The ongoing crisis at St. Alexander Nevsky Church in Copenhagen was previously described in post #20, “The Russian-Orthodox Crisis in Copenhagen.”
Recently, the Danish Christian news outlet Kristeligt Dagblad published an article describing unrest in this parish, sparked by a wave of recently baptized Danish converts, almost all of whom are young men with far-right political leanings (108).
Here, I want to firmly state that the problem in this parish is NOT these young people. They are being used as tools of a willful program of “de-Russification” by their leader, a destructive, rebellious deacon whom I call “Comrade Misha”—the current rector, Mikhail Sukhanov, who came to power through a putsch without ever having undertaken ANY seminary education.
“Comrade Misha’s putsch” in 2023 destroyed the united, thriving parish that had been my spiritual home for almost 20 years. That’s why I fled to Russia as a “spiritual refugee.” Moreover, this putsch destroyed the deep, mystical atmosphere of “Holy Rus’,” which had previously been nurtured and faithfully maintained there for 25 years by the competent and experienced priest, Archpriest Sergei Plekhov. “Comrade Misha,” on the contrary, actively de-Russified it, making it “Russian with a small r” (109).
This is a very, very special church. Father Sergei himself wrote a book about it (110 ). It was here that I learned Orthodox spiritual work myself, having moved to Denmark from the United States immediately after my baptism in 2005. (It’s worth noting that at my baptism, I was given a Danish Dagmar cross as a baptismal cross.) I can personally confirm that everyone who gathered there received HUGE “special” “spiritual assistance.” And this shouldn’t surprise faithful Orthodox Christians who, unlike Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, recognize the canonization of the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II (half-Dane): he himself visited this church while spending his summers in Copenhagen before becoming Tsar at the age of 26. Indeed, he visited it as Tsar during his visits to Copenhagen in 1899 and 1901.
Here, I’d like to draw a metaphorical analogy between “Comrade Misha’s Putsch” and Lenin’s Putsch, which destroyed “Holy Rus’” itself and led to the martyrdom of the Tsar and his family. (Discussed in post 27, “The Tsar’s Crown – The True Meaning of the Martyrdom of the Half-Dane Tsar Nicholas II and His Family”). It should be noted that to this day, most Europeans and Americans believe, and AI-powered search engines still return false results, that Tsar Nicholas II “abdicated.”
I hope it’s not too late to restore the sense of “Holy Rus’” in the Church of the Holy Martyr Tsar in Copenhagen. I believe this will be possible after the church is freed from the destructive rule of “Comrade Misha” and his German patron.
After that, the controversial Danish converts should be warmly welcomed. They will learn to gather in Christian fellowship within the sacred “sobornost” of “Holy Rus’” and how this differs from the atheistic triune community of “Danish hygge.” Perhaps they will understand the true significance of the “sobornost” of “Holy Rus’” and the martyrdom of Nicholas II for the Orthodox world? Perhaps they will all take Russian wives and become the vanguard of Denmark’s return to Christ?
(a). The truth about “Comrade Misha.”
Father Sergei was an exceptionally competent priest who did exactly what an Orthodox priest should do—allowing the mystical Body of Christ to gather through him as its “core.” He was keenly aware of the spiritual work of the congregation, leading to the “sobornost” of “Holy Rus’.” And we all learned this, working with him and his wife, mother Elena, his companion for 25 years, in building our prosperous, healthy, happy, and united parish.
Mikhail Sukhanov became a deacon because Father Sergei Plekhov took him “under his wing.” But instead of learning and gaining experience from Father Sergiy, Sukhanov immediately became arrogant and considered himself “above” the priest. This was perfectly obvious to me. And I told Sukhanov so directly at our Orthodox Christmas banquet in 2021. I suggested that he temporarily lay aside his deacon’s vestments and go somewhere else, for example to Hamburg, to observe the experiences of other parishes before returning to us as a deacon. I told him directly that such an experience, of course, includes SUPPORTING, not CONFRONTING, the priest.
Soon thereafter, Sukhanov launched his attack on Father Sergei. About 6 months after becoming deacon, he made all sorts of accusations before the ruling German bishop about the long-serving and eminently successful father Sergei, including “a serious lack of liturgical knowledge and practice.”
From a letter this bishop wrote to Mother Elena, we know that the two UNFORGIVABLE offenses committed by Father Sergei were the following: (i) he forbade the Sukhanov family from attending services with us, and (ii) he forbade parishioners from wearing masks at services during the COVID-19 pandemic. While I can’t prove that Sukhanov was the one who told this lie, I can confidently prove that it was a lie: (i) I saw Sukhanov’s family with my own eyes many times at church services, and (ii) I wore a mask at those times.
Incredibly, while maintaining close contact with the Munich monastery, Sukhanov managed to convince the German bishop to ordain him as a priest, despite the fact that he had never attended seminary. Even more incredible, he was appointed priest of our parish—the church associated with the Holy Tsar-Martyr—even though he had no idea, then or now, how to fulfill a priestly ministry that leads parishioners to the “sobornost” of Holy Rus’.
This newly minted pastor easily places himself “above” everyone else, while at the same time demonstrating his Christian piety in every possible way. Recently, when 17 parishioners signed a letter demanding the restoration of Church Slavonic services at a Russian church, he, with the help of the ruling metropolitan, denied them communion until they “repented of their sin.” After expelling a woman who had been a parishioner longer than he had been alive for speaking out against his deliberate program of de-Russification, he expressed the wish that “she repent of her grave sins.” When she returned to the church to light a candle and attend the liturgy—a freedom granted to any passing tourist—the police were called to remove her (see photo).
