Translated material
Secular, Soviet and confessional*
Print Alexander Kravetsky 
When reading polemical articles regarding the introduction of the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” into the school curriculum, one cannot help but be surprised at how differently supporters and opponents of this course interpret the same events. Sometimes it even seems that they live in different countries and describe different realities. Appealing to historical experience, supporters of religious education say that the school in Russia was Orthodox and its destruction led to the creation of a surrogate culture with artificial communist rituals and atheistic dogma. Defenders of the opposite point of view remind their readers that many revolutionaries came out of seminaries, and during the lessons of the Law of God, schoolchildren read far from pious works under their desks. At the same time, adherents of both positions refer to numerous memoirs, and their reasoning does not give the impression of an obvious stretch.
Transferring the problems that concern us today to the past is a very effective polemical technique. In the past, we look for like-minded people and from a huge variety of evidence we choose what corresponds to our beliefs. But our opponents do exactly the same. And as a result, figures of the past become active participants in modern disputes. In this case, no violence occurs to the material, since public polemics (like a civil war) presuppose that each side has its own truth. And when reading the memoirs, it is not difficult to find both evidence that this subject is necessary and that it should have been excluded from the school curriculum.
When reading the materials of pre-revolutionary discussions, one is constantly amazed that over the past 90 years, the arguments of the defenders of both positions have not changed at all. The only difference is that the reformers and conservatives switched roles. At the beginning of the 20th century, the reformers were opponents of the Law of God (they destroyed the established tradition in which the school provided elementary religious education). And at the beginning of the 21st century, supporters of the secular school speak from conservative positions, and the role of reformers, overthrowing the Soviet tradition of atheistic education, was taken on by the defenders of the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture.”
While Orthodoxy was the state religion, the question of whether the Law of God should be included in the compulsory school subjects did not arise. Russian laws did not provide for a “non-denominational state,” therefore, at least in theory, every child had to study at school the basic doctrine of the confession to which his family belonged. Non-Orthodox citizens of the Empire were taught the Law of God in accordance with their faith. Special teachers were invited for Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals or Muslims [1] . School rules required that religious disciplines be taught to non-Orthodox people at the same hours when Orthodox Christians study the Law of God: “In those zemstvo schools... in which the children of Mohammedan Tatars will study, it is permitted to allow them to be taught Mohammedan dogma, but so that this subject was taught in separate rooms from the classrooms and at hours determined according to the class schedule for the Law of God for students of the Orthodox confession.” [2] .
After the February Revolution the situation changed dramatically. The Provisional Government Decree “On Freedom of Conscience” dated July 14, 1917 guaranteed the citizens of Russia that “the enjoyment of civil and political rights does not depend on religious affiliation, and no one can be persecuted or limited in any rights for their beliefs in matters faith" [3] . The fact that citizens of Russia may not profess any religion is not directly stated in this document, but is implied, since a separate paragraph (No. 8) is devoted to maintaining civil status records of persons “who do not belong to any religion” [4] . The assumption of a non-religious state meant that a student might appear at the school whose family does not profess any religion. It was necessary to decide what such a child would do during the hours allotted for teaching the Law of God.
The consequence of this was the adoption by the State Committee under the Ministry of Public Education of the “Temporary Regulations on the Teaching of the Law of God.” According to this document, in all institutions except higher education, the opportunity to teach the Law of God must be provided. But at the same time, individuals and organizations received the right to open educational institutions in which the Law of God was not taught at all [5] . On September 23, the “Bulletin of the Provisional Government” published information about a new bill prepared by the Minister of Public Education A. A. Manuilov. This document was aimed at bringing the educational process into line with the requirements of the resolution “On Freedom of Conscience”. According to this bill, the school should have had students who had not studied religious disciplines: “Those students who are recognized ... as not belonging to any faith are exempt from compulsory teaching of the law of faith,” this draft said. Those who are also exempt from teaching the law of their faith
students... concerns about their religious education will be taken over by their parents or guardians, according to the written statement made by the latter” [6] . And for children over 14 years of age, the project gave them the right to independently determine their attitude towards religion. They could change their religious status and thereby refuse further study of religious disciplines. The right of 14-year-old students to independently determine their attitude to the Law of God stemmed from the decree “On Freedom of Conscience,” according to which citizens of Russia who had reached the age of 14 could independently
determine your attitude towards religion. Thus, the projects of the Ministry of Public Education only concretized the resolution of the Provisional Government “On Freedom of Conscience,” which allowed Russian citizens not to belong to any religion. The only innovation of the “Temporary Regulations” and the project of the Ministry of Public Education was that they allowed the opening of schools in which the Law of God was not taught at all.
I!
If the resolution of the Provisional Government “On Freedom of Conscience” was of a general nature, then the decisions of the Ministry of Public Education regarding the teaching of the Law of God influenced the daily lives of many people. The change in the status of this school discipline was actively discussed at congresses and meetings not only by teachers, but also by parents of students. As you know, the Law of God was not one of the subjects loved by schoolchildren. Very indicative in this regard are the results of a survey conducted in 1912 by elementary school teacher Loggin Kravchenko [7] . In his class of 30 students, 5 people loved the Law of God, 10 people loved dictations, 14 people loved Slavic reading and arithmetic, 17 people loved reading, 24 people loved geography, and the whole class loved singing and drawing. Nevertheless, both students and their parents reacted negatively to the abolition of God’s Law. The parent committees that emerged after the February Revolution unanimously came out in defense of this subject. At the All-Russian Parents' Congress (it worked in Moscow from August 7 to 10, 1917), the following resolutions were adopted:
"1. Recognizing that Christianity is the source of world culture and a great force that humanizes and ennobles man, that the entire life of our fatherland was created and established in unity with the Orthodox Church, that a non-religious life can lead to the spiritual degeneration of the younger generation, ... The All-Russian Parents' Congress believes , that the study of the Law of God, subject to a radical reform of its teaching, in a renewed democratic school should be recognized as mandatory for all students, in accordance with the religion and belief of each, and placed in the same external conditions with all the main subjects of the school course. For those students who themselves or their parents have exercised, on the basis of the law on freedom of conscience, the right to leave their previous religious state and the right to not belong to any existing religion, studying the Law of God is not necessary.
