Monk Theophan (Coverdill) | June 13, 2026 | Jordanville, NY
This paper was submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for Church History 520, a
graduate-level course in Church History offered at Holy Trinity Orthodox
Seminary during the Spring 2026 semester and taught by Protodeacon Andrei
Psarev.
Introduction
In 2017, St. Anthony’s Greek
Orthodox Monastery in Arizona published a 1,112-page work, entitled The
Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church, [1]
presenting the teachings of over 120 saints about the ‘particular’ judgment.
Differing from the Last Judgment, which will occur at the end of time when
Christ returns, the ‘particular’ judgement occurs soon after a person has died.
The book includes the endorsement of eight Orthodox hierarchs, and a section
addressing over 100 falsifications, misrepresentations, and errors of those
authors who wrote against this teaching of the Church. [2] The numerous
authors and contributors to this work consider it as “definitively
ending” [3] a 40-year controversy concerning the Church’s teaching on the
trial of the soul at the hour of death.
What makes this controversy
particularly interesting is that before the late nineteenth century there is no
evidence of any opposition to the Orthodox teaching on this subject. The first
allusion to such opposition appears in the words of St. Theophan the Recluse
(d. 1894) [4] directed towards unbelief in the intelligentsia: “No matter
how absurd the idea of the toll-houses may seem to our ‘wise-men’ they will not
escape passing through them.” [5] Nevertheless, when Deacon Lev Puhalo (the
future Archbishop Lazar, b. 1941) [6] expressed his objection to this
teaching in 1979, he claimed to be building upon the opinions of many people
who had previously rejected the doctrine but had not published their opinions.
Although within two years his writings against this teaching were condemned as
unorthodox by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
(ROCOR), he and subsequent writers continued to pronounce on the topic, and
this developed into a 40-year controversy.
The purpose of this essay will be
neither to consider the Orthodox teaching on the trial of the soul after death,
nor the arguments of its opponents. The reader seeking such a study may refer
to the above-mentioned book. Rather, this essay will consider what the
toll-house controversy reveals about the state of Orthodoxy and theological
debate in postmodern America, focusing primarily on individuals within the
ROCOR. Why is it that this teaching, which had been accepted since the
apostolic age, suddenly became the subject of such heated controversy?
Overview of the
controversy
In 1976, following the
introduction of new techniques for resuscitating the clinically dead, the
subject of life after death became one of widespread popularity in the western
world. In particular, Dr. Raymond A. Moody’s book, Life after Life,
sparked great interest, selling over two million copies. [7] As a result,
Hieromonks Seraphim and Herman [8] received in their small wilderness
skete in Platina, California, many letters from those seeking an Orthodox
understanding of the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon being described in such
books. In response, Fr. Herman gave Fr. Seraphim the third volume of the
writings of St Ignatius Brianchaninov, which addresses the question of the soul
after death. [9] Although Fr. Seraphim initially planned to translate it,
Fr. Herman contended this was insufficient and encouraged him to apply the
teachings of Bishop Ignatius [10] to contemporary “after death
experiences,” as well as the popular occult texts which people were then
turning to for an explanation of such phenomena. [11] The result
was The Soul After Death, [12] which in 1977 Fr. Seraphim
began to serialize in The Orthodox Word. Chapter Six, “The Aerial
Toll-houses,” presents the patristic teaching of the particular judgment
which occurs three days after death. Citing the references of patristic
writings, the Church services, and the lives of the saints to toll-houses and
tax-collectors, Fr. Seraphim explains how souls passing through the air are
tested by the fallen spirits. In so doing, he cautions against a rationalist or
“literal” understanding of these texts, noting that the experiences described
are “quite different from our earthly concepts of time and space” and that
therefore “our accounts of these experiences in earthly language invariably
fall short of the reality.” [13]
In 1978, Deacon Lev Puhalo
published an article in The Tlingit Herald, [14] an Orthodox
journal that he began while serving the Tlingit people of Alaska, objecting to
the teaching of life after death set forth in The Soul after Death. His
objections, however, were not only against The Soul after Death,
but also against the same views that were to be found in publications of Holy
Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, particularly the article, “The
Church’s Prayer for the Dead” published in Orthodox Life of
January-February, 1978, the article “Unbelievable for Many but Actually a True
Occurrence,” which was published by Orthodox Life in
July-August, 1976, and the anthology Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave,
which had been published in 1968, as well as a sermon of Archbishop John
Maximovitch (d. 1966), “Life After Death”, which was published in The
Orthodox Word in 1971. Fr. Lev critiqued the latter homily as “so
legalistic and juridical that one might suspect it was merely a Latin apology
for the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences,” expressing concern about a
“hint of some legalistic form of Origenism or potential semi-Origenism,” and
suggesting that it distorts Orthodox teachings. He labels the teaching of the
toll-houses as being in turn “pagan,” “anti-Orthodox,” and “Protestant.” In
conclusion, he states:
… we know for
certain that this Orthodox Life article does not constitute an
exposition of Orthodox Christian doctrine, or even of an established belief or
confession, despite its apparent intent to do so.
