Bishop Sophronios/Sophronius (Beshara) was a bishop for the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of North America (HEOCACNA), an enterprise started by Bishop Aftimios.  For all intents and purposes, the jurisdictional unity attempt died in 1933.  Bishop Sophronius, however, was the last bishop.  The date of his death has been given as 1934 by Archimandrite Seraphim (Surrency) in his book The Quest for Orthodox Unity in America.  Others have often followed that.  Yet, his grave marker states 1940, a date noted here as well:

http://meta.orthodoxwiki.org/Sophronios_%28Beshara%29_of_Los_Angeles

This begs the question of which is correct and if 1940 is correct, what was he doing during those intervening years?

Well, 1940 is correct and what he was doing was ordaining people to his American Orthodox Catholic Church (an alternative name for HEOCACNA).

Here are two examples of newspaper articles referring to him ordaining men to the priesthood:

1939 Sophronios Ordains a Priest

Sophronios Visits Binghampton 1939

For those interested in the beginning of his episcopal career, these might be of interest:

Sophronios to be Elevated

Sophronios Ordained 1928

Purpose of HEOCACNA and Sophronios

Mimo Milosevich has written on Archimandrite Theoklitos Triantafilides (who served in America from 1896 to 1916).  Some of his reflections may be read here:

http://sites.google.com/site/theoclitostriantafilides/

Indeed, I consulted Mimo when writing my paper on Greeks serving in the Russian Mission, which I presented at this past year’s SOCHA Symposium.  He was very helpful in pointing me to sources and information.

Mimo has dedicated himself to sharing the story of Archimandrite Theoklitos and it’s easy to see why.  In an age when missionaries for the Russian Mission were brought over for short stints and when missionaries of any Orthodox background typically moved about from parish to parish, Theoklitos is a sturdy rock.  He still went to the “hinterlands,” mostly in Texas, but also in Colorado and spent time in San Francisco reaching out to the Greek community there.  He (and others) were ultimately largely unsuccessful in that venture in San Fran, in that the Greeks formed their own parish eventually, but not entirely and his dedication was clear.  He served God and God’s people through the Russian Mission.  He was able to see his way through the difficult hectic life of a missionary priest at a time when not all could.  Indeed, at a time when many laity could not.  He accepted canonical order and he loved the people under his care.  Barring some unbeknownst event in the Galveston Daily News, he should be included amongst those mentioned as possible Greek saints in America.
All that said, here is a recent talk given by Mimo:

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/stherman2011/galveston_talk.mp3

Please be aware that during the introductory part, before Mimo himself begins speaking, there is a lot of background noise.  If you can forebear, you’ll be glad because that quickly goes away and the talk is very nice.  We at SOCHA are very glad that Mimo and Fr. John Whiteford (the talk was at his parish) were willing to allow us to share this with our readers.

One of the minor characteristics of Orthodox Christianity in America has been the regular appearance of imposters.  Already on our blog, we have discussed the Bulgarian monk in Idaho and his ghost story.  We have also discussed Agapios Honcherenko.  Perhaps the Bulgarian monk really was a monk (though obviously in disobedience) and I still find it difficult to know exactly what to believe concerning Honcherenko.  One person that can definitely be labeled an imposter is Stephen Ustvolsky when he served as a bishop (“Metropolitan Serphim”).  We mentioned him in passing here:

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/12/1905-the-busiest-year-in-american-orthodox-history/

I thought I would take the time today to provide us with a slightly fuller account of what it is he was doing.  This article includes the text for a denunciation that was to be read publicly:

Ustvolsky

Matthew has mentioned the first English speaking Transfiguration parish here:

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/01/26/the-first-english-speaking-parish/

One of the converts he mentioned was a gentleman named Reginald Wright Kauffman.  Kauffman lived from 1877-1957 and was a noted author. He also served as a newspaper editor for a time.  He was raised Episcopalian and apparently considered Mormonism for a time.  He and his wife Ruth authored a book on it in 1912. You may still purchase a reprint from the University of Illinois Press.  Despite this, he became Orthodox at the Transfiguration parish in New York in 1920.  Here is a newspaper description of that event:

1920-07-20 – Reginald Wright Kauffman converts at Transfig Church (NY Times)

To the best of my knowledge, he remained Orthodox, but I am not sure of that.  Fr. Daniel H.B. Montgomery mentioned Kauffman as a “pioneering convert” in “Your Orthodox Mission to America” Word Magazine (1957): 207-8, 212.  This need not mean Kauffman remained Orthodox and if anyone has any information on Kauffman that relates to his Orthodoxy, we welcome feedback.