2. Recognizing the 14-year age established in the new law on freedom of conscience for the exercise of the rights to religious self-determination as completely inappropriate to the mental and physiological characteristics of adolescence, the All-Russian Parents' Congress decides to immediately appeal to the Provisional Government with an insistent request to urgently revise the mentioned law in the sense of transferring the above term for 17 years of age.
3. The section on religious and moral education and upbringing expresses the wish that lay people who are at the same level of special theological education as the former be admitted as teachers of the Law of God in secondary educational institutions on an equal basis with persons of clergy rank” [8] .
Participants in the congresses of clergy and laity held in 1917 also protested against the abolition of the Law of God. In order to imagine what happened at these congresses, here is an excerpt from the report of Bishop Pachomius (Kedrov) on the work of the Chernigov diocesan congress [9] :
“The second extraordinary diocesan congress of clergy and laity of the diocese entrusted to me, which took place from August 9 to 11 of this year, by the way, on the issue of introducing the Law of God in school, adopted the following resolution: “With a feeling of burning shame for the Russian Christian state, with severe pain for the younger generation as a stronghold of a better future for a renewed Russia, and with a living zeal for the truth of God, as the basis of prosperity, peace and happiness in human life, the congress of clergy and laity learned that the teaching of the Law of God for our children in schools of all types by the Ministry of Public Education is recognized as optional with the declaration of freedom of choice to profess one’s faith. <...>
Based on the position that religious feeling is the main property of the human soul... The Congress, with full conviction, makes the following resolutions:
1) The Law of God as an educational subject is mandatory for teaching in schools of all types.
2) The very teaching of the Law of God, programs and textbooks must be transformed on the basis of reasonable faith and living love for God...
3) The Law of God as a statement of the Lord’s truth must be alien to dryness, abstraction, lifelessness and clouding by the crafty fabrications of the human mind... <...>
6) When teaching the Law of God, one must mainly identify the positive, fundamental teaching of Christ and the Church, and not study negative teachings...<...>
10) The main task of the Law of God in its teaching is to ennoble a person through enlightening the mind with the light of Christ’s teaching, to “strengthen” the will with the power of the Holy Spirit and to purify the hearts with love for God as the Father.
11) The task of a teacher of the law is to lead his disciple to Christ, as the Samaritan woman once led her neighbors to the Messiah. <...>
14) The teacher of the law receives support from the treasury, since he serves the state, educating and raising reasonable and honest citizens.”
III
The question of teaching the Law of God worried many, and the Local Council, which began its work on August 15, 1917, could not help but respond to this problem. The Council created a special department that was supposed to consider issues related to the teaching of the Law of God. The interest of the Council members in this problem is evidenced by the fact that in terms of the number of Council members who wished to work here, the Department for Teaching the Law of God was in 6th (out of 19) place.
The Council received numerous protests against the abolition of the teaching of the Law of God (those who supported the actions of the Provisional Government addressed their letters not to the Council, but to various government agencies). After some letters were read out at the second meeting of the Department, its members had the feeling that the Council, enjoying popular support, was able to really resist the decisions of the Provisional Government. At the same meeting, questions were formulated that needed to be answered. These questions looked like this:
"1. Should the Law of God be a compulsory and main subject in public schools for Orthodox Christians under all conditions of school life throughout Russia?
2. Should a law teacher have the same rights as other public school teachers and the same content as them?
3. Should parents have the right not to teach their children the Law of God in a public school, if their individual representatives wished to do so?
4. Is it necessary to change the age for transition from one confession to another in the law on freedom of conscience from 14 to 17 years.
5. Should there be a right (according to the law on freedom of conscience) and who should have the right to open educational institutions without the Law of God (completely secular in terms of science)” [10] .
Judging by the protocols [11] , the work of the Department was not particularly clear. This was due to the fact that the situation in the country was changing so quickly that the Department did not have time to adapt to the new situation and adequately assess the changes taking place. Most members of the Department believed that the state itself was interested in preserving the Law of God in the school, since it needed moral citizens. At the meetings of the Department it was said that teaching the Law of God in no way contradicts freedom of conscience. Any educated person should know the teachings of Christ. The teacher of the law only gives information, and does not force students to accept the Orthodox faith. Other speakers, while advocating the preservation of the Law of God in secondary schools, did not consider it right to force schoolchildren to study this subject against the wishes of their parents. And so that such students do not leave school completely unfamiliar with Christian teaching, they should be taught about Christianity in connection with the history of philosophical teachings [12] . Opponents of this idea pointed out that students would not attend the optional subject.
The subject of discussion was not only the problems of the status of the Law of God in the school, but also the question of what draft document the Department should prepare. Some believed that an alternative bill should be drawn up and presented to the Provisional Government, while others pointed out that the “Temporary Regulations on the Teaching of the Law of God” are well known to society, so the Council should speak out on these particular regulations. The school planned to develop an alternative position on the Law of God later. In the end, a compromise decision was made and the Department began to prepare a protest against the “Temporary Regulations”, but not in the form of a declaration, but with detailed motivation, which made it possible to use these materials in the future when preparing an alternative bill.
