Views on Science by Russian Orthodox Christians outside Russia

By Miriam Asliturk

Scholarly literature on the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and science has largely, and understandably, focused on the church within Russia/USSR to the exclusion of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia. This paper looks at the attitudes to science in the context of the evolution of these Russian Orthodox communities abroad, notably in the United States and to a lesser extent in France. This article, apparently the first of its kind, begins to explore the issue of orthodoxy and science from a Diaspora perspective.

Russian Orthodox communities existed outside Russia well before the fall of the Russian Empire. Beginning in the 18th century, Russian monks began to arrive in Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and later California to spread the gospel among the native peoples. All of these territories belonged to Russia at the time. From this developed an ever-growing diocese, member of the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia. The diocese regrouped all Orthodox Christians who arrived to the United States, be they Greek, Russian, Serb, Romanian, etc. Indeed, it is in the United States that a truly “diaspora” church was created. In 1898, the Russian Orthodox Church nominated one of its youngest hierarchs, the 33-year old Bishop Tikhon to this expanding missionary diocese in North America, who served for nine years (1898-1907). Under his leadership, “the missionary diocese grew into a multi-ethnic American diocese, and ultimately, an emerging immigrant Church.” (1) By the beginning of the 20th century, it began developing its own institutions, publications and social services. It largely depended on Russia for financial support, via the Imperial (Russian) Missionary Society, and the Russian Orthodox Church nominated its ecclesiastical leaders.

Significant changes occurred between 1917 and 1923. The American diocese fell apart, with each ethnic group developing its own diocese. Following the Russian Revolution, “support from Russia was cut off, the oneness of the Church [split] into national jurisdictions, and the clergy were left pretty much to themselves.” (2) Ten independent Orthodox jurisdictions emerged: three Russian, two Arab, as well as, one of each, Serbian, Albanian, Romanian, Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russian churches. (3)

At the same time, following the Russian Revolution, over one million Russians, most of them Orthodox Christians, fled to a number of countries around the world. Among those fleeing the Soviet regime, there was an important number of church hierarchs and Orthodox intellectuals. In the 1920s and 30s, Yugoslavia, France and the United States largely became the new home of Russian Orthodox Christians outside Russia. At first, Russian émigrés continued to look to Moscow for leadership. However, between 1922 and 1926, it became increasingly clear that the Russian Orthodox Church could no longer be counted on to provide such a role under Soviet rule. In 1922, the Patriarch Tikhon (the same who had worked as Bishop in the American Diocese) was put under house arrest while at the same time, the Bolshevik government set up a reformed Orthodox Church, known as the “Living Church” (Живая церковь). (4) An independent church hierarchy was therefore needed outside of Russia. (5)


The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia founded its canonicity based on the 1920 ukase (decree) No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, which provided for an autonomous administration of the Church as a result of the war. At the end of the Russian Civil War, thirty-four bishops and hundreds of priests emigrated from Russia and dispersed to different countries, organizing the ecclesial life of Russian émigrés on the basis of this ukase. The Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was the first Primate of the Russian Church outside Russia. On September 13, 1922, at a meeting of Russian bishops at Sremski Karlovci in Serbia, an official synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) was established. (6)

ROCOR played a significant role in preserving Russian identity and culture abroad. In 1921, it sponsored the creation of the Russian Student Christian Organization in Czechoslovakia that soon spread all over Europe. Another Orthodox Christian organization called Ikona was founded in 1925, and sought to develop Russian culture independent of the Soviet Union while emphasizing the importance of the Russian Orthodox Church. As time went on, and exiled Russians realized there was little chance of returning to the Soviet Union, they decided to organize educational programs to form their own clergy.


