CT's Week of Giving

Let’s seek the kingdom together »

Letters

Worth the Price!

Daniel E. Maltby’s article on ethics in business [“The One-minute Ethicist,” Feb. 19] is the best I have ever read on the subject. It should be required reading in all business schools. It should be read and digested by the local pastor and preached to the people in the pews. The statement regarding the environment in the classroom—the off-the-cuff openness of the teacher being the best way to teach ethics—is worth the subscription price of the magazine alone!

HARVEY SELF

Toronto, Ont., Canada

An essential point

Rob Wilkins’s article “Cultivating the Killing Fields” [Church in Action, Feb. 19] missed an essential point. While documenting the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, he provides no clue as to the source of their terror. Like the Bolsheviks of Russia and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia are Communists. Denying the nature of sin in fallen man, communism releases man’s basest tendencies and makes barbarism a tool of state policy. As Christians, we have a responsibility to educate the world about this godless religion that has caused a worldwide holocaust ten times worse than that brought about by nazism.

RONALD J. PAPPLARDO

American Constitution Committee

Raleigh, N.C.

Setting Presbyterian facts straight

In “Presbyterian Gladfly Expands Its Influence” [News, Feb. 19], Ervin Duggan is quoted as saying, “Meanwhile, the denomination’s official magazine, which it heavily subsidizes, is starving. Nobody wants to subscribe.” That’s two false statements in one sentence. Presbyterian Survey is not subsidized; it has to pay its own way through subscriptions and advertising. Second, it is far from starving. Its March issue is going to 160,310 paid subscribers, and it remains solidly on the profit side of the financial ledger.

VICJAMESON

Presbyterian Survey

Atlanta, Ga.

“Christian America”

Thanks for Rick McKinniss’s thoughts in “Let Christian America Rest in Peace” [Speaking Out, Feb. 5]. He articulated a stance I adopted after having pursued the tenets of the “religious right” for a time. We must remember Jesus’ words, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation … because the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20). It is time to see America as a “sinking ship” and that through the preaching of salvation, the church is to rescue as many survivors as it can.

MARK JONESCHIET

Baker Faith Center

Baker, Oreg.

There is danger in making God the national mascot. Rick McKinniss sounded a timely warning; thanks. A modern Baptist prophet, Sen. Mark Hatfield, warns that the Christian nation notion “distorts the relationship between the state and our faith. It tends to enshrine our law and order and national righteousness while failing to speak of repentance, salvation, and God’s standard of justice.” There’s the rub. Not culture Christianity, but voluntary religion is the only valid religion. It is persons, notnations, that are Christian.

JAMES M. DUNN

Baptist Joint Committee

On Public Affairs

Washington, D.C.

Sociologically speaking, America certainly was Christian and in many ways still is. A society has to have an orientation, a consensus, an outlook in order to function. Most of us who talk about a Christian America are not striving for an established church, but simply for a recovery of a shared consensus of fundamental values. Otherwise we will be faced either with social chaos or with what is called “the dictatorship of the 51 percent.” Christians should be the last to join in the disintegrating process promoted by secular humanism and related trends.

HAROLD O. J. BROWN

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Ill.

Eutychus’s “pithy pearls”

I do enjoy the pithy pearls of Eutychus’s wisdom. “Lessons in Deception” (Feb. 5) was particularly enlightening. I will try some of those statements soon!

CHARLES H. BRADSHAW

Columbus, Ga.

A ministerial friend named his sailboat Study Leave so the phone could be answered: “I’m sorry, he is out on study leave.”

REV. CHARLES J. STOPPELS

First Presbyterian Church

Flint, Mich.

I am not amused. After a 14-hour day traveling several hundred miles with my pastor husband to visit a critically ill woman in one city and an emotionally ill adolescent in another, I came home, put up my weary feet, and picked up CT to read and relax a bit. Unfortunately, the first thing I read was “Eutychus”; I am definitely not relaxed. Since I am the church secretary, I know that for my husband, “out of town” means visiting a hospital, attending a seminar, or taking care of other ministry-related activity. I wish it meant “at home” a lot more often, but it does not.

AMELIA MCKENZIE

New London, Ohio

Thin Books

The widespread acceptance of USA Today signals an alarming trend for book publishers: Readers’ attention spans are getting shorter. Most subjects of significance require treatments of at least 150 pages, but today’s readers may not last through that many.

Fortunately for evangelical book publishers, however, I have devised a clever solution. The trick, as I see it, is to develop book topics that can be exhausted in a very few pages. That way, subjects can be treated fully, yet in a length that even the short-attentioned reader can handle. Some suggested titles:

Great Moments in the History of the ACLU

The Long-term Youth Ministers

Tribute to Televangelism: 1987–88

Why Liberal Churches Are Growing

Restful, Relaxing Youth Retreats

Presidential Candidates We Can Feel Great About

When Too Many People Volunteer to Teach Sunday School

I think Christian book publishers will be quick to accept my plan. I ran the idea by one editor the other day and he immediately thought of another possible thin book: The Wit and Wisdom of Eutychus.

EUTYCHUS

Setting prisoners free

I was disturbed by the political implications of Philip Yancey’s otherwise moving piece on the power of the gospel to set the prisoner free [“Holy Subversion,” Feb. 5], In August 1987 I spent ten days visiting prisons in Chile with a missionary who has worked for years in that system. To compare those prisons with the gulag is a staggering distortion. Yancey painted with a broad stroke and left inaccurate impressions. Young terrorists are in prison for what they have done—not for what they believe.

MARY ANN BELL

McLean Presbyterian Church

McLean, Va.

The sacred text

The Christianity Today Institute is to be congratulated on its fine treatment of the biblical Canon and the true ecumenical style in which it was presented [Feb. 5]. It is a testimony of how God’s revelation, embodied in the Holy Scripture, can be treated with the critical faculties of the human mind and the best of modern scholarship without diminishing the orthodoxy of the doctrine incarnated in the inspired text. The irenic tone of Dr. Kantzer’s closing comments commend themselves to many discussions among Christians which often end on a much less confident and cordial note. This attention to authority, history, and the centrality of biblical revelation should encourage evangelical scholars to confidently engage in dialogue with Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant fellow Christians, whose similar seriousness about the sacred text, and the sacred tradition of Jesus Christ embodied therein, have produced such salutary results in the ecumenical movement.

JEFFREY GROS

National Council of the Churches of Christ

New York, N.Y.