(b). The truth about his German sponsor.
The ruling metropolitan, claiming authority over this church, displayed astonishing cruelty by expelling Father Sergei after 25 years of faithful service. He made Father Sergei “an offer he couldn’t refuse,” in the manner of a “church gangster”: voluntarily resign, or I will defrock you (based on the accusations brought by “Comrade Misha”).
This German bishop lives in a world of astonishing pride. He seriously believed that it was thanks to HIS prayers in his monastery in Munich that we, the parishioners, regularly experienced sublime spiritual heights while working with Father Sergei and Mother Elena in the church in Copenhagen built by the father of the martyred Tsar.
Many of us were outraged by all this. We turned to the Metropolitan of Western Europe for help. And he truly helped us by granting us the authority to convene a general meeting, at which we were to ask the question: “Should we ask Patriarch Kirill to place us directly under his authority, as has been done in two other parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in Denmark?”
The reason the Metropolitan of Western Europe had the authority to grant us this permission is because the current ruling German Metropolitan, who claims authority, never obtained it legally, from the perspective of the Danish secular authorities. The German diocese belongs to the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR), which attempted to seize control of the church from the Archbishop of Paris for at least 12 years. A number of legal proceedings have been pending in Danish secular courts. In the most recent of these cases, ROCOR attempted to replace a priest serving under the Archbishop of Paris. The Danish court of Østre Landsret issued a final ruling that the ROCOR had no legal authority over the parish (111). The priest was reinstated, despite the ROCOR’s objections, and served until his death 10 years later. Immediately after his death, the ROCOR simply changed the locks on the church doors and declared itself responsible—again, in the spirit of “church gangsters.” The Archbishop of Paris grew tired of paying lawyers, and so the dispute was “frozen” for nearly 40 years.
The German Metropolitan wrote to the Metropolitan of Western Europe, asking him to revoke permission to hold a general meeting. Illustrating his penchant for lying, he claimed that Father Sergei’s departure was voluntary. Only after the Metropolitan of Paris refused to revoke the permit did the German Metropolitan post a scandalous letter on the door of the church in Copenhagen, threatening to excommunicate anyone who attended our meeting from the Russian Orthodox Church.
In his letter, the German Metropolitan falsely claimed that the previous court ruling did not concern the church’s affiliation with the ROCOR.
The German Metropolitan openly sided with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who does not recognize the canonization of the Holy Martyr Tsar, in his dispute with Patriarch Kirill over the “metaphysical struggle” in Ukraine (discussed in post 28, “A Respectful Refutation of Metropolitan Jean’s Open Letter to Patriarch Kirill Regarding the Ongoing “Metaphysical Struggle” in Ukraine”). There can be no doubt that the REAL reason for his cruel treatment of Father Sergei was that the latter supported Patriarch Kirill’s position on this issue.
(c). The path back to “Holy Rus’” in the Church of the Holy Martyr Tsar in Copenhagen.
Frankly speaking: The last straw for me was a photo of Danish police arriving to evict a faithful, long-time churchgoer, evicted by “Comrade Misha.” I was filled with, I believe, righteous anger.
After being so impressed by the exhibition presented in Post 27, I decided I hadn’t done enough to reclaim our church and, hopefully, rekindle the “sacred flame” of “Holy Rus’” that flourished there before “derussification.”
And so, two days before the statute of limitations expired, I filed a lawsuit in a Danish secular court against the German bishop, which can be downloaded here (112).
I also wrote to the German Metropolitan that, if he disagrees with my very simple demand that the authority of the Archbishop of Western Europe over our Church be respected, I intend to file a similar lawsuit in an ecclesiastical court. The court of first instance will be the Synod of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in New York.
The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad recognizes the canonization of the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II (half-Danish). Who knows? Perhaps they are not ALL “church gangsters”? Perhaps they will finally be able to atone for their historical guilt in Copenhagen?
UPDATE:
An appeal with the ROCOR Synod has now been formally filed. This appeal and a cover letter that explains it can be downloaded below (113).
In the meantime, a letter is being circulated for signatures directed to appropriate officials in the Moscow Patriarchate – this asks the Patriarch to propose to First Hierarch Nicholas of the ROCOR a joint commission to search for a “just peace” in Copenhagen. This can be downloaded below (114).
I propose that, should the ROCOR refuse such a joint commission, then the Moscow Patriarchate should “up the ante” and propose, instead, a joint commission to explore new rules governing the disparagement of “Holy Rus’” as “ethnophyletism.” And should the ROCOR refuse that, the Patriarchate should simply undertake such new rules unilaterally, exercising its authority under article 10 of the “Act of Canonical Communion” with the ROCOR.
108. “Danish converts are creating conflict in the Russian Church.” Kristeli Dagblad, Church and Faith, August 14, 2026.
109. “Russian with a Small R,” A. Esbjørnsen, Weekendavisen, August 6, 2025.
110. Archpriest S. Plekhov, The Tsar’s Church in the Danish Kingdom. Russian Lira, 2019, ISBN 978-5-6043180-1-0.
111. Judgment of the Eastern Supreme Court of Denmark in case 434/1972. (Downloadable below)
112. Summons in Danish civil case BS-36614/2026-KBH, Casad et al. v. Michael Arndt. (Downloadable below).
113. Cover letter including presentation and petition of canonical appeal to the ROCOR Synod, September 9, 2026. (Downloadable below)
114. Letter to Moscow patriarchate official, September 14, 2026, for which supporting signatures are hereby invited. (Downloadable below)
Leave a Comment