The Superiority of Eastern Thought and The Quest For Oil and Why Is This Very Rich Russian Behind Bars?

Backlash as Orthodoxy Returns to Russia’s Schools

Published: September 23, 2007

Backlash as Orthodoxy Returns to Russia’s Schools
Sergei Kivrin for The New York Times

By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: September 23, 2007
KOLOMNA, Russia — One of the most discordant debates in Russian society is playing out in public schools like those in this city not far from Moscow, where the other day a teacher named Irina Donshina set aside her textbooks, strode before her second graders and, as if speaking from a pulpit, posed a simple question:

Father Vladimir Pakhachev says children should “know their history and their roots,” and that religion plays a part in that.

“Whom should we learn to do good from?”

“From God!” the children said.

“Right!” Ms. Donshina said. “Because people he created crucified him. But did he accuse them or curse them or hate them? Of course not! He continued loving and feeling pity for them, though he could have eliminated all of us and the whole world in a fraction of a second.”

Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the return of religion to public life, localities in Russia are increasingly decreeing that to receive a proper public school education, children should be steeped in the ways of the Russian Orthodox Church, including its traditions, liturgy and historic figures.

The lessons are typically introduced at the urging of church leaders, who say that the enforced atheism of Communism left Russians out of touch with a faith that was once at the core of their identity.

The new curriculum reflects the nation’s continuing struggle to define what it means to be Russian in the post-Communist era and what role religion should play after being brutally suppressed under Soviet rule. Yet the drive by a revitalized church to weave its tenets into the education system has prompted a backlash, and not only from the remains of the Communist Party.

Opponents assert that the Russian Orthodox leadership is weakening the constitutional separation of church and state by proselytizing in public schools. They say Russia is a multiethnic, pluralistic nation and risks alienating its large Muslim minority if Russian Orthodoxy takes on the trappings of a state religion.

The church calls those accusations unfounded, maintaining that the courses are cultural, not religious.

In Ms. Donshina’s class at least, the children seem to have their own understanding of a primary theme of the course. “One has to love God,” said Kristina Posobilova. “We should believe in God only.”

The dispute came to a head recently when 10 prominent Russian scientists, including two Nobel laureates, sent a letter to President Vladimir V. Putin, protesting what they termed the “growing clericalization” of Russian society. In addition to criticizing religious teachings in public schools, the scientists attacked church efforts to obtain recognition of degrees in theology, and the presence of Russian Orthodox chaplains in the military.

Local officials carry out education policy under Moscow’s oversight, with some latitude. Some regions require these courses in Russian Orthodoxy, while others allow parents to remove their children from them, though they rarely, if ever, do. Other areas have not adopted them.

Mr. Putin, though usually not reluctant to overrule local authorities, has skirted the issue. He said in September that he preferred that children learn about religion in general, especially four faiths with longstanding ties to Russia — Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. But the president, who has been photographed wearing a cross and sometimes attends church services and other church events, did not say current practices should be scaled back.

“We have to find a form acceptable for the entire society,” he said. “Let’s think about it together.”

Polls show that roughly half to two-thirds of Russians consider themselves Russian Orthodox, a sharp increase since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. Clergy frequently take part in government events, and people often wear crosses. But Russia remains deeply secular, and most Russians say they never attend church.

About 10 to 15 percent of Russians are Muslim, most of whom live in the south, though Moscow and other major cities have large Muslim populations. With emigration and assimilation, the Jewish population has dwindled to a few hundred thousand people out of 140 million. Muslim and Jewish leaders have generally opposed Russian Orthodoxy courses, though some say schools should be permitted to offer them as extracurricular activities.

“We do not want Muslim children forced to study other religions,” said Marat Khazrat Murtazin, rector of the Moscow Islamic University. “Muslims should study their own religion.”

During imperial Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church wielded enormous influence as the official religion, and virtually all children took a Russian Orthodox course known as the Law of God.

One of the scientists who signed the letter to Mr. Putin, Zhores I. Alferov, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000, said he feared that the country was returning to those days. He recalled that his own father had to study the Law of God under the last czar, Nicholas II.