Among the reasons why the teaching of the Law of God should not be abolished were the following: “1) Christianity is the basis of world culture, determining the moral, aesthetic and scientific development of mankind, therefore, familiarity with the Christian faith is necessary for any educated person; 2) irreligious education leads society to spiritual decay; 3) Christianity has enormous national and historical significance for the Russian people; 4) school education should be comprehensive and harmonious, and it should not be limited only to rational ways of understanding the world; 5) religious education meets the natural needs of a child’s soul, and depriving a child of religious disciplines would be violence against his spiritual nature; 6) school age is most convenient for religious education and upbringing; 7) at the age of 14, a child cannot decide the issue of his religious affiliation, since adolescence is not the most appropriate time for such a decision; 8) many problems can but decide by changing the position of the teacher of law in the school; 9) the abolition of teaching the Law of God before the convening of the Constituent Assembly is legally illegal; 10) this measure is anti-democratic, since it does not take into account the opinion of the Orthodox population, which speaks out for the preservation of this discipline" [13] .
It must be said that to many members of the Department these arguments did not seem particularly convincing: “All the arguments and reasoning of the department,” said Rev. A.P. Masalsky, - do not make an impression, while the bright speech of the opponent of the Law of God at one teachers' congress captivated all the participants of the congress, despite all the speeches of the defenders. Opponents of the Law of God very much put forward the idea that compulsory teaching of it violates freedom of conscience: we say little about this” [14] .
Much controversy has arisen over the issue of whether children whose parents have declared that they are no longer Orthodox should attend Divine Law lessons. According to some members of the Department, in matters of faith, the school should not come into conflict with the will of the parents: “The school cannot provide guardianship over parents,” said A.F. Gorain. — The Law of God is not only a subject of teaching, but also of education; the student absorbs religious concepts with him, therefore parents have the right not to teach the child the Law of God if they leave the Orthodox Church" [15] . Other members of the Department insisted that the Law of God should remain a compulsory subject. So, according to N.I. Troitsky, this subject should be taught by Jews, and Muslims, and Orthodox, and Catholics, and Protestants, and Old Believers, and sectarians, and persons of non-denominational status: “Jew or Christian, Orthodox, Catholic or Lutheran , schismatic or sectarian, or even “apart from religion,” if they are citizens of Russia, then they are thereby obliged to know its “confession” - religious faith and moral and state legislation based on it, and at the same time its historical life, which is based on This legislation has always been Christian, and in the life and education of the Russian people themselves, the founder of their statehood, there was an Orthodox-church origin. Such knowledge is essential for mutual understanding of all Russian citizens; and this is just as necessary for mutual good relations with constant communication, with inevitable cohabitation, so that it is... alien to all hatred and imbued with mutual trust. After all, we do not want and do not strive to impose our confession on anyone for his personal life, but we demand knowledge of it for complete education and peaceful coexistence in the state.” [16] .
In order to ensure that the teaching of Christian doctrine does not contradict freedom of conscience, I. F. Iordansky proposed giving the Law of God the status of a humanitarian discipline. This meant that teaching this subject did not oblige students to take part in worship [17] . However, this proposal caused a protest from Archbishop Kirill (Smirnov), who believed that such non-church teaching of the Law of God would create temptation [18] .
Of the two draft definitions (one of them was compiled by Archpriest E. Z. Kapralov, and the other by Archpriest N.M. Bogolyubov), the Department settled on the draft of E. Z. Kapralov as more objective and less polemical.
This project demanded that in all educational institutions where children of Orthodox parents study, the teaching of the Law of God should be placed in the same conditions as all other school subjects. The project provided for the abolition of the legal norm allowing at the age of 14 to change religion or declare oneself non-religious. Students could stop studying the Law of God only if they left Orthodoxy in connection with their parents leaving Orthodoxy [19] .
The project of N. M. Bogolyubov [20] , rejected by the Department , was based on the fact that the decisions of the Provisional Government do not imply a ban on teaching the Law of God, but its transformation into an optional subject. Most members of the Council considered this idea to be erroneous, since state policy was aimed precisely at the gradual displacement of religious disciplines from the secondary school: “The department had in mind,” said the archbishop. Kirill (Smirnov), - not only the law of July 14, but the entire totality of modern conditions, the wind that is now beginning to blow. Both the State Committee, the socialist press, and individual representatives of pedagogical organizations are in a hurry to use this law in the sense of creating a situation that reduces the Law of God to the level of an optional subject. But those who taught the Law of God or who themselves had children know what the optional teaching of the Law of God means. This is a hidden device aimed at completely eliminating him from school, and it has been suggested that he should be expelled directly from school." [21] . These words were spoken on September 23 (October 6), 1917, when just over a month remained before the Bolshevik revolution. So Archbishop Kirill quite accurately felt “the wind that is now beginning to blow.”
The draft conciliar resolutions prepared by the Departments were submitted for discussion at the plenary sessions of the Council.
IV
When discussing the definition “On the teaching of the Law of God,” the members of the Council proceeded from the fact that the Council speaks on behalf of “115 million Orthodox Russian people” [22] , therefore the state must take its voice into account. In the report read out by Archpriest E. Z. Kapralov (as projects prepared by departments were called in the cathedral office work) of the Department on teaching the Law of God, it was clearly formulated that the interests of the state and the interests of the Church may not coincide, but the Church must not only protect the interests of believers, but also demand that the state take them into account: “The Russian Orthodox Church can understand the law on freedom of conscience... only as an act by which the state wishes to express its deep respect for the inalienable right of each of its members to religious self-determination. At the same time, the Church, observing the eternal interests of her faithful children, maintains the conviction that this law in its practical implementation must be comprehensively fair, not only fair in relation to persons who have lost their religious faith, but also to persons of faith.” [23] .
