The Russian Orthodox presence in Australia: The history of a church told from recently opened archives and previously unpublished sources

For over 50 years the presence of Russian people has been significant in Australia and the Russian Orthodox Church has been established in 24 centers in all states and territories. The richness of the musical heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church is well known; it has a tradition extending over many centuries and one which embraces an enormous repertoire of various styles of chant together with a vast repertoire of polyphonic music, much of it by famous composers. At this point in time there has been virtually no documentation of the history and practice of Russian Orthodox liturgical music in Australia. There are three histories of the Russian church in Australia (Protopopov 1997, 1998, 1999) but the topic of music is not addressed. This is also true of Galina Zakrjevsky's history of St Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral (1998). Studies of Russian immigration to this country include the dissertation by Maria Frolova (1996) and the book by Elena Govor (1997). While liturgical music is not a concern of these writers, their studies nevertheless provide useful background material for an investigation into Russian Orthodox Liturgical music as practised in this country. There are of course numerous studies of Russian church music, notably by Gardner (1980) and Morosan (1991). Their focus is understandably Russian and these books are essential for any understanding of the Australian experience of such liturgical music. This study thus seeks to document the practice of Russian Orthodox liturgical music in Australia from 1926 to 1999.;The central research questions are: What is and has been the makeup of Russian Orthodox church choirs in Australia? What is the repertoire of these choirs? What training is available for choristers? To what extent have Australian choirs been able to maintain the traditions of Russian Orthodox liturgical music? What changes have taken place in performance traditions during the time of settlement? In order to achieve these aims there has been a heavy reliance on surveys by means of a questionnaire and interviews with choirmasters, choristers and clergy in five states. Extensive use has been made of archival sources and church magazines such as Word of the Church and Australiada: A Russian Chronicle. Material for a background study of Russian Orthodox music has been drawn from Secondary sources such as Gardner, Morosan, Brill, and Rasumovsky and for a background history of Russian Orthodox church in history of the Russian Orthodox church in Australia from 'A short history of the first Russian Orthodox parish in Sydney' by Soovoroff. For the discussion in Part 2: The Australian Scene special consideration has been given to four choirs: SS Peter & Paul's Cathedral (Sydney), St Nicholas Cathedral (Brisbane), St Nicholas Church (Adelaide), Holy Dormition Church (Dandenong), Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral (Melbourne), the reason being that these represent the different levels of choral standards in this country. Thus these embrace one choir of a large cathedral church, one of a moderately sized cathedral church, one of a very small cathedral church and one of a tiny parish church. The approach adopted involves an examination of the makeup of these selected choirs throughout the time frame of the study. This is followed by an analysis ofthe their repertoire, based on repertoire lists supplied by choir directors.;Due to the paucity of source material and fading memories of informants, it has often been impossible to identify key persons by their name: only the surname and initial can be given.

