Religion and politics

1. “The crisis, which shook up the whole of Russian life to the very bottom, could not, naturally, fail to affect one aspect of not only Russian, but also human life in general, and the religious question is increasingly being posed to the current generation not in a dogmatic, but in a purely practical form: what should be the attitude of the social movement to religion and vice versa. Perhaps the most characteristic difference between the modern Russian revolution and the French revolution of 1789 is the absence of that anti-religious current that was noticed then: most political figures ignore religion altogether, but there seems to be not one who would set himself the task of exterminating it, and on the contrary, there is a whole group that is trying to establish a direct connection between the Christian religion and the political and socialist movement. This tolerant attitude towards religion is all the more remarkable since the official representatives of the ruling Church declared themselves in the majority to be such obsequious servants of the powers that be, so resignedly succumbed to their interference in matters of faith and allowed such unceremonious exploitation of religion in the interests of the old order that even blind hostility towards religion itself because of its unworthy representatives would be psychologically understandable.” This reasoning begins the article “Religion and Politics” by N. Yezersky in the January book of Russian Thought. Indeed, one cannot help but notice, even with a superficial glance at the mood of modern life, that religious motives are very often heard in it. Politics, this modern moloch, it turns out, has not completely captured the attention of society. There remains some attention for religion. Let's say even more: religious issues are not only given attention, but they are positively interested in them. In the January book, for example, “Russian Thought,” almost half of the scientific and journalistic section is devoted to issues of a religious and social nature. And until now this magazine did not like to talk about religion at all... On the pages of “The Christian” it is very gratifying to note such a phenomenon of modern life. True, the most opposing political aspirations try to rely on religious authority and on those feelings that are evoked in a person by religious inspiration. Religious enthusiasm is used to increase the effect of political demonstration. Profaning religious rites, some consecrate political banners, others want to serve memorial services for their political associates, even without believing in God or the afterlife. Therefore, it is especially pleasant to note such judgments of secular people, where “the question of the relationship between two great factors of social life and the progress of mankind” is objectively explored, as is done in the mentioned article. We will briefly outline its contents in the words of the author, if possible. “There have always been a lot of people who wanted to mix religion and politics, but nothing but harm to humanity came from it.” Religion and politics are different in essence. Religion completely embraces a person, makes its demands in a categorical form, addresses a person as an individual, brings all its ideal goals through the individual and touches the deepest strings in this individual. Religion has the task of “answering the basic, eternal questions of the world and life; politics - on issues of public life. [...] Political teaching can never completely capture a person. [...] If there are people who are completely content with political life and find complete satisfaction in it, then this is only proof of their well-known spiritual limitations.” Religious ideas are the most difficult to apply to life, require centuries to enter into life, and are distorted during implementation. “This is the first danger of confusing religious and political tasks. If religious preachers turn into politicians and turn their moral commandments into bills, [...] then integrity and ideal height lose their luster and their charm from contact with life and, striving for practical success, religious politicians sacrifice the distant and eternal interests of their teaching. [...] On the other hand, a political program that seeks to implement idealistic demands in its entirety is set by goals that are unattainable even for an autocratic ruler. [...] Such a policy discredits the very ideas it serves.” The second danger from transferring religious principles and objectives into the realm of politics is associated with the absolute nature of religion. “No religion can show tolerance towards another faith, but as long as the struggle remains in the moral sphere, it does not acquire a repulsive character.” But something different happens if state coercion is added, because “the simultaneous implementation of the tasks of religion by word and sword is psychologically impossible. Those who use the sword, firstly, alienate the masses who see violence from representatives of religion, and, secondly, they themselves begin to rely solely on the power of the sword.” The sword “seems to go straighter to the goal than a slow sermon, it is more impressive in appearance, and therefore any alliance with state power invariably and immediately begins to corrupt the religious society that has entered into it.” “The third and most dangerous consequence for religion of invading the realm of politics is that its main task is lost sight of. Religion always addresses the individual and can consider its task completed when the individual consciously subordinates his life to its requirements.” For a political party, “even the sincerity of convictions does not play the first role. [...] The dignity of individuals is interesting to her only insofar as the success of the party depends on their talents. [...] We consider it necessary to subordinate the political struggle to well-known moral principles, but here the political side fades into the background, and moreover, it suffers. That is why inveterate politicians very often look condescendingly at the moral transgressions of their fellow members for the sake of the interests of the party.” Violence is inevitable in politics, but a religious society must exercise great caution in coercing even its own adherents. “Only those orders of religion or spiritual authority will be carried out that correspond to the conviction of the majority... Therefore, it seems to us a contradiction in principle to talk about a religious political party. [...] In the era of its prosperity, not a single religion, not a single Church shows a desire to become a political party. [...] The pursuit of political tasks, involvement in the circle of political struggle with all its everyday worries and squabbles, which the party playing a role in parliament cannot avoid, can only drown out the true seed of religion as the theory of the gospel parable.” All these remarks will become more understandable after examining the attempt that has already been made in our country to form a religious political party. We are talking about the Christian Fellowship of Struggle. “The central point of his program is the denial, on the basis of the Gospel, of private property and the corresponding demand for a socialist restructuring of society.” This is the main tendency of the brotherhood and this is its main mistake. “The Gospel does not give a categorical answer to the question of the admissibility of property and, in any case, approaches the question from a completely different angle than modern socialism. [...] It is not so much the denial of property as the disdain for it that runs through the Gospel. [...] Christianity attacks not so much the principle itself as its abuse.” “The advice to the rich young man, beginning with the words: “If you want to be perfect” (Matthew 19:21), shows that Christ Himself did not dare to establish the requirement of renunciation of property as obligatory for everyone, but introduced it only as the highest ideal.” There is no doubt that with