Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 9

I moved house, as I think I told you in my email. It's a very old house, built nearly 400 years ago, and it didn't have a phone line when we moved in. It took the local phone company a month to install a phone line, and they had to close the road. In the end, it took three engineers and two helpers three and a half hours to install the phone line when they finally got around to it. Anyway, I'm up and running, got internet, and I'm happy to be here again. I've got a different background; I need to change that at some point.

What we're looking at here is a little recap. This series is called 'Tracing God's Providence from the Ascension'. Before, we looked at the stories in the Old Testament and then the life of Jesus. Now, we are tracing God's providence through the last 2000 years, basically from the Ascension to the Renaissance in this workshop, and then there will be another one after that covering the last 400 years. As I said before, 2000 years ago, nobody knew when the Messiah was going to come or where the Messiah was going to come to. Jesus said nobody knew, even God didn't know. The reason is that the responsibility for making a foundation to receive the Messiah is not God's responsibility; it is human beings' responsibility.

God doesn't know which human beings are going to respond to His calling. He doesn't know which human beings are going to listen to and follow their conscience, sometimes even at the risk of their life, to try to create a foundation to receive the Messiah. So, don't talk about the foundation to receive the Messiah; it's a spiritual community. In other words, people are living a spiritual life, worshipping God, believing in God, and having a genuine interest in the spiritual life. But it's also a community in which there is freedom of thought and freedom of religion. So that when the Messiah comes, he comes along with new ideas that might challenge people in authority, even though people may disagree with him, argue with him, or even persecute him. Because there is freedom of thought and freedom of religion, there are laws to protect him.

These laws ensure that people cannot be punished or put to death without breaking the law. This was the whole focus in the Old Testament in Judaism: to create a society governed by law. When Jesus came 2000 years ago, there was a foundation to receive the Messiah, but it was quite thin due to the mistakes that had happened, particularly following the death of Solomon. However, 2000 years ago, the Jewish people were living a very religious life, worshipping God at the temple and studying God's word in the Torah. At the same time, there were many different religious groups, rabbis, and Essenes who all argued and debated with each other. The basis of their unity wasn't a common belief but rather a shared identity, living their lives in accordance with the law.

When Jesus came, he was able to work in that kind of environment. The main complication, as I explained in the workshop on life and teaching, was the Roman occupation. What God is trying to do now is to recreate that kind of world where there is a foundation to receive the Messiah. The first part is quite easy; making a foundation of faith is the easy part. When you look at all historical societies, nearly all of them have been incredibly religious. Even today, if you look at Europe in particular, you find most people in the world are incredibly religious. Look throughout the Muslim world; they are incredibly religious. Sometimes you might say too religious. Look in India, South America, Latin America, North America, and Africa; people are incredibly religious and pursuing a spiritual quest in some way or another.

But when you ask the question, 'Is there a foundation of substance?' that's a different matter. If someone is born and lives in a Muslim country and disagrees with the basic tenets and teachings of Islam, they may even lose their life. That's the reality. Again, it's not a foundation to receive the Messiah there. We looked at that a month or six weeks ago about God's providence working through Islam. After that, we traced God's providence as it moved from the Roman Empire to the Germanic tribes. They were the chosen people, a new chosen people, a new people of God's elect. We traced how that developed particularly in England up until the Norman Conquest in the 11th century.

I wanted to carry on looking at how God's providence developed among the Slavic people. There's one Slav sitting in front of me. Well, I don't know if the Hungarians are quite Slavic, are they? But they are from the same part of the world. Anyway, I mean, I'm half foolish. If you look at this, this is the Byzantine Empire. Mostly, we looked at the Roman Empire and how it became totalitarian and collapsed. God's providence then moved to the Germanic tribes. The Roman Empire continued in the east for another thousand years. The Byzantine Empire, or Byzantium, carried on until 1453, about another thousand years after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west. Often, we don't learn much about it or study it very much, but it's incredibly influential, especially in the development of what happened in Eastern Europe and Orthodox Christianity, particularly within Russian Christianity.

The Slavic Empire is represented in yellow, and they also controlled bits of North Africa and Sicily, in particular, different bits of what later became Italy. Various tribes moved in and occupied other parts of the rest of the Western Roman Empire. You can see some of these people here: the Slavs are over here, and the Bulgars are over here. The Slavs are also up here. There's a tribe called the Khazars, which also had a huge empire at one point. Lots of these different peoples had their empires at some point in history, often very large, and then they declined. That's just the way it works.