One way in which Orthodox Christians have been characterized by various sociologists and even Orthodox themselves is to refer to Orthodoxy’s ghettoization and/or refuge-seeking.  I do not believe that is the entire story for American Orthodoxy, not even earlier in the 20^th century.  This is because much of my research as of late has been into people and events that contradicts the view that refuge-seeking is all there is to American Orthodoxy.  Nonetheless, and despite whatever peer-reviewed publications I might offer to the contrary, there is most certainly truth to it.

In addition to the obvious cultural factors (English was not the native language of Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigrants and cultural mores differed), flashes of anti-immigrant violence directed against Orthodox Christians helped create this scenario.

The most well known example may be the anti-Greek riots of South Omaha, Nebraska in 1909.[1]  The instigating event causing the riot was a Saturday night scuffle between a police officer and a local Greek man.  The officer had followed the young Greek man into the home of a lady who allegedly had a reputation for illicit behavior.  A scuffle ensued and the policeman was shot and killed.  The following morning, when the bells of the local Greek Orthodox Church began ringing, a mob gathered together and ransacked the Greek section of town.  The Greek Town of South Omaha burned to the ground and 1,200 Greeks fled.  The precipitating cause was labor tensions, as the Greeks had arrived during a labor shortage and were competing for jobs.  Moreover, they were willing to work for lower wages.

Indeed, Greek Orthodox and other Eastern European Orthodox immigrants were often in the middle of labor disputes.  For example, in Montana, citizens of Great Falls held meetings for the purpose of driving the Greeks from their town.[2]  On another occasion, near Mt. Home, Idaho, some one hundred Greeks cleared land of sagebrush and instead of being paid were run off in the middle of the night by fifty masked men.[3]  Nor was the American reception of Greek Immigrants contingent simply upon labor concerns.  There was a religious dimension to it as well, at least amongst those involved in missionary movements.[4]  American anti-immigration and ethnic sterotypes also affected Slavic immigrants.[5]  In Desloge, Missouri, for example, a 1917 labor riot drove out many of the Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants (who had previously converted from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy).

Of course, it was not just Orthodox who encountered this.  This was a problem for Eastern Catholics from the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well.  And, really, America has a pattern of reacting this way.  Each new wave of immigration encounters this.  In the case of Eastern Europeans, however, the language and cultural distinctions were such that one way of reacting to the situation was to rally around one’s culture, utilizing the local parish as the cultural center.  As I said earlier, though, I don’t believe that’s the entire story to Orthodox history, but it is certainly a part of it.

In the middle of the twentieth century, Fr. Boris Burden (+1973) played important roles in American Orthodoxy.  It was he and Fr. Michael Gelsinger who rallied behind the attempt in the late 20s and early 30s to unite Orthodoxy and they were the key players, together with George E. Phillies (a Greek attorney) in establishing the Federated Orthodox Greek Catholic Primary Jurisdictions in America, which I’ve discussed on here before.  He and Fr. Michael also donated a large number of books to the university in Buffalo, starting their Byzantine collection.

Unfortunately, Fr. Boris also seemed to find his way into the courts.  I haven’t had a chance to try to track down this case, but the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of Saturday, April 9, 1932, lists Joseph McKoe v. Boris Burden as a case scheduled for the 8th District Court on April 11th.  As I said, I don’t know what drove that case, but in another case, in 1924, Burden was taken to court for getting into a fist fight.  Here’s the newspaper article from back then (Brooklyn Eagle, October 14, 1924).  By the way, raising a fist against another, if you’re a priest, breaks canon law.  Though I am aware of economia being extended when a priest was defending someone else, in this case, that is not the case.  It is an old fashioned, immature fist fight.  So, sometimes in American Orthodoxy, those who have worked the hardest have also had serious character flaws.  I suppose that’s to be expected in a frontier, marginalized religion, but it is worth remembering nonetheless.