the achievement of this ideal by Christian society, property is itself abolished, but here lies the second difference between Christianity and socialism - the abolition of property is put forward as a duty of owners, and not as a right of the people, and the whole dignity of renunciation of property lies in the voluntariness of renunciation, the purpose of renunciation is not a new structure of social order, but a direct reduction in concerns about material wealth: material wealth is opposed not by material equality, but by material poverty.” “The other half of the mistake is the desire to transfer the final ideal of Christianity into a practical requirement. [...] With the greatest religious upsurge, perhaps it would be possible to abolish the right of property, but at the very next moment this property would begin to be revived under the pressure of human nature. [...] There was no complete denial of property in Christianity. [...] The founders of Christianity were better psychologists than all subsequent sectarians who tried to introduce compulsory communism, and than all contemporary Christian socialists.” The program of Christian socialists from the basic point of view on social relations is the same Marxist materialist program, based only on quotations from the Gospel. This is where the greatest inconsistency of some modern leaders lies, which threatens to make the entire new movement of religious thought fruitless. Marxism is a special worldview with its own science and philosophy. The program of social democracy places a political violent revolution as the direct creator of the new system. The moral perfection of the individual has absolutely nothing to do with this theory of social revolution. The denial of physical violence, preached by the Gospel, is alien to this doctrine. Whoever hits you on one cheek, offer him the other (see Matt. 5:39) - this commandment in the mouth of a politician can only arouse bewilderment and ridicule. “People who stand on the basis of the Gospel, even deducing from the Gospel a complete denial of property, cannot find in it the slightest justification for the violent overthrow of the current order of things; it is necessary to turn the entire Christian teaching upside down in order to derive from the requirement to distribute one’s property to others the right of these others to take it for themselves by force, without waiting for distribution. Anyone who finds that the people cannot wait for the voluntary distribution of estates by the rich has to refer no longer to the Gospel to support his demands.” The Christian politician is faced with one question poorly resolved by Mr. Kim: are Christians allowed to use violence, and if not, how will the Christian Brotherhood of Struggle operate? “Only the gradual influence of Christianity on the members of the community can bring them to the point of renouncing property.” What should be the mutual relationship between religion and politics? What can they give each other? Religion processes people; it is the material from which the politician tries to build the building of the state and social structure that best meets the needs. “A politician can and should set himself the goal of improving humanity.” But religion “should not sanctify institutions and methods of political activity that block the path to that ideal height to which religion wants to lead humanity. [...] Going towards each other, religion and politics should not, however, for a moment lose sight of their special tasks and cross the boundaries of the area of ​​​​human life that is demarcated by each of them.” “Equally, they should not borrow from each other and methods of action. Religion can only use the spiritual weapon of personal conviction. Any strengthening of religious influence through external legislation, that is, external pressure, gives only a short-term external effect and achieves apparent success at the cost of renouncing its essence. [...] A politician, however, cannot limit himself only to those measures of influence that are characteristic of religion. Some questions of people's life are too acute and urgent to be resolved by the slow evolution of their minds. The people’s need may require assistance in a larger amount and faster than idealistic property owners would agree to do, and it is not charity, but the public good that the legislator has in mind when supporting the hungry and unemployed.” The question of the mutual influence of religion and politics is especially difficult. Politics always has an admixture of idealism; This is the positive influence of religion. “But finding the proper measure of impulses towards an ideal future is a task in which a political party must prove its creative ability, taking on the task of breaking down the old in the name of a better new.” On the other hand, “the influence of religion on politics is reflected in the fact that there are political principles and techniques that religion can unconditionally reject and thereby put pressure on the political area. [...] The Church cannot permit in the name of political needs that which is categorically prohibited by its teaching. From here a double danger has always arisen: either the Church compromises in order to maintain its secure position, then it gradually turns into a slave of secular power, which is what happened with us; or she demands the fulfillment of her commandments contrary to secular laws, but then she is carried away on the path of struggle with secular power, turning in this struggle herself to the secular weapon of violence, and gradually this struggle from ideological turns into simple competition with secular power because of dominance over the crowd. Early Christianity found the correct solution to the problem: it fulfilled all secular laws until they ran counter to the Christian conscience, and responded with decisive resistance to everything that contradicted religious requirements, but it did not fight back with violence, but with passive resistance, even to the point of martyrdom. [...] Religion must pursue its special tasks in its own spiritual ways, and despite the apparent weakness of this influence, it is deeper and stronger than the political. Religion also has a decisive influence on politics, since it gives it general directives, ideals and controls its principles and methods of struggle. But religion should never be influenced by politics, strive for political power, borrow from political parties their weapons and serve their purposes. The only thing it can demand from secular power is to provide it with the freedom that should generally be given to any manifestation of human thought and energy.” It is impossible not to note the complete objectivity of N. Yezersky’s judgments, and this is all the more important because there are now too many publicists who want to turn even religion and morality into an instrument of political struggle. Christianity, according to these publicists, stands on the side of parties that are different to the contrary. The “Union of the Russian People” demands that representatives of the Church of Christ, if they want to be faithful to Christ’s teaching, serve only him and anathematize seditionists. Revolutionary parties consider Christ a revolutionary, and therefore demand that His servants bless revolutionary violence and curse the “true Russian people.” But N. Yezersky had enough impartiality to declare on the pages of the “red” magazine that religion is higher than not only reactionary, but even revolutionary politics. Religion can influence the entire life of mankind, influence irresistibly and beneficially, but to interfere with the party means for religion to drag its ideal in the mud. Here is how, for example, Russkoe Slovo openly discusses the refusal of the People's Freedom party to workers in a parliamentary seat in an editorial on February 7: “The absolutely impossible is required of the cadets. They demand that they cease to be a party, and, having come out of the party shell, measure human relations by the standard of general justice. The party is the party first and foremost; its primary interest is in strengthening itself and diminishing other parties. There are no feelings of self-sacrifice in the party struggle - only narrowly utilitarian feelings reign in it... From the point of view of the party, there can be no place for considerations of altruism and self-sacrifice” (“Russian Word”, No. 29). If so, then religion, especially Christian religion, is not primarily a political party. However, it should be noted that in N. Yezersky’s article, religion and politics are presented as areas that do not coincide in scope: religion exists separately, politics too. This is hardly true. After all, can’t one and the same person be both a believer and a politician? If so, in what proportion should there be religious and political demands in one individual person? Is it really possible for only non-believers to engage in politics? But then religion cannot influence politics. If a politician is at least somewhat religious, then there must be a clash of religion and politics within him alone. What emerges is some kind of internal tragedy of a moral personality, and how this tragedy can be resolved is almost completely invisible from the article. 