Hipster fight with gopnik

Political scientist and Lutheran Bishop Igor Knyazev about the absurdity of the separation of religious ministry and that the main threat to the Russian government is its inconsistence

Help "New"
Candidate of political sciences and professional political strategist Bishop Igor Knyazev was born in 1967 in Novosibirsk, lived and studied in Irkutsk and in the Caucasus. He lives in the Pavlovsky Posad, married, brings up his daughter, serves in the village of Brazunovo, where the Lutheran temple is located. Auxiliary (Vikarny) Bishop of the Karelian Evangelical-Lutheran Church (KELTS), which opened its courtyard in the Moscow Region. He received a spiritual education at the Moscow Theological Academy of the Russian Orthodox Church, where he was the only student-cereal.

“In a past life”, Bishop Igor spent more than 30 election campaigns of different levels. Member of the Russian Association of Political Science, teaches church-state relations in the Moscow seminary of evangelical Christians. He was the director of the Moscow School of Political Research, taught at the Moscow Financial and Legal Academy, visited the civil service and in great business.

Believers - at first to the Orthodox - Igor became at an arbitrary age. In 2000, he officially joined Lutheranism in the Irkutsk region, in 2004 he organized a religious group in Pavlovsky Posad, and in 2008 became its pastor. Since 2010-Bishop of the Northern District of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of the Augsburg Confession, and since 2017-Vicar of the head of KELTS. He published more than 100 scientific works - mainly about the relations of the Church and the state and the history of Russian liberalism.

- You are a Lutheran bishop, but many of your videos on YouTube are devoted to political topics and have an opposition shade. In the Orthodox tradition, it is believed that there is a “conflict of interests” between the service of the shepherd and politics. And in your tradition there is no such conflict?

- The division of religious service and participation in politics is the tradition of the last 150-200 years. Once upon a time, when I started to study at the Institute of Soviet Trade, we had a good subject-a political economy. The teacher came to the first lecture and hung on the board a poster with squares and numbers. And he said: “When you all become leaders, they will constantly ask you - that politics is not politics? .. In our Soviet conditions, everything that affects the interests of five thousand people can be considered political action. If you have two thousand at your enterprise, then with families it is five thousand. The decisions that you will make will everyone will be political. ”

When we turn to the fathers of political thought and philosophy, we see that politics means everything that affects the life and interests of the residents of the policy. Separation of politics and non -politics was carried out by the Soviet government, which proclaimed: politics is the exceptional privilege of one political party, more precisely, its political leadership. Therefore, in the Soviet Union they were planted by those who tried to engage in politics themselves, regardless of its slogans.

Today in Russia, this artificial division into politics and not politics is reanimated. Is the Pope - a bishop or politician? If you ask this question in the Vatican, they simply will not understand you.

- Dad is the head of state. The Russian constitution says that religious associations are separated from the state.

- In public space, we express our personal position. I am a bishop, political scientist, economist, teacher. But, speaking on political topics, I do not say anywhere that "the Lutheran church believes: the Communist Party must be disbanded!" I say everywhere: "Communism is a criminal ideology and should be prohibited in Russia." Like Knyazev Igor Olegovich. The only person who makes a religious association in Russia is probably the Patriarch of Moscow Cyril. But as for the rest of the participants in the dialogue, they just sacredly honor the principle of separating the church from the state. Recently, for example, a wonderful statement by the Old Believers in support of Jehovah's witnesses came out. When we move on to the document, we see that there are signatures of individuals under it - it is not written anywhere there that the Old Believer or Old Orthodox Church claims this or that.

We, as citizens, regardless of our status, in politics we participate in full.

- When you preach as a bishop in your religious organization, you do not concern political topics? Or, when you begin to talk about politics, suspend your ministry as a bishop? This is not like schizophrenia?

- These “hypostasis” cannot be divided, and an attempt to disarm the believer from a citizen is artificial, unjustified and crazy. Claims to us opponents consist of two parts. On the one hand, they say: "The priest cannot engage in politics." But it is impossible to separate in a priest a citizen from a priest. If we are talking about participating in the elections as a candidate, then another thing is that we admit that the members of the ROC clergy do not have the right to do this. And when Patriarch Kirill says that President Putin “straightened all the curvatures of history”, should we not consider this politics?

On the other hand, they say: "The church is separated from the state, and do not dare to climb there and do it." But ordination is not a lobotomy and not castration, it does not deprive a person of any rights, including suffrage. In the Lutheran church, unlike the Russian Orthodox Church, the ordination of passive suffrage does not deprive.

This is a Soviet heritage: Pop is necessarily a “deprived”. This word itself appeared precisely in relation to the representatives of the clergy, who were deprived of electoral rights in one fact of the priesthood. The more we have the Soviet Union around, the more these phantoms and corpses rise from graves. Nobody from the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church does not care if the priest praises the governor, likens him to Jesus Christ, and calls the president a saint. Not a single priest was punished for participating in the meetings of United Russia, not a single metropolitan was fired for photographs with the governor on electoral posters ...

