Childhood and youth
Little is known about Vladimir’s childhood years. The priest was born in 1961 in the city of Ulyanovsk. Even as a child, the boy began to be interested in religion and Orthodox culture.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Anti-Bullying Golovin (@protiv_travli) on Apr 15, 2021 at 8:19am PDT
Vladimir Golovin and his mother (nun Susanna)
After school, the young man became a student at the Moscow Theological Seminary. In 1988, he received an invitation to take the post of rector in the St. Abraham parish of Kuibyshev (later the city was renamed Bolgar).
Religion
Golovin began working as a preacher in 2003. The man was blessed for this position by the Archbishop of Kazan and Tatarstan. By this time, Vladimir already enjoyed significant authority among local residents and government officials. The archpriest quickly began to incorporate “innovative” methods into church activities, which were greeted with delight by some and repulsed by others.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Custom Icons Half-Drag Stones (@icon163) on Jul 27, 2021 at 12:54pm PDT
Archpriest Vladimir Golovin
The archpriest now has his own website, on the pages of which those interested can familiarize themselves with the texts of services, the times of rituals, and offers of pilgrimage tours. A new method that appeared in the parish in 2004 was “prayer by agreement.” The priest emphasized that this type of appeal to God and the saints is an ancient practice of conciliar prayer.
The concept of such an event is as follows. The schedule of conciliar prayers is posted on the archpriest's official website. Anyone can choose the right one. Modern technologies make it possible to join worshipers in the temple from anywhere in the world via the Internet. The Holy Father himself noted that such a ritual cures diseases and gives believers hope for the fulfillment of desires. However, ministers of the Russian Orthodox Church do not recognize the truth of such a prayer.
Unconventional theology Rev. Vladimir Golovin
Archpriest Vladimir Golovin
Why am I writing this material
About four years ago, the first victims of the activities of Archpriest Vladimir Golovin came to me from Bolgar, a small town in Tatarstan. They said that he destroyed their son's family by blessing his wife to divorce him. I usually don’t react to such single statements: who knows what kind of conflict a priest has with his parishioners? Not a single parish priest is immune from this. Therefore, I advised these people to contact the diocesan bishop, Rev. Vladimir and resolve the issue with him.
But the statements from victims did not stop there. In four years (until December 2021), I have received at least ten of them. People said that their relatives behave like sectarians, constantly travel to Bolgar, transfer money there, get up at night to read the akathist at the same time as the “prayer book and miracle worker” Father Vladimir, stop taking care of their family and children, and lose respect for their parish priest etc. Moreover, many of those who approached me strongly advised me to listen to the numerous sermons of Rev. Vladimir and make their theological analysis.
For a number of reasons (not the least of which is my constant employment), I did not start this work for a long time, although my assistants showed me some excerpts from the sermons of the Tatarstan archpriest. Many of them sounded, to put it mildly, ambiguous, but, I thought, who doesn’t? A person gets carried away, and sometimes he blurts out something that he himself may later regret. Don't we have enough priests talking complete nonsense on their blogs and YouTube channels? Well, to denounce each of them, there won’t be enough time for anything else.
However, in December 2021, I received four new requests asking to pay attention to Fr. Golovin. I realized that the matter was still quite serious, and it would not be possible to postpone this problem any longer. Since preparation for the Christmas readings and the student session took up all my time, I asked my friend and comrade-in-arms, Rev. Alexandra Novopashina from Novosibirsk will give a report on this topic. Fortunately, Father Alexander agreed and at our section of the Christmas readings presented to the attention of those gathered the report “Commercial and religious project of Archpriest Vladimir Golovin” (https://iriney.ru/iskazhenie-pravoslaviya-i-okolopravoslavnyie-sektyi/obshhee/kommerchesko-religioznyij-proekt -svyashhennika-vladimira-golovina.html).
This thorough and impeccably documented message caused a storm. It was reprinted by several popular sites, and Father Alexander was hit by a whole wave of indignant letters from adherents (there is no other way to put it) of the archpriest he criticized. “Bastard, freak, bastard, scum” - these are only the mildest (and most censored) of all the epithets with which the Golovinites awarded the honored archpriest, one of the most famous and effective missionaries of our Church. Some even went so far as to call Father Alexander an agent of Tatar separatists and radical Islamists, i.e., they elevated outright slander to the rank of political denunciation.