2. The article by S.N. in “Russian Thought” is of deep philosophical interest. Bulgakov “The medieval ideal and modern culture” 2. The author notes, first of all, the awakening interest in society in questions of religious and philosophical consciousness, which is why he draws attention to the Middle Ages, which “are distinguished by their extraordinary, exceptional seriousness and passion of life, for it was an era of religious life, and any truly religious life represents something unique in its seriousness, passion and intensity.” The Middle Ages wanted to realize the main Christian goal - the Kingdom of God - through papal theocracy. Hence the asceticism of the Middle Ages, according to which “the world is disgusting to God, and God is disgusting to the world.” The people of that time wanted to conquer it by suffering the world. “Transcendent metaphysics turned out to be associated with the clerical positivism of the Roman throne and its power-hungry plans.” “The Middle Ages won and conquered the world, while at the same time denying it.” Aiken, whose study the author refers to, explains the contradiction between asceticism and the desire for power. “The reason lies in the desire of the medieval Church to violently save the world.” Therefore, “the spiritual despotism of the Church weighed on all medieval life.” “The Medieval Church fundamentally did not want to allow anything secular, alien to it or disobedient to it.” But “the idea of ​​denying the world itself became the source of the “secularization” of the Church.” “The gospel of love has become a doctrine of domination and violence.” The ideal of Catholic theocracy is based on betrayal of the covenant of Christ. “Violent holiness, the dilemma: obedience to the Church or the fire - such was the worldview of the strongest people of this era. About Pope Gregory VII 3, one of the greatest representatives of medieval theocracy, his contemporary (Peter Damiani) once used a prophetic, shuddering expression: Holy Satan. Both holiness and Satanism are equally characteristic of the Middle Ages.” “In the fight against the state, the Church seeks to undermine its fundamental foundations, to humiliate and discredit it.” “The Church wanted to elevate or remove emperors from the throne, to take away the primacy from one nation and transfer it to another. The pope’s power of all kinds, including earthly power, as Raymond of Sabunda’s “Natural Theology” taught, is limitless, boundless and immeasurable.” The desire of the Church to extend its power and authority to all areas of life led to general paralysis, a state of oppression, under which was hidden the struggle of a rebellious, internally undefeated, externally subdued element against the tutelage of power. The economic activities of the Middle Ages, science, art, lyrical poetry, architecture - everything was conquered by the Church. The entire medieval Church has an impulse to fly upward, turning stone and lead into light wings, but their weight presses to the ground and resists the proud plan.” “In history, ideological protest and denial of the theocratic idea itself have matured. The theocratic ideal of the Church was contrasted with the ideal of a free personality and a free religious conscience. Humanism and the Reformation usher in a new era in which we now live.” “The Reformation recognized the Church as only one of many aspects of human life, but humanism in its extreme manifestations, especially in modern times, is not averse to completely eliminating it from the historical arena.” “The medieval cathedral, which saw no rival, is now surrounded by palaces of secular sovereigns, museums with collections of statues of pagan antiquity and the latest works of art, theaters, universities, factories, labor exchanges, and future socialist phalansteries are being laid.” “The Middle Ages and modern times are as opposite as they are similar to each other. The Middle Ages, striving in the name of the Divine principle to crush the human principle and its freedom, fell into “holy Satanism”, into blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Modern times, in their one-sided reaction against the Middle Ages, tend to completely forget about the Divine principle and stand on the border of atheism, almost uncontrollably turning into pagan polytheism and idolatry, for religious nature does not tolerate emptiness, and from where the Spirit of God leaves, evil spirits appear. Modern times know mainly the earth, and only for private personal use, as if on holidays in the church, does Heaven remember.” “The Medieval Church wanted to be everything, denying it all. Therefore, it actually became the unity of emptiness, a bad, formal unity. On the contrary, the new, humanistic age is plurality without unity.” “The modern era is therefore not at all the last word in historical development”; it is the antithesis of the medieval thesis. The humanistic era instinctively feels its weakness, its undefeated multiplicity. The situation is no better with the human personality. An attempt by individualism, outside of relation to the Divine, to transform a person into a man-god is faced with the fact of the undoubted presence of a man-beast in him and with the danger of turning him not into a man-god, but simply into a god (or self-god). “In a perfect society, a crisis of statehood is already brewing.” An anarchist movement begins. “The ideal of violent salvation was rejected even when it was presented in the name of the Church, in the guise of “holy Satanism.” It is all the more difficult to affirm it now, when only the actual self-affirmation of Leviathan, Satanism without any holiness, is presented for it.” Throughout humanistic culture, there is multiplicity, spiritual fragmentation, and some kind of confusion. "Science turns into sciences." In philosophy and art, mutually destroying directions reign. One hopes that the disunity is temporary; the human spirit is too thirsty for unity. “So, we cannot recognize humanistic culture as the highest product of history, as its mature fruit. We do not mean the quantitative degree of its development - of course, it can still progress far, but the qualitative insufficiency of its very foundations, its non-religiousness and therefore fragmentation and groundlessness. Its vague desire for unity is a desire to establish the religious, Divine principle in life, which was rejected along with medieval theocracy. In it, in this theocracy, not only the false and violent historical form was rejected, but also the deep truth contained in it, at least in a hint, namely, that religion, seriously understood and sincerely accepted, cannot and should not be reconciled with the role of only one of the aspects of life, somewhere in the corner where complaisant Protestantism relegates it, with the position of a hanger-on of civilization. No, it must inevitably strive to seize