VSEVOLOD CHAPLIN: "WE STOPPED THE HITLER PROJECT AND WE WILL STOP THE AMERICAN ONE TOO"
The chief spokesman of the Russian
Orthodox Church
speaks about the mystical meaning of the confrontation with
the West and about
why genuine Christianity is always a scandal.
by Tatiana Zavalishina
Business-Gazeta.ru, 20 December 2014
Some time back the view of Tatarstan actively voiced in Moscow was as a place where Orthodox believers are oppressed. But actually the leadership of the republic has done a great deal so that church life is developing normally. This was stated during an Internet conference call with readers of Business OnLine by the chairman of the synod's Department for Relations of Church and Society, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin. In his opinion, there is no competition between Islam and Orthodoxy, but if a revolution occurs in Russia, then on one side will be "pseudo-Russian Nazis," and on the other, "pseudo-Muslim militants."
--Father Vsevolod, how is Tatarstan and the situation here viewed from Moscow?
--Tatarstan is a beautiful land with beautiful people. I am very happy that new generations of active people have appeared here, both Muslims and Orthodox. Some time back, the view of Tatarstan actively voiced in Moscow was as a place where Orthodox believers are oppressed. Indeed, there are problems that need to be resolved, but it is evident that the leadership of the republic has done a great deal so that church life would develop normally.
In the past year and a half or two, the activity of the Orthodox clergy has revived. This pertains both to the diocese and to the revived ecclesiastical seminary, which, God grant, sooner or later will be able to become the foundation for the revival of the famed historic Kazan ecclesiastical academy. The main thing—you are seeing young people who with full awareness of their own responsibility are trying to live by faith and to restructure their environment on the basis of high moral ideals.
At a meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with youth, a young man from Tatarstan, Artem Garanin, stated something very interesting. According to his statement and conversation with active young people in the metropolia, you see in the Russian Islamic Institute that people have a desire to labor and there is thought about the future and the capacity of creating this future on the basis of the highest spiritual and moral principles.
--Do you agree that the Orthodox and Muslim communities exist harmoniously in Tatarstan?
--Keep in mind that this coexistence has already existed for many centuries; one need not cite only the soviet experience. Today we face a new reality, when religious and ethnic identity has become for people the most important thing. One should not try to deny this reality, established by the by-gone soviet experience. But I very much wish to believe, or rather I am sure that on the new foundation, on the foundation of the ability of people who have an extremely strong religious or ethnic identity, we can negotiate directly with one another. Centuries-long experience of common peaceful life in Russia on the whole and in Tatarstan in particular of people of diverse nationalities and faith will be preserved and enriched.
--On the whole, how do relations with Islam line up for the RPTs?
--This topic is too big to be able to answer it briefly. But it is not a competition. Nevertheless, we have in the main different societies that live in accordance with their own rules. Of course, people are different in principle on the basis of religion. This is fine. People have different convictions, different lifestyles, different rules, that are for them more important than any human laws. This is reality. Indeed, we are different. Indeed, each of us thinks our religion is uniquely true and it cannot be otherwise.
But at the same time, in the history of Russia and in the contemporary life of Russia we have managed in the course of centuries to live in peace, establishing definitive boundaries between the living spaces of one another and at the same time managing that our common goals were significant for us, especially in times when the country was experiencing serious challenge and threats. Let's recall the Great Patriotic War or the current situation, in which they are trying "to bend" us through economic, political, and partially military pressure. Being different but having the ability to construct decent relations with one another without any mediation in the form of experts who are guided by western recipes. This is what we have generally always achieved. I hope that we will achieve it in the future also.
--The problem of Wahhabism is one of the
critical ones not
only for Tatarstan but also for the whole of Russia. Among some
Orthodox
sometimes there is the opinion that Wahhabism is a purely
internal matter for
Muslims, and the church cannot express its attitude on this
topic. However the widespread
arsons of churches in Tatarstan showed that in Russia Wahhabism
threatens
Orthodox also. Does the church distinguish between traditional
Islam and
Wahhabism? Is there a position of the Russian Orthodox Church
with respect to
Wahhabism? Or should the church distance itself from
intra-Islamic conflict,
taking the position of an outside observer?