In terms of the Byzantine Empire, this is in Constantinople. This is a church called Hagia Sophia. It was built by the last of the greatest Roman emperors in the east, called Justinian. Constantinople was founded by Constantine, who was the emperor who established the Edict of Milan and granted religious freedom and supported Christianity. He found Rome was rather corrupt, and he realized that the empire was huge; he needed to have a capital in the east as well. He founded a new city to be a new capital, Constantinople, to try to get away from all the pagan traditions of Rome, which we looked at before. However, it takes more than just a new geographical city to escape from the culture. Even though they founded a new city, the culture remained very much the same.

When it was built, Hagia Sophia was the largest building in the entire world at that time, the largest enclosed space. It's a vast building. You can see these columns and these minarets because after Islam conquered Constantinople, they converted Hagia Sophia into a mosque and adopted a lot of Byzantine architecture for their own mosques. This is Justinian's basilica system, built in the seventh century. There's nothing like this in Western Europe; nothing like this was built in Western Europe ever. This is the seventh century, and you can see this vast system just for storing water in case there was a siege or a drought. You can see the water at the bottom here. During those times, there would have been a lot of water stored here to support and maintain the city. That was the scale of Constantinople as a huge, incredibly wealthy, and beautiful city with an incredibly high culture and incredible beauty. It carried on for a thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire and, in many ways, far surpassed the empire in the west, Rome.

So why are we looking at Byzantium? Well, because we want to look at the Slavs. The important thing to realize is that when Christianity came to the Slavs, it came from Byzantium; it didn't come from Rome. There is quite a big difference between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To understand Russian history and Slavic history, we really need to understand the nature of Christianity as it came from Byzantium. When we look at the early church, Christians conceptualized themselves as being the body of Christ. That was the metaphor they used to describe the church. The church is the body of Christ or sometimes described as the bride of Christ. It's that kind of intimacy of a relationship, like being married to Jesus—a very intimate, personal, emotional, and close relationship. This view held that the church was created by the Holy Spirit, not by human beings.

Another metaphor they would use is that Christ is the mind and the church is the body. When we look at the Divine Principle, we can see this kind of metaphor of the body is also developed there. In the Divine Principle, it talks about God being the mind and Christ being the body. This was the way they saw themselves. Remember, in pagan Rome, the state was the highest community. Within Christianity, the church is the highest community. The church is instigated and created by God; it's a voluntary society governed and led by the Holy Spirit. People pray to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all the decisions they make. There would be prayers before any decisions were made, and they would discuss things, trying to understand what is the mind of Christ and how the Holy Spirit is leading them as a community to make decisions about what they should do, etc.

This was their self-understanding as a voluntary free association of Christians worshipping and praying to God, being guided by the Holy Spirit through their conscience. That's the emphasis the Father put on conscience as well. Pagan Rome, though, was a very different kind of thing. The state was the highest community; it was a political entity. You had government and laws, and the state embraced the whole of human life. There was no aspect of human life that was separate from the state. The state had the authority to involve itself in every aspect of people's lives. This was really important to understand, and it affected very much the development of the church. The church tried to start off like this—the body of Christ, the bride of Christ—which is very much the way that Jews conceptualized themselves as the people of God. They became the people of God of the covenant, which they established with God at Mount Sinai when they received God's law. The early church inherited this Jewish self-understanding, albeit in a different language. Jews don't talk about themselves as being the body of Christ; they talk about themselves as being the people of God. But it's a very similar kind of self-understanding, very different from pagan Rome.

This pagan Roman view influenced the church's development, as we will see. Justinian, who built Hagia Sophia and hugely developed Constantinople, also developed the Justinian law code, which is still the basis of European law to this day. He said, 'The well-being of the church is the defense of the empire.' Here, we looked at that earlier in this series. Constantine wanted to have a religion that would serve the state, which is why he adopted Christianity. The pagan view was always that the gods were supposed to serve the state. They talked about eternal Rome and worshipped the pagan gods and idols, which were supposed to protect Rome. Constantine then thought he would embrace Christianity because he thought maybe the Christian God was more powerful than the old pagan gods. Justinian inherited that basic view and political culture, saying that the well-being of the church is the defense of the empire. He said if we want to defend and protect the empire, we have to take care of the church. They also compared the state to a body. However, this was a pagan view, not in the early Christian sense. Not all the subjects of the empire became church members; the figure was derived wholly from pagan premises, which had not been replaced.