In 1925, the Saint Sergius Theological Institute was founded in Paris. The Institute educated new clergy and gave modest but helpful fellowships to Russian émigré scholars. The fellowships played an important role in popularizing Russian culture abroad and also in contributing to Russian Orthodox Christian theology. From the beginning, the Bishop Euloge, who had been appointed in 1922 by Patriarch Tikhon as head of the Russian Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, grouped together a strong team of professors, theologians and religious thinkers. Among them were Sergei Bulgakov, author of numerous theological works, historians Anton Kartashev and Georgy Fedotov, the philosopher Boris Vysheslavtsev, and archpriests Vasily Zenkovsky and Georgy Florovsky. The work of all of the above-named intellectuals has largely contributed to the spread of Orthodoxy in the Western world. (7)

Students of the Saint Sergius Theological Seminary contributed to propagating Orthodoxy outside of Russia. One prominent example is Elder Sophrony (Sergei Symeonovich Sakharov, 1896 – 1993), who played an important role as interface between the orthodox and western worlds. (8) He was highly gifted and as a youth, studied the arts and read vast amounts of literature. He left Russia in 1921 and was one of the first students at the Saint Sergius Theological Seminary. He became an important thinker and theologian, establishing a monastic community in Essex, England. A ROCOR community developed in Britain, and Russian Orthodox communities outside Russia took root or grew in countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Canada and China.


The United States
Another institution was the St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary, which opened in New York in 1938. Its history differs from Saint Sergius, in that it preceded the October Revolution, establishing itself in 1905, when Archbishop Tikhon (later patriarch of Moscow) recognized a need for clergy to be formed in the United States to meet the need of the ever-growing orthodox community. However, “the Russian Revolution of 1917 inaugurated a deep crisis for Orthodox Christians in America. Deprived of material support from Russia and isolated from the Mother Church, as well as suffering from internal divisions, the Church here could no longer financially support the seminary, and the seminary had to close its doors in 1923.” (9) It was only in 1938 that the seminar reopened its doors, when a former instructor forcefully insisted that Orthodox priests in the United States needed to receive a liberal arts college education as the foundation for their theological training. (10) It was with the help of academics and theologians from Saint Sergius that St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary was able to get off the ground. This seminary has published more than 200 books and has influenced Russian Orthodox Christians worldwide, becoming an official voice for the émigré churches.



Currently ROCOR is a semi-autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and officially signed the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate on May 17, 2007, restoring the canonical link between the churches.

The Church has around 400 parishes worldwide, and an estimated membership of over 400,000 people. Of those, 138 parishes and 10 monasteries are in the United States, with 27,700 adherents and 9,000 regular church attendees. Within the ROCOR there are 13 hierarchs, and also monasteries and nunneries in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe and South America. There are even Russian Orthodox clergymen from Russia who for theological reasons joined ROCOR.

In perusing ROCOR publications, it appears prima facie that little has been written on science. In order to better understand this issue, a number of Russian Orthodox clergymen in the United States and Canada were interviewed in preparation of this paper. These are Father (Fr.) Gregory Joyce of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Fr. Vladimir Tobin of Nova Scotia, Canada, whose church is part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), Mitred Archpriest Victor Potapov of Washington, D.C., and Archpriest Alexander F.C. Webster, retired U.S. Army Chaplain (Colonel) and newly appointed Dean of the Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, New York.


Interview with Fr. Gregory

Fr. Gregory Joyce is rector of St. Vladimir’s Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as well as Dean of the Diocesan Seminary, Secretary of the Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America, and the Dean of the Michigan parishes of the Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America. In an interview with him, he confirms that little has been written on this topic. He is however, quite forthcoming in providing his own perspective on the issue. He explains that science was used in the USSR as a tool to defeat faith. (See 1960s cartoon of a Soviet astronaut stating: There is no God!) As a result, the approach to science is different in Russia than in the United States, where there was never a uniform, let alone state-led, effort to defeat faith. As well, because many of the Russian clergy and devoutly Orthodox were recent émigrés, they faced the real need to support themselves. Many of them became successful scientists, which led some of them to reflect on the interplay between science and faith.