Flaming torch—or stake?

As an alumnus of Dallas Seminary, I was dismayed—although not surprised—by the report of three well-respected professors being dismissed on doctrinal grounds [Feb. 5], This institution’s steadfast refusal to countenance a modicum of dissent, even on issues of peripheral importance, is fundamentally incompatible with the spirit of reverent, critical inquiry essential to genuine theological education. Given the degree of tolerance displayed, one might well begin to wonder whether the seminary’s familiar logo depicts a flaming torch or a burning stake.

WILLIAM J. MCCONNELL

Drew University

Madison, N.J.

With regard to CT’S report on the three teachers who left Dallas Seminary’s faculty over the issue of spiritual gifts, I submit the following addendum. Dallas Seminary is not antagonistic toward other evangelical groups or individuals who do not hold our doctrinal standards. Further, we affirm that the supernatural work of God and the power of the Holy Spirit have been manifested throughout the ages and are still evident in this present age.

DONALD K. CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT

Dallas Theological Seminary

Dallas, Tex.

Unification Church doctrine

I was dismayed by your recent article “Unification Church Ties Haunt New Coalition” and the sidebar “Moon’s Theology and Politics” [Feb. 5]. I would like to clarify the attributions made to “Master Speaks.” These speeches were transcribed from partial handwritten notes, which in turn were taken from translators who had little working knowledge of the English language. Not surprisingly, trained Korean translators found these transcripts to be extremely inaccurate. Thus, the quotes you attributed to Rev. Moon are so far removed from the original speaker as to be unworthy of serious consideration.

JOHN BIEMANS

The Unification Church

New York, N.Y.

How dedicated is “dedicated”?

The statement was made in World Scene [Feb. 5] that the Amity Printing Press “is the first printing press in China wholly dedicated to publishing the Scripture.” Not even the propaganda of the TSP M or the press releases of the United Bible Society have dared to say “wholly dedicated.” In fact, Amity Press is capable of printing 3 million volumes per year, but is commited to printing only 250,000 Bibles. This is hardly “wholly dedicated.”

DAVID STRAVERS

World Home Bible League

South Holland, Ill.

In defense of “Fighting Bob”

In “Giving Them Gospel” [Jan. 15], you presented an incomplete and misleading image of my grandfather, Robert P. “Fighting Bob” Shuler. Since I spent much of my youth in his company, I must reply. Dr. Shuler felt it was the duty of a servant of God to fight sin, wherever he felt its presence, with whatever means were at his disposal. In doing so, he indeed “wrought havoc,” as you put it, and was definitely controversial. Here is what you did not say: He pastored a church mightily used by our Lord for over three decades. Countless people came to know the Lord under his ministry. Two of his sons became evangelists.

JACK E. SHULER, D.D.S.

Londonderry, N.H.

My father did not use the gospel or the airwaves to make money for himself. He was on salary. To have him spoken of as the “other Bob Shuler” is ludicrous. He was uniquely himself: God’s man.

NELLA (SHULER) FARTIG

Glendora, Calif.

Bob Shuler, Sr., was colorful and courageous, yes. But he was also Wesleyan and biblical in his Christian witness.

REV. BOB SHULER III

First United Methodist Church

Riverside, Calif.

I have never read a more dishonest description of my father’s 70-year ministry. Your readers will remember the statements of error far longer than those spoken in truth. In referring to my father, John R. Rice stated to me that he had never met a man who was more honest in his dealings with those he criticized!

DR. PHIL SHULER

Phil Shuler Crusades, Inc.

West Hills, Calif.

Our report on Bob Shuler did not take enough account of his pure motives and Christian dedication. We appreciate his family members calling this to our attention.

—Eds.

Challenge and Controversy

For the second time in less than a year we are devoting our cover story to the subject of AIDS. Last August our focus was AIDS and the American church: what evangelical churches are doing to care compassionately for individuals and families affected by this modern day plague. In this issue, our focus shifts to the African church and the mission outreaches that have played an integral role in that burgeoning church community.

We asked Sharon Mumper, associate director of Evangelical Missions Information Service, to find out how African Christians are confronting the AIDS crisis (there called the “slim disease”). Working under a news deadline (which means her story was completed two weeks before publication rather than the usual three months that is the rule for most of our cover stories), Sharon was able to combine analysis with the latest facts and figures to present an up-to-the-minute look at a continent—and church—under seige.

As you will note in Letters, relatives of radio preacher Bob Shuler took exception to the profile we did of their father’s moral crusading in 1920s California (ct, Jan. 15, 1988, p. 21). They emphasized Shuler’s integrity, believing our coverage lumped him together with less-scrupulous religious broadcasters. Such was not our intent, although we can see how family members could have thus interpreted the photo of Shuler in jail (we thought it was clear from the context he was there “fighting the system”) and remarks in this column about his aggressive approach. His pioneering use of radio was indeed a precursor of techniques later used by others less honest than he. But no evidence suggests he acted with anything less than full integrity.

HAROLD B. SMITH, Managing Editor

Call Them Unelectable

“Anyone can grow up to become President.” We’ll have an interesting test of that parental hypothesis in less than a week, when a minority of registered voters in 20 states cast primary ballots in what is being touted as “Super Tuesday” (not to be confused with “Super Sunday,” or, for that matter, the five other less-than-super days of the week).

Among the candidates will be a penitent Gary Hart: Can an adulterer be President? As will be Bob Dole: Can a “poor” millionaire become president?

So, too, will be Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson: Can a black activist or a white preacher become president?

At this point in time, the likelihood of either of these last two gaining the momentum needed to win the nomination of their respective parties seems highly unlikely. To a nonpolitico, this might be something of a surprise. After all, many of the other top candidates suffered damaging journalistic scrutiny during the early stages of the campaign.

But then, some hurdles are more easily overcome on the road to the presidency than others. And both Jackson and Robertson are suffering under the weight of a moral onus that is apparently more difficult to deal with than adultery or falsehood, and certainly more condemning of an open-minded, free society. Their moral hurdle is prejudice, specifically of the racial and religious variety.

The racial question, in Jackson’s case, has provided American society with a litmus test of just how far the civil rights movement has come—and how far the nation wants it to go. The reading to this point, however, is unclear: black support for Jackson remains strong; white support, weak.

This could be due simply to a perception that Jackson is unqualified for the presidency. Or it could be a sign of racism, as bluntly asserted by columnist Roger Simon: “[Jackson] is the wrong race to be president. He is a black man in a white country.”

