This book explores the transformation of Orthodox clerical mutual aid networks into a pastoral movement that shaped engagement between the laity and their clergy in late imperial Russia. Using the dioceses of Tver’ and Moscow, Daniel Scarborough follows the formation of mutual aid networks among Orthodox clergy as a defence against poverty for the clerical estate, highlighting how these networks were utilized for charitable and social endeavors that began to cross estate boundaries within parishes. According to Scarborough, these networks helped to create a sense of religiously infused social activism among Orthodox clergymen within the empire, as they grappled with political, economic, and social change, not unlike their counterparts in Europe, albeit under the stricter watch of imperial officials. Such activism set the stage for the Orthodox Church's response to the early revolutionary period, as the church managed to maintain a semblance of unity as it engaged in administrative reform.

Divided into seven chapters, this book traces the establishment of diocesan clerical networks in the early nineteenth century and follows how over the course of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the clergy used these institutions to connect the Orthodox laity to a more expansive definition of spiritual faith that extended beyond a ritualistic practice of piety. Scarborough traces how the ability of Orthodox clergymen to build these networks as well as the dependence of the clergy on the laity for material support created pathways toward forms of cooperation and incentives for the clergy to engage in pastoral work. The financial support garnered from Orthodox laity helped to fund relief programs for victims of famine and war, as well as educational institutions from seminaries and diocesan schools for women to parish schools for children. Some of these institutions, such as seminaries and diocesan schools for women, disproportionately served the clerical estate within the empire, creating a sense of obligation within the clerical estate to use these skills for the betterment of the community.

Using an array of church-related archival documents and published sources, Scarborough demonstrates how the clergy engaged lay men and women in discussions about parish life, creating a space for interactions between these groups. Instead of weakening church authority, as has been argued by other scholars, Scarborough shows how this engagement and the initiatives and considerations of the clergy during the upheaval of the late imperial period prepared these groups for the newfound freedoms of the early revolutionary period of 1917. Despite an initial veering into anarchy, he demonstrates that the clergy, the Orthodox hierarchy, and the laity managed to find a common commitment to revitalizing the church, a commitment which would face another set of challenging circumstances during the civil war.

Although cooperation, whether among clergymen or between the clergy and the laity, stands at the heart of this book, Scarborough does not shy away from the contradictions and tensions within Orthodox parish life and the diocesan system. For instance, he shows that even as the clergy attempted to convince the laity that these mutual aid networks served their spiritual interests, the laity continued to show preference for spending money on their own priorities of spirituality such as beautifying church buildings and having access to church rituals. Despite the work of the clergy, the laity did not necessarily accept these networks as representative of their interests; in fact, at times the laity viewed them as working against their own spiritual aspirations. Within the book, however, more attention could have been given to defining the “laity,” and determining if differences in socio-economic standing influenced the engagement of the laity with the pastoral endeavors of the clergy, especially as the diocese of Tver’ and Moscow contained a diverse collection of rural and urban, industrialized parishes.

Scarborough convincingly traces the engagement of the Orthodox clergy in the pastoral movement, shedding light on how clergymen in late imperial Russia met the changes of modernity and found their own “authorizing discourse” in the process (6). His book adds to the existing repertoire of scholarship on Orthodoxy during this period by illuminating the role of mutual aid networks among Orthodox clergy in creating the social and institutional connections that allowed the Orthodox Church to navigate, at least initially, political and social uncertainty.