Fr. Gregory knows of two people who worked at NASA: Bishop Alexander (Mileant) and Fr. Gabriel Kin. While little is known about Fr. Gabriel, Bishop Alexander had graduated from the Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, New York in 1967, and had been ordained in 1966. He had also pursued a scientific education, and had graduated with both a Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Degree in Electronics. He worked in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA, which enabled him to become an expert in computers. At the same time, he published over 300 missionary pamphlets on Orthodox Christianity and in 1998 he was consecrated bishop. (11)

Fr. Gregory explains that the closest example he can think of in Russia is St Luke of Simferopol (Valentin Felixovich Voino-Yasenetsky, 1877 – 1961) who had been a world-famous surgeon, and had taught and published considerably on regional anesthesia and surgery, while also serving as Archbishop of Tambov and Michurinsk, and later of Simferopol and the Crimea. (12) Fr. Gregory concludes that several members of the ROCOR clergy were also active members of the scientific community, something which continues to this day.

Fr. Gregory provides a nuance, saying that the clergy in Russia is so large that it is hard to make sweeping generalizations on how they perceive science. Senior clergy tend to be suspicious of science from a philosophical point of view; they would likely avoid discussing evolution for example, where, according to Fr. Gregory, it was “such a beating stick during Soviet times -- abroad you could have a real conversation, not the visceral conversation.” In Fr. Gregory’s view, there are two groups, both within the Russian Orthodox Church and within ROCOR: one group is open and accepting, it sees science as a means to explain God’s creation; the other group sees science with apprehension, because science has been used by some to fight the faith.

Fr. Gregory notes that his particular parish, Ann Arbor, is an anomaly, as it is home to the University of Michigan, which means that the number of PhDs, including scientists, in his parish is unusually high. This permits for an interesting level of conversation and discourse: the idea that science would be against faith is alien to his parishioners. As scientists, they see it as a complement rather than a foil to faith, and Fr. Gregory views it in the same light. Fr. Gregory adds that there is great diversity and flexibility within each parish. “I've got people with patents on genetic innovations, and they found God in their microscopes… We are not a parish that obsesses about evolution - our conversations are broader than that. Bishops give wide latitude to parishes to help parishioners meet God where they are and try to raise them to a higher theological understanding of the world.”


Interview with Fr. Vladimir

According to Fr. Gregory, a lot can be learned from early scriptures such as Saint Basil and other early Fathers who went to Athens to study. He explains that they were among the greatest scientists at the time. This is not the view of Fr. Vladimir Tobin of Halifax, Nova Scotia, who taught Egyptology at a local university for several decades. He thinks that too much emphasis is placed on the Church Fathers as they were limited in their knowledge of the world. While they are the foundation stones of Orthodoxy, both the religion and science have evolved since then. Fr. Vladimir brings forward the example of St. Innocent of Alaska (Ivan Evseyevich Popov, 1797 – 1879), who had been both a highly educated man and an active scientist. For decades, he wrote down his observations on the weather, flora and fauna, data which would be used for years after his death. His diaries were filled with a wide variety of interesting information that was used both by the Church Synod and the Russian Academy of Science.

According to Fr. Vladimir, the interplay between Russian Orthodox churches outside of Russia and science is a specific but important topic. Unlike Fr. Gregory, he has observed that many of these churches are not sympathetic to science, especially in certain areas. Fr. Vladimir deplores this, especially given the current trend in the Western world to sideline God altogether. Westerners tend to bring in Darwinism as a way to refute the opening verses of Genesis. Fr. Vladimir explains that he has nothing against Darwin nor the theory of evolution; on the contrary, the more we know about these issues, the richer religion and faith can become, provided this scientific knowledge is used correctly.

Fr. Vladimir recalls a biology teacher he had in his youth. When asked whether there is a contradiction between science and religion, the teacher had answered ‘only between pseudo-science and pseudo-religion’. This statement had a profound impact on Fr. Vladimir, who can recall it some 60 years later. He says that unfortunately, this is not always the Church’s approach. Fr. Vladimir once witnessed an interaction between a group of teenagers and a bishop, where the question of creation versus evolution had been raised. The bishop had answered that one must believe in the Biblical version or will go to hell. “This kind of answer does much more harm than good,” explains Fr. Vladimir, “this kind of answer tends to be one of the weaknesses of the Orthodox Church. There are some very intellectual and intelligent people in the Russian Orthodox Church. But so often, unfortunately, there is a tendency to be willing to accept things the way the Bible says they are, truly at face value.” Biblical literalism is apparently widely spread.

