What, Another Posting About Religion?

A May 22nd New York Times article on the leader of the Russian branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill I, prompted me to return to a rabbit hole that I resisted exploring when I researched last month’s posting. My fascination with this topic is due to my realizing how radically the church-state relationship has changed in post-Communist Russia.

In 1917, the Communists viewed most social, economic, and government institutions as relics of a bygone era that the revolution would replace. Religion was no exception, and by the end of 1917, marriage and divorce laws had been repealed and only civil marriages were recognized. In 1918, the government proclaimed the separation of church from schools and the separation of church from state. The proclamation’s intent was not so much to separate church and state, but to destroy the church by “penning it into a corner where it … would wither and die.” Lenin summarized the Marxist view of religion thusly:

Religion teaches those who toil in poverty all their lives to be resigned and patient in this world, and consoles them with the hope of reward in heaven. As for those who live upon the labor of others, religion teaches them to be charitable in earthly life, thus providing a cheap justification for their whole exploiting existence and selling them, at a reasonable price, tickets to heavenly bliss. Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual intoxicant, in which the slaves of capital drown their humanity and their desires for some sort of decent human existence. (Donald W. Treadgold, Twentieth Century Russia, Third Edition, 1972, pages 248-249)

Because Lenin viewed the revolution as a political and economic struggle, but not a religious struggle, he was willing to allow the Church a marginalized existence on a temporary basis, although later, Stalin instituted more aggressive policies against the Church. However, both Lenin and Stalin underestimated the staying power of the Orthodox Church, despite the state seizing its property, undermining its organization, and purging its leaders.

Today, the Russian Orthodox Church boasts 100 million followers, or about 70% of Russia’s 144 million inhabitants. According to the Times, Kirill became the Church’s patriarch in 2009 after embracing a deep conservatism that criticized both Protestant religions for admitting women to the clergy and the West for forcing traditional societies to accept gay rights and other “anti-Christian” values under the guise of human rights. Under his leadership, the Russian Orthodox Church has sought to expand its influence, with Kirill aspiring for Moscow to become the “Third Rome” (if you don’t know about the second Rome, keep reading).

Kirill’s ideology resonated with Vladimir Putin, who returned to the presidency in 2012, after a four-year hiatus. The Church’s conservatism and view of itself as moral leader dovetailed nicely with Putin’s embrace of nationalism and his vision of a restored tsarist empire over all lands with a Slavic heritage or with an Orthodox faith. A mutually beneficial relationship resulted with Kirill providing Putin “spiritual cover” for the state’s authoritarian abuses and with Putin ensuring the Church had resources for its expansionist endeavors. Meanwhile, Kirill has amassed sufficient wealth to be considered a target of western sanctions.

Over time, the Kirill-Putin relationship has evolved into one of non-equals, and today, the Russian Orthodox Church is considered a captive of the state. In a March Zoom meeting with Pope Francis on resolving the 1,000-year schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, “Kirill spent 20 minutes reading prepared remarks, echoing the arguments of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that the war in Ukraine was necessary to purge Nazis and oppose NATO expansion,” according to the Times. Pope Francis responded, “Brother, we are not clerics of the state.”

This is not the first instance of the Russian Orthodox Church employing a conciliatory position with the Russian or Soviet state. However, this relationship might have more distant historical roots, possibly dating to the 4th century when Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. Soon, Christianity spread over the entire Roman Empire, which surrounded the Mediterranean Sea. Latin was spoken in the west, and Greek was the language of the east. Near the same time, the Empire fell into turmoil, particularly in the west, in part due to its invasion by barbarians. In response, Constantine changed the name of the eastern city of Byzantium to Constantinople and made it a second capital. Henceforth, each of the two capitals governed its half of the Empire.

As conditions continued to deteriorate in the west, including much of Italy, the west eventually was left with no overreaching government authority, in part due to the emperor residing in Constantinople. However, the Christian Church and its organization of bishoprics continued to exist in the “old empire,” and Rome remained the focal point of the western church because that was the location of St. Peter’s martyrdom after Christ bestowed upon him the spiritual authority of the Church. Peter’s Roman successors inherited his “Petrine supremacy,” which was accepted by other western bishops. In time. the bishop of Rome assumed authority for Rome’s civil governance, as well as its spiritual oversight.

The Greek patriarchs in the east refused to accept the supremacy of the Roman bishop, and for three centuries, the Church’s two branches drifted apart. By the eleventh century, the division was deemed irreparable, and the Christian Church officially divided, under the Schism of 1054, with the Latin or Roman Catholic Church in the west and the Greek Orthodox Church in the east. This evolution demonstrates how the Roman Catholic Church came of age without being under the rule of any secular power, while the Eastern Orthodox Church matured under the authority and influence of the Emperor in Constantinople.

My family will accuse me of writing this posting solely for the purpose of featuring the following song, over which I frequently obsessed. Kudos to They Might Be Giants for popularizing a song, written in my birth year by Jimmy Kennedy and Nat Simon, that was so clever that Tiny Toon Adventures made it into a cartoon, it’s Istanbul (Not Constantinople)!

Lagniappe #1, Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church has 220 million members and is organized into 14 self-governing regional churches, each with its own bishop and holy synod. In addition to the Russian Orthodox Church, some of the other regions are Cypriot, Georgian, Greek, Serbian, and Ukrainian. After centuries of tutelage under the Russian branch, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople allowed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to sever its ties with the Russian church in 2014. Oddly, orthodox Christianity was first introduced to Russia in 988 A.D. under Prince Vladimir of Kiev.

Lagniappe #2, Rest in Peace Andy Fletcher. I regularly trash 1980s music, but Depeche Mode is an 80s band that I find hypnotic. It is a British electronics-heavy band, that made its mark with a heavy reliance on synthesizers, hitting its stride when it veered away from pop music and adopted a darker, more serious tone. Andy Fletcher was a founding member and has been described as “the glue that held the band together” and “the heart of Depeche Mode.” He passed in late May at the age of 60. In keeping with this posting’s religious theme, take a moment to enjoy Depeche Mode’s hit song, Personal Jesus. (Fletcher is on synthesizer and wearing sunglasses.)

Previous
Previous

It’s A Great Day for Hockey

Next
Next

Does Man Make History, Or Does History Make the Man