Who criticizes the Church, to which ignorance inevitably leads, as well as about romantic utopians and preachers of “end times” - adequate interlocutor Archpriest Vladimir Puchkov.
– Father, as you know, there are extremes in the Orthodox community. There are two wings: the so-called. liberal intelligentsia and radical conservatives. Liberals criticize for the most part the Orthodox Tradition, which they often do not know, do not accept and refuse to recognize as such.
Why and when did the above extremes arise? Why do liberals have such fear of church canons and Tradition? What kind of freedom do they dream of?
– Among Orthodox Christians there really are liberals and conservatives, but I would not rush to give such harsh characteristics to either one or the other. Denial for the sake of denial, as well as chauvinistic attacks, is rather subject to a small group of believers who, consciously or unwittingly, have replaced genuine faith with a set of ideas. The mentioned shortcomings are inherent in them to the fullest. These groups are almost marginal, and the views of their adherents are, as a rule, unsystematic, so I would not consider them as established movements in Orthodoxy.
It would be more correct to talk about modernists (for me this word does not have a negative character) and traditionalists.
One should not assume that modernists are not familiar with the Tradition of the Church. Many of them are people who read and think. At the same time, not all traditions that have developed in recent church life correspond to Tradition. One striking example is the anaphora prayers at the Liturgy. Under the influence of various factors, the tradition of secret reading of these prayers has almost everywhere been established, while from the content of the prayers themselves it is clear that they were written to be read publicly. And the later tradition of reading them in a low voice, from the point of view of liturgical tradition, looks like an innovation. Modernists, seeing such inconsistencies, are not afraid to talk about it.
The problem, rather, is that, wanting the unconditional good of the Church, many of them strive to change everything at once, poorly realizing that radical and rapid changes have never been painless for the Church.
The first, and quite bold, “modernist” ideas were formulated in the process of preparation for the All-Russian Local Council of 1917–18, many of them were considered by the Council, and some received approval. “Modernists” are sometimes also called the theologians of the School of Paris, although the well-known call of Fr. George Florovsky’s “forward to the Fathers” proclaims, rather, a return to the patristic tradition, rather than calling for a denial of the traditions that have developed in recent centuries.
Accordingly, modernists have no fear of Tradition and canons. There is only a fear that the customs born of the church-popular consciousness in recent times will not obscure the true Tradition and tradition.
– Why does the liberal wing come into opposition to the official position of the Church, its leadership and representatives, while supporting some “false teachings”? It turns out that they cross out the centuries-old works of the Church Fathers who defended the purity of Orthodoxy, explaining this by the fact that they do not see the church in the Church. What kind of church do they need?
– I wouldn’t generalize. We often include in the category of “false teachers” those who have worked harder than others in the field of Christ and whose work has brought real fruit. Suffice it to recall the reviews of books by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, rows at A. Kuraev’s lectures... Here, expressing one’s disagreement is more a duty of conscience than disdain for tradition.
On the other hand, there is, of course, obvious criticism. When almost everything that is in the Church is declared bad, obsolete and subject to immediate disposal. The bearers of such ideas are often people with an active position in life, churchgoers or parachurch members, who have managed to become established professionally and who believe that only they know what Christianity should be like. These people readily praise any, even the most ridiculous, opinion, as long as it goes against the traditional church. In general, “there is such a job - to criticize the Church.”
I don’t think that such people have their own holistic vision of the Church. Their aplomb, ambition and desire to assert themselves are, of course, over the top, but in essence they are romantic utopians. The height of their capabilities is performances in the media space and polemics on social networks.
– The other side of the same coin, the other extreme, is Orthodox chauvinism. Personally, I have an ambivalent attitude towards some Orthodox actions, since this is mixed with demonstrative “detachment from the world”, opposition to modern society, which only pushes doubting and thinking people away from Orthodoxy, which is the guarantor of peace, goodness and moral values, and not hostility . It is hostility towards all dissidents, including their own Orthodox brothers, that is the calling card of the radical wing. What are the prerequisites for the emergence of such views? How to deal with this?
– If the critical approach is born from the desire to speak with a complete inability to do creative work, then the reason for radical retrograde is the reluctance to think. Remember from V. Vysotsky: “There is no need to think - the one who will decide everything for us is with us.” Having come to the Church, a dependent, infantile person very quickly finds the opportunity not only to justify his shortcomings, but also to elevate them to the rank of virtue. “Everything is by blessing”, “obedience is above all virtues”, “obey your elder”... It’s now a matter of little things - you need to find yourself a confessor, and one who will tell you how to cut it off. And they find it. Just where “I bless you on a scarf,” “throw away the TV,” and “don’t you dare hug your husband during Lent.” Needless to say, communities gather around such unfortunate spiritualists, looking at the world and society like a wolf, afraid of even the most harmless innovations and ready to fight to the last for their own “everyone will perish, but we will be saved” with the chimeras that they themselves created came up with it.
In my opinion, we can only fight this phenomenon by teaching people to think. Literature copes best with this, and it is not at all spiritual. Instill in a neophyte a love of reading good secular literature (classical, first of all), by hiding from him for the time being the works of the ascetic fathers, and the risk that he will fall under the influence of “Orthodox activists” or preachers of “end times” will be reduced significantly.
At the same time, I would not rush to label any church conservative as a retrograde and chauvinist. I personally know priests who are very strict with their parishioners. This severity sometimes extends to completely everyday things. Services in their churches are performed according to the Typikon, fasts are observed according to the strictest Rules, and even non-statutory liturgical traditions are honored with reverence. Moreover, in their communities there are no evil old women, no fanatics with an unhealthy gleam in their eyes, no one flaunts their piety, and everyone strives to live according to the Gospel. This is healthy traditionalism, against the background of which the loud but few chauvinists look, although annoying, but still a misunderstanding.
– The above-mentioned extremes are manifested not only among the laity, but also among the priests. Diversity of opinion is welcomed in Orthodoxy; unity in the main thing is important. But what limits of disagreement are acceptable? How can such different views coexist?
