« "Metropolitan Anthony was not afraid to ask questions". Conversation with Archpriest Joseph Skinner, clergyman of the Diocese of Sourozh to the portal "Bogoslov.ru" »

This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom, 1914-2003) of Sourozh. Archpriest Joseph Skinner, clergyman of the Diocese of Sourozh and dean of the diocesan district of Southwest England, told the portal "Bogoslov.ru" about the changing and unchanging in the Orthodox Church, about the interference of modern technology in worship, about "aging" Christianity and new parishioners, and about the role of Metropolitan Anthony in his life.

Father Joseph, how is the figure of Metropolitan Anthony perceived in Britain today? How well known is he? Can we talk about local veneration of Vladyka?

There was a time, not so long ago, when you could go to any large town or city in Britain and find people, usually Anglicans, who would remember when Metropolitan Anthony came and preached there. Many people also remembered his talks on the BBC, or the broadcasts of Christmas and Easter services from our cathedral at Ennismore Gardens, London. That time is passing now, but his memory is still kept by our older parishioners who knew him personally, as well as those younger ones who were influenced by his books or the recordings of his later talks that are widely available on social media.  It's probably too early to speak of local veneration, but his grave at Brompton cemetery is by far the most visited of the many thousands of graves there. People come every day to pray there. It's not uncommon to hear that people receive answers to prayer.

There are those who do not like Vladyka and even call him a modernist. What would you say to such people? What in the personality of Vladyka Anthony, in your opinion, can be confusing and how should one react to it?

'Modernist' is a rather vague term expressing theological disapproval. I would characterise him as a contemporary person. He spoke in a way that was comprehensible to people not familiar with traditional church language. He was also not afraid of questioning. Recalling his initial scientific education, he would give the analogy of a scientist who systematically questions his hypothesis, in order to come to a better understanding of the object of his studies. It's important to understand that he was not speaking of the development of doctrine, but of personal understanding of God and His ways. 

Perhaps some people may have been surprised by his humble manner. It happened that people would ring the doorbell at the cathedral and when it was opened by an old man in a tattered cassock would ask if Metropolitan Anthony was available. Having received an affirmative reply, it was occasionally some time before they realised that they were talking to the Metropolitan himself. But then we read of similar instances in the Life of St Sergius of Radonezh, for example.

Continuing the conversation about modernism and conservatism: what in the Church, in your opinion, can change, and what should be unchanged? Under Vladyka Anthony in the Diocese of Sourozh there were forms of parish and liturgical life that were not very characteristic of the Russian Church. Which ofthem are alive today?

I think everyone understands that the content of the Faith is unchanging, as are its conciliar dogmatic definitions. The forms in which the Faith is lived can and probably should change over time, so as not to be entirely divorced from the historical reality in which we live. The development of liturgical worship is a case in point. It's not obvious that it has forever to be fixed in its late Byzantine form. 

Metropolitan Anthony, for instance, did not care for the full hierarchical Liturgy and celebrated it only once a year, on the Sunday of All Saints, when clergy and faithful from around the diocese gathered at the cathedral. He saw it as being too  centred on the bishop, a 'service to the bishop' rather than the 'service of the bishop'. 

In other respects the liturgical practice of the Diocese under Metropolitan Anthony was not so different from in Russia. There were, indeed, fewer molebens, Akathists and other such devotional services. Confession before each Communion was not mandatory in all cases. The Vigil services were shortened to a certain extent. Vladyka Anthony did restore the practice of the evening celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, securing the agreement of the Holy Synod to a limited relaxation of the corresponding fasting rules, and this continues to this day. 

Metropolitan Anthony's vision of the Church was that of a community of people of different nationalities, social statuses and worldviews united exclusively by their common faith in Christ. The experience of the Church in the early centuries of its existence was the model. He was opposed to clericalism and to any attempt to use the Church for political purposes. He tried to incorporate this vision into the statutes of the Diocese of Sourozh  that were formulated in the late 20th century. To some extent they were based on the work of the 1917-18 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular they provided for the election of bishops by the people, although never proved possible to do this in practice. 

Today we have the standard statutes of a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, which reflect a reality rather different from our own. However, I would say that Metropolitan Anthony's vision of the Church is alive to this day, especially in the parishes founded by the priests he ordained.

What is more important in the Church, freedom or discipline, including in relationship with God?

I think this is like asking which leg is more important for walking, the left or the right? Certainly freedom is essential, as the Apostle says, 'you were called to freedom' (Gal 5:13). A person's relationship to God is characterised by freedom on both sides, because it is, or should be, a relationship of love, and love cannot be forced. At the same time, we have to accept limitations on our freedom in our relationships with others, including our brothers and sisters in Christ. 'Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but in love serve one another' (Gal 5:13). The good order of the Church, as of a body, requires that every part fulfils its appointed function for the benefit of the whole.

And how do you feel about the interference of modern trends in the life of the Church - for example, sermons created by artificial intelligence?

Certainly we can use modern technology, the Internet , for example, in informing people about our faith.  But the sermon in the Liturgy is always something of a charismatic event. That's why reading a text, whether prepared by one's self or by a chat bot, doesn't work.

According to surveys for 2021 and 2022, the youngest religion in England is Islam, while Christianity is a fairly "elderly" religion. Does your experience confirm this? If so, why is this the case?

Well, yes, Islam is the youngest religion in Britain, or perhaps the neo-gnostic 'New Age' religions. The mainstream Christian Churches tried to modernise themselves, beginning in the middle of the 20th century. The Scriptures and the liturgical texts were translated into (mostly banal) modern English, the altars were rearranged so that the celebrant faced the people, the services were made informal and popular music replaced the ancient chants. Judged by the stated aim if attracting the younger generation to church, all this has been a comprehensive failure. Those who want popular culture can find it done better elsewhere. 

Another development has been the widespread questioning of traditional Christian teachings, including in the moral sphere. Essentially, this is an attempt to catch up with the extraordinarily rapid changes in social mores. The churches are increasingly conforming themselves to the world, unfortunately. 

It's notable that the churches which are growing are those that continue to proclaim what one might broadly call 'traditional Christianity'. These are mainly the traditional Evangelical churches, the black majority churches, and the Orthodox   Church. In the last few years, we have been seeing a sharp increase in the numbers of people enquiring about becoming Orthodox. They are mostly young and predominantly male. We are now much engaged with the catechesis of these enquirers.

What missionary projects exist today in the Diocese of Sourozh? How to "bring people" to the Church today, including taking into account the experience of Metropolitan Anthony?

We don't have any special missionary projects but people are coming to us nonetheless. In my experience, the Church community, as understood by Metropolitan Anthony, is a powerful missionary force. Orthodox worship speaks to those 'with ears to hear', and when it us situated within the context of a community of believers who share a common life, it is a proclamation in life of the truth of our Faith.

How does theological scholarship help in mission? Is it needed by practitioners, rather than as a field for desk research and reflection?

If the task of theology is to proclaim anew in every generation the truth of the Gospel, then certainly it is important for mission. Many people are hindered in the approach to faith by the 'wisdom of this age', for example, by the shallow opinion that faith and science are incompatible. Also, it is not a luxury to address questions of ecclesiology, since the current state of Inter-Orthodox relations does not witness effectively to the unity to which we are called. Similar considerations apply to the question of church-state relations, bioethics and in general all the specific features of the contemporary world. 

In this area, We may also refer to the role of theologians in developing systems of theological education that will enable future clergy effectively to present the Faith and to minister to their flocks.

Interview conducted my Maria Lavrentyuk

Bogoslov.ru/Sourozh.org