[ad_1]
By Tatyana Popova
About the Church and power, about Patriarch Tikhon and the Bolsheviks, about the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church on power, about the insult and national ideology of today’s Russia, about monasticism and the Kiev-Pechora Lavra, about the war. Tatyana Popova’s interview with Prof. Andrey Kuraev*, from the series “Chronicles of the War”**, with abbreviations.
Father Andrey, what do you think, should and can the Church support state power – as it is now done in the Russian Federation?
The thing is that this question, or rather its answer, can lead to radical revisionism – a revision of Christian history, global, not only Russian, for the last more than a thousand years.
By the middle of the fourth century, the Christian Church was being persecuted by the Roman Empire and neighboring countries. And then the question of what state policy to support the Church simply did not stand. One thing was clear: if the barbarians crossed the borders of the Roman Empire, it was bad for everyone. Because for the barbarians, it didn’t matter if you were a patrician, a Christian, a believer in Christ or some ancient Roman gods or Germanic, all the same – your fate will be sad enough. And so the need for self-defense was obvious, and already in the second century there were Christians in military service. The apostle Paul also prayed for the ruler who carries the sword.
In the third century, the situation changed a little and became more complicated from a Christian and theological point of view. Opinions have already been heard that if, say, a soldier accepts baptism, he is obliged to leave the service. And if a person became a Christian and then signed up for military service, he was excommunicated from the Church. There were different positions that existed in parallel. Some authors write that Christians are the bravest soldiers; and others – that a Christian cannot hold a weapon in his hands.
At the end of the fourth century, when the Church became an imperial institution, official, all these disputes subsided and were reduced to this level – whether it was permissible for a priest to hold a weapon in his hands. A consensus was reached that the priest should not, but for the layman it is normal. When the church became a state, it also gave up its right, and perhaps its duty, to make an ethical assessment of current political events. We may condemn this, we may enjoy it, but it is still important to consider a certain fact. And this fact, we can call it literary, is that nowhere in the books of the New Testament, which tells about the life of Christ and His disciples, we do not see any interest in the current internal and external politics of the vast Roman Empire. When this policy concerns Christ and forces His parents to flee from Palestine, it is described; and if any authority, local or Roman, arrested the apostle Paul, this is also described. But the characters of the New Testament Bible themselves do not get involved in politics. They pray for everyone. And Jesus Christ Himself does not make any comments on the political agenda.
Here a question arises – should we be completely like the first Christians in our attitude on this matter? The simplest answer is that yes, of course you should. But it leads to another question – shouldn’t we be like them in everything else? You know, there is always that question – what should we imitate Christ in and why do we usually choose only what is easy for us to do. In fact, before every person who calls himself a Christian lies a difficult, responsible choice: in what way, in what and to what extent should I imitate Christ and His disciples in this world in which, by God’s providence, I live, in our 21 century, here in this easternmost Europe of ours. How to live here and recognize the signs of God’s will.
This is one question that I myself must constantly ask God: Lord, guide me. And to pray about it, of course, and to reflect. In the Old Testament, it is said that God gave people a difficult task – to distinguish good from evil. It’s hard work, everyday. And it is not done in Sunday school or in seminary, once, but is something that everyone must do on their own and constantly.
So – to your question about whether the Church is in politics or out of politics:
On the one hand, yes, the constant of church history shows that the Church invariably sooner or later begins to politically support the rulers of a given bishop’s territory. Whether this territory is called the Luhansk People’s Republic, or Novgorod, or Kiev, or the Soviet Union, or the Kingdom of Poland, etc. – It does not matter. In time, as it were – perhaps after the initial attempts to fight for its independent interests – in the Orthodox world, in the end, there is always a symphony with power, even with atheistic power.
For example, at the beginning of the twenties of the last century, Patriarch Tikhon even apologized to the Bolsheviks – “… Yes, I so and so at the beginning, but I did not know that you are really in power. I thought it wasn’t serious, that it was for a while…”
Wait, but during the time of the Red Terror they killed a huge amount of priests, it was in the twenties that the Bolsheviks killed them?
He condemned terror. There is a message of Patriarch Tikhon in which he is said to have cursed the Bolsheviks. Not true. In this epistle he does not make any anathemas to the Bolsheviks, but condemns everyone who has ever been baptized and considers himself a Christian, but does so violently. And the thing is that in the nineteenth year, or the eighteenth, when this message was sent, violence was committed by anyone in the former Russian Empire: Makhno’s gangs, the White Guards were not always an example and model of morality, including in relation to the civilian population , the Bolsheviks too. Moreover, there is an interesting nuance in this message: the indignation of the Patriarch was caused precisely by the violence against elderly and retired officials of the royal government. He begins his address with a description of their troubles. And in this way it shows class-caste solidarity precisely with them – with these elites of the Empire; advocates for her. No Bolsheviks and any ideas of Bolshevism he does not discuss and curse there, he does not at all enter into a controversy with the ideas of Bolshevism in this epistle. And there were indeed excesses, this is known, as even Stalin condemned certain extremes manifested in places, etc.
