Boris Knorre - about Alexander Shchipkov and others. Vsevolod Chaplin

Associate Professor of the Faculty of Humanities (School of Philosophy) of the Higher School of Economics Boris Knorre commented for the SOVA Center on the resignation of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin and the appointment of Alexander Shchipkov to the post of deputy chairman of the newly formed Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society and the Media.

Let me start with the fact that the Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society was created at one time, if not specifically for Father Vsevolod Chaplin, then taking into account his figure, taking into account the role that he played. Otherwise, it would be logical to limit ourselves to the creation of SINFO, the Information Department, and within its framework to combine work with information and relations with society - as has been done now.

I think that Father Vsevolod’s resignation was caused primarily by his statements about the war. His militaristic position in general has recently become the talk of the town, despite the fact that in 2015 the Patriarchate began to subject people from the “war party” to some punishments, especially those who shout loudly - such as, for example, the St. Petersburg deacon Pavel Shulzhenok or the priest Vladimir Zaitsev from Yekaterinburg, who was banned from ministry for some time. The Patriarchate understands that such a radical position will completely scare away the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in which anti-Moscow sentiments are already strong.

The Russian clergy remained silent in the public space, although many were indignant on the sidelines, but journalists began to speak. Interest in this topic arose in the context of theology. When theology was accepted into the Higher Attestation Commission, the question immediately arose whether it would become a justification for militaristic trends. I was interviewed several times on this topic. Everyone was worried that theology, supposedly, should serve the cause of critical understanding of militaristic trends, but we see in practice that they do not receive critical understanding in the priestly environment. At least it's open. I agree with the opinion of Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev that Chaplin’s words about the “holy war” in Syria created problems for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Because these words began to be perceived as the opinion of the patriarch. In particular, Okhlobystin said publicly that “the patriarch called the war in Syria sacred, so let’s treat it that way.” That is, what Chaplin said was automatically transferred to the patriarch. This is a serious point, especially since many Orthodox Christians began posting back in October various pictures of Istanbul and Hagia Sophia, which Russia was about to recapture from Turkey. And Chaplin contributed a lot to this position of the Orthodox. And this already jeopardized the holding of the Pan-Orthodox Council, and in general the issue of relations with other Orthodox churches, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The topic of “holy war” created such a tangle of problems that it was no longer possible to ignore.

As for Chaplin's latest proposals to reform the church in terms of electing the clergy and budget transparency , which he formalized as petitions, they are, in principle, very sound. Only a reasonable assumption arises: doesn’t the fact that Chaplin did not voice these ideas, being the chairman of the department, mean that his status position was more important to him than the ideas themselves? Let us remember the barrage of accusations, not without Chaplin’s participation, that fell upon Stanislav Belkovsky in the fall of 2012, when he held the conference “Reformation in the Church. XXI century”, where ideas were expressed similar to what Chaplin offers today.

Father Vsevolod's efforts to reform the church have been observed for a long time. In the second half of the 2000s, when many people started talking about the need to get out of a narrow subculture, Chaplin was talking about the fact that Orthodox Christians do not need to be afraid of a career, do not need to be afraid of openness to society, and do not need to shun the media. He gave an interview to Ksenia Sobchak several times, for example, while for many other fundamentalists this was impossible: they proceeded from the position that if you give an interview to an enemy media, that’s it, you are already an enemy or you are playing along with the enemy. And Vsevolod Chaplin was distinguished by his openness.

When he spoke about the introduction of church tithes in 2012, this was also a hint at the need to change the principles of financial reporting in the church and the interaction between benefactors and recipients of money.

This all showed that Chaplin had some thoughts about church reforms.

Another thing is that now it’s funny to read his statements about the luxury of the patriarchal residences and, in general, the highest echelons of the hierarchy. In 2011, he made an open apology for the Church’s material wealth, stating that “It is fitting for the Church to have sufficient signs of material capabilities to speak on equal terms with those who meet by their clothes, and, perhaps, try to behave from a position of strength, relying on his wealth and influence."

Regarding the patriarch, he then stated the following: “ Yes, His Holiness the Patriarch drives expensive cars and lives in expensive residences. And this is an inevitable part of the Church’s obedience to its primate. Believers - among whom intellectuals of the (post) Soviet type who shun rich things have long no longer constituted the majority - most likely do not understand and will not accept the situation when a mufti or rabbi drives a more prestigious car than the patriarch .”

