The Modernism Test

The following list of questions about modernism in the Orthodox Church today was originally compiled from various emails sent publicly to an Orthodox email forum by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, a Priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. These questions are not provided as “ammunition” to become judgmental towards a clergyman, parish or jurisdiction that exhibits some of these characteristics. In our times modernism, to one degree or another, is evident everywhere. The point of these questions is merely to inform, for ignorance can lead to blind adoption of practices that are, whether we might realize it or not, detrimental to our Orthodox formation and way of life. As Blessed Father Seraphim of Platina once wrote:

“The followers of unenlightened custom are themselves innocent; they merely accept what has been ‘handed down’ to them. But not seeing the meaning and not knowing the sources of what has been handed down, they are easily led into error, accepting customs which the Church has allowed only out of her condescension or economy as if they were the best of Orthodoxy, and also improper customs of recent heterodox origin and inspiration, together with the pure and meaningful Orthodox customs handed down from the Holy Fathers. Under strict yet prudent pastors, such people can be guided in the true path of Orthodoxy; but in our own time of such widespread irresponsible Church leadership, these people are more often guided gradually into a path of ever greater and more senseless innovation and reform, the clearest example of which is perhaps the Greek Archdiocese of America, where pews, organs, and Uniat spirituality and theology have become the new ‘customs’ of an unfortunate people whose Orthodoxy has been stolen from it....

”Today the situation of Orthodoxy is rather different, and much worse, than it was in the time of the Elder Paisius. In place of the veneer of paganism and Latinism which never actually touched the heart of Orthodoxy, we have today a prevailing atmosphere of modernist heterodoxy and senseless “keeping up with the times” which has pierced the very heart of some Orthodox Churches so deeply that they will doubtless never recover, and their children are deprived of Orthodoxy without even knowing what they have lost.“ (Introduction to Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky)

Therefore, it is hoped that you will use these questions not to fuel unbridled criticism but rather to become more aware of what is authentically Orthodox. Perhaps with this knowledge you might, by God’s grace, play a role some day in restoring aspects of Holy Tradition that have been lost or discarded.

For a more scholarly and informative treatise on modernism, see the monograph by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos.—Webmaster

Examples of Modernism

1. Does your church have pews?
2. Does your church have an organ?
3. Does your Priest not have a beard?
4. Do most of the Priests in your jurisdiction not have beards?
5. Are any of your Bishops clean shaven?
6. Does your Priest have short hair?
7. Do you use electric vigil lamps in your Church?
8. Does your Priest keep the Royal Doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy (until after the ”Our Father)?
9. Does your Iconostasis not have a curtain? or, Does your Priest not close the curtain after the Great Entrance?
10. Does your Priest go straight from the Augmented Litany (after the Gospel) to the Cherubic hymn (skipping the litanies for the catechumens and faithful)?
11. Does your Priest appear in public wearing a “clergy shirt” and “ecclesiastical collar”?
12. Does your Priest appear in public in civilian clothes?
13. Does your Bishop (or any of the Bishops in your jurisdiction) appear in public in a suit?
14. Does your Priest not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night?
15. Does your jurisdiction permit the ordination of a twice-married man to the diaconate or Priesthood?
16. Does your Priest or any clergy of your jurisdiction smoke in public?
17. Does your parish follow the New Calendar (meaning, are all the immovable Feasts celebrated according to the Gregorian Calendar)?
18. Are the majority of parishes in your jurisdiction New Calendar (euphemistically referred to as the “Revised Julian Calendar”)?
19. Has your Church Higher authority not officially condemned Freemasonry as incompatible with Orthodoxy?
20. Do any of the women in your parish attend church in slacks or pant-suits?
21. Do most of the women in your parish come to church with their heads uncovered?
22. Does your church practice “General Confession”?
23. Is private confession not generally required before receiving Holy Communion?
24. Do monastic clergy not comprise a significant percentage (greater than, say, 10%) of all your clergy?
25. Is your Church Bingo sign larger than the sign with the name of the Church?
26. Does your parish not follow the traditional rules of fasting? Or, does your Priest condone a mitigation of fasting with teachings such as “try to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent”?
27. Do the clergy in your jurisdiction attach a great deal of importance to being a part of “canonical Orthodoxy”?
28. Is the keeping of the traditions of the Church often referred to as “legalism”?
29. Does your Priest kneel on Sundays? Does he allow others in the parish to kneel on Sundays? (In some modernist churches the entire congregation kneels during the highpoint of the Anaphora.)
30. Does your Priest serve Vesperal Divine Liturgies on days in which it is not appointed in the Typikon?
31. Are converts in your parish not expected to use their Baptismal name at all times—in and out of church?
32. Has your Priest not adopted an Orthodox name—i.e., of a Saint—or does he call himself by familiar American names such as Fr. Jack or Fr. Bob? Does his wife not go by the traditional title of “Matushka,” “Khouria,” or “Presbytera”? Or does she prefer “Babs,” “Sally,” or some other familiar name?
33. Does your Priest give out the antidoron to non-Orthodox?
34. Does a reading of the Prayers of Thanksgiving for Holy Communion not follow after the end of Divine Liturgy?
35. Does your Priest or Bishop encourage the congregation to lift their hands during the anaphora?
36. At the “Kiss of Peace” during the Divine Liturgy, does the Priest pause the service to allow parishioners to greet those around them, either by handshake or embrace?
38. Does your Priest read out loud all of the secret prayers during the Liturgy?
39. Does your Priest serve Holy Communion with plastic spoons?
40. Does your Priest encourage attendance at, or support, local ecumenical events that involve common prayer with heterodox Christians?
41. Are most of the converts to Orthodoxy in your parish received by Chrismation instead of Baptism?
42. Does your Priest commemorate the names of non-Orthodox during the litanies?
43. Does your jurisdiction allow weddings on Saturdays or during fasting periods?
44. Does your Priest serve panikhidas on Sunday?