Therefore, it is more correct to say that Patriarch Tikhon did not condemn Russian power after all. It is more about some kind of propaganda cliché. On the one hand, the power, and on the other – the Russian emigration. And then yes, the same Patriarch Tikhon wrote his famous infamous Testament, in which he always declared his complete loyalty to the Soviet power.
The Church may go another way, but that would be an exception. There was such a case in the history of the Byzantine Empire, in which the patriarch supported a coup, not very willingly, but still supported the revolutionaries. But this is indeed a singular case in the Empire, and in general in the history of Eastern Christendom, that is known to me.
We should not rule out the possibility that some church hierarch will also speak out against the authorities. But it seems to me that the idea is not to wait for that, but for everyone to answer for himself. We are not all metropolitans, thank God. But everyone must find out for himself how to apply the Christian commandments in his life and in the life around us. There is a certain one imposed over the centuries by the ecclesiastical game of infantilism. And this game ultimately produces the sad inability of people and entire nations to manage their own lives. And on the other hand, the illusion is born that if we can’t, others can’t either. And this makes it possible to say, for example, about the people of Kiev: “Holy unfortunates, they bought them with sweets on the Maidan and they went to jump.” Here’s the full explanation. Because Russia has no experience of self-organization of public life, it seems to us that there cannot be in Ukraine either. Reasons for this socio-political infantilism can be found in the highly hierarchical church model of behavior, as well as in the fact that children are taught from a young age that they should not have any independence. Especially in political matters. There are authorized persons, say a patriarch, who has the right to speak on political issues after consulting the president beforehand. And you don’t need to do that.
Does the Russian Orthodox Church really have no influence on the government? I saw your previous interview in which you say that Patriarch Kirill does not influence Putin at all. Or does it still have some chance of making an impact?
Influence definitely exists; and this is another, from my point of view, more difficult level of reflection on this situation. It’s about the fact that in a sense the power in Russia, the key to power, was rolling on the ground after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the key to power is access to people’s minds, to their consciences and convictions. After the collapse of Soviet ideology, only the lazy did not repeat throughout the post-Soviet space that we are in a vacuum, an ideological vacuum. And the most natural thing seemed to us was the need to turn to the sources of history, and somewhere in the pre-Soviet pages of our culture to find a recipe for how to live at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. And of course, the Church, as a conservative institution, was very active in promoting this idea. When it was said that there was a need to create a national ideology, in response many church publicists said that no, there is no need to create such an ideology, there is no need to invent it, it is necessary to simply revive what has been established over the centuries from our people; implying that this was Orthodoxy.
And considering that Orthodoxy was then an almost unknown religion, it was very easy. Many people had a need to believe that the Church – these are sages from some Orthodox Shambhala, some white-haired old men who keep incredible spiritual wisdom and have real answers to all-all questions, including the question of the attitude towards the Anglo-Saxons, about economic reforms, and so on.
Then someone very actively began to spread among the Kremlin elite the texts of the most primitive Russian religious philosopher, Ivan Ilin. You know, Ivan Ilin is a complicated person. A very talented philosopher, and perhaps the most sophisticated of the Russian philosophers when it comes to his analysis of Hegel, that is, his early works. And not when, he is already in emigration and starts writing addendums to newspapers, producing newspaper journalism, which they publish as light, up-to-date political comments. And it is no coincidence that in the speech in which Putin announced the expansion of the territories under his control, he also quoted Ivan Ilin. Ivan Ilin has a very interesting criticism of Tolstoy in a text about not resisting evil with force, very interesting. But unfortunately, at least that’s what they didn’t take from him, namely these newspaper articles.
And so, the Church threw a leaven into the thought of our state apparatus, of our bureaucracy. This was, above all, the thesis of the late Patriarch Alexius I, a terrible thesis that infuriates me: “The Church has always served her fatherland.” You’ve probably all heard this phrase. In the mouth of a Christian these are fearful words. The church should serve the heavenly fatherland, not the local chancellor, fuhrer, king and so on. But even the Patriarch did not notice the vulgarity and anti-Christianity in these oft-repeated words of his. I even remember how, in Soviet times, when I studied at the Department of Scientific Atheism at Moscow State University, the professors told us that, you know, at one time, in the 1970s, there were many so-called non-returnees. Chess players stayed in the West, football players, musicians, scientists… But pops, they said, never stay, they are true patriots and always return to the Soviet Union. And that, by the way, was a lie, as it turned out later. There were also non-returnees among the clergy, but these cases were little known.