- Probably, this already applies to the “special civilizational path” of Russia. Here, power is a sacred phenomenon, especially the power of the president. “Policy” is called what is opposed to this power, and it itself is “above politics”.

- Absolutely right! Our state leadership and bureaucracy in the representation of the dominant church are not politicians, but are sacred figures, the source of the legitimacy of which is the Lord God himself ...

There was a time when I harshly criticized Kuraev’s deacon. He was always a political figure. A person with this scale of actions, with such an audience, is always involved in politics. Kuraev influenced millions of people at the very least, and tens of millions heard his sermons.

- What is your main political discrepancy with Kuraev?

- I would say, I have “aesthetic” contradictions with him. I lived a life rich in events, from which I spent a quarter of a century in politics - I saw a lot of things. And always in life there is such a contradiction: people who make their career on their own go more slowly, they are always more difficult for them, and they have less chances to get to success. But when they receive it, they are free in this success, on their own step of Olympus. And many go to some major institutions to make a career inside them. There are huge resources, their social elevators and springs operate, people there come to success much faster. But they have no freedom in the corporate structure: if you suddenly declare your freedom, then the system throws you, identifies you as a replaced orientation. Therefore, the “history” of Kuraev and the like people like this character: “I want to write everything I think.” But in order to write everything you think, you need to live half a life in poverty, wandering around other people's corners. This right must be earned. The right to be free is very expensive, its implementation is very difficult for a person, so very few choose freedom, and those who have chosen pay a huge price for it.

When the Patriarch fulfills the decision to deprive Kuraev Sana, I promise that I will change my attitude towards him. But while it remains the same: this is a person who has rebelled inside the system who thought that, having declared his position free, he would take some special place inside the system. And in state power there are a lot of such people. But the system prevails. I know many former ministers, even one prime minister ... When they showed freedom, the system said to them: “Please. Freedom is there, at a rally, where they beat with batons and throw it into a car gut. ”

- It is logical from Kuraev to go to Alexei Navalny. Moreover, Kuraev’s ill -wishers, up to Metropolitan Hilarion, openly draw a parallel between them. For many, it remains a mystery to what the true motivation for the self -sacrifice of Navalny consists in. Do you, as a person with great Christian experience, see a metaphysical, religious dimension of Navalny's act?

- For such an act (returning to Russia almost to certain death), you need a faith that is not limited to the scale of personal interest. A person who believes only in himself does not achieve much. In my opinion, Navalny is, of course, a believer. I saw a lot in the life of courageous, sacrificial acts, but not one of them was perfect in the name of only a political goal. The scale of the political action performed without faith is Zhirinovsky, Mironov or Senator Narusov. And in order to become Nelson Mandelia or Martin Luther King, faith is needed.

Navalny is already beginning to enter into a series of these outstanding figures of the twentieth century, which changed the historical political path of the whole nations and communities of nations.

- In the Russian Orthodox Church, Navalny was convicted that he purely “instrumentally” quotes the gospel, adjusting it to the current political agenda, that it is “deeply secondary” for him ...

- Just as Christ “used the texts of the Old Testament for political purposes,” so the Navalny “to build a boat” uses the New Testament. Nothing is changing since the time of the Savior! If we see the material of the Sanhedrin, condemning Christ, then what is happening today is their straight tracing paper.

- Do you agree that the Russian Orthodox Church has so deeply connected with the current regime that it is doomed to share his fate?

- The only reservation: not completely all to a single person. But as an institute - of course! I think when the inevitable change of power in Russia will occur, the Russian Orthodox Church will not have any prospects for positive dynamics. The Russian Orthodox Church stepped through the peak of her state power, and further, regardless of tightening or liberalization of the regime, its position will deteriorate. If the regime is tightened, the need for it will disappear, because, as it turned out on Ukrainian events, it is not an effective tool for mobilizing public opinion. And with liberalization, it will simply not be interesting to anyone.

In its current form, the Russian Orthodox Church can exist only as a drive mechanism of the state ideological and repressive machine.

- The Ukrainian events with which the Russian Orthodox Church “failed” took place in 2014-2018. Why is the Russian authorities still consider it as a necessary tool? So, here she copes better here?

- Having lost in Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church did not retain its positions within Russia. These positions worsened very much - and financially, and in the political, and in terms of administrative influence. Starting from the pumping of the state in issues such as the introduction of religious education in schools or the chaplain service in the army, which has come down to a microscopic scale, ending with many other projects.

It is clear that the church cannot be likened to the crash that has been blocked - and the water will no longer flow. This is more like a river, the change in the channel of which is a long process. But since 2014, we see the obvious trend down for the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia. This is recognized by ordinary priests and the secretaries of the dioceses with whom I communicate. The rigidity of the Russian Orthodox Church will lead to the fact that after the first serious blows of cracks that will go according to its structure, they will have a character that is very dangerous for the entire Moscow Patriarchate Institute. And these blows have already followed: Pussy Riot, scandals with nanopyl, for hours-and went and went. Already manual sociological services recognize that the army overtook the Russian Orthodox Church in popularity.

-Do you share the fears of some Christians that the socio-political collapse of the Moscow Patriarchate will pull the rest of the Christian denominations? And what will this lead to a new wave of mass atheism?

