Rendering to God

 

John Singleton Copley - The Tribute Money (1782) 

A few days ago, I wrote an article about Patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church. In that article, I mentioned that the Russian government and the Church were collaborating together to establish a new order in Russia. Without resurrecting that horse, I feel that it is necessary for me to talk about the Church’s involvement in political affairs.

Metropolitan Jonah, retired Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, has been giving a series of lectures at St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Washington, DC. The lectures themselves focus on various aspects of the Orthodox faith and are very interesting. His Beatitude, however, recently talked about politics. In a discussion he delivered about Orthopraxy, he talked about the destruction of the inner city, libertarianism, and other aspects of current affairs that have no place in a discussion of Orthopraxy (practice of the Church).

Personally, I don’t mind it if bishops and priests have their own political ideas. I don’t mind if they discuss said ideas on the internet. What I mind is when politics is discussed from the pulpit and when the Church gets involved in issues that do not directly have anything to do with her.

Not so long ago, I was watching an interview with a traditionalist Roman Catholic priest out in California. His interviewer asked him if it was okay to preach about politics from the pulpit during an election season. Father X. pointed out that it was not his business to tell people who to vote for and what issues to vote on. From the pulpit, he was allowed to talk about the moral implications of said issues, but not to state outright how people should vote and what they should think.

You see, there is a massive difference between preaching about morality from the pulpit and gathering votes for your favorite candidate. A priest can talk about how immoral abortion is and what a problem it creates in terms of demography. However, he should not talk about which candidate he personally endorses for the Senate. A hieromonk can preach against homosexuality, but he has no right to tell people how to vote.

The problem I had when listening to Metropolitan Jonah’s lecture (since deleted from YouTube) was that he was telling his listeners and, by extension, the viewers what to think and how to feel. I told a friend of mine that if he endorsed monarchism as the Orthodox way of ruling, then I would shut down the thing. Mercifully, there was nothing like that.

The Church has never stated what the appropriate form of government should or should not be. Russian monarchists will tell you that monarchy works best. However, Russian history indicates that monarchy only works well when you have somebody ruling with a strong fist like Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great. While those men were anointed by bishops to serve Russia as monarchs, the Church in no way has endorsed monarchy as being the right form of government.

You see, the Church is beyond politics. In the early centuries and for most of Church history, believers have tried not to stand out. If they held public office, they kept their faith personal. Only when they themselves were affected would they speak truth to power. For example, St. Demetrius was ordered by the governor of Thessalonica to persecute the Christians in the city. When he told the governor that he wouldn’t do it because it was against his religion, only then did he confess to being a Christian. Not before.

In the Gospels, Christ stated outright that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Caesar represents the government and the political life of the world in which we live. We are to fill out our taxes, vote, and do what is appropriate for us as citizens. However, we should not mix our spiritual life up with the political world in which we live. 

All's Not Quiet on Eastern Front

In 2009, Patriarch Kirill was elected to be the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the six years since his installation, there has been a great deal of debate about the inner corruption of the church and its work with the government. For the most part, the voices of the grassroots activists have not been heard outside of Russia or they have been completely ignored because of their unpopular opinions. The following is a list of grievances that I have gleaned from watching various videos on YouTube in Russian.

1. Fascist treatment of non-mainstream Orthodox groups. In an address given several years ago, Patriarch Kirill referred to the members of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) and other catacomb groups which do not recognize him as “subhuman sectants.” There have been numerous attempts by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian government to shut down these groups. In Udmurtia, the parish church of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas was evicted from its property several times by the local diocese and patriarchate. In Suzdal, the ROAC and the government as well as the Moscow Patriarchate have been engaged in a long standing legal dispute over an ancient church in the historic city as well as the relics of a local saint.

The Moscow Patriarchate wants to stamp out all opposition in Russia that comes from non-MP groups. It views all of these groups as schismatic and, therefore, not worthy of being treated with any respect. In a Moscow suburb, there has been a case where a local catacomb family was forcibly evicted from its property by a parish priest who wanted to expand his church building. It is simply inconceivable why Father X. couldn’t build his church in the opposite direction or build on the land he was already given. 