* Questions 26 and on are by the webmaster. The feedback that follows is not based on these additional questions...

Responses from the Forum, with Answers by Fr. Alexander

The test for modernism is interesting but really not a very accurate one.   There are plenty of us who would answer ‘no’ to the questions while their parish would  answer ‘yes’.  The personal feelings of a person has nothing to do with what their parish prefers.  I don’t like pews, for example, but my parish has them and since we are not officially attached there is nothing we can say about it.  I find this obsession with outward things disturbing at times. Just because a Priest wears a clerical collar and is clean shaven does not make him a bad Priest and visa versa. We all know what the traditional way is, but because a person does not follow it does not make them ‘modernist’ and, as many will tell you, there are plenty of liberal or modernist Priests who have long beards and cassocks.  I don’t think you can catagorize someone with a ‘test for modernism’ such as this one.  It always has to be a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the person’s environment and special situations.

Permit me a few comments on your comments.

First, the admittedly tongue-in-cheek “Modernism Test” was just that—it was not a test for determining Orthodoxy [i.e., in a dogmatic or ontological way—webmaster], or “goodness” or “badness.” It consisted of a list of things (mostly external) that are prevalent in the majority of non-traditionalist Orthodox parishes in the US today. These are the things that make a traditionalist Orthodox cringe.

Not all are external, outward things either. The trend to make optional or eliminate private confession before communion in many, if not most, GOA, OCA, and Antiochian parishes is extremely disturbing to me.

And one must be aware that even the “outward things” I seem “obsessed with” are often a reflection of deeper “inner things.” This is the relationship between “form” and “substance.” I believe that form is to substance as a vessel is to the liquid it contains—you eliminate the vessel, and the liquid just leaks away.

That is why the external appearance of the Church is important, the external aspects of the services are important, and the external appearance of the Priest is important. It was God Himself Who decreed to Moses that the Priests of the Old Testament church were to wear distinctive vestments. Otherwise, it would be perfectly appropriate for the Priest to serve Liturgy wearing his suit and clerical collar—his internal essense doesn’t change and his God-given grace doesn’t disappear because of what he wears, does it?

One really needs to look at what the motivation is in abandoning traditions that have existed in the Orthodox Church for almost two thousand years.

Perhaps the best way to phrase the question is: “What in the world would make an Orthodox Priest put on a suit and ecclesiastical collar instead of a rasson?” The answer, unfortunately, lies in the question itself: “What in the world?” Abandoning clerical garb that has been traditional for countless centuries in order to look just like “Pastor Bob” down the street?

Whether you like it or not, we live in a society in which “clothes make the man.” You would probably not interview for an executive position wearing a sweatshirt and jeans, even though your external appearance is just an “outward thing” that has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence, experience, or ability.

When an Orthodox Priest wears his cassock outside the Church (yes, even at K-Mart) he is witnessing for the faith. I remember how impressed I was as a child when I saw Roman Catholic nuns before they “kicked the habit.” Now, most wear civilian clothes with only a lapel pin to identify them as a nun. I, personally, feel that this is a sad attempt to be “of the world,” when we are called by our Saviour to be “not of this world.”

Pews, organs, and clergy shirts are clearly an attempt to assimilate into the Western culture—and one should seriously ask “why?” If the early immigrants were looked down upon because of their “old country” ways and accents, and so tried to assimilate into the American mainstream as soon as possible—this certainly does not apply anymore.

The ROCOR has over 300 Bishops, Priests, deacons, monks, and nuns here in the US. More than half of them are American converts to Orthodoxy. Yet the overwhelming majority of them seem to have no problem in maintaining traditional Orthodox attire and outward appearance, both in church and out. So there is no “imperative” that one needs to “go mainstream” in this country.

Orthodoxy is a “counter-current” faith—a constant struggle against the things of this world. Assimilation, even in “outward things,” should be avoided, for in abandoning the “outward things” there is a real danger of losing some of the “inner things” and then Orthodoxy in America will drift on with the current and popular culture and finally become a sort of mainstream “Eastern Rite Protestantism.”

It was never my intent to go “jurisdiction-bashing.” There are many fine Priests among the “modernist” jurisdictions as I have been labelling them, who are doing their best in leading people to salvation.