[Tr. note: this question is from a call-in participant. From
this point onward in the transcript, some of the questions are
from callers and some are from the primary interviewer.]
--You know, on one hand I understand those people—young and not so young—who insist upon the right to live and organize their society in accordance with their faith. And it is not necessary at all to accuse such a group of people of extremism, insisting that it should be excluded from the life of the country. But, of course, there are extremist groups and not only among Muslims. There also are pseudo-Christian sects and neopagans who to a great extent operate under the guidance of centers outside Russia, and their activity is aimed at the violent change of the social order.
One can argue with the social order that has evolved in Russia and with that kind of capitalism and democracy. The problem arises when they begin to go along the path of violent change of that order, contrary to the will of our people. And of course great danger is presented by those movements that fulfill, consciously or unconsciously, external orders for the arrangement in Russia of total war of all against all. I constantly tell my liberal friends, with whom I have talked for more than 30 years: you are wrong to think that you will gain from an "orange revolution" in Russia. In that revolution, if it, God forbid, happens, it will not be you that participate but, on one hand, pseudo-Russian Nazis, and on the other hand, pseudo-Muslim militants. Unfortunately our liberals do not understand this. They do not understand that if the revolution, God forbid, happens, then everything will be like in 1917: benevolent intellectuals will hide in doorways and entries, and the darkest, harshest, and most aggressive forces will win.
--Does His Holiness Patriarch Kirill plan to visit Tatarstan? If so, then when?
--At the present time there are no concrete plans for a visit. The question is being considered and will be considered further. I would very much wish that in the course of preparing for this visit—not in the course of the visit as such but in the course of preparing—those complex questions of church-state relations would be decided that face us in connection with possible preparations for this visit.
--And what is hindering the visit?
--I would not now want to discuss the details of on-going negotiations, but for me the following is completely clear: both international and Russian legislation says completely unequivocally that the family has the exclusive right to decide what a child will be taught in school: a religious world view, a general course about all religions, or a nonreligious world view, secular, that is, atheist ethics. This is decided not by the leadership of the regions nor the director of the school, but the parents.
If they come to the school and say: we want for them to teach us foundations of Orthodoxy, or foundations of Islam, or, let's say, secular atheist ethics, then this wish is final and nobody has the right (neither on the basis of international law nor Russian law) to drive everybody into one or another common course. Orthodox parents today should not consent to teaching them a course that speaks impartially about all religions. Much less should Orthodox parents surrender their children to a course in secular ethics that is, in essence, a course in religionless ethical rules.
--In that regard questions have arrived from "both sides": "In Tatarstan the teaching of Foundations of Orthodox Culture is banned. My husband and I want for our daughter to study Foundations of Orthodox Culture in the fourth grade in school, but they told us that we can choose either Foundations of World Religions or Foundations of Secular Ethics. How can this be? Kazan, school No. 95;" "In our country the church is separated from the state, and I do not understand why it is necessary to teach in the schools the foundations of any one of the religions. Especially since our state is also multiethnic. Here the history of the main world religions—why not that. For general development. What do you think?"
--In our country there is no state or generally obligatory worldview and therefore all worldviews are separated from the state, but in the schools any worldview, secular or religious, may be presented. Our schools are not separated from the church and it is no accident that this soviet principle was removed from the constitution and in the schools various worldviews may and should be presented, especially if it is a state school, which should conform to the existence in society of diverse worldview groups.
Which worldview is taught in the school, only the family decides. The school is obligated to ensure this, even if it is one family. If there is, let's say, one family of believing Jews, this family has the clear right that it is its world view, Jewish culture, that is taught to its child in the school.
--There are parish church schools, and Muslims may attend madrasas.