– The boundaries of disagreement are outlined by Holy Scripture and patristic theology. In order not to go beyond these boundaries, a good knowledge of both the first and second is necessary. Not the ability to quote during a sermon, but knowledge. The main prerequisite for peaceful coexistence under one church roof of liberals, modernists, traditionalists and conservatives is the ability to hear each other and mutual interest. In the end, complete confidence in one’s own rightness is not a sign of possession of the truth, but of a limited mind. But in discussions you need to be able to argue without quarreling, like Solzhenitsyn’s Rubin and Nerzhin - with conviction, with fervor, whatever the world stands for, but at the same time without losing mutual respect and without trying to leave the last word for yourself.
– Why is the humble search for the leadership of the Church in the teachings of faith replaced by self-inflicted wandering of the mind in the field of religious thought? What causes this?
– Modern man somehow painfully, pathologically values his own freedom, not always understanding what freedom actually is. This, alas, is a sign of our times, which Fr. very accurately described in his diaries. Alexander Schmemann: “The era of rebellious slaves, which replaced the era of high “obedience” of free people.”
Recorded by Natalya Goroshkova
Soon it’s time to open the column “my 2 kopecks”... The discussion about the problem of the intelligentsia in the Church aroused in me a “range of feelings”, which I will try to convey in an article.
Archpriest Igor Prekup
He inspired me to this opus with his article dear to my heart. And it was the “and” that cut me. This, you know, is a crafty element of Russian grammar: it seems like a conjunction, and even a connecting one, and often its appearance subtly hints at the existing division, even heterogeneity, almost heterogeneity, which, even if you press it, even if you cook it, will not allow you to unite into a single whole .
This vile, vile union “and”... He only pretends that he is trying to unite, but in fact he nods slyly: “Yeah, shazzz!.. Yes, the intelligentsia in the Church is like a screw screwed into living tissue, which is rejected by her due to its foreignness to the body!
But it is not so. Not in the sense that it is not with the Church. This goes without saying. But by saying this, we are narrowing the problem, and narrowing is not always the path to clarification. In this case, we overlook the fact that the intelligentsia is formed in antagonism with the socio-political system, the role of the ideological sector of which, starting from the synodal era, was assigned to the All-Russian Greek Catholic Orthodox Church. Yes, precisely with the Synodal, because before that the position of the Church in society actually corresponded to Her purpose, which, naturally, could not help but turn into sharp conflicts at times (sometimes with a fatal outcome for Her representatives), which, however, did not affect on Her social role and status.
Peter I was the first, pardon the pun, who managed to realize the age-old dream of many of his predecessors: he showed the Church a place as one of the state departments (even if he saved Her executive power from the humiliating name of the Spiritual College, renaming it the Synod, and thereby, as it were, church term, as if for the sake of the implementation of conciliarity, as if to cover up the shame of the victory of Caesar-papism in a single country).
Was Peter the first intellectual in Rus'? No way. Although he advocated for the development of education in a Western manner, he could not be called an intellectual. His struggle with the Church, his attempt to subordinate Its existence to state interests (as he understood them) does not even remotely resemble the anti-clerical protest of the intelligentsia. Here it’s more likely his “prophet” – Metropolitan. Feofan (Prokopovich), with his Protestant idiosyncrasy, approaches rituals. However, to say that this creature of Peter is the leaven of the future Russian intelligentsia is somehow very bold.
In a broad sense, the intelligentsia has always existed in the depths of society. These are those of its representatives who were guided in their lives by reason. Yes, yes, not by customs, not by the “rules of the game,” not by human opinions, not by reason, which helps to navigate all this, which, by the way, is also characteristic of animals, but by reason, which is inherent only to humans. The mind, which, in union with the heart, seeks answers to the questions of what is good, what is proper, what is the meaning of life. Groping for answers, the intellectual tries to live according to them and teach the same to the people around him.
There have always been intellectuals, at all times. And there was never a time when they were convenient for the authorities. No, and there won't be. Precisely because the motivation of their behavior is uncontrollable, since it is, let’s say, in the ideal area. A person who cannot be motivated by the interests of material well-being, career, etc. irritates the authorities because he is unpredictable in his actions. Go, know what his conscience will whisper to him at what moment...
Intellectuals (and the brightest both for their era and for all times) were, for example, the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church:, and John Chrysostom. And not so much because they “passed through Athens”, not only because of their intellectual power, which they directed towards the enlightenment of both their contemporaries and subsequent generations, but first of all because of their integrity, because of their rejection of falsehood, hypocrisy, which has always been declared by the intelligentsia as iconic virtues (another thing is that not all representatives of the intelligentsia can be called intellectuals, but this is a separate topic).
And St. Paisiy (Velichkovsky), to whom we owe the revival of the tradition of eldership? A ? And the saints who opposed each other? What about the Slavophiles (or are the intelligentsia only Westerners?)? Yes, the names of Pirogov, Ushinsky and Rachinsky are enough for an Orthodox Christian to pronounce the word “intelligentsia” with reverence. And those who drew up a program for the coexistence of the Church and the atheistic state (but were not heard, because a different “method” was found) are not intellectuals? – This is the flower of the Russian intelligentsia, its root, its life-giving source!
Yes, in the middle of the century before last, the intelligentsia in Russia began to sort out into a special social stratum, or, as they recently said, into a “layer” (which, as we know, always suffers when the superstructure puts pressure on the base). But why? As a result, a new social stratum is being formed in Russia? Why is it that its best representatives, such as Dmitry Mendeleev, prefer to be called “specialists”, disdaining to be called “intellectuals”? Oh, so many questions! And it’s not rhetorical.
We will partly get the answer from the same St. Ignatius, who soberly analyzes the consequences of Peter's reform for the Church, seeing the reason for its weakening in the collapse of monastic life, which occurred due to the fact that monasteries in the synodal era began to turn into social sumps, where what was a burden in society was dumped, and vice versa, representatives aristocracies became a rarity among monasticism. A significant role in this was played by the fact that the ruling class had to follow the West in everything, being imbued with its mentality (thanks to Napoleon - it sobered up a bit).
And what about the lads who “stole knowledge” in Rome and then received episcopal chairs? And what about the seminaries that supplied the people with teachers who often did not shine with morality (that’s why the peasants did not send their children to study in schools with drunkards and “tabashniks”)? And this is against the background of the weakening of the core of Holy Rus' - monasticism...
Intellectually, post-Petrine Russia developed, but spiritually?.. Well, “knowledge without education,” as we know, “is a sword to a madman.” Who is to blame for the fact that the intelligentsia in Russia has become spiritually savage and it is precisely in this state of savagery that it has emerged as a special social stratum with its own private moral code (remember the discussions in the press of Soviet times about the difference in the concepts of “intellectual” and “intellectual”) ? And why did this layer appear at all? How was it formed in response to what?