Fr. Vladimir considers the Church manual Закон Божий (The Law of God) fundamentalist. “I don't know to what extent the Church hierarchies are really willing to contradict such ideas. There are a lot of good books out there trying to teach the faith to the modern world, but I don't see a great deal of will to promote and support scientific research within the Church,” he says. However, he adds that he has met a number of Russian Orthodox Christians in North America who are true scientists and want to know more. He mentions a physician who is also a professor of medicine. She is active in her parish and has many questions about religion; these do not come from doubt, but rather a will to better understand God and His world.

Fr. Vladimir laments that the majority of Russian Orthodox Christians in Canada fall into the “it is tradition” category. Perhaps because there was no repression of faith, many Russian Orthodox Christians view the religion without any real spiritual impetus or depth, but loosely follow its precepts out of a sense of tradition. “Christ doesn’t necessarily fit into the equation,” Fr. Vladimir says. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church has withdrawn within its own traditions and shells. There doesn't seem to be a big emphasis on making religion and science work within education curricula, nor is there a real attempt at creating a deep understanding of the faith. There is instead an almost blind acceptance of the tradition, with no space to criticize it.

Fr. Vladimir explains that there is a need to modernize how traditions are viewed and interpreted. For example, in the services leading up to Easter, Fr. Vladimir has cut out parts of liturgy that portray the Jews in a negative light. When Fr. Vladimir raised the issue of anti-Jewish texts within the liturgy with other Russian Orthodox clergy, the response he received was “it is tradition.” Fr. Vladimir explains that many hold on to texts and traditions as the word of God, but there are also some Orthodox Christians – not the majority – who are able to both accept the faith and look at it with a critical eye.

Fr. Vladimir is the co-author of an article on the theological implications of microbial life on Mars from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. (13) When it was published, Fr. Vladimir received strong reactions stating that God had only created one planet, one earth for humans, and that therefore life on another planet was impossible. Fr. Vladimir also co-authored an article on the ethics of interplanetary exploration. Here he provides an Orthodox Christian interpretation of Creation and explores the “theological meaning of the human vocation as Priests of Creation”, providing a theological basis for environmental responsibilities regarding interplanetary exploration.(14) Fr. Vladimir argues that humans cannot undertake exploration in outer space without understanding the ecological implications of doing so. In his interview, Vladimir notes that the author of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky (15), an influential Orthodox Christian theologian outside Russia (1903 – 1958), argued that the Christian faith is geo-centric, centred on the Earth. Fr. Vladimir believes that faith needs to be cosmo-centric, because God's creation is the whole of the universe.

Fr. Vladimir says that there are two ways of looking at the Church during Soviet rule. On the one hand, a number of Church leaders and its hierarchy, willingly or not, collaborated with the Soviet government; on the other, had the Church authorities not cooperated, there could very well be no Church left at all. Fr. Gregory notes a different perspective. He cites St John of San Francisco (Mikhail Borisovich Maximovitch, 1896 – 1966), who used to say that all the bad things that happened around the October Revolution also had the positive effect of planting seeds all over the world. “So let’s sanctify where we are now,” affirms Fr. Gregory, “We don't forget those who died and suffered for the faith, but we also understand that God in his providence took us out from there and put us all over the entire world and we should see ourselves as seeds of faith. I'm second-generation born in North America. My mom was born here. Maybe that’s a difference, but I do see in a lot of our clergy that they have adopted that paradigm. And a lot of our clergy aren’t Russian at all.”


Fr. Alexander

Archpriest Alexander Webster was confirmed in May 2017 by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as dean of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, New York. He is a retired US Army chaplain, has a PhD in Religion and Social Ethics, and is a prolific writer specializing in Moral Theology. Of interest, he has never been to Russia.

Fr. Alexander begins by saying that modernity is a packed term. Technology generally has very few moral implications, and no one is a Luddite in Orthodoxy. There is a very strong ecological sense in Orthodoxy, more so than in most Protestant denominations and even the Roman Catholic Church, owing to the pronounced respect demonstrated by the ancient and Byzantine Church Fathers for creation and man’s role as steward of the entire created order. He does note, however, that climate change remains a divisive issue, with Orthodox Christians on both sides of the debate. In his view, science is neither disdained nor feared in Orthodoxy. Nor is it seen as antithetical to faith. One of his favorite quotes is Galileo’s line in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany: ‘The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.’