everything and sanctify the whole of life.” “The mature fruit of history can only be recognized as the free triumph of the Divine principle in free human creativity, as this follows from the divine-human character of the historical process. Religious community, religious culture, internal unity in manifested plurality - this is the fruit that is ripening in history, although, perhaps, its final ripening lies beyond its borders, under the “new heaven” and on the “new earth.” For the Christian worldview there can be no other philosophy of history. The process of history unfolding before us substantiates and clarifies our aspirations for a new, religious community, the thirst for which is already beginning to torment people. The synthesis of the Middle Ages and modern times will only be achieved by the coming revival of the Church, in which the contradictions of history will be resolved. The revived Church will reveal in itself not only the church-church, but also the church-humanity, the church-culture, the church-public. The fact that such premonitions and yearnings are already beginning to excite people is a clear sign that the humanistic era, if not already approaching, is approaching the moment of its full maturity, after which the life of God-manhood, man-gods with God-man begins.” These are the aspirations associated with the coming renewal of the Church! And these aspirations are based on a very deep penetration into the philosophical meaning of the historical process of the Christian world. Great is the Christian God! We can also hope that the Church of Christ, and she alone, will resolve the contradictions of history and lead humanity to new historical horizons, in which there will be no dark clouds of social disasters and thunderclouds of militarism! 3. We should also briefly note the article by N.A. Berdyaev "Anarchism". This article represents a chapter from a book [being] prepared by the author for publication, dedicated to the religious philosophy of the public 4 . “In anarchist teachings,” says the author, “the last problems of human existence are felt. In the non-religious development of the world, only anarchism tries to radically reject all statehood, all power and violence, and against itself it serves the theocratic consciousness, clears the ground for the triumph of the idea of ​​​​divine power, placed in the place of human power.” But anarchist teachings are extremely diverse, and in anarchism there is a corrosive contradiction: “anarchists resort to the most terrible violence against the individual, wanting to destroy all violence, with the name of freedom on their lips. Most anarchists cling to vulgar revolutionism. […] Anarchists do not oppose any internal ideal principle to state power and social violence and remain with the same violence and with the same power, albeit with a new name. […] The most consistent anarchist is Leo Tolstoy...” He understood “that state power, based on violence, can only be opposed to the religious principle of life, love, and not violence... For Tolstoy there is no social resistance, for him there is only individual improvement. It is characteristic that anarchism is a creation primarily of the Russian national spirit. Mikhail Bakunin and Leo Tolstoy are the most radical anarchists. In the West, only Max Stirner and Proudhon are prominent representatives of anarchism, although the latter’s anarchism “remains on the surface and does not reach the mystical depths.” For ideal anarchism, for true freedom, humanity is not ready; “The newest anarchist hooliganism rests entirely on slavish, violent instincts. [...] Any organic order [...] can rest only on genuine religious feelings, on reverence for the highest, on the people’s love for certain things, on a free-divine hierarchy. [...] A truly religious people, united with their God, living one organic life, does not need state and power, they are inevitably theocratic. [...] Healthy anarchism can develop in stages: in the decentralization of power and the growth of self-governing communities, in federalism, in replacing state relations with social contractual ones, in passive resistance to the state, in overcoming all Jacobinism, bureaucratic and revolutionary, in the refusal of moral trust to the authorities, in cultivating in oneself that inner strength that makes one truly free and the state unnecessary. […] You cannot commit godless crimes in the name of anything: neither to save the state, nor for violent destruction. The statists [obviously] profess a religion that is not only anti-Christian, but also downright satanic; they place the state above the will of God. “The law by which one must live [...] is written in the mystical depths of the heart, and only religious revival will help to make out these writings. [...] True life, victory over death is only in union with God, with the Primary Source of life, in the affirmation of goodness in life. [...] We want anarchism, which would be the other side of internal harmony, religious unity. True anarchism will at the same time be true hierarchism, of the divine hierarchy. [...] We will preach the final liberation of humanity not in the name of the earthly prosperity of free philistines, but in the name of the ideal of theocracy - the new Jerusalem." “There was also a dispute between them as to which of them should be considered greater. He said to them: Kings rule over nations, and those who rule them are called benefactors, but you are not so: but whoever is greatest among you is like the youngest, and he who is in charge is like a servant” (Luke 22:24-26). From a Christian point of view, it may be noted with satisfaction that this article recognizes the power of meekness, a power incomparably superior to the power of proud violence and the power of all culture. “Cultivating in oneself that inner strength that makes one truly free” is, of course, the most effective means, the most reliable way for renewing human life. But the power of meekness is not fully recognized here. The article itself is not distinguished by a spirit of meekness; it sends curses to the state... After all, passive resistance does not always have meekness within itself; with passive resistance there can be the darkest hidden malice, truly satanic malice. When a Christian is imbued with the spirit of the meekness of Christ, he need not be called ambiguously an anarchist. He is a Christian - that's all. And the Christian does not want anarchism, but seeks the coming city, seeks the Heavenly Jerusalem on earth. 4. “And the tempter came to Him and said: If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. He answered and said to him, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:3–4). These words of the Gospel stand as the epigraph to N. Berdyaev’s article “Socialism as a Religion” 5. It is rare to read anything as powerful as this article, wonderful in content and so convincingly written. “Since then,” says the author, “when man fell away from God and went to arrange his life outside of God, he has been haunted by an ancient curse: “Cursed is the earth for your sake; you will eat of it in sorrow all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:17). And a difficult struggle for existence began for mankind; by the sweat of his brow man earned his bread.” “From now on, socialism, which claims to finally solve the problem of human existence, promises to eliminate the horror of the question of bread, becomes the basis of modern history.” “Socialism immediately declared its claim to become a religion for the new humanity, and its internal connection with religion is beyond doubt. Socialism promises to use social human forces to lift the ancient curse, to create a sinful world without reuniting it with God.” It is necessary to distinguish between two types of socialism. The first type of socialism organizes the nutrition of humanity, expedient economic life, and solves the problem of daily bread. Socialism of this type does not want to replace Heavenly bread with earthly bread, but it has and will have enormous significance in the