Nothing is formed in society just like that. Isn’t this process a natural consequence of the weakening of some social foundations? Isn't this a defensive reaction of society itself? The aristocracy is degenerating morally - the values that it cultivated and declared are taken up by that part of society to which they are dear. The church is losing its role as the conscience of the nation - this same part of society picks up and takes on this function upon itself... Someone has to. Moreover, each individually, not organizing among themselves, but recognizing each other by some indescribable consonance of thoughts and feelings.
Remember Griboedov: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This is the motto of the intelligentsia: to serve not out of fear, but out of conscience, with faith and truth; serve, but do not lose your dignity, do not servile or grovel. This is bad? Don't think.
Yes, the intelligentsia has its own cult of values and its own idols that personify them. Therefore, it is not surprising that already in the century before last, traditional religiosity was not particularly characteristic of the intelligentsia. But was it because her values were completely false?
Firstly, the intelligentsia is a heterogeneous layer, therefore, and the value hierarchy varies depending on the ideological foundations of a particular category of people (Orthodox Dostoevsky, Catholic Haass, agnostic Chekhov, “mirror of the Russian revolution” Count Tolstoy, atheist Chernyshevsky - all of them, being representatives of different classes and adherents of different value systems, they belong to the same social stratum), and, secondly, the essential properties (general and inalienable) are those that not only do not contradict the Christian worldview, but actually grow from it !
Where does the idea of the value of the human person, of the freedom and equality of people, regardless of social origin, race, nationality, gender - where do all these ideas come from, if not from Christianity? Another thing is that the intelligentsia selected and developed them contrary to the “system”. The state, which called itself Christian, should itself have contributed to the triumph of these values, especially the church hierarchy, but nothing of the kind: the state did not show interest in free individuals, because they were poorly governed; pastors, for the most part, were also somehow not too interested in souls of people. In all respects, the routine is far from the declared values. But someone should?!.. And so, someone is trying to pick up what is lying under their feet as unnecessary.
But don’t blame me here: he’ll pick it up, but how he carries it and how he uses it, and how he applies it – that’s, excuse me... as he can. Depending, again, on your worldview. Some will glorify God with their deeds, while others will use His gift to preach atheism.
Yes, the fact that in the twentieth century Russia was shaken by revolutions is a considerable merit of the intelligentsia, as a layer that did not remain indifferent to social injustice, to the hypocrisy and hypocrisy that reigned in society, to phenomena incompatible with evangelical ideals in all spheres of life - a layer that , seeing and rightly condemning the shortcomings of the surrounding life, saw, however, their root in reasons of a political, economic, intellectual, and finally moral nature, while either ignoring or underestimating the role of the spiritual component.
However, blaming the intelligentsia for the revolutions that have occurred is unfair. Firstly, the revolutionaries and their accomplices were by no means the flower of the intelligentsia, nor its majority. And secondly, there were objective reasons for dissatisfaction with the social structure, which was indeed far from ideal. But few of the Russian intelligentsia were aware of what troubles the realization of their dream of changing the political system would entail, and how much all those vices, in the hope of getting rid of which they welcomed the February revolution, would flourish after the October revolution.
So what happens?.. The problem of the intelligentsia is that it is an initially vicious ethnic group, which must be repented of, which must be anathematized, which must be renounced, just as one renounces other faiths, heresy?
But no! This is not a party, not some kind of sect with its own teachings and guru. As we have already said, this layer is too heterogeneous to be able to talk about some kind of collective guilt, a common false confession, much less about some kind of perverted mentality that supposedly acts corruptingly in the church environment.
Then what is the problem with the intelligentsia coming to the Church? Is someone interfering or is this all just fiction? And is it worth highlighting this issue at all? Well, in fact, we don’t discuss the problems of other social categories, we don’t create any priority conditions for, say, workers in the light industry...
Well, did I say somewhere about the need to create some special preferential conditions for the intelligentsia? That's not what this is about at all. To begin with, it’s worth asking the question not “what’s stopping you,” but in general, is there something stopping the intelligentsia from coming to the Church—namely, to the Church, and not just to the temple? To come and stay, and live in Her the life of a son returning to his father’s house - is there anything stopping him?
And if we think about it, the answer will be: yes, it interferes! And then it is only appropriate to ask the following question: how much and who or what is interfering?
It is impossible to measure how much, but the fact that specific interference is being created for the intelligentsia is certain. But still: who and what? And here are some answers. Or rather one in three aspects.
Firstly, we must not forget that the spiritual world also consists of fallen angels who are zealous in destroying each and every one. But they pay special attention to those through whom they can destroy a lot of other people. They are also production innovators! And the intelligentsia, by its position in society, by its role, influences social ideals, tastes, level of education, culture, and the formation of beliefs. An intellectual who is faithful to God and the Church is a person who is capable of deeply and comprehensively delving into the teachings of Christ and of expounding it to others, in relation to circumstances and a specific listener.
An intellectual who is carried away, for example, by the New Age “spiritual quest”, who feeds his intellectual masturbation in pseudo-spiritual discussions that create the illusion of joint communion with the divine, who practices all kinds of psychotechnics - such a person will not only destroy himself, but, thanks to his personal charm, erudition, and ability to reason logically , can drag with it to the bottom many other people who are hungry for the Truth.
Therefore, we must take it for granted that for an intellectual to come to the Church “ world rulers of the darkness of this age“(Eph. 6; 12) enhanced “obstacle courses” will be created.
Secondly Let's not blame everything too much on demons. The second enemy after them is man himself. So what exactly prevents the intellectual within himself, as a rule, from coming to Church? Pride, vanity, prompting him to invent “his own paths to God” everywhere? Not without this, although the sweeping accusation of the entire intelligentsia of these fundamental sins, as primarily inherent in it, is also unfair.
There is, perhaps, another weak point, specifically “intelligentsia”: hostility towards the “system”. To anyone. Because it deprives freedom of action, fetters from the outside, forces, even to do good, but this is wrong: good must be done according to a moral call of the heart, otherwise, according to Kant, the motive is immoral.
