TEXTS IN ENGLISH | "AND HEAVEN IS GETTING CLOSER... " Interview with Father Deacon Andrei Kuraev

"AND HEAVEN IS GETTING CLOSER... " Interview with Father Deacon Andrei Kuraev

Father Deacon Andrei Kuraev is a professor of theology at St. Tikhon’s Theological Institute in Moscow, and a Senior Research Assistant in the Religious Philosophy and Religious Affairs Department within the Department of Philosophy at Moscow State University. Fr. Andrei is the author of many books and articles on religious and philosophical themes. Not long ago a new book of his came out entitled “On Our Defeat” with the author’s thoughts on the Antichrist and the end of the world. This book, in which apocalyptic hysteria and passionate outpourings are noticeably absent, has aroused great interest among readers. Therefore we decided to turn to Fr. Andrei for answers to questions that trouble many: What is meant by the end of the world, the reign of Antichrist, the Apocalypse?

Fr. Andrei, the end of the world is usually seen in the context of the coming of Antichrist. So many historical figures have been seen in this regard - Peter the Great, Lenin, Stalin and even Gorbachev. But how does the Church see the figure of Antichrist and what can we expect from him?

First of all, the Apostle John in his Epistles (not in his Book of Revelation) says that there are many antichrists. In this sense, antichrist with a small “a” can mean any man who is in a state of active warfare with the Church.

Secondly, Antichrist himself is a mirror-image of Christ. Generally, in ancient times as well as in the Middle Ages the mirror was seen as a very strange object, in which something was not quite right. In the encyclopedia “Myths of the Peoples of the World” there is an article on Antichrist, accompanied by a good illustration - a fresco from an Italian cathedral from the Renaissance where Antichrist is depicted standing in the midst of a crowd. This antichrist looks outwardly very much like Christ: he is wearing Christ’s clothes, his hair is like Christ’s and his face, in general, is like that of Christ. Only one detail differentiates the two - he has evil-looking eyes.

We mustn’t forget that the prefix “anti” in the Greek language means not only “opposite”, but also “in place of”. Antichrist will come IN PLACE OF Christ; that is, he will substitute himself for Christ. For such a substitution to be able to take place, he must look very much like Christ. And here is a certain mirror-like similarity: we see that Christ spent three and a half years preaching and serving here on earth. The Book of Revelation says exactly the same thing; that is, that the earthly reign of Antichrist will also be three and a half years. Christ performed miracles and Antichrist will also undoubtedly “work miracles”. Christ had His disciples and His Church of course; and Antichrist will also have something similar. Christ was universally open, and undoubtedly Antichrist will also be very universally open and will also be ready to absorb and to subordinate to his power - his “gospel” - all cultural, national and religious traditions, each of which he interprets in his own way, of course. There are very many similarities. But as G.K. Chesterton says, if a man who is not interested in content will take, let’s say, two newspapers, one of which is called “Atheist”, and the other “Catholic”, he will find that they have many things in common: similar lay-outs, both printed with the help of the same technology, both have announcements and editorials, as well as pages of satire and news. From a structural point of view, both look very much alike, but it would be a big mistake to come to the conclusion that atheism and Catholicism are one and the same. The same applies to this question - outwardly they will look the same. The difference is in their purposes. Why does Christ refuse earthly power? Why does Antichrist take it? Their purposes appear directly opposite.

So that means that Antichrist will be a concrete person, possessing also tremendous worldly power?

Yes. I suppose it’s possible to describe Antichrist with the help of apothatic negative theology. We know what happened to Christ, and from that it’s possible to conclude what will happen with Antichrist. We see the three temptations of Christ - an excellent interpretation of which was given by Dostoyevsky in his “The Grand Inquisitor” - the temptation of the bread, the temptation of power, and the temptation of miracles. These three temptations which Christ rejected will obviously be accepted by Antichrist. He will assume power over human souls by performing miracles, power over human relations by taking control of the levers of earthly government, and power over human physical sustenance by controlling the mechanisms for the distribution of earthly goods. By the way, the latter - an excessive interest in the realm of distribution - is what enabled Dostoyevsky to suspect Antichrist’s presence in the ideals of socialism.

Are you saying that the kingdom of Antichrist will be some sort of global super-state structure, something like a world government?