When discussing the issue of the age at which a young person can change his religion, A.F. Odarchenko pointed out that the age of 14 contradicts not only church but also civil laws: “The law on freedom of conscience in the issue of age is fundamentally contradictions with both civil and criminal law. The 14-year-old age in civil law does not have a serious meaning, but there is a 17-year-old age when guardianship ends. But even 17 years of age according to civil law does not give full legal capacity” [24] .
It must be said that the project proposed by the Department was criticized both on the left and on the right. Some members of the Council believed that the bill of the State Committee was interpreted by the Council arbitrarily and that the council's definition would only compromise the Council in the eyes of society. This opinion was expressed most sharply by D. A. Olsufiev, who considered the position of the authors of the draft conciliar definition to be vulnerable and poorly reasoned: “If we say that compulsory teaching of the Law of God in school is necessary, since it constitutes an essential element of religious education and has high cultural significance, then worship has an even higher educational value. But compulsory attendance at worship... is a controversial issue. We know what compulsory attendance at worship entails and what results it brings” [25] . Critics on the right blamed the Council for its indecisiveness and unwillingness to confront the government's anti-church actions [26] .
S. A. Kotlyarevsky, who was both a member of the Council and a member of the Provisional Government, also took part in the discussion of this law. According to him, the idea that the Law of God would not be taught in schools arose in the State Committee for Public Education even before the Law on Freedom of Conscience was published. According to the Committee, the Law of God could be taught in schools only at the special request of parents. S. A. Kotlyarevsky himself believed that this issue lay outside the competence of the Provisional Government and should be postponed until the convening of the Constituent Assembly: “Any radical solution to the issue of teaching the Law of God would be a anticipation of the rights of the Constituent Assembly. If the general question of the separation of Church and state does not have the right to be resolved by the state authorities before the Constituent Assembly, then the secularization of the school would also be an anticipation of the rights of the Constituent Assembly” [27] .
In the end, the Department’s draft was approved without significant changes: “1) In all secular, both state and private schools - lower, middle and higher, where there are students of the Orthodox confession, the teaching of the Law of God as a compulsory subject should be placed in the same conditions with all the main subjects of the curriculum.
2) The age of fourteen established in the law of July 14, 1917 on freedom of conscience for changing one’s religion or recognizing oneself as not belonging to any faith, and therefore for stopping the study of the Law of God in school, seems too young, since it does not provide the proper maturity of judgment in view of mental and physical characteristics of adolescence, and therefore the above-mentioned ruling on age is subject to immediate repeal by law.
3) The transition from one confession to another, as well as recognition of oneself as not belonging to any faith, cannot be carried out by students during their stay in lower and secondary schools.
4) Students of secondary and lower schools can stop studying the Law of God only if they leave Orthodoxy in connection with their parents leaving Orthodoxy.
5) An Orthodox teacher of the law serves the cause of education and upbringing to the same and even greater extent than other teachers of other compulsory subjects, and therefore enjoys all the rights of public service" [28] .
It must be said that in relation to the teaching of the Law of God, the Provisional Government did not insist on its position. A.F. Kerensky at a meeting with members of the Council said that the government was ready to find a compromise (on the issue of transferring all church schools to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education, Kerensky did not make concessions). However, this conversation took place on October 11, 1917, i.e. two weeks before the Bolshevik revolution, and therefore had no consequences.
Apparently, the members of the Council did not realize that the Law of God could actually be expelled from the school. The current political events seemed like a misunderstanding that would soon be resolved one way or another. Having stopped discussing issues of teaching the Law of God, the Department opened a teaching office in the building of the Moscow Theological Seminary, in which everyone could familiarize themselves with modern manuals on this subject. Judging by the diary entry of one of the members of the Council, the materials presented here aroused great interest: “When I entered the office, there were several clergy and secular persons there; some sat at tables and read, others moved from one book to another; Some note interesting books in a notebook, others look at paintings, albums, student works. If God helps us return to Sukhum, then it will certainly be necessary to set up a law teaching office” [29] .
This diary entry was made on February 12 (25), 1918, i.e., after the Decree on the separation of Church and State prohibited the teaching of any religious disciplines in general educational institutions. And yet, the author of the diary indulges in thoughts that a similar office should be organized in his native diocese. It was impossible to believe that the Law of God would not be taught for several decades.
V
With the Bolsheviks coming to power, the position of the church worsened. Already on December 11, 1917, the Commissariat of Public Education issued a resolution in which it confirmed all acts of the Provisional Government regarding the transfer of church schools to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education [30] . The Bolshevik document demanded the immediate transfer to the Ministry of all school property, funds, etc. Soon [31] an order appeared from the Commissariat of State Contempt, according to which, from March 1, 1918, the payment of salaries to law teachers would cease [32] . The draft Decree on the separation of Church and State [33] that appeared in the press also did not inspire much optimism. The projects stated that “...teaching the Law of God in higher, middle and lower schools is recognized as optional” [34] . In the final version of the Decree (signed on January 20 (February 2), 1918), the attitude towards the church school was formulated as follows: “The school is separated from the church. Teaching religious doctrines in all state and public, as well as private educational institutions where general education subjects are taught, is not permitted. Citizens can teach and study religion privately." [35] . Since the Church had already been deprived of all school buildings, teaching aids and funds with which educational programs could be implemented, the Decree actually destroyed the church school, not only the primary one, but also the vocational one. The Orthodox school had to be created anew, practically from scratch - without money, without premises and without textbooks. At the same time, legislative acts preventing the re-establishment of the theological school poured out as if from a cornucopia. So on January 17 (February 4), 1918, a decree of the People's Commissariat of Education appeared, according to which from January 1, 1918, that is, retroactively, the positions of teachers of the law were abolished [36] . Finally, on August 24, 1918, the “Instruction on the implementation of the Decree on the separation of church and state” appeared, which confirmed both the ban on teaching religious disciplines in all educational institutions, with the exception of special theological ones, and finally deprived the denominational school of material resources:
"33. Due to the separation of the school from the church, the teaching of any religious doctrines can under no circumstances be allowed in state, public and private educational institutions, with the exception of special theological ones.
