Russia, emigration, Orthodoxy

All things in the world can and should be seen in their place, where they appear to us in their true meaning and relationships; only then are they beautiful and beautiful: ugly ruins - when they are illuminated by the setting sun or silvered by the moon - and they seem beautiful and are not a mirage, not an illusion, but the true truth about the beauty contained in them. Each point is for the entire universe, for God did not destroy a single point of the world, but honored each of them with the seal of universality. And we must also see ourselves in the truth about ourselves, in our place - the only, unique and eternal: for God gave each of us this place in the world. Therefore, away with cowardice and doubts: that we are doing an insignificant thing, that we are powerless, that somewhere other people are truly living. These thoughts are blasphemous and blasphemous, for God gave us all life, He placed responsibilities on all of us, and opened great opportunities for each of us. And we are nothing less than the faith of those early Christian communities that we know about as the golden age of Christianity. Re-read these intimate texts of the Epistles: “The church in Babylon and Mark my son greet you,” “Timothy and Lucius, Jason and Sosipater greet you,” “all the brothers and the children of your chosen sister greet you,” “your friends greet you; greet your friends by name”, “greet each other with a holy kiss”... Don’t we also have a family in the Lord? Do not our brothers welcome us? Don’t our home churches, both Prague and Paris, kiss us? After all, even in the first centuries of Christianity these were small communities made up of small, and often sometimes insignificant, people. But we see them in truth - and therefore they are significant for us. And in the same way we must see ourselves in the truth - in order to live in it, in order to preserve ourselves, confirm, strengthen and remain in truth and power. We are faced with the question: what should we do? This is an old question of the Russian intelligentsia. It was also staged by Chernyshevsky, but his production itself was incorrect; for he understood at the same time - what should I personally do to save the world? In other words, I was considered already saved; the world is saved by the saved, who are only looking for external means for this. And these means were represented by political parties, each of which offered its own medicines to save the patient... And if we are here now again repeating the question: “what to do,” then its meaning should be completely different. But this question hurts. Because I cannot answer it specifically: what to do in Strasbourg, Montargis, Marseille. I can’t, because I don’t know, but I don’t want to know, what everyone should do, because everyone must creatively find their own path, creatively create and carry out their own task. This is asceticism, which is so different from the external heroism that was preached by the Russian intelligentsia. 1 For our field is our inner self; Our work is to create ourselves, and through ourselves, others, the whole world. To expect any final success in this task is unthinkable; there are no final achievements on this path; and with regard to the final churching of ourselves and life, we can only experience joyful hopelessness: joyful, because the path forward is open here only to those who do not stand still, but constantly strive further... It is strange and even ashamed to talk about this task that equally faces each of us: the creation of oneself. Each of us has a whole world for this - his own soul, which is given to him in his uncontrolled freedom and which is more precious to God than the whole universe. Anyone to whom the religious depths of existence are revealed knows well that here we are met by entire worlds through which we must pass. But the words: “work on yourself” sound truism. And yet this is the only answer that can be given to the question: “what to do.” There are not and cannot be insurmountable obstacles on this path; Anyone can live in God and strive for the Kingdom of God in all conditions - both at the machines and in the quarries. The ancient historians Pliny and Strabo tell us about the terrible conditions in which Christian slaves worked in the first centuries. They lived worse than you - in Motargis, in Strasbourg, in Nice, and yet they lived joyfully, for each of them realized: “I am not alone, but the Father is with me.” Therefore, we must remind ourselves of this rule and implement it. In the soul of each of us there is a secret cell in which he must pray and work on himself. Every Christian is a monk in this sense, for, withdrawing into this cell of his, he sees in it a life other than the world. And this monasticism unites us into a kind of common monastery, the members of which are our home local churches: Paris, Nice, Strasbourg - and then our common one - in France and in Europe... You yourself know how touching, how significant the construction of these local churches is, even in the forms in which we can do it. Our more prosperous ancestors built stone churches, our rich people hung thousand-pound bells. And turning back, a holy anxiety grows in my heart: everything we do seems so small, meager and poor. But this is not true; for even