Can a black become President? “Unlikely” is the only answer for now.

As for Robertson, televangelists’ misadventures have further complicated a candidacy already mired in talk of theocracies and mystical “words from God.” The candidate himself has not helped, projecting a smug persona perceived by the secular press as condescending.

But Robertson also suffers as the result of a prejudice. In a 1987 Gallup poll asking respondents who they would not like to have as neighbors, fundamentalists and blacks tied for second place behind minority religious sects and cults.

Can a religiously conservative Christian preacher become President? At the moment, evidently not.

So, then, who can grow up to become President? That’s a good question—one both parties are confused by. And it is one the church needs to be in prayer over as its men and women decide our country’s leadership for the next four years.

By Harold B. Smith.

History

The Soviet Union’s Religious Situation Today

Brad Gillispie

The Soviet government reports that religion is definitely on the decline in the USSR. And given the persistent harassment of the state, one might expect that—but trustworthy sources say it isn’t so.

Ever since the beginnings of the USSR, religion there has stood on shaky ground. Communist ideology says religion can be either used or abused, depending on which will best meet the state’s ends. With this ambivalence increasing the complexity of church-state relations in the USSR, what really is the situation today?

The relationship that exists today between the Soviet government and the religious groups within its territories, despite some recent appearances of concord surrounding the millennium celebrations, is actually one still characterized by constant uncertainties, frequent hostilities, mutual distrust and much “bad blood.” The observance of the millennium has brought an apparent calm on the surface of the water, but according to several sources, it has really done little to ensure any regularity in the unpredictable currents beneath.

Nonetheless, religion is obviously still an important part of the lives of millions of Soviet citizens. According to recent estimates from the Soviet Council of Religious Affairs (the state organization that monitors all religious activities in the USSR), religious believers make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population. With a population of more than 283 million, this would put the total number of religious believers at between 28 and 56 million.

Well, It Depends

The predominant religious affiliations of Soviet citizens vary by republic. Orthodoxy is the prevalent religion in Russia, Armenia, Byelorussia, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine; believers in the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia are predominantly Lutheran; Lithuania is strongly Catholic; and the Middle Eastern republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tadzhikistan, Turkmen and Uzbekistan are almost completely Muslim. In addition, large numbers of Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jews are scattered throughout the country.

In a recent interview, Konstantin Kharchev, chairman of the Council of Religious Affairs (CRA), released the official statistics on the number of religious communities that is, churches or synagogues—in the Soviet Union. According to the report, most religious faiths have experienced declines since 1971 (see chart).

But while his figures show a decline, they actually raise more questions about the situation than they answer. In some cases, for example with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the numbers include congregations that are not officially registered with the government. However, some unregistered denominations, such as the Ukrainian Catholics’, which is outlawed in the Soviet Union, are not mentioned at all, yet are too numerous to be included in the “Others” category. The government puts the number of Baptist congregations at 2,976. However, the Baptists themselves claim more than 5,000 registered congregations, in addition to approximately 2,000 unregistered congregations.

The Soviet government has the final say as to whether a congregation can be legally registered. Many congregations, including the entire Ukrainian Catholic denomination, have been trying for years to register with the CRA—but they have been denied registration. Because of this arrangement, the CRA can easily control the official tally of churches.

This desire for control typifies the Soviet government’s attitude toward religious groups in the Soviet Union. The church there is forced to choose between registering with the government and allowing a certain amount of interference in its affairs, or refusing to register and risking fines and arrests for breaking the Soviet law against unregistered religious activities.

The government-endorsed millenium celebration is an example of the Soviets’ attempt to manipulate religion for their own gain. Back in 1986, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Politburo indicated an intention to downplay the millenium and not allow any celebrations.

Now, under the banner of the new policy of glasnost, Gorbachev and the Politburo are officially supporting the Russian Orthodox Church’s planned celebrations. However, this change does not by any means indicate that the government has suddenly adopted a pro-religion stance. Atheism is still a basic tenet of Marxism, and Gorbachev, despite the references he made to God while in Washington for the 1987 summit, has on other occasions made it clear that he is still opposed to religion in general.

Thus what glasnost means in practice is obviously not the same as what its common English definition of “openness” suggests. In point of fact, its literal translation is something more like “publicity” and some Soviets have actually told American observers that glasnost mostly for the West—a public relation program to make Americans and Western Europeans think the Soviets have changed their stance on human and religious rights.

Deep Change, or Superficial?

Nevertheless, Western Christian should be thankful for the opportunities for ministry that have arisen because of glasnost and the celebration of the millennium. Although the millennium is essentially an Orthodox celebration, the concurrent governmental relaxation restrictions generally applies to most Christian denominations in the Soviet Union. It seems the highest levels of the Soviet government are striving to present to the world’s eye a civilized and cordial working relationship between the government and its religious communities.

For example, the Soviets have allotted the Orthodox Church 100,000 newly printed Bibles, and have given the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian-Baptists permission to import 115,000 more. Furthermore, the government has permitted at least 29 Orthodox churches to re-open within the last three years, and churchmen, usually neither seen nor heard in the media, have suddenly become respectable voices in the Soviet newspapers and television.

Christians such as Orthodox believer Alexander Ogorodnikov, who was released from labor camp in 1987 after serving eight years for religious activities, have written letters to Soviet leaders calling for changes in the laws against religion—and have not as yet been penalized for such audacity.

Many believers have gained early release from labor camps and psychiatric hospitals. And many Christian families are being given exit visas to leave the Soviet Union and live in the West.

But in the background, local persecutions against Christians still go on. In the last few months, the militia has broken up services of unregistered churches in no fewer than 13 towns. The owners of the homes where the services were conducted were fined 100 rubles, or about half a month’s pay. One Christian, within a recent two-year period, was fined 3,000 rubles, or 15 months’ full pay.

The legal bases for these persecutions are statutes enacted by Josef Stalin in 1929. These statutes outlaw all religious activities except Sunday worship services in registered churches. Though the Soviet government now practices selective non-enforcement of these laws, it is significant that they are still on the books. There has been talk of repealing the 1929 legislation, but thus far that talk has not been backed up by any definitive actions.

Under these laws, it is illegal to teach minors about God. Sunday schools are against the law, children cannot legally attend church, and parents cannot legally teach their children about God even in their own homes. Under the new atmosphere in the Soviet Union, many children and young people now attend church. But it is still illegal, and it is uncertain when or if the Soviet government will stop turning the blind eye to these activities and start enforcing the laws again.

