Orthodox Reflections

Very Rev. Dr. John A. Jillions is a former chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America, and one of the founding principals of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England. The good reverend is also a man whose career proves that academic theology and Orthodoxy typically don’t mix well. He’s been around a long time, but we first noticed him (not in a good way) at the beginning of 2022 when he did a lecture for the Orthodox Theological Society in America (OTSA). During that lecture, he attacked “fundamentalism” while proclaiming that the “Catholicity” of the Church requires us to listen to academics who reject the moral teachings of the Orthodox Faith. Of course, that was about the “gays”. For academic theologians, it is usually all about the “gays”.

This time around, in a recent article, Fr John took on the very concept of Christian governance. And he pronounced it – anti-American. In the pages of Public Orthodoxy, Fr John was kind enough to warn us all about The Christian Nationalist Threat to Freedom of Conscience. Just in time for the final push leading up to the U.S. election. That was thoughtful of him, wasn’t it?

Please read the article for yourself. Below are my thoughts on what Fr John had to say.

Fr John’s idea of “Christian Nationalism” isn’t

Up front, let’s give Fr John some credit. Many progressive writers decry “Christian Nationalism” without ever defining what they mean. The term is often used the way insults such as “fascist” or “racist” are employed. It ends up meaning, “policies I don’t like or that are associated with people I don’t like”. By contrast, Fr John gives us an actual list of ideas he considers to be “Christian Nationalist”:

The most visible religious conservatives in this movement are Evangelicals. According to Tim Alberta’s The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory (2023), among white evangelicals roughly 2/3 supported US Christian nationalism, meaning:

• The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
• U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
• If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
• Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
• God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

Those bullet points would apply to the entire United States prior to around 1964, and to much of the country even today. Here are some examples that Fr John provides, disapprovingly, of how important the Christian Faith has been in our public life:

• Nearly all state constitutions mention God or the divine (the US Constitution does not)
• Chaplains and prayers in Congress, state legislatures, and the military
• Tax and civil-rights exemptions for religious organizations
• Congress added “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and adopted “In God we Trust” as the national motto in 1956 (displacing E pluribus unum, “out of many, one”)
• Religious symbols on public property
• State subsidies for religious schools
• State governors, legislatures and court cases seeking to restore prayers, Bible reading, and the ten commandments in public schools.

Many of the things on that list are still happening today. Some, such as prayers and Bible reading in schools (even in surprising places such as deep blue New York), were mandated by law until the early 1960’s. In other words, what Fr John is attacking is not something new or radical. What Fr John is attacking, under the name of “Christian Nationalism”, is actually traditional American governance. Not that America is or was perfect, mind you, but we were certainly a lot better off being governed by a broadly Christian consensus.

Far from being a scary, new, radical innovation, Christian rhetoric is a traditional part of American government. 

Somehow, our American forebears were able to embrace a Christian moral worldview towards government and society, while still allowing religious minorities to practice their various faiths. Only, without Baphomet statues overseeing “abortion rituals”. There were historically limits to tolerance, because the Christian majority felt very strongly that laws should reflect Christian values. Without such rational limits, we find ourselves living in today’s hellscape.

Fr John refers to the traditional way of American governance as “theocracy”. The Oxford Definition of Theocracy is: “a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.” The U.S. has never been ruled by any religious authority. If you want to see what such an arrangement looks like, please research Iran, where religious and civil laws are so hopelessly entangled that women are beaten to death for wearing the wrong clothes. Over the years, American laws were often intended to maintain public decency and good order, but where were specifically Christian ritual practices (such as confession, fasting, church attendance, baptism, etc.) enforced? Outside of some very specific and temporary situations, the answer is, of course, “nowhere”.

