Staunton, January 7 – Despite Vladimir
Putin’s very public invocation of religion and his tight embrace of Patriarch
Kirill, the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church has fallen over the last
year, the result of government policies which could be called “covert
secularization” and the spread of the notion of “Orthodox atheism,” according
to Boris Kolymagin.
In a commentary in “Yezhednevny
zhurnal” today, Kolymagin argues that the Russian government has become
increasingly involved in the affairs of the church, blocking the recovery of
Russian Orthodoxy from Soviet oppression and reducing the church’s influence on
many aspects of public policy (ej.ru/?a=note&id=26796).
And that in turn means, he
continues, that “’Orthodox atheism,’” a term used by and associated with
Alyaksandr Lukashenka, “’the last dictator of Europe,’” has now crossed the
Belarusian border and is “proudly marching through Putin’s Russia,” however
much Moscow political technologists try to conceal that fact.
The course of events in Ukraine and
the recent declaration by the Orthodox of Belarus that they want autonomy or
even autocephaly has put paid to the notion of a strong “Russian world” in
which Patriarch Kirill and Putin had put so much faith. As a result, Kolymagin says, “’Political
orthodoxy’” lost much of its utility as a political resource.
But perhaps more importantly, the
Moscow commentator continues, Orthodoxy as a resource has been falling “not
only in politics but also in culture.”
Superficially, Russia’s “political elite continues to use the ruling
confession as a means of communication,” but, Kolymagin argues, this is
increasingly “being done by inertia and without prospects.”
It has become obvious that “the
church’s top managers are interested in the cultural theme only as a means of
extracting budgetary funds designated by the government for culture” rather
than in culture as such. And that reality has been highlighted by the response
of the church to the budget crisis, Kolymagin says.
As less money is available for
anything, the church leaders are “moderating their appetites.” No one is
talking anymore about projects “like the conversion of Rostov Velikiy into
Kitezh in the manner of Luzhkov’s stylization” of Moscow. For that, Kolymagin
continues, everyone can say “thank you to the crisis.”
More seriously, he says, “cultural
impulses from simple parishioners are disappearing” primarily because the heavy
hand of the state is taking control of all sorts of “musical festivals,
literary competitions, and socially significant initiatives.” If anything alive
does get through, it is “despite” that rather than because of official
encouragement.
At present, Kolymagin writes, “the
new Putin secularism, connected above all with the subordination of religion to
the needs of the government is gathering force.” To say that, he continues, “does
not mean that it was not operating earlier but rather that [over the last year]
quantity has passed into quality.”
Support for his argument, the commentator
says, is to be found in a new collection of articles issued by the Moscow Carnegie
Center, “The Construction and Deconstruction of the Secular World” (in Russian,
Moscow, 2014). And he points to the
articles of Boris Dubin, Sergey Filatov and Oleg Morozov as particularly
valuable and instructive.
But Kolymagin says one essay in the
collection, Aleksey Uminsky’s “The Christian Community and Civil Society,”
requires a response. Uminsky paints an
idealized picture of the organization of church life, but nowhere does he say
how that can emerge in Putin’s Russia, “under conditions of authoritarianism
and the tyranny of the church’s top managers.”
That failure, the “Yezhednevny
zhurnal” writer says, makes Uminsky’s call “to cereate a society something like
the call of Father Gapon” in 1905 when the priest led a group of the Orthodox
faithful to petition the tsar. “To go in
that way is possible,” Kolymagin says, “but what is to be done if they begin to
shoot?”
The commentator does suggest that one result of the last
year may prove positive for the church in the future: many of the “hot heads”
who had been attracted to its ranks in recent times on the assumption that they
could make careers are leaving, opening the way for real believers to take
their place. If that happens, the future could become less bleak than it now
appears.
Kolymagin’s essay is one of a
large number of articles which have appeared in recent months about the fate of
the church. Most of them accept the
following paradigm: Russia was an intensely religious country before the
Bolsheviks came. Then the Communists with their official atheism harmed the
church, and now it is recovering.
There is more than a little truth in
that version of history, but it is not the whole story, and some Russians are
now exploring the fact that while the church as a structure was strong before
1917, the population was significantly less religious in the ways most would
understand than many now think (work-way.com/pravda-o-pravoslavnom-narode/#more-6956).
Such investigations, of course,
often reflect an alternative ideology, but they also help to explain much that happened
in the 20th century and much that is happening now, when the senior
hierarchs are increasingly subordinate to the needs of the political leadership
but increasingly isolated from the needs of those they claim as their flock.
No comments:
Post a Comment