The millennium has brought about many positive changes in the atmosphere of the Soviet Union. But only time will tell if these opportunities are to be permanent, or if they will be taken away when the excitement about the millennium dies down and the eyes of the West look away from Soviet religion.

Brad Gillispie is a writer with the Slavic Gospel Association an evangelical missions organization, based in Wheaton, IL., that focuses on the spread of the good news among the Slavic peoples behind the Iron Curtain.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

The Soviet Union Celebrates 1000 Years of Christianity

Ihor G. Kutash

Why, all of a sudden, would an officially atheistic confederation of republics like the USSR choose to celebrate, in full pomp and grandeur, a thousand years of Christianity on its soil?

What’s Going On?

Christianity in the regions now considered part of the Soviet Union has a long and glorious history, dating back even before 988. But it seems that an atheistic state like the USSR would disdain any mention of that history, much less a grand celebration of it. So what’s going on—and what’s wrong—with the big Soviet show?

It’s finally come. the observance that millions of Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Russian Christians have been waiting for, the millennium of the Christianization of Rus’. That is, the alleged 1,000th anniversary of the occasion when the Grand Prince Vladimir ordered the people of his kingdom to be baptized into the Orthodox Christian faith, and personally oversaw the baptisms of the majority of the people in Kiev, the capital of his realm.

But the arrival and celebration of this millennium is heavily laden with irony. Probably the chief irony is the fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Union, a zealously atheistic government, is endorsing—even funding and promoting—the most spectacular of the many events worldwide that are being dedicated to this “millennium of Christianity in Rus’.”

A second great irony is that the city of Kiev, where the celebrated baptism took place, is now the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkSSR), one of the several republics in the the USSR. So we have the descendants of the people that Vladimir led into the fold of Christendom now under the rule of a Cornmunist government that, if it is to comply with the tenets of orthodox Marxist Leninism, must consider religion “an opiate of the people” and work in every possible way to discourage its existence.

So what’s really going on here, in this irony-filled celebration of the “Christianization of Rus”?

“Russian” Christianity’s Story

Actually, the message of Christ had reached the lands north of the Black Sea long before the 980s. Church tradition has it that sometime between 50 and 60 A.D. the Apostle Andrew, the first apostle that Jesus called, visited the future site of Kiev and possibly left new converts behind in other parts of that region, which was then known as Scythia. In fact, the Apostle Paul mentions the Scythians in his letter to the Colossians (3:11), apparently suggesting that some were already becoming Christians.

History tells us that late in the first century, the bishop of Rome, St. Clement, was exiled to Kherson (just south of the Rus’ region) and then martyred there. History also tells us that Christianity spread through the Greek colonies along the coast of the Black Sea, and that bishops from the Black Sea and Scythian regions attended some of the earliest ecumenical councils.

In the mid-900s, the Christian soldiers in the army of Prince Sviatoslav (Prince Vladimir’s father) said their vows of allegiance in a church building that had already been constructed in Kiev, the Church of the Prophet Elias. So obviously Christianity was far from unknown in those regions, though it was assuredly a minority religion, whose adherents were far outnumbered by worshippers of the Eastern Slavs’ pagan idols.

But then, in about 955, Princess Olga, the wife of Sviatoslav’s father and regent to her son, apparently went to Constantinople and was baptized an Orthodox Christian. Then Vladimir, her grandson, embraced Christianity, and proceeded to establish it as the state religion.

Radical changes in the culture soon followed. Vladimir abolished the death penalty. He and his successors established schools throughout the realm, so that the people could learn how to read the Scriptures. They established welfare institutions in order to take care of the unfortunate.

The road ahead looked bright. But in 1054 the Universal Church split into Eastern and Western. The Kiev metropolitanate, which was under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, remained in the Eastern Orthodox realm. Not long after, invaders from Asia destabilized the state to the extent that the Kiev metropolitan fled north to Vladimir-on-Kliazma, and later moved his seat to Moscow. Yet these metropolitans retained the Kiev title until the 15th century, when the Moscow Church declared itself to be autocephalous (that is, self-headed). Meanwhile, Constantinople re-established a metropolitanate in Kiev.

Turbulent times continued. The Kievan Church was again divided in 1596, when the majority of the bishops in Rus’ at the time accepted a reunion with the See of Rome, creating what came to be known as the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Eastern Rite). So the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople consecrated a whole new set of hierarchy for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (which became the name of choice for the region once called Rus’).

The Orthodox in Ukraine remained under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople until 1686. At that time the Orthodox leaders in Moscow used political pressure to influence the Turks (who had been in control of Constantinople since 1453) to allow the transfer of the Kiev metropolitan to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Church.

Shortly thereafter, the ruler in Moscow, Peter I (r.1689–1725), began calling himself the “Tsar of all the Russes,” intending by such a title to suggest that all the people in his dominion, despite their varying ethnic origins, were fraternal peoples who had actually always longed to be united in a single state. Ukraine he called “Malaria”—Little Rus’; Byelorussia he called “Belaia”—White Rus’; and Russia he called “Velikaia”—Great Rus’. The term he coined for this union was “Rosiia” (taken from the Greek version of Rus’).

A popular subject for painting—some places: Paintings of the baptism of Kiev, like this modern rendering by S. Konarz Konashewych, are quite popular in the West. But in Soviet Ukraine, where the event actually took place, government repression keeps it much less popular—at least in public.

Peter proclaimed the Russian Orthodox Church the official church of all his empire, and effectively used the Church to help him strengthen his hold over all the “Russes.” He hoped, by incorporating these diverse peoples under one name, to build a massive, unified empire that would last forever. He and his heirs went on to conquer some Asian lands, and similarly tried to amalgamate them into this “union.”

Although the dynasty of the tsars came to an end with the 1917 Revolution, the idea of the Russian Empire seems certainly to have survived—in the atheistic and geopolitical expansionism of the Russian-led Soviet Union. But at the time such a re-shaped empire was not yet imagined; the fall of the tsars was good news to the Ukrainians, and they tried to make the most of their newfound liberty. They formed a sovereign state, and began planning for an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Soon, unfortunately, the new state fell beneath the Bolsheviks’ onslaught; the new Church, however, was successfully formed and proceeded to perpetuate Ukraine’s unique cultural traditions. But the strengthening Soviet state could not long tolerate such a “nationalistic” church, and attempted in the 1930s to put an absolute end to any further “Ukrainianization” of the younger generations. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church was dissolved—violently; the only church to be tolerated—and that only barely—was the Russian Orthodox Church.