“The church would like to have more believers,” said Mr. Alferov, a member of Parliament in the Communist bloc. “But they can have their religious schools and their Sunday schools. In normal government schools, absolutely not.”

Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, leader of the church, has repeatedly asserted that to appreciate the arts, literature, heritage and history of Russia, children need to know about Russian Orthodoxy. He described the scientists’ letter to Mr. Putin as “an echo of the atheistic propaganda of the past.”

Five years ago, Kolomna, 60 miles south of Moscow, was one of the first cities to take up the curriculum. Local church and education officials noted that before the revolution, Kolomna was a Russian Orthodox center, site of many cathedrals and monasteries that were demolished or used as warehouses and the like under Communism. Given the area’s history, they asked, is it not fitting that students learn about Russian Orthodoxy?

“The goal, I would say, is that all the powers that be, the church and the government, make sure that people, children, know their history and their roots,” said Father Vladimir Pakhachev, a church leader here who helps oversee the curriculum.

For example, Father Pakhachev said, it would be absurd to study the Russian language without learning about Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, the two ninth-century brothers who are credited with helping to create Cyrillic, the alphabet used in Russian. The brothers were monks and significant religious figures, and that aspect of their lives cannot be ignored, he said.

At Public School No. 3 here, in the shadow of a restored cathedral, the courses are voluntary, but occur one period a week during the school day, and are taught by regular teachers. No parents have ever asked that their children be exempted, said a school official, Anna Kikhtenko.

“No rights are being violated,” she said. “Children from Muslim families, the parents often say, ‘We are living among Russian Orthodox people, we also want our children to understand what these beliefs are about.’ ”

Recently, Oksana Telnova, a sixth-grade teacher, described to her class how Grand Prince Vladimir introduced Orthodox Christianity to Russia in 988 after rejecting other religions, an event that the church calls the Baptism of Russia. Some children read aloud verses from the Bible.

“Sacred orthodoxy transformed and revived the Slavic soul after becoming its moral and spiritual foundation,” Ms. Telnova said, quoting Patriarch Alexy II. “Through the ages, Christianity helped to create a great country and a great culture.”

Nearby, Ms. Donshina, the second-grade teacher, led her students in reciting the Ten Commandments before pointing to a tiny tree at the front of the room with branches but no leaves.

“Faith in God is as important for every human as the root for a tree,” she said. “But our tree unfortunately has died just like a human soul can die without doing good. This is what happens to people who do not do good things and do not follow God’s laws.”

She asked the children to choose from a group of flowers, some with Christian virtues written on them, some with undesirable qualities, and attach those with the virtues to the tree.

She ended with a discussion of the Russian saints, saying that they “have shown us how one must live to be close to God.” With that, she dismissed the class, but not before giving a piece of chocolate to each child.

The Serbian Nation - Ravaged By America And The West

Visoki Decani monastery is well know for it great artistic beauty and value. Almost intact after 600 years the Monastery Church still survives with its 14th century frescoes and icons.

The Roman Catholics (World's Largest Church) Was Excommunicated From The Church Of The East (2nd Largest Church In The World), A Thousand Years Ago

The Largest Orthodox Church Building In The World - Temple of Saint Sava in Serbia.

Serbia is an Orthodox nation that has suffered great travesties at the hands of America and the West.

Click Here For A Quick Excursion To Bulgaria

World's Second Largest Orthodox Church Building Is In Bulgaria.

An Ancient Desert Father Speaks on Judgement

"God is Good, without passions and unchangeable. One who understands that it is sound and true to affirm that God does not change might very will ask: 'how, then, is it possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good, becoming merciful to those who know Him and , on the other hand, shunning the wicked and being angry with sinners.' We must reply to this, that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, because to rejoice and to be angered are passions. Nor is God won over by gifts from those who know Him, for that would mean that He is moved by pleasure. It is not possible for the Godhead to have the sensation of pleasure or displeasure from the conditions of humans, God is good, and He bestows only blessings, and never harm, but remains always the same. If we humans, however, remain good by means of resembling Him, we are united to Him, but if we become evil by losing our resemblance to God, we are separated from Him. By living in a holy manner, we unite ourselves to God; by becoming evil, however we become at enmity with Him. It is not that He arbitrarily becomes angry with us, but that our sins prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons who make us suffer. If through prayer and acts of compassionate love, we gain freedom from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him change, but rather that by means of our actions and turning to God, we have been healed of our wickedness, and returned to the enjoyment of God's goodness. To say that God turns away from the sinful is like saying that sun hides itself from the blind" 

Written by St. Antony the Great. 