All this requires an answer. Moreover, in his review speech, Father Alexander only briefly touched on many of the speeches of Rev. Golovin and the ideas he expressed, while almost each of them requires a more careful analysis. I’m not even talking about the financial side of the activities of the Bulgarian group, through which, as one might suspect even at a quick glance, such crazy money passes through that the notorious “god Kuzya” is resting (see, for example, here: https://iriney.ru/ iskazhenie-pravoslaviya-i-okolopravoslavnyie-sektyi/obshhee/kommentarij-k-pismam-“golovinczev”.html, or here: https://www.facebook.com/archpriestAndrey/posts/1682922501767161 ). However, this area should be addressed by people more competent than me in this area.
Thus, I still had to take on this matter. To begin with, I tried to analyze for compliance with Orthodox theology just one of the public speeches mentioned by Father Alexander, Archpriest. Vladimir Golovin.
Below is a verbatim printout of the central part of the approximately two-hour sermon of the charismatic Bulgarian archpriest before a youth (even partly children) audience (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=1TnJZCXTOFo - beginning 1:37:50 and 1 each: 46:16) with my comments. We tried in the printout (given in italics) to fully preserve the features of the preacher’s style and vocabulary, making it as literal as possible. We apologize in advance to the reader for the fact that we will have to quote the shockingly blasphemous and blasphemous sayings of the archpriest from Bolgar.
Theology of the latrine
The past twentieth century has produced many theological innovations. For example, after the Second World War, a certain “Theology after Auschwitz” appeared in liberal circles. They say that we cannot treat God the same way as before after the Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. The Apostle Paul wrote that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), but the founders of this movement decided that after the tragedy of Auschwitz the Savior must definitely become different. In the 60s, revolutionary Latin American Jesuits, trying to combine atheistic Marxism with Roman Catholicism, created a “Theology of Liberation” that justified class violence and terror. In the late seventies, the founders of neo-Pentecostalism constructed their occult-consumer and anti-Christian “prosperity theology.” Then came various “theologies”: feminism, homosexuality, etc.
In full accordance with this reverse progression: each new “theology” is more vulgar and nastier than the previous one – at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a new type of “theology” appeared, which can be called “latrine theology.” The pioneer of this original line of thought was Sun Myung Moon, the leader and founder of the largest totalitarian sect of the twentieth century, however, now deceased.
Speaking on October 15, 1996 to his high-ranking guests in Seoul (at the same time his assistants read out this speech in the capitals of the leading countries of the world), Moon, among many “interesting things,” said the following:
You may be confused by what I'm about to say, but I want to give you one example. Every morning you go to the toilet. Do you put on a gas mask before performing certain physiological functions? This is not a joke, but a serious question. If you find yourself close to another person sending the same need, you will quickly move away. But you don't notice the smell when it comes from you. This is because he is yours. And he doesn't seem disgusting to you.
Have you tried nasal boogers as a child? How do they taste, sweet or salty? Salty, right? If you answer, it means you tried it! Why didn't they seem dirty to you? Because they were part of your body.
Reverend Moon came up with something that had never occurred to anyone.
(“In search of the original source of the universe.” Address by Rev. Sun Myung Moon at the grand opening on October 15, 1996 of the Moscow Conference of the Federation of Families for World Peace. M., 1996).
But these ideas were truly developed by another person - Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church Vladimir Golovin. Only if the false messiah Moon reflected on the topic of taste, color and smell of his own physiological secretions, then the preacher from Tatarstan, who has numerous followers, turned his daring thought to the physiological functions of Christ Himself. And, by his own admission, these imaginary glances into the latrine made Archpriest Vladimir a different person. Now he invited the youth and children who had gathered to listen to him to do the same. Like “Reverend” Moon, the Reverend Golovin came up with something that had never occurred to anyone.
- .... I think this is very important. At one time, when I found the answer to this question, I could not be what I was before. Maybe some of you, if you seriously think about what I’m going to say now, maybe some of you… can already be different. I'm not saying worse/better, this is a different conversation. To others. But the question is this: do you think that Christ the Savior, when he met a great need, how did he restore hygiene? Why are you silent?
- Like all people... Just like [inaudible]
- Like all people, good. It's clear. So, I took toilet paper, soft... Well, it simply wasn’t there then. But she wasn’t there then! How, well, how are all the people?... But I don’t know how it was then, how did you get nettles? No... Or maybe someone has something like this, he also deserves attention... Nettle...
- … There was a time…
- How, how was it with them? So I... I ask how...