Fr John is, at least nominally, an Orthodox priest. Orthodoxy is 2,000 years old with a long history of saints, political leaders, and theologians who have commented on the proper roles of Church and State. Fr John references none of them. Instead, Fr John quotes Thomas Jefferson, a noted Deist, on the “separation of Church and State”:

The framers of the Constitution refused to endorse America as a Christian nation, despite what many of today’s Christian nationalists proclaim. On the contrary, writing a letter to Baptists in Connecticut on January 1st 1802, Thomas Jefferson famously interpreted the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Fr John ignores Orthodoxy, and relies on Jefferson’s Enlightenment ideals, because Orthodox and Roman Catholic teachings are contrary to his desire to drive Christianity out of the public square. He admits this on the Roman Catholic front by quoting (disapprovingly) two Roman Catholic Popes:

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) rejected the very notion of the separation of church and state and in 1895 warned Catholic bishops in America to be on guard against Church and State being “dissevered and divorced” (Longinqua 6). In 1906 his successor, Pope Pius X, doubled down on this. “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error” (Vehementer Nos, 3).

Fr John does not quote any authoritative Orthodox sources in favor of a “wall” between Church and State, because there are none. Within Orthodoxy, the ideal is that Church and State cooperate for the benefit of citizens, even as the two remain sovereign in their distinct spheres of influence. Emperor Justinian I expressed this idea of cooperation or Symphonia, “A distinction is drawn between the imperial authority and the priesthood, the former being concerned with human affairs and the latter with things divine; the two are regarded as closely interdependent, but, at least in theory, neither is subordinated to the other.” Rather than fighting for dominance, Orthodoxy prefers cooperation and harmony between Church and State.

The Orthodox attitude towards law and government can be easily seen in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon used in the Antiochian Western Rite, where we find the following prayer, “We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion and virtue.” Orthodoxy is clearly not a friend to either anarchy or unjust tyranny. Rather, we seek a golden medium in which society can thrive physically, mentally, and spiritually.

The desirability of cooperation between Church and State is not merely a relic of a by-gone era when power was wielded by kings and emperors. Even in modern nation-states with Orthodox populations, the relationship between Church and State is usually quite close. The Bulgarian Constitution designates Orthodox Christianity as the country’s traditional religion, even while providing for religious freedom in general. Russia also has guarantees of religious liberty. However, a 2022 law identifies Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism as the country’s four “traditional” religions, while recognizing the special role of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). Serbian law guarantees religious freedom, but grants special treatment to seven religious groups defined as “traditional” by the government: the Serbian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Slovak Evangelical Church, Reformed Christian Church, Evangelical Christian Church, the Islamic community, and the Jewish community. Considering that 84% of Serbs are Orthodox, it isn’t hard to figure out which “traditional” community has the most influence. The constitution of Greece guarantees religious freedom, but recognizes Greek Orthodoxy as the “prevailing religion” and provides government subsidies to the Orthodox Church. These subsidies include the payment of clergy salaries. The laws of Romania establish the freedom of religion as well as outlawing religious discrimination. However, Romania is building the world’s largest Orthodox Cathedral at an estimated cost of $216 million, with most of the money coming from public funds. 

There is simply no precedent, historical or current, for Orthodox Christians to endorse Jefferson-style separation of Church and State as a guiding principle. Orthodox Christians understand that any government, divorced from the restraints and guidance imposed by the Christian Faith, quickly ends up where we see ours heading today – descending into an anarcho-tyranny where the poor and the vulnerable suffer the most. A lawless state where the powerful run the government and the economy to their own benefit, while the rest of the citizens fight for scraps from the masters’ table.

A gang of thieves writ large.

America, of course, has never been an Orthodox country. Even so, American heterodox churches were hardly quietist. Until tax laws changed in the 1960’s in an attempt to silence them, American churches played a huge role in checking the government on behalf of the people:

Ever since the settlement of New England, churches made themselves the principal vehicles for citizen participation and checks on government. The proliferation of churches as voices of political dissent was the driving force behind both the English Revolution of the 17th century and the resulting exodus to America.

 

Churches shaped and articulated citizens’ voices into some coherence, so that people had more than individual, changeable opinions; they had fixed principles and shared beliefs. Churches allowed citizens to combine their voices, enabling them to be more effectively heard. Finally, the churches demanded that we act when government officials were too weak or corrupt, even when action might cost us something.

 

They inculcated virtues necessary for effective citizenship and for which today’s lobbying firms have no substitute: self-discipline, self-sacrifice, sobriety, delayed gratification, a work ethic, perseverance, fidelity, a fierce commitment to family integrity and sexual morality, courage. Today’s pressure groups, even the most “Christian,” would never dream of trying to elevate their membership morally.