To learn more about this amazing desert father, simply type his name in any search engine.

Western Heresy From Hell About Hell

Snippet from pages 65-66 of "The Soul, The Body And Death" by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, Synaxis Press.

Let us emphasize one extremely important point here. We must free ourselves from the heathenish Western ideas of hell. "Hell" [gehenna]is not an instrument of punishment created by God. That fire which is spoken of at the Last Judgment represents the love of God, and we are taught that it is the radiance of God's love which both warms and radiates and gives joy to the faithful, and burns and torments the wicked. Those persons who in this life preferred "darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil," will in the next life, after the resurrection, find no such darkness, but will not be able to hide from that light which they hated in this life. There, bathed in the everlasting light of God's love, which they rejected but cannot now escape, their conscience, which is like a never-dying worm, will torment them, and the passions they loved and heaped upon themselves in this life will be as serpents round about them. In other words, they will abide forever in the state they chose for themselves while still in this life. As the renowned Greek theologian Dr. Alexandre Kalamiros observes:

This is a theme which "needs to be preached with great insistence [for] not only the West but we Orthodox have departed [from it] in great numbers, causing men to fall to atheism because they are revolted against a falsified angry God full of vengeance toward His creatures...We must urgently understand that God is responsible only for everlasting life and bliss, and that hell (gehenna) is nothing else but the rejection of this everlasting life and bliss, the everlasting revolt against the everlasting love of God. We must urgently remember and preach that it is not a creation of God but a creation [i.e., product] of our revolted liberty, that God did not create any punishing instrument that is called hell, that God never takes vengeance on His revolted creatures, that His justice has nothing to do with the legalistic 'justice' of human society which punishes the wicked in order to defend itself...That our everlasting spiritual death is not inflicted on us by God, but is a spiritual suicide, everlasting because our decision to be friends or enemies of God is a completely free and everlasting decision of the free spiritual beings created by God, a decision which is respected by God eternally and absolutely. And indeed, our Saviour Himself says: "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (Jn.12:46-48).

He Who Rejects His (Church) Father's Instruction Is A Fool!

Snippets from the Introduction pages of "The Seven Ecumenical Councils", by Philip Schaff: 

Concerning Ecumenical Councils Of The Church Fathers.

AN Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized. 

The reader will notice that in the foregoing I have not proceeded from the theological foundation of what an Ecumenical Synod should be but from a consideration of the historical question as to what the Seven Councils have in common, which distinguishes them from the other councils of the Christian Church. And here it is well to note that there have been many “General Councils” which have not been “Ecumenical.” It is true that in ordinary parlance we often use the expressions as interchangeable, but such really is not the case. There are but seven universally recognized and undisputed “Ecumenical Councils”; on the other hand, the number of “General Councils” is very considerable, and as a matter of fact of these last several very large ones fell into heresy. It is only necessary to mention as examples the Latrocinium and the spurious “Seventh Council,” held by the iconoclastic heretics. It is therefore the mere statement of an historical fact to say that General Councils have erred. The Ecumenical Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from error in their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promise of the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Council looked upon itself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselves ecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of the faithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the Church. And by the then teaching of the Church that ecumenical consensus was considered free from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church. This then is what Orthodox Christians mean when they affirm the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. Whether this opinion is true or false is a question outside the scope of the present discussion. It was necessary, however, to state that these Councils looked upon themselves as divinely protected in their decisions from error in faith and morals. This was until the division of the East and West the definition accepted by all the whole Christian world. But since the Church has been divided, while the East has kept to the old definition and has not pretended to have held any Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Church has made a new definition of the old term and has then proceeded to hold a very considerable number of synods which she recognizes as Ecumenical. I say “a very considerable number,” for even among Roman Catholic theologians there is much dispute as to the number of these “Ecumenical Synods,” the decrees of which, like those of Trent and the Vatican, have never been received by about half of the Christian world, including four of the five patriarchates and of the fifth patriarchate all the Anglican communion. According to modern Roman writers the definition of these non-ecumenically

