3. In the course of the discussion, it may well turn out that the opponent uses mutually exclusive arguments and makes accusations that destroy each other. For example, Protestants really like their own "modernity", Westernness, and in principle they consider themselves an order of magnitude more educated than the Orthodox. The Orthodox, they say, have only ignorant superstitions, medieval magic and pagan vestiges. And on the side of the Protestants is all the power of modern culture. Therefore, when you are told: "You, Orthodox, do not study the Bible, but only thoughtlessly perform your rites," put these words in your heart... After a while, after you have expounded to your interlocutor, for example, the Orthodox theology of icons or other aspects of Orthodox thought and life, your opponent will say exactly the opposite: "Well, this is all speculation, this is all philosophy. And we have the Bible, and a Christian only needs it." So, at first, he declared with aplomb that Orthodoxy is too primitive to be true, and then he argues that Orthodoxy is too complex to be true. In my conversations with Protestants, they followed this script, and I would like to warn others about it. Having heard both of these theses one after the other, invite your interlocutor to make up his mind: either Orthodoxy is too primitive for him, or too complicated...

4. The first topic of discussion I would propose to choose the question of Christian unity. "Let there be one flock and one shepherd"; "Father, that all may be one" is not only Christ's prayer to the Father, but also His commandment to us. From the Protestant it is necessary to hear agreement with the thesis that the unity of Christians is good, that Christians should preserve unity and strive for it. Only if a person or group preaches principles that are known to interfere with the salvation of a person, only then can you stop communicating with them. In other matters, the principle formulated by Blessed Augustine should obviously be acceptable to any Christian: "In the main there is unity, in the secondary there is diversity, and in everything there is love." Christians do not have the right to break the unity of the Body of Christ only because of ritual issues or because of differences in pedagogical or missionary methodology. Therefore, each of our claims to each other must be considered in the light of the Savior's high priestly prayer for the unity of Christians: is this a sufficiently weighty reason for a break? Will we dare to say at the Last Judgment before Christ and in the presence of the Apostles (especially the Apostle Paul, who taught Christians so much mutual tolerance): we broke communion with these Christians because of this reason? A break for an unworthy reason is a sin. If this schism occurred because of a lack of awareness of the views and practices of the group of Christians we condemn, then this is a venial sin. If the schism was inspired only by the lust of power, or the lust of confrontation, or the lust of dissidence ("yes, yes, I know that you understand this question differently, and that you have reason to interpret it differently, but I still consider only the practice of my community to be the only possible one"), then this sin is already incomparably more serious. This sin is one of those that cry out to God, to His Judgment and to His vengeance.

5. The next topic for discussion and agreement is the actual identification of the subject, the material of the discussion. It must be agreed at once that the discussion is of a theological nature and that therefore the doctrinal positions of the communities are subject to comparison: not the sins of this or that parishioner or pastor, not deviations from doctrinal principles, but the principles themselves. If it turns out that the Orthodox do not always follow the principles of their own Church, then this is not a reason for a break with the Orthodox. That would be just a call for consistency. It will be a call to try to become a better Orthodox than some of us.

6. After these preliminary agreements, I would suggest that the first topic for proper theological discussion be the question of the interpretation of Scripture. One should not be too hasty in elevating one's opponents to the rank of opponents of the Bible. If a person disagrees with me, it may mean that he only disagrees with my understanding of the Bible, not with the Bible itself or with God. The divergence between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is a divergence in interpretations of the Word of God. Certain Bible verses allow for very different interpretations and applications in life. And therefore it is necessary to see which of the interpretations takes into account a greater number of biblical evidences. Here the task of the Orthodox participant in the discussion is to reduce the excitement of the Protestant interlocutor, who is accustomed to believing that his interpretation of the Bible is self-evident and that it is simply impossible to understand the Scriptures in any other way.

7. Moving on to the next part of the conversation will be easy. By this time, the Protestant interlocutor will already be tired because he is not allowed to blurt out everything that he has been taught to condemn in Orthodoxy, and therefore he will gladly begin to reproduce the routine reproaches addressed to us. Icons, baptism of children, veneration of saints, "call no one father", "if anyone adds or subtracts a word in this book", "God does not require the service of human hands", "salvation from faith"... The Orthodox understanding of these questions has been set forth above[595].

