Church and democracy

(Speech delivered at the first All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity on June 2, 1917 in Moscow) Speaking for the first time at this congress, which is called upon to reveal as much as possible the mind and self-awareness of the local Russian church, I feel the need to speak, first of all, not about its private needs, but about church self-determination in the face of modernity. One of the stumbling blocks on this path is a powerful spiritual temptation that causes ambiguity, confusion and substitution and urgently requires elimination, clarification and agreement. Such a temptation for the church self-consciousness of our time, its spiritual idol, undoubtedly is “democracy”. So, my speech will be about the church and democracy. The significance of the revolution that took place in Russia is not limited to Russian life, it is a grandiose event in the entire world history, its general shift. The whole world changed with the Russian Revolution; a different relationship of states appeared, a different self-awareness of imperialism, different tasks of war and peace. This is clear to many, to the majority. But it is not as obvious to many, or rather, it is almost not clear to anyone, that the central significance in all that has happened are changes in the destinies of the Russian Church, external shocks calling it to creatively reveal its true identity, to its wedding hour in history. All events of Russian life are internally interpreted for us by their ecclesiastical significance. A terrible and crucial hour has approached in the life of Orthodoxy, when it is called, leaving its bed, to reveal itself to the world, to show it its uniqueness and beauty. Orthodoxy, we believe in this, is the light of the world.' If Russia is called to say a new word and renew the world, pouring new spiritual forces into it, then it can only do this through Orthodoxy, since it will appear in its power and glory. Judge, then, how great, to the point of exhaustion, is the responsibility that rests on us, gathered here, for what we will do and what we will not do, and, above all, for how we recognize ourselves and self-determine ourselves in Orthodoxy. Although there are now many noisy congresses taking place in Russia, there truly cannot be a meeting more important and creative. For what we bring here from the treasures of our hearts, we are responsible before the church, before our homeland, before all humanity. And first of all, we must recognize our church element in its originality and unmixedness, and in particular, we must more accurately draw the line establishing the difference between the church and democracy, and reject the ecclesiastical temptation of democracy. The latter arises when we begin to measure the church itself by democracy, instead of judging the latter by church standards. The beloved disciple of Christ John lovingly warned his spiritual children: children, keep yourselves from idols (I John 5:21). And he spoke this, of course, for the entire church for all its times. The danger of idolatry always awaits us, although the idols themselves change throughout history. Idolatry is associated with the darkening of church consciousness and the betrayal of higher and unconditional values ​​for the sake of relative and conditional ones, the confusion of the temporary and transitory with the abiding and eternal. When the church, after the short and joyful time of early Christianity, entered the harsh and difficult path of history, it was beset by the temptations of confusion: the kingdom not of this world and above this world mixed with the kingdom of this world - a repetition, as it were, of a temptation in the desert, stretching throughout the entire history of the world. The church made many sacrifices for the sake of this temptation, and suffered much damage. In the west, such a temptation was the temporal power of the pope, who laid claim to both swords, temporal and spiritual; in the east, the same role was played by the sacred empire of the Orthodox kings. Here and there the church put on iron and armor for this purpose. In the West, the fires of the Inquisition were lit, and the beginnings of freedom for faith and thought were declared heresy and lies. Thanks to this constraint and violence, as a protest, the church rebellion of the Reformation arose, which, however, rejected not only temptations and idols, but also churchliness itself, inflicting a heavy blow on it. The Reformation went hand in hand with the so-called humanism, which instilled in people faith in their integrity and spiritual health. And neither redemption nor the gracious help of the church became needed, for the very consciousness of sin in man was extinguished. Subtle spiritual temptation and substitution, not noticed when it arose, with further development naturally led to grandiose consequences, among which we live. And if for us even now these spiritual substitutions and confusions sometimes seem like unimportant adaptations that do not have serious significance, then we must remember that all great historical events first of all take place in the spiritual world, originate in human souls, in their religious self-determination. In the east, as in the west, the church began to suffer from statehood as a result of the undue mixing of both these areas. No matter how deep and significant the idea of ​​​​the Orthodox kingdom was in itself, it became increasingly difficult to recognize it in history, where the monarch took the guise of a pagan Xerxes, and bureaucratic government weighed heavily on church life. The temptation of the church was affirmed in the inseparable formula: “Orthodoxy and autocracy,” which were considered as an indissoluble and essential unity. But a thunderclap struck, and only chips remained from the throne of autocracy. From the book of the belly, this and that by which Orthodoxy and autocracy were united turned out to be erased. Both friends and enemies see that Orthodoxy now remains alone, without autocracy, willy-nilly called upon to recognize its own nature. But here, on the threshold of a new era, in a difficult moment of historical confusion and embarrassment, a new and at the same time an old temptation awaits us again: to surrender to a