Fr. Alexander is clearly interested in science, particularly biology and cosmology. He highlights the need to be adept in this fast-growing body of knowledge and be aware of its variations. Would theological tradition be invalidated if you found life on another planet? He says he does not see how. “Science is a positive force so long as we do not deify it,” Fr. Alexander states, “At the same time, we should not view science as a rival or a negation of our faith. Science and theology have their own domains and the more conversant with each other, the better.”

Fr. Alexander explains that there is no demonstrable rational “proof” of the existence of God, despite the best efforts of some philosophers and theologians to claim otherwise. One can, and ought to, infer God's existence from observation and experience, but sheer reason is of little avail. Therefore, the question is ultimately about faith, not rigorous scientific method, and one may find believers among the greatest scientists and intellectuals. Moreover, it is important for the clergy and laity in the Church to engage as partners in the biological sciences, including the several theories of evolution, as well as particle physics and cosmological theories. It is a folly in today’s day and age, he says, to insist on either a literal six-day creation of the universe or a cold, materialist, mechanical universe devoid of a personal, providential, loving God as its creator.

In Fr. Alexander’s view, religion and science are not only compatible; they are necessary to each other. Science asks the questions ‘how’, whereas philosophy and theology ask ‘why’. He explains that he encouraged his children to study science, especially cosmology and evolution, so that they could be familiar with the frontiers of science. “You have to be conversant in these areas,” he says, “whether you have a position on them or not. I don’t fear science. But I fear scientists who pretend to be neutral toward questions of God and the universe but are not -- especially when their premises and conclusions purport to be ‘scientific’ but are, in fact, grounded in atheistic materialist philosophies.”

Fr. Alexander spoke of his deep concern about genetic engineering. “What Pandora’s box will be opened by it?” he asks, noting that with no moral oversight, genetic engineering risks having frightening results. Wild unrestrained experimentation could be scary. Fr. Alexander explains that humans are at the highest level of evolution: ontologically unique and separate, not just another animal species. In his view, one human being is worth an entire species of animals, because the human being is the crown of divine creation.

While Fr. Alexander views science as a positive force for medical research and for helping to overcome disease, he reiterates the need for some kind of restraint or oversight mechanism. Yet in terms of pure and applied science, Fr. Alexander does not see how the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle or a new planet or life on another planet impacts religion in any way. He hopes that humans will one day be able to settle on another planet. Like Fr. Vladimir, he warns about the need to be careful regarding the environmental and ecological implications of doing so. “We can’t set up shop without worrying about the environment, for example importing microbial diseases. We need to do our homework and make sure it’s safe – we need a good scientific approach.”


Fr. Victor

According to Mitred Archpriest Victor Potapov, Rector of St. John the Baptist in Washington D. C., ROCOR has been preoccupied with survival rather than pontification on issues such as science. “We’re an emigrant church. We didn't make any specific announcements on science, ecology, evolution.” Ordained priest in 1974, Fr. Victor does not have a lot to say on the issue, but notes that he had written a piece on the church and ecology over two decades ago and had published a few articles on euthanasia and other moral questions. In his view, since 2000, the Social Concept, which will be described below, has become the official stance of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, both in Russia and abroad.

Another Russian Orthodox priest in the United States was contacted for this article, one who works as a professor of mathematics. When contacted, he said that he was pretty sure that ROCOR does not have official positions on science, but was aware of differing opinions with regards to, for example, evolution. However, in his view, there was no conflict or issue between his profession and orthodoxy.


The Basis of the Social Concept

The Basis of the Social Concept (Основы социальной концепции Русской Православной Церкви) was mentioned a number of times by those interviewed. It is a document adopted in 2000 by the Sacred Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to the website dedicated to the Social Concept, “this document sets forth the basic provisions … on church-state relations and a number of problems socially significant today. It also reflects the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on relations with the state and secular society. In addition, it gives a number of guidelines to be applied in this field by the episcopate, clergy and laity.” (16) The Social Concept has dedicated chapters on health, bioethics, ecological problems and science.