PRIEST HOLDS OWN

IN FISTIC BATTLE

Following a violent altercation last midnight between Hugh Yeo, 23 years old. a taxi drlver, living at 2155 65th st., and Boris Burden of 417 8th St., starters for the Yellow Taxi Cab Company,- at their stand at Ave. 1 and the Brighton line, Patrolman John Maxwell took both men to the Parkville station, where they were charged with disorderly conduct.

Yeo spent the night in the cells. Burden obtained bail. When he appeared before Magistrate Eilperln in the Flatbush Court this morning, the taxi starter of the night before, a tall, good-looking young man of 26. with blond, wavy hair. wore the black gown and round clerical collar of a priest. “Yon could have knocked me over with a feather,” said Yeo, when his fellow prisoner explained to the Court that during the day he was the Rev. Father Boris Burden of the Eastern Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.  He said that he is attached to the general staff of the cathedral at 15 E. 97th St.. Manhattan, and added that he has been working on a sociological study of immigrants. Fred G. Ritta. counsel for the Yellow Taxi Cnb Company, defended the priest taxi starter against the disorderly conduct charge, to which he pleaded not guilty. The client, at the instigation of his employers, also preferred a charge of assault against Yeo.   According to Yeo,  the priest-starter gave as good as he took, both in blows and verbal insults.

Thus far, on the third Thursday of each month this year, I have written a post concerning Orthodoxy and higher education in America.  I conclude this half-year mini-series by announcing that the authors and titles of the papers to be delivered at this fall’s symposium are now online.  In addition to the four keynote presentations, we will have fourteen other papers:

http://www.princeton.edu/~florov/history_shortpapers.html

The topics, institutions represented, and authors speaking are all diverse in a most intriguing way and a testament to the breadth of American Orthodox history.  I am very truly thankful to Seraphim Dankaert at Princeton Theological Seminary and to all the scholars who submitted abstracts for this year’s event.  It is my hope and prayer that this will become a regular gathering for SOCHA and all who may be interested in American Orthodox history.

I hope my adding this post will not damper people’s interest in Fr. Andrew’s book.  I have listened to some of his podcasts and they are good.  Nonetheless, it’s time for my regular monthly post .  Each monthly post in 2011 has concentrated on Orthodoxy and higher education in America and this one will continue that theme, though not in quite the same way.

In this post, I thought I’d mention the People’s University in Chicago and put out a “call for more information.”  I do not know much about this school and therefore would greatly welcome any reader from Chicago (or elsewhere) who has more information on this.  What I do know is that it lasted from 1918 until 1920.  It was a night school that met in public school classrooms with the twofold purpose of Americanizing Russian immigrants and teaching Russian to Americans for business purposes.  Boris Bakhmeteff, the ambassador for the provisional government in Russia, had allocated $10,000 from embassy funds to start this venture.  The financial aspects were overseen directly by the Russian consul, Antoine Volkoff.  Although this venture did not last I find it quite intriguing.  Perhaps others know more about it than the bare-bone basics I’ve been able to find.  I should note I haven’t scoured the Bakhmeteff archives as I maybe should, though a quick skim through the contents (as available online) did not jog anything in my mind.  Nor have I had a chance to figure out what archives in Chicago might contain information on this enterprise.  If someone knows better, please do let me know.   This is no do or die matter but I suspect that a fuller history of the Russian People’s University in Chicago could offer a unique view into the world of the Russian emigre community and those who fled turmoil of Russia for the safe haven of America.