In so much as Antichrist will work “to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22), that means that the object of his special interest will be control over the lives of those who are dangerous to him, that is, control over the lives of CHRISTIANS. In order for the kingdom of Antichrist to be able to completely achieve its goals, it is essential that Christianity be marginalized, followed by its evaporation and destruction. And for this there’s no need for the control levers of his earthly power to be spread literally across the face of the earth.

But does that mean that non-Christian peoples are doomed from the very start?

This is a situation where it’s hard to say “yes” or “no”. There are good arguments for both points of view. Let’s state the question like this: can non-Christians be saved? I believe that this question can be left open as long as the convictions of the non-Christians do not turn into a conscious, open hostility to the Gospel.

You mentioned miracles, but the majority of today’s rationalists as a rule consider these to be more like “old wives’ tales”...

To tell you the truth, I’ve already long forgotten how “today’s rationalists” view things look like. I encounter contemporary anti-Christians, contemporary worldly thinking people, but as a rule this has nothing to do with rationalism. This is evident from the fact that the pathos with which these so-called rationalists find fault with every comma in biblical texts is the same pathos - only under a different guise - they use to accept the strangest stories of miracles which take place outside the Church. Let’s say, occultism, ESP and the like. Therefore, people today don’t suffer from simple rationalism at all. On the contrary, there’s a wonderful word which existed in university and academic circles and which, to my regret, has fallen out of practice over the past decade. Whenever a student, or a graduate student or even a teacher put forth a certain thesis, his senior colleague (professor or academic supervisor) would put his finger up in the air and gravely say: “Substantiate!” I sincerely regret that this word has disappeared from our life today. I am totally convinced that it’s rationalism that today’s thinkers lack.

In the end, what will serve the purposes of the coming Antichrist?

Of course, power over men’s souls - that is, personal religious power, which will really be a syncretic form of power that will attempt to create a certain surrogate of historical religions by replacing them with hollow ones. Several outer forms will remain, but there will be a totally different content. In general, if man seeks a common denominator of various philosophical systems, then the result will be zero. Take, for example, ancient Greek philosophy and try to find in it even one idea which all Greek philosophers could agree upon. I guarantee you that such an idea simply does not exist. The same goes for Indian philosophy. It’s only from afar that Indian philosophy seems to be something whole. Nothing of the kind. It is nothing more than a 2,000 year history of arguments, quarrels, endless discussions, its own particular form of scholasticism, endless divisions, etc. Therefore, if we combine all this and then add European philosophy, Christian philosophy, and Chinese philosophy, and try to squeeze something universal out of it - we won’t be able to make any sense of it at all!

The same thing can be said of religions: you can’t derive any common denominator from them. It will be hollow, totally uninteresting and artificial. But if someone seeks for some conceivable reason to RID HIMSELF OF religion, then this can work, because every person senses that religion contains a certain threat, an imperative, the demand for a renewal of life, the demand for service. Not everyone wants this. But to say so honestly and directly is something not everyone can do. Joseph Brodsky wrote some wonderful lines: “Unbelief is blindness, but more often a swinish trick”. I totally agree with this. In my life only one young man honestly acknowledged the reason for his remoteness from the Church. After he and I got things more or less clear on an intellectual level, he stated: “No, I am not going to get baptized, because then I’ll have to do without women and I don’t want to.” (It should be noted that after graduating from the Institute he got married and entered the Church.) In general most people think it’s a person’s head that keeps him apart from the Church rather than something else…

I think that when Christ said: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) - He, in fact, was performing a totally different type of social, psychological and psychotherapeutical work - He disturbed people and broke things up. He broke up people’s petty little world and disturbed their peace of soul and pharisaic self-complacency. From this point of view, it’s totally reasonable to see Christ as a rebel. In the Gospels Christians are called the “salt of the earth”, but if this “earth” (meaning “us") is sick, then just imagine the reaction of the wounded organism to the salt!

Christianity is generally regarded as the religion of love. But suddenly we have the Apocalypse and the Revelation of St. John the Theologian with its frightening images. A certain change in the meaning of the word “apocalypse” has even taken place. The word “apocalypse” means nothing more than “revelation”. In principle, it doesn’t connote any horrible images in itself, although today it is not understood in such a neutral way… Not to mention the adjective “apocalyptic” which conjures up something horrible, such as the terrible end of the world. The sword of retribution of the end times…