life of mankind. Another type of socialism is religious socialism, socialism that claims to replace religion. It is this other type of socialism that the author turns his attention to. Religious socialism is “a whole creed, a solution to the question of the meaning of life, the purpose of history, it is the subordination of all aspects of life to daily bread, it is the replacement of Heavenly bread with earthly bread.” “A socialist-religious pathos appears, and in it one can already feel the beginning of a superhuman, an atheistic beginning, and there is in it a terrible thirst to organize this world not only apart from God, but also against Him. Social democracy, founded by Marxism, is the most perfect and complete form of socialism, and namely religious socialism.” “Social democracy longs for earthly paradise and hates heavenly paradise. She preaches that religion is a private matter, that religion does not concern her; in reality, Social Democracy cares very much about religion, since it itself wants to be a religion. For her, religion is not a private matter; for her, every religion is a lie and evil, preventing the creation of an earthly paradise, supporting the exploitation of the working classes through intoxication.” Social democracy recognizes freedom of conscience only in words; the social democratic spirit has no taste for freedom of conscience and freedom in general; in fact, it will abolish freedom of speech if necessary in the interests of the proletariat, socialism and revolution. Social democracy would like to rape the human conscience in the name of people's happiness, in the name of earthly paradise. “Socialist false religion begins where the bread of the earth subjugates all life and culture, where in the name of dividing “bread” a person renounces his birthright, where in the name of social paradise the bread of Heaven is rejected, where the proletariat and the future humanity are deified, where socialism begins to build the Tower of Babel, where human life is established without meaning, without purpose, without God.” There is an element of evil in Karl Marx. The evil of Marxism lies in its godless and inhuman attitude towards humanity. This attitude “in its cruelty can only be compared with that of the old absolute state.” “The socialist religion does not know a higher shrine than humanity, than human good; this religion deifies the human and rejects everything superhuman.” But this religion is cruel both to humanity and to man, because “man is recognized as a means for the future humanity, then the future humanity is recognized as a means for an even more distant superhuman state and, ultimately, for a superman, for an earthly god. This future earthly god is the shrine of the socialist religion, in the name of which human sacrifices are made, sacrificed by a long series of living generations. The socialist religion wants to make people happy by despising people. The theory of progress, taken to its extreme expression by Marxism, is terrible in its cruelty. The future society, the future human generation, the perfect and good state to which progress leads, is some kind of monster, drinking the blood of past and present generations, torturing every living person in its own name, in the name of its abstraction.” “God-like people dream of Marxist socialism, a new breed, but the final ultimate limit is one god-like force, a single embodiment of earthly power, rejected from the meaning of the universe. They will say: Social Democrats, first of all, want to make all people godlike, to make everyone equal, and not to exalt one. But this is self-deception." Equality is fair if it is universal, but social democracy recognizes the predominant right to happiness for future generations, then the advantage of the proletariat and, finally, socially useful and well-adapted people are established. “In a word, Social Democracy affirms the aristocratic selection of the coming power. There can be no talk of universal brotherhood here. Social-democratic equality turns out to be illusory.” “The just equality of all living persons in the world cannot be established positively, but only religiously. To live for only the human in other people, for other times and for the ghost of a temporary future - this is the cruel and unjust testament of the religion of the coming earthly power. To live for the superhuman in oneself, for everything living in the world at all times and for eternity - this is the testament of the true universal religion.” “The soul of Marxist socialism is in anticipation of a worldwide social catastrophe, a great, unprecedented social revolution, a universal Zusammenbrech 6 , after which a socialist earthly paradise will come. The theory of social catastrophe, Zusammenbrechtheorie, [...] is not science or philosophy, but religion, religious hope, it is eschatology, the doctrine of the socialist end of history and the terrible, socialist judgment. [...] After a social catastrophe, the world becomes good, exploitation ceases, the struggle of classes and their very existence is abolished and the reign of truth begins.” Only then will man be born, true humanity, and now only representatives of one class or another live. Now there is evil necessity in the world, then there will be good freedom. “But what kind of god on earth do believing socialists dream about, the One who eternally exists as in Heaven? The eschatology of Marxism and religious socialism is the opposite of Christian. [...] Christian eschatology foresees a terrible tragedy at the end, the last struggle of two principles and the final victory of the Lamb.” Positive socialist eschatology sees only one half, only the victory of the enemies of the Lamb, the triumph of the “prince of this world” who will make humanity happy. “In social democracy as a religion, a demonism is born in the world that is much more fundamental and terrible than the “decadent”, Nietzschean demonism, than the demonism of fashion. [...] In Marxist socialism, the element of impersonal demonism reigns, a demonic cult of impersonal power, a cult of earthly power without purpose or meaning. The future happiness promised by this demonism is temptation and self-deception. A golden age will never come if humanity follows the path of natural necessity and natural force.” “What’s scary about social democracy is the lack of positive, creative content in its religion... All its pathos is negative, directed towards the denial of the past. [...] The strength of the revolutionary mood is measured by malice and hatred of evil, and not by love and reverent respect for good, [...] and the lie of socialism in the belittlement of eternal values." According to social democratic teaching, poverty and oppression give a person knowledge of truth and justice, and the goal is bourgeois satiety. But here there is a double mistake: poverty only embitters and brutalizes; the ideal of satiety and contentment is simply ugly. “The demonic nature of social democracy is especially revealed in times of revolution, when “the beast of politics, mutual extermination, a beast that knows no mercy awakens,” when “they want to drive out and destroy the old beast with a new beast, but the new beast turns out to be the same old beast, the old violence.” “Socialism will remain demonic and violent until it submits to the religious principle of life [...] and connects its deeds with submission to the superhuman will.” The socialist revolution itself revolves on the surface, its radicalism is apparent, “defined by the criterion of market bustle.” The “new” man of socialist society is the ultimate “bourgeois”. The social democratic religion turns everyone into philistines. All this is because “the connecting principle of love, the mystical attraction of parts of the world is alien to social democracy.” Beneath the external unity and organization of socialist society, one will always feel the painful violence of unification, unification not out of free love, but out of bitter necessity. Socialism depersonalizes, and true democracy cannot be found in it. “Democracy is