Those interested in Russians in Chicago more generally might wish to start here, though one would have to go far beyond this to learn more:

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1104.html

During this Holy Week time, I am going to shift just a bit on my running series regarding Orthodoxy and higher education here in America.  Instead of mentioning an historical event, I thought I’d share something from Fr. Georges Florovsky.  If you need to know a little something about his life, go here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Georges_Florovsky

The following quote is from “Faith and Culture,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 4:1-2 (1955-56), 44.

“Either Christians ought to go out of the world, in which there is another master besides Christ (whatever name this master may bear: Caesar or Mammon or any other), and start a separate society. Or again they have to transform the outer world and rebuild it according to the law of the Gospel. What is important, however, is that even those who go out cannot dispense with the main problem: they still have to build up a “society” and cannot therefore dispense with this basic element of social culture. “Anarchism” is in any case excluded by the Gospel. Nor does Monasticism mean or imply a denunciation of culture. Monasteries were, for a long time, precisely the most powerful centers of cultural activity, both in the West and in the East. The practical problem is therefore reduced to the question of a sound and faithful orientation in a concrete historical situation.

Christians are not committed to the denial of culture as such. But they are to be critical of any existing cultural situation and measure it by the measure of Christ. For Christians are also the Sons of Eternity, i.e. prospective citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Yet problems and needs of “this age” in no case and in no sense can be dismissed or disregarded, since Christians are called to work and service precisely “in this world” and “in this age.” Only all these needs and problems and aims must be viewed in that new and wider perspective which is disclosed by the Christian Revelation and illumined by its light.”

Definitely wise words to heed as we continue to plan and develop Orthodox engagement with higher education.  Definitely fitting words for this time of year.

With a couple of the latest posts by Matthew, the comments section has become dominated by people concerned with his research.  I have read through them up to this point, and I thought maybe it would be helpful to people to see how I view orthodoxhistory.org.

On the one hand, I do not think Orthodoxhistory.org is intended to publish, regularly, with the same level of detailed investigation that is required for a peer reviewed article.  I am in the process of putting together Prairie Parish Press, which will publish the Journal of American Orthodox Church History.  So, God-willing, we will have such a journal publicly available in a few months.

On the other hand, Orthodoxhistory.org isn’t mere opinion, and certainly is not intended to be armchair opinion.  To me, I see Orthodoxhistory.org as having three possible goals with any post:

1) Publication of something researched nearly to the point where it could be submitted for peer review.  With my Archbishop Arseny posts, I did that.  No, I never wrote an article that could be submitted (for I would never submit something I write online anyhow), but the research into his trial was a serious beginning of something that could have been developed in that direction with some additional work.  So, sometimes, we will post on new primary source research that is analyzed in detail.  That is one possible goal any given post may have.

2) Publication of a piece with commentary that simply points to a larger issue without making any strong claims about anything in too much detail.  I did that in my last post on SVS’s beginning.  I didn’t research the whole beginning.  I simply posted a single newspaper article and then pointed to the larger picture.  So, sometimes, we will write posts that do little else than point to a larger area of investigation or interest that others might want to pursue.  These are reminder pieces, I suppose, and for some people, maybe new info, but not overwhelming info.

3) Publication of preliminary research intended for engagement by our readers.  This is probably the main kind of posting that Matthew does (though he also does sometimes do 1 and 2 too).  I think sometimes we might forget that.  We might think he simply describes what he found so quickly that he must mean it to be comprehensive.  That’s not entirely fair to him, though.  And, to be fair, I did something similar with my post on the OrthCathA collection at the University of Buffalo.  I didn’t actually go there and look at the collection before I posted, so I couldn’t have told you specifically what kind of volumes were donated by Fr. Michael Gelsinger and Fr. Boris Burden.  I certainly would not have minded had someone done that.  That would have been fine.  Likewise, Matthew is open to people providing information that may change his conclusions.