--Then there should be absolutely equal access to different types of schools. If one follows your logic, it is necessary simply to transfer two-thirds of the schools from the state into private hands, so that there would be a choice between state, Muslim, and Orthodox schools in every specific place.
--Religion—it is a private matter?
--Not simply.
--A state matter?
--There should be equal access to a religious and a nonreligious worldview, at government expense. Just so.
--On what basis?
--On the basis that worldviews are equal.
--Should a taxpayer really pay for the whims of believers?
--He should. And of nonbelievers. Which worldview is taught in the schools to a specific child, his parents decide. This is clearly just so. This is determined by a great number of norms of international law. Incidentally, the family also has the right to choose between state and nonstate schools, and this right, of course, is connected with the possibility of physical access to state [public] and nonstate [private] schools. That is, it is necessary either to transfer public schools (at least half of them) into private hands or it is necessary to build as many private schools as there are public schools, so that a child and his parents may select: so here you are, alongside the house there is a public school and there is a private school.
--How do you take into account the complex ethno-confessional balance that exists in the regions? This is not only in Tatarstan; there also are a number of Caucasian republics that refuse to permit any religions to get into the schools?
--Such a possibility exists in all regions of Russia except for two, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. And where there are large groups of people of different confessions and nationalities, the system of choice also works fine. Moreover, it works in such complex regions as the Balkans, where wars were connected with, among other things, the religious identity of people. This is in general the only workable system. It does not work to drive everybody into one worldview. It doesn't work. People should go to the schools and demand their rights. If these rights are not observed, then turn to the courts of all levels.
--I think that we have no such court cases in Tatarstan. After all, 30 percent of marriages are mixed. That is, a conflict arises between father and mother: what will the child study, Orthodoxy or Islam?
--The family must decide this. The administration of the region and the administration of the schools do not have any right to decide this.
--That is, let the region explode, let there be conflict, just so that the rights of different people are implemented? We specifically bring the matter to a head?
--There will not be any explosion. There will be an explosion if rights are denied and people turn to the courts.
--Fortunately there is no court case.
--Unfortunately.
--There is a very great value in Tatarstan—specifically it is interconfessional peace.
--There cannot be peace at the expense of the suppression of people's will.
--We see that there are no court cases and no protest.
--So let's arrange free meetings in schools, where people may express, without any pressure, their own will with regard to the selection of one of those six modules that federal legislation provides.
--Or conduct a sociological survey?
--No, sociological surveys—that's a very sneaky thing. Meetings in schools are needed, where specific families can speak out in favor of one of the six modules: Foundations of World Religious Cultures; Foundations of Orthodox Culture, Islamic Culture, Buddhist Culture, Jewish Culture, or Secular Ethics, that is ethics for nonbelievers.
--Can the patriarchate help Russian and Orthodox children of the republic of Tatarstan to avoid Halal food everywhere in educational institutions that their parents do not consent to?
--I have never been afraid of eating Halal meat. I do not consider that this is something that is impermissible for a Christian. And I have also eaten Kosher food many times, although I know that there are Orthodox people who refuse to eat Halal and Kosher food. I bless the meal and eat the most diverse of food products.
You know, if there are people who do not want to be required to eat Halal food then perhaps it is necessary to give them the possibility of not being required to. But on the whole I do not see great problems here. And I hope that, on one hand, for those people who do not want to eat Halal food, some exceptions can be made, but on the other hand, people will deal with this problem without, I would say, too much distrust of what is done in another religious tradition.
--What do you see as the place and role of the church in Russia's political system?
--The church is not a political organization in the sense that it is not an agency of power and it does not strive for power.
--But you have somehow stated that even parties may be of a religious type.
--If some party thinks that Christian or Muslim values are important for itself, then why not? At the same time I really would oppose the church's becoming a part of the state apparatus or have government functions; this is what the principle of the separation of religious associations from the state consists of. Religious associations are not agencies of government and the state does not take upon itself the functions of a religious community.
