Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

23.12.2014

Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity?

How can you simultaneously consider yourself a Christian and persecute Christians? What should happen to a person so that he began to perceive this state of affairs as the norm? Protopriest Igor Prekup is pondering.
The religious life of the Soviet period still awaits its researchers. Many works written on the history of the Soviet state, a lot of historical research over the past twenty years has been devoted to the position of religion in that era. But after all, religious life is of scientific interest not only and even not so much in the historical aspect, as in the ethnopsychological one. And then oh-oh-oh ... virgin virgin plow!
I recently had the opportunity to sit on one birthday. Representatives of three generations gathered at the table. The conversation went smoothly into the mainstream “eh, there were people in our time” with rather stereotyped complaints, accompanied by hanging dogs on “democrats” and nostalgia for the former state power and stability of the “face of morality” of the Soviet man.
I touched upon the topic of genocide, in connection with which I offered information for reflection on the Bolshevik experiment of breeding a new person in one country - the “Soviet man” (homo soveticus) and, accordingly, the new community - the Soviet people, and also about selective genocide of the peoples of the Russian Empire; Russian, first of all, as the state.
Election genocideI apologize for the daring attempt to introduce a new concept into everyday life. It consists in purposefully scraping the inside of the nation by physically destroying or socio-political segregation of the main carriers of the values ​​of the national culture. The priority target of this cleansing of “socially alien elements” was the Russian Orthodox Church. Again, as follows from the infamous letter of the "most humane person" to members of the Politburo of March 19, 1922, they were selected for slaughterthe bestrepresentatives of the clergy and laity.
It is noteworthy that people gathered on the above-mentioned birthday were good, reasonable, with whom it was pleasant to communicate. And the representative of the older generation gives a painfully familiar:
- There was no such catastrophic damage, nothing, in fact, has not changed. There were almost no unbelievers. The people still remained believers, and the Communists were also believers. We went to the party meetings, spoke, and, if it was a disaster, we prayed to God. And they remained communists, one did not interfere. Remember, even in Soviet films about war, what does an officer say before a fight? - “With God!” So ​​nothing, in fact, has changed, the people remained the same believers. Yes, at first, after the revolution, those who tried to erase its essence from the people were in power, but Stalin twisted them and brought everything back to square one.
That's how much I hear such speeches, consisting entirely of cliches of post-Soviet mythology, but I never cease to be surprised. You feel some confusion when the reasoning seems to be sane, seemingly unfriendly person is a banal apology of dehumanization. And for some reason it does not immediately reach: after all, the interlocutor now sincerely and involuntarily demonstrates the unsuccessfulness of the aforementioned experiment for the removal of the “new man”, whose thinking is characterized by some kind of impaired harmony.
By the way, this same defective slenderness (or slender inferiority?) Is characteristic of any heresy: by virtue of its partial separation from the incompatible by reason of the integral true idea and accessible due to this non-contradictory limitation to the arms of the mind, heresy is acceptable for everyday consciousness, for external harmony, because of seeming conformity to imaginary common sense.
I remember a textbook episode of the era of stagnation. Being in Kiev as a delegate to the All-Union Party Conference of Press Employees, my uncle’s wife walked around the city and walked, guided by the most innocent from the point of view of party discipline, considerations into the Vladimir Cathedral. Her party conscience did not feel the slightest discomfort during the contemplation of this cultural monument, as if due to some kind of misunderstanding, it also served as a “hotbed of obscurantism” due to the regular services in it. However, I did not feel until her glance, which was gliding over the praying people, did not catch on one man, who was kneeling and praying with some particular zeal.She could not believe her eyes: it was her colleague from Moldova, a member of the party, the head of one of the press organs.
Being a well-educated woman, she did not interrupt the process of meeting the religious needs of her colleague in the “fourth estate” and party comrade. Coming out of the temple, she began to wait for him on the porch. Soon he came out. Seeing her, turned pale (probably, the whole life flew by before my eyes: I was asleep!).
With sincere interest, the aunt began to ask him how he managed to combine party membership, work in the press — the ideological vanguard of the country — with religion. It is a long-standing case, I don’t remember exactly what he said to her. But one hit the memory. When, at the end of the conversation, she asked: “Tell me, if it was reported to your subordinate that you saw him just as I just prayed in the temple, what would you do?” He replied without hesitation: at once. ”
His interlocutor, as they say, jaw dropped: no, she was surprised not so much by hypocrisy (she joined the party at 18, the Komsomol, the party organizer, she worked in senior positions, as they say, had seen enough)his acceptance of hypocrisy as normsand with such an amplitude: the combination of religiosity and rebellion, tearful, sincere prayer and at the same time the readiness “to ex officio” oppress brothers and sisters in Christ, and that’s alltoLike something for granted.And how, they say, in a different way, eh?
Another example. Once a taxi driver talked with me about his KGB past. I remembered a lot of interesting things about the “care” that the “office” showed in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. But this was not the most interesting. He recalled how one of the officers either married or baptized his child, and on this fact a court of honor was held. I do not remember how he was punished, it does not matter, as it should be, so he was punished by a general decision. Another thing is important. Do you think the ex-KGB driver repented, he was ashamed of complicity in this story, worried, right? A colleague, of course, was humanly pitiful (the guy was unlucky), but he was not ashamed. He summed up the ugly story with words that threw me into a stupor: “But we were all believers then!”
It could be pronounced with shame in the voice, in the sense:we believed in the existence of God, but, because of cowardice, we hid it and acted contrary to faith.No, the opposite! In that they "were believers," he sawexcuse, not reproach (!)yourself and your colleagues. Like if you said thatthere were supposedly at that time convinced atheists in general, haters of religion, as the dominant ideology demanded, and we, the State Security officers, were not like that, we believed that God exists, well, life is life, nothing can be done, service is service - oath, discipline, but at least we believed ...
He so confidently justified himself as an aggravating circumstance, that it was clear: there was no point in explaining something. He justanother look.Look cripplednormative hypocrisy. It seems like it is not blindness, but a person does not see something in emphasis, and the overall picture changes because of this, and the voice of conscience is successfully silenced by absurd arguments.