And here everything is much more complicated, because it is extremely difficult to explain one simple thing: yes, the Church is a System, but it is a System with a capital S, and that is what makes it perceived as one of the systems, along with the military, state, security, commercial and so on. - this is Its structural implementation, necessary in the conditions of earthly life, which sometimes may not completely and not always correspond to It due to a kind of “resistance of materials” or, as they also say, “human factor”.
Third, it is also more difficult for an intellectual to come to the Church due to noticeable demographic and social factors (in fairness, it should be noted that over the past 20 years it has been thoroughly smoothed out, but oh, how far is it from the ideal): mostly women, and even those of advanced age, there are few or no men. And, importantly, almost entirely the working-peasant class. And the etiquette is appropriate.
A representative of the “stratum” feels uncomfortable, if only because he finds himself in a different social environment. Here lies the danger for him of false identification of the prevailing social stratum with Orthodoxy, as a result of which he will either go to look for another, more “suitable company” in another confession (sect, religion, interest group), or, trying to stay in the Church, begin to imitate the numerically predominant social layer in Her, as if this contributed to churching.
I remember my impression from one acquaintance in the early 90s. In the refectory of a small St. Petersburg church, we had tea with the rector and editor-in-chief of a certain Orthodox magazine. This man surprised me not only with his contrition about his dissident past and something else, but also with the way he spoke: it felt like he was not wearing a jacket and tie, but a blouse, belted with a string, and striped pants with patches on his knees, in bast shoes, and even as if he was crumpling a hat in his hands in front of the master...
It was as if his environment had broken him down, bent him under, agreeing to accept him only on the condition that he would assimilate its “antics and jumps,” and at the same time the ethical norms that were rooted in the pre-revolutionary village community, which had not outlived the remnants of feudal consciousness . Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it, but in order not to feel like an outcast in the Orthodox community, he mimicked the prevailing society in it. Moreover, if he only mimicked externally...
One day, a good friend of mine got carried away in a conversation with a representative of a well-known Orthodox community. They argued. We got carried away. And so, in the heat of the moment, this acquaintance of mine declared to his opponent: “Your “Orthodoxy” is gray-footed.” He did not even understand how accurately he defined the widespread tendency to reduce all Orthodoxy to the everyday religiosity of the Russian peasantry at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. To that very religiosity that stood on the threshold of terrible upheavals - upheavals that occurred, yes, thanks to the leading role of representatives of the intelligentsia, but impossible without the by no means passive participation of the huge mass of those same religious common people. The mentality of which, by the way, mixed with the stereotypes of Soviet thinking, is now being tried to be restored by other “zealots of piety”, presenting this as a revival of Orthodoxy.
And what? Which exit? In order for an intellectual to come to the Church, it is now necessary to disperse the “immortal” (in the words of Metropolitan Juvenaly) old grandmothers? Or should only people with an incomplete higher education, or, at worst, a secondary vocational education, be allowed to participate in public worship services?..
Of course, any thought can be brought to the point of absurdity. What can really be done? And is it possible, is it necessary?
It is possible and necessary. And for this there is no need to disperse anyone, there is no need to create any elite “intelligentsia” parishes. It is enough to gradually eliminate the already existing vicious elitism in our parishes.
Astonishment? What are we talking about? I just said myself that in churches society is represented mainly by the elderly generation, the overwhelming majority of whom are not very successful in life. Yes. Exactly. Moreover, this majority is overwhelming in every sense.
The point is not only that a certain social category predominates numerically, but that the entire structure of church life is tailored to it: to the tastes and “venerable customs” imported from God knows where, which they hasten to pompously call “Orthodox tradition”, to “women’s fables" (1 Tim. 4:7), superstition and hysteria, scandalousness, gossip and gossip, inertia and ignorance - the list goes on.
So much for elitism in reverse! Or, if you prefer, anti-eliteism. Those. giving a socially marginal group the status of an elite that sets the tone and determines the atmosphere and even personnel policy in the church environment.
It is easier for the bishop to remove a priest from the parish, against whom there are constant complaints, than to find out who, in what quantity and, most importantly, for what reason, took up arms against him. Failed to prevent the scandal, failed to hush it up, at worst, angered the quarrelsome people? - So I couldn’t cope.
The destruction of this inverted elitism is carried out simply: there is no need to indulge rednecks in parish life. The prevalence and rootedness of any vicious phenomenon is not a reason to put up with it, considering it as a kind of ethnographic component.
First of all, the shepherd must ask himself, monitor his attitude towards people, his manners, tone, and then demand the same from his flock, do not hesitate to remind them that his traditional address “brothers and sisters” is not an empty tribute to tradition , but a reminder of our real kinship, which is higher, more important than kinship in the flesh. And we either maintain this kinship in ourselves when we treat each other appropriately, or we destroy it (and, therefore, we break away from Christ) when our attitude towards our neighbor, not to mention our behavior, is incompatible with the New Testament understanding of churchliness.
If the pastor is consistent in his actions, if he does not allow himself to be manipulated by the ringleaders of the “elite”, and they fail to achieve his removal or, even worse, his ban, and as a result “lose interest in church life,” then the parish will gradually begin to transform, little by little, from being “elite” to becoming generally accessible to all segments of society. Including for the intelligentsia, who in fact do not need special conditions at all.
If the elitism so familiar to us dissolves in the parishes, the antithesis “Church and the intelligentsia” will lose any basis, because talking about something or someone using the connecting conjunction “and” is appropriate only as long as these two objects or the phenomena are mutually isolated, and if they intersect, then only slightly.
As “elitism” disintegrates, it will become more and more appropriate to talk about “the intelligentsia in the Church”, and not “and”. Today, unfortunately, due to the extreme disproportion in the representation of the intelligentsia in most Orthodox parishes and the small number of “practicing Orthodox” among the intelligentsia, this opposition is not groundless.
Well, we have to work. Fortunately, there is something to do.
Metropolitan Hilarion continues what began on the pages of our newspaper about the relationship between the church and the intelligentsia.
Russian newspaper: Vladyka Hilarion, to the question of Zinaida Mirkina and Grigory Pomerants: “Does the Orthodox Church need intelligentsia?” - you answered: “Yes, it is necessary,” referring to the same words of Patriarch Kirill, which prompted the authors of the article to raise the question. How do you feel about the story they tell?
