Since the liberation of Muscovy from the Mongol rule in 1480 the Russian state has gradually been striping the Church of its inner independence to the point that in the Supreme Laws of the Empire (1796) the Russian monarch was proclaimed the head of the Church. Besides a short period of freedom following the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917 and the current period beginning with the events of Perestroika in the USSR the Bishops of Russian Church Abroad had the unique experience of making decisions without any pressure from political authorities. Earlier in history, problems with a monarch disastrous for a nation were corrected through coups d'états. The Byzantines thought that no revolt could successfully overthrow the emperor without divine acquiescence. Arguably, this political philosophy was inherited from Roman times. In Byzantine history, sometimes a usurper was better for the Orthodox Church than the legitimate ruler. Russian Emperor Peter the Great (1682-1725) declared that an emperor could appoint a successor. Thus, the Russian empire went on the Byzantine path with several coups’ d'états in the eighteenth century. It is clear in the Book of Samuel (8:7) that monarchy was a step down from theocracy. The Lord says to the Prophet Samuel: “[T]hey have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (KJV). Nevertheless, in the course of time monarchy became scarified. A sticheron for the feast of Christ’s Nativity glorified Julius Caesar as the sole ruler of the earth (The Lord, I Have Cried). And three hundred years after Octavian, St. Emperor Constantine, Pontifex Maximus of the empire, dedicated it to Christ. Although the separation between the church and the state was unheard of in Byzantium, there always were men of God who resisted imperial advances into the realm of the sacred. They were also in Russia in the figures of St. Metropolitan Philip II (r. 1566-1568) and St. Metropolitan Arseny of Rostov (1697-1772). Our Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, came into being out of the trauma of the Russian Revolution and following civil war. Understandably in the ROCOR the attitude toward the revolution and regicide is unambiguously negative. American-born Russian monarchists may take for granted to have maintained their identity uncompromised due to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which is an outcome of the American Revolution. As Novice Serge Nedelsky put it succinctly: “The paradoxical fact remains, however, that it has been precisely liberal democracy which has allowed the ROCA, as I have suggested, to operate in conditions of freedom, unhampered by external political pressures.” Absolutization of monarchy as the ideal form of governance prevents one from seeing the “blind spots” of this system, especially the lack of checks and balances on the state. This understanding was gradually getting traction in the Russian Empire with the introduction of an independent judiciary system under Alexander II (1855-1881) and the first parliament represented subjects of the Russian Tsar under Nicholas II (1894-1918). Having lived in Jordanville now most of my life, hearing “God Save the Tsar” (the Russian Imperial Anthem, 1833-1917) at the seminary commencements, seeing utmost devotion to the last royal family of the Russian Empire, I cannot help of thinking that we may fossilize in history. There is nothing wrong with either the preserving of the imperial hymn or having special veneration for the royal family as long as they do not prevent us to engage with all opportunities which God provides us today to fulfil “the Great Commission.” | 
