Dormition of the Mother of GodRussian Orthodox Church · Singapore
Faith in the modern world

The New Religious Consciousness: What Fr. Seraphim Rose Saw in 1975

A hieromonk in the Californian forest gave a name to something he watched happening around him, and the name has outlasted the decade.

Updated 2026-09-23 · 9 min read

In short

The new religious consciousness is Fr. Seraphim Rose's 1975 phrase for a widespread appetite for spiritual experience detached from repentance and the Cross. Writing in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, he argued that intensity of feeling is no proof of grace. His positive test is the one the Fathers use: real Christian experience makes a person humbler, soberer and readier to suffer for others.

A phrase from a book published in 1975

In April 1975 a small monastic press in northern California printed a book called Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Its author was Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), an American who had taken a master's degree in Oriental languages at Berkeley, spent years among the seekers of San Francisco, and then gone to live as a monk in the forest at Platina. Chapter V of that book carries a title which has outlived most of the rest: "The 'New Religious Consciousness': The Spirit of the Eastern Cults in the 1970s".

He set the phrase inside inverted commas because it was not his own coinage. It was in the air around him. The following year two Berkeley sociologists, Charles Glock and Robert Bellah, edited a volume under exactly that title for the University of California Press. Believers and unbelievers alike could see that something was shifting in American religious life, and both were reaching for a name.

What he was actually looking at

The chapter is reportage before it is argument. Its five sections walk through scenes that a Californian of the period could have attended on a free afternoon: Hare Krishna devotees chanting in San Francisco, Guru Maharaj-ji filling the Houston Astrodome, tantric yoga in the mountains of New Mexico, zen training in northern California. Only in the fifth section, "The New 'Spirituality' vs. Christianity", does he begin to draw conclusions.

None of this was foreign material to him. Before his baptism he had studied at the Academy of Asian Studies in San Francisco under Alan Watts, and he had been a genuinely serious student of Eastern thought rather than a hostile tourist in it. When he writes about the attraction of these movements he is describing something he had felt. That is worth keeping in view, because it changes the tone of the chapter from denunciation to recognition.

Behind the individual scenes he thought he could see one shape. Each promised contact with a reality deeper than the ordinary one. Each offered a technique for reaching it. And each, in his reading, offered that contact on terms that asked nothing of the seeker's moral life.

The diagnosis: experience without repentance

This is the heart of it. What he named was not a doctrine but an appetite — for states, for felt presence, for the transcendent as something a person can be given rather than something a person is remade by. Peace and contentment were being offered as products, quickly and at no moral cost, and he thought Christians had begun to shop in the same market under Christian labels.

His answer was not to deny that the experiences happened. It was to deny that they proved anything. An experience can be vivid, unforgettable, even benevolent in its feel, and still tell you nothing whatever about its source. Against the promise of quick arrival he set a description of Christian life that reads almost harshly by comparison, and that he meant to apply to himself before anyone else.

Christian spirituality is formed in the arduous struggle to acquire the eternal Kingdom of Heaven

Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, ch. VIII §2 (St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Fifth Edition, 2004)

A necessary note on who wrote which chapter

Anyone who quotes this book should know that it is a compilation as well as an argument, and that its opening chapters are not by Fr. Seraphim at all. Attributions to him circulate widely and are often wrong. The printed bylines of the Fifth Edition are these:

Fr. Seraphim himself wrote the Preface, the Introduction, Chapters IV to VIII and the Epilogue "Jonestown and the 1980s", and he compiled and edited the whole. The chapter on the new religious consciousness is his. The argument about whether Christians and non-Christians worship the same God, which is quoted from this book more often than anything else in it, belongs to Fr. Basile Sakkas, and quoting it as Fr. Seraphim's is simply a mistake of fact. In the Introduction he describes those borrowed chapters in the third person, as an editor would:

The first three chapters offer a general approach to non-Christian religions and their radical difference from Christianity, both in theology and in spiritual life.

Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Introduction §4 (St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Fifth Edition, 2004)

Why the edition matters

The book has been reprinted nine times since 1975, through five editions, the fifth appearing in 2004. Its text has not stayed identical across those printings, and the changes touch questions about the Church that are not incidental. Sergei Chapnin has publicly asked which version is genuinely Fr. Seraphim's own, who authorised the revisions, and on what authority.

That question has not been settled, and this parish is not in a position to settle it. The practical consequence for a reader is simple and worth observing everywhere: name the edition you are quoting. Everything cited on this page is from the Fifth Edition of 2004.

None of this is a reason to distrust the book. It is a reason to read it as a document with a history, written by a man in his early forties in a particular decade, revised after his death by people who loved him, and quoted ever since by readers who mostly do not know which parts are his.

The positive criterion: humility and the Cross

Strip away the furniture of the 1970s and what remains is a test, and the test is not about which movement to avoid. It is about what genuine Christian experience looks like from the inside. The Fathers whom Fr. Seraphim was drawing on are consistent here: grace makes a person quieter, more self-suspicious, more patient with others and more willing to be inconvenienced for them.

The measure is the Cross, which is why the criterion cannot be intensity. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24, RSV). An experience that leaves a person more certain of their own advancement has failed the test, however vivid it was. An ordinary Tuesday spent forgiving someone has passed it, however flat it felt.

Saint Paul tells the Philippians to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). That phrase, fear and trembling, is the opposite register from the one the new religious consciousness was working in, and the difference is not a difference of temperament. It is a difference about what a human being is for.

