Should the Church Be In Step With the Times?
by Archbishop Averky
In a time when under the name of Christianity, even Orthodox Christianity,
every kind of compromise and surrogate is offered men whose
spiritual hunger can be satisfied only by uncompromising Truth,
the spiritual shepherds have become few who speak
straightforwardly the saving word. Archbishop Averky, Abbot of
Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville, New York, and a leading
hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, is one of these few. In
the pages of the Russian religious newspaper published by the
Monastery, Orthodox Russia, his voice is continually
heard, calling for faithfulness to Holy Orthodoxy and warning of
the impending judgment of God on this evil generation.
"Know that we must serve, not the times, but God."
—St. Athanasius the Great, Letter to Dracontius
IN STEP WITH THE TIMES!—Behold the watchword of
all those who in our time so intensely strive to lead the Church
of Christ away from Christ, to lead Orthodoxy away from true
confession of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Perhaps this
watchword does not always nor with everyone resound so loudly,
clearly, and openly—this, after all, might push some
away!—The important thing is the practical following of this
watchword in life, the striving in one way or another, in greater
or lesser degree and measure, to put it into practice.
Against this fashionable, "modern" watchword,
perilous to souls however it may be proclaimed or however put
into practice, openly or under cover, we cannot but fight—we
who are faithful sons and representatives of the Russian Church
Abroad, the whole essence of whose ideology, in the name of which
it exists in the world, is not to be "in step with
the times," but to preserve an unchanging faithfulness to
Christ the Saviour, to the true Orthodox Christian Faith and
Church.
Let us recall how the Blessed Metropolitan Anthony, founder
and first head of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, in his
remarkable essay, "How does the Orthodox Faith differ from
the Western Confessions?" wrote concerning the profound
difference between our Faith and heterodoxy. He finds this
profound difference in the fact that the Orthodox Faith teaches how
to construct life according to the demands of Christian
perfection, whereas heterodoxy takes from Christianity only
those things which are, and to the degree to which they are, compatib1e
with the conditions of contemporary cultural life. "Orthodoxy
looks upon Christianity as the eternal foundation of true life
and demands of everyone to force himself and life until they
attain this standard; whereas heterodoxy looks upon the
foundations of contemporary cultural life as an unshakable fact.
Orthodoxy demands moral heroism—podvig; heterodoxy
searches for what in Christianity would be useful to us in our
present conditions of life. For Orthodox man, called to eternity
beyond the grave, where true life begins, the historically-formed
mechanism of contemporary life is an insubstantial phantom;
whereas for the heterodox the teaching concerning the future life
is a lofty, ennobling idea, an idea which helps one ever better
to construct real life here."
These are golden words, indicating for us clearly and sharply
the truly bottomless abyss that separates genuine Christian
faith—Orthodoxy—from its mutilation—heterodoxy! In
the one is to be found ascetic labor (podvig), a
turning to eternity; in the other, a strong attachment to the
earth, a faith in the progress of mankind on earth.
Further, as Metropolitan Anthony so sharply and justly sets
forth, "the Orthodox Faith is an ascetic faith,"
and "the blessed state which the worshippers of the
'superstition of progress' (to use the felicitous expression of
S. A. Rachinsky) expect on earth, was promised by the Saviour in
the future life; but neither the Latins nor the
Protestants desire to reconcile themselves to this, for the
simple reason—to speak frankly—that they poorly believe
in the resurrection and strongly believe in happiness in the
present life, which, on the contrary, the Apostles call a
vapor that shall vanish away (James 4:14). This is why the
pseudo-Christian West does not wish and is unable to understand
the renunciation of this life by Christianity, which enjoins us
to fight, having put off the old man with his deeds, and
having put on the new man, that is renewed unto knowledge after
the image of Him that created him (Col. 3: 9-l0).
"If we investigate all the errors of the West."
Vladika Anthony writes further, "both those which have
entered into its doctrinal teaching and those present in its
morals, we shall see that they are all rooted in a failure to
understand Christianity as ascetic labor (podvig) involving
the gradual self-perfection of man."
"Christianity is an ascetic religion," concludes
this excellent, forcefully and perspicuously-written essay.
"Christianity is a teaching of constant battling with the
passions, of the means and conditions for the gradual
assimilation of virtues. These conditions are both
internal-ascetic labors—and given from without—our
dogmatic beliefs and grace-bestowing sacramental actions, which
have one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and raise us to
perfection."