The concept of a community established by God was intended to encompass the whole life of man. This led to a struggle for understanding, as many could not accept that the church could serve as an alternative community and source of loyalty. This conflict between church and state has plagued European history, raising questions about the relationship between the two. To whom should people's loyalty lie? Is it derived from the church, through a relationship with God as a member of the body of Christ, or from the state, which provides identity, enacts laws, and can demand sacrifices? This issue has defined European history up to the present day.

In the West, the visible representative of God was the emperor, who performed God's will and dispensed blessings. However, with the collapse of the Western Empire, this role was assumed by the pope. We will explore this further when discussing the relationship with Charlemagne. In the East, the emperor, rather than the patriarch, was responsible for both the religious and material well-being of his subjects. His power was considered divine in nature, and the distinction between this system and pagan theocracy was that the empire, through its emperor, had found its true God in Christianity. This pagan political culture was merely transformed into a Christian context.

During my time as a missionary in Russia, I encountered members who believed that communism was the ideal system, arguing that the only flaw was the absence of God. They thought that if God were integrated into the system, it would be the 'king of heaven.' This mindset mirrors the confusion of pagan theocracy, where idol worship is replaced with a belief in God. Such thinking persists in our spiritual community today.

Justinian proposed a different model for the relationship between church and state, known as the 'symphony.' He described the priesthood and the empire as two great blessings granted by God, each with its own appointed tasks. As both proceed from the same source, they are meant to work in unity and cooperation. The church was expected to support the state, fostering loyalty among citizens, while the state was to uphold the church, punish heretics, and ensure uniform belief. This symphony created a significant overlap between the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Church.

Alexander Schmemann, a Russian Orthodox theologian, noted that by his time, the idea of the church as a community had been overshadowed by the state. The relationship was no longer one of church and state but rather one of two authorities—secular and spiritual—within a single state. Understanding the historical and religious-political background is crucial for comprehending the development of Russia and communism.

In the early church, each bishop was a preserver of the apostolic tradition and a unifying figure within his diocese. Dioceses were geographical areas with one bishop overseeing each. Churches were autonomous, self-governing entities with various liturgies, traditions, and symbols of faith, all part of the universal church. This diversity was essential to the early church, as they were united in spirit despite their differences in worship and tradition.

Bishops were elected by the congregation they served, and they were seen as spiritual fathers to their communities. The bishop's connection to his church was likened to a marriage, meaning he could not be moved without the congregation's consent. When a bishop died, the church was described as 'widowed' until a new bishop was elected. However, as time progressed, the church structure began to mirror the bureaucratic hierarchy of the Roman state, leading to bishops being appointed rather than elected.

The church's structure evolved, with bishops becoming administrative subdivisions of a greater whole, representing central church authority rather than their congregations. In the East, this authority was concentrated in the patriarchate of Constantinople, while in the West, it resided with the pope. The church in Constantinople, being relatively young compared to the ancient churches of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, lacked the same depth of tradition and authority. As it grew in prominence, it absorbed local traditions and imposed them on other regions, leading to a more uniform system of church governance and belief.

Byzantine Orthodoxy transformed into a national religion with narrow horizons, as each Orthodox church became a national church. Councils were established to define orthodoxy, and one particular strand often became dominant, leading to the condemnation of others. This uniformity developed as Byzantium became a national religion, complicating the adoption of orthodoxy by different nations that did not wish to become part of the Byzantine Empire. Consequently, adopting the religion often meant integrating into the empire.

The official theology, developed through councils like Nicaea, sought to impose a uniform belief system, eliminating local liturgies and traditions. Constantine, who convened the first major council of Nicaea, aimed to unify Christians and establish a common ideology for the Roman Empire. He sought to eliminate disputes, leading to a status quo where change was discouraged to avoid conflict. This resulted in a church that became increasingly backward-looking, prioritising the traditions of the church fathers as the final authority. The church fathers held significant influence, with Saint Augustine being a prominent figure in the Western church, while the Eastern church had a variety of fathers but none with the same status as Augustine.

As a result, original theology became rare, as the church sought to avoid arguments and conflict. When the Slavs and Russians adopted Christianity, they embraced the Byzantine form, which had reached a stage of finality, believing it to be perfected. This understanding shaped their approach to Christian theology and tradition.