In 1979, in a letter to a ROCOR
clergyman, Fr. Seraphim expressed concerns about Father Lev’s article, noting
that:
several times,
[Deacon Lev] has indicated that the Orthodox teaching on the ‘toll-houses’
encountered by the soul after death is not to be understood as set forth by the
Holy Fathers and in the lives of the Saints, but rather is to be thrown out
entirely or reinterpreted as an ‘allegory.’ [15]
In response to Deacon Lev, Fr.
Seraphim wrote his “Answer to a Critic” as an appendix to The Soul
After Death, in which he addresses the errors of Deacon Lev. [16]
In turn, Fr. Lev responded with a thirty-seven page Open Letter in
which he argued that (Saint) Bishop Ignatius did not accept the teaching of the
Scriptures and the Church, and went on to suggest that that was also true of
Fr. Seraphim. [17]
In 1980, Father Seraphim wrote to
Bishop Gregory [18] concerning the Open Letter,
expressing no intent to continue the conflict: “I have replied that my ‘answer’
is already contained in Appendix III of The Soul After Death, and I
intend to say nothing further on the subject.” [19] Thus, for his part,
Fr. Seraphim ended the polemic between the two. Nevertheless, Fr. Lev continued
to write and speak on the topic. As a result, on 19 November, 1980, the ROCOR
Synod denounce Fr Lev’s teaching on the ‘particular’ judgement as erroneous and
unorthodox and ordered him to cease his activities, noting that his writing may
“cause great harm to the souls of the faithful.” [20] Nevertheless, Deacon
Lev and others have continued to publish writings which “have fueled a
controversy for nearly forty years, even to this present day.” [21]
The Response of
the ROCOR Synod
The response of the ROCOR Synod
was swift: in 1978, Fr. Lev first published his objections to the teaching of
the Church on the trial of the soul after death, and, by 1980, his statements
were already officially condemned as un-orthodox, and he was ordered to cease
speaking on the topic. The Synod identified Hieromonk Seraphim as initiating
the controversy, “despite various reservations,” but noted that Deacon Lev
Puhalo’s accusations of heresy, which were written “with a spirit of
condemnation” were incorrect. They expressed the concern that such a
“controversy can cause great harm to the souls of the faithful.” Having
presented a theological assessment of the errors of Fr. Lev’s teaching, the
bishops conclude:
To add
conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not
beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially
detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of
people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart
from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a
deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of
the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject
to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions
on questions of importance to our salvation. [22]
In brief, the stated reasons for
objecting to the controversy are the following: first, it is “detrimental” to
those who are not yet “fully established in the Faith,” that is, it is poses a
particular danger to converts to Orthodoxy; second, without a “spirit of mutual
love” any debate inevitably descends from “deliberation” to passionate
“argument,” that is, a public polemic is not the appropriate means of resolving
theological disputes; third, the “positive preaching of truths of the Church”
is more profitable than speculative disputes. Thus, it should be noted that the
response of the Synod is resoundingly negative: the controversy is viewed as
dangerous, not only because of theological errors in the writings of Fr. Lev,
but also because it provokes the passions and confuses those not grounded in
the faith.
On November 9, 1980, prior to
this official statement, Bishop Gregory had already expressed his concerns in a
letter to Fr. Lev:
…the controversy
to which you have given such a personal tint cannot do good to people,
especially as some points about life after death, which are not open to us, are
treated with too much assurance and dogmatism.
