Holy Rus’: the rebirth of Orthodoxy in the New Russia

Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 2020

John Burgess’s book both fascinates and disappoints the reader. Through interesting microhistories, the book gives a fresh and unique access to the contemporary Russian Orthodox lived religion. It is even more fascinating as it is written by an American Presbyterian theologian who became fascinated by Orthodox Christianity and its vision of Russia. To such a point that during one Easter morning, he “could glimpse Holy Rus’” (p. 4). However, the way the author understands Holy Rus’ and describes the link between Orthodoxy and the Russian nation leaves the reader with more questions than answers. One may say that my criticism is unfounded because Burgess clearly states at the beginning of the book that his definition of Holy Rus’ is “personal and idiosyncratic” (p. 5). But at the same time the author does not want his book to be perceived as “a journalistic report” and declares that his goal is to show “that the Orthodox Church in Russia today is seeking to re-create … Holy Rus’” (p. 5). Is it really the conclusion that emerges from the book?

It would be of little exaggeration to say that much of Russian discourse in the imperial and early émigré periods (circa 1721-1927) was informed by the lexicon, liturgy, and theology of Russian Orthodoxy. The Church's extensive educational system, whatever its many failings, trained thousands of clergy and hundreds of theologians who spoke to the faithful in various Russian Orthodox idioms that were then refracted in the conversations and cultural production of educated society (obrazovannoe obshchestvo). As members of that society began to engage contemporary European thought, they often did so from a selfconsciously Orthodox perspective cultivated at home, learned at church, and articulated in Orthodox print culture. Differences between the Russian people (narod) and the peoples of Europe and Asia were frequently cast as spiritual distinctions between true believers (pravoslavnye) and apostates or pagans, especially during periods of military conflict, which in turn were often experienced through an Orthodox matrix of biblical narrative, Church history, and liturgical commemoration. Imperial decrees, like the Emancipation Manifesto of 1861, were invested with the "Grace of God, " structured by the necessity of "Divine Providence, " and guided by "Divine assistance. " Sacraments of the Church, such as baptism and confession, generated specific notions of belonging among Orthodox believers and helped to shape their individual and collective psychologies. Orthodox liturgy, hesychastic piety, and monastic eldership (starchestvo) were imagined by some of Russia's most important authors, including N. V. Gogol' and F. M. Dostoevsky, to engender a type of religious disposition that could heal the fractured mind in an age thought to be marked by anomie. Even 3 k 4 m i c h e l s o n and k o r n b l at t of practice and institution shaped by time, place, culture, and personality that accurately reflects the historical reality of that confession. 1 Nearly a decade before this shift toward the study of Russian Orthodoxy and its institutions, scholars of Russian literature and intellectual history began to focus their attention on another aspect of religion in modern Russia, namely the religious philosophy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One of the earliest developments in this regard in post-Soviet, English-language scholarship was the international Conference on Russian Religious Thought hosted by the University of Wisconsin in 1993. 2 That event brought together more than thirty historians, Slavists, theologians, and philosophers to discuss the spiritual categories, philosophical systems, literary heritages, and cultural influences of V. S. Solov' ev, S. N. Bulgakov, N. F. Fedorov, S. L. Frank, and P. A. Florenskii. The principal result of that conference was the publication of Russian Religious Thought, coedited by Judith Kornblatt and Richard Gustafson, in 1996. 3 That volume, which in many ways constitutes the foundation of and impetus behind this collection of essays, broadly applied a textual hermeneutics to the study of religious ideas and thinkers. The intent of Russian Religious Thought and similar studies that followed was to analyze representative texts for an array of largely extra-historical purposes: to illuminate how Russian religious philosophy engaged and can still address epistemological and ontological questions; to familiarize non-specialists with the seemingly alien content of Russia's religious culture; to put Russian religious thinkers in cross-confessional dialogue with some of the leading theologians of Western Christendom, while simultaneously complicating the basic categories of Protestant and Catholic thought; to demonstrate the universality of Russian religious terminology in the philosophical quest to express the absolute; and to identify currents in Russian thought that might help construct a usable past for contemporary Russia. 4 Despite this enthusiasm for Russian religious thought in the post-Soviet era, which has seen the publication of important monographs, articles, source collections, and English-language translations, 5 its impact on broader trends in the study of Russian history and culture has been minimal. This is especially true in regards to the turn in scholarship toward religious practice and institutions, which has almost entirely, and sometimes explicitly, disregarded Russian Orthodox theology, as well as the broader subject of Russian religious thought, as retrograde, elitist, or well-worn. 6 As such, our knowledge of how the theological tenets of Russian Orthodoxy informed the discursive patterns and ideological structures of Russian literary culture and intellectual history has not kept pace with advancements in studies about lived Orthodoxy or the Russian Church. 7