And what do we see now in contemporary
"Orthodoxy"—the "Orthodoxy" that has
entered into the so-called "Ecumenical Movement"? We
see the complete negation of the above-cited holy truths; in
other words: renunciation of true Orthodoxy in the
interest of spiritual fusion with the heterodox West. The
''Orthodoxy'' that has placed itself on the path of
"Ecumenism" thinks not of raising contemporary life,
which is constantly declining with regard to religion and morals,
to the level of the Gospel commandments and the demands of the
Church, but rather of ''adapting" the Church herself to
the level of this declining life.
This path of actual renunciation of the very essence of Holy
Orthodoxy—ascetic labor, for the purpose of uprooting the
passions and implanting the virtues—was taken in their time
by the partisans of the so-called "Living Church" or
''Renovated Church". This movement immediately spread from
Russia, which had been cast down into the dust by the ferocious
atheists, to other Orthodox countries as well. Still fresh in our
memory is the "Pan-Orthodox Congress" convened by
Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV of sorry memory in 1923, at
which were devised such "reforms" as a married
episcopate, remarriage of priests, the abolition of monasticism
and the fasts, abbreviation of Divine services, suppression of
special dress for clergy, etc.
Notwithstanding the collapse at that time of these impious
designs, the dark powers were not, of course, pacified, and
continued from that time their obstinate and perseverant
activity, finding for themselves obedient tools in the ranks of
the hierarchy of various Local Orthodox Churches. At the present
time also, by the allowance of God, they have attained great
success: almost all the Local Orthodox Churches have already
entered into the "Ecumenical Movement," which has
set as its purpose the abolition of all presently-existing
churches—including, of course, the Orthodox Church—and
the establishment of some kind of absolutely new
"church," which will be completely "in step with
the times," having cast away as useless rags, as something
"obsolete" and "behind the times," all the
genuine foundations of true Christianity, and first of all, of
course, asceticism, this being the indispensable condition
for the main purpose of Christianity: the uprooting of sinful
passions and the implanting of Christian virtues.
We have before us, as an example, an official document of this
sort, belonging to the Local Church of Serbia: the journal Theology,
published by the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade
(8th year, issues 1 and 2 for 1964). In this journal we find a
lead article literally entitled: "The Necessity for the
Codification and Publication of a New Collection of Canons of the
Orthodox Church." The author of this article, while
cunningly affirming that "the ideal principles of the Church
will remain everywhere and always unchanging," nonetheless
attempts to prove that the collection of canons of the Orthodox
Church is only the product of a time long since passed into
eternity, and therefore that it does not answer to the demands of
contemporary life and must be abolished and replaced by another.
This new collection of canons, observe, "must be brought
into agreement with the fundamental principles of life,"
with which the Church supposedly "has always reckoned."
"Our time," says this cunning author, "is
different in many respects from the time of the Ecumenical
Councils, at which these canons were composed, and therefore
these canons cannot now be applied."
Let us look now and see precisely which canons it is that this
modernist author considers obsolete and subject to abrogation:
—The 9th canon of the Holy Apostles, which demands that
the faithful, after entering church, should remain at the Divine
service to the end, and should not cause disorder by walking
about the church.
—The 80th canon of the Council of Trullo, which punishes
clergy by deposition, and laymen with excommunication, for
failure to attend church for three successive Sundays without
some important reason.
—The 24th canon of the Council of Trullo, which prohibits
clergy and monks from visiting race tracks and other
entertainments; to this canon the author adds the entirely naive,
strange remark that it was only in earlier times that such
amusements were places of depravity and vice, while now they are
supposedly "centers of culture and education."(?!)
—The 54th canon of the Holy Apostles, which prohibits
clergy, without unavoidable necessity, from entering a tavern;
here again it somehow seems that previously the tavern was some
different kind of establishment from what it is now.
—The 77th canon of the Council of Trullo and the 30th
canon of the Council of Laodicea, which prohibit Christian men
from bathing together with women; why it is necessary to
acknowledge these canons too as "obsolete" is
completely incomprehensible!
—The 96th canon of the Council of Trullo, which condemns
artificial curling of the hair and in general all adornment of
oneself with various kinds of finery "for the enticement of
unstable souls"—instead of "adorning oneself with
virtues and with good and pure morals"; this canon in our
times, it would seem, has not only not become
"obsolete," it has become especially imperative, if we
call to mind the indecent, shameless womens fashions of today,
which are completely unsuitable for Christian women.