2. The Collaboration between the Church and the Government. This item is not new. The symbol of the Russian tsars and the Byzantine emperors was the double-headed eagle, which symbolized the emperor and the patriarch working together. During the latter years of tsarist rule in Russia, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church worked in close collaboration with the regime because it was a government department under the personal rule of an ober-procurator who was responsible to the tsar. (This was one of Peter the Great’s many church reforms, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

In today’s Russia, most politicians and oligarchs portray themselves as being Orthodox. There are many photographs of Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill that make their way into newspapers. The Church has a strong lobby in the parliament and is able to lobby for educational and other reforms that are basically rubber stamped by the Kremlin since they go along with its party line.

One of the most recent reforms under discussion in Russia is the teaching of catechism classes beginning in the second grade.  This initiative was put forward by Patriarch Kirill himself. However, it flies in the face of the Russian constitution where it states, in language similar to our own Bill of Rights, that government shall create a state religion or impose one. Unfortunately, mandatory catechism classes in public schools violates freedom of religion in Russia and creates problems for educators since Russian public schools have been secular since 1917.

3. Corruption of the Clergy. This is not a new issue either. In tsarist Russia, there were numerous members of the clergy who were skin flints, drunkards, or worse. However, tsarist Russia did not have YouTube, iPhones, or any other methods for recording and reporting the corruption of the clergy and making it public. Due to the internet, a great of clergy corruption has been exposed for the whole world to see.

Patriarch Kirill’s lavish lifestyle including a palatial residence outside of Moscow that is currently being built for him as well as expensive watch (Photoshopped out of photographs) have come under criticism from believers and non-believers alike. Back in 1918, St. Tikhon did not ride around in a Mercedes or wear a Rolex. Way, way back in the 1300s, St. Alexis of Moscow did not need an entire motorcade to get from one part of Moscow to the other. To a certain extent, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus has become a politician and celebrity in his own right. His expensive lifestyle being part of it and it is this that befuddles so many people.

4. Church Scandals. The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia is not immune to scandals either. Over the last several years, there have been reports of children being routinely abused in monastic orphanages. They were starved and beaten for minor infractions. They were kept on a monastic rule and did not have clean clothes. These stories have scandalized many people into wondering who is controlling the monks and nuns that run these places. Indeed, these stories are so shocking to so many believers that they refuse to believe them in the first place.

Without a doubt, these and other incidents have made people wonder about whether there is any oversight at the top levels of the Church organization. Many wonder why the Patriarchate has not put its foot down and stopped the numerous false elders who are marching around Russia and influencing hundreds of thousands of people to hand over their life savings to build churches and their children to be educated in monastery.

(Note: An elder in the Orthodox tradition is a monk who possesses the gifts of the Holy Spirit in a way that is very different from that of a parish priest. In most cases, he is clairvoyant and can work miracles as well as give advice.)

Of course, this is only a short list of things that I find disturbing about the Church situation in Russia. I have no doubt that there are many fine members of the clergy in Russia, but there are also many rotten apples as well. The preceding article has been done as a public service.

Further information in Russian and English can be found here and here. 

"In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek": Nationalism and Orthodox Christianity

Andrei Rublev - St. Paul.

In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion about nationalism and Orthodox Christianity in America. If you look in the Yellow Pages or enter the word “Orthodox Church” and the name of your city, you will probably find a list of parishes. If you look closely enough, you will find that more than one of them will have some kind of ethnic group attached next to it (Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian). This can be confusing to many Americans since the Greeks, the Russians, and the Bulgarians belong to the same Orthodox denomination, hold the same beliefs, and have a similar praxis of the Faith.

The main reason why countries of origin are thrown in next to the names of church has to do with church history in the United States. A little more than one hundred years ago, numerous immigrants were coming to this country from throughout Southeastern Europe and the Russian Empire. These groups of immigrants came together along national lines and built their parishes as a way to keep their communities together and preserve their ethnic identity. In the fictional city of Anytown that I like to use the Russians built St. George’s, the Serbs had St. Sava’s, and the Bulgarians built St. Cyril and Methodius.

For many reasons, the immigrant parish was an important place. It was where the children were taught about the faith, charitable committees were formed, languages schools were created, and so on. The parish almost exclusively served the local community in whatever ways it was needed. Very few people from outside ever joined and it was not until fairly recently that Americans have started converting to the Orthodox faith en masse.

Today, many of these parishes founded by immigrants still exist. As the parishioners have gotten older and depending on the jurisdiction, some of these parishes have become more Americanized. There might be English at the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. The priest might not be Bulgarian or Russian, but an American convert. Perhaps, most of the congregation wouldn’t even speak the old language or very few would if there haven’t been any immigrants from the old country in recent years.