Perhaps indeed it is a sword. I see here a totally different comparison, however - a ramming device, one which breaks down the gates of a fortress. The gates of hell, as you know, are locked from within. It’s not God who locks us up in some concentration camp of eternal torments, and perpetual half-existence, but rather we who lock ourselves up from Him from within. Moreover, we do this in different ways. It’s quite understandable how some locks operate: whenever I want, I can go to the door and lock it. But sometimes the door gets latched shut just from a small breeze. Perhaps I’d like to go out, but the door is latched. In society, in the human soul, there are similar breezes that shut the latch on doors through which we could come to God. Especially over the past century people’s social lives have been structured in such as way that makes it even more complicated to be a Christian… There are even certain latches that arise quite spontaneously in society, and are sometimes even invisible. Since we don’t see them, we don’t feel how much they hinder us. And since we don’t feel hindered by them, we also don’t feel that they deprive us of our freedom. Consequently, we don’t try to resist them… To be more precise, such resistance can sometimes spring up, but as a rule it is expressed in the most senseless ways, like narcotics, suicides, etc. People don’t understand what it is they have to fight against.

Therefore little by little we get accustomed to our dungeon, and once we have finally gotten used to it, once our little world seems isolated and closed, that’s when the bang of the ramming device resounds on the outside. Indeed, on the inside everything is already scorched and it’s almost impossible to breathe. Therefore the rescue operation has to break in on our suffocating world from the outside in order to give us the possibility to breathe fresh air. The sad thing about all this is that this rescue operation, which Christ will accomplish at the end of time, can only be partially successful because Christ is able to break those locks which have arisen involuntarily. But He will never break down the door of the soul of one who consciously does not want to receive Him. In this sense, it’s often heard that Christ is a gentleman: He never enters without knocking and without the consent of the master of the house. The Lord will not destroy this type of lock by force. These locks, I emphasize, are not sociological or historical ones, but something inside man, indeed man himself. In this case Christ relinquishes His omnipotence and opts for the path of non-violence. From this we can assume that people (some voluntarily, others involuntarily) will create a type of society in which they will lose their most important freedom - the freedom to be with God… Then God Himself will force His way through to them; but if it turns out that someone wilfully wants to be an orphan, then that’s the way he will stay. Namely in this sense Christ’s rescue mission cannot be carried out to the end, wholly, absolutely and totally successfully. Simply because it’s not enough to toss a life preserver to a drowning man; the drowning man has to want to put it on. And if he is intent on committing suicide, it doesn’t matter how many life preservers you toss him - it will be to no avail.

Fr. Andrei, the images people have today of the Apocalypse - terrifying horsemen, trumpet-blowing angels - in no way corresponds to real life. What is the reason for this: the deeply hidden symbolism of these apocalyptic images or something else?

I think we still need to wait a little bit. Then the Book of Revelation, as well as the Bible as a whole, will be more understandable. The thing is, the Bible is the book of the Church. The Orthodox Church is Christianity dating from late antiquity. Orthodoxy formulated the fundamental principles of Church life at a time when Christians lived in a pagan world. Therefore it is quite well adapted to living as a minority in a pagan environment. Later, however, Christians began to be in the majority and the Church began to die in the fortress it had built for itself during the reign of paganism. Lots of things became confused during the subsequent centuries of more or less outer prosperity…

You know, Orthodoxy can be compared to a turtle: if you look at this animal, you immediately want to ask: “What did God create you for?!” But such a question only arises if the turtle lives in the pets’ corner at school. But if you look at it in its natural environment, then the reason is quite clear: if a turtle has such thick armor, it is because someone else has pretty sharp teeth. Therefore, any man who comes into contact with Christianity will be confronted with a paradox: Christianity is the religion of love, and moreover it is the only dogmatic religion in the world. I emphasize: not “one of” but the ONLY dogmatic religion in the world. The thing is, since the Christian message of love is also a message of freedom, it has been too easy to violate it, too easy to reinterpret it into pagan stereotypes. And it has been necessary to protect ourselves from such false interpretations. Generally speaking, every text exists only as an interpretation: every reader understands and interprets a text in his own way. Therefore the Gospel truly needs to be defended by Tradition, so that free and false interpretations can be rejected and so that the apostolic understanding of Christ’s words - that is, the understanding of those people who were with Christ and whom He Himself had taught - would not be extinguished over time. For this purpose dogmas arose - not so much to confirm things about God, as to dismiss concepts made too hastily and too one-sidedly.

