Tikhon of Zadonsk:

I think \"white habit\" refers to the baptismal garment.

It does not appear to me that St. Tikhon\'s words were directed solely to clergy.

Yes, I agree. The words \"white clergy\" would refer to clergy. But \"white habit\" sounds like it might refer to baptismal robes, in the sense that one does not have to be a monk to be ascetic and pray fervently - just a Christian. To be honest, there are many regular old lay-folk who can put a lot of monks and nuns to shame. The monastic habit indicates a particular commitment to poverty, obedience, and celibacy (and according to some, stability of life - it depends on who you read). The spiritual life is not entirely encompassed by these principals. In other words, you don\'t have to be a monk or nun, to be holy.

Thank you all for your replies. I had not thought at all of the baptismal robe. I *had* thought of the \"white clergy\" thing but it did seem to me that the context seemed to be wider than clergy only. I am hoping to find Tikhon\'s Works someplace (I can read Russian and French). In the meantime I have started reading a biography of St. Tikhon in English. Certainly Evdokimov\'s context includes all Orthodox, because he specifically cites the Fathers and later Orthodox on the idea that Orthodoxy teaches that both monastics and non-monastics are called by God to the same level of perfection. And the chapter is about the idea that perhaps \"monasticism\" needs to change its form or that there needs to be a new form of monasticism to suit our age the same way that monasticism originally grew up in the context of radical changes in the social and political environment from early Christianity to Constantine and later. So whatever Tikhon\'s context was, Evdokimov\'s context definitely was about all non-monastics. And he uses the three vows (poverty, chastity, and obedience) as the governing principles for the new form he is suggesting. I asked my question here because for all I knew there already existed in 18th-century Russia some white-habit folks who were somehow \"monastics in the world\" or \"interiorized monastics\" or \"untonsured monastics\" or something similar. Apparently not. And yes, I know about the Western practice of having \"third order Franciscans\" and suchlike. My understanding is that Orthodoxy doesn\'t have anything like that, largely because of the principle that Evdokimov enunciates, namely that God\'s call to monastics and to non-monastics is identical. And I\'ve heard the principle also that Orthodox regard monasticism and plain ol\' laity as being extremes of a continuum rather than being qualitatively and radically different. Please don\'t fasten too much on my precise words, since I am from memory summarizing these various folks. And if there are inaccuracies here, they are mine and not the authors\'.

Well, it is an intriguing issue, but I remain unconvinced that monasticism needs to change to suit modern circumstances. No worries about summarizing other people\'s ideas. It at least gives those of us who haven\'t read the works a little idea of what it is about. :)

I think I found in St. Tikhon\'s biography the passage Evdokimov was referring to: \"Tikhon discouraged hasty monastic professions. When (Kornily) the Archimandrite of Zadonsk monastery informed him of a tradesman who desired to adopt a life devoted to God, Tikhon replied: \'Let him simply stay for a while among the brethren; the black habit will not work salvation. A man in lay garb, yet clothed with obedience, humility and charity is in any case an untonsured monk.\' (21 November 1763)\" [Gorodetzky, Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, p. 48) Now, in the contexts I had seen this before, it almost sounded like a manifesto. But here it seems like normal good advice couched in a colorful phrase. Pun intended.