But after each new topic is exhausted, demand from the Protestant interlocutor: now that you know why Orthodoxy does this and how it understands this action, do you still consider us apostates and pagans? Do you think this issue is a sufficient reason for our division? And don't tell me, "If all Orthodox Christians really understood this as you have just explained it to me...", we have agreed that we are comparing the doctrinal principles of our theological traditions, and not the degree of their understanding and fulfillment by some of our parishioners. So, isn't this question worth splitting? And this one? And this one? So, excuse me, why do you consider the Orthodox to be infidel pagans, why are you separated from us? And remember well – on whom lies the sin of unauthorized separation? Have we, the Orthodox, separated from the Baptists, or have the Protestants separated from us? Our separation is your sin, and, therefore, the duty of repentant correction lies upon you...

It is clear that repentance is an act of grace, and the Spirit breathes where it wants, and it is not at all necessary that a repentant mood will really awaken in your Protestant interlocutor at this very moment. But on a rational level (and it depends on us), this section of the conversation can have the following conclusion: so, you now know that, say, the Orthodox understanding of the veneration of icons is not a betrayal of the Word of God. Can you give me, yourself, God, your word of honor in the end, that from now on you will never again blame the Orthodox for venerating icons? Or maybe you will be able to call on your flock, your disciples in your community to throw this rusty weapon out of their arsenal? An accusation coming from ignorance is one thing. But if a person already knows the real state of affairs, but continues to say something opposite, this is already slander. Why should you take the sin of perjury upon your soul? By accusing the Orthodox of an alleged violation of the second commandment, from that moment on you yourself will violate the ninth commandment (Deuteronomy 5:20: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor").

8. At the next stage of the conversation, offer the interlocutor an excursion into the world of Orthodoxy. Since we are Christians, then perhaps over the two thousand years of Christian life and thought we have accumulated something that could be useful to you? First of all, it is the world of Orthodox asceticism, anthropology, then it is the world of Orthodox culture (icon, church, music) and the world of Orthodox thought. In order to understand and accept these acquisitions and gifts of ours, it is not even necessary to become Orthodox. Orthodox theology has borrowed much from Catholic and Lutheran theology in recent centuries, but it has not ceased to be Orthodox. In the same way, one can take much from the Orthodox world while remaining a Protestant (although, perhaps, no longer a "Southern Baptist")[596].

9. Now we can proceed to a discussion of the problems that Protestant theology creates for itself, that is, to a discussion of the internal contradictions of Protestantism. The most important of them is an attempt to tear the Bible away from Tradition, from the Church. The addressee of the revelation is the Church. The author of the canon is the Church. The Bible is compiled on an extra-biblical basis. By whom exactly are these books included in the Scriptures? — The Church. The Church as a liturgical community is more primary than the Church as a community that hears the reading of Scripture. And when the New Testament books had not yet been collected, and even when they had not yet been written, the Church already existed, and the Eucharist was already in it. Now we first listen to the reading of the Gospel, then take communion. But in the apostolic era it was different: first the oral preaching of the apostles and their disciples (tradition), then Communion, and only much later – the receipt of a copy of the "Gospel from...". The Church began to take communion before it began to read the New Testament. And the canon of the New Testament was in harmony with the Eucharist, and not vice versa. We do not partake of Communion because the New Testament says so. The Christians of the first centuries recognized the New Testament because in its pages they recognized the same spirit that they had felt at their Suppers. And to oppose the book of the Church to the life of the Church, to her Tradition, is still illogical. In the end, it is a question of what Christ left behind Himself: a book about Himself or Himself? Protestants say that Christ left a collection of memories of Himself; the Catholics, that He had left the Pope as His deputy. The Orthodox assert that He Himself simply remained with us "always, even to the end of the age." Protestants seal Christ's mouth and say: "Do not add a word!" For Protestants, the book is the only way to communicate with God, the only way to know God, the only door through which they allow God to enter human life. Orthodoxy says that the Spirit breathes where and how it wills, and this breath of His is imprinted in the history of Christianity as Tradition. Christ transmits Himself, and not His merits, which the Father agrees to consider as ours and attributes them to all generations.

