Have the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church privatized God?

For the article “Karelia is tired of priests,” a criminal case was opened against Mikhail Efimov for humiliation on religious grounds, he was put on the federal wanted list, Estonia granted him political asylum.

The growth of anti-church protests in recent times has given rise to the opinion of Orthodox hierarchs and part of Russian society about some kind of planned hostile campaign to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church. It speaks of an impending threat to the moral foundations of Russia. In defending itself, the church appeals to the state and finds complete mutual understanding in its leaders.

Meanwhile, in such a position there is a lot of slyness, to say the least - sheer slyness.

But first I will allow a short excursion into history. We had a unique past. The Age of Enlightenment passed by Holy Rus' with its Voltairean: “Crush the reptile!” This slogan of the bourgeois revolutions of Europe, which called for a fight against church domination, did not affect Russia, with the exception of isolated episodes. Thus, Radishchev called the church a “hundred-headed hydra” with jaws full of poison and a flattering smile on his lips. Pushkin translated Meslier’s saying:

We will amuse good citizens

And at the pillar of shame

Guts of the last priest

We will strangle the last king.

Herzen addressed his compatriots with pain: “Oh, toiler and sufferer of the Russian land!.. If my voice had reached you, how I would have taught you to despise your spiritual shepherds, placed over you by the St. Petersburg Synod and the German Tsar.” Leo Tolstoy wrote: “In Christianity, the entire deception is built on the fantastic concept of the church, which is not based on anything and has been striking since the beginning of the study of Christianity with its unexpected and useless nonsense. Of all the godless concepts and words, there is no concept and word more godless than the concept of the church. No There is no concept that has given rise to more evil, and there is no concept more hostile to the teachings of Christ than the concept of the church.”

Is it really possible to burn the works of Pushkin, Herzen, and Tolstoy at the stake now? Absurd. But the persecution of Efimov is a phenomenon of the same order as him.

It is unthinkable that Alexander Sergeevich or Lev Nikolaevich would speak out against the spiritual foundation of the people, against mercy, humility, and other norms of religious ethics. So what's the matter? Of course, they opposed the church as the most important component in the system of oppression of people by an autocratic state. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the civilized world went through a difficult path of secularization of human consciousness. In Russia, by the will of fate, this process did not work out. The faith of the tsarist era, wonderfully characterized by Saltykov-Shchedrin with the phrase of the maid Annushka in “Poshekhonskaya Antiquity”: “Thank God, the heavenly king did not leave me with his mercy! I was born a slave, lived my life as a slave to the masters, and now, if the Almighty father deigns to die, forever and ever I will remain... God's servant! Now, a significant part of the die-hard flock of the Russian Orthodox Church consists of those who just yesterday held a portrait of Lenin in the red corner.

However, in our time the number of religious people in society is still not very large. According to sociologists, only 6% of Russians (of those living in areas classified as Orthodox) can be considered such. So why on earth is the Russian Orthodox Church and its followers, whose menacing roar against a different worldview sounds louder and more aggressive, assigned the role of guardian of moral principles more than atheists, agnostics or deists? After all, the external attributes of religiosity do not have a direct impact on morality, otherwise the leaders of organized crime groups, still bowed under the weight of golden pectoral crosses, should be considered the conscience of the nation.

With respect for believers who retain their reason, I want to emphasize that opponents of the church do not demand that anyone renounce their beliefs. On the contrary, they insist on the implementation of the constitutional norm of freedom of conscience - the right of every person to believe in any gods or not to believe in them, to visit any temple or pass by. Accordingly, they demand the abolition of preferences for any religion by the state. But the priority given by the state to the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be noticed only by those who “do not see the beam in their own eye.” Quite a long time ago, 10 famous Russian scientists, including Nobel laureates V. Ginzburg and Zh. Alferov, addressed the president with a protest against the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is increasing its influence and penetrating into all spheres of public life, thereby hindering the development of science: “We We do not set ourselves the goal of fighting religion, but we cannot remain indifferent when attempts are made to question scientific knowledge or replace it with faith." Their words were turned a deaf ear, which, in general, is not surprising. There is nothing new under the sun. When the physiologist Sechenov’s book “Reflexes of the Brain” was published in the 19th century, the St. Petersburg Metropolitan demanded from the government that “Mr. Professor Sechenov be exiled for humility and correction” to the Solovetsky Monastery for “insolent, soul-destructive and harmful teaching.”