about treating every person as an individual.” A person cannot be assessed only by his proletarianism; “The proletarian position is often associated with very bad personality traits. [...] To value people highly because they are proletarians is the same as to value them on the basis that they are nobles or rich.” Socialism considers it possible and necessary for the happiness of several to make one unhappy and even destroy, but “not a single generation, not a single person is only a means, even for the happiness of all future humanity. [...] And we should not realize happiness for someone, at some future time, but the truth, the absolute truth. [...] Happiness will follow. [...] Truth is realized not by violence, but by birth to a new life. It is necessary to cause as little violence and grief as possible to every living being, to implement the truth every second. This religious truth is understood neither by the religion of statehood, which sacrifices the individual in the name of fictions, nor by the religion of revolutionism and socialism. [...] If only cruelty, brutality, and bloody sacrifices can preserve the old world or destroy it and create a new world, then it is better for the world to perish.” “What is socialism from a state and legal point of view, what will be the boundaries of power in the new society, what is the relationship between the individual and society? Socialism itself does not give a clear answer to these questions. True, “some socialists weakly try to assert that in the future there will be no state, that there will be no violence, that all agreements will be freely implemented, but they themselves seem to have little faith in this naive utopianism.” If we have radical socialism in mind, then we must say that “the coming economic society will be a forced and violent union of people, it will be a state with full power, unlimited, deified. The socialist state will be based on perfect and final democracy. This is some kind of false conformity in which the personality drowns and disappears.” Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and any other freedom will be assessed according to utilitarian considerations of public power. What is Caesar's will be greater than what is God's. Socialism in its social-democratic form is state absolutism, and there are no guarantees in it against Jacobin and demagogic despotism. “Socialists don’t like to talk about law. [...] But we can say with confidence that socialism is an attempt [...] to completely eliminate civil law [...] and to establish exclusively state law... In the eastern despotisms there was no such unlimited and strong state power as is imagined in a socialist state, which has eliminated all forms of civil rights of the individual. [...] The social-democratic spirit historically and psychologically inherited the idea of ​​the universal Roman Empire - a state monster with the sword of Caesar, and it gives everything to “Caesar,” although it already calls it democracy.” But unification should not take place through state violence, but through the spirit of conciliarity based on love. “We dream of the Universal Church, and not a universal state, a theocracy, the Kingdom of God on earth, and not the kingdom of Caesar and other human power. [...] Civil law must be based on [...] the nature of the person, taken outside of any kind. [...] The highest and final court of civil law, the source of its objective truth [...] can be church law, the law of theanthropic conciliarity. Thus, a socialist society can become not a state society, but a civil-church society, that is, a theocratic one. [...] It is necessary to look for an antidote to the impersonal, abstract state, centralist power-hungry tendencies of the socialist religion. This antidote can only be found in the idea of ​​a universal religious society that will crown the edifice of a public of individuals. [...] False-religious socialist conciliarity is a form of generic enslavement of the individual, as if a generalization of all enslavements and subordination to a single enslaving point. And this is the path of final and final slavery. Without feeling or understanding personality, the religion of socialism completely misinterprets equality in the sense of equalization, mixing of individuals, depersonalization in a homogeneous mass. The religion of socialism encroaches on the inner essence of the individual, on the natural hierarchy of human souls, on the individual purpose of each person in world harmony. They want to make everyone equal in purpose and by this purpose recognize a homogeneous social benefit, an obligatory service to the earthly prosperity of the human race. In a socialist society, the existence of prophets and sages, great teachers of life, creators and geniuses, kings in the kingdom of the spirit is not conceivable.” At the end of socialist equalization, what will result is not equality of living individuals, but equality in universal non-existence, equal non-existence. But is it not because humanity is worthy of existence that it creates something great that towers above it? “Not by wealth, not by nobility of origin, not by external things and not by family properties, but by the strength of spirit, the internal right of the individual, a real hierarchy should be created.” “Socialism believes too much in politics, in the uniqueness and finality of the political path of salvation, in political forms and formulas. [...] They think that it is enough to change things outside a person and the person himself will change, that out of evil feelings and desires it is possible to create any kind of good society out of external, mechanical means.” True, they also talk about a change in consciousness, but in essence, in practice, they believe in some kind of political alchemy, pin their hopes on political revolutions, different republics, voting of all systems. “Russian Social Democracy is beginning to believe in the bare fact of the seizure of political power, regardless of the state of public consciousness and the distribution of social forces. But “it’s crazy to think that politics can finally unite people, overcome the eternal human discord. [...] The cult of political forms [...] always leads to emptiness. Neither a liberal, nor a democratic, nor a socialist republic, nor any other form can save humanity, humanize it, unite it with the highest in life, if the essence of people remains unchanged, if the consciousness of people remains superficial, if the last will of humanity and its last love is directed towards the same old world. There is only one guarantee in the world of the strength of a new free life - a change in the consciousness of people, the rebirth of their souls, a new will and new love, the power of feelings and desires, strong as a rock. Politics and socialism must become consciously religious, subordinated to the absolute center of life, only then will they lose their anti-religious and inversely religious character, only then will the beast of politics and the earthly demon of socialism be defeated.” “What in socialism relates to the human process of liberation is the truth of socialism, what passes into the superhuman process of the incarnation of the earthly god, into the final temptation with earthly bread, is the lie and future evil of socialism, the reverse religion, the false conciliarity of the kingdom of the tempter.” Thus, considering socialism, the author comes to the conclusion that socialism cannot be a religion. It just seems a little strange to us that the author considers as a religion a worldview that does not want to talk about the supersensible world and relations with it. Such a worldview cannot be called a religion, and it itself has no right to call itself that, because it itself denies everything, the recognition of which constitutes a characteristic feature of religion as a concept; atheism is not a religion. But in the above article a lot of truth is said even in the face of socialism. After all, socialism is met in completely different ways. Some consider every word spoken against