Day Two
The conference continued on Thursday, May 7, with my own paper devoted to the methodological approach of this gathering to questions of Church history. I also spoke about my personal connection to the German Diocese, while trying to explain why the history of the German Diocese serves as such an important point of departure for understanding the history of the Russian Church Abroad as a whole.
It was precisely the crisis between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR in Germany that became one of the factors leading to the long series of negotiations about which I have written before. If we speak today about the need to open archives in Russia and approach history honestly, then we possess the moral right to do so only if we ourselves are equally prepared to examine our own past with honesty and sobriety.
At the beginning of my presentation, I acknowledged the constant support of my work by the Fund for Assistance to the Russian Church Abroad.
Professor Scott Kenworthy followed with an important presentation placing the emergence of the Russian Church Abroad within the broader context of Patriarch Tikhon’s ecclesiastical policy during the revolutionary era.
Professor Scott Kenworthy’s recent comprehensive monograph on St. Patriarch Tikhon, published by Oxford University Press.
Dr. Andrei Kostryukov vividly demonstrated the role of personality in Church conflicts. On the one hand stood the inconsistency of Metropolitan Evlogy; on the other, the ROCOR Synod itself often acted toward him with considerable severity. Under those extraordinary circumstances, maintaining centralized Church authority proved profoundly difficult both inside Russia and abroad.
The formation of the Russian Church Abroad was inseparable from the tragedy of revolution and civil war. In emigration, the monarchist movement consolidated itself, viewing the restoration of monarchy as Russia’s salvation and assigning the Church a role closely connected to a Byzantine understanding of symphonia between Church and state. Germany became one of the principal centers of this movement. In his online presentation, Professor Andrei Ivanov, a specialist in Russian right-wing movements, explored the relationship between the Supreme Monarchist Council and ROCOR.
The next session focused on the National Socialist period. Professor Dirk Schuster argued that the Nazi regime generally tolerated the German Diocese of ROCOR so long as it was not viewed as an ideological enemy and could serve a limited political function within the Russian émigré community, though without allowing it to expand its influence significantly. He therefore suggested that the history of ROCOR under National Socialism should be approached without excessive dramatization.
Archpriest Nikolai Artemoff devoted his paper to the holy martyr Alexander Schmorell. He emphasized how St. Alexander of Munich always remained somewhat distinct even within his own circle, and how this inner separateness shaped his life’s path.
Since 2022, Andrei Zolotov and I had discussed the need for serious scholarly work on the Vienna Conference of 1943, which established the precedent for ROCOR’s non-recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate — a position that effectively lasted until 1990. I was glad finally to hear this theme addressed publicly at the conference.
Ivan Petrov — a specialist on Church life in occupied territories and the only participant who personally traveled from Russia — spoke about ROCOR’s resistance to forced repatriation and its efforts to help displaced persons establish new lives in the postwar world.
Protodeacon A. Psarev moderates the discussion following the presentations of Andrei Zolotov and Ivan Petrov. A. Zolotov is seated in the center, and I. Petrov is on the viewer’s left. Photo: Mikołaj Dądela.
Professor Alexander Slesarev of Minsk demonstrated the important role played by Belarusian and Ukrainian hierarchs in the history of ROCOR. At the same time, their incorporation into the Russian Church Abroad was not always easy. They often encountered attitudes shaped by prerevolutionary imperial consciousness.
Professor Alexander Kornilov discussed life in DP camps: attempts to establish seminaries, educational initiatives, and the formation of Church life amid postwar refugee existence.
The conference then moved from war and postwar themes toward modernity through the presentation of Protodeacon Varfolomey, who used oral interviews and sociological methodology to explore the significance of Church life for contemporary parishioners in a calm and balanced manner.
Day Three
Friday, May 8, the third and final day, began with Anatoliy Kinsler’s presentation on the legal foundations of the German Diocese. He explained the origins of the 1938 law that still remains part of the diocese’s legal framework, even though after the war it continued to exist within the context of denazification and the formation of a new German legal order.
Archpriest Dmitry Svistov continued this theme by discussing postwar legal battles over prerevolutionary Russian Church property involving representatives of ROCOR, the Russian parishes of the so-called Paris Exarchate, and the Moscow Patriarchate.
Reader Andrei Fastvosky author of the concept and creator of the exibition on the history of the German Diocese
Dr. Andrei Fastovsky presented especially valuable material on dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR during the 1990s. Using negotiation minutes — many introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time — he demonstrated how the foundations of future reconciliation gradually emerged.
Reflecting upon ROCOR’s ecumenical involvement, Archpriest Konstantin Miron spoke about Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade), who before the war appeared almost as a kind of “ecumenical Don Quixote,” though his views later changed considerably.
Professor Sebastian Rimestad shared with the audience an analysis of German newspaper coverage and public perceptions of ROCOR within German society.
Discussion following presentations of Fr. Alexander Bertash, Prof. Dr. Olga Litzenberger and Bishop Job. Photo: Mikołaj Dądela
One especially well-received paper examined Russian Germans in the parishes of the German Diocese through sociological research conducted by Professor Dr. Olga Litzenberger. She also reminded participants of the broader contribution of Russian Germans to Russian history itself.