34. All loans for the teaching of religion in schools should be immediately closed and teachers of religious doctrines deprived of any kind of allowance. Not a single state or other public law public institution has the right to issue any amounts of money to teachers of religion, both for the present and for the period that has elapsed since January 1918.
35. The buildings of religious educational institutions of all faiths, as well as parochial schools, as national property, are transferred to the disposal of local Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies or the People's Commissariat of Education" [37] .
Despite the fact that the Law of God was not one of the favorite school subjects, its abolition caused protest among both schoolchildren and their parents. According to the results of a survey conducted in the fall of 1918 in Orel (500 middle and high school students were surveyed), approximately a quarter of those surveyed supported the abolition of the Law of God, 12% showed indifference, and 62.5% spoke out against this abolition [38] . The fact that the cessation of teaching the Law of God caused dissatisfaction is also evidenced by appeals and petitions addressed to the Council, which came from different parts of the country. Here are excerpts from several documents of this kind:
Resolution of the All-Russian Parents' Union (January 23, 1918)
“The Council and the Central Executive Committee, uniting parent organizations throughout Russia, having discussed together with the board of the Moscow Parents Union the decree of the People's Commissars on the prohibition of teaching religion in educational institutions, recognize, based on the opinion clearly expressed in the resolution on this issue of the All-Russian Parents' Congress, that the said The decree is a clear violation of the basic principle of the autonomy of the free Russian school, which at its discretion determines the range of subjects taught in it and a denial of true freedom of conscience, which gives both the moral and legal right to parents to decide the issue of the religious education of their children, especially in private educational institutions existing on funds from the parents themselves without any support from the state” [39] .
From the minutes of the meeting of parishioners of the Sergius Church (Vladimir, February 18, 1918)
“We, the undersigned parishioners of the Sergius Church of the provincial city of Vladimir, in a general meeting on February 18, 1918, having heard the decree prohibiting the teaching of the Law of God in schools, even in private ones, decided: to categorically demand the abolition of such a decree and demand that the teaching of the Law of God be compulsory in schools , because only by studying the Law of God can our children be useful members of the Orthodox Church and our torn Motherland” [40] .
From the minutes of the meeting of parents of students of the Pavlovsk two-year girls' school (Nizhny Novgorod province)
“On February 11-4, 1918, the parents of 89 students at a meeting discussed the decree on the abolition of the teaching of the Law of God in school and came to the conclusion that the teaching of the Law of God is necessary in schools as a subject that sets out highly moral truths and prepares children to understand the divine service Orthodox Church. The Law of God should be taught in school, and not at home, because parents, partly due to lack of time, and partly due to lack of preparation to interpret the truths of the faith, cannot be leaders of their children in the understanding of the Orthodox faith. Taking into account all of the above, parents petition the Commissioner of Public Education to stop teaching the Law of God in schools. They also ask the All-Russian Church Council, for its part, to petition the Commissioner for Public Education to abandon the teaching of the Law of God in school” [41] .
The new situation was radically different from the pre-revolutionary one, therefore almost all materials prepared by the Council concerning the problems of religious education turned out to be outdated. There was a need to develop a new concept of religious education. And it is not surprising that after the meeting on November 30, 1917, the Department on Teaching the Law of God did not meet until April 1918. The Department did not work for almost the entire second session: external circumstances were too unclear. It took time to realize that the Orthodox Church had not only ceased to be the state church, but had entered an era of persecution. And this meant that religious education would now be carried out not with the support of the state, but against its will. Now the members of the Department were no longer talking about how to force the state to change policy, but about how to continue teaching activities, despite direct opposition from the state. And the state surprisingly quickly began to develop and implement methods of anti-religious propaganda.
VI
The party program adopted by the VIII Congress of the RCP (March 1919) stated that the school should be transformed “from an instrument of class rule of the bourgeoisie into an instrument ... of the communist degeneration of society” [42] . It must be said that the idea of the ideological component of school affairs sounded very harshly in the party program: “During the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, during the period of preparing conditions that make the full implementation of communism possible, the school should not only be a conductor of the principles of communism in general, but also a conductor of the ideological, organizational, educational influence of the proletariat on the semi-proletarian and non-proletarian layers of the working masses, in order to educate a generation capable of finally establishing communism" [43] . Teachers were prepared to put these principles into practice both through the publication of various teaching materials and by organizing teacher congresses and rallies. For example, in the report of M. N. Pokrovsky “Marxism in school programs of the first and second stages,” read at one of these congresses in May 1924, it was said that all topics discussed during school classes should be discussed with Marxist positions. And specific material is only an illustration confirming the truth of the general scheme. “The conclusion of everything,” argued M. N. Pokrovsky, “not as a separate final chapter, of course, should be two main thoughts that, in the form of a “chorus,” can accompany many of the previous explanations: first, that the materialistic and dialectical explanation of the world its simplest and most convenient explanation, the most practical... second, that this is precisely why the victory of the materialist worldview is disadvantageous to the exploiting classes. <...> This will connect the entire scheme with the proletarian revolution, which should be the center of the entire social science part of the program" [44] . At the same time, M.N. Pokrovsky was well aware that when studying political literacy, one could use the methods that were previously used by teachers of the Law of God, since “Marxism is the religion of a free person” [45] . Due to the fact that for the majority of Russian residents the church calendar largely determined everyday life, teachers were given the task of teaching people to live according to the new, Soviet calendar: “The worst thing will happen if political literacy is studied from books, and here children’s holidays play a very important role. <...> Was religion perceived only through dry catechism? If it were limited to the catechism alone, then we would leave school with enormous disgust for religion, and then anti-religious propaganda would not be difficult. But it was the holidays that left an indelible impression on the child’s soul. It was Easter, fasting, Christmas Eve, Trinity Day - this is what helped to perceive the religious worldview, what really strengthened religion and, to put it in old words, sank into the soul of the child. Therefore, we must now use our revolutionary celebrations, our proletarian holidays in exactly the same sense. <...> We must force the masses of children to live a social life.” [46] .