But at the same time, believing people who are politicians, government leaders, soldiers, scholars, physicians, artists, or poets have the full right to act as Muslims or as Christians in those basic spheres of life in which they work. And they have the full right to advocate for any topics, both as priests and monks and bishops, seminarians, madrasa students, imams, muftis, and so forth.
Political activity is activity of administration of the state and conducting the struggle for power or for defending positions of power. This is the activity that, of course, religious communities should not participate in, but the members of these communities do participate in such processes as in any others.
--What is the role of the RPTs in modern Russia? Is it a spiritual beacon?
--I think that it is a role of power that unites the majority of the people of Russia, and this is a strength that establishes values. Of course, people may distance themselves from this who are not members of the church, but nevertheless our country was formed by Orthodoxy. And it is possible to be a most worthy citizen of Russia while being a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Catholic, protestant, or atheist. But I would ask you to keep in mind that nevertheless the culture itself, the historical image of Russia, was formed by Orthodoxy. This is who we are; this is our historical, cultural, and, if you will, political and economic intuitions.
--Do you consider that Russia is an Orthodox country?
--I do think so. An Orthodox country with strong Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Catholic, and protestant factors. And these factors are very important; without them Russia would be incomplete, especially without the Muslim factor. We have an enormous number of Muslims, and to a substantial degree they, together with the Russian people, formed Russia. But our vector of development is still our own and this vector is not western nor it it determined by those forces that are toward the east and south of our country. It has its own vector linked with Orthodoxy.
--Russia is an independent civilization?
--Absolutely yes.
--What stage in its development is the RPTs now experiencing? Renaissance? Lift-off?
--Church life is always one, and I would not distinguish any stages in church history.
--In the Soviet Union, the RPTs was a persecuted organization and it was kept under a lampshade.
--The church has lived under the most diverse governments, including heterodox and atheist. For the church it is not so important what kind of regime it is living under. The history of the church is one and there are no "stages" in it. It has been in persecutions or in conditions of external triumph. It is not important. The main thing is to be faithful to evangelical truth and to talk about it "in season and out of season," to use the apostle's words.
--In the 90s of the last century, there were in Russia all kinds of sects and they tried to recruit people very actively. At that time the RPTs behaved more than modestly. Today the RPTs actively expresses its opinion on all aspects of the life of society. Why has the policy of the RPTs changed? Or do cadres decide everything?
--At that time we were not silent; they simply did not show us on television. There was an unspoken taboo that representatives of the church appeared on televisions as much as they are now. But nevertheless the church spoke, and it spoke sufficiently vigorously and it is thanks to its struggle with sectarianism that people by the end of the 90s had already learned the truth about sects. They understood that turning to these organizations is dangerous; one could lose everything; one could be deprived of both property and loved ones and of one's own inner freedom and normal life prospects.
In the 1990s, when western organizations could buy time in prime time on central television channels for a pittance, we could only assemble people in some house of culture or another. We did not have our own opportunities. Now, of course, they have shown up.
--There was a doctrine of Moscow as the Third Rome. Does the RPTs still adhere to this doctrine?
--This is not a doctrinal nor a canonical text, but it is an idea that is close to many Orthodox Christians; I think for a majority. It reflects the mental outlook of many Russian Orthodox people even when they do not know the details of the text by the monk Filofey or some kind of philosophical ideas. In this regard Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky spoke well: very often Russian people do not know the true faith but they know Christ in the heart.
Very often Russian people understand that Russia is the center and perhaps the only center of the world, which has more reason to be such a center than any of the European capitals and the United States. Someone can say in this regard: who do you think you are? You do not have the economic might that the United States has and you do not have the strength of population that China has.
--Russia does not have Christian relics, in the final analysis.