He then references “an old
dispute between Bishops Theophan and Ignaty,” noting that “in old Russia” such
a dispute would only be discussed in “special theological publications,” as a
result of which it posed no danger to the “souls of simple people.” He
contrasts this with the actions of Fr. Lev, who has sent out his writings “very
liberally,” leading them to being “read by converts who are often unable yet to
discern what is really essential and dogmatically valid.” Hence, he
concludes that Deacon Lev’s “exercise in polemic may in some cases be dangerous
for their souls.” [23] Here Bishop Gregory’s concerns relate to the unique
circumstances of postmodern America, in which mass literacy and communication
technologies have facilitated more widespread access to spiritual writings
than in the past. His concern is that such converts may be harmed by being
exposed to writings and ideas that are beyond their spiritual state.
One may summarize Bishop
Gregory’s concerns as follows: first, Bishop Gregory observes that Fr. Lev
added a “personal tint” to the controversy and handled the subject with “too
much assurance and dogmatism”; second, Bishop Gregory expresses concern that the
public nature of the controversy is inherently dangerous. He contrasts this
with ‘old Russia’ where such disputes were relegated to “special theological
publications,” in which they posed no danger to the “souls of simple people.”
That is, such disputes were the province of educated clergy and hierarchs, not
laity. In contrast, due to the public nature of this polemic, “converts” or
“simple souls” lacking discernment may be spiritually damaged. Thus, according
to Bishop Gregory, such theological debates are harmful for two reasons: first,
such a “personal” polemic is dangerous insofar as passions, such as pride,
i.e., speaking with “too much assurance,” may distort one’s judgment; second,
public debate may reach those lacking discernment, thus endangering their
souls.
The Attitude of
Fr. Lev Towards the Controversy
Having considered the specific
objections of the ROCOR Synod to the controversy, it is necessary to consider
the attitudes of the participants themselves towards the controversy, starting
with Fr. Lev. As noted, the ROCOR Synod responded by asking the participants to
cease the polemic, noting the danger it posed to the simple and those lacking
spiritual discernment. It was also noted that, even before this official
statement, Fr. Seraphim had ended the polemic by refusing to engage with Fr.
Lev’s Open Letter, which Fr. Seraphim described as seeming to be a
“deliberate provocation” rather than “a serious or well-meaning approach to
matters he disputes.” Father Lev, however, objected to this official response,
as well as Bishop Gregory’s specific command to cease speaking on the matter.
On December 18, 1980, a month
after the official statement of the Synod, Fr. Lev wrote to Bishop Gregory
asserting that “no one could possibly construe” his actions as disobedient and
claiming that “your letter is hindering me from continuing to print and say
things which do not contain any ‘heresies’ or ‘false teachings.’” He concluded
by claiming that: “I have in no way disobeyed anything which you said to me
either personally or in writing.” Father Lev also objected to the Bishop’s
command to cease teaching, arguing that “the implications of what you are
saying here and doing have very disturbing political overtones and
implications.” Instead, he reasserted his “absolute innocence,” contending that
“there are simply no grounds for what you are saying in this present letter.” [24]
Bishop Gregory replied to Father
Lev’s letter, repeating the clear and definite command from the ROCOR Synod to
cease teaching, reminding him that: “You were requested to stop the preaching
of your unorthodox personal views, which can bring only confusion in the minds
of the faithful, especially converts.” Bishop Gregory then continued to note
that Fr. Lev’s concerns about the “political implications” of his statements
are “patently absurd” and “without basis.” Rather, he reminds him that the
ROCOR Synod had upheld the “orthodox view” on the teaching of life after death
for “pastoral” reasons and on “purely dogmatic grounds.”
Bishop Gregory then offered
Deacon Lev a clear choice: “…either to obey the voice of the Church or to
adhere proudly to the errors present in your writings.” He warned that “once
all the bishops have recognized your teaching as foreign to the Church’s teaching,
you may continue to disseminate it only on your own responsibility and outside
the Church.” Bishop Gregory cautioned that “your error will inexorably begin to
transform itself into heresy, and you will be dealt with accordingly.” He
concluded,
Dear father, can
you not understand that acceptance of your views would entail the disavowal of
the teaching embodied in all the manuals of dogmatic theology and in a great
many prayers of the Church?