received Ecumenical Synods is “Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops and others entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world under the Presidency of the Pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, s. v. Councils. The reader will notice that by this definition one at least (I. Constantinople), probably three, of the seven undisputed Ecumenical Synods cease to be such. The reader should otherwise be at a loss to understand the anathematisms which follow the decrees, and which indeed would be singularly out of place, if the decrees which they thus emphatically affirm were supposed to rest only upon human wisdom and speculation, instead of upon divine authority.

The editor also ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this First council, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others? When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it was the traditional faith of the Church. It was not the doctrine of Leo in the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they had studied the Tome, they cried out: “This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles!…Peter hath thus spoken by Leo! The Apostles thus taught! Cyril thus taught!” etc.

In Memory Of The 50 Million Orthodox Christian Martyrs Of The 20th Century

Of all the Christian confessions, it has been the Eastern Orthodox Church which has suffered the brunt of persecutions in the 20th century.

In the first two decades, there were massacres of Orthodox Greeks, Slavs, and Armenians in the Ottoman empire, culminating in the 1915 genocide of the Armenians in Anatolia and the near destruction of the ancient Assyrian community in Iraq. In 1923, the entire Orthodox population of Asia Minor was forced to leave their homes, bringing to a close a 2000 year Christian presence.

During the Second World War, two groups of Orthodox Christians were especially targeted for genocide by the Nazis and their allies - the Gypsies and the Orthodox Serbs of Bosnia and Croatia, while the population of Greece, Serbia, European Russia, and Ukraine were designated by the Nazis to serve as slave labor for the Third Reich. By special order of Heinrich Himmler (21 April 1942), clergyman from the East (as opposed to their counterparts from Western Europe) were to be used for hard labor.

At the same time the Orthodox suffered in greater proportion to any other Christian group at the hands of the Communists, who sought to completely eliminate religion.

First in Russia and Ukraine, then in Eastern Europe, in Greece during its civil war (1945-49), and in Ethiopia, the Orthodox Church was the principle target for attach, subversion, or destruction.

Finally, the Orthodox of the Middle East have found themselves caught in the crossfire of the conflicts between Muslim and Jew in Israel and the West Bank, and the civil war between Maronites, Muslims, and Palestinians in Lebanon.

Between the tolls exacted from prisons, concentration camps, forced marches and exiles, warfare, famine, and brutal military occupation, it is reasonable to conclude that up to 50 million Orthodox Christians have perished in the first eight decades of the twentieth century.

Even in the United States, where so many Orthodox have found refuge, the Orthodox Native Americans of the Aleutian Islands were forcibly interned during World War II and many of their churches deliberately destroyed by the U.S. Army.

Unfortunately, the depth and range of the Orthodox suffering throughout the world in this century, remains largely unknown and unappreciated in the West.

Questions For An Inquiring Reformed Protestant Mind

1. What scriptures is Paul referring to in his epistle to Timothy (2Tim3:16),when he states that all scripture is by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

2. Is the church at Corinth still in existence today? What about the churches at Thessalonica, at Jerusalem, at Anitoch, in Ethiopia, in Egypt, in India. And if so, what do they look like today?

3. What about the missionary efforts of these churches established in the first century, are the churches they established still in existance today? The church in Spain, France, Britain, Russia,Iraq and so on? And if so, what do these churches look like?

4. If these churches are still in existence today, how do they worship, what is their liturgy like, what do they believe, what are the names they go by?