third-party objective observation reveals two sides to our work: its external insignificance and its internal significance: the latter is evidenced by the fact that, turning to history, we find ourselves, our ideal and prototype, not in the old Russian church, not in world-power Catholicism, but in early Christianity and only in early Christianity. It has been given to us to build our home church, and for this great gift and great care, only gratitude, which is joy and prayer, can burst from the heart. Therefore, there is no need to be embarrassed by the small scale of our work. The passion of our home brotherhoods already gives rise to the power of a Christian worldview in us; but even before that, we must remember that every point of the universe is the center of the universe; that everything is in everything. And that is why monks, people who withdraw into themselves and are different from the world, find the whole world in themselves, for the whole universe rings in their hearts. However, this work does not deny external work, it does not deny all the significant national and state work. And not because we were the spiritually disheveled Martha, who wants to compose and connect everything with an external “and,” but because in true Christianity there is generally no separation and separation from those veils that bind us on earth - and among them the first duty is from our earthly homeland. However, even now many continue the fruitless intellectual task of saving Russia through external measures, forgetting that there is only one way to save it - in and through themselves. But our home churches, even before their fusion here on earth, are united into a single Church, Russian Orthodoxy, which in turn is part of universal Orthodoxy. Therefore, the only correct loyalty to one’s homeland is life in the church. Here arises a dangerous and subtle temptation of our days: the temptation to replace religion with nationalism, which obscures the purity of church consciousness. This is an old mistake, expressed long ago in the formula: autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. For how can you connect heaven with earth, how can you compare and put Orthodoxy and nationality on the same level? – The Orthodox Ecumenical Church is not given for the exclusive use of any people, not even the Russians. But this does not mean that one should extinguish in oneself that living spring of love for the homeland that wells up in church people. We just need to remember that the Church is larger and more important than the homeland, and that the homeland itself is dear, close and holy to us - because it is ecclesiastical. The tragedy of emigration is that it forgets Russia. And the false and proud consciousness of emigrants that they are the only bearers of light, called upon to enlighten Russia in the future, and that, therefore, abroad there is a country of infidels - deeply false, unchurchly and unorthodox. This consciousness must be ascetically overcome in the name of that genuine love for the homeland, which affirms that here, in a foreign land, we are in Russia, that Russia is in us, that Russia is only a tabernacle in which the holy Orthodox Church lives, sometimes lives under the guise of a slave, but sometimes victoriously. I remember one of the most faithful and wonderful patriots - the late Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev. I worked with him during his life and was at his deathbed: and not once did I hear from him a single word, not a single complaint that he was dying outside of Russia; because he felt himself in Russia, because he wanted to live in it and with it, and spiritually all the time he was oriented towards Russia, of course, not towards the Russia of the guardsmen and buffoons, but towards the Russia of St. Patriarch Tikhon and all the visible and invisible martyrs. May his image serve us as an example of true love and true service to the Church and homeland! There should be no indifference or negligence towards external work, for the Lord Himself arranged it in such a way that our spirit lives incarnated in the body. And the Apostle Paul collected money from the Churches. Of course, you can argue and talk about how and with what to make these collections; but gatherings of the Churches themselves within the Churches are necessary – so that in external work we remain church-like and do not externalize ourselves to political parties. For it is necessary to strengthen ourselves in spirit so much that when any alluring ghost appears, we do not become dizzy, and we are able to maintain our Christian disposition. And this is possible only with comprehensive work on oneself, in which it is wicked and wrong to contrast the real with the spiritual. Now we bear the yoke “in the dispersion of beings”; but in our spiritual life this also has its own meaning and significance: twenty years ago, we would probably have examined this castle-museum, in which every corner bears the stamp of the beautiful culture of old France, with admiration, perhaps with self-spitting - and in any case with a feeling of captivity and bondage by this material and spiritual wealth. After all, these are all the elements that made up our Westernism. But the opposite mood would also not be an overcoming of the problem; for the idea