Bishop Gregory’s concern is
twofold: first, the views that Deacon Lev promotes are erroneous and
unorthodox; second, as a result, such views will cause confusion for the
faithful, especially converts.
In 1981, in response to another
letter from Deacon Lev, Bishop Gregory further explains these objections,
emphasizing the danger posed by the passions. He advises him to not interpret
the “decision of the Synod” as well as his own “reactions” as being influenced
by “personal feelings, sympathies, or biases.” Rather, he emphasized that his
judgment, as well as the judgment of the Synod is influenced by one thing:
preserving the “right teachings of the Church,” and her best interests in
general. In the same letter, Bishop Gregory then addresses the specific passion
of pride. He speaks of the “test of humility,” which is vital when addressing
polemical theological questions. He observes that: “a mistake in dogmatical
explanations becomes heresy only when a person is influenced by pride, insists
on everything of his, and does not wish to listen to the bishops.”
At the beginning of the conflict,
in 1978, in a letter to Bishop Laurus (the future Metropolitan Laurus), [25]
Fr. Seraphim also expressed concern about the passion of pride, which is
aroused in such conflicts, noting that what is particularly disturbing about
Fr. Lev’s statements is not so much his opinions, as his “exalted, superior
tone,” which is reflected in his “name-calling” and accusing the Russians of
being “under Western influence,” being naive and being “untheological,”
believing in “moral fables,” and so on. He notes that this is not the product
of a theological spirit but of “intellectual conceit.” [26]
In summary, in these letters Fr.
Lev expresses a strong conviction in the correctness of his teaching, as well
as distrust towards the official Synodal response, accusing them of being
politically motivated. In turn, his opponents recognize this strong conviction
of Fr. Lev, interpreting it negatively, as giving a “personal tint” to the
controversy and being the product of “intellectual conceit.” They express the
concern that the assurance with which Fr. Lev expresses himself may be a sign
of pride and may lead to heresy if he does not acknowledge his theological
errors.
The Attitude of
Hieromonk Seraphim towards the Controversy
In 1979, Fr. Seraphim wrote:
This [polemic]
makes us sad, and troubles us—why does such unnecessary conflict have to be
stirred up in the Church? We ourselves (and the Fathers at Jordanville) have no
desire or intention to enter into a public debate on this subject, and we are
all doing what we can to handle this situation quietly.” [27]
Here, Fr. Seraphim gives the
reasons for his negative response to the controversy. First, he considers it
“unnecessary;” second, speaking on behalf of the Fathers of Jordanville, he
expresses “no desire or intention to enter into public debate,” hoping rather
that it will be resolved “quietly.” Thus Fr. Seraphim expresses a detached
attitude towards the conflict, seeking to direct attention away from his
incidental, personal involvement, to the broader issue at stake.
In 1980, in a letter to Bishop
Gregory, Fr. Seraphim wrote:
[Deacon Lev’s]
whole polemical approach to Church questions is profoundly distasteful to
us–as, I am sure, it is to almost all the clergy in our Church… I must say that
for my part, although I realize [the critic’s] articles were occasioned by my
own articles (they will bear my signature in the book form), I do not regard
this ‘debate’ as primarily a personal one at all. For one thing, it hasn’t
really been a ‘debate’ at all, since all the attacking is coming from his side;
and for another, the attack is not really against me, since the basic part of
my articles is simply a retelling of the teaching of Archbishop John
Maximovitch, Bishop Ignatius Briachaninov, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, etc. –
but rather an attack against this teaching itself.” [28]
Here, one may observe two things.
First, Fr. Seraphim expressed a negative attitude towards the polemical
approach of Fr. Lev; a negative attitude which, he suggested, most of the
clergy of the ROCOR shared. Second, he did not consider the debate to be a
personal attack, but, rather, an attack against the Fathers of the Church and
against the teaching itself. While Fr. Lev interpreted criticisms of his
writings as a personal attack upon himself, Fr Seraphim took the opposite view,
preferring to direct attention away from himself.