5. If the Old Testament were the scriptures Paul is referring to, and that they are profitable for doctrine, does that mean they contain the blueprints by which to structure our liturgy, our church buildings, our missions, our understanding of the trinity and so on?

6. If the New Testament as it is compiled today was not part of the scriptures Paul was referring to, how did they come about and why do we consider them sacred writings upon which we build our lives, our churches and society?

7. When Paul talks about traditions in 2 Thess.2:16, what traditions is he referring to? Is there a difference between the traditions of men and the traditions of the apostles? If so, what are they and do we still hold to traditions today, be they of the apostles or of men? 

8. Who was the first man to compile the 'table of contents' of the New Testament and at what time in history did it take place? How is it that these letters were the ones determined to make up the New Testament and who made the final decision about the 'table of contents' for the New Testament?

9. Before these letters were compiled, what did the church look like, how was their authority structure organized and how did they conduct their worship and did it change at all after the New Testament was compiled? 

10. Other than determining what books should make up the New Testament, what other decrees, rules or decisions were made by these church councils of the first millennium? When did they convene and for what other purposes? And how are we to know which decrees, rules and decisions to adhere to and which ones to reject? How important is church authority and who determines who is in authority?

"GREAT LENT - Journey To Pascha " Book Muse

This book penned by Alexander Schmemann, seeks to bring to our attention, the deep and beautiful meaning of Great Lent, confirming the ancient boundary stones set by our early first milleniuum church fathers as well revealing where the modern church has wandered outside of those ancient bounderies. 

"Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand", were the first words, Jesus began to preach. Great Lent is a time of preparation, for the kingdom of God, comes to earth, ushered in; first, by Christ decscending and secondly, by Christ, gloriously ascending into the heavenlies and in doing so, taking with Him those whom He has received as His own. 

Great Lent is a time for the bride to prepare to receive her groom, the Risen Christ. We prepare for Pascha by seeking to adorn ourselves in holiness which only comes by repentance, which is assisted through fasting. Just as Christ prepared to bring the message of salvation to us by fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, so now, we prepare to receive the risen Christ by fasting both ascetically and totally in a perfect balance that "opens us up", in joyful expectation of our Christ.

One Must Endure Many Tribulations To Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven

My journey from the Reformed Protestant world into the ancient world of Orthodoxy has been both an awesomely wonderous and tumultuously painful experience. Following is a response to my Protestant pastor's letter in which he expressed concern about issues surrounding my departure in March of 2006, from the Christ Church community, in Moscow, Idaho.

Dear Doug,

I am writing in response to your letter dated, January 29th, 2007.

I am not going to address the specifics of your letter but I will address it in general.

First of all, as you are well aware of, I have had varying degrees of association with Christ Church since 1976. As a new believer, your father was the first person I met upon moving to Moscow in 1976 and I also participated in first class of, "The Practical School of Christianity". You and I also served together as elders for ten years with the church plant which I initiated in Lewiston, Idaho, in 1981. Throughout these past thirty-one years, I have kept a good conscious before our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and I have always strove with all my heart, soul, mind and strength to love the Lord God and serve Him faithfully. I can also say with all confidence, that I have sought for my entire married life to love my wife and my family as Jesus Christ loves His church. Additionally, I have always pursued peace with my family, my neighbors, my fellow members of Christ Church, as well as the leadership of Christ Church.

During the course of my journey through life many questions have remained unanswered, numerous dilemmas have left me perplexed and multiple mysteries have remained just that, mysteries. I came into the Protestant faith as a very broken man and for many years, I was sustained by the hope of God's word, the joy of living by the promises of God's word as well as experiencing the peace that came with keeping God's word. But as the years expired, my hope, my joy and my peace were challenged by what seemed to be inconsistencies and contradictions in what I read and what I saw lived out around me within the Protestant community. My initial and ongoing attraction to Christ Church was its commitment to unswervingly and with a single mind, fleshing out the word of God in every area of life, no matter what the costs. I believe this to be one of the reasons why Christ Church has grown and been so popular over the years.