new master, to bow before a new idol. Such a master in our days is not an autocratic monarch, but an autocratic people, a democracy. And before the new autocracy, the knees are bent with the usual gesture, for fear or for conscience. However, the higher principle should not bend to the lower, and should not curry favor with democracy instead of the church. At this hour of historical trial, the word of the apostle sounds like a new warning to us: “children, keep yourselves from idols”! The old positions were surrendered without resistance, and there was no one to defend them. Church society with an open heart went towards the people's freedom promised by democracy, it merged with the people in their political spring. And instead of “truly Russian”, monarchical ones, “democratic” ones began to be increasingly proclaimed. In church circles, Orthodoxy’s commitment to “democracy” and the desire to “democratize” Orthodoxy in every way began to be emphasized more and more insistently; it's almost becoming a requirement of good manners these days. In most cases, pastors and people of the church sincerely, not out of fear, but out of conscience, go with the people in their liberation impulse. For our church has always been popular and lived with the people. It does not have that aristocratism of the princes of the church, the militant clericalism and politicking that distinguished Catholicism, causing a quarrel between the state and the church. Orthodoxy is, indeed, a people's church, and even more than that: in its everyday life, it is a common people's, peasant church. Therefore, there is nothing strange or unexpected in this friendliness of the church towards democracy. But precisely for this reason and to an even greater extent, the temptation of democracy exists for Orthodoxy, this is the readiness to measure itself by democracy, to turn it into an idol, into which autocracy was previously turned. That is why it is necessary to persistently distinguish between the nature of Orthodoxy and democracy: both convergence and divergence are possible between them, depending on what democracy turns out to be spiritually. The mixing of these different elements is favored by the very structure of the Orthodox Church, which from the outside easily approaches the democratic, namely its conciliarity. The temptation of democracy religiously does not exist for Catholicism, since it rests on the power of the clergy, headed by the pope: subordination and discipline hold together the church body here, the monarchical principle, exercised by the pope through the mediation of the clergy, triumphs, and the church people remain voiceless. Although hierarchy is fully recognized in Orthodoxy, and the episcopate and clergy occupy a necessary place, church unity is established not only by hierarchical discipline, but also by a certain force called conciliarity and defined as unity in love and freedom. And it is this idea of ​​Orthodox conciliarity, given the modern dullness of church self-awareness, that can easily be replaced or mixed with the idea of ​​democracy, the dominance of the “will of the people” in church affairs, the same as in state affairs. Isn’t a similar confusion now observed at our Church meetings, diocesan congresses, etc., where issues are resolved by the struggle of individual church groups, and conciliarity is understood as the dominance of the majority that has seized power? Such penetration of the principles of democracy into church life would mean the impoverishment and secularization of the latter. The Church needs freedom, which it was deprived of under the old system. If democracy gives her this benefit, she will be grateful to it, but what can this “democratization” add to the church? Even without this, was she not with the people in their joy and sorrow? Or were the great saints of the Russian Church, Saints Sergius and Seraphim, not popular? Or not folk o. Ambrose of Optina and other revered elders who looked after and guard the people's conscience to an extent that democracy has never dreamed of? No, Russian Orthodoxy has nothing to learn from democracy in this regard; it must remain, first of all, itself in all the serious importance of its dogma. In this way and through this, it will remain, if not “democratic,” then popular. And what, finally, is this democracy, to which part of our church society wants to get closer at all costs? What is this “will of the people” in a religious sense, which is now referred to as the highest and indisputable authority? Is the people of democracy exactly the same people about which the apostle speaks, addressing his flock: you are “the race of God, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9)? Obviously, not yet, because democracy can have different faces, and the will of the people can be determined differently. The same “democracy” of Jerusalem cried out “Hosanna” and spread its vestments on the way at the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, but a few days later it expressed the “will of the people” with a cry: “Crucify, crucify Him!” Obviously, the will of the people is equally capable of both being inspired by the truth and being obscured by lies, reaching the point of atrocity, tyranny, and blasphemy. The superstitious admiration for the “will of the people,” which underlies the cult of democracy, was born from the deification of sinful man, taken in his plurality or totality. The herald of this faith back in the 18th century. Rousseau appeared, believing that there is a “general will” that is “constant, unshakable and pure”; Moreover, it only needs to be revealed or opened by universal suffrage. She, this will, has truth, she is the self-sufficient path, truth and life. The unenlightened element of the people is so boldly contrasted here with the Light of the world, which is the only Path, Truth and Life. Is it possible to confuse such man-godliness with the Christian faith? This doctrine of the infallibility of humanity in its group, class or state association became even more established in the 19th century, especially in Germany. The German spirit influenced and influences Russian socialism most strongly; it imprinted the self-awareness of our socialist parties. Even though this doctrine of the will of the