 Could a Russian monk living in the remote woods of central New York State have anything relevant to say about Dixie? The answer to that question is a definite Yes. This monk was born Alexander Taushev in Kazan, Russia, in 1906, the Taushevs being amongst the nobility in pre-revolutionary Russia. After the Soviets gained power the Taushevs were exiled, in 1920. The young Alexander grew up in Bulgaria and was educated at the University of Sofia under a saint, Seraphim Sobolev, from which he received a degree in Theology. He was a teacher and administrator in parts of eastern and western Europe and was tonsured a monk in 1931, receiving the new name Averky in honor of St. Averkios of Hieropolis (+167 A. D.), and was also ordained a deacon. The next year he was ordained as a priest. In 1951, Father Averky arrived in New York State, where he became a professor and then rector of Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, New York, and was thereafter renowned for his commentary on the New Testament. In 1961, he was ordained Archbishop of Syracuse and Holy Trinity. He fell asleep in the Lord on 13 April 1976, and though he has not been officially canonized, he was regarded by his spiritual child St. Seraphim Rose (+1982) as a friend of God – a saint. What is of most interest to us for the purposes of this essay are those commentaries of the books of the New Testament. In them, Southerners will find a startlingly clear vindication of their traditions: honoring women by keeping them out of the grimy world of politics, a gradual end to slavery, a jaundiced view of money-getting, etc. In Archbishop Averky’s commentary on I Timothy 6, he reveals his basic principles on the idea of social revolution, always so much in fashion in various places of Yankeedom, while being mostly abhorred at the South. He is unequivocally opposed to it: ‘Chapter 6 of the epistle contains important instructions that resolve in the spirit of Christianity an important issue of social inequality, which so energizes the people in modern times. The general meaning of these instructions is that Christianity abhors violent social upheavals. Speaking in more contemporary language, Christianity encourages change in social relations by means of gradual development or evolution, by instructing and transforming great masses of mankind in the principles of true Christian love, equality, and brotherhood. Conversely, Christianity condemns the path of revolution, for it is a path of hatred, violence, and bloodshed’ (Archbishop Averky Taushev, The Epistles and the Apocalypse: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, Vol. III, Nicholas Kotar, transl., Vitaly Permiakov, edr., Holy Trinity Seminary Press, Jordanville, New York, 2018, p. 132; this book is available as a handsome hardcover here). He then applies these principles directly to a subject that the South still wrestles with, slavery: ‘This is why Paul says, “Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed” (6:1). Christian slaves must be especially careful if their masters are also Christian. “And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. . . . If anyone teaches otherwise . . . he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes” (6:2-5)’ (pgs. 132-3). Abp. Averky says further about this in his commentary on Ephesians chapter 6, ‘Then the apostle exhorts slaves to show obedience to their masters, and masters to be fair and condescending to slaves. St Paul does not even touch the political or social issue of the legality or abolition of slavery. The Christian Church in general has never set itself the goal to drive forward external political or social revolutions. Instead, Christianity seeks the interior transformation of mankind, which then will naturally entail the external changes in the social or political aspects of the entire life of humanity’ (p. 73). Dixie was therefore not in the wrong for seeking a gradual end to slavery, but rather it was the Yankee abolitionists who were, who advocated precisely for the quick and violent end to slavery. The archbishop also addresses forthrightly the issue of feminism, an ideology despised by traditional Southerners and excoriated particularly well by Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney and Louisa McCord. The collective Southern distaste for it is illustrated easily enough by the reluctance of Southern States to approve the 19th amendment (granting suffrage to women) to the Philadelphia constitution. Abp. Averky, commenting on I Timothy chapter 2, is in accord with them: ‘St Paul’s position that the woman must be in a subordinate position and not have pretensions to primacy is based on the Biblical account of the Fall. Adam was created first, and then Eve; Eve sinned first, and then Adam. In addition, in Genesis 2:18, 2:20, and 2:22, we read that the wife was created as a helper for her husband, and naturally a helper takes a subordinate position to the one she is assigned to help. From Eve’s first sin, St Paul extrapolates that women are more likely to sin, and so they are not capable of a position of primacy. At the same time, we must keep in mind that the apostle does not mean all men and women individually (there are always exceptions to the rule), but humanity as a whole’ (p. 123). He says a little more on this subject in his commentary on I Corinthians chapter 11: ‘St Paul found this [women attending worship services with their heads uncovered—W.G.] to be improper for Christians and required that women keep their heads covered as a sign of their subordinate state relative to their husbands. . . . This head covering is then a sign of her modesty, submissiveness, and subordination to her husband. But lest the man consider himself greater than his wife and abuse his position, Apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians: “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God” (11:11-12)’ (p. 34). It isn’t a stretch to say that the world would be a better place without Kristi Noem and Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, and their like strutting about the political stage, giving orders to all and sundry, but rather making sure their own homes are in order, while their husbands deal with matters of the polis. Lastly, Abp. Averky opposes the love of money, one of the pre-eminent Yankee vices that traditional Southrons never much cared for, while also laying bare its causes and the guises with which it is often cloaked. Writing once again about I Timothy 6, he says, ‘Knowing that, most of the time, discontent with social status is based on the passions of love of money, avarice, and envy for the rich under the guise of evangelical principles of brotherhood, equality, and freedom, St Paul warns against avarice and exhorts all to be content with little: “And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content” (6:8). External material riches are inherently dangerous, for they often lead to many sins and misfortunes [Traditional Southerners seemed to understand this at a deep level, as they were always quick to give away money to those in need, even to their own detriment—W.G.]: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (6:10). St Paul teaches Timothy to be a model of unselfishness and freedom from possessions, and to exhort the rich to hope not in riches, but in God’ (p. 133). Abp. Averky closes his commentary on I Timothy with two crucial sentences: ‘“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust,” that is, the tradition. This is how the epistle ends, with an emphasis on the importance of the apostolic tradition for the faith preserved by the Church (6:20)’ (p. 133). Guarding the Apostolic tradition unchanged is vital for maintaining the Church, he says, but as Southerners we should also see something else here: We must receive it as an exhortation to preserve the Southern tradition intact. This is a normal action for any ethnos, and Southrons, whether European or African, will find it much more vivifying and fulfilling than loyalty to the shallow, deformed ideology of Americanism. Southern culture intersects with the world in many unexpected ways, as we have seen here in the life of a Russian monk on the run from the Soviet communists, whose Biblical commentary overthrows some of the tired criticism aimed at it still today. Glory to God for these surprising gifts! Thus, as we part, it is well to echo once more those words of the Holy Apostle Paul to his spiritual son St. Timothy that Archbishop Averky thought were so essential: ‘O Southron! Guard the tradition of your forefathers committed to your trust!’ May that sentiment never cease to resound in our hearts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