Of course, there are places where the immigrant mindset is still alive and well. A good friend of mine has written a screenplay where a new choir director is register in the parish. He looks down at the form and says to the parish priest, “Native village?” The priest waves him off.  While this exchange may sound like a joke, it most certainly isn’t. How many people do you know that have shown up for services and been asked by some well-meaning older woman whether they were Russian, Serbian, or Greek? After all, aren’t those the people that go to this parish?

Paperwork aside, there is a nationalism that can infect parish life. In some Russian parishes, they like to celebrate “Victory Day” (V-E Day to Americans) with songs, dances, and films that come from the Soviet Union. However, Americans don’t celebrate “Victory Day.” The day on which Americans commemorate their war dead is Memorial Day.

Of course, the Russians also bring out their monarchism into a democracy. Indeed, it would seem that becoming an Orthodox Christian necessitates having an icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II in your icon corner, a Russian tricolor or Imperial flag on your wall, and a recording of Rachmaninov’s Second Symphony playing on the iPod.

None of this, however, is what Orthodox Christianity is about. At its core, Orthodox Christianity is about our inward transformation into icons of Christ. It is a deeply relational faith and one that challenges us to struggle constantly against the old man in order to put on the new. This struggles has very little to do with Victory Day celebrations, monarchism, or having to learn a new language. Indeed, these things are outer trappings and white washing.

St. Paul writes that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, circumcised or uncircumcised.” The same applies to the Church. There is no Bulgarian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, or Arab. We are all brothers and sisters to each other regardless of national origin and we are supposed to be transformed together. Putting our national differences at the forefront of our is not what it is about. Not at all.  

A Man in Full

Fr. Alexander Schmemann (+1983) in later years 

In recent years, there has been a great deal of debate about the writings of Fr. Alexander Schmemann (1921-1983), the former dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York and one of the foremost Orthodox theologians of the 20^th century. There are many people throughout the Orthodox world who view him as a radical, ecumenist reformer who wanted to see something akin to Vatican II in the Orthodox Church. On the other side of the fence, there are those who believe that his writings are relevant to the way that we see ourselves and the Church today and that they should be used for restricting. I take neither of these positions.

I was introduced to Fr. Schmemann's writings when I was a teenager. My home parish had a bookstore that contained a little book called “I Believe.” This was the first in a three volume set of sermons that were broadcast into Russia by Fr. Alexander via Radio Liberty. I recall reading this book over the course of several days and finding that it resonated with me very deeply.

The main reason for why I found resonance with Fr. Schmemann's writings was that he made religion simple. As anyone who has worked in radio will tell you, it is necessary to get the message across in the most cohesive and concise way possible. When religion and theology is under discussion, that kind of advice can be difficult to heed. However, Fr. Schmemann was so good at what he did that he brought thousands of people to the Orthodox Church and received letters from all over the Soviet Union thanking him for his broadcasts.

In his radio sermons, Fr. Schmemann speaks from the heart about the hard truths of human experience. He does not begin his series on the Nicene Creed with the first words, but rather uses the idea of what faith is. He talks about a study conducted in France wherein believers were to defined to ask what faith was and how it worked in their lives. In one of his broadcasts, he examined several of the most popular answers and gently demolished those with which the Orthodox Church does not agree.

Obviously, there is a great deal that is lost in translation. Russian is a language that is lyrical and almost poetic. When listening to these broadcasts online, one not only feels the power of the message that is being conveyed. One also hears the bass baritone voice, a voice akin to that of the great operatic singer Chaliapin that is speaking directly to its listeners.

Fr. Schmeman wrote numerous theological books and articles. “For the Life of the World” is probably his most important. It is an examination of the Sacrament of Holy Communion and the Divine Liturgy from many different angles. It is also an attempt to make us see how important the Divine Liturgy and the Eucharist is to our daily lives. As a matter of fact, Fr. Alexander Schmemann was an extremely vocal advocate for frequent Holy Communion, which was not common during his first years in America and yet is more common today.

In order to understand Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s life, however, it is necessary to read his journals. In the volume set that was published in Russia and the excerpts that have been translated in America, one gets to know the man behind the curtain. For most of his life, Fr. Alexander struggled to reconcile the many different threads that made him a man in full. He struggled with church politics in America and yet he also participated in them, he was a Russian living abroad and yet he also tried as hard as he could not to be a Russian.