After World War II, when the Soviet government annexed the previously free western part of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Catholic Church was similarly forced to “reunite” with the Russian Orthodox Church, despite these Catholics recognizing only the pope’s authority, and not granting any credibility to an Orthodox patriarch’s pronouncements. Today, all that remains of hopes for uniquely Ukrainian churches is what is called a Ukrainian “Exarchate.” That is, Ukraine is theoretically an autonomous (but not autocephalous) portion of the Russian Orthodox Church, and that is its only Church. Thus, much as in the days of Peter I, the Russian Church is still being used as an instrument of “Russification” to further the aspirations of the Moscow government.

A great celebration: Crowds of Soviet believers, like this one photographed in 1983 during an elaborate Russian Orthodox outdoor Liturgy, will gather in even greater numbers throughout 1988.

The Soviet Celebrations

When the millennium celebrations in Moscow began, especially the Easter festivities, it was obvious that the spectacle was going to be impressive. But for quite some time beforehand, it seems, the Soviet leaders could not decide what to do about the millennium—torn between the Communist Party’s stance against religion and the massive popular surging toward the approaching anniversary, both in the Soviet Union and worldwide. Finally they reached a decision, and ordered that the entire USSR observe the occasion with pomp and ceremony. However, they shrewdly emphasized that it be a celebration of a “Russian” millennium.

As one of their first acts acknowledging the approach of the millennium, the Soviets in 1984 re-opened the St. Daniel monastery in Moscow, then gave it to the Moscow patriarchate. After that, government-approved workers began doing much in preparation for the millennium. Books were published. International contacts with leaders of other religious groups were initiated and solidified. Invitations went forth. And beginning at least as early es April of 1988, the celebrations began, though the biggest celebrations were reserved until June, the month in 988 when the baptism supposedly took place.

The June festivities were scheduled to include a solemn liturgy (worship service), led by Russian Orthodox hierarchs at the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Theophany in Moscow; a sobor (church council meeting) at the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra (Monastery) near Moscow; a special festive gathering in Moscow, to be attended by invited representatives from various faith communities, as well as from the Soviet and other governments; other liturgies and masses at all the Churches of the Moscow Patriarchate; subsidiary celebrations in the cities of Kiev, Leningrad and Vladimir; and further celebrations in Kiev, to be attended by foreign guests and delegates from the sobor mentioned above.

Celebrations in other dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate were to continue until mid-July of 1988, featuring Church services and gatherings of clergy and laitvy, at which the decrees and documents of the sobor were to be proclaimed.

In spite of the attention Patriarch Pimen was to give to the Kiev celebrations it was clear that Kiev, the actual site of the first mass baptism of Rus’, was being relegated to a minor position. Moscow remained predominant and pre-eminent in the celebration. Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev, when asked why this was so said dutifully, “Moscow has always been the center of the Orthodox Church of Rus’ ” (that is the literal translation the Ukrainian text of his comment; the English version says “of the Russian Orthodox Church”). The remark might be amusing—Moscow was hardly even a village in 988—if it were not such a tragic reminder of the subservience of the Church of Kiev, the “mother church,” to her eventually more-powerful and better-known daughter, the Church of Moscow. The Ukrainians’ laughter at this ironic remark could not help but be mingled with sighs of sorrow, frustration and yearning.

The Irony and the Anguish

With the ascendancy of the latest Moscow ruler, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet Union seems determined to put on a human face before the watching world. A well-publicized religious celebration fits into these plans very well. The freedom—or at least tolerance—of religion in the USSR is made to seem like a genuine reality.

And there is an additional plum in this pie for the government. By making the millennium a “Russian” event, the pre-eminence of Russian language and culture in the multi-national USSR is given a welcome boost. The Soviet government follows in the footsteps of its tsarist predecessors in believing it is easier to rule over a unilingual domain.

Sadly, a good many Westerners don’t seem to mind this de-culturalization of the several non-Russian nations in the USSR. To view the Soviet Union as a multi-nation entity, and especially to try to differentiate between Russians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians, seems to many like too arduous a task. How much simpler, they unconsciously think, to accept the simple, convenient labels proferred first by the tsars and now by the Soviets: “Russia,” “Mother Russia,” “Holy Russia.”

Thus it seems to have fallen largely upon the Ukrainians dispersed throughout the West to call the world’s attention to this inequity, to keep on raising such troubling questions as, Why is the baptism being primarily celebrated in Moscow, since it took place in Kiev? Why is the Ukrainian Catholic Church banned in its home country? Why was the Ukrainian Orthodox Church forced into the Russian Orthodox Church, and why can’t its autocephaly be recognized as it once was? As far as the primary celebration being in Moscow goes, numerous Ukrainians have pointed out that this is like celebrating the signing of the Magna Carta in New York, or the Declaration of Independence in London.

Annoying as these points might be, they must be raised, both by dispersed Ukrainians who are aware of the struggles of their countrymen, and also by those other concerned persons in the West who are aware of the series of injustices that the Soviet-approved celebrations are not acknowledging.

But some things it is already too late to do anything about. The big celebrations will go on in Moscow. Numerous VIPs will go and participate. The media will focus on the spectacle and ceremony, of which Moscow will certainly provide the most.

Yet there are still things that can be done. It would be in the interests of justice and true peace, if:

1) These questions were raised by those going to the celebrations in the Soviet Union;

2) Millennium celebrations by Slavic groups (particularly Ukrainian) outside the Soviet Union were heavily patronized (Ukrainians in many large Canadian and U.S. cities have formed Ukrainian Millennium Committees that will provide information about what is going on in each area. In Europe, the chief celebration of the banned and exiled Ukrainian Catholic Church was scheduled for July 3–14 in Rome. In the U.S., the chief celebration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was scheduled for Aug. 5–7 at its headquarters in South Bound Brook, N.J. The world celebration of the Ukrainian diaspora were scheduled for Aug. 12–14 in Ontario, Canada);

3) Readers would take time to better acquaint themselves with the complex issues of justice and peace in the USSR.

