above that of our average priest” etc., “at the same time his familiarity is below that of a college graduate in the field relating to some aspect of evolution,” which leads to his second main criticism— “over-reliance on popular and high school texts. The high school graduates are commonly served over-doctored theories with holes neatly covered up. One should rely more on opinions of people having experimental experience with evolution. (Dobzhansky, thus, he approves.) Author is apparently unaware that teaching of evolution in high school was under criticism (Dr. Wenner—enclosed Xerox), and that evolution has a good chance of being separated from taxonomy (philosophically) (Sneath and Sokal—enclosed). Constance, in one of his papers (article also enclosed) thinks of relegating evolutionary schemes to poetry and metaphors. This does not say that authorities cited do not believe in evolution, only that their beliefs and thinking must be correctly assessed.”

To me it looks as though Genya’s viewpoint will suffer from exactly the opposite weakness which he finds in our paper—too much reliance of technical studies which (to judge from my brief glance at the material he sent, all of which I am passing on to you) make no difference at all in the main point, the philosophical approach which these scientists have.

I myself would say (before seeing his detailed criticism) that our basic framework of popular and high school texts is the right one—for that is how it is taught and understood and where the evolutionary philosophy comes through loud and clear. But it would be good to strengthen our position with more reference to “sophisticated” scientific sources—to show we are aware that scientists don’t believe everything they give the high school student, and even realize that much there comes from “faith”—but still have the basic evolutionary faith that the universe “explains itself” and can be understood in “natural” terms. I don’t recall if we have made it clear anywhere yet that our argument is only secondarily against the particular theory of evolution, and primarily against the larger idea of naturalism—that the universe explains itself. That will probably come out in the “philosophy” section which I hope to send you soon.

Anyway, maybe these articles will give you food for thought. Keep them in your “evolution file.”

Pray for Paul Bartlett. He writes that he is about to “give up” on Orthodoxy and is “weary” from not having found what he has been searching for 16 years! Sadly, a typical convert story (one of the basic types)—emptiness inside, and he wants to get something from Orthodoxy without working on himself i.e., giving something to God. I’m writing him to read the Confessions of Bl. Augustine—a good “convert” book, although of course Bl. Augustine had very much inside to begin with! Interestingly, in Book 7 he describes how he and 10 of his friends wanted to start a commune—but then they thought how wives would fit in, and the whole plan collapsed!

The new Nikodemos is very inspiring. Please add to your subscription list (and send some back copies if you can) to: Peter Herrin, 1814 Ogden Dr., Burlingame, Ca 94010.

St. Gregory of Tours is tremendously inspiring! We’ve found a 10th-century Life of him taken mainly from his own works—one of the most moving Lives I’ve read.

Seraphim, monk

Dear Alexey,

Enclosed is a new fruit—unfortunately mostly reprints, but we hope the cover is new and inspiring.

In our visit we didn’t have a chance to ask you how Nina is getting along in the community. Is she getting a longing for big-city life? She told me that she and Barbara are not getting along, and she thinks it must be jealousy. Could it be that Barbara just can’t stand Nina’s “type”—outspoken, “intellectual,” “always right,” still reflecting something of the “hothouse” atmosphere of the “Boston” approach?

I’ve written and talked to Nina some about this “hothouse” approach to Orthodoxy—filled with gossip, knowing “what’s going on,” having the “right answer” to everything according to what the “experts” say. I begin to think that this is really her basic problem, and not Fr. Panteleimon directly.

An example: Nina is horrified that Fr. Herman’s brother-in-law was received into the Church without baptism or chrismation; “that’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more her) business. The rite by which has was received has long been approved by the Church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because Harvey might have hesitated much more at being baptized—the Church’s condescension here was wise. But Nina would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor…” My dear, he was there composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the Church atmosphere; and if she is going to tell Harvey (Thomas) now that he is not really baptized or a member of the Orthodox Church, she could do untold harm to a soul.

Another example: Nina was very pleased that our Daniel was baptized in Jordanville; finally he did it “right”! (Our Laurence thinks the same thing.) But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. St. Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts it is obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being members of the Church are trying out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers: if the priest or bishop who received such people were “wrong” (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of “Church within the Church” is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today—and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.

I wonder if Phanourios will not have this problem? He is hesitant about just going to confession to be joined to our Church, especially after hearing that his friend Macarios was baptized in Jordanville. When I asked him whether he thought he had to be baptized too, he said no, just as long as he’s given a clear answer as to what he should do. So we told him we would ask Vladika Anthony’s blessing for him to be received and how. But frankly, no matter what anyone might think or say, our Church has never broken communion with the Greek Archdiocese, and in fact Metr. Philaret s latest epistle to the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople still addresses them as Orthodox bishops. I suspect that any priest in this diocese would be horrified at the idea of baptizing someone who comes from the Greek Archdiocese. But in this case let us see what Vladika Anthony says, and then pray that no one is coming to disturb Phanourios afterwards with tempting thoughts of solving all his problems by Baptism.