The truth is that nothing is more American, or more Orthodox, than Christian participation in government.

How Should Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic Christians view the 1st Amendment?

Contrary to Fr John and what far too many Protestants believe, the 1st Amendment does not represent a governing ideal. Particularly not one the U.S. should go around the world exporting, often by force. In a perfect situation, the government and the majority Church would cooperate for the benefit of society. We are where we are in the U.S., not because the “separation of Church and State” is some sacred principle, but because it is probably the best possible compromise under the circumstances.

The U.S. was born already crippled by a diverse religious culture. While Anglicanism was established in multiple states as an official Church, every state contained numbers of Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and other Christian denominations, along with Freemasons, Deists, and Agnostics. In such a pluralistic environment, there could be no national church – unless imposed by force. Attempting to do so would have caused the new nation to fracture much earlier than it eventually did in 1861. However, even without a national Church, as Fr John complained in his article, a broadly Christian consensus formed the backbone of our law and governance. The examples of this at the state and federal level are too numerous to mention, though Fr John was kind enough to list some of the most important.

Today there is even more religious diversity in the U.S. than in the 18th Century. Therefore, a unified citizenry belonging to one common Church is even further out of the question. However, for Orthodox Christians (and Roman Catholics) such a unified society and government should remain the ideal, while the current 1st Amendment legal regime is, at best, a necessary compromise to keep the peace.

Nevertheless, it is a compromise that does not leave us voiceless or powerless. Orthodox Christianity should be active in the public sphere, and should insist that civil laws both maintain good order and remain in harmony with the Christian Faith. Fr John, and his likeminded thinkers, would have us remove ourselves from the arenas of law and governance in the name of a quietist Orthodox Christian Faith that has never existed.

Fr Geoffrey Korz explored this in an article entitled Orthodox Saints Got Involved in Politics and Civic Life:

What are politics? By definition, politics are the business of the polis – the business of the city. Wherever the people of the Church are found, wherever the faithful live and assemble, the lives of these members of the Body of Christ should be a concern to their shepherds.

 

As we can see, while partisanship is forbidden to the clergy, active participation in civic life – by both clergy and laity – for the welfare of the faithful and the preservation of the freedom of the Church is not only permitted, but commanded by the example of the saints. We should mark carefully: in none of these cases do either clergy or laity act only with the blessing of a bishop as some would wrongly argue (in the manner of the Papal church in the West). Instead, this is the normal initiative of a well-formed Orthodox Christian conscience, guided by all the norms of a normal Orthodox Christian life, and the middle path of Holy Tradition.

Scroll Down to Continue

There is a “Christian Nationalist” Ideology, but Fr John doesn’t address it

The current hysteria over Christian Nationalism seems to stem from author Stephen Wolfe’s 2022 book, The Case For Christian Nationalism. From an Orthodox Christian perspective, Wolfe’s ideology is a complete mess. It is a mishmash of postmillennial Reformed eschatology (perfect society so Christ can return), Calvinistic examples of governance in Massachusetts and Geneva, combined with his own meandering thoughts that are often dark and totalitarian. Bafflingly, Wolfe manages to write 488 pages, dedicated to the intersection of Christian Faith and governance, without using any Orthodox or Roman Catholic historical examples or social teaching. 

1,600+ years of Christian governance, for Wolfe, simply does not exist.

Had Fr John chosen to go after real “Christian Nationalism”, as espoused by Wolfe, he would not have had to rely only on American Founding Fathers for philosophical support. Fr John could have used actual Orthodox sources. For example, while the Orthodox Church does want civil government to maintain decency and good order, Orthodox Christians recognize the severe limits of civil law.  Civil law can’t save souls, perfect humanity, or “redeem nations”. Our beliefs in the limits of civil law are explained in the Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:

The law is called to manifest the one divine law of the universe in social and political realms. At the same time, any legal system developed by the human community, being as it is a fruit of historical development, carries a seal of limitation and imperfection. Law is a special realm, different from the related ethical realm, as it does not qualify the inner conditions of the human heart, since God alone is its Reader.