In Russia, “fundamentalism” in the Russian Orthodox Church has been on the rise since the early 1990's. “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” stand for restoration of autocracy, restriction against the Jews and the confessions other than the Orthodox one, the imperial principle of state structure, the Russian Orthodox Church status as the state church, for complete rejection of the concepts of democracy and human rights (in particular, as concerns the freedom of conscience), opposition to any forms of Western influence within the country and struggle against it beyond its borders, and compulsory imposition of “Orthodox values” in every-day life, culture and even economy. Their worldview is based on extremely mythologized notions about the pre-revolutionary Orthodox monarchy.Inside the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg and Ladoga Ioann, a person of a greatest authority among the conservatives, prodused the most convincing arguments in favor of a “fundamentalist” position. Many Orthodox “fundamentalist” leaders including an activist Konstantin Dushenov, Editor-in-Chief of “Orthodox Rus” newspaper, have followed Ioann. Some church bishops and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and of the True Orthodox Church have represented “fundamentalist” circles in these churches. A number of Orthodox brotherhoods, such as the Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, the Christian Regeneration Union, the Union of Orthodox Citizens, ideologically hold extremely nationalist positions. Same as the similar extra-Church groups, such brotherhoods are not supported by the bishops, but it is impossible to expel anybody from the Church for political views and the nationalist brotherhoods continue working actively. Moreover, right-wing extremist organizations, such as “Pamyat”, “Black Hundred”, “Russian National Unity” actively cooperate in many regions with Russian Orthodox Church clerics. These persons and organizations can be classified into “fundamentalism” and “quasi-fundamentalism” for the moment. The clerics in the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox church Abroad, the True Orthodox Church are the former. The Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, the Christian Regeneration Union are included in it. The Union of Orthodox Citizens and the right-wing extremist organizations are the latter.“Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” fight back to defend their national and religious identity and worldview, fight with fundamentals of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”, and fight against their enemy. such as Western Europe, globalization under the name of God. “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalism” is similar to Russian Right-wing Extremism, and both of them are violent and aren't tolerant. “Russian Orthodox Fndamentalists” base their core identity on religion and they try to construct structual violence. Russian Right-wing Extremists emphasise race, nationality, state in their identity and they resort to physical violence. In addition, Russian New Right-wing Extremism borrow various ideologies othar than Russian Orthodox Christianity.In 2002, conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church has come to the surface. It seems that since the early 1990's the unstable balance between “fundamentalists” and the Patriarchate has been gradually shifting in favor of “fundamentalists”. It is impossible to ignore the influence of “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” at the aspects of politics, society, and public opinion in Russia today.

Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland, taking advantage of the church and international policy, illegally transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1923 and its relations with the Russian Church were interrupted for two decades. At the end of the Great Patriotic War, a movement for the reunification of the two churches began, but there was no unity within the Finnish Church on this issue, and the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate’s hierarchy led to limited results. The article reveals the history of the participation of Petter Nortamo, a Finnish pastor who converted to Orthodoxy and tried to speed up the process of the return of the Finnish Archdiocese to the Russian Orthodox Church, unknown to Russian scientists. One of the characteristic features of his activity was the active involvement in this process of political parties and associations of socialist orientation, as well as the press (in particular, the Democratic Union of the People of Finland). The article disputes the reading of this story by the Finnish historian Juha Riikonen, who sees this primarily as a political background. Nortamo’s active contacts with Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov) and Patriarch Alexy I, his ordination to holy orders in Leningrad indicate that the church component was decisive in his activities. However, Nortamo’s efforts were not enough to solve the problem of the relationship between the Finnish and Russian Orthodox Churches, and his death coincided with the end of such attempts. The Patriarchate of Constantinople played a significant role in freezing the process of church reunification. To this day, the figure of Nortamo remains unknown in Russian historical science.

This article reflects on the practice of inter-religious dialogue within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church, or the Russian Patriarchate, as it is otherwise called, is currently the largest (with respect to the number of faithful) autocephalous church within the Orthodox world. Within the Russian Federation, the Orthodox faithful form a majority. However, the Muslim population has increased steadily in recent years and now forms a significant minority. Indeed, in certain regions the Muslim population has, in fact, become the demographic majority. Therefore, inter-religious contact is a lived reality within the Russian context. This article examines Russian Orthodox attempts to come to terms with this reality. It does so by examining official statements (i.e., theory), and by reflecting on the Church’s approach to the issues (i.e., practice) which arise from the attempt to implement the official approach within the Russian Federation (e.g., ‘orthodoxization’, lackluster education, proselytism). Furthermore, this article reflects on the repercussions for the entire Orthodox World which result from the events unfolding in the Russian Church.

Cyril Hovorun explains the origin and nature of the conflict in Ukraine in connection with the notion of the “Russian world.” In support of this idea of Russian hegemonic power, the Russian Orthodox Church has been co-opted to promote a sense of external threats to Christian morality, its own superiority as a Russian Orthodox civilization, and an ethos of confrontation. Yet, contrary to Samuel Huntington’s prediction that post-Cold War conflicts would center on differences of civilization rather than of ideology, the conflicts in Georgia (2007) and Ukraine (2014) have pitted people of the same Russian (Orthodox) civilization against one another. Examining parallels with nineteenth-century German nationalism, the author finds that the conflict in Ukraine is not really between Russia and the West, but between the desire to return to “Soviet” statism and the contrary desire to establish the common good as a responsibility of the state.