But I believe that faithfulness to traditions, even in the smaller “outward” things, is important. Let’s not forget the words of our Savior, Who said to those who were faithful in small things:  “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful in small [things], I will make thee ruler over many: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Matt. 25:21).

You ask, “Are there canons that speak to the issues of pews and tobacco?” I would ask you, where are the Canons that forbid use of marijuana or snorting cocaine or downloading pornography from the Internet? Obviously, there are none. Does this mean that your innate Orthodox common sense should not be enough to guide you to recognize what is healthy and what is not? The Canons should not be considered a compendium of answers to all possible questions. God gave us a mind and a conscience and we should use them to determine what is right and what is wrong, whether or not the particular issue has been addressed in the canons or not.

Smoking tobacco is a digusting, filthy, addictive habit that turns the mouth of the smoker into an ashtray. It not only poisons the body of the smoker but pollutes the air that others around the smoker breathe. It is absolutely incompatible with the dignity of the Orthodox Priesthood, diaconate, or monastic state, whether the Canons specifically address it or not.

Pews violate the principle of standing while praying to God and make prostrations impossible. They are obviously an innovation in Orthodox churches, taken from non-Orthodox, heretical assemblies. They have absolutely no place in an Orthodox church.

Beards and exorassa have been a mark of Orthodox clergy for countless centuries. What, as I asked before, would be a rational reason for abandoning the traditional Orthodox external appearance of a clergyman? To look just like “Pastor Bob” down the street? I must tell you, that I have experienced many, many instances where little children, seeing me in long beard, long hair and rasson come up to me and ask: “Are you Jesus?” or even “Are you God?” These little children, who have never seen an Orthodox Priest before, still see the image of Christ in a Priest dressed in a traditional way, no matter how sinful, in this case, the Priest may be. I doubt that a modernist cleric in a clergy shirt or suit would get the same reaction. The inability to grow a beard, however, would never be an impediment to ordination (for example, the late Archbishop Paul of Sydney, being ethnically a Kalmuk, was unable to grow a full beard—no one considered him any less Orthodox for it, but he was the exception that “proves the rule”). This is a far cry from institutionalizing the “anglicanization” of the external appearance of Orthodox clergy in America.

The change to the new calendar is a gross “liturgical innovation” in itself. But there are many more. In how many Antiochian parishes does the Priest start the Divine Liturgy (“Blessed is the Kingdom”) behind closed Royal Doors, as the rubrics, including the ones published by the Antiochian Archdiocese) clearly indicate? In how many parishes are the doors closed after the Gospel, and then closed again after the Great Entrance? In how many Antiochian parishes is the curtain behind the Royal Doors closed at the appropriate times during the Divine Liturgy? Isn’t it true that many Antiochian parishes have only vestigial Royal Doors and no curtain at all? Aren’t pews and organs a “liturgical innovation”? How many Antiochian parishes do full Vigil Services on Saturday nights? How many Antiochian parishes preserve the prayers for the catechumens and the litanies and prayers for the faithful just before the Cherubic Hymn? Aren’t there many parishes where private Confession as a requirement for receiving the Holy Sacraments has been eliminated?

And, of course, the Orthodox world witnessed the incredible liturgical innovation of the Antiochian Church performing “mass ordinations” of the EOC clergy, when, according to the Canons, only one Priest and one deacon can be ordained at one Divine Liturgy. Recently, there was some scandal regarding the lax attitude of the Antiochian Church concerning some divorced Priest who had been teaching at St. Vladimir’s Seminary that led to the departure of the Antichian Seminarians. I don’t know the details, nor do I particularly care to, but the matter revolved around the OCA being more strict in following the canons regarding the marriage of clergy that the Antiochian Archdiocese.

The attempt to justify participation in the ecumenical movement as a sort of “witness for the Church” is so weak it does not hardly merit a response. Nothing in the Holy Canons permit prayer with heterodox, no matter how good the intentions. Anyone who saw or read anything about the WCC Assembly in Canberra can not accept Orthodox participation in these meetings at all.

And, frankly, Easter Egg hunts during Great Lent seem to be an obvious failure to teach children the Sanctity of the Holy Fast.

Regarding Freemasonry, I am unaware of any official statement by the Antiochian Church condemning it as incompatible with Orthodoxy. My own experience has been that it is tolerated, as many Parish Board members in many Antiochian are openly involved in Freemasonry. My experience with this comes from several years of serving a “mainline” OCA parish and, with the blessing of my Bishop, being a member of the Bridgeport Association of Orthodox Clergy, where the question of Freemasonry and the attitudes of the various jursidictions (twelve in all) toward it were a frequent matter for discussion. Also, my two brothers-in-law and their families have been long-term members of the local Antiochian parish, so my familiarity with the customs and practices of the Antiochian church in the US is not based on abstract “book knowledge” but actual experience.

The Antiochian choir director even consulted with me as to which music would be more appropriate to play on the organ at the entrance of my niece at her wedding—the Mendelsohn Bridal march or the Bach Cantata about Grazing Sheep. I told her I preferred the Bach, of course.