Bringing Back the Meaning

Unbeknownst to many Westerners, and surely as equally unbeknownst to many Russians, the thorny issues raised here bring anguished feelings to many Ukrainians and Byelorussians, feelings of anger and frustration verging on desperation. Many in the world probably do not realize the weight of emotion borne by the non-Russians as they watch this injustice being perpetrated on the sacred memory of the baptism of Kievan Rus’.

In the midst of all these politics, it would seem a good time to focus again on the greatest meaning of the millennium—that is, masses of people receiving Christ, who is love personified. It’s tragic that the commemoration of this event, instead of encouraging people to grow in love towards God and their fellow human beings, has become a means of asserting political aspirations, perhaps to some extent on the part of all parties concerned.

Thus it is important that the truth be spoken in love and heard in love, and that the way be opened for a fair and truly brotherly relationship among Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Russians of the various Christian communities, as well as among those who do not feel they can honestly belong to any of these faith communities, yet are genuinely concerned with human rights and values.

What’s really going on here? Dare we hope, despite the evidence against it, for the beginning of a new, honest, open relationship between peoples in the light of Christ who stands at the center of the baptism of Kievan Rus’?

The greatest need during this millennium is for love. It’s that simple.

And that difficult, as well.

Author of numerous articles and sermons, Dr. Ihor G. Kutash is the director of the Media and Information Commission of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, and is the dean of the St. Sophie Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

The History of Russian Christianity: Christian History Timeline

General World History

Before 1000

800 Charlemagne is crowned Holy Roman Emperor

935 Wang Chien establishes central monarchy in China

954–55 Norman invasions of France

963–1025 Basil II is Byzantine emperor

981 Eric the Red visits Greenland

988 Vikings attack England

1000

1000 Leif Ericsson reaches America

1054 The Great Separation between Eastern and Western Churches takes place, and largely remains to this day

1066 The Normans conquer England

1071 Byzantine Empire is defeated by Turks at Manzikert

1096–99 First Crusade: to Jerusalem

1100

1100–1135 The first of the Henrys rules in England

1113–1115 Bernard joins the Christian Order, becomes first abbot of Clairvaux

1170 Thomas Becket is murdered

1182–1226 St. Francis of Assisi lives

1187 Saladin captures Jerusalem

1200

1200 Islam begins to replace Indian religions

1215 King John signs Magna Carta

1228-29 Sixth Crusade: Jerusalem regained

1244–1917 Jerusalem in Muslim hands

1260–94 Kublai Khan is emperor of China

1270 Eighth Crusade: to Tunis

1271–95 Marco Polo journeys to China

1273 Rise of Hapsburg family begins

1274 Thomas Aquinas dies

1275 The earliest recorded human dissection takes place

1280–1368 Yuan Dynasty rules China

1300

1305–76 Popes reside at Avignon

1327 Aztecs establish Mexico City

1328–1384 John Wycliffe lives

1348–1453 Hundred Years’ War

1348–50 Black Death ravages Europe

1368–1644 Ming Dynasty in China

1378–1417 The Great schism divides the papacy

1400

1415 Jan Hus is martyred

1420–33 Hussite Wars

1431 Joan of Arc burned

1479–1516 Ferdinand and Isabella rule in Spain

1485–1509 Henry VII, the first Tudor king of

1492–1504 Christopher Columbus discovers America, recrosses Atlantic four times

1490 The first orphanages are established in Italy and Holland

1500

1500 In Europe, the end of the Early and beginning of the High Renaissance

1522 Martin Luther finished translating the New Testament into German

1525 William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament into English is printed at Wurms

1555 Michelangelo sculpts the Pieta, and tobacco is brought to America for the first time

1577 Francis Drake embarks on voyage around the world via Cape Horn

1600

1700

1800

1861-65 U.S. Civil War

1900

1914–18 World War I

1940–45 World War II

1955 Six of the United States officially recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as a major faith, and several other states soon follow suit

1961 The “Reform Baptists” separate frm the AUCECB to form the “underground” Council of Evangelical Baptist Churches (curches unregistered with the government and thus illegal); many of them are imprisoned and martyred

1965–75 The Vietnam War

1973–75 The Watergate break-ins, indictments, and convictions

1978 U.S. and the People’s Republic of China establish full diplomatic relations

USSR History

Before 1000

c. 50–60 St. Andrew allegedly does mission work in Ukraine and, standing on the future site of Kiev, predicts that a great Christian city will one day exist there

860–65 With Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Christian missions to the Slavic nations begin in earnest; Cyril establishes Cyrillic alphabet that is still used by Eastern Slavs today

c. 864 Under the auspices of Rus’ Prince Askold and Patriarch Photius, the first baptism in Rus’-Ukraine

869 Eighth Ecumenical Council (in Constantinople)

955 Princess Olga, the queen of Kievan Rus’, is baptized at Constantinople

988–991 Mass baptism takes places at Kiev, Grand Prince Vladimir makes Orthodox Christianity the national religion of Rus’—which it remained until 1917

1000

1019 Yaroslav receives a metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople; this Rus’-Byzantium link continues for nearly 400 years

1025 The beautiful St. Sophia Cathedral is constructed in Kiev

1037 The Russian Orthodox Church comes under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople

1100

1113 The Church of St. Nicholas, one of the first “onion-domed churches,” is built at Novgorod

1200

1204 Eastern Christendom’s center, Constantinople, falls to Western Christendom’s Crusaders

1206–26 Temujin is proclaimed Gengis Khan, rules the Mongols

1220-21 Mongols invade India

1237–40 Mongols invade and destroy Kiev

1250 Hats come into fashion, and goose quills are used for writing

1261 Easterners retake Constantinople

1300

1325 The metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church is transferred to Moscow

1326 Moscow becomes capital of Russia, and official center of Russian Orthodox Church

1363 Timur the Lame (Tamerlaine) begins his conquest of Asia

1392 Sergius of Radonezh, the patron saint of Russia, dies

1396 Stephen, a Russian Orthodox bishop and famous missionary, dies

1400

1431–49 The Mongols’ domination of Russia comes to an end

1448 See of Moscow is raised to independent status

1450 Moscow emerges as “The Third Rome,” claiming to have succeeded Rome and Constantinople as the center of the Orthodox Church; Russian Orthodoxy remains virtually untouched by the Renaissance and Reformation

1500

1551 The historic Council of Moscow indicates the declining influence of the patriarchate of Constantinople and the rising influence of Moscow

1589–1605 In Moscow, Iov serves as the first patriarch of the new Russian Orthodox Patriarchate