people has long raised doubts in science, this self-deification of the crowd still holds firm among the masses. But this self-blinding should not have any credibility for the church. There is no dispute that in its own field, social and political, democracy has its truth and its rights. The vote of the majority, the counting of votes, is the only and comparatively best means for discovering the people's interests and needs, and this meaning of democracy and its suitability should not be questioned. On economic, social and legal issues, let the people decide with a majority of their votes. But this practical expediency of democracy in no way establishes for it the sacred or mystical authority to which it claims. Democracy can rise to great feats, but it can also descend to low brutality and tyrannical violence, and in its name atheism and blasphemy, violence and crime cannot be justified. And just as those who worshiped the autocracy of monarchs sinned, no matter how tarnished it may be, those who worship the “autocracy of the people”, no matter how it may be expressed, are now sinning. For both the people and the kings must do not their own will, but God’s, and exercise divine power (theocracy) through themselves. The task of the church is to raise and educate democracy, to bring it closer to the dignity of “the race of God, the royal priesthood,” but not to stoop to it in all its uncertainty and diversity. The history of modern times knows different types of democracy. The most positive is the one that was created by the English revolution, which occurred simultaneously with the Reformation and was accompanied by a huge rise in religious sentiment. Then was laid the foundation of that strength and health that distinguishes England to this day; The religious sentiments of the Anglo-Saxon world were of decisive importance during the birth of the new American republic, founded by people from the Reformation. For example, there is another type of democracy, which was determined by hostility to Christianity: in the 18th century. This was the case in France, where the great French Revolution made an attempt to replace Christianity with the veneration of the Goddess of Reason, and in the 19th century. Here German Social Democracy with its stupid and self-satisfied atheism assumed decisive significance. And in the soul of Russian democracy, undoubtedly, there is now a struggle over whether it will go with Christ or against Christ, in unanimity with the church or in enmity towards it, and there are already many signs of the latter. This is how complex the relationship that exists between democracy and the church is, and this does not allow us to directly equate them. The Church is the highest, unconditional beginning of life, a kingdom not of this world, although it has the task of elevating the world to itself, democracy is only natural humanity in its sinful state, sometimes enlightened and inspired, sometimes taking on the form of an animal. She herself necessarily needs spiritual guidance. The laws of life in the church, as a Divine society, and in democracy, as a human society, are profoundly different. In the first, the law of love, self-denial, obedience is in force, in the second - solidarity of interests, struggle for rights and their delimitation. The Church is the body of Christ, an organism consisting of many and different members. Although everything is one in Christ, and neither gender, nor nationality, nor social status differ, yet everyone remains deeply different, like the organs of the body, and the desire for equality, the struggle for equality would destroy the church. It is hierarchical from top to bottom in its structure, and the voice of the majority here does not have indisputable significance, for one holy ascetic can mean more here than many ordinary members. For democracy, there is no hierarchy and personal authority; it stands guard over equality, affirmed by the rights of the majority. But in the face of the church we have no rights, but only responsibilities: before the highest truth, we feel like “unbreakable slaves,” called to perform our service. On the contrary, for democracy the highest principle is the assertion of rights and the protection of interests. Let the most joyful and luminous time in the history of the church - early Christianity - serve as a guiding example for us. Was early Christianity “democratic”? Did it strive for “comprehensive democratization” of church life, as it does now? It is known that in its composition, early Christianity was highly popular and even popular - “democratic”: its communities were dominated by representatives of the lower classes and even slaves, without rights and everywhere neglected. And yet, here we do not see anything resembling the current “democratization” with its struggle for rights and the desire for equality. Ap. Paul exhorts everyone to remain in the calling in which he is called, and to be mindful of the duties he imposes, for some slaves, for others for masters. He also warns that church equality should not become a pretext for equality, and thus “piety would not serve for profit.” On the contrary, position in church life was determined by personal significance, and slaves could occupy positions here and above, for example, a bishop. In short, early Christianity lacks this mixture of two different elements: democracy and churchliness. Such confusion should be avoided in the Russian Church. This would not only correspond to her high dignity and spiritual independence, but would also be important for the spiritual health of our homeland. And it also depends on how much she will protect herself from dark idolatry and remain faithful to Christ, Who said: “You cannot do anything without Me.” If the future Russia, which we are looking for, begins to be built without the name of Christ, if Russian democracy finds itself in a spiritual break with Holy Russia, then what value does it have, who needs it, which of us will cherish Russia, which has renounced Christ? But let it not be! So, in this troubled and difficult hour of our history, let us guard the purity of our church identity and especially remember in our hearts the fatherly warning of the apostle of love: “children, keep yourselves from idols”!