- I think the current position of the Moscow Patriarchate is just a result of a surge in atheism in the twentieth century, primarily at the state level. All the “enemies of Orthodoxy”, combined, would not harm her like the “Temple of the War”. This is such a contribution to the ground of Christianity and faith in God, whom the “NATO aggressive block” could not achieve in 50 years and for trillions of dollars. It seems to me that the final departure from the political arena of the Russian Orthodox Church as a political entity (and today is already an object) will not cause any serious consequences for society.

Many Russian Protestant churches are also tracing paper with the Russian Orthodox Church. About twenty years ago, Russian Protestantism began to thoughtlessly copy the model, ecclesiology, and sometimes the dogma of the Russian Orthodox Church, which led him to very deplorable results. Such “patriotic” Protestant churches, in which Putin sounds in every prayer, is already needed now.

- This creates a good starting base for the Islamic mission ...

- Yes, I think that the beneficiary from political transformation will be among other Islam. He in Russia acts strategically verifying, far -sighted. The chance to win has moderate Islam, and the radical currents will lose: the less the influence of authoritarian, dictatorial regimes will be in the world, the lower the degree of aggression will be. The main headliner of moderate Islam in our country is the Council of Muftis of Russia.

- Do you have the feeling that the transfer of power in Russia has already started?

- I began to read about his preparation in 2006, and it was terribly mixed. Until all these forecasts have come true. I think that Putin would have left power if I knew how to do it. But power cannot find the mechanism of this departure, all the available options are high -risk.

-If you do not expect a transfer, then the Russian citizens are waiting for even more stringent repressions or some revolutionary scenario? What are the alternatives to the transfer?

- An alternative is a long boring vegetation. For truly tough repression in the Russian Federation, there are neither repressive nor repressive. It is impossible to plant 2-3 million people in Russia today. Of course, the scale of repression will increase, but it will not go beyond hundreds of political prisoners. Now there are 70 Jehovah's witnesses ( the organization is recognized in Russia extremist - approx. Ed. ) - this is very bad, of course. And it will sit 100. But there will not be 70,000 Jehovah's witnesses.

If the current government could technically carry out mass repressions, then it would have spent them.

We are dealing with a subculture of a communal apartment: stealthily pour salt into a pan to someone, turn off the gas or spit into a kettle-we all see. This is the tactics of minor curtains to the whole world, which through the first channel are issued for the greatest geopolitical victories of Russia. This will continue. What Russia does in a foreign policy does not affect anything at all. The transition to this state occurred when the Russian position has changed in relation to the American presence in Afghanistan, which was exclusively in the interests of Russia. Yeltsin and the early Putin understood this, so the NATO base in Ulyanovsk functioned perfectly. And then suddenly Russia declared America an enemy around the world.

- How do you explain this sharp change in the position of Russia?

- There was too much money ... Why do politicians need to be changed as often as possible? Because sometimes, contrary to the efforts of economists, the well -being of people begins to grow. When there is no money or not enough, it is not so dangerous for the authorities ...

The main reason for the destruction of the Russian Empire also lies in big money. The abolition of serfdom led to a massive influx of people in cities, growth of industrial production, and Russia reached the coolest growth trends. At the pace by 1940, Russia reached the first place in the world in terms of GDP, and by 1950 it stepped over 500 million inhabitants. When such money fell into the treasury, the generals really wanted to fight, read the documents of 1903-1905.

The Bolsheviks came to power in a rather enlightened, economically developed society of a completely European type. And against this background there was a completely terrible Asian tyranny, which in its end also gained European features, but the people, on the contrary, plunged into a medieval state. Now we live in such conditions when a huge part of society is outside of contacts and relations with the state. Almost everyone who is younger than 30 years live outside this state. And this society is much closer to the modern world than the state outside which it lives. Middle -aged people are increasingly going into such an autonomous existence. Only the older and militarized parts of society are clinging to the state. Общество расходится в две противоположные стороны. Мы перестали говорить о политике с людьми старшего возраста: у тех, кто получает информацию из интернета и из телевизора, два несовместимых представления о реальности. И это явление последних двух лет. Напряжение между этими тектоническими плитами в местах сцепки начинает приближаться к критическому.

Эта проблема для современной власти намного острее, чем наши с вами мечты о демократической России будущего.

Между прочим, многолетняя привычка нового поколения жить без государства может вывести Россию в лидеры перехода к либертарианской модели, и это будет новация такого же масштаба, как в свое время социалистическая революция. Главная угроза для российской власти — не ее жестокость, а ее несовременность. Она считает, что опасность исходит от полчищ иностранных агентов, стремящихся насадить либерализм, а на самом деле ей придется буквально бегать за людьми, живущими в интернете, и уговаривать их взаимодействовать с властью, о которой эти люди просто забывают.

Вы видели когда-нибудь драку хипстера с гопником? Я наблюдал такое. Трезвый, спортивный хипстер без всякого напряжения выиграет у накачанного пивом приблатненного гопаря. Так закончится встреча российского государства с современным обществом.