--One can also mention that, indeed. But nevertheless the idea of "Moscow, the Third Rome" was taught in seminary even to Stalin. The Russian person has some understanding that it is here that there is the key to world development and to the fate of humankind. It is no accident that we, often at the cost of our own life and at the cost of a serious physical weakening of the state, have stopped all global projects that have not agreed with our conscience or with our vision of history and, I would say, with God's truth. These are the Napoleon project and the Hitler project. and we will stop the American project. This is the civilization of usury, the cult of the principle that "money makes money," and the triumph of egoism as the supposed optimal model of human existence. And these all are the signs of the beginning of the end of contemporary western civilization—not the real West that also was created by Christianity. I have in mind the civilization of the narrow elite that is trying to subsume under itself, under its rules, under its standards, under its life style the population of the western countries, first, and thereafter of all the rest.
But now it seems that it is not working out. It seems that this project is exhausted; it seems that it has no drive, no slogans, by which even the population of western countries could go. And it means that we have, the people, among whom there has appeared the sense of life that is directly contradictory in a whole number of areas from economics to culture, have again the chance today as in 1941 to stop by means of our ideological weapons the invading ideological "tank columns" of those who think that they have already subjected the whole world to themselves. Whether it will work out or not, I do not know, but it is worth trying.
--And where does this idea come from that there is a certain key in Russia? What kind of key is it? Do you also think this is so?
--It is an intuition, and I also think it is so. It is not absolutely necessary to try to explain it in economic, political, or military categories. This is how it has always turned out in history. I am sure that it will turn out this way in the future. That is our fate, because we are the Third Rome, the mystical Third Rome. And today the new Babylon is opposing us.
--And is Putin the one who is in the "final battle"?
--I do not know. I do not think that the battle will be the last and final one. It is obvious that human history will develop in accordance with an unexpected scenario. I would like to hope that both the president and the leading, thinking portion of our state leadership will listen not only on the level of technical analysis but also on the level of intuition to the logic of history and the logic of self-perception of their own people.
So at a time when our authorities did not listen to the people, nothing worked out. When the authorities tried to heed only external recipes and recommendations, nothing worked out, too. Peter I tried to construct the life of the country in accordance with external recipes, but it did not work out for him, and he himself at the end of his life was a more Orthodox man than in his youth. There was an attempt to remake the country after 1917, by the most harsh methods, organizing radical "collectivization" that essentially destroyed the active and efficient peasantry and changed the governmental structure, introducing an ultra-leftist ideology as the state ideology and it also did not work out. Back during the Great Patriotic War Stalin understood that he could not win the war if he continued to serve the ideals of world revolution. If he had not understood this, then by the end of 1941 he would have been on the gallows and Hitler would have been in Moscow.
Khrushchev also tried a rather voluntaristic approach to our historical path, and it also did not work out. He had to resign. In the early 1990s they also tried to organize a radical change in our social life, and again nothing worked out. Russia has always become Russia again. And now it is Russia much more than in the first post-perestroika years. I guess that authorities are trying to listen to the people more than in the periods of radical reforms. Without this, power in Russia isn't worth it.
--Father Vsevolod, you recently called for a discussion regarding how to make the Russian economy more independent and you suggested thinking about the creation of a system of Orthodox banking. Is this idea now being discussed somewhere and do you have like-minded people on this matter?
--Both thinkers and doers have responded. This is still not a widespread movement, but there is a certain amount of response and a working group has been created, and we have begun discussing with those people how to make a discussion about Orthodox principles of banking more profound and more thorough. However, I do not think that large banks will be the first who respond to this initiative and they are still hoping that it will not be noticed.
I just hope that practical initiatives will appear that would offer people a product that is not connected with earning bank interest. and I hope that for many people convictions and faith will seem more important than income and they should be more important than income for the Orthodox Christian just as for the Muslim also. Usury is unambiguously forbidden in the Bible and there is also an unambiguous prohibition in both church heritage and in the Sacred Tradition.
--I think that the Vatican permitted bank interest?
--Well that's their problem. Christian civilization began to break down just when interest was relegitimized and when usury began.
--Is that when capitalism appeared? Because capitalism is bank interest.