- We washed ourselves...
- We washed ourselves, right? Okay... It's great for the desert. I know there are some people who wipe themselves with sand. So... Well, and nevertheless, how do you think?
- Maybe with cloth?
- Fabric! Very interesting moment! Where did He get it? I bought it specially and tore it into pieces and wiped it off.
- Well... Maybe he used old things...
- No, well, I... well, this, no, well, then, okay, then another question... Close to this topic. When He had a small need... But rather... or did He not have a small need? Actually, He urinated, no, what do you think?
- Well, yes, I peed... [inaudible]
- And now there’s another question. He goes with the apostles. That is, everyone is of the same gender – men. His need... Did he turn away from others or did he not turn away?
- No…
- I didn’t turn away...
- [laughter]
- Wonderful! So, you think that He suffered, wanting to be seen, so to speak... Well, if there is something [inaudible] of course, well, in general, in principle... Who said this - a man? Here? Male? The male said... Yeah... Yeah, yeah...
- ...In a male company... [Laughter]... Look...
- No, no, well, I remember my childhood, I’ll say it in paraphrase, so... with p-p-p... as we said, so... paraphrase. It is necessary in one sea, so that there is no grief.
- Ahh... Yes, yes, yes...
- Well, we are not women, but it’s easy and simple for us to be... united, at least in one seemingly important matter. And yet, and yet... But I’m serious: do you think he turned away, no? They said no.
- [Inaudible]
- How? How much...? I was shy!…
- It’s not that he was shy...
- No, you weren’t embarrassed?
- Why put it on display... That is... At such a moment... In some way intimate... [laughter]
- Well, after all, well, well, is it humane, is there a sin in coping with minor needs? Shame is a natural reaction to sin. There is no sin - then there is nothing to be ashamed of?!...
- No. There’s no shame here... It’s not like shame, but there are certain rules of decency... Well, after all, we’re not animals who do all this in front of each other... [inaudible]
- Well, what are “rules of decency”? Here, the words of my grandmother, I speak out loud. He says life after the war was hard. They were hungry and worked until they dropped. It used to be, she says, on a permanent basis... For those who don’t know what it is, she had a permanent one – it’s a chicken coop. Which is constantly... Chickens need to eat and clean every day... She walks every day... There were no days off, no walk-ins, there was nothing. It happened, he says, on a permanent basis, there, a minute is free, there will be time, he says, we used to, he says, look for and sing... We are looking for... The term “we are looking for” - do you know what it is? Well, they take turns crushing each other’s lice. This is how we lived, this was the reality of life! We live poorly now, but then we lived well – there were more lice! So, he says, let’s look and eat! Feel free to crush each other's lice.
- Well, apparently, everything depends on the circumstances...
- From the circumstances... So, just about there, exactly, I apologize, I’m interrupting! Depending on the circumstances. So, here, the norms of decency are the norms of human conventions. Should Christ fulfill human conventions? Shouldn't he be above all this?
- Well, probably... [inaudible, reasoning]... But he went to preach at thirty, and not earlier... Because those were the rules... Until thirty, no one would listen to you...
- Close, close... Ah... But still, I would like us to think about how Christ relieved himself, how He picked, loved to pick more in the left or right nostril... Well, you and I love... When not everything they see... Well, it can be so fun! Deep thoughts come at this time... Well, you know, well, you remember, you should know.
Trying to justify the blasphemous, vile calls of Rev., which go beyond all bounds of decency and at least minimal reverence. Golovin imagine the Savior defecating or Him picking his nose (all this to the laughter of the youth gathered around him), his followers claim that he only used the necessary pedagogical device to emphasize the humanity of Christ. But was it not enough for the priest to tell that the Savior was hungry and thirsty, that he was so mortally tired that he could even fall asleep on a boat, overwhelmed by waves and overcome by a storm? Couldn't Rev. Golovin tell young people how Jesus Christ shed tears over the tomb of His friend Lazarus? How did He rejoice in simple things, how did He eat food with the disciples, how did He yearn and pray in the Garden of Gethsemane, how did He experience the feeling of being abandoned by God on the cross?
No, he needed, like the ancient Ham, to reveal the nakedness of the Father to the world and mock it. Worse than Ham! After all, he laughed at his earthly father, but Golovin exposes his God and Savior to mockery.
