By Father Alexander Men
If we think about the role of the Church in the modern world, in society, in the entire Soviet Union, or at least where the majority of the population is Orthodox, we will be faced with a complex and, I would say, unhappy picture. This is so because in different circles among people there is a deep, constantly growing need for spiritual values, a need to search, to make sense of the faith that is widespread among the population. We cannot say that atheism is widespread in our country: the deepest religious ignorance or paganism has reigned in our country, and the aspiration for something higher, the aspiration for spiritual things has been preserved. The Church gives the answer to this aspiration. Because the Church is the instrument of Christ, the instrument of Christianity. It is obliged to preach what Christ gives us. She is obliged to continue His life on earth: through preaching, ministry and the sacraments – that is, her presence must be the presence of Christ in the world.
If we ask ourselves with our hand on our heart whether the presence of Christians is similar to the presence of Christ in the world, the answer will, of course, be negative. I understand perfectly well that in a fit of apologetic zeal many of us, especially neophytes, are ready to speak of unbelievers in black colors and to consider the word “believer” as equivalent to light, but this is a simplification, possible only in heated polemics, a kind of “combat” psychology.
However, I think that we should look deeper, more seriously and be able to admit that we, Christians, do not sufficiently meet the expectations that exist in society, the Church, that is, in terms of preaching, witness and presence. Perhaps the only thing we have available is presence, because in the main the Eucharist has not been lost, although there are too many barriers between the faithful and the sacrament, this is how it happened historically…
I, of course, would not express myself completely radically, that the Church has had little success, because I believe that the Kingdom of God continues to march as before, but the betrayal of God’s law has never gone unpunished, there has always been retribution for apostasy. And we should not think that these are outdated ideas from the Old Testament. Let us remember the words of Christ about Jerusalem, when He says: and they will destroy you and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation… If the miracles that were done in you, Capernaum, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained to this day, that is, Christ binds the fate of nations, cities, civilizations to their spiritual and moral state. And the fall of Byzantium, Alexandria, the Russian Empire, the fall of many other Christian centers is not only Christian martyrdom, but also Divine intervention, an indication that the path was false, that there was more evil than good on this path, otherwise God would have preserved these centers. I am now speaking of the past, but my goal is still the same: to answer the question of how we got to our current situation. Russia is part of the Eastern Church, it adopted Christianity from the East and carries within itself the positive and negative sides of this form of confession of the Gospel. When the ancient apostolic centers fell, Russia became one of the most serious strongholds of Orthodoxy. And even now, in terms of the number of Orthodox, it ranks first in the world. What happened to the Russian Church? How did Russia become the first country of mass atheism?
The adoption of Christianity in Russia, which took place a thousand years ago, was the adoption of a whole complex, of an entire civilization. The Kievan princes, adopting Christianity, at the same time adopted the entire Byzantine tradition, with the Greek language, icons, liturgy and much more. We know that in Kievan Rus’ all icons were inscribed in Greek, the clergy was Greek by origin, the Russian Church was a part, a branch of the Greek Church. And in bringing civilization to Kiev, Christianity was very active at first, because new moral values, a new type of spiritual life were coming into the world, which could only be gradually assimilated by the people. And here the Church (in this particular case I mean the Christian hierarchy) had to appear as a teaching church, as a constant educator of the nation. Did it do this? Undoubtedly, yes.
If we look at the works of S. Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other historians, we will see how much they did for the enlightenment of Russia, especially in the Kiev period, the hierarchy and especially the monasteries. But then, you know, the Tatar yoke came, and the subsequent rise of the Moscow Kingdom changed many things. Representatives of the hierarchy, the clergy, the monasticism understood that now the most important thing for the country was unification and liberation from the yoke. A lot of strength was devoted to this patriotic and noble duty. Metropolitan Alexy, of course, worked on the enlightenment of the people, translated the New Testament into Church Slavonic, etc., but in general this was a period of serious spiritual regression, missionary work should have been carried out again, but this was not done. The main efforts of the hierarchy were in support of the Moscow prince. Perhaps, thinking humanly, this patriotic work would be justified in a spiritual sense as well, if the monarchy could appreciate the efforts of the Church and give it its due. But the monarchy perceived Christianity simply as one of the tools of its own rule, one of the means of supporting its power. When Patriarch Filaret placed his son on the throne, he could still hear him, because he was his own son, but the next tsar no longer wanted to listen to the criticisms of Patriarch Nikon.
Patriarch Nikon was a harsh and passionate man, and he was mistaken about some things, but we cannot deny that he did not want to allow the church to become an instrument of state power. He was accused of papism, etc., but all this is now history. The important thing is that Alexei Mikhailovich, by overthrowing the patriarch, achieved the transformation of the church into an instrument of state power, and this process was completed, as you well know, by Peter the Great. Since then, monstrous changes have occurred in the Russian Church. Officially, on paper, with the signature of the higher clergy, the head of the church was recognized as Empress Catherine. The tsar became something of a sacred person, he could convene or forbid councils, that is, all the monstrosities of the so-called Constantinian period in the 18th-19th and even in the 20th centuries bloomed in full, caricaturing the church, suffocating it and turning it into an obedient tool of the state. All the talented hierarchs were removed or sent to distant provinces, and only those who, with a cross in their hands, blessed serfdom and glorified the monarch, those who insisted that the name of God be written with a capital letter, and the name of the tsar in the liturgical books be written entirely in capital letters – only they remained to serve. The clergy, the hierarchy were deeply discredited in the eyes of educated society.