What then can we say about spheres of spiritual life that are much more mundane than science? In questions of how to think, act, and whom to vote for, the church feels like a fish in water. It censors works of contemporary art and demands that the government close exhibitions, withdraw films, and ban concerts. And no one sounds the alarm that these attempts to impose the rules of an alien worldview on free citizens also cause them mental pain. What is in this also the overthrow of certain sacred things - the rights of personal freedom, dignity, creativity...

The emergence of a triad: state bureaucracy plus oligarchic capital plus the top of the Russian Orthodox Church - by no means a disinterested union - is what completely outrages the Russian public. After the shameful verdict on the members of the now world-famous domestic group, it is unnecessary to mention the link between the church and the state. The connection between the Russian Orthodox Church and capital is illustrated, for example, by the website of billionaire Deripaska, which reports that from 2003 to 2011 he donated more than 6.8 billion rubles to charity and social projects - for 170 churches, shelters, and Orthodox gymnasiums. While in Diveevo and admiring the reconstruction of a cultural monument, I noticed both the plaques in honor of the benefactor and the shabby two-story boarding school sticking out among the grandeur of this monastery, which was unlucky enough to be Orthodox, and the monastery was waiting for its departure to another building. Children deprived of parents turned out to be of no use to the state, oligarchs, or churches.

It is obvious that in this union the key task of the church is to justify the existing economic system and political regime. Simply put, the patriarch and his staff must convince the Russian population that God himself is with Putin and the oligarchs, and there is no point in rocking the boat. This is how the privatization of God must be accomplished.

Of course, this is done for certain dividends - decisions on restitution have been made, religious processions are held with budget money, etc. The wealth of the highest hierarchs can be judged by observing Patriarch Kirill in a Breguet watch, driving a Cadillac Escalade or Mercedes S-Class. Archpriest Chaplin explained that exposing the clergy in the desire to possess expensive things is the logic of Judas, who said that there is no need to spend precious ointment on anointing the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, but to sell it and give it to the poor. So Chaplin enrolled in Judas thousands of fighters “for the cheap church” from the Taborites of Jan Zizka and the peasants of Thomas Münzer, who ultimately led to the emergence of Protestantism. Yes, and in our history there were somehow non-covetous people led by Nil Sorsky, however, in memorable times.

It is almost impossible for an ordinary person with his mass of everyday problems to resist the state, especially in its traditional autocratic version, and the tyranny of the super-rich. And if God himself is on their side, then... This means eternal captivity, where “Slavery is freedom!”

“And the deception of the church continues to this day, the deception consisting in the fact that ... the acceptance of Christianity without renouncing power is a mockery of Christianity and its perversion. The sanctification of state power is blasphemy, it is the destruction of Christianity ... And here is the first thing - dogmas , what no one agrees on, what no one needs, what destroys people, this is what the hierarchy presented and is presenting as faith; and secondly, what everyone agrees on, what everyone needs and what saves people, although it did not dare to do so; deny the hierarchy, but did not dare to present it as a teaching, for this teaching denied it itself" (L.N. Tolstoy).

Periods of reaction, accompanied by the strengthening of clericalism, have occurred more than once or twice in history. However, in the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, universal education and accessibility of cultural achievements, it looks, as Novaya columnist A. Kolesnikov correctly noted, like Gesha Kozodoev from The Diamond Arm, walking to the ringing of church bells with a stick with family panties wrapped around it.