Hegumen Vitaly (Utkin), secretary of the Ivanovo diocese, wrote on Twitter: “The intelligentsia is sterile and useless for the country, therefore there cannot be an Orthodox intelligentsia in nature.” Having added to this the argument that Russia has not matured to democracy, the author emphasized that he does not hide his respectful attitude towards Stalin.
In my opinion, Twitter and the blogosphere, as a kind of small media, mercilessly seduce their participants with the idea that they are great social scientists and historians. And so a darkness arose of self-deluded broadcasters of home-grown truths, unrestrained and non-self-critical. Although, before raising your life impressions and considerations into a principle, it would, of course, be worth thinking.
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev): I don’t read blogs and before the publication of this article I was not familiar with the statements of the clergyman you mentioned. The quotes given in the article are, of course, shocking. How can one venerate the holy new martyrs and at the same time be respectful of Stalin? It's like honoring John the Baptist, but at the same time respecting Herod, who cut off his head. How can we glorify both the victims and the executioner? I think that history has already placed all the accents, and nostalgia for Stalinism, especially from the lips of a clergyman, sounds to me like some kind of blasphemy.
And of course, to say that the intelligentsia is sterile and useless for the country and therefore there cannot be an Orthodox intelligentsia in nature is, forgive me, nonsense. Maybe the priest just decided to shock his readers? Today, unfortunately, shocking behavior is becoming one of the methods of attracting attention to oneself. Sometimes, unfortunately, even the clergyman turns out to be no stranger to this. The Orthodox intelligentsia has always existed, it must exist and will exist.
On the one hand, it is obvious that it was the intelligentsia that made a very significant contribution to the destruction of Orthodox Russia, which led to the revolution of 1917. And this, perhaps, is the main historical fault of the Russian intelligentsia. But on the other hand, it was precisely among the intelligentsia that the movement for a return to the Church arose, which at the beginning of the 20th century was reflected in the pages of the magazine “Vekhi” and which did not stop even after the revolution, despite the most severe persecution both against the Church and against the intelligentsia.
In general, “intelligentsia” is a very broad concept. If by intelligentsia we mean all people of intellectual labor, then, of course, they have always been in the Church, and today there are many of them in it. The Orthodox intelligentsia still exists today. Moreover, a person can be simultaneously an active member and servant of the Church and a representative of the intelligentsia. I don't see any contradiction in this.
For example, I consider myself a member of the intelligentsia. Moreover, in the third generation, because my mother is a writer, my father was a physicist and mathematician, my grandfather was a history professor, my grandmother was a party worker (professional party workers were also a kind of intelligentsia). In this sense, I come from an intelligent family, I have been engaged primarily in intellectual work all my life, and I do not understand at all why intellectual work cannot be combined with active membership in the Church.
I just think that the intelligentsia is a very important component of our church body. After all, these are the people who produce ideas and have a decisive influence on the ideological component of our existence. In this sense, the intelligentsia is always at the forefront. Therefore, today direct and close contact and dialogue between the Church and the intelligentsia is very important. Both the one that is already in the Church and the one that is beyond its threshold.
RG: The intelligentsia is a purely Russian concept. What is the value of this phenomenon?
Metropolitan Hilarion: Although the word “intelligentsia” itself has a Latin root, this concept itself really only exists in Russian and is not translated into others. But there are people of intellectual labor, people who produce ideas, in every country. In this sense, the intelligentsia is by no means a purely Russian phenomenon.
The role that the intelligentsia played in pre-revolutionary Russia was very specific. And here we return to a topic that His Holiness Patriarch Kirill touched on more than once in his public speeches, emphasizing that, unfortunately, in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a very serious divide between the world of the intelligentsia and the world of the Church. Despite the fact that the Church in pre-revolutionary Russia was a national institution, despite the fact that the absolute majority of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire were members of the Church, at the same time, in a sense, it was in a ghetto.
In particular, the world of secular culture in the 18th-19th centuries developed independently and independently of the Church. The Church had its own composers who wrote only church music, and secular ones - only secular music. And the cases when a secular composer would write church music were very rare. And this was perceived as something abnormal and scandalous. When Tchaikovsky wrote "Liturgy", this very fact caused great controversy; his music was not accepted by the Church.
RG: Was it easier for Rachmaninov in the Silver Age?
Metropolitan Hilarion: Yes, this was already a period of Russian religious renaissance. But since Rachmaninov’s works were actually written right before the revolution, they did not have time to enter the church repertoire. Yes, in a sense, they were not intended for worship.
Today we need to overcome the divide between the world of the Church, on the one hand, and the world of culture and intelligentsia, on the other. There have been some attempts to overcome it before. One can recall the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Society, which operated at the beginning of the twentieth century. From the side of the Church it was headed by Archbishop of Vyborg and Finland Sergius (Stragorodsky), in the recent past the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and subsequently the future patriarch, and from the side of the intelligentsia there were a variety of people - Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Zinaida Gippius, Vasily Rozanov, Nikolai Berdyaev and many others. This was an attempt by people from among the intelligentsia, who were inclined to dialogue with the Church, to overcome the divide that existed between them. But for the most part, corporate “distinctions” between the world of the Church and the world of art, culture, and the intelligentsia remained.
RG: What are the roots of this “disengagement”?
Metropolitan Hilarion: I think they should be looked for in the reforms of Peter the Great. In particular, in that colossal cultural shift, rift and break that occurred after Peter artificially and forcibly began to impose Western orders in Russia. This concerned both culture and worldview standards. It is no coincidence that he had to redraw the structure of the Church, because the structure of the Church, which corresponds to the canons, which existed in Rus' in the pre-Petrine era, did not correspond to this Western paradigm. It was restored only after the revolution...
RG: After the February revolution...
Metropolitan Hilarion: Yes, after February. Although de facto, of course, the patriarch was elected after the October Revolution, and preparations for the Local Council began under the tsarist regime. During the synodal period, there was a worldview paradigm according to which the Church should be subordinate to the state and deal only with church problems and topics, that is, priests should only baptize, marry, perform funeral services, serve the liturgy, but should not be engaged in any socially significant work, but The position of the Church should not influence the life of society. This paradigm very significantly influenced the development of the intelligentsia and culture: both the intelligentsia and culture in the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries became purely secular in Russia. And they had very few points of contact with the Church.