This is sufficient for us to see what purpose it is
that the aforementioned "reform" in our Orthodox Church
has in view, with what aim there is proposed the convocation of
an Eighth Ecumenical Council, about which all
"modernists" so dream, already having a foretaste of
the "carefree life" that will then be openly permitted
and legitimized for all!
But let us reflect more deeply upon what is the terrible
essence of all these demands for the abrogation of supposedly
"obsolete" canonical rules. It is this: these
contemporary church "reformers" who now so impudently
raise their heads even in the bosom of our Orthodox Church itself
(and terrible to say, their number includes not merely clergy,
but even eminent hierarchs!) accept contemporary life with all
its monstrous, immoral manifestations as an unshakable fact
(which is, as we have seen above, not at all an Orthodox, but a
heterodox, Western conception!), and they wish to abrogate all
those canonical rules which precisely characterize Orthodoxy as
an ascetic faith that calls to ascetic labor, in the name
of the uprooting of sinful passions and the implanting of
Christian virtues. This is a terrible movement, perilous for our
Faith and Church; it wishes to cause, in the expression of Christ
the Saviour, the salt to lose its savor; it is a movement
directed toward the overthrow and annihilation of the true Church
of Christ by means of the cunning substitution for it of a false
church.
The above-mentioned article in the Serbian theological journal
is still discreet, refraining from complete openness. It speaks
of the permissibility in principle of marriage for bishops, but
in life we hear ever more frequent and persistent talk of far
worse—namely, of the supposed inapplicability in our times
of all those canonical rules which demand of candidates to the
priesthood and of priests themselves a pure and unblemished moral
life; or, to speak more simply, of the permissibility for
them of that terrifying depravity into the abyss of which
contemporary mankind more and more plunges itself.
It is one thing to sin and repent, knowing and acknowledging
that one is sinning and is in need of repentance and correction
of life. It is something else again to legitimize lawlessness,
to sanction sin, lulling thus one's conscience and thus
abolishing the very foundations of the Church. To this we have no
right, and it is a most grievous crime before God, the Holy
Church, and the souls of the faithful who seek eternal salvation.
And for how long, to what limits may we permit ourselves to go
on such a slippery path, abrogating the Church canons which
uphold Christian morality? Right now in America and, as we hear,
in places also in other countries which have accepted
contemporary "culture," there is increasing propaganda
for the official abrogation of marriage and the legalization in
place of marriage of "free love"; the use of
contraceptive pills is being sanctioned for married couples, and
even for the unmarried, since marriage supposedly has as its
purpose not the procreation of children, but "love";
legal recognition is being prepared for the heinous, unnatural
passion of homosexuality, all the way to the establishment for
homosexuals of a special church wedding rite (proposal of an
Anglican bishop); etc., etc.
And so? Should our Church too follow this fashionable
path— "in step with the times," so as not to be
left behind the march of life? But what kind of
"church" will this be that will allow itself all this,
or even merely look at it with all-forgiving condescension? It
will be no longer a church at all, but a veritable Sodom and
Gomorrah, which will not escape, sooner or later, the terrible
chastisement of God.
We must not allow ourselves to be deluded and deceived, for we
do not need such a "church," or rather "false
church." We may ourselves be weak, and feeble, and we may
often sin, but we will not allow the Church canons to be
abrogated, for then it will become necessary to acknowledge the
very Gospel of Christ, by which contemporary men do not wish to
live, as "obsolete," as "not answering to the
spirit of the times," and abrogate it!
But the Gospel of Christ, together with all the canons of the
Church, as well as the Church ordinances, outline for us that
Christian ideal toward which we must strive if we desire for
ourselves eternal salvation. We cannot allow a lowering of this
ideal for the gratification of sinful passions and desires, a
blasphemous abuse of these holy things.
Whatever "reforms" all these contemporary criminal
"reformers" may desire, the truly-believing Orthodox
Church consciousness cannot acknowledge or accept them. And
whatever the apostates from true Orthodoxy, from the ascetic
Faith, may do, we will not allow the modernization of our
Church, and we will NOT go "in step with the
times"!
From Orthodox Russia, Nov. 28,
1966. This article also appeared in The Orthodox Word, III,
pp. 182-188.
|