A. Kobak: church revival at the expense of the destruction of cultural monuments is unacceptable

On January 22, within the framework of the XVI International Conference in memory of Father Alexander Men, held in Moscow, a report was made by the church historian, executive director of the International Charitable Foundation named after. D.S. Likhachev Alexander Kobak about the conflict between cultural institutions and religious organizations.

Emphasizing that he does not speak from the position of “rabid atheistic criticism” and does not raise the issue of the conflict between the Church and culture “with a capital C,” the speaker admitted that the situation of “overt or hidden conflict” is about two dozen of the largest Russian museums and museum-reserves and church organizations makes him anxious. Without doubting that the property taken from the Church must be returned, A. Kobak drew attention to the main problem - the methods of restitution and the mentality of some church leaders. Disputes about church buildings today “most often unfold in property terms: ownership, use, disposal, and not in terms of culture and religion,” the historian noted.

The speaker spoke about the violations committed by the Church during the operation of the temple buildings transferred to it: buildings of the 16th century are being rebuilt, entire complexes are being destroyed, they are trying to do everything “with European-quality renovation, as if this smoothness and evenness of the walls is the preservation of ancient monuments.” As a rule, the opinions of specialists - art critics and restorers - are not listened to. If experts try to insist on the implementation of legislation on the protection of monuments, some hierarchs perceive this as a repetition of “persecution under Soviet rule.”

“What makes this truly tragic is that this position of the Church is supported by the state. It is now on the side of the blissful, polished, sparkling church splendor, and not on the side of the hard-won attitude of European and Russian science to the preservation of cultural heritage,” states A. Kobak. For example, the Iversky Monastery is being hastily put in order “with rather gross violations of restoration norms,” since the president’s dacha is being built nearby. If the Ryazan Kremlin is transferred to the diocese, the museum-reserve located there now will perish. The example of the Ipatiev Museum in Kostroma demonstrates that the state “vacates entire complexes without preparing premises for museum exhibitions and funds.”

Foundation named after Likhacheva is making efforts to establish dialogue between the Church and religious organizations. With the participation of the foundation, a conference on this topic was held in Solovki. The speaker cited the restoration of the Tikhvin Monastery as a successful example of interaction between church and secular organizations.

According to the speaker, secularists do not always treat monuments “ideally”; church organizations often neglect the experience of scientific restoration, “just like under Soviet rule, causing significant damage to cultural monuments.” Church revival at the cost of destroying museums and historical and cultural monuments is unacceptable, A. Kobak is convinced.

Sources

• Church revival should not be accompanied by the destruction of cultural heritage, says the executive director of the Foundation. Likhacheva // Blagovest-info. 2007. January 23.