Well, which Chaplin to believe now? Chaplin 2011 or Chaplin 2016?

Partly, perhaps, he is now resentful - as he himself notes, he is not at the age and position to be tempted by the dangling carrot. He demands respect for himself, especially since at one time his path to monasticism was blocked, that is, the possibility of a traditional church career was practically closed. The church leadership is wary of bright people and tries to stop their advancement at the early stages. Chaplin was always the speaker of the church, although not always official - and it was clear that he was an active person. His role as a scout in force, when he was clearly testing the waters for promoting certain themes and ideas, was convenient for the patriarch for the time being, but that time is over.

Perhaps Chaplin himself lacked the drive that he spoke about more than once. Not long ago, for example, he lamented that the Soviet Union lacked drive when it backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis. “ We were afraid of a direct collision then,” said Chaplin, but “we are still a warrior people,” “we need a new drive .” Now he apparently has received this drive...

But his strategy today is very vulnerable. The fact is that the average Orthodox conservative or fundamentalist statist, on whom the “Speaker of All Rus'” relies, over the past 15 years has lost the habit of supporting “grassroots” initiatives, at least if they go against the will of the authorities. They explained to him that “washing dirty linen in public” and taking initiatives for any changes in the Church and state is bad. If you come up with the “wrong” initiatives, it means you are immediately an “enemy of the Church.” Those behavioral principles and corporate guidelines of today's Orthodoxy, which Chaplin himself defended for a long time, will now work against him.

Most likely, Chaplin could find his support not from the “guardians,” but from the creative class, if he reconsidered his views and calls for war. But this is not a matter of one month, and probably not one year. At the same time, one should not exclude the possibility of a beneficial effect of his resignation on him, of course. As they say, better late than never. After all, we all know the story about the return of the “prodigal son”...

As for Alexander Shchipkov, who became deputy chairman of the newly formed united department for relations between the Church and society and the media, in any case he will not play the role that Vsevolod Chaplin played. Firstly, the status of the department has been changed, it has become a structural unit within another department, SINFO, but if we talk about the figure of Shchipkov himself, his transformation causes me even more surprise than Chaplin’s transformation. I remember him as an independent analyst when he worked at the Keston Institute, then he was far from the position of nationalists or state patriots. And in 2014, Shchipkov already spoke very harshly about Ukrainians. Even earlier, in 2012, he was one of the first - and very actively - to take up the thesis of an information war against the Church. He, perhaps the only one, raised his voice in defense of Kirill Frolov when he had a conflict with Nikita Dzhigurda. After Dzhigurda led Frolov out of the hall by the collar during a talk show, and the patriarch called Frolov a confessor in connection with this incident and he began to advertise this in every possible way, Shchipkov was indignant at how the Orthodox calmly reacted to the fact that they began to ridicule “our brother in Christ." This, of course, in particular, is much more important that Shchipkov’s patron and patron Sergei Mironov in 2014 spoke out in favor of sending troops into the territory of Ukraine. And Shchipkov also showed himself to be an apologist, one might say, of a radical form of the “Russian World” doctrine, its militant version. I don’t understand how one can change so radically.

As for the patriarch’s motives when he puts such a person “in society,” then, firstly, Shchipkov is not such a public figure that his every word is monitored and becomes known. In addition, Shchipkov speaks much more smoothly and cautiously than Chaplin. For example, almost immediately after his appointment or shortly before it, he deleted his Facebook account. Chaplin, by the way, started it. Perhaps the patriarch was guided by the desire not to lose leverage over the Black Hundred-radical nationalist part of the Church and hopes that Shchipkov will be able to politically “look after” this audience and “work” with it. This is on the one hand. On the other hand... Shchipkov knows how to talk to the elite - and this is also an important skill. I don’t know if the patriarch sets himself the task of conducting a dialogue with the liberal, creative part of society - I’m not sure that he does. Because then he would have to look for another person. On the other hand, it is possible that the patriarch remembered Shchipkov more as he was in the mid-2000s; he then occupied a centrist position. The website he founded, Religare.ru , even tried to establish a dialogue between conservatives and liberals. So it is possible that the patriarch remembered Shchipkov this way, or understands that Shchipkov, if “necessary,” can become like that again, so he hopes that he will take a balanced position and bring the situation into the mainstream of political correctness.