In 1983, Fr. Alexey Young (the
future Hieromonk Ambrose) [29] reflected on Fr. Seraphim’s attitude
towards such conflicts, noting that “in his personal life, Fr. Seraphim
especially shrank from any kind of controversy or disturbance,” and “wished to
be far away” from any situations that might arouse passions. He concludes by
noting the irony that, despite having such an attitude, Fr. Seraphim “more than
once found it necessary to speak out (with the printed word).” [30] According
to Fr. Alexey, Fr. Seraphim’s aversion to such conflicts was rooted in an
ascetic ethos, which “shrank” from any situation that might arouse the
passions. Given this, Fr, Alexey notes that it was ironic that Fr. Seraphim
felt the need to “speak out” on various matters. This assessment concurs with
Fr. Seraphim’s own attitude of aversion towards the conflict, suggesting that
his reason for involvement in the controversy was purely pastoral: that is,
despite having no personal desire to do so, he spoke out as guided by his
pastoral conscience in order to address a matter that he viewed as potentially
harmful to the salvation of many.
Writing in 2003, Hieromonk
Damascene [31] reflects on Fr. Seraphim’s attitude towards such conflicts,
noting that he “shied away from becoming involved in protracted public
controversies,” and if it was necessary to defend traditional Orthodox
teaching, “he would usually write a single article to defend it,” following the
example of Saint John Maximovitch, but would then “leave the matter at
that.” [32] Fr. Damascene’s observation is particularly interesting, in
that he understands Fr. Seraphim as following the example of St. John
Maximovitch (d. 1966). In specific, Fr. Seraphim emphasized that:
“The important
thing we learn from his writings is: [to] stand above the level of fighting in
theology. If you take up the writings of Archbishop John, whether a sermon or a
long article, you see that there is absolutely no controversy…. For
him theology was not a matter of just reading books and writing things out, but
was first of all a matter of absorbing the teaching of the Church in the
services. And that is why the attitude of controversy, of polemics, is absent
in his works, even when he is proving what’s right and what’s wrong.” [33]
As such, he sets forth the
actions of Fr. Seraphim as being worthy of emulation, in that Fr. Seraphim
himself emulated the example of a renowned contemporary saint. He continues:
“he did not raise a finger when the critic of The Soul After Death took
up arms against him with a scathing Open Letter; and thus the
‘controversy’ which the critic had evoked eventually died down of
itself.” [34]
The Cultural
Context of the Controversy
Having considered the attitudes
of the major parties involved, as well as their specific concerns about such
public theological debates, let us now consider the specific setting of the
conflict: postmodern America, in which mass literacy and communication
technologies have contributed to widespread missionary work and conversion,
widespread access to the writings of the Holy Fathers, including writings such
as The Philokalia that were written for those of a very
advanced spiritual state, and more democratic and widespread access to avenues
for publishing. In 2003, in his biography of Fr. Seraphim, Hieromonk Damascene
notes that
…most of these
criticisms [of the teaching] have come from people living in America; very few
have come from people living in Orthodox lands, where The Soul After
Death is generally held in high regard. [35]
He observes that Fr. Seraphim
ascertained the reason for this: for the “pampered” and “self-centered”
lifestyle in America, the Orthodox teaching on the afterlife seems too severe.
In contrast, because of the “more sober outlook” in Orthodox countries, people
there have “have little or no problem in accepting the Orthodox teaching on
death.” [36] These observations supplement the objection of Bishop Gregory
to the controversy, in which he expressed concern that it would endanger new
converts who may lack discernment. Here, Fr. Damascene contrasts the “pampered”
and “self-centered” lifestyle of America to the “more sober outlook on life” in
traditionally Orthodox countries, as the reason for this lack of discernment.
Fr. Damascene seems to be building upon the views of Fr. Seraphim, as expressed
in The Soul after Death, in which Fr. Seraphim notes that “the
Orthodox teaching on life after death is rather severe and demands a very sober
response on our part,” whereas contemporary man is “very pampered and
self-centered and would rather not hear of such stern realities as judgment and
accountability for sins.” [37]
In addition to moral laxity and
the “self-centered” lifestyle of America, Fr. Seraphim also identifies the
rationalistic Western mindset as another danger in theological debate. In 1979,
in a letter to another clergyman, Fr. Seraphim notes that, while presenting his
“unorthodox” views,
[Fr. Lev]
undermines respect for the Lives of the Saints and other basic Orthodox
sources, seeking rather to establish himself as the ‘interpreter’ of these
sources for all of us who are not as modern and ‘sophisticated’ as he is.