socialism to be Black Hundred, and the speaker is suspected of being committed to selfish interests. Others superstitiously cross themselves as soon as they hear the word “Sicilist”, and in the simplicity of their hearts they will bring an armful of firewood if they need to burn one of those “desperate ones who shoot at the Tsar.” The latter's fear is hardly justified. Socialism has a great truth in life, and this truth enters more and more into life. Even the most despotic state cannot live without the socialization of certain aspects of life. Socialism wishes people well, and is that really why they should be afraid of it? Everything that is said about good, that strives for good, is all desirable for a Christian. But you need to pay attention to the fact that every good thing, every teaching about good is not new for a Christian. Is it possible to teach about a greater good than that which Christ taught? It is forbidden. Is there any good that is not embraced by Christian love? No. There is no such goodness and cannot be. What's new in socialism in terms of content? Yes, if people lived according to Christ’s teaching, would it really be possible that there would be any kind of exploitation, division into classes and hostility of class interests, etc.? Socialism wants to feed. Is it possible among Christians (of course, not just by metrics, as we have now) to go hungry? But there is no doubt that socialism is right that we need to feed. Only socialism as a worldview, fully thought out, is terrible. The horror of such socialism is sufficiently depicted in Mr. Berdyaev's article. Maybe socialism points the way to achieving good? But for a Christian, only Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Why should a Christian follow the paths of Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Bebel and others if there is the path of Christ? Nothing could be more perfect than this path; except the name of Jesus, there is no other name by which one can be saved. Indeed, the path to good indicated by socialism is infinitely worse than the Christian path. Berdyaev’s article noted – and we would like to especially emphasize this – that socialism lacks radicalism. The radicalism of socialism is too superficial. Christianity with its “Repent! Μετανοειτε!” infinitely more radical than socialism. In the penny brochure “The New Sermon on the Mount,” the third beatitude is redone this way: “Unhappy are the meek, because they will never receive land.” This is characteristic of socialism; he does not understand the power of meekness, and this only testifies to his insufficient radicalism. The limitation of freedom allowed by socialism, if necessary, speaks to the same thing. In the above article it is noted that social democracy is sometimes ready to limit not only some kind of freedom, but sometimes it would like to rape a free conscience. Freedom of conscience is valued most highly in Christianity. Conscience is free, and touching it with dirty violence, according to Christian teaching, is criminal. The human conscience cannot be violated by any majority. There is no submission in Christianity; there is only the consent of a free conscience. Whoever demands unlimited submission to the majority, submission even to a free conscience, is still a slave. Socialism calls for such slavery, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. Freedom, of course, is more valuable than slavery, and Christianity, based on freedom, is without a doubt more radical than socialism. Socialist policies cannot satisfy the religious thinker; the latter must think deeper than the socialist. Revolutionary socialism can only repel. Even the Old Testament sage in the 1st chapter of his parables teaches his son: do not go on a journey, turn your foot away from the path of those who will call you to unrighteous murder in order to collect all kinds of precious property and fill their houses with spoils, even if they promised a common warehouse of everything and the same bag for everyone. The long experience of mankind, it seems, should convince us that there is nothing desirable in violence, no matter for the sake of which it is carried out. “The demon of revolution thirsts for blood and human sacrifice, like the demon of reaction, who has already committed his unheard-of crimes. [...] A new strength of spirit must rise up against these demons, something must change in the souls of people, something must be reborn.” “The beast of politics, turned into an abstract principle, is now tearing apart unfortunate Russia, (the violence of reaction) is drenching it in blood, and revolutionary socialism wants to give free rein to this beast, to bring it to its full realization. Oh, how insane and criminal is the idea that it is now possible to bring Russia out of the terrible state in which it finds itself, through a policy alone, divorced from the highest center of life.” These two tirades are from the same article by Berdyaev. The author comes to the same conclusion as S.N. Bulgakov in the above article: the revival of humanity is possible not on a political, but on a religious basis, and only on this basis can history bear mature and perfect fruit. First, let man reach the Kingdom of God, which is within him, and then, even without politics, there will be good will among people and peace on earth. If politics is to be effective, it must give access to religious influences. Socialism is not a religion, but a politics, and it should not demand that a person, having forgotten Christ, bow to him. The above can apply to any political party. That religion is not the handmaiden of the extreme right parties, you can read about this in the article by Professor V.Z. Zavitnevich 7 “The clergy and party affiliation in politics” 8. We have parties that arrogate to themselves the exclusive right of a monopoly on the sympathy of the clergy, and throw thunder and lightning at those who demand non-partisanship of the clergy. Professor V.Z. Zavitnevich draws attention to letters to Metropolitan Anthony Yuzefovich and Dubrovin 9. The strange antics of these self-proclaimed interpreters of the thoughts and feelings of the Russian people remind the professor how, in the era of the Time of Troubles of sad memory, the worthy Mikhailo Saltykov, wanting to force St. Hermogenes to betray his duty, began “like a mad dog to bark and use absurd words... a great priesthood of dishonor.” “In this case, we are referring to that side of the letter in which Dubrovin, following Mr. Yuzefovich, showed his lack of thought in understanding the question of the relationship of the Church as a well-known organization to politics.” The clergy can have their own political convictions, except for those “who openly preach the principle of violence against power.” “And then the clergy can put up with any political system if it does not present obstacles to the free manifestation of the forces of the Church, and therefore can share the views of any political program. The idea that we have formed, which at one time found support even among prominent members of the hierarchy, that Orthodoxy is inextricably linked with unlimited autocracy, is a simple nonsense, valuable for a historian, but of absolutely no significance for a theologian.” The church is built on a different principle than that on which the state is built. “The state is built on a formal legal basis,” and “the Church rests on a purely moral basis.” Christ did not teach how to organize states and, in particular, how to understand political parties. Therefore, the competence of a pastor in the political field is no different from the competence of all other citizens. “But if a meeting of politically mature people conceived a matter that contradicts the principles of Christian morality, the priest can and is obliged to raise his voice, and the meeting, if it consists of faithful sons of the Church, is obliged to take his voice into account, because he speaks not on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Church, whose authority in this area cannot be disputed.” In addition, the