I have heard such gossip. But only the deacon of the Alma-Ata diocese, Alexander Lisikov, dared to expound them in print in the magazine (for some reason calling itself a newspaper) "Vedi". I read this article without much surprise – the level of theological knowledge of this "zealot of Orthodox piety" and the extent of his mastery of logic were known to me from his other publications.

During the time spent in the diocesan school, he did not even learn to use the word Gospel correctly ("The meaning of the quotation from the Gospel (Rev. 13:7) you did not present quite correctly... Higher in the text of the Gospel (Rev. 11:7-8)..."[877].

In the mouths of the Holy Fathers (admittedly, nameless ones) he considers it possible to put words that are simply ridiculous: "The Holy Fathers say this: 'Distribute a hundred Gospels to a hundred people, and in a year you will receive a hundred religions, if they are not guided by the Typikon and the Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles.'" This is the first time I hear the Typikon contain an interpretation of the Gospel. Maybe it also contains an interpretation of Revelation?..

But such peculiar theological knowledge did not prevent him from embarking on the path of denouncing his bishop, as well as taking upon himself the task of combating the "heresy of Deacon Andrei Kuraev."

All his criticism is concentrated on the first paragraph of my pamphlet: "Christianity is almost the only worldview on earth that is convinced of the inevitability of its own historical defeat. Christianity proclaimed one of the darkest eschatologies: it warned that in the end the forces of evil would be "given ... to wage war with the saints and to conquer them" (Rev. 13:7). The Gospel promises that the gates of hell will not be able to prevail against the Church, that the Church is invincible (cf. Matt. 16:18). But "invincible" does not necessarily mean "victorious." In the perspective of earthly history, it is not the world-historical triumph of the Gospel, but the world-wide dominion of the Antichrist."

It is strange, by the way, that my critic, quoting this text, for some reason puts an ellipsis before the first phrase – thereby creating the impression that something precedes it. No, it was the very first phrase that provoked his attacks.

It is even stranger that, in objecting to this assertion of mine, the critic cites the same Gospel quotation ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"), which in my book is included in the very first paragraph.

Sadly, however, this is not the case. It is sad that a clergyman does not know how to distinguish theology from politics. From the theological point of view, from the biblical point of view, there is no doubt that Christianity will be defeated in the space of world history.

The defeat will be that Christians will not be able to attract people of the last generations to Christ. Even if they strive for this, they will still not succeed. Moreover, the Antichrist's power will pass to the persecution of Christians with the approval of the pagan crowds (crowds, most of whom consist of people whose ancestors were still Christians). Even more bitter will be the defeat in that so many of those who profess to be Christians will not really believe in the real Christ, but in idols. "Christ in My Understanding"; "The Gospel in our modern reading"; "Christianity transformed on the basis of modern tolerance and open-mindedness"... These idols will reign even in the Church. Even from the highest hierarchical and teaching pulpits, such sermons will be heard. And isn't this a defeat for the Church?

Is there not "our defeat" in the fact that church people and leaders will deviate into mystical fornication, mixing the Gospel with pagan myths and worldly ideologies? Will not the dominion of the Antichrist be allowed because even before his coming Christians will become strangers to Christ, and therefore what the prophet saw will come true: "The Lord in His wrath... cast down the beauty of Israel to the earth... in His fury He destroyed the fortifications of the daughter of Judah... he rejected the kingdom and its princes as unclean; in the heat of wrath he broke all the horns of Israel... and killed everything that was desired by the eyes... The Lord became like an enemy... And He took away His hedge... He has laid waste His place of meeting... and in the indignation of His wrath he rejected the king and the priest" (Lamentations 2:1-6)? Will it not be so with us, for "the time for judgment to begin with the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17)? [879]

This is the most bitter thing: we will not so much "retreat" as "yield". We will not so much be pushed back by external pressure, as we ourselves will open our souls to accept false shrines and false faith... "I will talk about this... I will walk and weep, I will walk like a robbed and naked man, howl like jackals, and weep like ostriches, because its defeat is painful... has reached even to the gates of my people, to Jerusalem" (Micah 1:8-9).

That is why I am not so much talking about "their victory" as about "our defeat". I understand that for Deacon Alexander, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov is not an authority, but apart from all the sophiological disputes, is Fr. Sergius really wrong in these words of his, written in 1918: "It must be said frankly that all this truly mysterious power of nihilism is also a kind of impotence of the historical Church, just as the power of darkness and darkness consists only in the weakening of light. There is light, not darkness, which is only not light. How could soulless, dull, stupid teachings overshadow the majestic, bright, joyful Orthodoxy in their hearts? How is such tastelessness and squalor possible? Of course, we know that the Russian soul was subjected to the action of someone else's poison here, became a victim of the falling away through which the entire Christian world is passing. However, why did it not find a bulwark for itself in the purity of Orthodoxy, but was poisoned by the poison of Judas more deeply than even non-Orthodox countries? Both nihilism and the "dark forces," as we put it, are only symptoms of Orthodoxy, signs of its impoverishment and crisis. Salt has become overwhelmed, and therefore the body it preserves has rotted" [880].

And so great will be this final and profound regeneration of the world, which was once "Christian," that even a few "saints" (in the language of the New Testament "saints" are "faithful" and not particularly grace-filled ascetics, as in today's church language) will not be able to turn that last crisis into just "another." And they will be crushed, thrown to the outskirts of life (into the "desert") or killed. Yes, they will win in the sense that they will save their souls. But the earthly Body of Christ here will be ground up and cast out of the lives of the last inhabitants on earth.

"God has arranged it so that people should be corrected by men" [882]. But is it not a defeat for one who tries to correct people's lives according to the Gospel that his example and his words will remain fruitless? Is it not a defeat for the Church that the people to whom she is sent for Christ's witness "will not accept sound teaching, but... will turn to fables" (2 Tim. 4:3-4)?