The Soviet school performed educational (in the situation of the 20s, rather “re-educational”) functions much more consistently than the pre-revolutionary school. Answering questions from teachers who considered it unacceptable to offend the feelings of believers, Pokrovsky urged not to stand on ceremony with religion. Let us cite just one of his answers: “I must answer the comrade who wrote: “How do you feel about the fact that during Easter matins the Internationale orchestra began playing and covered all the splendid chants, playing in a school where the windows were open?” I will answer this: how do you feel about the fact that Christian missionaries, who carried out Christianity among the pagans, took an ax and chopped down idols in front of the pagans? Was it polite, gentle? Meanwhile, they implanted Christianity. After all, we still, even now, count the years from the Nativity of Christ, celebrate Sundays, and yet we know that Christ did not exist, which means there was no Christmas. One should not be gentle with such a beast as religion, and here there must be the only check, the political check that I spoke about. You should not cause unnecessary excesses, you should not do things that could force you to resort to firearms. It's true. But to spare religious feeling as such, forgive me.” [47] .
Thus, the school teacher became the main character in the matter of nationwide re-education. This was directly declared in N. I. Bukharin’s programmatic article, which opened the magazine “People’s Teacher” that appeared in 1924: “Our people’s teacher... must be an agent of a new world among the sea of peasants, he must destroy peasant ignorance, he must kill illiteracy, it must connect the city with the countryside. In short, he must become one of the greatest builders of socialism" [48] .
The Soviet school completely consciously opposed family education. The ABC of Communism, prepared by N.I. Bukharin and E.A. Preobrazhensky, directly set the task of freeing children from the reactionary influence of their parents. The school was required to “go on the offensive against religious propaganda in the family” [49] . The child who went against the will of his parents was glorified in literature. The most talented of texts of this kind is the famous poem by Eduard Bagritsky “The Death of a Pioneer” (1932), dedicated to a girl dying of scarlet fever who refused to wear a cross [50] .
In the first post-revolutionary years, school teachers trying to educate the “new man” often had to deal with children who had already received minimal religious education. Working with such children was recognized as a special pedagogical problem. Of course, there were purely repressive methods: direct bans on going to church, confiscation of crosses [51] , etc. Teachers in every possible way provoked children to ridicule their believing peers and argue with them. As a result, already in the 20s, young people begin to feel embarrassed about going to church. Children of church elders and ordinary church people had to endure ridicule from their peers [52] .
There were special teaching aids dedicated to the education of conscious atheists. The magazine “On the Way to a New School” published on its pages a story about anti-religious conversations conducted in one of the orphanages by a twenty-year-old teacher P. M. Alampiev. The conversations were structured according to the scheme of Platonic dialogues, i.e. the teacher asked the children leading questions (“What is religion?”, “What is God?”, “Is religion possible if there is no language?”, “Did ancient people have priests? ") and, analyzing their answers, gradually led them to the necessary conclusions. In this school, the disciplines of the natural science cycle were also subordinated to the tasks of forming an atheistic worldview. The children were told about the inconsistency of religious ideas in connection with questions about the origin of life and man, about the structure of the universe, etc. And only after the children had accepted the schemes proposed by the atheistic worldview as the ultimate truth, the teachers began to read the Holy Scriptures with them : “From the Old Testament Bible, in my opinion, only two books can be chosen for work of this kind: Genesis and Deuteronomy. The first is convenient as a summary of the views of cosmological, geological, biological, historical, etc. <...> Our circle acted in contact with natural history, and there before that the guys got acquainted with modern scientific views on the origin of the earth and the evolution of life on earth.” [53] . “We come to the words: “let there be light.” This made the guys laugh: the issue was resolved so simply and categorically. They exchange comments. Manya states:
“But when I used to study the Old Testament at school, they didn’t laugh so much, but now it seems so funny...
During classes, the children discussed in detail the question of where the light came from, when the sun had not yet been created, about the firmament, etc. And in connection with the Fall, a dispute arose among the children about whether Eve was right in obeying the serpent or not . At the same time, some of the children argued that Eve showed independence, while others believed that she came under bad influence. After this reading of the Holy Scriptures, a tour of the temples was made. <...>
“I was in some difficulty,” admitted the organizer of these classes, “I was confused by this thought: should the children be taken to church and given the opportunity for the religious atmosphere to affect them?” It’s no secret that the effect of the church setting is stunning, lifting you off the ground, the effect of a purely decorative side, which can make quite a strong impression even on an adult, especially on children. I was afraid of the feeling of reverence that might arise in them and influence their critical attitude towards any religion.