Therefore Orthodoxy as a dogmatic system was formulated in the first centuries A.D. and it lived in this shell, in this armour - and has continued to do so right up to the present day. And Orthodoxy has turned out to be quite relevant, because a new pagan era, a neo-pagan era called the “Age of Aquarius” is upon us when the world prefers to count the years not from the Birth of Christ, but rather according to the principle of “the year of the blue pig” or “the red bull”, and instead of greeting someone with the New Year, they are greeted with some new “reptile”. In such an era as this, Orthodoxy appears very timely. Most of all, the very things which the Orthodox were hated and despised for one hundred years ago are needed now more than ever. Why did they despise Orthodoxy: “You have nothing but rituals and you don’t preach the Gospel.” But today it’s not enough to just preach the Gospel; it seems that the most important thing is to give the most “energetic” defence: the very rituals and Sacraments of the Church. Today when we are surrounded on all sides by magicians, shamans and the like, the grace-filled protection of the Sacraments of the Church are not just empty words. The prayer to Christ following the Sacrament of Communion - “enter Thou into my members, into all my joints, my reins, my heart”, that is, fill all the parts of my body and my soul - is not simply a metaphor but a CONDITION FOR SURVIVAL in this world in which all hell has broken loose.

And in this sense it becomes clear why the Book of Revelation draws us a picture quite similar to the early period of Christianity in the Church, where Christians once again are few in number and are persecuted, while the beast of paganism triumphs all around. And Orthodoxy, by virtue of its “lack of agility” turns out to be in a very advantageous position in this pagan era to which history has returned.

Therefore I think that these frightening symbols of the spiritual war between good and evil in the Book of Revelation will soon become clear to us. It’s obvious that nice words alone won’t be sufficient to fight such a battle. And it’s not the sword of the inquisitor or the crusader that will serve to supplement the words of a sermon, but namely the very grace-filled “weapon” in the hands of Christ, and in the hands of His Church. Then all these apocalyptic horsemen will become clearer. Indeed behind today’s hoards of occult practices lies a definite reality.

Do you feel these images will become clearer because they will be transformed into real life pictures?

Quite correct. The same can be said for 666 - the number of the beast…

In this connection I would like to ask a more concrete question. On the pages of many journals and newspapers, even Orthodox ones, there are stories about a horrible computer called “The Beast”, which is said to be located somewhere in Brussels; the confirmation that the bar-code on Western products contains the number of beast, and finally, that very soon they will be placing some kind of sign on our hands and foreheads… To what degree is such an emphasis on an outer perception of apocalyptic symbology justified?

Fr. A: I don’t have a simple answer to this question. On the one hand, according to the words of Apostle Paul, “an idol is nothing in the world” (I Cor. 8:4). And for the Christian: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31). These external idolatrous and occult signs will have no power over him. But on the other hand, Orthodoxy is the religion with a very whole vision of man. In Orthodoxy the soul and the body - the inner and the outer - are inseparable. Therefore Christian tradition, especially early Christian tradition, is filled with warnings: - “fear, fear even outwardly to sin.”

The pagan authorities made an offer to Christians, saying, “In your heart, by all means, believe in Christ, only simply make some kind of purely formal gesture and sacrifice to the statue of the pagan god, the official god of the empire.” Christians refused to make such a gesture, preferring instead to go to their deaths. Therefore, rumors of the spirituality of Christianity are greatly exaggerated: Christianity has a high regard for reverence and even cultivates an etiquette of external gestures. We know that the clothes a person wears can tell a lot about his mood and his manners. Fasting, which at first glance seems to be merely a form of dieting, turns out to be connected to the sincerity and wholeheartedness of one’s repentance, a very inner spiritual matter. Therefore it can’t be ruled out that some mirrored “miracle” is taking place here: through a material action something foreign enters into the soul.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that we shouldn’t underestimate our own soul. Where does the idea come from that if a stamp is placed in a person’s passport or on his hand that this sign will deprive a man of his freedom? Can such a thing really separate us from Christ? We simply must remember that NOTHING can separate us from life in Jesus Christ; not the future, not that which is to come, no commands, no powers, no angels, no one can separate us from Christ. Can some stamp really be more powerful than God’s Love, more powerful than all the instances enumerated by Apostle Paul?