Nowadays, Moravia is often referred to as part of the Czech Republic, but it was once a very large area inhabited by Slavic people. In contrast, the Germanic people were located to the west, under the authority of the Latin Church, which had its roots in Rome. King Ratislav, the great king of the Moravians, felt uncomfortable with the Germanic influence, as he wanted to maintain political and religious autonomy for the Slavs. He sought missionaries from Rome to establish an independent church, but when Rome refused, he turned to Constantinople for help. The emperor and patriarch of Constantinople, eager to civilise the Slavic peoples after the Varangians, or Vikings, had sacked their city, agreed to send missionaries. Cyril and Methodius were chosen for this mission, having previously worked with the Khazars, who had connections to Judaism and sought to establish their own religious identity for political independence.

Upon arriving in Greater Moravia, Cyril and Methodius created a script for the Slavic language, known as the Glagolitic script, and developed a Slavic liturgy. This resonated much better with the Moravians than the Latin liturgy, aligning with their character and spirituality. However, this led to conflict with the Bishop of Salzburg in Germany, who sought authority over the Moravians. To resolve the situation, Cyril and Methodius went to Rome to appeal for support. They brought relics of Saint Clement, a highly respected church father, which pleased the Pope. Consequently, they returned to Moravia with the Pope's authority, much to the displeasure of the German church.

After Ratislav's death, his son was less supportive of Methodius and his disciples, possibly due to pagan influences. As a result, the disciples were expelled from Moravia and sought refuge in the Bulgarian Empire. At that time, the Bulgarian Empire was significant but pagan, ruled by King Boris, who converted to Christianity in 864. His conversion was met with resistance from the Bulgarian warriors, who feared losing their autonomy to the Byzantine Empire. Boris sought to establish an autocephalous church, negotiating with both Rome and Constantinople for authority. Eventually, he succeeded in creating the oldest Slavic Orthodox Church in Bulgaria, which became a centre for Slavic Christianity.

The Bulgarian Empire, while of Turkic origin, became a bearer of Byzantine culture and Christianity to the Slavic peoples. This led to a synthesis of state and church, with the Bulgarian rulers aspiring to emulate the authority of the Byzantine emperors. The Slavs, upon converting to Christianity, adopted Byzantine culture, which significantly influenced the political landscape of Eastern Europe, including the development of Russia. This intertwining of church and state created a 'poisonous theocracy,' as Russian Orthodox historians describe it, where national interests often overshadowed Christian values. This dynamic is reminiscent of the Church of England, where the church's alignment with national interests complicates its ability to critique the state.

The Slavs, the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe, faced challenges in their historical narrative due to a lack of written records. During this time, the Varangians, or Vikings, were powerful and often invaded Slavic territories. In 862, the Slavs rebelled against Varangian rule, seeking a prince to govern them. They invited the Varangian Rus to rule, leading to the establishment of a ruling class comprised of three brothers: Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor. Rurik settled in Novgorod, while his descendants would go on to rule Russia for nearly a thousand years. Rurik later sent companions south to capture Kiev, which became a significant city in the Slavic region, eventually leading to the establishment of the Grand Duchy of Kiev.

Kiev, under the rule of Vladimir, Rurik's grandson, became a pivotal city in the Slavic world. Like Constantine before him, Vladimir sought a religion that would unify the Slavs and serve the state's interests. This search for a suitable religion was crucial for the Slavs, as it would help to establish a cohesive identity and governance structure. The intertwining of religion and state power continued to shape the political landscape of the region, influencing the development of Eastern Europe and the legacy of the Slavic peoples.

Culture than they already had, and he himself was a pagan worshipping the Viking gods from the house of Rurik. They realised that the Viking gods weren't suitable for the Slavs, and there was no way the Slavs were going to accept the gods from the house of Rurik. In 986, he sent representatives to examine and research different religions. Some representatives visited Muslims, and at that time, Islam was growing very rapidly. They decided that even though Islam had a very high standard of culture and civilisation, it forbade the drinking of alcohol, which was not suitable for the Slavs because they liked their vodka too much.

Some representatives then visited the Khazars, where the Jewish religion was very prominent. However, they were not happy with this because the Khazars were people they had just defeated; the Khazars had a lot of authority over and sway in Kiev. So, they did not want to adopt that religion either. They then examined Eastern Orthodoxy, travelling to Constantinople and visiting the Hagia Sophia. They were amazed and impressed by the extraordinary beauty of the worship in Eastern Orthodoxy, including the incredibly beautiful icons, architecture, and high culture. They decided that this was the religion most suitable to the Slavic sensibilities and appreciation for art and worship.