Well, this is how, little by little and somehow unnoticed, it happened that the Church transmitted to the whole society the ideology of this new empire, together with the complex of the offended. Yes, our Church had reasons for offense in the recent Soviet past. And precisely about this – that here, we were insulted and now they need to return everything they owe us – Patriarch Alexy I talked a lot. I remember one of his favorite phrases, which he repeated often: “In the 20th century, the Church was robbed twice . Once – when the Bolsheviks took away her temples. The second time – when in the 1990s they returned them to ruins.”
This is very important, this complex, because it was on this complex of the offended that Nazism in Germany grew. I remind you that from the point of view of ordinary veterans of the First World War, which are millions of people, the end of the war was unexpected. None of the territories of the German Empire were conquered by the Entente. French troops were stationed in Belgium and France, I’m not talking about Ukraine or Belarus or the Baltics… Sevastopol, Crimea was under German control. Why is there suddenly a disgraceful peace with the worst conditions?! And naturally the thought “they betrayed us” is born; because deep analysis is not available to these soldiers. We have been betrayed and we must find the culprit, the enemy.
Putin in these cases points to the Anglo-Saxons, Hitler pointed to the Jews. But the difference in the given case is no more than stylistic and situational. These concepts are easily interchangeable; however, Anglo-Saxons were also almost synonymous with the Jewish yoke in mid-20th century Nazi propaganda as well. (…)
The Church first began to play this chord: “We have been wronged and must be compensated.” And over time, it became simply a common motif of the entire Russian society. Have we lost the cold war?! We had the fastest tanks, the most powerful missiles, etc. Why did it suddenly happen that now we are in certain limits where it seems to us that we are too small?! Why in the world don’t they consider us?! And this is an amazing sentiment, by the way, because, excuse me, but who considers you inside Russia? I understand that if there was a working, active democracy in Russia, then we could be sad and say that yes, we know how our problems are solved democratically inside the country, and therefore we assume that in the international arena it should also be so – they should be respected the interests of different countries, different groups of people, etc. And yet, they don’t respect us and our voice. There would be some logic in that. But when the disenfranchised populace begins to say that, you see, Port Arthur should be ours—God! Why do you care whose Port Arthur is, or whose Crimea is – you won’t go there anyway?
What do your former parishioners think about forced mobilization, what advice do you give them?
I don’t give them advice. And what do they think – this is very dangerous to answer, because people are different. And I think that God also has His plan for each person. I have not the slightest confidence that I can guess at this design. That’s right. That’s why I see different positions among the priests.
Three priests serve in one temple, they are friends, they have good relations with each other. One is enraptured by current events: hooray, forward and so on. The second categorically refuses to go and bless recruits. No, he says, this is against my beliefs (they serve in a temple). The third priest says this: I will go, but I will only pray for one thing – that the boys will survive. I will not bless them to engage in war and murder. I only pray, “Lord, bring them home soon, to their parents, their wives, etc.” So, even among priests there is a different attitude. Moreover, the three are ethnic Russians. There are many priests in Russia who are Ukrainian; but in this case – in the temple that I know, there are Russian priests with different positions.
One such question is very acute for us – the question of the Kiev-Pechora Lavra. Whose should the Lavra be?
Regarding the status of the Kiev-Pechora Lavra. I think it is important to remind that this is state property provided for free use by the monastic brotherhood of the Lavra of the UOC (MP). The state, of course, has the right to change the terms of the contract, as do the lessees. Therefore, the question is not in law, but in expediency. On this issue, even President Zelensky said that it is completely unnecessary at the moment to add religious strife and disputes to the troubles the country is suffering.
Secondly, from the point of view of the monks themselves – I try to put myself in their place – it may even be useful for them to expel them from the Lavra (Pochaevskaya or Kievo-Pechorskaya). A monk is by definition a living dead man. This is a man who has nothing of his own, he asks for only one thing – Lord, grant me to die with dignity, and after my death to find You. You may have seen the movie Game of Thrones where a character had a motto that the dead cannot die. I even remember an interesting point of view that struck me, I don’t know how credible it is that when the early Christians were baptized, they held them under the water so that the person could feel the border between life and death and understand that a new life begins. Such is the symbolism of both Christian baptism and monastic tonsure. It is not for nothing that the monk puts his last name in brackets – he has left this world.