And concerning the number 666, I don’t see anything particularly mystical about it just because this number is found in the Book of Revelation. Generally, the task of the prophets has always been to reveal the will of God, to proclaim it, not to hide it or cover it up. This number has been given to us so that we would know Antichrist, not to keep him hidden. Concerning the bar-code, I wouldn’t give it so much meaning, especially since there are many false interpretations on this theme…

Returning to your question about the seal on one’s hand and forehead, Orthodox tradition has characteristically had an allegorical and spiritual understanding of this place in the Book of Revelation. In the Bible, in general, the right hand has traditionally represented activity; and the forehead - man’s thoughts. Therefore, when Antichrist places these two seals, he will begin to exert control over man’s thoughts and actions. And this is entirely reasonable in the sense that Antichrist, as an earthly ruler, will take upon himself control over the fabric of social relations and through the mass media and the educational system he will control the ideology of society and thereby influence man’s ability to reason.

The mass-minded person of the latter times will be brought up and formed in such a way that there just won’t be any room for Christ in his life. It just won’t be of any interest to him, first of all because society itself will not ask questions about Christ, and secondly, because it will provide hasty responses to them. They will start from the premise that Christ was simply a great healer of ancient times, a sort of magician from the first century, or that He was one of those beings from another planet who flies in to teach us, or perhaps one of the Mahatmas, but they won’t want anything to do with him…

By the way, this concerns Orthodox people to a great degree, because in the Orthodox world it’s amazing to see just how primitive answers can be at times to such questions as: “What does it mean to be a Christian?”... We often hear people today muttering such phrases as: “I am an atheist, but I am also a Russian, and that means I’m Orthodox”. Or the opposite: “I’m Orthodox, but, of course, it’s also true that I’m an atheist.” Of course, the reduction of Christianity to ethnicity does not conform to Christ, but it will be quite close to the designs of Antichrist.

It seems to me that there is a confirmation of this in the Book of Revelation - that there will come a system of inter-human relations, a kind of ideological system in which it will be difficult to hear questions about Christ, and still more difficult to give a correct answer to these questions… In this sense heaven is getting farther away.

How then should we react to this terrible computer called “The Beast”, as well as to the computer world in general now that the Internet has been added?

You know, in literature describing all these so-called “horrors”, there are quite a number of funny turns. With great tenderness of heart I always read articles in which the computer is turned into some kind of plaything of the devil. It’s especially amusing to read articles like this in newspapers and books which have been typed on computers themselves. This gives rise to a healthy sense of humor.

But seriously speaking, as I said before - everything should be done with a purpose; that is, by showing HOW to use things, including computers…

But what should a person do to avoid being lured by Antichrist?

First of all, of course, it’s necessary to give up all practices that intrude into one’s soul. First and foremost, this concerns medical practices: nothing should be done that turns someone into a zombie, etc. Chemotherapy - yes; surgery - yes; that is, work with the body where you don’t allow someone else into your own subconscious. These are the criteria: don’t expose your soul for all to see. This presupposes the avoidance of all types of meditative techniques, mantras, and mind control. All of these have the goal of depriving you of control over your own conscious mind. You must do everything possible to avoid this. And besides this, of course, - I think that today every serious person understands that it’s necessary to maintain quite a distance from the means of mass information and to monitor yourself: haven’t I - my convictions, my world, my language - turned into a duplicate of what TV has created… Not long ago at one of my lectures for teachers of higher learning institutions in Moscow (teachers of humanitarian disciplines such as anthropology and philosophy) one of my listeners asked: “Tell me, why is it that I feel like talking with some priests, and have no trust at all in others?” Before I could even open my mouth, her neighbour interjected: “It’s energy! You see, the one has good energy and the other bad energy.” And the rest of the auditorium simultaneously supported this thesis. I simply felt sick. I could only ascertain that our intelligentsia had indeed become quite debased if it could only use such inhuman jargon like karma, aura and energetics to describe the most complex world of human relations. This is simply a catastrophe: today in Russia (and in all of the Western world in general) a change in language is occurring: the language of the traditional Christian-Mediterranean culture is disappearing and a pseudo-Eastern occult jargon is taking its place: “karma”, “chakra”, “astral”, etc. In this sense, one must watch his words and his language so as not to begin expressing oneself in completely inhuman terms… People don’t even understand what they are saying. When you meet someone you can hear: “You know, I’m a scorpion. And what are you?” - “I’m a rat. Nice to meet you!”

