Mission after Diomede

The story of the rebellious Bishop Diomede raised the question of overcoming the tilt towards fundamentalism before the Russian Orthodox Church. After all, it was precisely the fundamentalist sentiments that affected many clergy and laity that became fertile ground for Diomid’s invective. And the desire of the ultra-conservatives, clearly manifested in this story to unambiguously “build the situation for themselves,” did not arise in the last year and was by no means born in Chukotka.

In the early 90s, a significant number of new people crossed the church fence. But unlike the neophytes of the 70-80s. Most of them were looking in the church not for spiritual freedom and living tradition, but for salvation from the cataclysms of the perestroika era. And what Holy Mother Maria (Skobtsova) spoke about happened. In 1936, at a meeting of Orthodox monastics in Paris, she expressed the opinion that when the church becomes free in Russia, new people will come to it, educated by the Soviet regime and “completely unprepared for antinomic thinking.” At first, as very eager and receptive listeners, they will study different points of view, perceive problems, and attend worship services. But at some point they will say: there are several opinions on this issue - which one is true? Several opinions cannot be true at the same time, and if such and such is true, then the rest are subject to destruction as false.

At first these people will act with an eye to the church, but soon they will speak on behalf of the church, embodying the mark of infallibility. “To make a joke,” Mother Maria concludes her thought, “we can say that for an incorrectly placed sign of the cross they will be fined, and for refusal to confess they will be exiled to Solovki. A free thought will be punishable by death. There is no need to have any illusions here - in the event recognition of the Church in Russia and in the event of the growth of its external success, it cannot count on any other cadres except cadres brought up in an uncritical, dogmatic spirit of authority.”

And so it happened. The difficulties that arose as a result of the surge of lay initiatives in the early 90s - and many of them, for the same reasons, turned out to be not so much ecclesiastical as ultra-conservative-political - were “solved” by cutting off the laity from active parish life. The hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church MP focused its efforts primarily on the restoration of newly opened churches and monasteries. Issues of spiritual enlightenment were relegated to the background. All this could not but lead to the rooting and growth of the very sentiments that have now turned into an explosion of “Diomidism.”

Church management, delaying the inevitable conflict with the fundamentalists, made them one concession after another. Suffice it to mention the destruction of the St. Petersburg theological schools, their transformation under the current rector of Tikhvin Konstantin into a bursa, and the persecution of the missionary movement, in particular, led by the priest. Georgy Kochetkov.

Before the Council of Bishops, another attempt was made to torpedo the mission of the church. The so-called pastoral meeting took place in the Novospassky Monastery. Its participants called for a ban on attempts to explain the divine service (“missionary liturgies”) and any translation experiments, and to strictly preserve the divine service.

The Council of Bishops, as is known, defended the Orthodox mission. But this defense is ambivalent. Missionaries were placed on the same level as counter-missionaries. The activities of numerous anti-sectarian centers (everyone is classified as a “sectarian”) turned out to be equated with work to educate the people.

It would probably not be an exaggeration to say that the aggressive struggle of a certain part of the Russian Orthodox Church MP with those of other faiths is hindering the creation of a positive image of the Church. This strategy of behavior fits too well into the well-known and tired image of “pushing competitors out of the way.” It is difficult for society to see that not all Orthodox Christians are engaged in throwing mud at their opponents. Because it is these people – the counter-missionary “lobby” – who behave most actively and assertively in both the social and information space. After all, this is, strictly speaking, all their “activity” consists of - most often those who are incapable of real everyday service fall into the counter-mission.

However, the trouble is not only that the Church is increasingly losing the credibility that was given to it in the early 90s of the last century. The church is one of the institutions of civil society, and negative processes in it strongly influence public consciousness as a whole, the spiritual climate of culture, and social processes. Therefore, society does not care what forces will prevail in the church fence.

Unfortunately, in the post-Soviet years, specialists from counter-missionary formations were in demand - Russia is still “baptized, but not enlightened.” They compiled a long list of enemies who were “undermining the foundations.” At the same time, the experience of a positive, effective mission often turns out to be persecuted. So, for example, Archbishop Viktor of Tver and Kashinsky, during a discussion at the Council of Bishops, tried to propose, in order to “balance the rebuke of Diomede,” to condemn “at the same time” the “Kochetkovites.” In other words, to equate the fundamentalist schism with the missionary movement of the laity. Fortunately, this opinion did not find support. But where are the guarantees that the proposal to make a similar “political horse move” will not be heard again someday?

The future of the Russian Orthodox Church MP depends on what kind of mission prevails. Depends who comes to the church fence. A positive mission is directly related to education, to attracting a variety of people to the church. The counter-mission, on the contrary, pushes people away from the church or attracts people with a very specific mentality, leading to the closedness of the church community, to isolationism.

Today, as in the 90s, the hierarchy is faced with a choice: whether to continue to indulge fundamentalism, trying to minimize the Diomid split, or to respond to the challenges of our time. Particularly in the area of ​​mission.

But this answer must be at the level of real solutions. For example, the Missionary Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church MP speaks of the creation of a missionary parish in each diocese. It’s high time such a temple appeared in Moscow. There is no doubt that if such a temple appears in the near future, thousands of new people will cross the threshold of the church fence to stay in the church and serve God.