There have always been living forces in the Russian Church. This is evidenced by the multitude of saints, ascetics, theologians, preachers and writers. But we must admit that the life of all of them was extremely difficult. When we say “Optina Desert”, we forget that the Optina elders were always persecuted by their bishops, exiled, considered people in a state of wonder, eccentrics. We know that the best religious philosophers of the 19th century were banned, could not publish. Khomyakov, Vl. Solovyov, Chaadaev – they were all banned. And whoever we take, right or left – Leontiev or the same Chaadaev – they were all as if in opposition, unpleasant, because they had their own opinion, they thought independently. Such a church could neither testify nor truly preach. Preaching in the Russian Church began to revive only at the end of the 19th century. In the middle of the century, during the time of Filaret, only bishops preached, and the priests in the multimillion-strong country were completely silent. This means that the people did not hear the word of God, the people, who were for the most part illiterate, did not even hear the spoken word.
After the democratic reforms of the 1860s, a certain revival began, which was difficult to achieve, and in the 20th century, people like Metropolitan Anthony (Vladkovsky) began to appear at the head of the synod, who wanted to fight for the independence of the church. Their struggle was aimed at the church ceasing to be a state institution.
Vladimir Solovyov proves that forced Orthodoxy is the worst enemy of the Church. When people were required to submit a certificate of communion when they started work, when they persecuted the Old Believers in the most monstrous way, when they used the church for completely extraneous purposes, could this even resemble testimony? And it is completely understandable why sectarianism developed so rapidly in Russia. It erupted in just twelve years – from 1905 to 1917, spreading with incredible speed and in the most diverse forms. When a catastrophe befell the Russian Church, this was to a significant extent, although we have no right to say so now, the same Nemesis as the troops of Mehmed II before the walls of Constantinople. And the Karlovac Council shows to what extent the higher clergy were not ready for these changes. For centuries connected with the old state power, it did not want to part with it and therefore took a completely meaningless position towards the new power: either of a completely ridiculous ideological denial, or of an attempt to turn it into the same master as the royal power was – first the renovationists, and then their successors.
I have deliberately spoken only about the shadowy sides now, because only they can prompt us to reflect, and not to nostalgic sighs for the past. Enough good has been said about ourselves, but now we are talking about the fact that we must be able to repent and distinguish the past, to repent to each other. If this were only history, everything would look different. It is difficult for us now to repent for the ancient people who lived thousands of years ago, no one feels involved in the guilt of the Egyptian pharaoh or even Joshua – all this is immeasurably distant. And it is not even chronologically distant, but it is distant in a religious, moral and purely human sense. While what happened at the beginning of the 20th century, in the 16th century, in the 19th century – this is still the same civilization in which we live today. We are still close to the writers, artists who created then, the philosophical and political ideas that appeared then.
A famous modern writer once asked a talented journalist: How did it happen that Russia, an Orthodox country, became a country of mass atheism? And the latter answered him: The Church has not fulfilled the role assigned to it by the Lord – to preach, to testify, to be present. And now, if we talk about the future, we will have to ask ourselves the same question: What does the Lord expect from us in the remaining time? We, that is, the church, should pay attention to these things.
Sermon. This means that we must find a common language with our contemporaries, without completely identifying with them and without fencing ourselves off from them with the wall of the archaic. This means that we must raise – anew, freshly, as if discovering them for the first time – the questions that the Gospel poses to us.
Testimony. This means that we must solve – we have not yet solved it – the vital task, to discover our position in life, our place not in the usual sense of the word, but to discover our attitude to all life’s problems.
And finally, presence. To be able to constantly learn to pray and to deepen within ourselves the experience of the sacraments, in order to bear witness not to ideology, but to the living presence of God in us.
To these three points, it seems to me, we can reduce the tasks of the future. Of course, we may be asked: How should the church react to social phenomena in our lives, etc. I can only say one thing: this is not at all what is required of us. The three points listed are required of us. Note that although the ancient prophets often spoke about the political events of their time, Christ never spoke about them. He spoke about what applies to all times. And here, we must be both inscribed in our time and not belong to it. If we are asked: What will you do for modern society? The conformist, the dissident, the activist, and the escapist will ask us – we will all answer the same: If we testify to Christ and the Gospel, if we live in His spirit, then to some extent we will participate in His plan, and He has planned never to leave this earth. He accomplishes this without man, but He wants to do it with the help of man. Therefore, we will act together with Him. And therefore, in this way, everything else will be fulfilled, every society will receive only good from this.
Source in Russian: “The Role of the Church in the Modern World” – In: Men, A. World Spiritual Culture, Publisher: Life with God; ISBN: 978-5-903612-50-7; Moscow, 2016, 272 p. // „Роль Церкви в современном мире“. – В: Мень, А. Мировая духовная культура, Издательство: Жизнь с Богом ; ISBN: 978-5-903612-50-7 ; Москва, 2016, 272 с.