Then I decided that these were exaggerated fears, that it was necessary to test the work experimentally, that it was worth bringing children close to religion, not only in theory, but also in practice. In addition, the following thought clearly loomed before me: after all, we are preparing children for life. Why not introduce them into life, why not acquaint them with the present religion in practice now, when they can encounter a religious situation under my leadership? <...>
To feel completely calm, I compiled the following route: first to the Orthodox cathedral, then to the church, to the church. This was done in such a way that the last impression would be the most pallid. The guys, returning home from the church with a poor and uncomfortable atmosphere, where some pastor mutters something incomprehensibly, waving his arms, will, of course, be in the most cheerful mood and far from any religiosity. <...>
We set ourselves the following goals: to examine the furnishings of churches, to find out what and how is happening there, to observe the effect of the religious environment on those praying and on ourselves. In particular, pay attention to the trade in candles, prosphora, commemoration of the dead, to the difference between a church and an ordinary house: walls, windows, height; icons, frames on icons, candles and lamps, incense, altar and iconostasis, clothing of priests and in general their difference from non-spiritual ones, their pronunciation, church singing, its difference from street singing. <...>
Approaching the cathedral, we examined it from the outside and talked a little about its height, cost, etc. We looked at those entering the church and made guesses about their social status. <...> Just before entering, I give the children a task: to look around the church and figure out what more useful purpose the temple could be used for. <...>
In the evening of the same day, we gathered for an organized exchange of impressions and clarification of questions and confusion that arose during the excursion. <...> The children were amazed by the riches with which the church was decorated; they regretted that they did not serve another, more useful purpose. I had to say something about decorating churches as one of the ways to accumulate and consolidate church capital, by the way recalling the question we discussed earlier about the role of the church as a banker, merchant and landowner. They also remembered the confiscation of church valuables to save the Volga region and the attitude of Tikhon and other church tycoons to this. <...> We talk a lot about the hair of priests, about their vestments, about the role of vestments that make believers see something like cherubs and seraphim instead of fat-bellied philistine priests. We compare the brilliant suit of the general and the priest’s chasuble as aimed at increasing the feeling of fear and humility among the “flock.”
Children who noticed how a cup was placed on someone's head in church asked the question: why is this being done? I spoke about the belief in “God's power”, which is placed in the bowl and then transferred to the heads. The guys, laughing, compared the cup with a Leyden jar" [54] .
It goes without saying that the pupils of the orphanage who participated in the work of this circle had practically no chance to resist the teacher. The past experience gained from the Divine Law classes that some of the disciples had taken could hardly help here. And pre-revolutionary teachers of the law should not be blamed for this, since teaching religious disciplines to children was not designed for polemics with atheists. Separated from his family and placed in a school where all teaching is aimed at developing an atheistic worldview, the child was unable to find arguments to defend his faith without outside help. The students of such circles grew up to be the most convinced atheists, to whom it seemed that they had come to this worldview on their own, as a result of analyzing the texts of the Holy Scriptures and observing modern church life.
The next generation - the children of the members of this circle - was brought up completely differently. For them, atheism was a given, which was accepted without doubt. They no longer read the Bible, even for atheistic purposes. They knew practically nothing about church life, so information about it began to arouse interest, and not rejection, as was the case with children who received a Soviet education in the 20s.
It must be said that anti-religious propaganda could only be so effective in orphanages. In the villages, public opinion was not on the side of the communist agitators. In the same 1924, a study of village life noted that despite the sharp decrease in the number of people visiting churches, there are almost no convinced atheists in the villages, and the peasants know them all and perceive them as some kind of exotic. The author of this study noted that young people returning from the army at first say that there is no God, but soon they get married (and without a wedding there are almost no marriages), and their militant atheism gradually disappears, and it is replaced by “lukewarm” but Orthodoxy [55] . A. M. Bolshakov [56] , who observed the life of the Goritsky volost of the Kimry district in the 20s, wrote with surprise that the number of people attending divine services has sharply decreased, but not a single church in the volost is closed and the peasants regularly pay for the maintenance of the clergy . A. M. Bolshakov asked the peasants why they pay the priest, although they themselves do not go to church. The peasants answered this question in different ways. Some said about religion in the village: “it wasn’t us who started it, so how can we abandon it?” [57] , while others feared that the closed temple would be immediately dismantled, and the bricks might go to residents of another volost [58] . Be that as it may, in the mid-20s the bulk of the peasants opposed the closure of churches. In the volost, in which there were several communists, there was not a single house whose inhabitants would not receive a priest on holidays [59] . Almost all newborns were baptized, and the dead were buried. Only a small number of young couples were limited to civil registration [60] . And after the baby died in 1924, who was subjected to the Soviet October rite instead of baptism, there were no more people willing to accept the new rites [61] .
One of the directions for creating non-church rituals was the restoration of pre-Christian celebrations and rituals. Atheists of the 20s considered it possible to use pre-Christian customs and rituals in the fight against the Orthodox Church. Proposals were made to revive the celebration of Ivan Kupala Day. The pagan component was also noticeably manifested during the celebration of Harvest Day [62] . However, the communist authorities failed to create a functioning system of Soviet pagan rituals.
*The article is an excerpt from the forthcoming book “Between Preaching and Dialogue: Church Mission in an Age of Change.” The work was carried out with the support of the Russia Cristiana Foundation.
[1] Handbook on public education / Comp. G. Falbork and V. Chernolussky. T. III. St. Petersburg, 1904. S. 1658, 1679, 1689.
[2] Ibid. S. 1744-1745.
[3] Collection of laws and government orders issued under the government Senate. Fri., 1917. No. 1099. P. 1950.
[4] Ibid. S. 1951.
[5] Religion at school // Bulletin of the Provisional Government. No. 160 (206). September 23/October 6, 1917 P. 3.