In Soviet times, as we know, the intelligentsia was not even classified as a class; they were considered a kind of “stratum.” And the Soviet government was never able to develop an unambiguous attitude towards the intelligentsia. Lenin's statement, which is cited in the article by G. Pomerantz and Z. Mirkina, is very characteristic in this sense. The Soviet government was a persecutor of both the Church and the intelligentsia. The entire pre-revolutionary intelligentsia was essentially exterminated during the years of Stalin's terror. Therefore, today, after such a sad and tragic historical experience, we must first of all get rid of artificial schemes and watersheds. The opposition itself - the intelligentsia and the Church - is artificial. I say this from my own experience, from the experience of my family, and from the experience of thousands of other people who consider themselves to be both the intelligentsia and the Church. There is no contradiction between belonging to either group of people.
RG: Alexander Arkhangelsky’s series “Heat” has just ended on the “Culture” channel, which tells the story of the return of the intelligentsia to the Church and spiritual quests in the 70s of the twentieth century. Was this the second moment after the experience of the Religious-Philosophical Society, when the intelligentsia and the Church erased the “lines”?
Metropolitan Hilarion: The 70s and 80s of the twentieth century were also the time of the Russian religious renaissance. It was not as obvious as at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was underground, but it existed. I was a witness and, in a sense, a participant. Very many people from among the intelligentsia returned to the Church then, and often indirectly. It all started with a search for Indian literature and hobbies in yoga, but gradually those who were enthusiastic came to the Orthodox Church. I would not say that it was a mass phenomenon, but it was quite significant. I think it was a harbinger of the spiritual revival that unfolded on a full scale in the 90s.
RG: Tell me, what can help overcome the division between the Church and the intelligentsia today?
Metropolitan Hilarion: First of all, we need to get rid of templates. From artificial oppositions between the intelligentsia and the Church. From radicalism and shocking, be it on Twitter, blogs or in some other format. We need a calm and friendly dialogue.
RG: But often both sides sin. The intelligentsia, for example, has terrible self-will, subjectivism and spiritual ignorance when looking at church history and reality...
Metropolitan Hilarion: It seems to me that in order not to make mistakes, it is very important to take into account our historical experience and rely on what we in the Church call Tradition or Tradition with a capital T. As a rule, mistakes occur when this solid soil of Tradition, on which the spiritual life of our people was built over the centuries, disappears from under our feet. A break with Tradition is always fraught with gross and tragic mistakes. Peter's reforms were just such a break with our spiritual and national Tradition.
RG: What do you mean by "Tradition"? The integrity of spiritual ideas...
Metropolitan Hilarion: Tradition is a very broad concept that exists in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and is practically absent among Protestants. This is the entire totality of the spiritual and religious experience of previous generations, which is transmitted to us and from us must be transmitted to our descendants. The concept of Tradition is of key importance for the life of the Church. We say, for example, that only that Church can be called a Church in which there is an apostolic succession of ordinations. This means that those bishops who serve today were ordained by other bishops and the direct chain of ordination must go back from them to the apostles themselves. If somewhere and sometime this chain is broken, then the community no longer has the right to legitimately call itself a Church. This is just one example.
There is also a continuity of teaching. We cannot now change the teachings of the Church or introduce new dogmas. We can only study church dogma and adapt to the modern situation the language in which we present church dogmas, but the dogmas themselves are immutable and unchangeable. The same applies to morality. There is Christian morality - certain unshakable moral postulates that cannot change depending on fashion, on the trends of the time. When today they try to impose on us moral standards that are incompatible with Christian teaching, we, as believers, cannot accept them. In this sense, Tradition and Tradition are of key importance to us.
Petrine reforms were a break with Tradition. And the consequences of these reforms (including for our culture and intelligentsia) were very disastrous. We, on the one hand, are talking about the 19th century as the century of the heyday of Russian culture... And, indeed, the majority of Russian people known to the whole world, be they composers, writers, poets or artists, lived in the 19th century. And in a sense, this “meeting with the West,” which occurred due to the fact that Peter cut a “window to Europe,” was very fruitful for Russian culture.
But the other side of the coin was this departure of the intelligentsia and Russian culture from the Church. This was not a complete departure, because at its final depths Russian culture always remained Christian. Looking retrospectively at Russian culture of the 19th century (especially looking through the prism of the Soviet period), we see that it was imbued with the juices of Christianity and Orthodoxy. And in Soviet times, Russian culture was one of the bearers of the Christian gospel for our people. After all, we could not then, except in samizdat or in photocopies, read the works of the holy fathers, for example Isaac the Syrian. But they could have taken The Brothers Karamazov from the library, where many pages are simply a retelling of the patristic works. Of course, this church Christian element in Russian culture was hushed up and reinterpreted in every possible way, but nevertheless it existed. And therefore it cannot be said that the intelligentsia or culture have completely divorced themselves from the Church. A watershed existed between the world of the Church and the world of culture and the intelligentsia, but the presence of Christian ideas and religious themes in the latter always remained very significant and significant. And it is no coincidence that at the beginning of the twentieth century, when a significant part of the intelligentsia sided with the reformers and revolutionaries, another part of the intelligentsia began to revive religious ideas and thought hard about rapprochement with the Church.
RG: What kind of intelligentsia does the Orthodox Church need today?
Metropolitan Hilarion: The Orthodox Church needs thinking intelligentsia. Open to dialogue. Calm. Alien to radicalism and extremes. An intelligentsia that will, on the one hand, be receptive to the assimilation of Christian ideas, and on the other, will be ready to feed the church body with its fresh ideas. If her ideas radically contradict Church Tradition, she will inevitably find herself in conflict with the Church. But if these ideas are in line with Church Tradition, a very interesting and fruitful dialogue can arise. And the intelligentsia can make a very significant contribution to the development of church life.
After all, the intelligentsia are people who produce ideas, and fresh ideas are always needed.
RG: What should the Church be like in relation to culture and the intelligentsia? Berdyaev, back in The Russian Idea, pointed out the obscurantism and ignorance of the Orthodox clergy, and it seems to me that this is enough today. Talking about the benefits of simplicity is in vogue. They happily quote a saying attributed to one of the Russian elders: “Where it is simple, there are a hundred angels.” It seems to me that these words are more likely a call not to follow one’s whims and class rituals than an invitation to simplify knowledge, ideas, and worldview.
Metropolitan Hilarion: Simplicity is not at all synonymous with illiteracy and lack of education. You can be very simple in dealing with people, in your lifestyle, and at the same time be an educated, intelligent, intellectually developed person.