--Yes, Christian civilization and the civilization of usury are mutually contradictory things; either the one or the other. When usury was relegitimized, Christian civilization began gradually to exit the historic stage. And on the contrary, always when Christian civilization developed independently, freely, and completely, usury disappeared. So it is necessary to return to this dispute. When Christians made usury permissible for themselves, they renounced for themselves the right to live in accordance with their faith. Usury is without doubt sin. No matter how many churches bankers built and no matter how many church medals they received nor how many theologians or pseudo-theologians justified usury, it remains a sin and God himself does not bless it.
And today it is necessary, I think, for us to say to both ourselves and to the world around us that we can live without this sin and we can build such economic systems as would be an attempt to return Christian civilization into the economy. There will be many people who are against this, in the first place the large world banks, and many politicians will be against this, but at least it is worth posing the question. Perhaps applying some practical efforts so that an economy without usury and without bank interest will arise. Whether it will work out or not, I do not know. But at least I hope that people will try to do this.
Among Muslim it works. It is fully possible to invest resources in such a way that they produce income; it is fully possible to make it so that through investment in precious metals people will accumulate money in circumstances of inflation. Generally it is necessary to get away from unsecured money and away from the principle that "money makes money." And the sooner we get away from this, the sooner we will be independent from those centers of economic and political influence that today are unfriendly to Russia and that are trying today to place us under strict control through economic and political manipulation.
--In Islam, banking is strongly developed. Is it possible to take this experience as a foundation and to create similar Orthodox banks?
--It could quite well be. It should be said that modern Muslim banking is a rather new phenomenon. It did not arise directly from the Middle Ages. Cooperation between proponents of Christian and Muslim banking is quite possible and it is quite possible that people who do not accept usury could unite and change the vector of development.
The global economy is usury. It is a global financial pyramid [Ponzi scheme]. The existence of continual expansion but without secured fiscal supply is an economy that cannot fail to end in collapse, by definition. Therefore it is necessary to seek ways out of this situation. It is necessary to propose alternatives. It is necessary to be brave enough to propose change, to propose another world, as some leftist thinkers say. This other world is possible. A world is possible with laws that are absolutely different from Wall Street and Bretton Woods economic laws and with a different construct of society.
--You suggested introducing a Russia-wide dress code for all people. Do you think that ordinary citizens lack modesty and moderation in dress? Why is a universal dress code necessary?
--We are talking first of all about a written and unwritten system of notions about how one should dress. I am happy that in many government and private institutions there now is a definite system of rules pertaining to dress. In most universities an order has been adopted about what is proper and what is not. This deals with, excuse me, skirt length and the presence of piercing and cleavage. Of course, there are rules regarding men's clothing. It is understood that it is rather strange to go into a church or mosque in shorts and bathing suits.
Of course, in clothing it is fully unnecessary to take recourse to some extreme requirements like the requirement to wear jumpers of the 20th century. Many may also criticize Muslims who strictly require wearing hijab, that is, clothing covering almost all of a woman's face. Or, for example, the Old Believers, who require that one wear clothing like what was worn in the 16th and 17th centuries. But this, of course, is their right.
And it should be kept in mind that a certain kind of clothing, which incidentally is God's requirement in both Muslim and Christian traditions, may seem to be quite modern. If one is talking, for example, about a light scarf or shawl, I do not understand how it can be dangerous in those universities and other public places. I am afraid that in this case a definite struggle with religiosity is going on. If one is talking about a scarf that does not cover the face, resistance to it can hardly be explained by considerations of security or hygiene. It is known that some Orthodox women, fulfilling the requirement of the Christian Holy Scripture, also wear a head scarf. I think that they have full right to this, including in public places.
--Vsevolod Anatolievich, do you really believe the story that God has a son?
--Indeed, I do believe. Naturally, this is one of the questions of the theological discussion between Muslims and Christians. We believe that God is love, and that he could not be love if he were solitary. God is not a egoistic, solitary personality. In the very essence of God is the relationship of love. Three persons, constituting a unity, are joined by relations of the purist love.