At times we would like to think that the whole “Fr. Panteleimon” problem in our Church is just a matter of differing emphases which, in the end, will not be so terribly important. But the more we observe, the more we come to think that it is much more serious than that, that in fact an “Orthodox sectarianism” is being formed at the expense of our simple people. Therefore, those who are aware of all this must be “zealots according to knowledge.” The Church has survived worse temptations in the past; but we fear for our converts lest in their simplicity they be led into a sect and out of the Church.

God is with us! We must go forward in faith.

With love in Christ,
Seraphim, monk

Dear Dr. Kalomiros,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sorry to be so late in answering your last letter. We have been working constantly at catching up on printing, and then I was sick with flu for several weeks. In general, our printing work is accomplished with great difficulty, and our helpers (both novices and laborers) often cost us as much labor (especially of soul) than they give in exchange—they are often so immature, so ready to accept and follow the most obvious temptations from the evil one. But we strongly feel that God and His saints are with us, and we go forward in faith. We sent you several weeks ago (by sea mail) a copy of our 1976 Calendar and The Northern Thebaid, which we finally finished very late. Today likewise we are sending you our latest Orthodox Word (July-August!); we hope to have the Sept-Oct. issue out in two weeks, God willing, although even then we will be far from caught up. Our winter weather has been very warm, with almost no snow, which has greatly aided our printing work—although with such a winter there is always danger of a shortage of water by the end of summer. But this is in God’s hands.

The Fr. Panteleimon-Archbishop Averky incident has quieted down, after causing some disturbance in our Church. Apparently the incident itself was due to a misunderstanding, since Fr. Panteleimon apparently did not actually mean to break off communion. But the incident, “accidental” or not, is significant of deeper disagreements beneath the surface of our Church life, and as long as Fr. Panteleimon thinks (or at least gives the impression) that he is the Orthodox “expert” in our Church and knows better than all our bishops and theologians, there will be other such incidents in future. We have been told that Fr. Panteleimon has been humbled by this experience, but the one letter from his monastery that we have seen that explains his point of view does not seem at all humble, but rather was full of self-esteem and an “elitist” point of view—i.e., “no one but the bishops and a few of us chosen ones are supposed to know about all these things.” This “know-better” outlook is very bad and harmful.

We ourselves cannot pass judgment on the question of Bishop Petros, because we have never received any actual evidence for or against him. You seem to think that our bishops have been against Bp. Petros for many years; but all the bishops whose opinion we know have been, on the contrary, very favorable towards him. The campaign against him in our Church is Fr. Panteleimons work, and it is solely Fr. Panteleimons idea that our Russian Church Abroad is the “only canonical American jurisdiction” and that the Greeks therefore have no right to their own jurisdiction here. Our bishops are so much occupied with the cares of their own exiled flocks that they do not have the leisure to indulge in useless disputes over “canonical rights,” and being very practical-minded, they are quite willing to live on friendly terms with a Greek jurisdiction of Old Calendarists in America. When Fr. Panteleimon was preparing to join our Synod in 1965, Archbishop John told me that the logical place for him was under Bishop Petros, whom Archbp. John greatly respected. When Fr. Panteleimon persuaded our bishops to accept him under the Synod, an act which could not help but cause troubles in future, as long as Fr. Panteleimon regarded himself as a rival with Bishop Petros for influence with the Greeks in America—which sadly, is just what he did, instead of remaining quietly in his monastery, as our bishops undoubtedly expected him to do.

But despite Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros has been in communion with our Synod, and I think it is only a few bishops like Archbishop Vitaly who have taken sides with Fr. Panteleimon against Bp. Petros. With this background, I hope that you will be able to understand the position of Archbishop Averky. Archbp. Averky has allowed Bp. Petros to serve at Jordanville for many years, and he has not been informed (to our knowledge) of any accusations against Bp. Petros except that he refuses to deny the validity of New-Calendar Sacraments (which our bishops also refuse to deny). If any serious report of “ecumenical” activity on Bp. Petros’ part had been reported to Archbishop Averky, he would certainly have taken it most seriously and investigated it. All Archbishop Averky can see is the private rivalry of Fr. Panteleimon with Bishop Petros and he quite rightly refuses to take sides in this political battle. Archbishop Averky, therefore, finds the insistence of the “brazen young Archimandrite” Panteleimon that he not let Bp. Petros serve at Jordanville to be an intolerable impudence—as if Russian bishops must be forced to “take sides” in a “Greek quarrel,” which until now has seemed to be of a purely personal nature. Further, whether rightly or wrongly, our bishops do not feel the decisions of the Synod of Auxentios to be binding upon them; why, indeed, should Archbishop Averky not allow Bishop Petros to serve, when several of our bishops have allowed Bishop Callistos to serve—who is also not in communion with the Synod of Auxentios? Very likely our Synods dealings with the Mathewites at the 1971 Sobor were a mistake—but now the situation has become more complicated and it is difficult to see how a normal relation of our Church to yours can be restored. Perhaps all we can hope for is that at least communion will not be broken, despite many “irregularities” on both sides.

