Hieromonk Gregory. Rivalry of Initiatives: Current Problems in the Light of Jubilee Celebrations
http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=english&id=32
Precisely 60 years ago the three Metropolitans were summoned to Stalin who officially announced the foundation of ecclesiastical organisation known as "the Russian Orthodox Church" (ROC). That moment predicted the election of the Patriarch – the principal Metropolitan of those who were present at the meeting in Kremlin, that’s why the date 4 September 1943 came to history as the day of the creation of contemporary Moscow Patriarchy (MP).
Ecclesiastical policy of the Russian State of 1943 pattern endured – with some interruptions after Stalin’s death – up to 1959, until it was finally abolished by the new epoch of the so called "Khruschev’s persecution". It was Khruschev who had been abolished later, and ecclesiastical policy of the Soviet State changed once again, having settled down on something insignificant and intermediate as regards Stalin’s and Khruschev’s courses: ROC MP was quite intensively used anew to satisfy the needs of the State, however, this activity couldn’t be compared with that of the "1943–1953 Stalin’s decade" epoch.
Drastic quantitative reduction of activity had been predetermined mostly by nonactuality of repatriation propaganda among Russian emigrants in Brezhnev’s epoch and by the turn of the Soviet policy in the Arabic world from the Arabs-Christians to Arabs-Muslims which took place at the end of 1950s.
As regards qualitative changes, they concerned mainly the desire of the Soviet State to conceal by all means the very existence of internal ecclesiastical structures, and all the more the use of those structures in functioning of the state machinery. They were not so fastidious in their choice in Stalin’s time: for example, the photos of the clergymen awarded in the course of World War II were readily published in press, and the number of functioning churches was more considerable (under Khruschev most of them had been closed and under Brezhnev everything was kept unchanged).
In contemporary Russian State ROC MP can’t feel itself in some different manner – in comparison with the times of Khruschev and Brezhnev, as well as in the times of Stalin’s "blessed decade". The State shouldn’t be ashamed of either the very existence of powerful religious organisation – ROC MP, or the collaboration of the State with such organisation. At the same time, ROC MP, when collaborating with the State, can’t feel itself in uncomfortable position, as the State ceased to declare oneself as atheistic.
In such circumstances the collaboration between the State and ROC MP is to be established, and it is to become much more free and deep than in the times of "Stalin’s decade". Those specific problems which arose between ROC MP and the Soviet State had been removed. But some problems reside – specific and nonspecific ones.
Nonspecific problems are the problems of such kind which always arise between collaborating organisations irrespectively of specificity of collaboration and organisations by themselves. Most of them are usually connected with this or that understanding of mutual beneficiality of collaboration, in particular what should be considered advantageous for the organisation in general and what should be considered as advantageous only for certain representatives of this organisation – which sometimes causes detriment to the whole.
Nonspecific problems use to get specific forms in particular circumstances of collaboration between contemporary Russian State authority and ROC MP.
On the level of Russian regions (with their multiplicity and variability as regards their conditions) the problems of such kind become absolutely inevitable: but everyone knows that it is hardly possible to evade that absolutely no deviations from the ideally defined political course chosen by the State could arise. However, it is the existence of the unified state policy that can guarantee the possibility to adjust those deviations in process. That’s why the principal question of nowadays is the question of the unified state course in relations with ROC MP. One should wonder if this course exist at all, and if it does – what is it? Which course can be useful for the State as a whole and not only for its particular representatives: the interested groups of officials and businessmen? Which course can be useful inside ROC MP and for whom in particular? None of those questions have generally accepted answers. Instead various (and sometimes rather uncompromising) points of view are discussed. Perhaps, of all those vexed questions only the first at present admits unquestionable answer: a unified state course in relations with ROC MP still doesn’t exist. The attempts to work such a course out which had been undertaken in various circles during the decade (in particular, since the end of 1993), didn’t result in the domination of a certain point of view.
However, certain "symphony" between the definite part of official circles and – what is more – of the definite part of ROC MP governing body has taken shape. Those groups which have found common language are not so strong to provide the victory of their position in the state policy and in the policy of ROC MP, respectively, however, it is their position which has been declared most distinctly. They form that very minority which activity and consciousness get particularly evident against a background of passive and inert majority(…)
The principal idea which is shared by both groups – ecclesiastic and secular – is to provide ROC MP with the actual (and juridical, as far as it is possible) status of state religion and state ideology. Beneficiality of this decision for those political circuses which try to establish "power oligarchy" with the moonlit state ideology, and ecclesiastic circles which seek for secular power, is quite evident. Less evident is the state or ecclesiastic profit of such a decision.
The attempt to make state ideology of contemporary Russia a religious one, and more over, in ROC MP style, could bring those passions which have flared up in big business after the "hunt for oligarchy" initiated by those circles.
From ecclesiastic point of view, the same policy could take the place of Orthodox ideology instead of Communism in Brezhnev’s times. And if – as the authors of this idea probably desire – if they could manage to allot the place of Communist ideology in Stalin’s times, few persons might be pleased with this perspective…
Well, if one could follow the example of "Stalin’s decade" as regards relations of the State and ROC MP, one should follow it in quite a different respect. Under Stalin the head of ROC MP couldn’t even imagine the possibility to influence the secular live of the country, but at the same time, comrade Stalin most strictly warned comrade Karpov, People’s Commission of Internal Affairs veteran when he was appointed superior for the Patriarch: "Don’t slip your hand in priest's pocket". In fact, up to the time of Khruschev’s persecutions the inner ways of ROC MP were calm and quiet, that certainly promoted the rise of sincerity in its collaboration with the state. Just the same: nowadays the principal part of professionals in ROC MP is formed not by arrogant politicians, but by ordinary guardians of "priest ideology", in mitres although. They had no need in influencing secular life of the society – either for themselves or for their church bosses. And the parish doesn’t treat them as a branch of the shadow cabinet, but as the store clerks at the market of religious maintenance with its modest and unpretentious assortment – nevertheless – with its tremendous turnover. The state machinery could deliberately hold this mass in the forms promoting long-range outlook for political development.
Of course, "ecclesiastic majority" of ROC MP can’t give rise to any ideology, be it competitive or not. But still this constitutes its merits rather then demerits. If the matter concerns the place which ROC MP could occupy in the structure of the Russian State being in the process of development nowadays, it would be much better and more natural if the ideology of church-state relations could be provided by the state. Unfortunately, in this respect the situation leaves much to be desired: in establishing relations between ROC MP and contemporary Russian state the state initiative is replaced by the initiative of the active (but not through reason) minority of the President administration and big business.
Jubilee celebrations of today recall the memorial visit of the future ROC MP leaders to comrade Stalin – and form a perfect ground to remind that contemporary state authorities should hasten – and keep the opportunity to make well-timed suggestions in creating relations between MP and the state which can result in sharp improvements of various spheres of public affairs.