It always seemed to me that a certain narrowness of mind is characteristic of many in our country precisely because of the state ban on intellectual and spiritual exchange during the last 70 years of our history. In the Western world, however, this ban did not exist, so where does the total refusal to “mix” and the nonacceptance of each other come from? I would like to know what Efim thinks on this issue.
Now, about Itzhak. Sweet Teresa, dear Efim, at the risk of wounding you and incurring your displeasure, I have to say the following: your little boy is perfectly marvelous. He is touching and infinitely sweet, but your sense of anticipation and hope that he is, I can hardly bring myself to write the words, the One Who Is Promised, let us put it that way, seems to me a delusion of profound parental love.
If I am wrong and he really does possess the “second nature,” again I cannot bring myself to repeat your words, then it will manifest itself independently of your involvement. It seems to me more correct from every point of view to give him the opportunity of going to the special school which you so categorically reject. You yourselves told me that children with this syndrome cannot under any circumstances be considered intellectually backward, that it is simply a special kind of person who develops in accordance with other laws, and they should converse and read and socialize. The fact that under the guidance of special instructors they can act in plays, make music, draw, and do other things to develop them is splendid and will do Sosik no harm at all. If he really is the one for whom you take him, these skills will not detract from the mission which he is to fulfil.
My dears, your heroic and even saintly life fills me with admiration. The path you have chosen is worthy of the most profound respect. Of course I understand that the path of each person is unique and each makes his own way to the truth. But why do so many people concerned exclusively with seeking truth move in completely opposite directions?
That is a matter to ponder.
My dears, I thank you once more for this trip. Next month I shall be 73 and I do not think I shall be able ever again to come see you. The more precious therefore was this meeting for me. I will always pray for you.
I ask for your prayers,
Valentina
36. 1995, Be’er Sheva
L
ETTER FROM
E
FIM
D
OVITAS TO
V
ALENTINA
F
ERDINANDOVNA
Dear Valentina Ferdinandovna,
We have received your letter and Teresa has asked me to reply. A matter which we will not discuss is the destiny of Itzhak. That is the province of a different department. All that is required of us is attention and the ability to hear the inner voice which comes into our hearts from above. Discerning spirits is a special gift, and Teresa possesses it to a high degree, that is undoubted. I make no mention of my own modest abilities.
The part of your letter that upset me was where you wrote so frivolously about the pluralism which is increasingly taking possession of the Church. What you believe to be modern and important and what you call mutual understanding is something entirely impossible. I do not doubt that this is linked to the unnaturalness of your position: I have in mind your simultaneous dwelling in the bosom of Orthodoxy and your collaboration over many years with Catholics. It must be some kind of a misunderstanding. I find it hard to imagine any bishop who could give his blessing to the work of an Orthodox person virtually within the Dominican Order.
My personal path went by way of the East. In my younger years I was enamored of Buddhism, and the freedom of Buddhism seemed to me a supreme achievement. I practiced a great deal and advanced quite far along that path. I was halted by the void. There is no God in Buddhism, and I found that God was more important to me than freedom. I did not want to be free from God, I longed for a personal God, and he was revealed to me in Orthodoxy. The principal and most fruitful path is that of Orthodoxy. I do not want simplified Christianity. Those of whom you speak, all those hosts of reformers and popularizers, are seekers not of God but of an easy path to God. You will get nowhere along an easy path. I find attempts to create bilingual gospels laughable, in particular the attempt to translate the service from Church Slavonic into Russian. What for? In order not to make the effort and not to learn the divine, if somewhat artificial but solemn, language specially carved for this purpose? This language also provides a link with a tradition which is realized at depths and which the modern Russian language cannot plumb.
We do not know the canons well enough, but it is precisely through them that the full profundity of Orthodoxy is revealed.
You talk of a diversity which delighted you! Valentina Ferdinandovna, do you really not understand that a sumptuous, immensely rich fabric is taken, a little snippet is cut out of it, and people say, look, this is entirely sufficient! It is for this reason that I broke completely with Father Daniel Stein. His search for a narrow, minimal Christianity is a deleterious path. In that scrap which he has defined for himself as “necessary and sufficient” is contained one thousandth, one millionth part of Christianity. I did not try to restrain you when you decided to go to his Mass. I thought you would yourself see this violation, this penury! But you brought into my home a paper with a few truncated texts which he considers to be a liturgy! I had never seen this text before and would not have taken it into my hands. Our break with him occurred before he had arrived at this minimalism or populism or whatever you want to call it. Now I have investigated this text. Daniel has no right to call himself a priest. It is only through a dereliction of duty on the part of the Church authorities that such a disgusting thing can be perpetrated.
Personally I feel grateful to him. He played an important role in the life of our family and helped the marriage of Teresa and myself to occur (it was also thanks to you, and I will always intone a prayer of gratitude for you), and the miracle of the birth of our son was accomplished with his blessing. However, Daniel’s views seem to me totally reprehensible.
The Son of God came to the world through the flesh. In Hebrew, good news is “besora” and meat or flesh is “basar.” The words are kindred. That is the greatest news, God in our flesh. Truly it is. In the flesh of my son Itzhak. This boy has joined us to God in a special way. My flesh has taken on the divine nature through him. I had my son circumcised not so that he should be a Judaean but so that he should become the Messiah.
A battle is raging in heaven and on earth, and the battle is ever more furious, and one must stand at the place where one has been put and not seek facility and comfort. Only in this way can we return to the sources of the Church, to its martyrs, to its heartland.
Of course, it is easier to talk to the reformers. They are prepared to accept anything you like, abortions, homosexual love, even the priesthood of women, and they are prepared to throw out anything you like, even the Holy Trinity!
Dear Valentina Ferdinandovna, our disagreements are so great that further communication does not appear to me to be possible. As a husband responsible to the Lord for my wife, I have forbidden Teresa any further communication with you, and I hope no further supplementary explanation will be required of me in this respect.