Moreover, we must not forget that Orthodoxy is EASTERN Christianity. Therefore it’s not necessary, after breaking away from atheism, to quickly throw oneself into the Far East, because under our feet, and even above our heads, we have such a world, such a deep understanding of man, in which, honestly, we will find all the depths which enthral our soul when we meet up with the world of Eastern wisdom, but which also has something which the East has dreamt of hearing for thousands of years, and which was heard for the first time only on the banks of the Jordan…

Fr. Andrei, you spoke of literature which contains a rather primitive understanding of the Apocalypse and events connected to the end of the world. Could you perhaps name several of the books which, in your opinion, are worth reading?

As far as the Book of Revelation is concerned, we should remind you that this is the only book which is not read in Orthodox churches. There simply are no authoritative interpretations. But it seems to me that for a good introduction to this topic it would be useful to acquaint oneself with the works of C.S. Lewis - “The Last Battle” from his “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Great Divorce”. Then, G.K. Chesterton’s novel “The Ball and the Cross”, plus the anti-Utopian classics (Orwell, Zamyatin...). The next stage could be “Three Talks” by Vladimir Soloviev, containing an additional story on Antichrist. And then as far as contemporary Orthodox literature is concerned, I would recommend the book by Fr. Seraphim Rose “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future”.

Fr. Andrei, all the same, it’s terribly distressing to think about the end of the world...

But why does this idea of the end frighten you? The word “end” - thelos in Greek, meaning “goal” - has the sense not only of a finish, but also a completion, fulfilment, a purposeful achievement. Therefore if it happens that history has an end, then this means that it has MEANING. For if no end existed to it, it would be seen, in the words of Dostoyevsky, as “the devil’s vaudeville”: an endless striving which leads nowhere, because there would be nowhere to lead to. What Christianity uses to affirm the end of history, it uses in order to SAVE the meaning of history, thus affirming the presence of a meaning to it. Therefore, when we speak about the end of the world, we are suggesting the positive nature of history. This is not historical nihilism…

Of course, I perfectly understand that there are many blank spaces in the Christian philosophy of history, just as in the Christian understanding of man in general, as well as some contradictions and vagueness… For example, there is no clear Christian understanding whether the history of mankind leads to progress or regress. A Christian can look at it both ways. In a sense, we can also say about Christianity what Winston Churchill once remarked about democracy, saying that although it might not be perfect, it is the best system we know of. Christianity, from the point of view of philosophy, is far from being straightforward; it may not always be sufficiently logical and convincing, but everything else is even less so.

Yes, but in your book on Antichrist you write: “Christianity is convincing in its historical defeat.” What should we tell those who doubt; what can we tell our readers?

You can ask them the question: “What does man hope to gain?” What is he afraid of losing and what does he dream of gaining? If a man’s goal is to gain earthly power, earthly pleasures and diversions, then, of course, by connecting himself to the Orthodox Church he stands to lose everything. But if a man wants to gain his soul, then it is by being with us, for just as the Gospel says: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

But one can defend his soul only by filling it with Eternity, the fullness of Being, the fullness of Meaning, the fullness of Joy. And I am convinced that all of this is only to be found in Orthodoxy.

We often hear people say: “Things are bad, things are very bad.” I think that every Orthodox person will join in saying: “No, that’s not the way things are in Church.” It’s truly a struggle to be Orthodox, because when we are called to Orthodoxy, we are not called to a perpetual banquet of life or to some kind of picnic on the edge of civilization. We are called to battle. And the saddest thing about it is that in this battle several arrows fly at you from behind and sometimes your own horse rebels, and where you look for support, you sometimes come up empty… But the situation is the same as before: to be with Christ is not always easy on your soul, but without Him it’s totally dreadful.

But even though heaven is getting farther away, we still must strive for it - is that it?

Certainly. But, you know, that’s not exactly the right way to look at it. Heaven is always coming closer and closer, because heaven has but one desire - to pour down upon the earth like rain. But people constantly open up their umbrellas and take a stab at heaven. Therefore why should we complain about heaven? Let’s lay down our umbrellas!

Fr. Andrei was interviewed by Vladimir Legoida, co-editor of “Foma”

source: http://www.fomacenter.ru/english/index.php?issue=5&section=63&article=371

TEXT IN ENGLISH

Dear visitors of our web-site of the monastery Lepavina! Due to a high number of visits of our website, I am honoured to take the responsibility to describe you in English different events from Serbian Orthodox Church and monastery Lepavina. We would like to inform you that we will be also putting on our web-site some texts in English on different subjects from other Orthodox websites. I deeply hope and believe that our Lord will help me in that!

With God’s blessing, from monastery Lepavina Archimandrite Gavrilo.