The tremendous struggle recorded in these personal diaries during the last ten years of his life allow us to see that he was neither the renovationist demon of the conservatives nor the radical of the liberal of the Orthodox Church. Instead, Fr. Alexander Schmemann was a man just like any other. Someone who was working out his salvation in fear and trembling and trying to figure out what it all meant. This is the man that we do not see in our constant debates over his legacy and yet this is the only version of him that matters. May his memory be eternal! 

On Liturgical Languages

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Equals-to-the-Apostles
and Teachers of the Slavs. (Sofia, Bulgaria)

A friend and I have been having ongoing discussions on the state of Orthodox Christianity in America for a while. One of the recurring and most controversial topics within this is liturgical languages.

Orthodoxy has a great tradition of incorporating the native language of a people that has been missionized into the life of the Local Church. For example, translations were made of the Divine Liturgy and various other works into Chinese in the 19th century. St. Nicholas of Japan single-handedly translated these same texts as well as the Gospels into Japanese. Going even further back in church history, Sts. Cyril and Methodius created an alphabet for the Slavic peoples so that the divine services could be held in their own languages.

My friend and I both live in the United States. It would make sense if the liturgical language of our country is the same as the one that is spoken by the vast majority of the population - English. Sadly, this is not the case. While the Antiochian Self-Ruled Archiodecese and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) hold their services almost exclusively in English, there are other jurisdictions which do not use English at all or only make grudging concessions to its usage.

Let's use  St. George Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Anytown, USA, as an example of what happens in some places. St. George was established in the 1930s by a group of White emigres and has been under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) ever since. If you go to St. George's website and pull up a church schedule, you will see that all of the services are conducted in Church Slavonic (the liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox Church) on a weekly basis. This is all good fine and if you're a Russian, Serb, or Bulgarian, but what if you're not.

You peruse the schedule again. What do you see? Before every Slavonic service on Sunday, there is an English service that is served by a separate group of clergy with American sounding names. However, this Liturgy is at 7:30 in the morning whereas the Slavonic is at 10:00 am. So, which one do you attend? Do you sacrifice a language that is familiar to you for one that you've never heard? Do you sacrifice a service that you can follow for one you can't? That's up to you.

St. George Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Anytown is an example of a parish that tries to balance English and Church Slavonic by having two Liturgies every Sunday. One for the converts, one for the numerically superior Russians. (I use the term Russian to include Belorussians, Ukrainians, and other people from the former Soviet Union who speak the language.) If the parish has enough clergy, the schedule works fairly well. When the Metropolitan comes, the two Sunday services are combined into one.

There are other places, however, where having two Liturgies every Sunday in English and Church Slavonic simply doesn't work. Sometimes, the English scheduled once a month on the fourth Sunday. Sometimes, the Liturgy is half in English and Church Slavonic. Sometimes, the English Liturgy is served in a separate space like a chapel. Sometimes, there's no English in the liturgy at all.

Some people might say that Church Slavonic makes sense because they understand it. All right, but not everybody understands it. There are Russians who do not comprehend and need a prayer book written in both Russian and Church Slavonic in order to understand it. Your average American doesn't know anything about the language at all and a Liturgy served in Church Slavonic can be a major turn off to an inquirer who thought for some reason that the services were in English.

Another drum that people like to beat is that Church Slavonic is the traditional language of the Church. Maybe in Russia, but it wasn't the traditional language of the Church at the very beginning. The very first services were done in Aramaic and Greek. Only after Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the service did Slavonic become the standard liturgical language of the Slavs.

Some people might say that it is necessary to keep the Church Slavonic for immigrants who come from the old country. This make sense, but how many new parishioners does your typical suburban parish get from Izhevsk and Bakchisaray every year? Not that many, probably. Don't get me wrong Church Slavonic can still be used, but it shouldn't be the main language of the services if 75% of the parish doesn't understand it.

Of course, there are other objections that can be raised here. In my opinion, however, the only way that the Orthodox Church in this country will grow is if English is the main language of the services. It is the language most of us speak. It is the language in which signs are written. It also makes historical sense. If Sts. Cyril and Methodius were sent to evangelize the United States today, they wouldn't do it in Greek. They would do it in English.