This choice had long-lasting political, cultural, and religious consequences. Whichever religion one chooses is not just a religion; it is a whole culture that one adopts. I did not like the Roman Catholic culture because it is too legalistic. They went to Rome and found it too cold and legalistic, which also meant accepting the authority of the Pope. They did not want that, just like the Bulgars, who also did not want to accept the authority of the Pope or the Patriarch in Constantinople. They wanted to have their own church, so this became a political and cultural decision with incredibly long-term consequences.

They embraced Orthodoxy, and Vladimir was baptised in 988, which is regarded as the beginning of the Russian Orthodox Church. His own mother was an Orthodox Christian, and after being baptised, he underwent a complete transformation in his life. Before then, he had many wives and led a dissolute pagan lifestyle. After his baptism, he changed his life, leading with a new joy and marrying Anna, the sister of the emperor, remaining faithful to her. Instead of being a warrior, he decided to help the sick, the poor, and the hungry. He abolished capital punishment, believing that lawbreakers should be treated as unfortunate victims of their own and others' sins, deserving compassion rather than punishment.

Vladimir eventually died, leading to the important question of who would be the next ruler. Legitimate succession is crucial; without a clear way of deciding who becomes the next king, civil war can easily erupt. Among Vladimir's sons, there was an early Cain and Abel problem. He had four sons, and Svyatopolk, the oldest, wanted absolute power and did not want to share his rule. Vladimir had appointed each of his sons to rule over significant cities, but Svyatopolk wanted to rule everything by himself, leading him to kill his younger brothers, Boris and Gleb. Interestingly, Boris and Gleb did not fight against their brother; they felt it was unfair for others to lose their lives fighting to protect them, so they allowed themselves to be killed and became passion bearers, the first two saints within the Russian Orthodox Church.

Another brother, Yaroslav the Wise, realised what Svyatopolk had done was wrong. He raised an army, defeated Svyatopolk, and became the next ruler, known for his wisdom and sensibility. The question then became what to do next. Over time, a system evolved where they had a rotating kingship across generations. The problem arose when a king died young; if his son was also young, it became difficult for him to ascend to the throne. Given the frequent conflicts and short life expectancies, it was unfair for a young child to become king simply because their father had been king. Thus, they established a rotating kingship, where the eldest brother's death would lead to the next brother becoming king, transferring kingship across generations.

The first rule was that only descendants of Rurik could become king, which ruled out everyone else. There was agreement that only those from the house of Rurik could rule over all Rus. They shared rule within a single generation over major cities, with different brothers ruling different cities. This led to a lateral succession based on seniority within a generation. The most senior city was Kiev, and when the Grand Duke of Kiev died, he would be replaced by the next senior brother from another city. They further narrowed eligibility for succession to the throne of Kiev to princes whose fathers had been Grand Princes themselves, making it easier to decide who would be the next king and reducing the chances of civil war, which is often the most destructive kind of conflict.

I think I talked about this last time, but I will skim through it again. The question arose: which language should the church adopt? In Western Europe, Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council in 1964. The Catholic Church, meaning universal, saw itself as a universal church with one common language, making it easy for an educated priesthood to communicate across different nationalities. However, this often led to a division between the priests and the laity, with the priests being well-educated while ordinary members of the congregation struggled to understand the services or read the Bible. If the church operates in the vernacular, the local language, it becomes associated with the national culture, making people feel closer to it and reducing the division between priests and laity.

However, this also means that religious and intellectual development occurs within the native language, which can lead to a narrower perspective. It can become easier to get cut off from a wider world of learning, as intellectual development tends to take place in the native language. This can foster a strong sense of nationalism, leading to the belief that one's own way is the best way. Additionally, clergy may be less well-educated if they only speak their own language, whereas learning Latin requires more study and education. It is important to understand the differences between Orthodoxy and other forms of Christianity. Most of you are not Orthodox, and it is crucial to recognise the various differences within Christianity.

The Roman Catholic Church is often associated with the will, focusing on order and discipline. The church's structure is highly hierarchical, with a well-developed sense of canon law and church courts. The apostle most associated with this is Peter, as Jesus said, 'Upon this rock, I will build my church.' The chief value in Catholicism is goodness, with a strong emphasis on moral theology, which defines right and wrong. This keen sense of justice is evident in the development of liberation theology, particularly in Latin America. The Catholic Church holds a very disciplined line on moral teachings, with the Pope as the main authority, believed to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra. The acceptance of the Pope's authority is crucial within the Catholic Church, which tends towards authoritarianism.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Church, often associated with Greece, is linked to the intellect. Greece was the land of philosophers and saw incredible intellectual and artistic development. The Orthodox Church was deeply involved in defining correct belief during the councils, focusing on precise theological detail. The apostle most associated with Greece is Paul, who travelled around Asia Minor and founded churches. This intellectual heritage significantly influenced the development of both the Orthodox Church and Protestantism.