…this… is something just as bad as what Fr. Schmemann [38] is doing in the
OCA; but we never expected to see such modernism and rationalism in our Russian
Church Outside of Russia! [39]
Here Fr. Seraphim connects the
passion of pride, or “intellectual conceit,” with the broader trend towards
“modernism” and “rationalism.” A month later, in June 1979, he wrote:
…it is all bound
up with the great problem of our present-day Orthodoxy (where it tries to be
serious and faithful to tradition); too much calculation and not enough heart.
We’ve seen this… in numerous converts; well, why look further – I see it in
myself, it’s part of the air we breathe in our ‘enlightened,’ mind-oriented
times.” [40]
Two months later, in August 1979,
Fr. Seraphim suggested the proper alternative to such rationalism, noting that
due to an overemphasis on “head knowledge,” which is emphasized “at the expense
of the proper development of emotional and spiritual life…the Patristic
teaching on pain of heart is one of the most important teachings for our days.”
He continued by noting that the “lack of this essential experience” is
responsible for “the dilettantism, the triviality, the want of seriousness in
the ordinary study” that characterized the study of the Holy Fathers in his
day. [41]
What is the Proper
Response to Theological Controversy?
This essay has primarily focused
on the negative aspects of the conflict, the reasons why such a controversy was
viewed as dangerous and unnecessary. Now it is worth considering what Fr.
Seraphim proposed as a more productive response to such polemics. First, as
mentioned above, he emulated the example of Saint John Maximovitch, who, seeing
an error that posed a danger to his flock, as a good pastor, wrote a letter
addressing the matter, but engaged in no further polemic. In his own pastoral
work, Fr. Seraphim encouraged others to avoid such conflicts. When, in 1979,
Andrew Bond (the future Deacon Andrew Bond) wrote to him, complaining about the
statements of some bishops, Fr. Seraphim advised him that:
…“the best thing
is to ‘forget it’…All of this is a sad background for our present Orthodox
labors–here you are right. But please listen to this: We simply cannot let our
attitudes, inspiration, and missionary labors take their tone from all these
negative factors: we must ourselves be generating a positive outlook that will
inspire ourselves and others.” [42]
Here, Fr. Seraphim’s attitude
towards Church controversy is similar to the Patristic attitude towards sinful
thoughts: simply do not engage with them. By directing one’s attention toward
the sinful thought or scandal, one allows them to set the “tone” and negatively
influence our own actions. Thus, rather than allowing one’s labors to be fueled
by such “negative factors,” Fr. Seraphim insists that one must generate one’s
own “positive outlook.” In 1980, Fr. Seraphim warned against a “negative
Orthodoxy that defines itself by what it is not,” i.e., that defines itself as
anti-Western, anti-Latin, anti-scholastic, and so on, suggesting that one ought
rather to emphasize the “positive Orthodox Gospel.” [43]
Finally, Fr. Seraphim proposes a
moral lesson about the providential purpose of the controversy:
Perhaps a
‘positive’ side of [the critic’s] articles is that they have caused us to
present the Orthodox teaching with maximum clarity, keeping in mind any
possible distortions.” [44]
In his biography of Fr. Seraphim,
Hieromonk Damascene cites the publication of numerous works on the teaching of
the toll-houses (the particular judgment) as confirmation of the correctness of
this observation, specifically listing: The Future Life According to
Orthodox Teaching by Constantine Cavarnos; [45] The Mystery of
Death by Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis; [46] Life after Death by
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos; [47] and After Death by
Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis. [48] He also cites a homily of
Elder Ephraim of Arizona on the toll-houses, which was included in The
Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church by
St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in 2020. [49] In the final entry in
the acknowledgements section of The Departure of the Soul, the
authors list “Lazar Puhalo, former ‘Archbishop of Ottawa’…without whose
previous efforts this publication would most likely have not been
produced.” While this essay has focused specifically on the reactions to
the toll-house debate within America, the above-mentioned books published in
Greece or by Athonite writers (Elder Ephraim) suggests the broader relevance of
the controversy. In particular, this supports the view of Fr. Seraphim and Fr.
Damascene that, having a more sober outlook, those living in historically
Orthodox countries have less difficulty accepting the teaching of the Church on
the ‘particular’ judgment.
Conclusion
The toll-house controversy
attests to the unique situation of Orthodoxy in postmodern America. A
specialized theological debate, which beforehand would have only been
accessible to learned theologians and hierarchs, suddenly became a public
affair. Nevertheless, the attitudes of all the participants towards the
controversy, with the exception of Fr. Lev, were decidedly sober and
pessimistic, viewing the conflict as potentially dangerous and unnecessary.
However, Fr. Seraphim, Fr. Damascene, and the monks of St. Anthony’s Monastery
all point to a providential, positive side of the conflict, in that it led to
the clarification and confirmation of the teaching of the toll-houses and the
refutation of the errors of its opponents.
What, then, does this controversy
suggest about the state of theological debate in America? The controversy
suggests that unique historical and cultural circumstances of Orthodoxy in
postmodern America make public theological debate possible in a form that was
unknown in pre-revolutionary Russia, in which such debate was confined to
specialist theological journals. However, the contemporary possibility of
public theological debate presents various problems, some specific to
postmodern Western societies and some rooted in human nature. First, personal
passions, such as pride, are likely to distort judgment, potentially leading to
heresy. Second, in a post-industrial society of mass literacy a public
theological debate may reach people lacking discernment, who may thus be
confused and endangered. Third, the rationalistic ethos of Western society
encourages an intellectual approach to such questions, which, when separated
from the ascetic life of prayer and spiritual struggle, is likely to lead to
distorted judgment. Fourth, the individualistic culture of America — what Fr.
Seraphim described as the “self-centered lifestyle of America” — presents
obstacles to a sober attitude towards theological matters.
Nonetheless, while noting these
inherent dangers, Fr. Seraphim in no way expressed a pessimistic or negative
attitude. On the contrary, his very attitude of moderation and sobriety in
relation to theological controversy was rooted in a practical and positive
attitude towards Orthodoxy in the West. While defending the traditional
teaching when it proved necessary, according to the example of St John
Maximovitch, Fr. Seraphim was careful not to allow any personal feelings or
considerations to influence his writings. Moreover, this was not his primary
focus, nor was it what he emphasized in his pastoral work. On the contrary, he
warned of the spiritual dangers of a “negative Orthodoxy” that defines itself
by what it is not, encouraging others instead to focus on preaching the
“positive Orthodox gospel” and, through one’s own personal ascetic struggles,
to develop a positive outlook that can inspire others.
References
1. Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox
Monastery. The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the
Orthodox Church. (2017).
2. See Chapter 7: “On the Falsifications,
Misrepresentations, and Errors of Those Who Oppose the Teaching of the Orthodox
Church,” pages 724-822 and 910-985: a profound critique of the writings of
Deacon Lev Puhalo.
3. Departure (2017). 41.
4. Saint Theophan the Recluse was a
Russian Orthodox bishop and theologian, who was glorified as a saint in 1988.
He is renowned for his writings on the spiritual life, commentaries on Holy
Scripture, and translation activity.
5. Departure (2017).719.
6. Fr. Lev Puhalo is a retired hierarch
of the Orthodox Church in America. Before being received into the OCA in 2002,
he served in different clerical ranks in the ROCOR, the Free Serbian Orthodox
Church, the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, the Holy Synod
of Milan, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His theological writings, which
criticize the notion of toll-houses, have caused much disagreement. This essay
will refer to him as Deacon Lev or Fr. Lev, since this was his title during the
period of the controversy. In fact, the OCA has forbidden Fr. Lev from
publicizing his controversial views on other matters, such as homosexuality and
transgenderism.
7. Moody, Raymond. Life After Life.
(Mockingbird Books, 1975.)
8. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) (d.1982)
co-founded the Saint Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California with
Monk Herman (Podmoshensky) (d. 2014).