I think that today we need an educated clergy like air. And this is one of the tasks that His Holiness the Patriarch sets before the Church. We have made it mandatory for clergy to receive at least a seminary education. And one of the first steps of the Patriarch after ascending the primate throne was the reform of spiritual education. New educational institutions were created, such as the All-Church graduate school and doctoral studies, aimed precisely at radically increasing the educational level of our clergy.
I think that we really need an educated clergy today. For dialogue between the Church and the intelligentsia, we need people who would not say stupid things and write all sorts of nonsense on the Internet, but would be responsible for their words. After all, willy-nilly, a person, encountering the statements of priests, perceives them as the position of the Church. And it is very difficult for us to say: these words reflect the official position, but these statements of this or that priest are his private opinion. After all, a priest, in fact, is always treated as a teacher, a bearer of general church ideas. And in this sense, every clergyman bears a very great responsibility. If you cannot speak intelligently, competently, with restraint, it is better to remain silent.
RG: Is a complex person a value for the Church?
Metropolitan Hilarion: Every person is a complex person. Simplicity is very rarely an innate quality, more often it is an acquired quality. It seems to me that it is a consequence of a person’s internal disposition, some kind of inner world that he can carry within himself and transmit to others. Today very few people have such an inner world. Today people, as a rule, are nervous, nervous, and highly emotional. And when such a state, unpeaceful, restless, with a heightened emotional level, becomes the norm for a person, it is then that he produces ideas and statements of a radical nature.
RG: It seems that we are experiencing a crisis of humanitarian culture today, good poets are not heard, great humanists like Averintsev and Bibikhin, whose work was unthinkable without a religious beginning, are forgotten. The resonant environment is damaged. It's like a temple with poor acoustics. Can the Church be the impetus for a humanitarian cultural renaissance?
Metropolitan Hilarion: I do not entirely agree that we live in an era of decline in culture and humanities and that now there are no good composers, poets, or writers. We live in a time that is oversaturated with information, and in the flow of noise it is sometimes difficult to discern real signals. But, as you know, great things are seen from a distance. And great people are rarely recognized during their lifetime, as a rule, after death. Yes, today, in modern music, there seems to be no figure at all similar in scale to Shostakovich. But it seems to me that it is still too early to make a final judgment. The time will come when our descendants will evaluate our era differently. And perhaps what is happening now and seems less significant to us than what happened earlier will turn out to be important and in demand for our descendants.
The problem is that the information space is turning into a huge market, where every person is trying to find what suits him. And an even bigger problem is the anticulture that we often pass off as culture. Instead of educating people morally, making them spiritually purer, it, on the contrary, corrupts. The so-called popular culture, “pop,” is often of such low quality and carries such base moral messages that it can rightfully be called anticulture.
I think that the common task of the intelligentsia and the Church is precisely to create today a full-fledged culture, art of a high aesthetic level, which at the same time carries a powerful positive moral charge. And also to contribute to the revival and development of the humanities, which are necessary for the full development of society.
Orthodox Intelligentsia Club
(concept)
Nowadays, the concept of “intelligentsia” remains debatable, just as it was a century ago. However, the word “intelligentsia” is almost always accompanied by the epithet “Russian”. Well, Russian , which means Orthodox, for “Russianness” is unthinkable without Orthodoxy.
Now, as before, there is an opinion that an intellectual is a passive, “kitchen” oppositionist, who is always against the existing government, and if he goes from passive opposition to active, or becomes a participant in the current government, then he ceases to be an intellectual: they say , if you want to remain an intellectual, engage in “quiet doing” of good and eternal things.
We are not supporters of a destructive opinion about the role of the intelligentsia in modern society.And the reasons for this are the following:
1.
An intellectual is a carrier and creator of information. In our turbulent age, when humanity is experiencing the consequences of the information revolution, when information technology has become the main tool for resolving political issues, and experience and knowledge have become the main value in the labor market, the role of the intelligentsia in strengthening the competitiveness and integrity of Russia is becoming decisive.
2.
An Orthodox intellectual is a convinced statesman. Therefore, only the Orthodox intelligentsia can fill the vacuum of state thinking, which makes the internaland Russian foreign policy.
We do not call on the Orthodox intelligentsia to go to the “barricades,” but they must come out of their “kitchens” and from various virtual chats and forums, where the majority speak under fictitious names,and loudly declare what she wants to see Russia. The community of Orthodox intellectuals must turn from virtual into real. Doctors have common interests with the military, and scientists with artists, in terms of the structure of modern Russian statehood. THE WORD decides EVERYTHING now, as in the days of Creation M i ra, because information technology now underlies the management of the social world.
An intellectual is a state of mind. The intelligentsia is not just a group of educated people, but an intellectual community that sees the meaning of its existence and its cultural and historical mission in bringing the fruits of education (culture, enlightenment and political consciousness) to the people.
The religious, philosophical, scientific and journalistic magazine "Tribune of Russian Thought", dedicated to discussing issues of modern Russian statehood, is intended to become a mouthpiece Orthodox intelligentsia. The Orthodox intelligentsia has its own magazine!
We do not have the right to remain silent when the fate of Russia is being decided. Let us remain silent and it will be built according to principles completely alien to its history and traditions.
A real step to solve this problem could be the creation in cities and villages Clubs of the Orthodox Intelligentsia.
The organizational and legal forms of organizing such Clubs can be very diverse, as well as their names.The goals and principles of their activities are important.
An example of such an organization is the “Cathedral of the Orthodox Intelligentsia” (St. Petersburg), which has been operating since 2000.
The magazine "Tribune of Russian Thought" is ready to provide all possible assistance in establishing contacts and exchanging information between Clubs of the Orthodox Intelligentsia, organizing visiting seminars and lectures, providing its pages for the publication of articles prepared by participants of such a Club, facilitating the preparation of collections of works and books, organizing round tables, seminars, appearances on radio and television.
Orthodox intellectuals must say their WORD! Russia is waiting for him! The time has come!
In big cities it plays a significant role in church life. Some of this intelligentsia are members or children of members of illegal church communities that existed during Soviet times. In many ways, it is they who ensure the continuity of traditional forms of church life. The Orthodox St. Tikhon's University, one of the largest Orthodox educational institutions in the world, was created in the early 1990s by one of these intellectual circles. But today the intelligentsia consistently criticizes that de facto official ideology that can be called Orthodox-patriotic. The church intelligentsia feels rejected and unclaimed, although some of its representatives work in the Inter-Council Presence.