We know that the Savior of the world hung on the cross completely naked, but the icon painters depicting the Crucifixion chastely cover His loins with a loincloth. Prot. Golovin acts like the Roman soldiers who tore off this bandage and exposed the nakedness of their Victim to the ridicule of the crowd. But, unlike them, who did not know what they were doing, Orthodox priest Vladimir Golovin knows perfectly well what he is doing. And, judging by his appearance, he remains quite pleased with himself.
So, why am I telling you, of course? Because I have the next question after this. And it seems to me that for Orthodox Russia, for those who are members of the Russian Orthodox Church, that part of it, it seems to me, this is not an idle question - which nostril did Christ like to throw. This is a very important question. Because the answer I most often hear to this question is heresy. The bulk of our churches are Monophysite heretics. Now, we sometimes say... Here, Armenians and Monophysites... They, by the way, are not Monophysites. They are not monophysites. And the majority of us are Monophysites. Now, when you ask a person who Christ is, he says: “Well, like who? God!" Well, that's a lie! It's a lie! A?…
No, Your Reverence, this is not a lie. The Lord Jesus Christ is the true God. Or is there a lie in our Creed? “I believe... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light from the light of God, true from God, true, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father...” A lie? No, that's the point, it's not a lie. He is true God and true man. It would be a lie if someone said that He is only God and not a man. Or, if someone (for example, Archpriest Vladimir Golovin) accused believers who call Christ God of lying.
- [inaudible]... God and Man...
- A? God and Man are two essences of nature in one Person, in one essence there are two natures.
But this, Your Reverence, is a lie. And heresy. In what one essence are there two natures of Jesus Christ? In human terms, you need to understand? Is humanity defined for you only, so to speak, through a system of excretion? It turns out that for you there is no human thought, no creativity, no freedom, no sense of humor, no consciousness, no reflection, no spiritual life, no science, no art, no self-sacrifice, no love - in a word, nothing that distinguishes us from animals . Some physiological functions. Think about it - and you will become a different person! And this one physiological essence is in Christ? From your point of view, is this what makes Him a true man?
It seems like you studied at the seminary for some time? There is a basic principle that children in Sunday school confirm: In the Most Holy Trinity there is one essence, one nature and three Persons (Hypostases). In Christ there is one Hypostasis and two natures, two essences - divine and human. If you don’t know this, then why put yourself in the position of a teacher broadcasting hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of urbi et orbi on the Internet?
Unfortunately, the further reasoning of Rev. Vladimir Golovin develops from bad to worse.
He is an incomprehensible God, that's true. Unthinkable, inexpressible, above all, and He is a man like you. A man like you! Just like you! Except sin. That's the whole difference. Moreover, in addition to sin, He did not do it because He... more... committed [inaudible], but because He overcame sin in Himself. We remember that Satan approached, tempting us in the desert after baptism. What was it suitable for? He had a purpose - he tempted. Now we are talking about theory. Which didn't happen. But: could Christ have fallen? Certainly! Because he tempted Him. Could. But He did not fall, he overcame sin within himself. Moreover, not by His Divinity. The demon himself was not afraid of the Deity. He conquered His human nature.
I am afraid that here again the complete theological illiteracy of a preacher reveling in his own eloquence is evident. They say that simplicity is worse than theft. So we see that denseness and ignorance lead to the grossest heresy and blasphemy. Prot. Golovin does not understand that nature, nature cannot sin. Only an individual can sin. The personality, hypostasis of Jesus is the eternal Hypostasis of the Son of God, which took on human nature. She is united with the divine nature “unfused, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable.” These are the basics of our theology, expressed in the oros of the Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils.
How could the Lord Jesus Christ fall? Even theoretically, how? How can Orthodox Archpriest Vladimir Golovin, even purely speculatively, imagine the sinning Hypostasis of the Eternal Son of God? God and sin are incompatible. It is easier for me to imagine vaporous ice or liquid stone, radiant darkness or freezing heat.
But, apparently, with Rev. Vladimir developed his own, purely personal, special idea of Jesus Christ, apparently refracted through toilet topics, which he loved to indulge in reflection on. He came up with something that had never occurred to anyone (not even Moon before him) before! The crazy Satan, who tempted the Savior, also thought that He might sin. But the prince of this world, at least, did not know that he was dealing with the Eternal Son of God. I tried to understand everything, one way or another. The Lord did not give him an answer. And Archpriest Vladimir, it seems, should know who Jesus Christ is. But, nevertheless, following Satan, he believes that He could still sin.