 

Yet it is human behaviour and actions that is the subject of the legal regulation, which is the essence of legislation. The law also provides for coercive measures for making people obey it. The legislative sanctions to restore the trampled law and order make law a reliable clamp of society unless, as it has often happened in history, the whole system of the enforced law capsizes. However, as no human community can exist without law, a new legislative system always emerges in place of the destroyed law and order.

 

The law contains a certain minimum of moral standards compulsory for all members of society. The secular law has as its task not to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but to prevent it from turning into hell. The fundamental principle of law is: “do not do to others what you would not want to be done to yourself”.

The world is fallen. All human legal systems will be imperfect. The goal is not to make Heaven on Earth (something Calvinists like Wolfe have attempted before), but to keep the world from descending into Hell. The Orthodox view of law is, therefore, that it must always be limited in scope because we recognize that man’s abilities are limited. Man cannot build Utopia by his own actions. Only the Second Coming of Christ, an event not controlled by human action, can bring about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is abject, rank heresy according to not only Orthodoxy but also Roman Catholicism. I could write an entire book debunking it from Orthodox and Roman Catholic sources, without once ever needing recourse to Thomas Jefferson or any other Enlightenment thinker. That Fr John attacked so-called “Christian Nationalism”, without the use of any Orthodox or Roman Catholic sources, blatantly illustrates that his target was not the ideology of Stephen Wolfe. 

So what is going on with Orthodoxy that Fr John is part of?

Orthodox Christianity is the Catholic (Universal) Faith, but is most fully expressed in local churches that care for their local flocks: ministering to their needs, saving their souls, preserving their cherished national traditions, standing strong for moral principles, and encouraging strong communities comprised of strong families. The most common, modern term to describe the role of Orthodox Churches in modern societies is “conservatism”. That is an imprecise way of thinking, to be sure, as American concepts of “conservatism” in the economic, social, and political spheres often do not align with traditional Orthodox consensus. (Particularly as American “conservatism” is not formed by an Orthodox religious consciousness, and is also ever evolving on issues such as war, global capital, environmental protections, homosexuality, IVF, and more.) Nevertheless, when the alternative to Orthodoxy is LGBTQ-infused, transhuman Globalism, it is easy to see how the “conservative” label ends up being applied. Especially since Orthodoxy is fully committed to preserving the Apostolic Faith until the Return of Christ.

At some point, Globalists realized that Orthodoxy presents a major hurdle to their plans for humanity. Having failed to eradicate the Faith under communism and Islam, they have adopted new tactics with which to attack Orthodoxy. One recent attack is to “debunk” the idea of Orthodoxy as an inherently “conservative” influence, and replace it with the idea that the “true” Orthodox Church is actually “progressive”.

Let’s start by examining how Fr John used “conservative” as a negative label in his article:

As a priest of the Orthodox Church, I would generally be thrown into the basket of “religious conservatives.” But not all conservatives are the same, and I’m most worried about the powerful public opinion of Christian nationalists. Although surveys regularly show that the role of religion in America is shrinking, recent decades have shown an increase in the political power of religious conservatives and their success in shaping legislation, the courts, and the executive branch. And in this way, they are eroding the separation of church and state, the constitutional right to freedom of religion for all, and the prohibition against privileging any one religious view in the governance of the nation.

“I’m an Orthodox priest, but don’t lump me in with religious conservatives who want to preserve morality in the public sphere!” cries Fr John. Orthodox priests are not like all those knuckle draggers, they are modern. Well, maybe some Orthodox priests are knuckle draggers, but we all know how the polite “Orthodox” academics feel about them!

Metropolitan Philotheos of Thessaloniki (Greece) distanced the Greek Church from “conservatism” by saying:

He rejects the notion that the church is conservative while society is progressive. “I don’t like labels because they’re not always accurate. There have been, are, and will always be conservative individuals within the Church, but the Church as the Body of Christ is not conservative because it has nothing to ‘preserve’. Christ is not a figure of the past, but comes from the future, as the ultimate victor in the history of the world and humanity.”

There is “nothing to preserve”. Logical. Why would the Church of the Faith Once Delivered to the Apostles be in the business of “preserving” things? Rather, the Church is radical and forward thinking!