In that sense, to be a monk in a monastery with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims, in which beautiful girls walk in summer dresses and so on, in which there is a fine kitchen… You know, in Moscow there is a Danilovsky Monastery, the first of the closed monasteries in Soviet Russia , they opened it I think 1980 or 1986. Well, once a monk came who was shaved in this same monastery, but back in Soviet times. And I remember his account as we sat down to lunch in the convent; the lunch was nice, in general in the 90s everything was already wonderful. This is what he said: in our time (Soviet times, the twenties) monks did not sit down at the table if there were at least six types of fish. I believe him that it was so. Of course, the monastery kitchen is a wonderful thing. What I want to say: I understand the monks too, we are all human and we need to replace the lack of a family, a home hearth, a nice kitchen or a cat, for example, that warms up next to you in your cell… But basically all these things are a negation of the very idea of monasticism.
I understand that we cannot accommodate this measure. But sometimes God shakes such obese monasteries. And he says: “And who were you, what vows did you make? Well, let’s now begin to fulfill them, go to work, feed with your own hands, ora et labora (prayer and labor). And not as you are used to – in men’s monasteries, women wash your clothes, women cook for you and clean up after you, and you only hold out your hands for them to kiss. So from the point of view of the spiritual interests of the monasticism itself, it might be useful for the monks to leave these centers of culture and go, for example, to the Chernobyl forests and deserts, where they pray for the whole world.
It’s better not to be there, in the Chernobyl forests. There were the Russian soldiers who have health problems now.
For monks this is not scary, monks are not expected to leave offspring. Unlike the young soldiers. Monasticism is a completely different world, a completely different system of values, if we are serious about the old monastic books, their rules, etc. Yes. But of course, it is not right to decide for the other and make his life difficult so that he can better fulfill his ancient vow. So, I am not calling for such a thing. I’m just saying that even if it comes to some monks being asked to leave some monasteries, for those monks it means that the Lord has knocked on their door; he opened the gate for them, gave them a chance. And then they should not cry, but rejoice. Thank God for everything; thank You, Lord, for visiting us with this seeming sorrow that could turn out to be something else entirely.
Is it dangerous for you to be in Russia now? Are you afraid?
I will soon be tried a second time; the first was in August (2022 – translation note). I was convicted for a speech discrediting the Russian army. Literally in a few weeks there will be a second case, and I am already threatened with prison. Court practice is such that anyone can write a denunciation for a text published some time ago. And the court will automatically decide that, yes, it is discrediting the government, not necessarily the army. And if that’s the case, then it’s a relapse – there’s already one sentence, the person hasn’t improved, so we have to lock him up…
Whose side is God on in this conflict?
My answer is bound to be unpopular. God is with everyone. In God, I think, there is no such selectivity. And I am convinced that God is equally fervently prayed to by the soldiers in the trenches on both sides of the front. And their mothers pray for them. Equally hot. And I think God hears those prayers.
I remember that once in Romania I talked with a very old priest who was a chaplain in the Romanian army during the war. And this priest told me stories that I had only heard from Soviet front-line soldiers. For miracles at the front; about how, for example, a mine does not explode next to them, this is such a miracle… God has preserved them, and so on. And now I heard it from the other side, from the one called fascist.
I am convinced that God is better than us.
* Prof. Andrei Kuraev is a Russian theologian, philosopher, writer and publicist; blogger. In the past, a well-known Orthodox missionary and preacher, winner of church awards for active missionary work among young people, teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy, deacon in the Russian Orthodox Church. Later excluded from the number of teachers and professors for scandalous and provocative activity in mass media and the blogosphere. He was deprived of clerical rank by a decision of an ecclesiastical court in 2021.** Special interview with Russian religious and public figure, theologian, philosopher, specialist in Christian philosophy – Andrey Kuraev
“Chronicles with Tatyana Popova” is a daily project by the author and presenter Tatyana Popova about events at the front (military, informational, economic – interviews with relevant experts), as well as special reports on the situation in individual regions. Tatyana Popova has been in the media for more than 20 years, over the past 8 years she has been actively involved in social activities, while continuing to engage in journalism. In 2014-2015, she was Communications Adviser to the Minister of Defense. In 2015-2016 – Deputy Minister of Information Policy. Since 2018, she has been hosting the weekly Eurointegrators program on OBOZ.TV. Since 2021, Tatyana has been hosting the weekly program “Rada of National Security” on the Islnd.tv channel, as well as “Results of the Week”, “Interviews” with interesting speakers.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCzPM9kLPQ (Streamed live on 5/10/2022 #Volchansk #Kupyansk #Balakleya)
[ad_2]
Source link