Addressing with the use of so-called "kinship names" is a common thing in all languages: we simply determine both the age relationship with the interlocutor and, almost imperceptibly, our attitude towards him.

In fact, which address is more polite – "father" or "uncle"? "Mother" or "aunt"? Isn't it better to live in a society where boys are called "son" rather than "boy"?

The normal use of a normal linguistic means can in no way be blamed on the Orthodox. And the fact that we respect our priests and therefore address them accordingly is our right. The Gospel did not take it away from us.

In what way is Orthodoxy worse than Protestantism?

The paradox is that practically all the accusations that Protestants make against Orthodoxy are applicable to themselves.

Protestants accuse the Orthodox of preaching too little.

But the Protestant mission does not know successes similar to those known by the Orthodox mission.

As far as I know, for all their missionary enthusiasm, the Protestants have not succeeded in incorporating into Christendom a single nation beyond those who were converted by the Orthodox and Catholic missionaries. Those peoples and those countries that are still considered Christian were so even before Luther. Over the past centuries, Protestants have managed to tear several peoples away from Catholicism (but I repeat: these peoples became the Christian efforts of pre-Protestant missionaries). Protestants (to a degree quite comparable, and sometimes inferior to Catholics and Orthodox) managed to create fairly large communities in many previously pagan countries. But they could not convert any country to Christ in its entirety. Protestants do not know successes similar to the mission of Cyril and Methodius or the feat of Equal-to-the-Apostles Nina, the enlightener of Georgia.

Today, Orthodox Christians make little use of their own experience. But this experience is there. To become a missionary, it is not necessary to leave Orthodoxy for Protestantism.

Moreover, if we put the question of missionary work in a theological perspective, if we think about which of the confessions has the potential richest missionary and "teaching" opportunities, it turns out that it is in Orthodoxy.

Protestantism chose one form of preaching: preaching through speech, appeal, story. Orthodoxy, recognizing and practicing the same verbal preaching, is also able, for example, to preach in colors.

What is the name of the greatest Russian Christian preacher of the twentieth century? Who brought the most hearts to Christ? Who, in the darkest years of state atheism, stirred the souls of thousands of people again and again and turned them to the Gospel? No, this is not Father Alexander Men, not Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) and not Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh. It is clear that this is not Billy Graham either.

This is Andrei Rublev. His icons, as well as the "black boards" of other ancient iconographers, disturbed souls with their striking eyes, did not allow them to completely drown in the streams of atheistic mockery of the Gospel and Russia. Empirically, in fact, thousands and thousands of fates have proven that an icon can be a sermon. Why do Protestants, who are concerned with preaching, not use this method of addressing people?

And how many cases have there been when a person who could not be convinced by the most intelligent and skillful preachers repentantly changed simply from standing next to the priest, from his one word, from the warmth and depth of his eyes?!