So, those are the three main goals I see.  I may tend toward goals one and two, but that does not mean goal three ought to be suspect.  I think it’s venerable to want engagement from our readers in furthering research and discussion.  In a way, goal three is like “peer reviewing,” at least peer review in a blog context.  This makes the discussions in the comments section so important.  Should more non-English sources be scoured?  As a general rule, of course, but I also hope we don’t presume that people writing tentative conclusions are simply dismissed because they did not have the time and money to do so.  Also keep in mind, that tentative research is still research.  It may only be the very beginnings, but throwing that stuff out there can lead to engagement, which can lead to new leads.  Some of our posts will be attempting to do little more than that.  I hope, though, that that will not dissuade people from reading nor turn people away but, rather, encourage people to join us in our journeys.

This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel.

In my last two posts this year (2011), I have highlighted something from Orthodoxy’s engagement with higher education here in America.  In one case I mentioned SVS obtaining some new facilities and I mentioned the beginning of the Byzantine collection at the University of Buffalo.  Here I thought I’d offer a nice little piece on one of the meetings that helped conceive of the development of seminary education in the Metropolia.

SVS Genesis

This was necessary because St. Platon’s seminary had been closed finally and officially in 1924 (after having been moved to New York from its original location in Tenafly, NJ in 1922).  The financial problems following the Russian Revolution and Civil War had been extreme and the Russian Mission suffered significantly.  This would affect the mission as it later became the Metropolia.  By the 1930s, though, the need for a seminary was significant.  In 1937, real headway was made on this front.

I am posting this because Matthew is very busy and traveling about today (although I suppose posting it myself risks vanity).

I am honored to have been invited to be a guest of the pan-Orthodox clergy group in the Buffalo, NY area for the weekend and thought I’d call your attention to the Sunday of Orthodox Vespers to be held at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church.  If you are in Western NY or Ontario and are interested in a talk on early converts, with a special mention of some important happenings in Buffalo, please stop by.  Also, don’t hesitate to introduce yourself.  One of the best ways we can all further reflections on American Orthodox church history is through personal contact and communal worship.

In other posts here on Orthodoxhistory, we have mentioned Frs. Boris Burden and Michael Gelsinger.  What many might not know is that later in life, after the Federated Orthodox Greek Catholic Primary Jurisdictions fell apart, Fr. Boris established the Orthodox Catholic Alliance, which sought to further the education of youth and perform charitable work.   In addition to that work, the American Orthodox Catholic Alliance established the OrCathA collection of Byzantine and Orthodox materials by donating its library to the University of Buffalo in 1966.   The university established a matching grant and soon expanded its holdings.  As of 2006, the collection contained approximately 45,000 volumes. The University of Buffalo’s website had stated [in link that now appears broken] that five years after establishing an endowment in 1974, the Alliance provided the library with another “substantial gift of materials.”  The date proves to be important as the 1974 immediately follows the death of Burden (who died in 1973).  Fr. Michael Gelsinger died later in 1979.

Although the link to the OrCathA Byzantine collection is currently down, it may be found here:

http://www.classics.buffalo.edu/research/research_facilities/other_facilities/

Over on his blog, Fr. Oliver Herbel has decided to re-frame his presentation of the St. Peter the Aleut question. He’s taken down both of his earlier articles on the subject and replaced them with a new one, which you can read by clicking here.

A Meeting of Hierarchs of both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian churches

If you have a Facebook account and read the responses to these comments, you will see some very good reasons. Foremost among them is that this website is a private, cooperative endeavor between those who happen to be spending their own time on it. We don’t receive funding from anywhere other than our own pockets, so there’s no reason why anyone should fear that official funds are being used in some objectionable way.

Yet one must ask why this is supposedly objectionable in the first place. Ironically, we’ve covered a number of apostates and outright non-Orthodox in the past without much protest, yet there are folks who object to Non-Chalcedonians being covered. How they’re okay with the former but not the latter is frankly a bit beyond me.

To be sure, there are some among the Chalcedonian (“Eastern”) Orthodox who look upon the Non-Chalcedonian (“Oriental”) Orthodox as heretics and therefore utterly irrelevant to such a site as this. Readers are left to determine for themselves what they think about this theological issue. At the same time, the official dialogues between the two church bodies have pretty much determined that we have the same Orthodox faith. Whichever may be the case, it is an unmistakable fact that of all the church bodies in the world, the Oriental Orthodox are the closest to the Eastern Orthodox. Although we share the same literal language of Christology as the Roman Catholic Church, anyone who’s ever spent time with both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox church families will find much more in common there than between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. As such, it only makes sense that we would spend time together. How or if the theological problems will be solved is another matter, to be sure (and an important one), but that is not the point of this website, nor of SOCHA in general.