 

"Believer". What a word ... Someone who understands this by that: some people call so often only “practitioners”, others - everyone who at least does not deny the existence of “something there”. For someone to believe is to live by faith, but for someone it is enough from time to time “at a difficult moment” between viewing the horoscope and visiting the healer to call God for help, and he already calls himself “deeply religious”.

500
In Soviet times, against the background of official atheism, which denied the real existence of anything other than matter as “objective reality given to us in sensation,” anyone who allowed himself the audacity to question the prevailing doctrine and assume that and another reality. And there really were quite a few such “believers”. And if a person also broke a birch on the Trinity, yes, he sacred Easter cakes at Easter, and he even stood in line for holy water for baptism - this was already a deeply religious person, because hetook part in the "worship".
This, in fact, the Soviet criterion of religiosity was firmly learned, including in the church environment. In the Church, a person or outside of Her is not determined by how faithful he is to God in word, deed, and thought, but by the fact of participation in religious activities (even if this participation came down once in life to being brought, unmasked, christened, swaddled well, only he was seen before they brought it in again, the lid was opened, otpeli, they sprinkled the ground, closed, carried away). Here and Stalin is a believer, because "theological schools opened," and Brezhnev (visited the temple once, and his wife filed notes).
As a result, the “transfiguration” component has almost disappeared from the criteria of Orthodox religiosity in the mass consciousness. A person transforms by faith or not - this is, as it were, his private affair, and he doesn’t have a direct relationship to religious life as such.
Here is an olive-land-croutons-cast iron-shawls-slippers - this is yes, a sign of "churchliness", and repentance (μετανοια), "change of mind"(μετανοεω means “change your way of thinking”, change your vision, understanding of the meaning of life and its values)- who saw the mind of a person, who recorded, is there a change in it or not? “The fruits of repentance” (Matt. 3: 8)? Ah, leave it ... not everyone should be holy! We are simple people, without complaints, and so will come down to us. After all, it is said that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), right? Here we believe (after all we ask God for health, well-being, success, we use “material carriers of divine energy”), and we were baptized (or were we baptized, what difference?), Means saved. What else do we have?
Such a stereotype of consciousness was formed and spread in our church and near-church environment. And this happened not without the connivance of those who are appointed by God to preach repentance, that is,it is not only the contrition of sins in the sense of regret for what was done, but the crushing of the sinful principle itself (which is, in essence, "heartbreaking crush"), a change in the image and likeness of the Creator, or, in essence, the same, innertransfigurationpersonality.
Connivance is due to ... "convenience." I heard for the first time in Estonia that a person who avoids workloads, everyday difficulties, obligations, caring for someone, responsibility, is called “convenient”. Not in the sense that it is convenient to someone (although such people, as a rule, are convenient to each other, because they do not climb into the affairs of others), but that convenience for him is the goal and principle of life.
Vladimir Semenych once, that "Hindus invented a convenient religion." Our apologists of the “mystic-ritual” direction did not lag behind them in the adaptation of Orthodoxy to the mass consumer. Their faith is a “cult”, it all comes down to it. A cult, but not a transforming religion; for thempersonality transformation is an optional element, non-essential("The person does not change"). The main thing -to believe in the existence of God and to use Him correctly in ritual respect,satisfying their religious needs within the framework delineated by the state or the community of which they are a part, rigidly preventing someone from going beyond the specified limits.
This position is not some kind of harmless nonsense. It is not just ignorant, it is blasphemous and inhumane, if you will, because in its essence it is a denial of the indelibility of the image of God in man and disregard of his ability to be Godlike, and through which personal transformation takes place. For if the Transfiguration of the Lord is"Ajar"to the disciples of the radiance of the Divine nature of the Savior,the transfiguration of man is the re-creation of a godlike nature in him by a life of faith.
Having glorified the Transfiguration of the Lord, we sometimes seem to forget one significant detail of this event. The Father concludes the testimony of the Son with the words: “Listen to him” (Matt. 17: 5; Mark. 9: 7; Luke 9:35). But the whole sermon of the Savior is about the transfiguration of a man in the image of Heavenly Father on the example of the Only Begotten Son; this is the preaching of the Son about adopting the Father to all who not only are baptized, but selflessly take up their cross and follow Him (Mark 8:34), not only are baptized into Christ, but also “clothed” in Him (Gal. 3:27) .
“Listen, He will inspire and command you. And if you go His way, then surely enter a region of light that will not embrace you from the outside, but come from within ... You will be filled with the light of joy, the light of well-being, the light of reference; all sorrows will pass by, the disorder of the passions will disappear, the lies and delusions will disappear. You will become heavenly on earth, from the earth-like — the divine God, from the haunted — ever-blissful ”(St. Theophan the Recluse).


