This points out some of the perhaps unforeseen political consequences of the union of ROCOR and the MP.
If the MP Patriarch Alexei is viewed as a politician by some in his homeland and ROCOR must be obedient to him on "spiritual" matters, then what keeps the United States from requiring Metropolitan Laurus and every clergyman of ROCOR from having to register as agents of a foreign government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?
When one reads the MP document from 2000 about the relations of church and state - namely that it is the MP's duty to support all "good" initiatives of the Russian government and essentially whatever the Russian government does that is not spiritually harmful to the flock - it becomes evident that this is a political can of worms for the ROCOR flock in the United States.
Just recently MP Patriarch Alexei sent Metropolitan Kyrill to Pyongyang, North Korea to consecrate a church. It was hailed as a "remarkable symbol of the Russian-Korean friendship." ( http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=32512 ) Does that sound spiritual or political?
Was MP Patriarch Alexei's birthday greeting to Fidel Castro political or was it spiritual? Is Castro Russian Orthodox? Should ROCOR have sent such a greeting as well? If not, then it is a political act and not a bona fide religious act. If so, why? And why didn't they?
If the MP council of Bishops sends congratulations to Pyongyang, will American ROCOR bishops sign as well? Will their flocks be investigated by the FBI if they do?
Will ROCOR followers in America be seen as political dissidents in their own home country after this union because our church is a part of a church that has warm relations with people seen here as "enemies" or, in the case of North Korea, possible sources of weapons for terrorists?
If the U.S. government sees fit to charge ROCOR with being an agent of a foreign government after this union, ROCOR would have to assert that it was exempt under an exception that allows "bona fide" religious activities. Thus, it will be not ROCOR's canonical status on trial, but their tax-exempt status, and they might be required to report their activities and reveal all their financial information to the U.S. government.
Will ROCOR Orthodox be seen as a security risk by the U.S. government and be ineligible for service to their OWN government because of the MP's pledge to support Russia's government and ROCOR's decision to voluntarily join the MP?
When Metropolitan Laurus greeted the recent meeting of Russian compatriots by letter, he asserted that it was the duty of the Orthodox to support government. It was ambiguous whether he meant their OWN governments or the Russian government.
If it is the Russian government, then that makes no sense from a religious point of view for Orthodox people with no ties to Russia other than the Church. If it is their OWN government, then he might well be making that impossible for many ROCOR Americans.
Rather than preserving the existence of ROCOR by joining the MP, this union might well result in political attacks on ROCOR and lead to its destruction.
If the $5 dropped in the collection plate to help Batiushka and the church can be merely alleged to have ended up in North Korea or Iran or Cuba, or HAMAS in the Holy Land (who have cooperated with the MP in seizing ROCOR properties) ROCOR parishioners in America could find themselves labeled "enemy combatants" and held indefinitely without charges or usual Habeas Corpus rights.
From the MP's point of view, ROCOR will be essentially eliminated either way, so it makes no difference to them.
This is a very dangerous situation, and I am not sure that people perceive the gravity of it. Sergianism and Ecumenism are important, but the most important fact that the debate over those issues seems to overshadow is the fact that the MP was created by the Soviet government and remains a Soviet institution with a relationship to its government which is incompatible with American constitutional values of the separation of Church and state.
Modern rulers do not rule by divine right and the Church needs to recognize that that political reality should inform its relationship to the state, not a nostalgic wish to replicate history in an area which has little to do with saving souls.