1596 The Orthodox in Poland unite with Rome, forming what is known as the Uniate Church

1600

1629 Cyril Lucano, the patriarch of Constantinople, makes a Calvinist confession of faith

1642–58 Patriarch Nikon tries to reform the Russian Orthodox Church; a schism results

1685 Moscow Theological Academy is founded

1690–1700 Patriarch Adrian is Russian Orthodoxy’s last patriarch until 20th century

1700

1721 Peter the Great abolishes the Moscow Patriarchate, establishes the Holy Synod as a state institution to carry out church reforms

1783 Potemkin captures Crimea for Russia

1794 Russian Orthodox missionaries begin work in Alaska with fur traders and Indians

1800

1809 St. Petersburg Theological Academy is founded

1848 Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto

1856–1876 Translation of the entire Bible into vernacular Russian

1867 A German Baptist from Lithuania administers the first Baptist baptism in Russia

1867 Russia sells Alaska to the U.S.

1869 The first Russian Baptist Church is established

1870 Bishop Innocent, former missionary to Alaska, founds the Orthodox Missionary Society

1880 Russian Orthodox leaders begin a persecution of all non-Orthodox sects and churches

1884 First Congress of Russian Baptists

1891 Russian Orthodox leaders intensify their persecution of the non-Orthodox, making it difficult for them to find employment or living quarters, and taking their children to indoctrinate them in the Orthodox faith; non-Orthodox are tried in Orthodox courts, not civil ones

1894 The Russian Orthodox Church forbids Baptists to assemble

1900

1904–07 Russo-Japanese War

1917 The Russian Revolution; Moscow Patriarchate is re-established

1918–28 Lenin separates church and state and proclaims religious freedom; the Baptists begin a pastoral school in Moscow, and a publishing house; Russian Baptists increase to about two million

1919 The American Ukrainian Orthodox Church is organized

1922 USSR is formed

1929–1939 Stalin’s “Age of Terror”; most Russian Christians suffer greatly under this state-sponsored tyranny; the worst years are ’34–38

1943 Desiring to rally the Russian people in the face of Hitler [Hitler ] ’s armies, Stalin re-establishes the Russian Orthodox Church

1944 Soviet government orgainzes the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists; but Soviet control of the AUCECB makes numerous Christians oppose it

1959–64 Khruschev oversees a great persecution of Christians, though not so murderous as Stalin’s

1960 The USSR makes its restrictive statutes upon the AUCECB ever more stringent

1961 Churches in the USSR join World Council of Churches

1974–75 For his writings against Soviet repression, Alexander Solzhenitsyn is exiled, writes The Gulag Archipelago, Vols. One and Two

1986 Gorbachev initiates policy of glasnost, or “openness,” and Soviets’ freedom of religions increases somewhat

1988 Millenial anniversary of Christianity in the USSR

Kievan Rulers

978–1015 Vladimir I rules Keivan Rus’

1019–54 Yaroslav “the Wise” rules Rus’

1113–1125 Vladimir Monomach rules in Rus’

1125–1140 Other members of Vladimir’s dynasty continue to rule a constantly sub-dividing Rus’

1325–1341 Ivan I rules in Moscow

1359–1389 Dmitri Donskoy rules in Moscow

1425–1462 Vasili II rules in Moscow

1462–1505 Ivan III “the Great” rules Russia

1547–1584 Ivan IV “the Terrible” rules Russia

1645–1676 Alexei rules Russia

1721–1725 Peter “the Great” is emperor of Russia

1762–96 Catherine II is empress of Russia

1801–25 Alexander I is tsar of Russia

1894–1917 Nicholas II rules Russia

1920–24 Lenin rules USSR

1924–53 Josef Stalin

1953–64 Nikita Khruschev

1964–80 Leonid Brezhnev

1980–85 Kosygin and Andropov

1985-?? Mikhail Gorbachev

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

What is Eastern Orthodoxy Anyway?

Alexander Melnyk

It’s being much-mentioned and much-lauded during all the millennial celebrations, but what, really, is this Christian faith that’s so unfamiliar to most Western Protestants? Here’s an introduction.

Posnov / Getty Images

In this series

The Eastern Orthodox faith is at the center of many of the millennial celebrations, but to many of our readers—specially the Western Protestants—it may be a mysterious, unknown quantity. This article provides a Ukrainian Orthodox adherent’s introduction to his faith, including distinctives in worship and theology.

To most western-hemisphere Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox Church—despite so many media-hyped millennium celebrations revolving around it—is still very much a mysterious unknown, a phenomenon almost altogether outside their experience. So let us take a short comparison-and-contrast journey into what is the oldest continuous Christian tradition in the world.

At the outset we can discern at least one basic difference between Eastern Christianity and most of Western—their differing uses of the word orthodoxy. Whereas for the Western church the word has come to be almost exclusively associated with correct doctrine, for the Eastern church orthodoxy includes correct doctrine but is inextricably rooted in—and invariably grows from—correct worship. Thus to keep our journey properly oriented, we will make frequent reference to the primary compass-point of Orthodoxy-proper worship.

The God We Worship

The Orthodox, like most Roman Catholics and Protestants, worship the triune God of the Scriptures. Orthodox prayers are offered to God the Father, Jesus, God the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. During worship assemblies, the members’ frequent making of the sign of the cross “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is an ongoing reminder of the Trinity.

The Orthodox see the doctrine of the Trinity as so significant that, each year in January, when Orthodox priests visit all the members’ homes to bless the residences and those living in them with holy water, the priests sing this hymn in a brief service at every home:

“When Thou, O Lord wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest. For the voice of the Father bore witness unto Thee, calling Thee the beloved Son, and the Spirit, in the form of a dove, confirmed His word as sure and steadfast.”

The Orthodox have communal worship assemblies, just as do Catholics and Protestants. The church buildings where the Orthodox meet for these assemblies have three main parts: 1) the entrance; 2) the main open area where the worshippers gather; and 3) the altar, from whence the priest leads the worship. Looking around in an Orthodox church building, a Protestant might be struck by several features that differ from the average Protestant church building.

The Icons

One of the most obvious differences is the pervasive presence of icons, or religious “pictures.” Many Protestants might object at first that the presence of these “images” cannot be reconciled with the Old Testament’s admonitions against idolatry. But the Orthodox who produce and display these icons do not see them as idols—in fact, they would wholeheartedly agree with Protestants that idolatry has no place in Christianity.