The situation with regard to Bishop Petros has been temporarily resolved by the decision of our Synod not to have communion with Bishop Petros until he is restored to communion with the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios. I’m afraid the followers of Fr. Panteleimon have taken this as a “victory” (“we made the Russian bishops back down!”), when actually it is obviously just a means for keeping Fr. Panteleimon quiet. Some of our bishops, in the absence of any concrete evidence against Bp. Petros, regard this decision as a mistake.

But all this, frankly, we find very uninteresting! The most important thing, and the greatest danger to our Orthodoxy, is occurring on another level—in the loss of conscious Orthodox life. Alexey Young let us read your two letters to him on the subject of an Orthodox community, as a means or help to preserving this conscious Orthodox life. We found them most interesting. We ourselves have given much thought to this question, and the new issue of The Orthodox Word has a little of our ideas on this (in the article on Archbishop Andrew). But it is not possible to express oneself fully on this subject in print, because the Orthodox people are simply too immature—the idea of an “Orthodox community” is very attractive, but almost no one is aware of or prepared for the difficulties and sacrifice involved in bringing it into reality, and the result is only hopeless experiments and disillusionment.

The monastic community is still possible even in bur days, but—as our experience has shown us clearly—it is very difficult and requires constant struggles to maintain. «But a lay community is much more difficult to establish and preserve, because laymen do not have the principle of obedience to an elder, which cuts off arguments and fighting, and also the family is the natural unit for lay people, and a group of families can never be as close as a monastic “family” under an elder.

But still, if one learns to be realistic and does not expect from a lay community as much as one does of a monastic community, this also is a possibility for our days—and actually a very important one. Life in an ordinary Orthodox parish today, in the abnormal big-city atmosphere and surrounded by unheard-of temptations—is not normal for Orthodoxy. We know a very zealous priest in New Jersey, with a very large flock and many young people. But he tells us that he is fighting a losing battle. He has the young people in church school for a few hours on Sunday, and perhaps Saturday night, and for an hour or two of church school on Saturday—and the whole rest of the week they are subject to the contrary influences of the public schools, television, etc. The desire to have an atmosphere where the Church can have more part in life and more influence on children—is a very natural Orthodox desire, and not something “odd”or a sign of “prelest,” as many seem to think.

The basic spiritual principles of such a community we have tried to set forth in our article on Archbishop Andrew. The most apparent outward sign of this community seems to be the Divine services (even if only a minimum of them), whether with a priest or without—but daily, this being the point around which everything else revolves. In our present-day conditions, also, there must be a conscious effort to get away from involvement in the world—thus, small towns in preference to large cities, freedom (as much as possible) from television, newspapers, telephone, etc. And something more: there must be a getting away from the worldly spirit in the Church itself, this means getting away even from ordinary parish life, if possible, for this has become very worldly today.

The Etna community is by no means a highly “idealistic” or “experimental” community; it is rather a natural growth from special conditions which are exceptionally favorable for Orthodox self-preservation—provided, of course, that the basic Orthodox zeal and fervor are present to begin with. The greatest blessing for this community is, paradoxically enough, that they are far from an Orthodox parish—this has forced them to get out of the rut of so many Orthodox people today who take for granted everything about the Church and assume that someone else is “in charge” of the Church and its services, etc. These people have been forced to do the services themselves, and therefore the services are much more dear to them; and the difficulties they must go through to get to a priest and receive Holy Communion are so great that they dearly treasure this privilege and are literally working out their salvation with fear and trembling. Of course, we Americans are also blessed because everything in Orthodoxy is so new to us and therefore precious—every new translation of a saint s life or service is a new discovery for us, all the more so if we can participate in it ourselves.

We ourselves have a feeling—based on nothing very definite as yet—that the best hope for preserving true Orthodoxy in the years ahead will lie in such small gatherings of believers, as much as possible “one in mind and soul.” The history of the 20th century has already shown us that we cannot expect too much from the “Church organization”; there, even apart from heresies, the spirit of the world has become very strong. Archbishop Averky, and our own Bishop Nektary also, have warned us to prepare for catacomb times ahead, when the grace of God may even be taken away from the “Church organization” and only isolated groups of believers will remain. Soviet Russia already gives us an example of what we may expect—only worse, for the times do not get better.