So radical that Patriarch Bartholomew decried any tendency to “sterile conservatism”:

“Serve faithfully and sacrificially, holy brother, a tradition of faith, love, and hope that is an inexhaustible source of vital truths for humanity and the world. Faithfulness to this tradition has nothing to do with sterile conservatism, which ultimately “kills tradition”. It is rightly written that conservatism is “anti-traditional”. Genuine tradition listens to the voice of the Fathers, while at the same time, it hears the voice of its contemporaries, and selects and highlights the relevance of Christian truths and their existential content. The Church knows that Christian witness cannot be given by indifferent people to their fellow humans and the world, nor by believers with a secular mindset that undermines the creative powers.

According to the “new Orthodoxy”, true “tradition” develops, moving forward while embracing that which is contemporary and modern, rather than being mired in a merely nostalgic longing for the past.

Patriarch Bartholomew heads a Church which is chock full of academics, hierarchs, and clergy who fully support the Globalist agenda, particularly in the case of pluralism (religious, cultural, racial and ethnic):

Orthodox Christians must recognize that a language of common social accord, one that insists upon the inviolability of human dignity and freedom, is needed for the preservation and promotion of a just society; and the language of human rights has the power to accomplish this with admirable clarity. Neither, certainly, should Orthodox Christians fear the reality of cultural and social pluralism. Indeed, they should rejoice in the dynamic confluence of human cultures in the modern world, which is one of the special glories of our age, and take it as a blessing that all human cultures, in all their variety and beauty, are coming more and more to occupy the same civic and political spaces. The Church must in fact support those government policies and laws that best promote such pluralism. More than that, it must thank God for the riches of all the world’s many cultures, and for the gracious gift of their peaceful coexistence in modern societies.

Diversity is our strength! A document blessed by, and promoted by, the “First Without Equals” says so! No more secure national boundaries. No more limits to immigration.  No more religious unity! Nope! None of that. Instead, “the Church must in fact support those government policies and laws that best promote such pluralism.” 

If you think all that sounds like the exact opposite of Orthodoxy, you would be correct. Which brings us finally to the war on Donald Trump and the Russian Orthodox Church. Donald Trump, rightly or wrongly in his case, and the Russian Orthodox Church are both seen as enemies of the Globalist order. Which means all good “progressive” Orthodox must denounce them.

In his article on Christian Nationalism, Fr John Jillion sounded the following alarm on Donald Trump:

God and America’s Christian heritage were repeatedly invoked at the July 2024 Republican National Convention as the model for the future, to great whooping and applause. And Donald Trump has leaned into this movement to reshape America. In an online endorsement to promote the “God Bless the USA Bible,” Trump advances many of the Christian nationalist talking points.

Trump is no “Christian Nationalist” in the true ideological sense of that term (see section above on Wolfe). Rather, he is a moderate to slightly left-leaning politician who espouses typical American patriotic platitudes, supports pro-working class policies, favors secure borders, is instinctually anti-war, and feels a sentimental attachment to Christianity as the source of America’s rapidly decaying moral order. These “heresies” are more than enough to brand him a threat to the Globalist Status Quo, dependent as it is on radical climate polices, endless war, endless debt, unchecked migration to destroy social cohesion in all advanced nations, and a maniacal drive to reduce global population. It is not Donald Trump that has gone in an extremist direction, rather the Globalist elite and its kept media have gone completely, demonically off the rails. Their rage at Trump is not for anything he has actually done, but for what the fulfillment of his MAGA agenda could do to disrupt their wealth, power, privilege, and grandiose dreams.

The Globalists are equally angry at the Russian Orthodox Church. Under the influence of the Church, Russian society is moving in the exact opposite direction of the collective “West”. This includes advocating for large families, encouraging rural living, supporting strict immigration controls, protecting children from LGBTQ propaganda, and orienting the Russian economy towards providing higher incomes for Russian families. That many Western Christians, as well as Orthodox Christians in smaller countries, have been positively influenced by these developments has sent the Globalists into paroxysms of pure rage.

Fortunately for them, the Globalists have ready partners to combat the influence of the Orthodox Faith in the form of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, some related Churches such as Alexandria, and rogue Orthodox academics such as Fr John. The Patriarchate of Constantinople wants to ensure its survival as a tiny, powerless minority in a hostile Turkish environment. For partisans of Constantinople, pledging themselves to the U.S. National Security State (the heart of Globalism) seems the surest way to protect the Patriarchate. If the U.S. National Security State demands they help “isolate” the Russian Orthodox Church or promote LGBTQ or justify unchecked “migration” or demand “walls” between Church and State – they and their allies are more than happy to comply.