In search of common ground The dialogue between Pax Christi International and the Russian Orthodox Church Pax Christi believes that frontiers may divide states, but not Churches based on the same Christian faith. Therefore it has maintained official contacts with the Russian Orthodox Church. In times of increased international tensions, these contacts were the only channel for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The increased openness of the society in the former Soviet Union during the last few years has allowed Pax Christi to significantly broaden its range of contacts in the Commonwealth of Independent States. One of the most impressive aspects of the opening up of Russian society has been the spectacular growth of religion in a land which for seventy years has been ruled by an atheist ideology. This revival was made possible by the continued presence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the unbroken tradition of religiousness among the Russian people. During the past twenty years, Pax Christi International has, through its biennial conversations with high-ranking Russian Orthodox delegations, been a privileged witness of the many sufferings in which the Russian Orthodox Church has been involved and of the enormous courage displayed by this Church in order to resist and survive. In this article, E. De Jonghe deals with the difficult history of the Russian Orthodox Church and gives an overview of her contacts with Pax Christi International. He analyses the complexity of the relationships between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church and shows how they have grown more complex by the developments of the last five years. The author points to the problems with the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine and reflects on some present tensions, such as the conversion of the Russians, the internal crisis, church properties and proselytism.

The article analyzes the relationship between the Anglican and Russian Orthodox churches at the very end of the 19th century. The reasons why the Anglican — Orthodox dialogue received intensive development and significant theological content during this period are considered. Significant attention is paid to the mutual visits of the hierarchs of the two Churches, during which they discussed and agreed on numerous issues related to the rapprochement of the Anglican and Russian Orthodox Churches in connection with the prospect of planned interfaith unity. Emphasis is placed on the problem of recognizing the legitimacy of Anglican ordinations, which arose both due to the historical formation of Anglicanism and in connection with the peculiarities of the Anglican doctrine of the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of the priesthood. The author investigates the reasons why Russian theologians, who have carefully studied the historical, canonical and dogmatic sides of the issue, were forced at this stage to deny the Anglicans the recognition of the legality of their ordinations. In connection with this decision, the prospect of inter-church unity was postponed indefinitely so that Anglican theological thought could finally be defined in the sacramentology of the Anglican creed. At the same time, the dialogue between the two churches was not interrupted, but rather continued fruitfully in the 20th century.

This article analyses the way Russian Orthodox communities, primarily in Western Europe, cope with the ecclesiological challenge of de-territorialisation and increased individual mobility in the modern world. It focuses on the developments within the three parallel Russian Orthodox jurisdictions in Western Europe, especially since the fall of the Iron Curtain. These developments can primarily be summarised in the context of two dilemmas. First, there is the question whether the ‘temporary’ solutions that were put in place as a result of the Soviet regime’s hostility towards the Russian Orthodox Church should come to an end in the new ‘free’ circumstances since 1990. Second, there is the question of how to reconcile Russian traditions and allegiances with the religious needs of local converts to Orthodoxy. The main developments include the conflict in the UK since the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh in 2003, the reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2007 and, most importantly, the developments in the Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe (Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople) since the turn of the millennium. The French debate on the future of Russian Orthodoxy in Western Europe is the most pertinent one and provides a key to understanding the challenges posed to Orthodox ecclesiology in the West.

Russian Orthodox Church’s presence in Africa has traditionally been limited to the support of African Orthodox churches and the spiritual care of Russians. Russian Orthodox Church never tried to carry out missionary work among the locals. In the 1920s and 1930s Orthodox parishes arose in Africa, but most of the church infrastructure was located in the north of the continent. The first Russian parish in southern Africa was formed after the Second World War in Johannesburg; its emergence was associated with the post-war wave of emigration from the USSR. Russian Orthodox parishes on the continent have been in a crisis since the late 1950s, caused by the mass departure of Russians and other Europeans from the gained independence African countries. The 1990s marked the beginning of a new period in the history of Russian Orthodoxy in Africa. The revival of church life in Russia has also affected our compatriots abroad — members of the diplomatic corps, specialists who worked in the countries of the continent. An important milestone, which actually led to the rupture of relations between the Moscow and Alexandria Patriarchates, was the recognition by the latter in 2019 of the autocephaly (granted by the Patriarch of Constantinople) of the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