Father Gregory explains that while ROCOR has autonomy from the Russian Orthodox Church, and makes many of its own decisions, the 2007 Reconciliation between ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church means that ROCOR now participates in and is bound by the decisions of the Sacred Bishops’ Council, including the Social Concept.

Moreover, he adds, the Social Concept is a key document explaining where the Church stands on bioethics and why it believes what it does. For example, the Church bans in-vitro fertilization. This is due to the fact that when an important number of embryos are fertilized, only a few survive, and many lives are lost.

Father Alexander also references the Social Concept and explains that, on abortion, all Russian Orthodox perspectives, whether in Russia or abroad, are unified. Any dissent is contrary to the consistent, universal Orthodox moral tradition, for every single text in the history of the Church is against it. Moreover, modern science, particularly genetics and human biology, has only reinforced the anti-abortion or, in his language, pro-life position.



It is evident that there are different perspectives regarding the relationship between ROCOR and science. While scientific development and research are clearly of concern, there is also recognition of the importance of science and education in today’s world. Many opinions exist – likely a natural phenomenon for any religion that is not fully centralized. It also showcases how North American priests see their Church as often distinct with regard to science, also because of the different histories ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church have had.

However certain trends can be discerned. There is consensus that on issues of bioethics, such as abortion and in-vitro fertilization, ROCOR fully upholds the Social Concept. Yet, more latitude and questioning are allowed on issues ranging from evolution to cosmology and some elements of biology. There is concern about genetic engineering and its potential impacts on humanity, and also a desire, voiced at least by one priest, to modernize the traditions and teachings of the Church. Lastly, all priests seem deeply concerned for the environment, though this concern declines when it comes to climate change.



(1) M. Stokoe and L. Kishkovsky, Orthodox Christians in North America (1794 - 1994), Orthodox Christian Publication Center (OCPC), Brooklyn, Ohio, 1995, pp. 19.
(2) S. Rose, Orthodoxy in the USA: Its Historical Past and Present, Orthodox Christian Information Center, 1979, retrieved from:
(3) M. Stokoe and L. Kishkovsky, Orthodox Christians in North America (1794 - 1994), pp. 28.
(4) Pravoslavnoya Encyclopedia, “ЖИВАЯ ЦЕРКОВЬ” (Zhivaya Tzerkov), 2013, retrieved from:
(5) M. Rodzianko, The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY, 1975, pp. 12.
(6) M. Rodzianko, The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad, pp. 9-11.
(7) N. Lossky, L’Orthodoxie en France, Etudes, 11: 399, Société d’Édition de Revues, Paris, 2003, pp. 515.
(8) G. Woloschak, Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Ashgate, Farnham, 2011, pp. 4.
(9) Our History, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, retrieved from :
(10) Our History, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, retrieved from :
(11) Alexander (Mileant) of Buenos Aires, Orthodox Wiki, retrieved from :
(12) Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) of Simferopol and Crimea, Orthodox Wiki, retrieved from :
(13) A. R. Olson & V. M. Tobin, An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Microbial Life on Mars, Theology and Science, 6: 4, 2008, pp. 421-437.
(14) A. R. Olson & V. M. Tobin, An Eastern Orthodox Theological Basis for Interplanetary Environmental Ethics, Theology and Science, 9:30, 2011m pp. 341-361.
(15) In the original: Essai sur la theologie mystique de l'Eglise d'orient (1944).
(16) The Basis of the Social Concept, The Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Relations, retrieved from:



Templeton World Charity Foundation
Institute of Historical Research
SOW logo



Institute for Historical Research National Hellenic Research Foundation 48, Vasileos Konstantinou Ave

GR-116 35 Athens, Greece


For more information about Project SOW contact:


Ε. [email protected]

About Project SOW

Project SOW is organized by:



Project SOW is funded by:

Templeton World Charity Foundation




The opinions expressed in this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation Inc.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept