On the Struggle for Canonical Baptism in the Moscow Patriarchate: An Interview with Archpriest Joachim Lapkin (1990)

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 42, No. 3, May-June 1991, pp. 25-37.

 

This past summer [in 1990], Archpriest Joachim Lapkin, a cleric of our [ROCOR] church in Siberia, visited Germany. He attended several parishes of our Diocese, familiarizing himself with the church life and the conditions of freedom.

We asked him to tell us about the conditions of church life in Russia, and of the impressions which he acquired from his tour of the German Diocese.

* * *

QUESTION: Father Joachim, a significant event occurred in your life this year: you came under the protection of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Please tell us what prompted you to take such a responsible step?

ANSWER: Even before our petition to the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, we, i.e., those priests from Siberia, who now came under the protection of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, have always been looking for a way out of the critical situation which has formed today in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. This is a time when many of the canons are being violated, beginning with the first mystery, Baptism, which is done not by full immersion, but rather by wetting the forehead. I have always tried to oppose this, at least to draw closer to the observance of the canonical norm, but have met opposition from the reigning bishop and elder priests. Of course I objected to this. I no longer trusted the human authority, but rather the authority of God and the authority of the Holy Fathers who established rules for us. But it is hard to fight against those in power, and during all my years of serving I have received, one might say, many lumps.

Until 1987, the Omsko-Tiumensk cathedra position was held by Archbishop Maxim. He was a bishop who, in general, was concerned about the Church, its dignity, and the moral state of the priesthood; therefore, with him it was still bearable. You were able to meet with him and discuss various questions. He always came to help us. In other words, there was some sort of understanding from his side. But it is evident that bishops live “like fish in a frying pan”; they have to satisfy the authorities and at the same time cannot offend those deserving archpriests who go along with the authorities hand in hand.

Therefore, if they go against the authorities, they could be transferred to another (even worse) diocese. If the bishop still believes and has any fear of God, he has to at least try to please Him.

In 1987 Archbishop Theodosius was sent to the diocese of Omsko-Tiumensk. For a short while he served here in Germany, but for some reason was quickly sent off and appointed to our diocese. You see, the Siberian dioceses are considered exile for bishops and, according to all the rules, those who are guilty of committing some sort of an offense are sent there for not towing the line of the authorities or some uncanonical or immoral action. In comparison to the previous bishops, everything changed with Theodosius. There was resistance and soon his moral behavior became evident. Then our spiritual father, Father Evtichky Kurochkin, a hieromonk from our diocese, rose against him. A letter was sent by Father Evtichky to the Synod concerning the moral behavior of the bishop. The documents were forwarded by the Synod back to Theodosius. Of course they soon got even with Father Evtichky. From the parish where he served in the city of Ishim they transferred him to a newly opened parish. This parish of the Great Martyr Katherine was reopened because during the years of Soviet rule it was a warehouse. Since it is a good church and an architectural landmark it was opened. A small group of twenty people or so was organized to whom the church was given. Father Evtichky was transferred there, despite the fact that he has a very sick mother whom he looks after.

Concerning my position, in 1988 I submitted a report to the Synod concerning the violation of canonical rules during the administering of the Mysteries. There was no answer. Of course the bishop resented this and accused me of schism. The fact is, that in our parish we, i.e., the senior priest, Father Michael and I, built a large baptistry and started baptizing only by full immersion and making adult catechumens one month before baptism. We began to have discussions on Holy Scriptures Sunday nights after the service and at the same time answer people’s questions. Even children began to come. This was not well received by the spiritual authorities. Many aspects of church life are overlooked by the civil authorities today. Although the Law of 1929 prohibiting homilies and catechetical studies after official services, as well as charitable works, has not yet been abolished, it somehow does not seem to be in effect now. However, when our activities became more obvious, the representative of religious affairs H. J. Zamiatin told us directly to discontinue discussions, which are prohibited by the still unabolished law.

I wrote a letter addressed to the bishop and to all the senior priests of the churches in the diocese. Based on Holy Scriptures, resolutions of the Councils, and ancient practices of the Church, I defended everything concerning the Mystery of Baptism. I showed the letter to the bishop. He accepted it benevolently and said that I had worked out my argument well and that he supported me. I sent my letter to all the parish priests and they took it as an offense. That is, how could I, a young priest, dare to criticize them, although there was no personal criticism intended in the letter. There was only a description of how the sacrament of Baptism and the rite of making catechumens should be performed.

At the same time a second petition signed by various priests concerning the amoral behavior and uncanonical activity of Archbishop Theodosius was placed before the Synod. Only when this petition was sent to each member of the Synod did a reaction take place. A commission headed by Metropolitan Gideon of Novosibirsk and Barnaulsk and Archbishop John of Kiubishevsk was sent to us by the Synod. At the time I was on leave, in September of last year. The special commission summoned my colleagues who had signed the petition. They interrogated not only the priests, but also everyone who had been offended by the bishop, including women. I did not take part in this investigation. Both orally and in writing I only raised questions concerning baptism and violation of canons. The obvious violation of canons by the bishop in regard to ordination was the ordination of a man who was married three times, one of the wives still being alive. Nonetheless, the man was tonsured a monk and ordained. I expressed my opinion only orally and was still accused of attempting to teach the bishop. They wanted to enforce a canon which would defrock me, the one which reads, “If anyone attacks a bishop.” As if I had really attacked the bishop!

I was absent when the commission was in session. When I became aware of the meeting I called from Novosibirsk. I went to Omsk where the commission was in session. Archbishop John received me at the hotel. We spoke and again I only brought up the question of sacraments and canons. In general he supported me. The next day there was a conference at the cathedral with the diocesan deans and cathedral clergy in attendance. I was not invited to attend the conference but went anyway. There were other clerics present from parishes. The commission was called in order to defend the Archbishop and prove that what was written about him was a lie. It did not turn out as planned. Most of the attention was centered around my letter. We discussed the matter for more than two hours. I defended myself. The main argument centered around the accepted practice of baptism. Neither the Scriptures, nor canons, nor resolutions of councils were cited in defense of the common practice, only, “this is the way it is done now,” “such and such a priest did it like this before me and now I do it this way.” Other accusations were hurled against me but had no bases and therefore dissipated. Out of all the clergy only one defended me, the Archbishop’s secretary, Father Alexis Sidorenko. He stated that Father Joachim raises a serious question and has raised it before, for three years we have not been able to discuss this question as he has. I had in fact asked the Archbishop to meet and speak about this problem. There were only promises about next time. As a matter of fact, a month before the commission the Archbishop and the diocesan council met with me and threateningly said that it would benefit me to quietly leave, or else things would get worse. The bishop, the authorities and clergy were all against me. I thought it over, sought advice, and decided to seek a release, seeing that an open battle with them would be dangerous. One could expect anything from them. They are capable of treachery. I immediately wrote up a petition and they signed it on the spot. Besides the petition for a release I also asked for permission for a leave of absence, asking the favor in order to look for a position in another diocese. I had already been thinking about this at the time.

They summoned Father Michael, the elder priest, after me and demanded threateningly that he also ask for a release. He was told that if he did not write a petition now they would never release him, reminding him of his family and making other threats. He also wrote a petition for release. Thus we both found ourselves released from our duties. Other clergy were sent to our parish of All Saints in Tumen. The elder clergy at the cathedral took up arms against us more avidly out of jealousy, since baptisms were done like mass production. The main thing demanded was the fee of five rubles. The priest comes up to you and asks, “Did you pay?” “Fine, stand in line.” The business begins. The batiushka reads something over them, the people mumble something, then they go up to him, he wets their head a little, and thus the baptism is over.

When Father Michael and I began to baptize by full immersion in our church people of course took notice. The city was small and the people began to question, “Are you of another faith?” “What is this?” “I baptized my first infant in the cathedral or it might have been my friend who baptized her, and even as an infant they did not disrobe her, and here you wash them completely.” We attempted to explain why it was necessary to baptize thus by full immersion. “Why did they do it differently in the cathedral?” “Because of certain circumstances there.” In other words we tried to avoid open confrontation. They were very zealous in these matters and accused us of stirring up the people and our parishioners against the cathedral. I was told that I had ambitions of becoming the head of the cathedral and therefore instigated others and the parishioners of the cathedral against their priest.

QUESTION: Did you find that your parishioners understood the necessity of baptism by immersion according to the canons?

ANSWER: Of course. Before we instituted the practice of immersion at our parish we discussed it with the church council. Here we should probably mention that church councils in Russia are headed by a warden who is the authorities’ right-hand man. Frequently the warden is not a believer, sometimes even a militant atheist. Nonetheless he is appointed by the authorities. No one can be appointed without the authorities. Sometime the church committee chooses a warden and the authorities inform them that they can choose whom they wish but he will not be confirmed by the authorities. Choose another.

In our parish the warden was a believer, a God-fearing, good woman. Still, like everywhere, the committee fights for income. When we started to baptize in the proper way, the church council became fearful that no one would come to us for baptism, we would lose income. Father Michael and I remained firm. We repeated in every sermon how the mystery of Baptism was to be performed. We explained that it was not our fantasy but the practice of the Church, based on the Scriptures and the resolutions of the Councils, that it was always done in this manner from the first centuries and only due to our carelessness had it changed. The great Mystery of Baptism had been simplified. Gradually the church council began to understand us. In the beginning Father Michael and I did everything ourselves. We made a font, dug a pit lined it with tile, put in hot water, made a drain into a special pit, outside where the baptismal water could empty. Everything worked out very well. When we began to baptize, the candidates actually increased and the income as well. Then the church council settled down and began to support us completely.

QUESTION: Did those who were baptized understand the necessity of your so-called new institution?

ANSWER: Of course. No one ever refused to be baptized the proper way, although there was always the possibility that it might happen. It should be pointed out that the majority of people who come for baptism are not firm believers. They usually know only that it is necessary to believe. Generally they are not prepared. Although we prepare them for two or three months they never reach the level they should. They see the way baptisms are conducted in the cathedral and how in our parish and the majority of them say: “If my friend or someone else is to be baptized, I will tell them to come only here to the parish, since it is obvious that you baptize completely, ‘the real way.’ Thus even people far from a complete understanding of the faith like our attitude towards the Sacraments. They like the mysteries to be done zealously, properly, the way they should be done. There has never been a protest. Actually there was once, when the people wanted to be baptized, although they were not prepared. They went to the cathedral and were promptly baptized.

QUESTION: I would like to again raise the question of godparents. Is it true that godparents are chosen who are not only foreign to the church but sometimes unbelievers?

ANSWER: Yes, there are many such incidents.

QUESTION: Are you careful about such things?

ANSWER: Of course we take care. It sometimes happens that the sponsors are unbelievers. We ask if they believe in something. We look for even a spark of faith. If the person denies God completely then we do not accept him. But if a person says that he believes but knows little about the faith, about church matters, then we are condescending and do not reject him. We give him a New Testament and some other literature. We explain why a sponsor is necessary, what he represents to the newly-baptized. Imagine sending your son to a school where the student knows more than the teacher! Would you be satisfied that such a teacher should teach your child? Of course not, but what are we doing here? The godfather must instruct his godson in the faith, how to live like a Christian, how to enter the heavenly kingdom. If he himself does not know the way, how can he show your son? It all becomes just a formality. They came to baptism as to some sort of business deal. They think that if they baptize the infant he will grow up healthy and be lucky. A girl came to us and said, “Babushka says that if I am baptized then my husband will not be a drunkard, he will not beat me and I will be happy”. There are many examples of such thinking. First we explain to the candidate the meaning of the mystery, and do not baptize them the same day. They come to our lessons a few times, and all receive a New Testament, so that those who come to Baptism will have read at least one time the New Testament. They should at least be acquainted with who Jesus Christ is, understand that He is the Son of God, their Savior, but certainly not some sort of outer space man as some actually imagine. What is a confession of faith? We explain it in lessons on every section of the Creed.

QUESTION: Is it your opinion, according to your experience as a priest, that the general level of knowledge of the people coming to receive baptism in your parish and in general all over Russia is very low?

ANSWER: One cannot speak about general statistics. This is why I insist on catechism. Some feel I am too strict, that they will not come back to be baptized, but I say “Fine, so he does not come back.” If he does return I will insist that he is baptized in the proper manner. They must first be examined before I will allow a baptism to take place. Even in the secular world one is not initiated into a secret society before he passes a test, in order to prove that one is able to keep a secret. Baptism is a great mystery where someone has just been united to Christ; the union with Christ takes place but the soul remains totally ignorant of Him. In this case the fault lies with the spiritual father for not instructing the soul. Right from the baptismal font the soul again falls into fornication. The person has not yet learned the Christian way.

I would like to compare this situation with an example from daily life. What would you say if a new bride was unfaithful to her bridegroom on her very wedding night? In a similar manner we have a soul which has just been wedded to Christ through baptism, and immediately returns to its former way of life. This is spiritual fornication and it is terrible; before baptism one was free from this mortal sin (spiritual fornication), but now the transgression is committed.

QUESTION: Has there been a change in the last two or three years regarding the number of adult baptisms?

ANSWER: Certainly. We are recording a growing number of adult baptisms, and also noticing a change in the spiritual level of those coming to be baptized. Many now do not perceive baptism as only some sort of a lucky charm, but seek it because they are disappointed with the ideology with which they have been fed all these years. They are searching for something different and look to the Church for a certain renewal in their lives, for a spiritual foundation which they have been unable to find elsewhere. The people now realize that everything they were taught in school was only lies, and now their thirsty souls search. Therefore, many people come to the Church now asking the questions: What shall we do? How should we live? These are the types of questions we priests hear most often. We somehow try to reveal Christ to these people. Nonetheless I consider what we require of a candidate for baptism is still insufficient. We need to be much more serious about catechism. Presently, more importance is given to the quantity rather than the quality of the baptisms. In other words its better to attract as many baptismal candidates as possible in order to collect the five ruble fee; worry first about income. This will lead to ruin! We have to be concerned about quality first. A person must be prepared for his baptism, he must already be a Christian. Unfortunately, catechism is used little and we are beginning to see the consequences.

QUESTION: In the beginning of your priestly activity were you aware of a definite neglect of canonical rules, for example, when you were in seminary? Is it true that these distortions of the baptismal ritual have almost become the standard in modern Russian church life?

ANSWER: I completed the theological seminary through correspondence, and was already a priest when I was accepted into the course. Of course I posed such questions in the seminary. In regard to baptism, the lecturer in this area told me that the way baptism is practiced today, by wetting the forehead, is not known in the Orthodox Church. He said if something like this happens it would be a profanation of the sacrament of Baptism. He answered in a similar manner concerning the other sacraments, saying that they must be carried out according to the canonical requirements. To do otherwise is not Orthodox and therefore, unacceptable. He did add though that this is only theory.

In reality the rules are not kept anywhere. When Father Michael and I began in our parishes to baptize in the correct manner (by immersion) we were opposed by the older clergy first, and then by the bishop himself. They argued that we were provoking a schism, because we were the only ones to baptize in this manner, that it was done like this nowhere else.

QUESTION: Is it really done incorrectly everywhere in the Soviet Union?

ANSWER: It is done correctly only in certain places. For example in some churches in Moscow—I name only Peredelkino, but there are other places. In Siberia I know for sure about the town of Yeniseysk in the district of Krasnoyarsk. The priest there is Fr. Gennady; he is the only priest there and has a very large parish. He performs baptisms once or twice a month in the correct way, without being persecuted. It is when a town has two or more churches and they follow different practices for baptism that conflicts and jealousy arise.

Currently we are offering lectures in our church in the evenings, and many people from the Cathedral parish come because rarely does anyone preach there. We hold services daily and accompany each of our services with a sermon. Of course this aroused jealousy and ill will in others because they were afraid it would reduce their income. A typical case occurred in the town of Frunse in Kirgisien. The two priests there, Fr. Vladimir Svetkov and Hieromonk Leonid, built a baptismal font and performed adult baptisms with full immersion. However, within two years they were suspended by the ruling hierarch, Bishop Lev, for this practice. Eventually their suspensions were lifted and one of them was dismissed and transferred to the Novgorod diocese, I believe; the other priest was banished to Krasnovodsk in Turkmenistan, a desert near the Caspian Sea. The priest that replaced these two in Frunse closed the baptistry and did not perform baptisms by full immersion. Later they had the baptismal font destroyed.

Many try to do positive work, but cannot endure the pressure from their diocesan bishop and give in. Of course, eventually their conscience troubles and condemns them because they do not follow the correct practice of the Church. But where can they go? If you are rebellious they “get rid of you.” Very often a priest has a family with four or five children, so where can he go? These material problems present a great obstacle: if you rebel you will be thrown out of the parish house, and you have no home of your own to go to. Our priests do not have an easy lot; few even own a car.

QUESTION: Are you saying that even the bishops oppose baptism by full immersion as the Church requires?

ANSWER: Yes indeed. This is the problem. We looked to the Synod in Moscow for support, thinking they might do something to stop a disintegration of the Church by the bishops. We soon realized that the Synod was aware of these uncanonical actions. For example they were informed of the immoral behavior of Archbishop Theodosius, his sin is obvious to everyone and publicly ridiculed, yet they continue to support this archpastor and he is protected. News of his transfer was not even mentioned. Realizing that people in the Synod were of no help either, we had to find another way out. We had already thought earlier about the Russian Church Abroad, but had no possibility of making contact.

Originally there were three of us and then three more priests joined us, and we wrote a petition to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad asking to be received. This was in November of last year. In April they informed us that they had accepted our petition. We then wished to be united to the Church Abroad but it seemed impossible to find a way to practically realize this goal. If they had rejected us, I personally would have stopped celebrating services as a priest, though I would still pray and go to churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. When I stopped serving I still hoped to move to another diocese, but I soon realized that they would not let me celebrate the way I had resolved to serve. I decided to refrain from active service in the Church until it was possible to celebrate the way I should. When we received a positive answer from the bishops abroad, the priests of like mind with me, two who were co-serving in a large parish and a priest of another parish, informed their communities about the possibility of uniting with the Church Abroad and received full support from the people. Of course, misunderstandings arose, mostly out of ignorance. People asked, “What is this—the Russian Church Abroad?” Here in the Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is referred to as “the Karlovtsy Church.” Obviously it was difficult to explain the whole history to the old babushkas, and so one of the priests, Fr. Theophan, a villager himself said, “How can I explain this to you? Well, you know, it is that church which is faithful to the Tsar!” The babushkas then replied, “Yes, if it is the church faithful to the Tsar—then we are for it!” That was the solution. When the Patriarchal bishop sent his representative to our people they simply did not receive him and explained clearly that they did not need anyone, since they already have a priest.

QUESTION: Where are you going to serve now?

ANSWER: Right now Fr. Michael and I are without a parish, though all of our parishioners are willing to follow us, most of them being our spiritual children. Besides, they are very unhappy with the priests who were sent to replace us. The parish director is only interested in money. A parish not accustomed to this becomes dissatisfied. We could practically start to serve today, we do not have a bad parish, but we want to abide by the law and do everything in an official manner.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you are going to petition for the opening of a new church?

ANSWER: Exactly. Fr. Michael already handed in the official registration of the church parish to the authorities in Tiumen over a month ago. I have not been informed about the current situation, but I assume the official decision will be positive. Whether permission is granted or not, at least we have informed the authorities of our intentions.

* * *

QUESTION: If I understand you correctly, your parish did not know about the existence of the Russian Church Abroad? Most likely they are also not informed about the Russian Church situation as it developed after 1927. How familiar are people with the history of the Church during Soviet times?

ANSWER: It is true that the simple people do not know the whole history of the Russian Church Abroad. I myself learned about it only six years ago, after receiving several publications from the West. I only heard the term “Church Abroad” here and there and did not pay much attention to it. I even thought that “Church Abroad” referred to that part of the Moscow Patriarchate abroad. I had no idea that it was really referring to something else entirely. Villagers of course knew nothing. There are some Orthodox that call themselves “Josephites” (followers of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd) or “Tikhonites” (followers of Patriarch Tikhon), but they lead a completely separate existence. They do not celebrate in churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, and I do not think they know much about the Russian Church Abroad. They do know that the Church existing in Russia today is the Soviet Church, which works hand in hand with the authorities, and therefore does not possess any grace. If the church is with the Soviet government they consider it an abomination in the holy place.

QUESTION: Are they connected with Bishop Lazarus?

ANSWER: Of course not. In the 1960’s their last priests died and they are now left without the sacraments. Of course I can speak only of the situation in Siberia. I do know that some continue to receive Holy Communion in the following manner: the reserved Communion that was remaining after a priest died was broken into small pieces and mixed into freshly prepared dough, and from this mixture a new prosphora bread would be baked, and sent to others to receive Communion.

There are also another group of believers called the “True Orthodox Christians.” These people possess an even greater zeal for the faith, refusing to accept a Soviet passport and viewing any form of work for a Soviet sponsored firm to be a sin.

Ed. note. We have printed Father Iakim’s words exactly as he spoke them and in no way desire to cast a disparaging light on these elements of the Catacomb Church. The desire of the Church Abroad would be to regularize the position of all parts of the Catacomb Church and unite them together with the churches we have opened in Russia. The means to accomplish this are complex due to the various opinions among the diverse parts of the Catacomb Church and to some degree due to a lack of understanding of their position on our part.

QUESTION: During your stay in Germany you were able to observe the life in a monastery and in several of the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad. Did you find what you had expected?

ANSWER: To tell the truth I was disturbed at many aspects of parish life.

QUESTION: What are you referring to? Did you see any canonical errors?

ANSWER: Baptism is performed here the way it should be. I attended an adult baptism that Fr. Nikolai served and I liked it. I also appreciated the way he served, not simply from the Trebnik (priest’s service book) but from the whole heart. His was an example worthy to be imitated.

With respect to Confession, I saw only Vladika Mark himself hearing confessions, and once Fr. Alexander heard them when I was serving. Your parishes are not very large and usually only two or three people came for confession which was held in a special room. It was all done properly. But the outer appearance... the way the parishioners dress, their behavior in church—here I noticed different things. In your churches even older women stand without head coverings. Of course, I understand that the living conditions of people are quite different here, but the priest still must discuss this problem. Perhaps he should not be as strict as we are in Russia, but he should at least mention it. And, I believe those who are truly concerned for their salvation will understand this seemingly unimportant aspect of Christian life. In the Holy Scriptures it is written about how one should dress—dress yourselves as the saints. Was a woman saint ever depicted in trousers and without a kerchief? Those that come to church only out of tradition should not be an example to us. St. John Chrysostom used to be challenged: “John, you are too strict. Many will fall away into different sects.” He only replied, “Whoever wants to may go, but I will not stop speaking out, because God put me in this position and He commanded me: ‘Proclaim it to the whole world.’”