At first glance, it seems that the topic of the Church’s attitude to slander and blasphemy implies a precise, brief and absolutely clear negative answer. After all, even in the Old Testament, punishment was prescribed for blasphemers if they did not repent, according to the third of God’s commandments given at Sinai: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Ex. 20:7).
The New Testament specifies even more specifically: “..every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men,” and “neither in this world nor in the world to come” (Matt. 12:31-32).
The history of our church, starting from the first Christian emperors and ending with the rules of the 19th century councils, also shows an unambiguous attitude towards slander against the Church and blasphemy. They were condemned as crimes.
The exception here is the seven decades of dominance of state atheism, when precisely slander and blasphemy against faith and the Church were elevated to the rank of official policy. Even the periods of relative loyalty during the years of the Great Patriotic War in no way implied a change in the postulate of the primacy of matter. “Support” for it in one way or another was a necessity. Since there are no arguments against faith – and the fact that Soviet society remained Orthodox even in the most terrible years of terror is evidenced by the 1939 census, when more than 70% of the population put the designation “Orthodox” before their names – the party propaganda used precisely slander and blasphemy.
The revival of Orthodox life after the celebration of the millennium of the baptism of Russia seemed to lead to overcoming that polemic between the Church, on the one hand, and secular society and the state, on the other, which was conducted with the help of the old argumentation at the level of assumptions, groundless accusations and outright lies. At the same time, however, the open borders with the Western world (and our own spiritual softness), brought not only ideological, but also economic freedom. Concepts such as pragmatism, rationalism, tolerance and liberal thinking came to us, in which – even when there is a place for God – it is nothing more than a two-hour reflection on morality and ethics in the Sunday sermon of a religious meeting. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, with its requirement that every moment of life be measured by the love of Christ and the postulates of Christianity, has become an obstacle to the aspirations for enrichment and rapid achievement of physical well-being. Even more, they have begun to use us for political purposes, in an effort to turn our temples into a propaganda conveyor for gaining power. Even the term “religious electorate” has appeared.
Naturally, these challenges of modernity have required us to reflect on and define a clear position towards a society in which faith and traditional values have begun to become a movable advertising or political burden. And as soon as it was stated that the Church is not an instrument of the state, that the pursuit of comforts and the goods of the world is no longer the goal of our lives, that skillful leadership and investments are not enough to solve economic and political problems, but repentance and the pursuit of personal holiness are also needed, we immediately became a target for accusations, and often for outright insults, where slander and blasphemy are used everywhere.
To some extent, we ourselves are to blame for the flowering of atheistic and anti-Orthodox rhetoric.
However, let us still try to understand the reasons thanks to which blasphemy against the Church and Orthodoxy has become such a common phenomenon today? Once we have found the reasons, it will be easier to overcome the consequences.
Unfortunately, the old, but still relevant definition of Leskov is constantly being forgotten: “Russia is baptized, but not enlightened.”
Priests, especially those in the rank of superiors, have everywhere become technical managers and businessmen, who place the construction of temples and their decoration at the heart of everything. Moreover, for the priest, the construction field, which is not provided for either by the Statute or by the priestly oath, continues to this day to be the main criterion for his ministry, for encouragement, rewards and favor from the priesthood.
Whether voluntarily or not, Christ’s call to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19) was transformed into “go and make disciples.” That is why the subject of “missiology” appeared in the curricula of our theological schools only at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, and the textbook on this subject is still “being prepared for publication.”
Our fascination with external adornment, which – of course – must exist, but without becoming something defining, has become the reason for the Church to be perceived as an “organization” that deals with and solves the same problems that economic state or private structures solve. What is this sacrifice “for bricks,” so popular in our churches? A person comes to God with a spiritual or mental problem, and they tell him about some bricks that they turn into a kind of Orthodox indulgence.
The Church is not of this world, and every “adaptation to existing realities” of ours serves against us, becomes an occasion for insulting us by those who hate Christ or do not find the strength within themselves to reach Him.
Our other mistake is in striving to escape the calls of modernity, proudly declaring that “God cannot be blasphemed.”