The article is devoted to one of the most striking problems of contemporary church construction in Russia — the formation of artistic images of newly erected churches and determination of meaning in their architecture. Today, the mentality of architects, patrons and the parish is primarily determined by the traditional approaches to the creation of new churches. Simultaneously, many architects are longing to find innovative meaning and artistic structures, noting that only these attempts are able to express the present-day emotions of believers. It is also essential to define the features of the cultural code of modern architecture for the Russian Orthodox church. The church hierarchy, believers and scholars, including foreigners, proceed from the idea of Russian Orthodox architecture’s unique identity. The recognizable image of the churches is determined by the constant interest in late medieval decoration from the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich as the main artistic source and its interpretation by masters of the Neo-Russian style of the 19th — beginning of 20th centuries. The article emphasizes that national identity in Russian Orthodox church architecture is not a combination of immanent features, but a historical process of treasuring artistic character and the formation of meaning over several centuries. At the current time, it is vital to turn to all the creative and meaningful wealth in the development of Russian Orthodox churches, and it is better to seek innovation from within traditional images and meanings, based on the sacred experience of our church. This will support the creation of new churches, which are comparable to the standards of the Russian Orthodox architectural heritage in its artistic variety and semantic profoundness.

Over the past two decades, clerics in the Russian Orthodox Church have found a new outlet for morality policy discussions: news portals, blogs, and other sites that comprise a virtual public sphere of Russian Orthodox online media. One prominent issue discussed herein is abortion in Russia, a subject that has spawned debates about possible regulation and prevention measures. This article analyzes statements regarding abortion made by clerics and others serving in the Russian Orthodox Church via Russian Orthodox online portals. Using typologies for framing strategies established through research of morality policy and church-state relations in Russia, this analysis will show that rational-instrumental frames were employed more frequently than religiously based or procedural arguments, and frames expressing affinity and disillusionment with the state were utilized more often than those evoking church-state symphony or anti-government disestablishment. In addition, it will shed light on framing strategies between online portals with varying degrees of proximity to the Moscow Patriarchate.

The article analyzes the practice of restoring church contacts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the patriarchs of the Orthodox East and the reconstruction of the church infrastructure in the Holy Land after the break in the Second World War in 1943 until the end of the Stalinist era. Russian Orthodox Christianity was able to regain its presence in the Holy Land through the organization of diplomatic visits and gifts to the new head of the Russian Church, Patriarch Aleksei I, with the support of the Soviet government. This "return" after the formation of the State of Israel and with its support was accompanied by the displacement of the structures of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the redistribution of church property in the region. The restoration of the presence of the USSR and the ROC in the region had long-term consequences for state-church relations in the USSR.