Among other oddities of Protestantism, one can note the one-sidedness of the doctrine of "salvation through faith."

10. The most difficult stage of the conversation is the discussion of the question of what exactly in Protestantism causes criticism from the Orthodox. If our disagreement is not in rituals, then in what? If Orthodoxy does not merge with Protestantism, but perceives its spread in Russia with obvious pain, then from the point of view of the Orthodox there is something in Protestantism that they assess as something mortally dangerous. What is it that in the perspective of Christian theology, which looks at everything under the sign of "for our sake and for our salvation," in the perspective of the salvation of the soul, turns out to be a fatal flaw of Protestantism?

This is the question of the Eucharist. Orthodoxy believes that we must truly become the Body of Christ, and only then will our resurrection be a "resurrection unto life." Protestantism believes that the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbolic rite reminiscent of the teaching of Christ. The entire life of Orthodoxy is built around the Liturgy (just as the life of Protestants is built around the preaching of the Gospel). And from the Orthodox perspective, the denial of the Eucharist is not just a distortion of one of the lines of Christ's teaching, but something much more terrible: it is the rejection of the very gift of salvation, the substitution of words about Christ for the sanctifying and saving communion of Christ. This is the substitution of God's gift for human words about the greatness of this gift. There are some Protestant communities that claim that they recognize the Eucharist as a sacrament. But here we must distinguish between two questions: one is what people themselves think about their actions, and the other is whether their actions are really as blessed as they seem to be. In Protestant communities there is no apostolic succession, which means that there is no continuous stream of agapes, the breaking of bread, the sacraments pouring from the apostles to us through all the centuries. This means that there is no participation in the Apostolic Eucharist, but only self-activity, imitating the Apostolic Sacrament... This is a complex question, and it is not sufficiently addressed in this book. Well, those who wish can get acquainted with the early Christian understanding of the Eucharist from the works of priests Cyprian Kern, Nikolai Afanasiev, Alexander Schmemann...

11. In conclusion, one more reminder for the Orthodox: it is never shameful for a Christian to repent. Yes, our church life is far from normal. Yes, there are many sins in our history and in the present. Not everything that is and has been in church life or in parish practice needs to be justified. About something else, it must be said directly: this is a sinful habit that has taken root in our churches contrary to the teaching of our own Church (for example, the icon of the New Testament Trinity, depicting God the Father in the form of an old man, contrary to the decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Hundred Chapters Council of the Russian Church). Protestants do not know how to talk about the illnesses or sins of their communities. They are brought up in the spirit of incessant boasting, incessant self-praise: "I used to be a sinner because I was an atheist, but now I am a saint, and he is a saint, and all our people are holy!" This is something that should not be imitated by Protestants. A repentant, honest conversation about Orthodoxy is, among other things, a means of disarming sectarian criticism against us. We live within the Church, so we know our illnesses better than strangers. But in addition to them, we also know the spiritual light that exists in Orthodoxy. We extinguish this light with our sins, but it still shines. Through all the centuries the Church's lament for herself passes: "Or do you not know that the body of the Church is subject to greater illnesses and misfortunes than our flesh; is it more likely to be damaged and heal more slowly?" [597]. "You ask, what are our affairs? Extremely bitter. Churches without pastors; the good perishes, the evil is outward; It is necessary to sail at night, the guiding stars do not shine anywhere. Christ is asleep"[598]. "And the Church is in almost the same position as my body: there is no good hope in sight: things are constantly leading to the worst"[599].

To pretend that everything is fine with us is unwise, if only because in most cases a Russian Protestant is a person who tried to be Orthodox, he entered our church, but something frightened him, pushed him away. So, theologically, historically, the sin of schism lies with the Protestants, and humanly – on us. "Man looks at us with inquiring eyes: Do we not have the compassionate face of God?" [600], and because he does not see him with us, he goes to others.