that everything that is alien to us, dangerous, tempting and hostile, speaks of the same slavery, only taken from the other side. But now we have really overcome it; for we looked at all this beauty with a good feeling and calmly returned to our next business. We met with Europe on an equal footing, because we are no longer embarrassed in front of it, feeling our dignity - and this feeling has been acquired by us in recent years. Both of our directions - Westernism and Slavophilism - were born out of the false and undue pathos of the distance between Orthodox Russia and Europe. But now we know that there is ground on which we can meet as equals - as different branches of the same Christian tree. And here, abroad, we have found such freedom and at the same time such connections that it is now difficult for us to even understand and appreciate. But the same thing is happening in Russia. For in our consciousness now the strings of not only the Russian, but also the pan-European Christian heart sound. True, this soil is difficult, the path along it is full of obstacles, but we cannot and do not dare forget that for a whole millennium this land lived and breathed a common church and that this unity is somehow felt and recognized by us now in our brotherly love with the Christians of the West. We can think of Orthodoxy only as universal: and its feat is directed first to oneself, then to the homeland, and, finally, to all the people among whom we live, to the whole world. Here the internal connection between the wretchedness that we represent and the greatness to which we are coming is revealed. For our highest ultimate goal is the task of universal churching. But this is not at all external missionary work, not imposing one’s religion on others; for there is no other will to spread Orthodoxy other than the joyful invitation to live spiritually with us, pray with us and breathe the same air with us. Orthodoxy attracts people with its inner beauty, which shines in everyone who strives to be involved in it. Therefore, our weak forces can also be entrusted with universal tasks. But this requires not self-exaltation of those powers that we do not have, but genuine Christian asceticism, which finds a place for itself in a whole life of work and prayer. At the same congress, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov spoke about the reports of A. Elchaninov, A. Kartashev and his own. Here are the three speeches in full: In other conditions, talking about the nature of Russian piety was unchaste and even harmful. Previously, when we lived surrounded by Orthodox life, any praise of it had an unpleasant aftertaste of complacency and narcissism. “You don’t need to measure yourself,” patristic wisdom teaches us, and experience confirms this: you can’t look at yourself in the most intimate and deep things, because this is already stylization. You can talk about how we live, but you can never fully express yourself in this direction. Moreover, in the matter of piety, everyone is competent, for everyone can have their own opinion here. But here you can also find one internal point from which everything seems connected, whole and unified. True, this is not easy, for all internal points are difficult to find, especially given the immeasurable richness and diversity of the phenomenology of piety. What is this point for Russian Orthodoxy? Christianity is infinitely diverse and can be perceived from different points of view. Thus, a theological-mental perception of it, which was realized in Byzantium, is possible; a volitional, practical and active perception of it is possible - given to us in the Roman Catholic Church, which seeks primarily action; a mental-ethical-practical understanding of Christianity is possible in Protestantism, which strives to resolve individual life problems through Christian morality. What is Russian Orthodoxy from this point of view? What is his ultimate question? The answer to this can, of course, only be given personally; there can be no indisputability here; this is a personal perception of personal-cosmic religion. Orthodoxy is the first duty of love for beauty, Christianity, understood as intelligent beauty and spiritual artistry, and everything aimed at its pursuit. Love for this beauty requires that all life be permeated with this beauty - and this is the essence of Orthodoxy. Putting smart beauty at the center of life is an exhaustive, absolute task, in comparison with which all other programs seem simplified, despite all their difficulty; for this difficulty concerns their execution, and not the task. But it is incredibly difficult and, moreover, impossible without the help of grace, to free oneself from morality, from the discipline of mind and will in order to completely devote oneself to intelligent beauty. Meanwhile, this is Orthodoxy. It is first expressed in worship, which must be understood as the service of intelligent beauty, as the experience of heavenly beauty, as theurgically transubstantiated life. And hence the desire to see everything sanctified; up to and including the state, which should not be “Caesar’s”, but “royal-anointed”. The energy of piety is asceticism, but it also bears the same imprint of intelligent beauty. For asceticism can also be different: the severity of Ignatius of Loyola is not similar to Optina Pustyn, but it also differs from the learned piety of the Dominicans; In asceticism, what matters is not what, but how. And Russian asceticism always proceeds from the motive (not always conscious) to manifest the Kingdom of God on earth. Asceticism, as such, can easily degenerate into world denial, world fear and hatred of the world; here the ascetic always faces the danger of being captured by the elements of Manichism and Bohumilism, which seeks to snatch the world from God and give it to the kingdom of darkness. But Russian asceticism does not deny the world, but embraces everything; its symbol is the icon of the Mother of God in the fields (overshadowing the compressed sheaves), which stood in the cell of the elder Ambrose of Optina. In this sense, it is the highest maximalism, full of incredible difficulties in implementation and dangers in case of failure. For if the vision of intelligent beauty turns pale before a person, he is unarmed before the world. And this is what the Russian man is like outside of Orthodoxy, outside the vision of intelligent beauty - for he lacks both the muscles of will and the consistency of culture and discipline; he can only be strong through Orthodoxy. The Russian people are not moral by nature; and outside of faith he is nothing; because faith never fostered will and morality in Rus': it was always superior to them. And this spiritual bad manners of a person - in the absence of faith - is punished not only by moral decline, but also by the internal slavery of the soul, lack of will, fear of this world - and all this entered deeply into historical Orthodoxy, since in its sons the love for intelligent beauty weakened. Such are the dangers associated with this path; however, to refuse it is godless and wicked; for you can only love God in heaven and God in creation, that is, intelligent beauty, and to refuse this love because it is difficult and responsible means laying down your arms before Satan. However, here an alarming and painful question arises about the relationship of our earthly beauty, as we know it, to intelligent beauty, as we strive to recognize it. This contradiction burned and tormented Dostoevsky and burns our soul even more, because religiously we are at an older age than Dostoevsky. His intelligent beauty, which he aspired to and loved, is still in a state of ambiguity. Here our mind encounters an antinomy, for it is worth loving, and moreover loving selflessly and defenselessly, only beauty; but it is impossible to love beauty, due to its inherent demonism; and Eros can easily reduce beauty to prettiness and replace the heavenly world with the earthly one. In order to truly see intelligent beauty, one must become blind to the world: and this is the essence of any ascetic activity; but we are not able to give here an exact criterion for distinguishing between the truth of intellectual beauty and the falsity of earthly beauty. The metaphysical-dogmatic answer to this question states that beauty is the Holy Spirit. For all creation will be transformed only under the influence of the action of the Holy Spirit, transforming it. Therefore, in the hierarchy of values, beauty has the highest place: it is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit - the external expression of the Father's Word. Ordinary life beauty relates to intelligent beauty in the same way as a world stricken by sin relates to God’s plan for the world. A brush dipped in the colors of this world brings with it its sensuality and lust; As a person grows spiritually, this external beauty fades for him; Therefore, there is no more false and treacherous attitude towards beauty than aestheticism, which replaces admiration with the desire to break out of the boundaries of earthly reality. Despite all these temptations and dangers, we cannot rest on a simplified type of Christianity - neither volitional, nor philosophical, nor practical. For we can only be satisfied by following the path of love for intelligent beauty, along the path of Orthodoxy. Our tragedy lies in the awareness of the bad manners of the religious will of the Russian people; and without the power of religious will there can be no religious order in Russian life. But this does not mean the need to learn from others, for example, from Catholics; this last would be treason. We ourselves must strengthen ourselves in our love and in our faith, in order not only to think and feel, but to live Orthodoxy. The old way of life - as we knew it - does not exist and will not exist: it is lost forever. But in our life and moreover - here, here, now - this old, dear thing is realized in the new. But our maximum task is precisely to fulfill the ancient in the new. And now the poor student churches, recreated with love, with delight, with creativity, are living receptacles of our prayer and faith; Our old magnificent churches were too often for us dead treasures in which we did not feel the beating of spiritual life. We are now going through the school of Christian education of our will. And here everything should be simple. We should not strive for poverty and not for aesthetic asceticism; for here - in this simplicity, shyness and chastity lies the highest aesthetic taste - love for true beauty, and not for external pomp and splendor. This