The rector of the Church of St. Sophia of the Wisdom of God on Sofia Embankment, opposite the Kremlin. Once upon a time he began as an altar boy for Alexander Men, then became the spiritual child of the famous elder John Krestyankin; for several years he was the rector of a village church in the Kursk region, where the Moscow intelligentsia visited him. He gained fame as the confessor of Svetlana Medvedeva, who, long before becoming the first lady, began going to the St. Sophia Church. Actress Ekaterina Vasilyeva works as the headman in Father Vladimir’s parish, and the son of Vasilyeva and playwright Mikhail Roshchin, Dmitry, serves as a priest in another church, where Volgin is also the rector. One of the most zealous parishioners is Ivan Okhlobystin's wife Oksana and their children. Despite the bohemian composition of the parish, Archpriest Vladimir Volgin has a reputation as almost the strictest confessor in Moscow. His parish is full of large families.
| Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov |
One of the most influential white priests (not monks) in the Russian Church. He is very popular among his flock: collections of his sermons in the form of books, audio and video recordings have sold millions of copies since the 1990s. One of the most popular Orthodox commentators in the media. He runs his own video blog and broadcast on the Orthodox TV channel “Spas”. One of the main exponents of Orthodox patriotic ideology. Under Patriarch Alexy, Archpriest Dimitry was jokingly called “the rector of all Moscow,” because he was the rector of eight churches at the same time. He also delivered the farewell speech at the funeral service of Patriarch Alexy. Under Kirill, one of the large churches - St. Nicholas in Zayaitsky - was taken from him and in March 2013 he was relieved of his post as chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations with the Armed Forces, which he had led since its founding in 2000, being responsible for the introduction of the institute of chaplains in the army . The main fighter against abortion and contraception; he is proud that his parish has a birth rate “like in Bangladesh.”
Banner bearers
Parishioners of the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker on Bersenevka, which is located opposite the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, between the House on the Embankment and Red October, created a new militaristic Orthodox style. Strong men in combat boots and T-shirts “Orthodoxy or death.” Extreme conservatives oppose tax identification numbers, biometric passports, juvenile justice and modern art. Uncanonized saints are venerated, including the soldier Yevgeny Rodionov, who died in Chechnya.
Sponsors
Church budgets at all levels are supported by donations from philanthropists. This is the most closed side of church life.
Major (and public) church donors
Owner of the company “Your Financial Trustee” and the agricultural holding “Russian Milk”. Sponsors the construction of churches, exhibitions of icon painting, etc. Forces employees to take courses in Orthodox culture, and orders all married employees to get married. He consecrated a chapel on the territory of his enterprise in honor of Ivan the Terrible, who has not been canonized in the Russian Church and is not going to be canonized.
The President of JSC Russian Railways is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation of St. Andrew the First-Called (FAP), which financed the bringing to Russia of the relics of the Holy Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, the right hand of John the Baptist, the relics of the Apostle Luke and the belt of the Blessed Virgin Mary. FAP also pays for VIP trips to get the Holy Fire in Jerusalem, the program for the revival of the Martha and Mary Convent in Moscow, and with its funds several churches in the name of St. Alexander Nevsky were built on the borders of Russia.
Founder of the investment fund Marshall Capital and the main minority shareholder of Rostelecom. The St. Basil the Great Foundation, which he created, finances Moscow and Moscow region churches, the restoration of monasteries, and paid for the renovation of the DECR building. The main brainchild of the foundation is the Basil the Great Gymnasium, an elite educational institution in the village of Zaitsevo near Moscow, the cost of education in which is 450 thousand rubles per year.
| Vadim Yakunin and Leonid Sevastyanov |
The chairman of the board of directors of the pharmaceutical company Protek and a member of the board of directors of this OJSC founded the St. Gregory the Theologian Foundation. The foundation maintains a synodal choir, a church-wide graduate school, finances some DECR projects (mainly Metropolitan Hilarion’s trips abroad), and organizes exhibitions of icons in different countries. The fund includes an Orthodox gymnasium in Murom and a program for the revival of the shrines of Rostov the Great.
Activists
Young people previously unknown to the church community use radical forms of public manifestations (performances, actions) to “defend Orthodoxy.” Some priests, including Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, are very supportive of aggressive activism. And even the raids on the office of the Yabloko party and the Darwin Museum did not cause unequivocal condemnation from the official church authorities. The leader of the activists is Dmitry “Enteo” Tsorionov.
| Deacon Andrey Kuraev |
In the 1990s - early 2000s, he was the most prominent and successful church missionary, traveling with lectures on Orthodoxy throughout the country, organizing debates, and participating in talk shows on television. He wrote several theological works, in particular about exposing the teachings of the Roerichs. He has been teaching at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University for more than 15 years; there is usually no place to sit during his lectures. In the winter of 2008–2009, he actively campaigned for the election of Metropolitan Kirill as patriarch, writing revealing articles about his main competitor in the elections, Metropolitan Clement. For this, after his election, the patriarch awarded him the honorary rank of protodeacon and gave him the assignment to write the textbook “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” for 4th-5th grade schools. It is Kuraev’s textbook that is recommended by the Ministry of Education as the main manual for the defense-industrial complex course. However, in 2012, the protodeacon began to increasingly disagree with the position of church officials. In particular, immediately after Pussy Riot’s performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, he called for “feeding them pancakes” and letting them go in peace; During the trial he repeatedly reminded about mercy. After this, they began to say that Kuraev had fallen out of favor. His presence in the media has decreased significantly, but his LiveJournal blog remains the clergyman’s most popular blog.
Rector of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in Khokhly. He is considered one of the leaders of church liberals (despite his traditional and even conservative theological views). This is partly due to the composition of the parish: intellectuals, artists, musicians. But in many ways - with the speeches of Father Alexy in the media. In 2011, he published on the website “Orthodoxy and the World” the text “The Silent Church” about the priority of the moral principle in the relations of the church with the people and the state, predicting the problems that the church faced in the following years. After this article, a discussion arose about the place of the intelligentsia in the church. Father Alexy's main opponent was Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, who argued that the intelligentsia were evangelical Pharisees.