It would be of little exaggeration to say that much of Russian discourse in the imperial and early émigré periods (circa 1721-1927) was informed by the lexicon, liturgy, and theology of Russian Orthodoxy. The Church's extensive educational system, whatever its many failings, trained thousands of clergy and hundreds of theologians who spoke to the faithful in various Russian Orthodox idioms that were then refracted in the conversations and cultural production of educated society (obrazovannoe obshchestvo). As members of that society began to engage contemporary European thought, they often did so from a selfconsciously Orthodox perspective cultivated at home, learned at church, and articulated in Orthodox print culture. Differences between the Russian people (narod) and the peoples of Europe and Asia were frequently cast as spiritual distinctions between true believers (pravoslavnye) and apostates or pagans, especially during periods of military conflict, which in turn were often experienced through an Orthodox matrix of biblical narrative, Church history, and liturgical commemoration. Imperial decrees, like the Emancipation Manifesto of 1861, were invested with the "Grace of God, " structured by the necessity of "Divine Providence, " and guided by "Divine assistance. " Sacraments of the Church, such as baptism and confession, generated specific notions of belonging among Orthodox believers and helped to shape their individual and collective psychologies. Orthodox liturgy, hesychastic piety, and monastic eldership (starchestvo) were imagined by some of Russia's most important authors, including N. V. Gogol' and F. M. Dostoevsky, to engender a type of religious disposition that could heal the fractured mind in an age thought to be marked by anomie. Even 3 k 4 m i c h e l s o n and k o r n b l at t of practice and institution shaped by time, place, culture, and personality that accurately reflects the historical reality of that confession. 1 Nearly a decade before this shift toward the study of Russian Orthodoxy and its institutions, scholars of Russian literature and intellectual history began to focus their attention on another aspect of religion in modern Russia, namely the religious philosophy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One of the earliest developments in this regard in post-Soviet, English-language scholarship was the international Conference on Russian Religious Thought hosted by the University of Wisconsin in 1993. 2 That event brought together more than thirty historians, Slavists, theologians, and philosophers to discuss the spiritual categories, philosophical systems, literary heritages, and cultural influences of V. S. Solov' ev, S. N. Bulgakov, N. F. Fedorov, S. L. Frank, and P. A. Florenskii. The principal result of that conference was the publication of Russian Religious Thought, coedited by Judith Kornblatt and Richard Gustafson, in 1996. 3 That volume, which in many ways constitutes the foundation of and impetus behind this collection of essays, broadly applied a textual hermeneutics to the study of religious ideas and thinkers. The intent of Russian Religious Thought and similar studies that followed was to analyze representative texts for an array of largely extra-historical purposes: to illuminate how Russian religious philosophy engaged and can still address epistemological and ontological questions; to familiarize non-specialists with the seemingly alien content of Russia's religious culture; to put Russian religious thinkers in cross-confessional dialogue with some of the leading theologians of Western Christendom, while simultaneously complicating the basic categories of Protestant and Catholic thought; to demonstrate the universality of Russian religious terminology in the philosophical quest to express the absolute; and to identify currents in Russian thought that might help construct a usable past for contemporary Russia. 4 Despite this enthusiasm for Russian religious thought in the post-Soviet era, which has seen the publication of important monographs, articles, source collections, and English-language translations, 5 its impact on broader trends in the study of Russian history and culture has been minimal. This is especially true in regards to the turn in scholarship toward religious practice and institutions, which has almost entirely, and sometimes explicitly, disregarded Russian Orthodox theology, as well as the broader subject of Russian religious thought, as retrograde, elitist, or well-worn. 6 As such, our knowledge of how the theological tenets of Russian Orthodoxy informed the discursive patterns and ideological structures of Russian literary culture and intellectual history has not kept pace with advancements in studies about lived Orthodoxy or the Russian Church. 7

Church History, 2009