SOCHA consists of people who like history, both reading it and often writing it. If we happen to like writing about Non-Chalcedonians (something we’ve largely not done as yet because most of us are unqualified), or if we want to invite someone to write about them for the site, then that is simply for furthering our mutual interest in history. If readers want to read it, great! If not, then they can simply skip it. No one’s losing anything by virtue of there being such articles on OrthodoxHistory.org.

At the same time, even if we were to receive funding from a church or foundation or the like, we would still have no problem publishing material about the Non-Chalcedonians. After all, there are print publications that do the same thing—even from Chalcedonian seminaries. And who is harmed by this? I would argue that we are all actually benefited by getting to know each other better. There actually is some real possibility for reunion between the two church bodies in the future—whether readers happen to think this is a good idea or not, it is nonetheless actually a possibility, and it’s being discussed at the official level by both bodies in a way more serious than they treat any other church body.

In any event, I myself am not interested only in Orthodox Christian history (whether one defines that only as Chalcedonian Orthodoxy or to include Non-Chalcedonian), but Christian history in general and even non-Christian religious history. If you’ve ever listened to any of my podcasts comparing Orthodoxy and heterodoxy, you know I’m not particularly “ecumenical” (I like to practice what I call “Ecumenism with a Gun“). So believe me when I say that I think it’s worthwhile for us to include material from the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian and Eritrean churches on this site. And if you don’t believe me, well, then don’t read it! You’re most likely not paying for it, anyway.

This article was written by Fr. Andrew S. Damick.

This morning on his Frontier Orthodoxy blog, Fr. Oliver Herbel offered a post with the provocative title, “St. Peter the Aleut Did Not Exist.” Fr. Oliver says that he intentionally did not publish the article here at OH.org so as to spare us the inevitable debate; however, I do think it’s appropriate that we link to the post and give people a chance to read it.

Fr. Oliver’s argument boils down to six main points:

1. Unlike so many Alaskan Orthodox stories (e.g. St. Juvenaly), the St. Peter story has no supporting oral tradition.
2. Fr. Michael Oleksa, the foremost scholar on Alaskan Orthodox history, has written next to nothing about St. Peter. In Orthodox Alaska, Fr. Michael makes not a single mention of Peter’s story. (I would add that Fr. Michael mentions St. Peter only in passing in Alaskan Missionary Spirituality.)
3. No corroborating evidence exists — that is, there is no other evidence of Spanish-Russian violence in California in that era. The St. Peter incident sticks out as an anomaly.
4. On the contrary, there is an internal Roman Catholic document from the period that actually contradicts the idea that the Spanish would torture Native Alaskans.
5. There is no evidence that St. Peter and his alleged persecutors would have been able to converse in the same language, which makes the exchange between them unlikely.
6. There is only one primary account of St. Peter’s martyrdom, and it is suspect for various reasons.

I’d encourage you to read the whole article, as I’ve just barely summarized Fr. Oliver’s observations. And, for the time being, I’m going to stay out of the public debate over whether St. Peter was real (and, if he was real, whether he was really martyred). I do think it is of paramount importance that the original account of St. Peter’s martyrdom be made public and translated into English. We don’t have that account, and I don’t know of anyone who has ever seen it, although in the comments to Fr. Oliver’s post, someone says that it was due to be published in a book.

At some future point, I’ll examine the pro-Peter arguments, and generally discuss the merits of his case.

This article was written by Matthew Namee.

In my post last month, I had mentioned that I’d discuss evangelism in this month’s post.  What I would like to do is share with everyone an article that is, admittedly, now a month beyond its “anniversary” month, but a helpful reminder nonetheless–a snapshot to when SVS was granted new facilities.