This is not a verdict on anybody's neighbours

It would be easy to read Chapter V as a list of people to be suspicious of, and some readers have done exactly that. It is not how its author asked to be read at the end of his life. In November 1980 a catechumen wrote to him, distressed by the words she saw Orthodox writers using about other Christians, and asked whether she might still call her Protestant and Catholic family Christians. His answer, which he credited to Fr. Dimitry Dudko, has become the most quoted thing he ever wrote:

In the same years he put the matter in print rather than in a private letter. Convert harshness, he wrote in The Orthodox Word, is spiritually wrong even when it is worded in a theologically correct manner, and it drives away from the Church people who would otherwise have been drawn to it. He also thought part of the reason others have not seen Orthodoxy is that we have not lived it in a way they could recognise. His own mother was a Protestant and his father a former Roman Catholic who became Protestant, and his counsel to converts was to live at peace especially with their own families.

We should view the non-Orthodox as people to whom Orthodoxy has not yet been revealed, as people who are potentially Orthodox

Fr. Seraphim Rose, letter of 27 November 1980, in Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, ch. 84 (St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood)

What a reader in 2026 might make of it

Half a century on, the particular scenes have dated. The ashram has become the retreat centre and the app. Breathwork, plant medicine, silent weekends, sleep optimisation, the quantified interior life: much of what is now sold as wellness makes the same offer the chapter described, which is transcendence without repentance, and makes it at scale and for a subscription fee. The appetite has not gone anywhere. It has been industrialised.

Other parts of the book have worn less well. The chapter on unidentified flying objects reads strangely now. Academic readers have found the whole book polemical and thin on the scholarship of world religions, and that criticism is fair to record. Fr. Seraphim's own standing in the Church is likewise unsettled: he is locally venerated in some places, and in December 2025 the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad established a commission to study his life, legacy and veneration. He is not a canonised saint of the Russian Church, and this parish does not call him one.

The part that survives is the question he was asking, and it is a question anyone can use. Not: is this exotic, or foreign, or new? But: does this ask anything of me? Does it make me easier to live with?

Turning the question inward

The most useful thing about this diagnosis is that it works just as well on Orthodox Christians, and Fr. Seraphim applied it to us first. A person can want the singing, the incense, the beauty of an old rite and the pleasure of belonging to something ancient, and want all of it for exactly the reasons Chapter V describes. He said as much repeatedly, and admitted to being suspicious of a church full of correct icons, because the people in it might simply be following a fashion.

So the article ends where the discipline actually begins, which is with the writer and not the reader. If you have come here from a congregation where Christ is loved and the singing is warm, nothing on this page is aimed at you. The Orthodox Church makes a large claim about herself, and we have not tried to soften it. But the test she applies first is to her own members, on an ordinary weekday, in confession. You are welcome to come and watch how that goes.

Common questions

What did Fr. Seraphim Rose mean by the new religious consciousness?

He meant the widespread appetite, visible in the 1970s, for spiritual experience sought for its own sake and detached from repentance, obedience and the Cross. He described it in Chapter V of Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future through four scenes he could observe in California and Texas. His objection was not that the experiences were unreal, but that intensity of experience proves nothing about its source.

Did Fr. Seraphim Rose write all of Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future?

No. He wrote the Preface, the Introduction, Chapters IV to VIII and the Epilogue on Jonestown, and compiled the book. Chapter I is by Fr. Basile Sakkas, Chapter II by an anonymous convert to Orthodoxy, and Chapter III by Archimandrite Nicholas Drobyazgin. In the Fifth Edition of 2004 the preface and the closing epilogue are by Hieromonk Damascene. Attributing those chapters to Fr. Seraphim is a common and avoidable error.

Is this an attack on other Christians or on other religions?

It is not intended as one, and Fr. Seraphim himself set limits on that kind of writing. He held that harsh polemic was spiritually wrong even when technically accurate, and that Christians outside Orthodoxy should be treated as people to whom Orthodoxy has not yet been shown. The criterion described here is applied by Orthodox Christians to their own prayer and their own experience before it is applied to anyone else's.

Should Fr. Seraphim Rose be called Saint Seraphim?

Not at present. He is locally venerated in some places, and in December 2025 the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia created a commission to study his life, legacy and veneration. That study has not concluded. The correct and courteous forms are Fr. Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), and this parish uses those.

How does this apply in 2026?

The specific movements of the 1970s have mostly dispersed, but the appetite he described is now served by an enormous wellness industry offering calm, presence and inner transformation as purchasable experiences. The Orthodox test has not changed with the market. Ask whether an experience has made you humbler, more patient and readier to carry someone else's burden. If it has not, it has told you nothing about God.

Sources and further reading

  1. Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future — full English text — Hosted by azbyka.ru. Chapter and section titles cited on this page follow the Fifth Edition of 2004.
  2. St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood — publisher's edition page — The publisher of record; gives the current edition, ISBN and pagination.
  3. Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose, ch. 84 'Pastoral Guidance' — Contains the letter of 27 November 1980 quoted above, and the passage from The Orthodox Word on convert harshness.
  4. Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose, ch. 86 'Orthodoxy of the Heart' — His remarks on outward forms becoming counterfeits, and on Protestant Christians he knew personally.
  5. OrthoChristian — index of materials on Fr. Seraphim Rose — Talks, letters and biographical articles in English.
  6. ROCOR Synod establishes a commission on Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) — Reported 13 December 2025; the reason this parish does not call him a saint.
  7. Patriarchal Exarchate of South-East Asia — The parish's own ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Related reading

The parish

This parish rents its premises and receives no government funding. About S$18,000 is needed each month for the rent and running costs. If these pages have been useful to you, please consider helping to keep them and the parish going.

Support the parish