In Greece, Corinth, and various other churches, most of the missionary work was conducted in the Greek-speaking world, culminating in Rome. The chief value inherited from Greece is the pursuit of truth, with a profound concern for what is true rather than merely what is good. This emphasis on truth is encapsulated in the creeds, the symbols of faith that articulate beliefs. The Eastern Orthodox Church has developed these creeds and philosophical ideas extensively, and the Catholic Church has also adopted some of these elements, particularly in biblical scholarship. Historically, the Catholic Church showed little interest in biblical scholarship until the Second Vatican Council, with Protestant churches, especially in Germany, leading the way in this area. The Catholic Church relied heavily on the authority of the Pope, church tradition, and the Church Fathers, particularly Augustine, with the Church Councils, such as Nicaea, being significant authorities. However, the Pope often viewed himself as above these councils, leading to debates about the authority of councils over the Church.

In Protestantism, the Bible serves as the main source of authority, with the belief that if something is in the Bible, it must be true. The criterion of orthodoxy in Protestantism revolves around obedience and right belief, particularly adherence to the Nicene Creed. This focus on belief raises questions about how one's beliefs differ from those of others, with salvation seen as dependent on belief rather than actions. In contrast, the Catholic Church maintains that there is no salvation outside the Church, necessitating communion with the Pope and correct belief. The ecclesiology within Protestantism tends to be more individualistic, leading to a fragmentation into numerous denominations, each interpreting the Bible differently and often viewing dissenters as heretics. This fragmentation often results in the formation of new churches over doctrinal disagreements.

In terms of the Trinity, Protestantism is closely associated with the Son, emphasising salvation through Jesus and preaching Christ crucified. The Russian critique of Protestantism highlights a lack of unity, as various factions continually divide and argue. The Russian Orthodox Church, in contrast, is deeply connected to nature and the physical world, embodying a very emotional and incarnational faith. The Apostle John, often seen as the apostle of love, emphasises emotion and love as central to the faith. This focus on beauty is evident in the worship services of the Orthodox Church, which are characterised by their extraordinary beauty and the sense of entering into heaven. The theology of the Orthodox Church is expressed through worship rather than literature, with icons serving as windows into the divine, allowing for meditation and encounters with Christ or the saints.

The authority in the Orthodox tradition is rooted in maintaining an unchanged tradition, reflecting the practices of the Church Fathers. The criteria for orthodoxy centre on right worship, or orthopraxis, rather than mere obedience or correct belief. Achieving oneness with God is seen as possible through worship, leading to mystical encounters with the divine. This understanding fosters a strong sense of community, with worship being a collective experience rather than an individualistic or authoritarian one. When splits occur within the Orthodox Church, they typically arise from disagreements about worship practices rather than differences in belief or authority. The community's unity is derived from worshipping God together in the same manner, observing significant events like Easter collectively.

The Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is closely tied to the Holy Spirit, with the term 'subornost' reflecting unity within diversity. During church services, there is a dynamic atmosphere, with worshippers moving around, bowing before icons, and lighting candles, creating a sense of both diversity and unity. This idea of right worship, rather than merely right belief, is crucial. Maximus the Confessor stated that theology without action is akin to the theology of demons, emphasising the necessity of action alongside belief. Alexander Schmemann, a 20th-century Russian Orthodox theologian, noted that emotional engagement and imagination are distinguishing features of Russian Christianity, contrasting with the more intellectual and belief-focused Greek Christianity.

The Russian Orthodox Church has historically avoided intellectual testing and refinement, which has hindered its ability to engage with contemporary ideologies. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church has maintained an intellectually engaged stance, with popes actively addressing current ideas. When the Russians embraced Christianity, they believed they had resolved all fundamental issues of faith and worship through the Greek tradition, accepting the Orthodox definition of faith without question. This led to a rigid preservation of tradition, which, while aiming to maintain purity, ultimately stifled the evolution of Christianity in Russia. The attempt to halt development resulted in a historical stagnation, making any eventual changes traumatic and abrupt, as seen in significant events in Russian history. The need for adaptability and flexibility is crucial for any tradition to remain relevant and responsive to the changing world, a lesson that has been painfully learned in Russian history.