It is true that God cannot be blasphemed, but our faith is not simply belonging to a Church with an unblasphemed God, but a striving for personal deification, which is realized in the Church. So, if we indifferently allow slander, blasphemy and sacrilege to reign, this would be a debasement of the grace of God given to us in Baptism, which we receive in the sacraments and prayers. And our silence would separate us from the One in Whom our heart believes and to Whom we strive. The interpretation of the Gospel commandment in the Beatitudes, which says “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you … for my sake” (Matt. 5:11), in the sense of humble silence or the proud “I am above blasphemers” is illegitimate in our time, when we can clearly, specifically and openly define our position, that is, “to confess God in the Trinity glorified”.
However, our confession must reside in the halo of Christ’s love, that is, we must fight against sin, not against the sinner. The principle is the following: “One should not be silent, one should not shout, but one must love”.
It should not be forgotten in the least that, by allowing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, we reject God’s grace and thus consciously take the position of demonic forces in their resistance to God’s will, and any of our indifferent attitude to blasphemous words against the Son of Man is a denial of the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
That is precisely why our indignation and indignation against sacrileges and blasphemies are natural and obligatory, without, however, becoming a reason for personal hostility and – even less – for the outpouring of malice. With irritability and evil words we will not please God, moreover, slander immediately causes an unambiguous conclusion: “You have no love…”, immediately followed by a whole set of evangelical and patristic quotations…
Righteous anger should concern only the sin, but not the person of the sinner.
One of the editors of the magazine “Thoma”, Vitaly Kaplan, in his reflections on this topic, makes, in my opinion, two absolutely correct conclusions.
The first of them is: “No serious conversation on religious topics is in itself an insult to Christians – no matter how atheistic or even theocratic the position expressed by the interlocutors. Entering into such conversations, we must always remember that what is holy for us is not necessarily holy for our opponents. What is blasphemous from our point of view is for them only an attempt to personally understand some new things. If we start banging our fists on the table and demanding a reverent attitude towards holy things, the conversation will die before it even begins.”
And to confirm what has been said, no deep historical retrospection is needed – it is enough for another Orthodox shrine to come to us, in Ukraine, to immediately begin with blasphemous comments in some of the mass media, against which sharp, shrill and often theologically absolutely irresponsible responses from our side will follow, with the demand that the God-fighters be punished.
Or the not-so-recent example of the article in the newspaper “Segodnya” on the so-called “price lists for trebs” in Odessa temples. It is clear that secular journalists acted exactly according to the rules of their profession – one of the most ancient. They acted as the editors of their publication required of them… Naturally, I (the correspondents) do not justify them at all. Before writing such nonsense, seasoned with ignorance of the elementary rules, customs, and laws of church life, you should have at least consulted with the presidents of the temples in question, but our response was only a rebuke with a call to curse and hand out anathemas.
And who won the dialogue? The journalists from “Segodnya” came out as “sufferers cursed by the priests,” and we were once again in a situation of justifying ourselves, taking into account that “Segodnya” is read all over the country, while the page of the Odessa diocese, where the essence of the conflict was clearly and calmly laid out, hardly many people visit it.
The opportunity to conduct a polemic with those who do not know, do not understand and draw incorrect conclusions exists today, but the conversation must be sustained and reasoned.
Vitaly Kaplan’s second thesis is the following: “When they touch upon our sacredness in a superficial way, with frivolous empty talk, in anecdotes and quarrels on the Internet – this is… real blasphemy… these are ugly jokes and cynical hints, uttered only “for the sake of beautiful words,” which, however, create the feeling that they have defiled your soul. From here follows the very specific advice to the well-meaning atheists – do not want to offend us, do not joke with us and among us on religious topics. If you want to argue seriously – please! If something outrages you in us or in our faith – come on, we will talk. But not by the way”.
Agreing with the journalist from “Toma”, I would just like to add: usually the contemptuous and blasphemous “passing” attacks in Orthodox spaces on the Internet or on the sites of periodicals are responded to by neophyte parishioners or those who hide their priestly rank behind soulless nicknames that do not say anything to anyone. I, on the other hand, remain a supporter of the mandatory “devirtualization”, that is, that the priest does not have any right to be present incognito. It is also necessary that he has the blessing of his bishop for maintaining a blog or website.
The Church cares for the truth, and does not fight for it. The Lord has commanded us thus: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” That is why those words of Alexander Galich – “I went out to seek God” – sound as never before in modern times. Because every search is also knowledge. If that is not enough, we must avoid blasphemers, but we must definitely show the fact of blasphemy to society. By the way, in 2002, the Roman Church already gave society examples of a blasphemous attitude towards the name of God and the Virgin Mary, as a result of which several Internet sites, moreover, quite well-known, were closed, and their content was destroyed.