God, being love, created the world not for his own experimentation and not so that it would serve him but so that his love would be poured out, including in the act of creation. This is why the very Christian worldview is incompatible not only with usury but also with the cult of egoism, because God, being love, and being in Triune Unity, as Christian theology says, loves us and we matter to him. He punishes us and strictly calls us to account and he promises eternal bliss only to those who accept him, believe in him, and do good works. But even while punishing, he shows us the way because he loves us, and he loves us because he is love, and he is love because he is not an isolated ego.
--After all, people also are his sons and daughters?
--We are not parts of the essence of God as are the persons of the Holy Trinity. But we are called to be divinized, that is, to enter into communion with God. Of course, we are not alien to God and he is our Father and we are his children.
--For some reason I often have thoughts about death. Is this normal? What can I do so that this doesn't happen?
--Accept these thoughts and understand that this life is finite, but at the same time hear what the Lord himself says to us. He says to us that this life is not final but we also know from church tradition that this life is a preparation for eternal life, if you will, an entrance exam before real life. To achieve it is to achieve eternal bliss; that is the main thing that one should expect from this life, a temporal life. If a person understands this, then all fatalism disappears and every fear that arises from the inevitability of the end of this life.
--I thought that the author of that question was talking about death by suicide.
--That means that a person is troubled in spirit. And it is necessary simply to hear God's voice that says that one must live this life so as to be worthy to enter eternal life. Suicide insolently returns to God that gift of life that God gave him, and this closes up for himself a blessed eternity. From this trouble and from this false sentiment it is best to be healed by recalling that earthly life is not final and is not the most important.
--How can you occupy this position with your outlook and judgments? How is it possible to be a rabble-rouser in faith? Why do you think that you can teach people?
--Sacred Scripture says: "We preach Christ crucified, for Jews a scandal and for Greeks, foolishness." The Greek word is "scandal." Genuine Christianity is always a scandal, a thing that conventional consciousness does not accept, which thinks that the most important thing is not eternal truth but life for the sake of the purse and the belly. Any Christian must be ready to dispute the absolutely false values of the so-called consumer society, the society that lives in egoistic and purely mundane interests.
Therefore it is very important to constantly awaken people's consciousness, including telling them that many of them are living fundamentally incorrectly. About 80 percent of the people in contemporary Russia are living fundamentally incorrectly, and they need to be told this. The Lord gave the church this authority: teach people in that spirit that exists in his word. This word is loving, but also reproving; merciful, but also awakening the conscience; bringing not peace but the sword and at the same time giving such peace as no worldly complacency can give. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Gospel does not have anything in common with either complacency from an advertising video nor with a "god in the spirit" that people imagine for justifying their own sins and which does not really exist. Therefore yes, I preach Christ crucified, which for some is a scandal and for others foolishness.
--So you are criticizing those who live "for the purse and belly" But after all there also are many among the clergy who are guilty of this.
--You know, there is no sin if a priest is given something, for example, beautiful vestments for worship services, or is provided a home or given some clothing. I do not see anything bad in this. So I buy practically nothing; people give me everything. For me this is rather indifferent on the great scheme of things because I do not think it necessary to spend even a minute of time on this.
--And your gifts are not considered bribes?
--What can I do for someone who would give me a bribe? (Laughs) One must not exaggerate our opportunities to ask something for somebody.
--So what are people hoping for when they give you gifts?
--Nothing. It is a display of respect and love for a priest. After a service in the church the priest is constantly given something. One should just not value things that are not necessary for one's own life. But it would be improper to reject others' concern.
--Father Vsevolod, thank you for an interesting interview. (tr. by PDS, posted 31 December 2014)
Russian original posted on Interfax-Religiia, 24 December 2014
One western analysis that may give perspective on this article is
the recently posted "Putin's
Orthodox Jihad," 27 December 2014.
Russia
Religion
News
Current News Items
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.