SVS to Get Facilities

Next month, I’ll continue with this educational theme.  One of the reasons I am doing this is because of a book that will be published eventually through Holy Cross, edited by Dr. Bezzerides and Shevzov.  It consists of chapters concerning Orthodoxy and the academy (university/collegiate education) in America.  Some contributors discuss specific projects and others some pre-American background.  I am also contributing.

Orthodox engagement with the university system here in North America is a lively topic in some Orthodox circles these days and there is now St. Katherine’s college in San Diego.  Our history is not one of establishing and maintaining colleges, however.  Frankly, we don’t know how that will go for us Orthodox (and a look across to other groups doing it might look a little foreboding at times).  What we can do is become familiar with the history of Orthodox education in America that we do have.

So, this post is but one brief reminder.  Next month, I’ll mention one or two others, which might not be nearly as familiar to us.

This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel.

1874-01-07 – Orthodox Xmas in NYC

I have uploaded a copy of a very short article on Christmas in New York in 1874.  What I wish to do, however, is not simply provide you with a little factoid, but to use this piece as a window into what “evangelism” meant for Orthodoxy on the ground in NY in the 1870s.  At the time, the diocese of the Russian Mission did not formally extend into New York, but this chapel existed as a show-chapel of sorts, in part to promote good relations with the Protestant Episcopalians.  The pastor, Fr. Nicholas Bjerring, was himself a convert from Roman Catholicism and we have mentioned him more than once on this site.  Perhaps we have even noted this news article.  Bjerring connected with Bishop Henry Potter, the local Episcopalian bishop.  Bjerring also made the newspapers at various times for different speaking engagements and sometimes for liturgical services.  Bjerring had a soft approach to evangelism.  He did not engage in direct proselytism and even discouraged people from attending and converting, though he also said he would not shut the door in inquirer’s faces.  He wished to make Orthodoxy known, but in the context of a possible future reunion of Christians, especially the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Church.  Although one might consider that this approach would work against converting people, another aspect was his struggle with language.  He served in English with a heavy accent.  That is not mentioned here, but the language issue is hinted at in this piece by highlighting what was in Slavonic (which Bjerring did not know) and that the sermon was in English.

So, early on, the Russian Orthodox Church had a chapel that sought to entice people through a soft sell of providing information and services in English.  This might not be the kind of evangelism many of us would want today, but it’s worth noting that this softer sell has a history in America.  Of course, it might be easier to have a softer sell in a context in which religious concerns regularly made the papers.  In many places in the country today, it takes a scandal to make the paper.  Perhaps, though, the real lesson to be learned is twofold: a soft sell has a place at times but in the current situation, where real reunion between Orthodoxy and other Christian bodies seems highly unlikely, a more overt proselytism has a role to play.  That is, somehow, what we may need is a marriage of the two.  In January, I will continue with this theme of evangelism in America.  Looking at our Orthodox heritage of missions and evangelism is vital.

[This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel.]

Dr. Peter Bouteneff, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at St. Vladimir’s Seminary (SVS), has interviewed Romanian doctoral candidate Fr. Ilie Toader, pursuing his doctorate through the Bucharest Faculty of Theology.  This is definitely something to be noted and anticipated.  I have not seen the Bucharest institution, though I did briefly visit the seminary in Cluj back in 2000.  Please note Fr. Ilie’s comments concerning frequent participation in the Eucharist, the connection between history and doctrine, and the unitive function of chapel at St. Vladimir’s Seminary.  Of interest are the names mentioned by him: Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. John Meyendorff, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann.  Florovsky served as dean from 1949-1955.  Schmemann was dean from 1962 until his death in 1983.  Meyendorff served as dean from 1984 until he retired in 1992.  All three men also taught at SVS and their writings remain influential to this day.

The interview may be found here:

http://www.svots.edu/headlines/romanian-scholar-writes-doctoral-thesis-about-st-vladimirs-seminary

By way of disclosure, perhaps I should add that as a student I took courses from Dr. Bouteneff and he will be speaking at our second annual St. Nicholas Retreat (held the first Saturday of each December).

[This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel.]