Using churches of the German Diocese as examples, Fr. Alexander Bertash demonstrated how church architecture reflects different stages of Russian presence in Germany: from imperial-era churches of remarkable artistic quality to temporary barrack churches of the postwar years.
Bishop Job spoke about the history of translating liturgical texts into German — a subject directly connected to the question of Orthodoxy becoming rooted within German society and culture.
A special role was played by the roundtable organized by Dr. Anastasia Limberger, my constant collaborator and counterpart on German soil. During the discussion, Professor Dr. Stefanos Athanasiou of LMU Munich articulated what was perhaps one of the central insights of the entire conference: the mission of the Church should consist not in drawing people into a national club, but in bringing them to Orthodoxy itself. In other words, the task of Orthodox Christians is to become truly Orthodox — that is, to strive toward holiness.
Reflections After the Conference
As the conference concluded, several broader reflections emerged for me.
The conference was not simply about the past of the German Diocese, but about the contemporary identity of ROCOR in Germany. One of the dominant themes of the gathering was the realization that the Russian Church Abroad in Germany has ceased to exist merely as an émigré phenomenon and has become an organic part of German society.
This represents a transition from the psychology of temporary exile to the consciousness of rooted ecclesiastical life within a specific country and culture. At the same time, memory of the founders of the diocese and their struggle after the Revolution and Civil War remains essential.
The ideal of Holy Russia should not be reduced to a political slogan. Rather, it should be understood as the memory of the best examples of Christian faithfulness under tragic historical circumstances.
If the Church truly becomes part of German society, then this inevitably changes its relationship to “the other.” How does a person who does not belong to Russian culture experience life within our Church environment? This may concern Germans, Belarusians, Ukrainians, people of Jewish origin, those of mixed heritage, or simply people who encounter Christ through Orthodoxy without any previous connection to Russian culture.
A Church built entirely around the identity of “its own people” inevitably leaves limited space for others. A more mature territorial ecclesial identity requires the ability to live beside another person without fear or suspicion.
The conference also demonstrated the importance of sober historical self-examination. Respect for the founders of the Russian Church Abroad does not require idealization of the past. Fear of difficult themes does not produce maturity. We need calm and honest conversation about our own history. Otherwise mythology gradually takes the place of history itself.
One might say that we have only touched the uppermost layer of historical memory. Much more excavation remains ahead. And if we do not undertake that work ourselves, others will eventually do it for us.
No one possesses a monopoly over which topics in ROCOR history may or may not be studied. The history of the Russian Church Abroad is part of broader human history and therefore a legitimate subject of serious scholarly inquiry.
At the same time, the Church relates to the past differently than secular academia does. The Church lives not only in historical time, but also in liturgical memory. Hagiography and history therefore remain different, but equally necessary genres.
One could say that hagiography is an icon, while history is a photograph. Hagiography reveals transfigured meaning; history reveals complexity and human limitation.
Finally, a historian must learn humility. Every scholarly achievement is relative. There will always be someone who has read more deeply, understood more profoundly, or possesses greater historical intuition. We stand on one another’s shoulders.
I remain deeply grateful to the entire organizing committee, especially Dr. Anastasia Limberger, Andrei Fastovsky, Anatoliy Kinsler, Protodeacon Varfolomey, Bishop Job, Fr. Nikolai Artemoff, Metropolitan Mark, and the German Diocese itself.
The organizing committee spent a full year preparing this conference.
At the moment it is still difficult to measure the true significance of this conference. The historical distance is too small — like standing too close to a large painting to see the whole image clearly.
But one conclusion already seems evident to me: this conference became not only a conversation about the past, but also an exercise in ecclesiastical self-knowledge — an attempt to learn how to see ourselves from the outside while remaining faithful to our own tradition.
We will soon hold a final meeting of the organizing committee to reflect on the conference itself and discuss how it can serve as a springboard for future work promoting the value of historical studies within the Church.
As part of the conference’s approach to the study of history, the organization itself was built on trust and responsibility. The volunteers together with the organizers and guests were given considerable freedom to act within their own areas of responsibility. This spirit of shared responsibility became one of the hidden strengths of the conference itself.
It also occurred to me that this was perhaps the first fully professional academic conference on the ROCOR’s history organized organically within the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia itself. Earlier major conferences connected with ROCOR took place in Szentendre in Hungary, in Moscow, and in Sremski Karlovci in Serbia. The Munich conference therefore marked something important: an attempt to create a serious academic forum from within the life of the Russian Church Abroad itself.
Now comes the question of how this experience can be developed further.
The twentieth century was a century of ideologies and ideological clashes. It is therefore meaningful that our conference took place in Germany — a country where ideologies once began to dictate political decisions with devastating consequences.
Against this background, an academic conference that seeks not simply to judge, but to understand — to provide careful reflection and reliable knowledge about the past so that we may make wiser decisions in the present — becomes especially important. Historical scholarship, approached with honesty and respect, can help prevent us from becoming hostages to ideologies that reduce reality to rigid and destructive formulas rather than genuine dialogue and understanding.
Add me to your mailing list?
Yes. I just did add your name to the list.