Rev. Maximus the Confessor, whose teaching formed the basis of the decision of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, taught that in Christ there are two natural wills - divine and human, and the second acts in complete harmony with the first. The eternal Hypostasis of the Son of God took into Himself the entire fullness of fallen humanity, except for sin. This is the incomprehensible miracle of the Incarnation. The Lord bore all the consequences of Adam’s fall: corruption, mortality, illness, hunger, thirst. He was tired, needed sleep, He was hungry and thirsty, He experienced pain, suffered and His Body was subject to all the laws of this world. But he did not have the gnomic (elective) will inherent in us, which limits our freedom, making us susceptible to sin. That is why, no matter what Satan tempted Him hoped for, He could not sin.
He did not accept my sin and did not become it, but for my sake He became sin, that is, He became the corruption of nature that arose through a change in my will, taking Him upon Himself. For our sake, He became by nature a passionate man... In Christ, the inclination of His personal will for good deprived all human nature of the general shame of corruption, when, during the Resurrection, nature was transformed through the immutability of will into incorruptibility <... > The Lord, having taken upon Himself... condemnation for my voluntary sin, I mean - having taken the passion, corruption and mortality of human nature, for my sake it became sin according to passion, corruption and mortality, voluntarily putting on my condemnation by nature, although He Himself was uncondemned by choice. (Reverend Maximus the Confessor. Questions and answers to Thalassia).
The central definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council clearly and clearly speaks about this:
... We preach, according to the teaching of the holy fathers, that in Him there are two natural desires or wills inseparably, immutably, inseparably, unfused, and the two natural wills are not opposite, as the wicked heretics said, let it not be, but His human will follows and does not contradict, or opposes, or rather submits to His divine and omnipotent will. For, according to the teachings of the wise Athanasius, it was necessary for the will of the flesh to be in action, but to submit to the will of the divine. Just as His flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so the natural will of His flesh is called and is the own will of God the Word, as He Himself says: for He came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:38 ), calling His will the will of the flesh, since the flesh became His own flesh. Just as His all-holy and immaculate animate flesh, being deified, was not destroyed, but remained in its own limit and logos, so His human will, being deified, was not destroyed, but was preserved, in accordance with Gregory the Theologian, who says: the will of that which is conceivable in the Savior, being completely deified, she will not contradict God. We affirm that in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural actions inseparably, unchangeably, inseparably, unfused, that is, divine action and human action, in accordance with the preacher Leo, who says most clearly: every nature produces what what is proper to him, in communication with another, when, that is, the Word does what is proper to the Word, and the body brings into execution what is proper to the body (Ep. 28.4). Let us not present the natural action of God and creation as one, so as not to elevate the created into the divine essence and not to reduce the superiority of the divine nature to a place suitable for creatures. We attribute to the same One both miracles and suffering, according to the one and the other nature of which He consists and in which He has existence, as the God-speaking Cyril said. So, having protected on all sides the indivisible and unmerged, let us proclaim everything that has been said in short words. Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, is one from the Holy Trinity and after the Incarnation, we say that His two natures were manifested in His one hypostasis, in which He truly, and not illusively, declared Himself through miracles and suffering throughout His entire life. economic life, with the discovery of a natural difference in the same one hypostasis in that both natures want and produce what is characteristic of themselves in communication with the other. That is why we recognize two natural wills and actions that mutually converged for the salvation of the human race. So, after we have established all this with all possible care and attention, we determine that no one is allowed to preach another faith.
Reflecting on the possibility of Christ to sin, Rev. Golovin is likened to the scandalous Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis, who wrote the blasphemous novel “The Last Temptation of Christ” precisely on this topic, in which the entire plot is built on the assumption: what would have happened if He had taken and not fulfilled the will of the Father... When the film based on this book was assembled demonstrated on Russian television, the entire Russian Orthodox Church came out to protest. But time has passed and an archpriest belonging to our Church expresses the same blasphemous assumptions on YouTube, and his numerous adherents (who consider themselves Orthodox) laugh joyfully, obsequiously looking into his mouth.
Showing that a person has the strength to overcome sin within himself. Man has these powers. He showed.
And this, Your Reverence, is called the heresy of Pelagianism, the condemnation of which, by the way, was confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council. If a person can overcome sin in himself by his own strength, then we do not need Christ. Then the incarnation of the Son of God was unnecessary, and His sacrifice was in vain. We can do everything ourselves, why do we need Him? Only, maybe for an inspiring example? But isn’t the result of His crucifixion, His passion, His descent into hell too insignificant? After all, according to Prot. Vladimir Golovin, we ourselves can and must cope.