The Church points to blasphemy and speaks about its consequences, and the Orthodox journalist or the writer, or the worthy preacher, the clergyman is obliged to enter into a polemic, to prove the truth, to expose injustice and lies.
The development of precise and at all times applicable rules in relation to those who blaspheme the faith and the Church is not possible. A differentiated approach is needed. Here even the Holy Fathers differ in their advice. St. John Chrysostom, for example, calls for “the jaws of the wicked to be broken” if he blasphemes you for the third time and does not listen to you, while in the “Guide to the Spiritual Life” of the Venerable Barsanuphius and John we read: “So, with meekness and long-suffering speak to the one who acts in this way, admonishing him with the fear of God. But if you see that you yourself are embarrassed, then you should not say anything.”
It is important what the one from whose mouth or from under whose pen (which, indeed, has been replaced today by the keyboard) we hear the insults confesses. If we are faced with someone who considers himself “at least a little” a Christian, the conversation should proceed entirely in a spirit of benevolence of polemic, with calm explanations and precise definitions of concepts. It often happens that the cunning succeeds precisely where there is a different interpretation of the same concept or where there is a lack of knowledge of the actual facts. As an example, the recent Chukchi events in Russia or the conflict with representatives of the so-called “Orthodox brotherhoods”, together with [Valery] Kaurov, and the website “Edinoe Otechestvo” in Ukraine can be cited. As soon as the discussion switched to the tone of calm clarification of realities and facts, everything went to its place and the “Credo” portal, together with Duchenne’s publications and the secular media specializing in rumors, scandals and fabrications, had nothing left to write about.
In the polemic with the one (or those) who define themselves as a Christian, it very often becomes clear that the opponent is far from being “corrupted” by blasphemy, but is simply in a difficult situation and needs a kind word, support and – pardon the word! – from the usual Orthodox “literacy education” (liquidation of illiteracy, i.e. liquidation of literacy). It should not be forgotten that when a person is angry with God, he has already entered into some kind of relationship with Him.
If the blasphemer is not a Christian, entering into a discussion with him is possible only on condition that he will stop insulting and in the course of the polemic will operate only with factual material. Otherwise, he should only be clearly explained his own position, pointing out the lie, insult and substitution of concepts.
Usually, after our clear and unambiguous answer of unfounded insults and blasphemy is immediately followed by an outburst of new accusations spraying poison. The amplitude of the claims depends on the level of “yellowness” of the publication. Often, in response to a specific indication of a given blasphemy or slander, they take out the on-duty “package” of questions, starting with why we baptize children and ending with the questions of why we trade in cigarettes and cover the domes of temples with gold. Engaging in such a polemic is pointless. The arguments will not be accepted and we ourselves will contribute to the PR of slander against us.
Moreover, today we constantly witness deliberate provocations – precisely and painstakingly developed, setting real goals. To succumb to them and start justifying ourselves means to become like the provocateurs, whose main task remains the same to this day – to deny the divine essence of the Church. (as in the cases of “Elder Anthony” and Priest Krasnov)
The fight against blasphemy and slander is not the task of the Church. The Church is only obliged to call them by their proper names. It is the duty of Orthodox journalists to fight blasphemy in the mass media – it is they who can tell the public what the consequences of blasphemy and slander are. Handing out anathemas is not our business, but we have the absolute right to say that the written and disseminated word not only cannot be cut down with an axe, but will not be forgiven without conscious repentance before God.
There is no universal rule for fighting blasphemy and slander. Situations are different, interlocutors and listeners are very diverse, and the cunning one is cunning and – unfortunately – not poorly educated.
If the admonition is received and we see that the slanderer listens and gradually enters the hypostasis of our opponent, we must calmly, with dignity and confidently lead the polemic and discussion. If in response we see only malice and blasphemy, then we should clearly define our own position, and then “shake the dust off our feet”.
To be silent – we must not! And not at all because of the existence of the controversial “we commit treason against God when we remain silent”, but simply because the weakness of Christian silence is directly condemned by the Apostle Paul himself: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).
Source: Fr. Alexander Avdyugin, webpadre, 2010-05-18, http://www.kiev-orthodox.org
