Reader Christopher, in his Fr. Seraphim and Subcultural Appeal, responds to some criticism of Blessed Seraphim:
I would even suggest that Fr. Seraphim Rose only appeals to a subculture within Orthodoxy and is not representative of Orthodoxy as a whole.
This comment has stuck with me for a long time. I have often sought to understand the animosity and/or dismissiveness many Orthodox have for Fr. Seraphim. A lot of it has to do with the simple politics of Fr. Seraphim having been a clergyman and monk in ROCOR, which had difficult dealings with just about all the other jurisdictions in the US – but in particular with the 3 largest of them in the US (GOA, Antiochians, and ROCOR’s ’sister’ jurisdiction, the OCA). He spoke out about a good deal of the more ‘liberal’ tendencies in these jurisdictions. He spoke rather sharply in his early days, though this moderated in his later years. He also sent spiritual children of his to non-ROCOR parishes when this was a better pastoral fit for them, so he never questioned their ‘grace’. Sts Theophan the Recluse and Ignaty Brianchaninov disagreed with each other, and yet both are saints- the same was true for Sts Joseph of Volokolamsk and Nilus of Sora, and Sts Peter, Paul and James the Apostles in the book of Acts. Fr Seraphim’s reputation was also damaged by the actions the monastery he founded took after his repose: leaving ROCOR, setting itself up as an independent Church with no episcopacy, then under a self-styled pedophile bishop in Queens, allegations of sexual misconduct by its former abbot, etc. St Gregory the Great of Rome is not guilty of the sack of Constantinople even though later ‘Romans’ were guilty of such.
Christopher deals briefly with a couple of the specific criticisms given, and then continues:
. . . I would make the case that Fr. Seraphim’s appeal to only a subculture within Orthodoxy is true, but beside the point. Monasticism only appeals to a subculture within Orthodoxy, any service apart from Sunday morning Liturgy only appeals to a subculture within American Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy itself only appeals to a subculture within our society, and Jesus appealed to very few in his society. Breadth of appeal is not athe measure of either sanctity or veracity. . . .
Not all Fathers and not all saints ’speak’ to each of us. The Athonite Fathers of the 18-19th Centuries I find to be particularly ‘grumpy’. I also tend not to respond as well to Greek writers on Orthodoxy. They have value for others. Let us not denigrate and speak poorly of those who speak to subcultures other than our own. Let us find fault with the fact we live in a subculture within the Orthodox Church. Let us censor our personal opinions and preferences for the sake of the unity of the Church- ‘let us not move the ancient landmarks.’