Reviewed by: Spiritual Elders. Charisma and Tradition in Russian Orthodoxy William G. Wagner Spiritual Elders. Charisma and Tradition in Russian Orthodoxy. By Irina Paert. (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2010. Pp. xiii, 286. $43.00. ISBN 978-0-875-80429-3.) In Spiritual Elders, Irina Paert provides a theoretically well-informed and impressively researched account of the revival, evolution, and social and cultural significance of spiritual eldership (starchestvo) in Russian Orthodoxy from the eighteenth century to the present. In the process, she perceptively discusses many of the main challenges confronting, and developments [End Page 132] within, the Russian Orthodox Church across this time period. By structuring her analysis around the questions of the tension between charismatic and ecclesiastical—particularly episcopal—authority, authenticity and the invention of religious traditions, the adaptation of religious institutions and practices to modernizing change, and the role of gender in shaping religious sentiment and behavior, Paert also offers valuable insights into a number of important issues of interest to scholars of religion generally. Contending that the evolution, character, and significance of spiritual eldership in Russian Orthodoxy have been influenced strongly by changing historical circumstances, Paert organizes her study chronologically. She argues that, although long a strand in Russian Orthodox monasticism, the practice of spiritual eldership had largely disappeared by the seventeenth century. The foundations for its revival paradoxically but not coincidentally were laid during the eighteenth century, at a time when monasticism in Russia was in sharp decline due to a combination of state policies, cultural Westernization, and centralizing trends within the Orthodox ecclesiastical administration. In response to these developments, some Russian monks retreated to remote regions and adopted a severely ascetic and pious mode of life while others such as Paisii Velichkovskii emigrated abroad, seeking to discover a more spiritually fulfilling form of monastic life in communities such as those on Mt. Athos. Velichkovskii eventually developed an ideal of communal monasticism that was structured on a conception of eldership based on asceticism, mystical prayer, and the guidance of younger monks by experienced spiritual fathers. This ideal was embodied in the monastic communities in Moldavia founded by Velichkovskii and was promoted by him as the authentic form of Christian monasticism both in his own writings and in the compendium of early Christian and Byzantine theological writings (the Dobrotoliubie, or Philokalia) that he produced. Hence, Paert demonstrates, when in the first half of the nineteenth century state policies toward religion became more favorable, Russian Orthodox hierarchs seeking to promote a revival of monasticism both for its own sake and as a means for religious revitalization generally adopted Velichkovskii’s ideal as a model for reform and embraced—albeit not unambiguously—isolated practitioners of spiritual eldership. At the same time, Slavophil writers fashioned spiritual eldership into a symbol of Russian cultural particularity and spiritual superiority in comparison with the Catholic and Protestant West. The result of these developments, Paert shows, was a growth in the number and the visibility of spiritual elders; an expansion under their influence particularly of female religious communities; and an increased flow of lay believers visiting elders in search of spiritual guidance, advice with their concerns, and divine intercession in their lives. This latter phenomenon grew dramatically after 1861, due both to the increased mobility and access resulting from the abolition of serf-dom and improvements in transportation and to an apparent increase in demand arising from social and economic dislocation and cultural flux. Expanded literacy and developments in publishing, moreover, enabled spiritual [End Page 133] elders to offer guidance and advice remotely to an even wider number of believers through personal and published collections of correspondence. By the last decades of the Old Regime, Paert argues persuasively, although growing only modestly within monastic communities, not only had the practice of spiritual eldership contributed significantly to the revival of Russian Orthodox monasticism but also its reach into lay society had been extended through adoption by prominent parish priests and lay leaders of informal religious groups. Meanwhile, its image had become a medium of cultural and political discourse, serving as a symbol inter alia of Russian national character, the deep spirituality of the Russian Orthodox Church and the uncorrupted Russian peasantry, and the mystical union...

Addressing Russian Orthodox missions in the Alaskan periphery of the Russian Empire, this article discusses the flexibility of Russian Orthodox missionaries in adapting concepts of Orthodoxy and Russianness to the circumstances of their mission in Alaska and to their individual experiences there. Consulting a range of missionary writings from 1794–1917, including reports, journals, letters, and articles in church periodicals, Murray assesses varying interpretations and methods of promoting the civilizing mission, christianization, and russification over the long nineteenth century. Efforts in education and promoting moral standards were vital to the missions but always incorporated respect for the native culture. Recognizing the importance of this periphery even after the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, the missionaries continued to perceive the converted Alaskan communities as tied to Russian Orthodox culture and identity and their educational and moral efforts as essential to the construction of good citizens for the new political power.

The paper analyses the recent debate on human rights in the Russian Orthodox Church published as a series of articles, conference discussions and official church documents. The current Russian Orthodox vision of rights is an example of response to the dominant liberal discourse from within a spiritual tradition. Russian Orthodox authors try to combine major categories of Christian anthropology with the liberal ‘rights talk’. The purpose of the ‘teaching’ is ambiguous, because of the dual identity of the Russian Orthodox Church as a self-protecting minority and dominant cultural tradition. The paper then applies to the case the social theories of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls.