The Toll-houses Debate: An American Phenomenon

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/