It was probably around six years ago that I began to inwardly part ways with the teachings of Christ Church in a significant way. I don't think it is necessary in this letter to go into the details of what catalyzed the initial 'drawing away' but nevertheless, that is when I began to realize that I could not in good conscience embrace many practices and teachings of Christ Church. Of course, that left me in quite a dilemma, in that, the entirety of my life was intertwined with the Christ Church community. Thus, to pull away from Christ Church would have ripped at and damaged the very fabric of which made up the whole garment and I didn't want to injure others by pulling away.

So, for many years, in my mind, I was resolved to stay at Christ Church, so long as God kept me there, believing with all my heart, that in relation to the whole body, I was just a toe, and the toe could not say to the rest of the body, I am done with you and walk away. I saw myself as intimately connected to the Christ Church community and the only way for me to be separated from this community would be by an act of God working through Christ His Son, whom I believed to be the head and mind of the body, His church.

With that frame of mind, I continued to fellowship within the Christ Church community and in order to be at peace with my dear brethren, I endeavored to avoid controversy at all costs. But over the course of time, I found myself in unavoidable situations within the Christ Church community, which exposed principles and beliefs, which in good conscience before my God, I could not compromise on. It eventually came to the point where the differences were such that they began to significantly strain relationships not only within Christ Church but also with my own dear wife of thirty years. Again, without going into details, the stresses and strains brought upon my wife because of my ever growing differences with Christ Church practices and principles began to take their toll on our marriage.

All of these problems were further compounded by the lack of someone to talk to who could help me cope and deal appropriately with the dilemma I found myself in. That is until, January of 2006. It was at this time, that I met Dr. Matthew Steenburg, a Professor of Ancient Christianity at Oxford University in England, who comes to Moscow every Christmas to spend time with his parents who live here. While enjoying the benefits of the Bucers Pipe and Cigar Room, we talked about a subject, I had never in my life studied or even considered worth reading about; Ancient Christianity. In the course of our conversation, or put more appropriately, Dr. Steenburg's lucid explanation of Orthodoxy, questions that had lingered for years were being answered, mysteries that had been shrouded for as long as I can remember were being uncovered and dilemmas were being dissolved. That evening in Bucers was an epic moment in my life.

We spent the next two weeks in long discussions as he provided me with book after book to learn more about this fascinating topic of Orthodoxy. I then began alternating between attendance at Christ Church and St. John The Baptist Orthodox Church in Post Falls. Within a few months, I became a Catachumen of the Orthodox Church and began attending full time. Sadly, along with the joy of coming into Orthodoxy, I began to experience the grief of separating from the Christ Church community of which my family was an intimate part. During the course of making a transition into Orthodoxy from the Christ Church community, there were many misunderstandings, miscommunications and unresolvable differences that erupted in which attempts were made to bring resolution between Doug, my wife and me along with my new Orthodox pastor, Father Gregory.

The rest is history and this past year has been one of both learning a new way of life and dealing with the fallout from the dismantling of an old way of life. Unfortunately, the process has not been without pitfalls, tragedies and sorrows. Given the circumstances, I know of no other way this process could have evolved but I can say with confidence it isn't over yet and I continue to hold out hope that our family situation will be resolved in a peaceable and edifying manner.

I can also assure you that I will full fill my obligations and responsibilities as given to me by Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, and by the power of His might working in me, that I will love my wife and my children with the redeeming and healing love of my Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

Having given you, this statement, it is my earnest hope that you may forever enjoy the peace of God, the love of Jesus Christ and comfort of the Holy Spirit.

Written the 11th day of February, 2007 by Gary Greenfield

ICON OF THE HOLY TRINITY

In the medieval Russia, all newly-painted icons were coated with a layer of a special drying oil to protect the painting against mechanical damage and impart greater intensity to the colors. Unfortunately, with time oil darkened, thereby darkening the initial colors of icons and eventually turning absolutely black. For this reason, the icon had to be renewed, and the Trinity was painted over with fresh paints within its faintly discernible contours. This procedure was repeated several times. Towards the turn of the twentieth century there remained nothing of Rublev's masterpiece apart from the rapturous recollections of antiquity. The first attempt to remove later accretions from the fifteenth-century icon was made in 1905. At the end of 1918 restoration work was continued, the surround was removed and it is only since then that the icon's appearance has become close to the original. We say "close to" because in these long five centuries the icon's painting turned out to be damaged: the gold background was lost, the tree was painted anew within the old contours, the top layers of paint were washed off, even the ground was occasionally disturbed and cracks appeared, the outlines of the Angels' heads were partly altered. All this notwithstanding, even in its present state the Trinity remains one of the best extant Russian icons.