Archpriest Igor Prekup

A source:
Take it to yourself, tell your friends!
Read also on our website:
Is the church a congregation of sinners?
What is a church? A beautiful architectural structure with domes? Something more? Unification of Christians? "Priests" on Mercedes or grandmother on the benches in the temple? Read further reflections on the Church as a congregation not of saints, but of sinners — people mired in vices, but willing to change.
The essence of church etiquette
Church etiquette reminds believers that the temple is the seat of God. It must be remembered that one should quietly behave oneself in church, with reverence, try not to harm others, not to insult the shrine, to address the prayers correctly.
The icon is a wonderful thread between people and God.
The icon is not just a decoration of the temple and an object to which Christians bow. In ancient times it was said that the icon is similar to the Bible for the illiterate, to preaching to wordless, colorful theology, to the picturesque Gospel.
The power of the baptismal water
The baptismal water is also called the “Great Agiasma” - the shrine. People relate in a special way to water, which is consecrated on the day of the Baptism of the Lord. Use it on an empty stomach, pray. Previously, water was sanctified to perform the mystery of baptism.
show more
The value of the church cross for Christians
Church cross - a reminder of the instrument of execution of Jesus Christ. This type of punishment began to apply for two decades before Christ. Before that, they were beaten to death with stones, burned alive. Crucifixion is considered a pagan Greco-Roman tradition.
Church and state are historically interconnected
Church and state were always interrelated. The church had a mysterious essencewhich did not obey world phenomena, but had a historical component, a contact with the world. The state has always interacted with the Church.
Holy Water - Little Communion
Holy water surrounds Christians in life all the time. It is a great power, a shrine. Sanctified water is an image of God's grace, it is intended to purify believers from sinfulness, sanctifies, strengthens in the efforts of salvation in God.
Prosphora - sacred bread with special symbolism
Many from childhood remember the first steps in the temple: icons, candles, Communion ... But this list of associations would be incomplete without prosphora - small round loaves. Children did not exactly wonder what they were intended for and how they look. But what meaning and symbolism do they have?
The use of the house church
The home church is the so-called church, which differs from the cathedral churches, parish, monastic in its structure in institutions. Often these churches are in hospitals, in nursing homes, in orphanages, in prisons.
Why do we need a church charter
When Sergius died, Alexy was elected Patriarch of All Russia, who was a wise leader of the Church for 25 years. In 1947, the calendar published his orders for all the abbots of Moscow churches with notes explaining the church regulations.
Church and world are interconnected
The church has a mysterious essence, which is not subject to anything earthly. However, the Church and the world existed and were connected with each other historically. The state, arranging worldly life, is constantly in contact with church customs.
How pregnancy and the church are interrelated in Christianity
For many women who will soon become mothers, the question arises: are the concepts of pregnancy and church compatible? The fact is that there are no restrictions on attending a church for pregnant women. They can, like other believers, attend the temple.

Related news

  • Sergey Pereslegin: On the results of the scientific and technological revolution in the past year and the risks of the near future
  • Guest house on a picturesque hillside in Italy
  • A marriage proposal is made. And where is the wedding? And where is the toastmaster
  • Technique of the First World
  • Calendar of autumn hunting 2016 in Russia
  • Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity

    Non-transforming faith - the norm of the Soviet religiosity