simplicity should reign in our mutual relations: only it will create that music, inaudible for us, to which foreigners listen so much. We see a concrete example of this simplicity before us. Present among us is Vladyka Metropolitan - the bearer of Patriarchal power in Europe - the highest church authority. All power generally oppresses, presses, but not here. For we, the objects of this power, do not have fear and embarrassment, but love, joy in the consciousness that we represent here the Church in the fullness of its hierarchy, the fullness of its grace-filled gifts and the fullness of the church people. And this should strengthen us even more in the spirit of humility and love. The problems of our time, in their complexity and breadth of scope, are beyond the ability not only to resolve, but even to understand for most of us. However, everyone should feel them, if only in order not to get confused and strengthen spiritually. The upheavals of the Church and the world must be viewed as radical and significant upheavals. At the same time, it is necessary to overcome fear, a feeling of weakness and exhaustion, and fight the spirit of decadent reaction and restoration, which is the most harmful of all forms of utopianism that can now exist. Of course, this should be understood religiously and not politically; but people alien to the interests of faith seek to use church values ​​for their own purposes and thus commit religious substitution. New creativity should least of all be a revolutionary innovation quand même. However, no less harmful is blind love for the old and the desire to restore it - under the influence of confusion and spiritual uncertainty. In the Church everything is eternal, and there is nothing new, and at the same time everything must be new. Our task is to discern where eternity and love for the Church end and personal inclinations towards the past begin, which cannot be returned, for the hour of history has struck for an entire era. True, here, among us, there was almost no such restorationist utopianism; but there is so much of it everywhere, so often the meaning of all creativity is seen in the preservation and restoration of the old, that it is advisable to once again recall this danger. Our path is not wide, but narrow: it leads between restoration and reaction, which cannot create anything, and new creativity, which cannot break with the antiquity. Question: “In Russia now apocalyptic aspirations are so strong that all active church activity and struggle are considered unnecessary and even sinful. How should we react to this phenomenon? O. Sergius: This question cannot be answered from the mind; for the answer to it will inevitably appear in a religious court. However, I will not shy away from it and will answer to the extent that a sinful person can answer. The expectation of a speedy end among the early Christians reveals both the strength of their faith and the weakness of their knowledge. In this belief they were not wrong, 1) because it was the only possible creative response to the task entrusted to them by God, and 2) because the Christian must always expect the end. However, St. Constantine was also right, building a kingdom and caring for the external welfare of the Church. There is no alternative here: both are right; both points of view and both spiritual attitudes are completely correct and legitimate. Experience answers about the appropriateness of one or the other: when I had to live in a state of spiritual anabiosis, I accepted it, but could not consider it completeness. For death, both immediate and prolonged, can never be mistaken for life. But if such an attitude was correct there (an attitude not of non-resistance, but of gathering all spiritual forces inside, while being cut off from all external connections), then bringing it and implementing it here would be a lie. But besides this internal attitude, there is also direct slavery in Soviet Russia. And I bore this mark of a slave, which the whole of Russia bears on itself, starting with the Patriarch, a mark they accepted as a martyr and worthy of all reverence, but cannot be the norm for us - living here in freedom. The feeling of “end times” may be a manifestation of a religiously concentrated life, but it may also simply be an adaptation to the situation. Before the war, I also experienced this eschatological mood, for the world was then falling apart into two strongholds - European culture and Russian statehood - both living with anti-Christian aspirations. But after the war, when both of these strongholds collapsed, and history continues and poses new challenges for us, I see that if we are to ask the question about the end of the world, then it would be more correct to talk about the “penultimate times.” In general, excessive eschatologism may contain elements of painful fear, which can lead to a false religious feeling. The feeling of the “last trumpet” is generally the most difficult task, perhaps more difficult than fear and anticipation of personal death. And while I bow and spiritually kiss the modern Russian apocalypticism, I still strive to personally be free from it. See the article about this. S. Bulgakov “Heroism and Asceticism” in the collection “Vekhi”, reprinted in “Two Cities” (Moscow, publishing house Put, 1912).