9. Christensen, Damascene. Father
Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood,
2003.) 88.
10. Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) (d.
1867) was a bishop and theologian of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is
considered to be one of the greatest patristic writers of the nineteenth
century and was glorified in 1988.
11. Christensen (2003). 888.
12. Rose, Seraphim. The Soul after
Death: Contemporary “After-Death” Experiences in the Light of the Orthodox
Teaching on the Afterlife. (Platina, California, St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, 2004)
13. Rose (2004). 69.
14. The Tlingit Herald was an Orthodox publication started
by Deacon Lev Puhalo while serving in south-eastern Alaska among the Tlingit
people. In 1980, after moving to Canada, he changed the name of the publication
to Orthodox Missionary and then to Orthodoxy Canada.
15. Letters of Father Seraphim Rose
(LFSR): letter to Fr. Roman, May 1, 1979.
https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/
accessed June, 2026.
16. Rose (2004). Appendix III: Answer to
a Critic, 229-260.
17. Christensen (2003). 900.
18. Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) of Washington
and Florida (d.1995) was a bishop of the ROCOR.
19. LFSR: Letter to Bishop Gregory,
November 9, 1980.
20. Extract from the Minutes of the
Session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia, from http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.aspx accessed June,
2026.
21. Departure (2017). 41.
22. Extract from the Minutes of the
Session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia. The Debate Over Aerial Toll-Houses accessed June, 2026.
23. Letter of Bishop Gregory to Deacon
Lev, November 9, 1980.
24. Letter from Deacon Lev Puhalo to
Bishop Gregory, December 18, 1980.
25. Metropolitan Laurus (Škurla) (d.
2008) was First Hierarch of the ROCOR, 2001 – 2008.
26. LFSR: letter to Bishop Laurus,
October 31, 1978.
27. LFSR: letter to Father Roman, May 14,
1979.
28. LFSR: letter to Bishop Gregory,
December 22, 1980.
29. Father Alexey Young (d. 2022),
spiritual son of Fr. Seraphim (Rose), authored books and articles on Orthodox
Christianity.
30. Christensen (2003). 910.
31. Igoumen Damascene (Christensen)
(b.1961) is an igoumen of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He was converted to
Orthodoxy after listening to a lecture by Fr Seraphim Rose. In 2013 he became
abbot of St. Herman of Alaska Monastery, Platina.
32. Christensen (2003). 908.
33. Rose, S. “The Theological Writings of
Archbishop John and the Question of ‘Western Influence’ in Orthodox Theology,” Orthodox
Word, 175-176 (1994). 146, 154-158.
34. Christensen (2003). 908.
35. Christensen (2003). 904.
36. Christensen (2003). 904.
37. Rose (2004). 259-260.
38. Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
(d. 1983). Priest of the Orthodox Church in America. See chapter 60, “Modern
Academic Theology” in Igoumen Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose:
His Life and Works. (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003.)
39. LFSR: letter to Fr Roman, May 14,
1979.
40. LFSR: letter to Fr Theodore, June 6,
1979.
41 “The Holy Fathers of Orthodox
Spirituality: Introduction, III: How Not to Read the Holy Fathers.” Orthodox
Word, no. 65 (1975). 239.
42. LFSR: letter to Andrew Bond, August
23, 1979.
43. LFSR: letter to Fr. Demetrios, June
22, 1980.
44. LFSR: letter to Mrs. Prokopchuk,
August 22, 1979.
45. Cavarnos, Constantine. The Future
Life According to Orthodox Teaching. (Center for Traditionalist Orthodox
Studies, 1985).
46. Vassiliadis, Nikolaos P. The
Mystery of Death. (Orthodox Brotherhood, 1993).
47. Vlachos, Hierotheos. Life after
Death. (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1993)
48. Bakogiannis, Vasilios. After Death
(Tertios, 2001).
49. Departure (2017). Introduction: “The Trial of
the Soul at the Hour of Death,” from Elder Ephraim’s spoken homilies delivered
to the Brotherhood of Philotheou Monastery (Mount Athos) on January 6, 1977 and
April 5, 1978. 24.
Source:
https://www.rocorstudies.org/2026/07/07/the-toll-houses-debate-an-american-phenomenon/