The subject of the icon is based on the Biblical story about the visit by three Angels to the Prophet Abraham and his wife Sarah. According to the theological interpretations whose authors associated the Old Testament events with events of the New Testament, these Angels were the three Persons of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit. Though revealing direct iconographic affinity with this kind of representations, the Trinity as painted by Rublev, has its own features which carry a new quality and a new content. In Rublev's icon we observe for the first time all the three Angels shown equal. This icon alone conformed to the strict rules of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Meantime, some historians of art believe that Rublev expressed in the icon the need for and benefit of love, of a union based on the trust of one individual in another. Whereas Rublev's Trinity is void of any noticeable energy of earthly life, of corporeality of forms and external manifestations of love, equally absent from it is that cold soaring of the spirit, so remote from humans. The image determines the subtle struck balance between soul and spirit, the corporeal and the imponderable, endless and immortal sojourn in the heavens. When speaking of Rublev's work, different authors describe the Trinity's Angels as quiet, gentle, anxious, sorrowful, and the mood permeating the icon as detached, meditative, contemplative, intimate.

Depicting the Trinity as an indivisible essence without beginning and without end, infinite and eternal, Rublev chose repetitive light and airy movement as the leitmotif of the composition. The Angels' attitudes and meaningful gestures, their inclinations are amazing in their dissimilarity while being almost identical, so that the icon leaves the clear impression of a seemingly many-voice talk.

It is not fortuitous that we perceive Andrei Rublev's Trinity as the highest achievement of Russian art. Crowning a long artistic career of a single master, it is also an embodiment of the creative thought of several generations. Just as any other medieval artist, Rublev highly valued tradition and collective effort. All the best features of early fifteenth-century Russian culture merged in the Trinity: a form of philosophical generalization, outwordly abstract, but with an amazingly concrete content, a capacity to express through iconographic images the national character, and artistic skills attaining to the pinnacles of world art.

park.org/Guests/Russia/moscow/sergiev/rublev.html

From the Philokalia (Icon of Archangel Michael Trampling Satan)

Oppose the devil and try to discern his wiles. He usually hides his gall under an appearance of sweetness, so as to avoid detection, and he fabricates various illusions, beautiful to look at – which in reality are not at all what they seem – to seduce your hearts by a cunning imitation of truth, which is rightly attractive. All his art is directed to this end – to oppose by all possible means every soul working well for God. Many and varied are the passions he introduces into the soul to quench the Divine fire, in which all strength lies; but above all he overcomes it by the inertia of the body and all this is connected with it. None the less, when he sees at last that some men guard themselves from all this and accept nothing from him and show no promise of ever obeying him – he withdraws from them with shame. Then the Spirit of God comes to dwell in them. And when the Spirit of God comes to dwell in them, He brings them rest, or lets them enjoy rest in all their activities, and makes the yoke of the Lord sweet for them, as it is written in the Gospels "and ye shall find rest unto your soul" (Matthew 9:29), although they have taken His yoke upon themselves and are bearing it. Then they become indefatigable, both in the practice of virtue and in carrying out obediences and night vigils. They feel no anger at human calumny and have no fear, whether of man, beast or spirit; for the joy of the Lord stays with them day and night, gives life to their reason and is their food. Through this joy the soul grows and becomes apt for all things or perfect; and through this joy it ascends to heaven. St Anthony the Great, "Early Fathers From the Philokalia," by E. Kadloubovsky and G.E.H. Palmer, (London: Faber and Faber, 1954), pp. 46-51