But, nevertheless, He is in every way like a man, just like us.
In other words, to say that Jesus Christ is God, according to Prop. Golovin lies. But to say that He is a man without mentioning the Divine is the norm. This separation of two natures is called the heresy of Nestorianism, condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council.
What is the conclusion from this, I would like to say.
But I saw a picture in one Protestant community that shocked me and somehow jarred me, and then I remembered it more than once, and it no longer shocked me. Do you know what picture? A young preacher enters the pulpit. And he says: “So, first of all, Dad, hello, guys, hello!”
- [Laughter]
- It shocked me! What else is this? Well, I was brought up differently in the past. Like this? And, God, reverently... Heels together, toes apart, hands at the seams. Well, how is it? And here Dad - firstly, “hello to you,” - then “brothers, sisters, guys, hello.” Today we will talk about this... It shocked me. And then I began to remember this more and more often. There was something about it... I remember him too... He didn’t do it brazenly. And he did it, not to shock anyone. He lives for it.
In this case, the question is not theological. This is a matter of ethics and taste. Although, for a person who publicly announces that he likes (at least in the imagination) to peek through the keyhole of the toilet and invites his listeners to do this, it’s probably normal to address God this way. But still. Prot. Vladimir Golovin approves of such a familiar appeal to God, but I wonder if he would approve of the same appeal to himself? How would he (and his immediate circle) react if those who came to see “dear father” simply addressed him, ignoring his rank, gray hair and status in society: “Hello, Vovchik, how are you, dude?” Something tells me that such an insolent person would have been fairly harshly pushed away from the cult priest. Perhaps someone would have used their fists out of offended feelings. But this is how you can approach God, He will endure...
When we turn to our Savior Jesus Christ, we sometimes turn to him only as God. And He is not God. He is the God-man.
Again, it’s not true, and it’s blatant! No matter what Rev. says. Vladimir Golovin, Jesus Christ is God. True God and True Man. This is the basis of our faith. But priest Golovin claims something else - “not God, but a God-man.” There are two options for interpreting this idea that he constantly exaggerates.
1. In the God-man Jesus Christ, divinity is dissolved to the point of complete indistinction.
2. Jesus Christ is neither God nor Man, but something third, something like a centaur - not a horse and not a man, but a man-horse. So is Jesus Christ, according to the version of Archpriest. Golovin, a god-man, not God. But, since this is so, then He is not a man, but half man, half God - a special being.
I don’t know whether the popular preacher had this in mind, whether he thought about the elementary conclusions from his words, or whether he simply turned off his brain, fascinated by his own eloquence and intoxicated by the power that he gained over his adoring audience, but the “outhouse” he developed theology" does not provide us with other options for understanding his "revelations."
We see that during the ten minutes of our speech to young people and children, the popular Internet preacher not only repeated the boorish sin in relation to Jesus Christ (on which he, in fact, based his speech), but also imposed a whole bunch of heresies condemned at most Ecumenical Councils of our Church. What useful and good things did he teach them?
Anticipating the reaction of fans of the cult Internet archpriest, I can imagine their objections. All of them, as one, will tell me that the priest, they say, got carried away, misspoke, accidentally said the wrong thing, and so made an unfortunate expression. Otherwise, he didn’t mean anything like that, but his enemies and envious people find fault with him and take him at his word...
Well, I don’t know and have no opportunity to know what prot. Vladimir Golovin could have meant it, but I see and hear only what he actually said. And, in my opinion, the density of these “reservations” and “unfortunate expressions” is too great for every square centimeter of text. You could say she's just going through the roof. No one would keep any professional with so many “accidental” mistakes in the field of his specialty.
If prot. Vladimir Golovin does not see this, does not hear and does not understand, then he is simply unsuitable as a preacher, he must immediately stop his many kilometers of words and do something else. But it seems that he has already become too deeply involved in the role of leader of the masses, teacher and guru, so that he does not even imagine himself in any other capacity. He stated directly in one of his speeches: “I have nothing to lose!” It’s a pity, since this path is extremely dangerous both for him and for everyone around him and for the thousands of people seduced by him and his “outhouse theology” who, unlike him, still have a lot to lose.
To be continued