Further, Patriarch Bartholomew is the epitome of a power-hungry, narcissistic “prince of the Church”. He and his supporters now style him as “First Among Equals” in the Orthodox Church. This is pure fiction, of course, but it is a useful fiction for the Globalists. An all-powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople can more effectively isolate Russia, and deliver the “modernizations” in the Orthodox Faith necessary to render it as incapable of resistance as the Episcopal and Roman Churches are. For Patriarch Bartholomew, life is really, really good. Eternity? Probably not so much.

“Humble” Patriarch Bartholomew posing next to a life-size statue of himself in Australia

All this makes it essential for these “Orthodox” to so bitterly oppose Donald Trump. Trump might actually negotiate peace in Ukraine, which would absolutely doom the build-a-schismatic Church (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) project started by Patriarch Bartholomew and Mike Pompeo. Even worse, “America First” could lead to a better relationship with Russia, followed by cuts in the Defense / Intelligence budget, and thus result in less concern for the well-being of what’s left of the Greek minority in Turkey. That it would also reduce the chance of nuclear war, and thus benefit everyone on Earth, seems to be of no real importance to these zealots.

John Zavitsanos is the managing partner of the AZA Law firm in Houston Texas and has been involved in a number of Orthodox organizations. He is a big supporter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul. In a recent article, Zavitsanos made the “First Without Equals” case for opposing Trump:

The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the principal weapons Putin will use to drive his dangerous plan of expansionism. No wonder that Putin’s government has built over 20,000 Churches since coming into power. Unlike the invasion of Ukraine, which involved military force, the Russian Orthodox Church will invade other countries through the use of a nationalistic form of church doctrine. This will not draw the same type of international rebuke as military force. The effectiveness of this approach will be turbo charged if Putin can convince his friend Donald Trump to speak glowingly of the Russian Orthodox Church (and perhaps even ask Trump to suggest that the Ecumenical throne should be in Moscow) as part of some overall peace plan with Ukraine.

 

If you respect the historical tradition of the Orthodox Church and believe in the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to continue serving in its role as “first among equals”, then Donald Trump poses a potential threat to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

 

Simply put, a vote for Donald Trump is a vote against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When evaluating the many variables that we as voters should consider (the economy, immigration, abortion), the continuing existence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate should be at or near the top of those variables.

The horror! The Russian Government has built over 20,000 Orthodox temples! What would Thomas Jefferson say? Or Fr John Jillions? How can Orthodox Christians possibly stand by in silence while tens of thousands of new houses of worship are erected to the Glory of God?

Is that really the best a rabidly anti-Trump lawyer can come up with?

Further, there is exactly zero chance that Donald Trump will try to move the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Moscow. That is just more anti-Trump fear mongering. However, there are good reasons to believe that Trump will ease tensions with Moscow, could very easily find himself praising the Russian Orthodox Church (and traditional Orthodoxy in general) given his respect for the moral authority of Christianity, and could very likely downgrade the level of support offered to an increasingly heretical Constantinople. Without implacable Western hostility towards Russia, the “Mother Church” in Constantinople is of almost no strategic importance. One can easily see why these prospects upset Globalists and “Greek” extremist supporters of Constantinople alike.

But this is hardly a problem for just this election. Even if Trump loses, or fails to live up to his promises in his second term, “America First” is here to stay. The movement Trump popularized will remain committed to ideals that will continue to make the “fashionable crowd” wake up in a cold sweat for years to come.

It is absolutely unclear why the worries of the Globalists and their “Orthodox” hirelings should be of any concern to average Americans, even those of us who are Orthodox Christians. America is not in danger of a “theocracy” brought about by “Christian Nationalism”. On the other hand, a “Woke” theocracy is very much a viable possibility. What we Orthodox do need to be worried about is the demonic attempt to create a new Woke, Globalist, political “religion” and call it Orthodoxy. It is difficult to see how we can long all remain officially one Church as this process plays out.

Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America