But it is very difficult to plan for the difficult times ahead. There is much wilderness in our Northern California. Both Alexey Young and we ourselves live at the edge of wilderness areas where there is no dwelling for 30 or 40 miles. But with airplanes and other modern inventions, of course, there will be no “hiding” unless God covers us. From Russian experience we know that believers have been hidden both in large cities and in wildernesses (several forest monasteries were undiscovered for 20 years or more, as I recall). We trust that God will guide us in what to do when the time comes. Until then, we can only try to do our best in the conditions we have, trying to learn the principles of spiritual life, and cutting ourselves off from the world to the best of our ability. Our own skete is quite ideally situated in this regard, being two miles from the nearest human dwelling and totally without “conveniences” (perhaps our greatest blessing is the absence of a telephone, which has already saved us much grief). But as long as we are involved with printing (we have our own electric generator) and with correspondence, of course, our ties to the world remain very great. On feast days we feel the great blessing of the total absence of city noises, and even of country noises such as barking dogs—we are thus able to give ourselves entirely to the feast, with unhindered processions and singing all over our mountain.

The future, it is evident, is very dark. We ourselves do not know from one year to the next whether we will have another year of printing activity or not. We pray that God will give us at least a few more years, if only to print those patristic materials which will help us and others to survive in the dark days ahead. In America this is the “bicentennial” year—and we feel it as especially dark and ominous. Each nation has its guardian angel—thus also each pagan or masonic festival must have its special demon! We in America are grateful for our freedom, but we know the dark masonic origins of our American ideology and tremble for the future when the meaning of the occult symbols of our government (visible in our currency, for example—the unfinished pyramid, the all-seeing eye, the number 13 everywhere, the “novus ordo seclorum”) will begin to be fulfilled. Even without a Communist coup, our future is dark; “democracy,” after all, only prepared the way for Communism, and spiritually they come from the same source and prepare for the same future.

Concerning the pamphlet by Archimandrite Constantine— “Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy before the Face of Antichrist”—it is expressed in such difficult, Germanic-style language that it is easy to see that it might be misunderstood. We know him well (he reposed, by the way, on Nov. 13/26 last, at the age of 88) and therefore are not misled by some phrases which apparently trouble your friend. His thought is not at all “ecumenical,” but is rather abstractly speculative. His basic idea here, I believe, is this: True Orthodox Christians have a natural sympathy for the traditionalist Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants who, even in error, at least stand against the times in their faithfulness to what truth they have; perhaps, in the approaching time of Antichrist, this faithfulness will somehow draw them nearer to the full truth, Orthodoxy; therefore we should increase our missionary labors so that they might become Orthodox. Fr. Constantine, as always, understates his position, assuming the reader knows his basic philosophy, which is uncompromisingly anti-ecumenist.

Our own experience leads us to think that only in a very few cases does the traditionalist papist or fundamentalist Protestant come to Orthodoxy; most remain7 “faithful” to their denomination—and go down together with the ship! Under Communist rule is seems to be no different, and humanly speaking we see little hope for even in a liberated Russian—but with God all is possible.

We are a little disturbed, however, to hear that your friend regards such a speculative article as cause for such great suspicion. We would much prefer to see among zealous Orthodox Christians tolerance even of outright mistakes, as long as the basic Orthodox attitude and orientation is present. But, as I said, the language of Fr. Constantine is difficult and might give one a wrong impression if one knew nothing of his whole Orthodox outlook.

One last word about Fr. Panteleimon—I believe now that we were mistaken that he was planning to go to the Mathewites; he seems after all sincere in his desire to stay with our Synod, which is really the most advantageous place for him, since he is not subject to the restrictions either of our Russian priests or of Greek priests in a Greek jurisdiction. But I still think he may be driven to the Mathewites in order to remain “consistent,” unless he can be humbled enough not to think he is always “right” and “knows better” than anyone else. His positive qualities are very good, and it would be tragic if he destroyed them just for his “political” position. We notice that Fr. Neketas Palassis in his Witness, although he still occasionally mentions The Orthodox Word, has not once mentioned our publications of this last year—the Calendar, Northern Thebaid, and Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. We suspect this is because of politics—we do not always follow their “party line,” and therefore we are no longer to be much recommended, even it we do not say anything to which they object too much. They wish to “lead,” and we are independent. We do not wish to have an opposing “party line,” so we will try to be objective with regard to them and to missionary labors in general. The younger priests in America, both converts and Russians, we trust are mostly able to think for themselves and not just follow what they are “told by the experts.” In general, it seems that Orthodox Christians today must more and more be helped precisely to think for themselves.

We ask your prayers and look forward to your letter—and the evolution article!

With love in Christ,