[6] Religion at school // Bulletin of the Provisional Government. No. 160 (206). September 23/October 6, 1917 P. 3.
[7] Kravchenko JI. The spiritual world and thoughts of students II Russian School. 1912. No. 3. P. 42-53.
[8] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Letters from teachers of the Law of God, reports of the Department, certificates, draft regulations and other materials on the development of a new regulation on the teaching of the Law of God (GARF. F. 3431. Op. I. D. 397. JI. 4).
[9] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Letters... L. 56-59.
[10] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Minutes of the meetings of the department on the teaching of the Law of God (GARF. F. 3431. Op. I. D. 396. L. 2-2 vol. - Next: Protocols).
[11] A statement of the progress of the Department’s work is given according to the protocol (Protocols... JI. 2-4), which does not indicate which member of the department expressed and defended this or that point of view.
[12] In post-Soviet times, this idea was partly implemented in religious studies courses.
[13] Protocols... L. 12-13.
[14] Ibid. L. 21.
[15] Ibid. L. 21-21 ob.
[16] Ibid. L. 25-26
[17] Ibid. L. 21 Vol.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918. T. 2. Pg., 1918 [Reprint. M., 1994]. P. 61.
[20] Ibid. pp. 61-62.
[21] Ibid. P. 56.
[22] Ibid. P. 55.
[23] Ibid. P. 57.
[24] Acts of the Holy Council... P. 95.
[25] Ibid. pp. 68-69.
[26] Ibid. pp. 89-90.
[27] Ibid. P. 66.
[28] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Collection of definitions and regulations. Vol. 2. Pg., 1918 [Reprint: M., 1994]. P. 13.
[29] Prot. Georgy Golubtsov. Trip to the All-Russian Church Council: Diary (January 29 - April 18, 1918) // Russian Church during the Revolution (1917-1918): Collection / Preparation of text and publication by M. I. Odintsov (Materials on the history of the Church, book 8 ). M., 1995. P. 186.
[30] <M. M. Persits>. On the history of the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church in the USSR: Documents and materials // Questions of the history of religion and atheism. Collection of articles V. M., 1958. P. 3-4.
[31] January 20, 1918.
[32] <Persits M.M.> To history... P. 6.
[33] On the legislative acts preceding this decree, see: Kravetsky A.G. On the history of the appearance of the “Decree on the separation of the Church from the state” // Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Review of actions. First session / Comp. A. G. Kravetsky, A. A. Pletneva, G. Schroeder, G. Schultz. M., 2002. S. 424-435.
[34] Kravetsky A. G. On history... P. 430, cf. With. 427.
[35] <Persits M.M.> To history... P. 8.
[36] Ibid. P. 10.
[37] <Persits M. M. History... P. 17.
[38] Azbukin D. Psychology of schoolchildren at the beginning of the October Revolution (Essay based on a questionnaire of 1918) // Pedological Journal (Eagle). 1923. No. 3. P. 71. The author of this article believed that children’s disagreement with the abolition of teaching the Law of God is not due to their high religiosity, but to the fact that schoolchildren see the abolition of this subject as an act of violence.
[39] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Letters from teachers of the Law of God... L. 66.
[40] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Letters from various persons and resolutions of parent councils, gymnasiums and other educational institutions on issues related to the teaching of the Law of God (GARF. F. 3431. Op. I. D. 399. L. 234).
[41] Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Letters from various persons and resolutions... L. 227-227 vol.
[42] The Communist Party of the Soviet Union in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. Ed. 7. Part I. 1898-1924. M., 1954. P. 419.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Report by M. N. Pokrovsky at the congress of central and local educational organizations and representatives of methodological bureaus of GUBONO on May 28, 1924 “Marxism in school programs of the 1st and 2nd stages” // On the path to a new school. 1924. No. 4-5. P. 162.
[45] Ibid. P. 165.
[46] Ibid. P. 177. On Soviet holidays, see: Malte Rolf. Soviet mass holiday in Voronezh and the Central Black Earth region of Russia 1927-1932. Voronezh, 2000; Tsekhnovitser O.V. Celebrations of the Revolution. JI., 1931.
[47] Report of M. N. Pokrovsky at the congress... P. 179.
[48] Bukharin N. People's teacher // People's teacher (Monthly magazine). 1924. No. I. P. 6.
[49] Quote. by: Balashov E. M. School in Russian society 1917-1927. The formation of a “new man”. St. Petersburg, 2003.
[50] Later, children's literature stopped pitting children against their parents, and obedience to elders again became one of the children's virtues. New generations of children, reading Bagritsky’s poem included in the school curriculum, were sincerely perplexed why the girl did not want to meet her mother halfway and why such a trifle as refusing to wear a cross was heroic.
[51] Alampiev P. Experience of anti-religious propaganda among children // On the way to a new school. 1924. No. I. P. 66.
[52] Essays on the life of village youth. M., 1924. P. 16.
[53] Apampiev P. Decree. op. No. 4-5. pp. 138-139.
[54] Alampiev P. Decree. op. pp. 146-149.
[55] Yakovlev Ya. Our village. New in old and old in new. M., 1924. P. 131.
[56] A. M. Bolshakov is anti-church, so he cannot be suspected of idealization.
[57] Bolshakov A. M. Village: 1817-1927. (C preface to M. I. Kalinina and Acad. S. F. Oldenburg). M., 1927. S. 408.
[58] Ibid. pp. 408-409.
[59] Ibid. P. 410.
[60] Ibid. P. 411.
[61] Ibid. P. 412.
[62] Malte Rolf. Decree. op. P. 26.
Russian student at a European university (Luxembourg - Moscow) Ready for the sermon