priest is obliged to fight enmity, malice, hatred - with everything that arises during the party struggle, and this requires his non-partisanship. “Every organized party has its own discipline, has its own tactics, which are often built on principles that are far from Christian. In our country, the loudest voices against the idea of ​​non-partisanship of the clergy are the extreme right-wing parties, who are thinking of luring the clergy into their camp by making Orthodoxy one of the slogans of their party. The spirit of the Church is disgusted by the negative side of politics, which is partisanship, but to the extent that politics serves the good of man, the Church blesses it. The Church cannot bless either the right or the left, because both sow enmity and hatred, but she preaches peace and love.” This point of view is clearly expressed in the message of Metropolitan Anthony to the diocesan bishops. By acting in their field, the clergy will provide more services to the state than if they rush into politicking. “The direct task of the Church in relation to the state is precisely the moral education of the individual, and if the Church fulfilled this task successfully, it would weaken the struggle of passions that blind the consciousness and corrupt the will, clear the conscience, soften the moral atmosphere that is now too thick, and thereby create conditions under which the solution of political and socio-economic issues would be significantly easier.” Wanting to draw the clergy into the political struggle, they refer to history, and in particular to St. Hermogenes. “It should be noted that the name of this saint these days is very often mentioned with sense and without sense.” “His last activity had a decisive effect on the final outcome of the turmoil.” “Cleansing through repentance through conscience made possible reconciliation, mutual unity.” “With the restoration of internal unity, the former external strife ceased, the strength lost by the state returned to it, and it was saved.” “Pastors should not fragment their forces, scattering among mutually warring parties, but, on the contrary, they should unite the entire Christian world together, remembering that the Church of Christ itself is the unity of human consciences, united by the law of love.” It is difficult to unite the bomb throwers with the rioters. “It is easy to understand what success a sermon about love can have among people who, in response to the mention of the Holy Synod “about Christian brotherly love not only for brothers in Christ, but also for people alien to our holy faith,” in an arrogant tone, categorically declared “to this host of saints who rule the affairs of our Church” that they “will never love people of parties hostile to them” and, on the contrary, “will tirelessly antagonize and fight them.” And all this is done in the name of “our holy Orthodox faith, our tsarist autocracy and our Russian nationality, which has been formed over a thousand years.” It would be possible to provide more space for religion in politics. The Church must influence politics with its authoritative word, and any politics, in our opinion, if it sincerely wishes to serve the good, must itself submit to the directives of religion. Professor Zavitnevich takes Russian political reality and condemns the claims of extreme right-wing parties to support from religion. For religion everything is good that is good in every party; Our Church does not agree only with what contradicts it. But in the teaching of the Church there is no dogma about unlimited autocracy, which is not mentioned either in the Creed or in the definitions of the Councils. If something is said on this topic in the dogma of Macarius, then no convincing grounds are presented there and texts of historical content are cited, for example: Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed Saul as king, although the prophet had previously considered it an ungodly thing for there to be an unlimited king over the people of God. The Shepherd of the Church will not betray Christ if he sympathizes with a party that does not recognize unlimited autocracy; This non-recognition of Christianity is not disgusting. Metropolitan Anthony gave a speech to the members of the State Duma, known to everyone from the newspapers. In his speech, the First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church does not connect the faith of Christ with a specific political party. The bishop’s speech is characterized as follows in No. 9 of “Church and Public Life” (p. 258): “There are no noisy reproaches in it, no loud cries about “sedition” that is allegedly tearing apart our unfortunate, tormented Rus', there is not even a shadow of reproach towards certain political groups that, in general, make up one organic body of Russia. In the Metropolitan’s speech, one is pleasantly struck by a truly Christian superpolitics - tolerance towards all political parties, which, in his opinion, reflect the single collective soul of the Russian people... The good of the homeland is understood differently by different people, the Bishop said. And in this case he spoke the holy truth.” The sympathies of the clergy for parties of a dark color, “and some spiritual ones even thickened the color even more than did the secular leaders of such parties,” are due to various reasons. I would like to hope that the Church will understand its own strength and value when it begins to live an independent, free life, and then the sympathies of the Church will be enjoyed by everything good, bright and nothing black or evil. From grains of good, the Church will build the Body of Christ, everything good will strive towards the Church, receive blessings and help from it, everything that is unkind will be afraid of the incorruptible, accusatory voice of the Church, everything deprived of the moral support of the Church will be thrown out as worthless by the builders of political life, who themselves will want instructions from the Church. Published according to the publication: Among magazines. - Christian. Sergiev Posad, 1907. No. 2, No. 3, No. 8. (The title is taken in accordance with the publication of this text as a separate reprint. See: V. Troitsky. Religion and Politics. Sergiev Posad, 1907.) Signature: V. Troitsky. Review of articles raising the question of the relationship between religion and politics. We are talking about the article by V. Sventsitsky (later archpriest) “The Christian attitude to power and violence,” who in 1905 participated in the creation of the illegal socio-political organization “Christian Brotherhood of Struggle.” – Approx. ed. Questions of religion. Issue 1. P.37. Bulgakov S. N. (1871–1944), Russian philosopher, sociologist, theologian. In the article “The Medieval Ideal and Modern Culture,” Bulgakov comments on the book by the German historian Heinrich Aiken, “History and the System of the Medieval World Outlook.” – Approx. ed. Gregory VII (Hildebrand), pope (1085), supporter of recognition of the unconditional superiority of spiritual power over secular power. – Approx. ed. Berdyaev N.A. (1874–1948), Russian religious philosopher. The articles “Anarchism” and “Socialism as a Religion” discussed here were included in the book “New Religious Consciousness and Public” (1907). – Approx. ed. "Issues of philosophy and psychology." 1906, November-December. Book 85. pp.508–545. Zusammenbrech - catastrophe, collapse (German). – Approx. ed. Zavitnevich V.Z. (1853-?), professor of the KDA, doctor of church history. Author of many works on Russian history. – Approx. ed. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1907. January. P.99–110. Yuzefovich B.M. (1843–1911), publicist, chairman of the Kyiv branch of the Union of Russian People. Dubrovin A.I. (1855–1921), doctor, organizer and leader of the Union of the Russian People. Shot. An open letter from the Chairman of the Union of Russian People A.I. Dubrovin to Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg (Vadkovsky; 1846–1912) was published on December 6, 1906 in the newspaper “Russian Banner”. – Approx. ed.