The Orthodox do not believe that the icons are in any way substitutes for God. Rather, they believe that the icons’ evocative style and prescribed content better help human worshippers move toward the invisible, triune God who alone is worthy of adoration.

Icons are never painted (actually, written is the term the Orthodox prefer to use to describe the creation of icons) with the intention of them being realistic representations of actual persons; they are always painted stylistically, according to longstanding traditional guidelines, and always with the intention of drawing the worshipper’s attention to spiritual realities above and beyond the icons. The Orthodox refer to icons as “windows to heaven.”

But the Orthodox don’t advocate icons as just another good way of pointing us toward God; they actually see them as better ways of pointing us to God and expressing worship to God than the more strictly abstract styles of expression used in Protestantism. Humility, love and courage are meaningless words, they say, unless these virtues are incarnated in the lives of individuals.

And while they certainly acknowledge the world is fallen, they also affirm that the creation was good and is loved by God, that its fallenness does not mean there’s no place for it in worship, that in fact it can be transfigured and transformed into a means of glorifying God. As one saint wrote long ago:

“Through heaven and earth, through wood and stone, through all creation visible and invisible, I offer veneration to the Creator and Master and Maker of all things. For the creation does not venerate the Maker directly and by itself, but it is through me that the heavens declare the glory of God, through me the moon worships God, through me the stars glorify Him, through me the waters and showers of rain, the dews and all creation, venerate God and give Him glory.”

Thus Orthodoxy sees each believer as endowed with the task of praising God, and believes this should be done in concert with all of creation, including icons.

The Iconostasis and Mystery

Glancing further around an Orthodox church building, a Protestant might be struck by the decorated partition that completely separates (except for three doors in it) the altar from the area intended for the lay-worshippers. Called the iconostasis, this screen is frequently several tiers tall and is thoroughly covered with icons. The iconostasis symbolizes a second fundamental emphasis of Orthodox worship—the mystery at the heart of our adoration of God.

However, some outsiders might postulate that the iconostasis was intended to emphasize the distinctions between the clergy—those who are allowed behind the iconostasis—and the laity—those who are not. But actually, an emphasis on such distinctions is totally contrary to the spirit of Orthodoxy.

The point of the iconostasis is that God cannot be effectively encircled with dogma and definition. God goes beyond the limits of what humans can know, much less define and articulate. And so, on the other side of the iconostasis is the mystery of the indefinable God, a God beyond all our imaginings.

Similarly, the bread and wine, which are transfigured into the body and blood of Christ, are referred to as mysteries, things beyond human abilities of complete definition or understanding. The most appropriate reaction in the face of such mysteries is worship.

The iconostasis serves not only to underline the mystery of God, but also as a vehicle for education and an inspiration to meditation. Every iconostasis contains large icons of Christ and of Mary, as well as of several of the apostles and other saints. Other icons on the iconostasis depict various episodes from Christ’s life, often including His birth, His baptism, His passion, and His resurrection.

These icons now serve a didactic purpose—and have for hundreds of years—by bringing to members’ minds some of the major events dealt with in the Scriptures. This was particularly the case when many of the faithful were illiterate.

The Vestments and Liturgy

At the very beginning of the service, the priest comes out to spread incense around and above the believers, and here again we notice points of difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. During the drama of the Liturgy (the main Sunday service), Orthodox priests dress in vestments reminiscent of royalty in order to denote the royal presence of the Lord Jesus Christ at the gathering of the faithful community. This is especially emphasized when the priests face the worshippers.

However, most of the time the priest faces the altar right along with the rest of the faithful. The censing represents the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit, who directs our prayers and sanctifies us by leading us into the truth. It is the intention of the Orthodox that all these various elements of worship help the members participate in worship with the totality of their personalities, and not just intellectually. The Orthodox believe that beauty—whether expressed in the colors and styles of icons, or through the beautiful vestments of the priests, or in the aromatic scents of incense—calls all of the person’s components to prayer.

Let us now look briefly at the prayers themselves. First, one will notice that the texts of the liturgical service contain a synopsis of Christ’s life: from birth, through death, to the resurrection and beyond. One of the most important features of the main Sunday service is its Christ-centeredness. All the major events of Christ’s life are recalled through symbolic actions.

The Liturgy is also punctuated with litanies, sung alternately with doctrinal hymns. Litanies are a combination of two elements: 1) a dialogue between priest and choir, in which they raise our earthly concerns before God; and 2) the congregation singing the major refrains “Lord have mercy” and “Grant it, O Lord.” The hymns cover various doctrinal teachings, and always include some about Christ’s resurrection.

This is important because one of the major objectives of every Liturgy is to allow each believer to experience himself the power and joy afforded by the Lord’s resurrection. It should be noted that some of the hymns also give honor to Mary and certain saints, and it is to this difference between Orthodox and Protestants that we now turn.

The Place of Mary and Saints

The Orthodox include Mary and the deceased saints in their prayers, principally because we believe, along with many other Christians, that the glory of God is humanity redeemed and united to God, not humanity despised and downtrodden. God does not force anyone’s will, but waits patiently on us. Mary, therefore, had the opportunity to refuse God—to say “Not according to your will, God, but according to mine.”

No Orthodox Christian would challenge the idea that Christ and only Christ is our Savior. But there is no question that He included Mary’s cooperation in the salvation process, just as God will not save a person if that person does not wish to be saved.

When the Orthodox sing to Mary as the door of salvation, we are underlining the fact that Mary’s courage and love are vital components of the process through which we are saved. In this regard, and in contrast to the religious paintings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodox icons never depict Mary alone but always with Christ, emphasizing her subservience to Him but not denying the fact that she is His mother.

Regarding the deceased saints, here again the Orthodox have reasons for including them in the service that are, at least to them, theologically persuasive and profound. Orthodoxy adheres to the tenet that ever since the coming of Christ, the partition between time and eternity, between the living and the dead, has been broken.

There is a mysterious unity—referred to by the Orthodox as the “communion of saints”—that exists because of the love that all believers are to show for each other. And just as we show this love by praying for and asking for the prayers of living persons, so can we continue to do this with those who are dead.

Scripture and Tradition

This idea of community, of timeless interdependence, also exhibits itself in the important Orthodox concept of Holy Tradition. Yet because of how important this concept is to the Eastern Orthodox, they are sometimes accused of not being sufficiently biblical—of using tradition to supplant biblical teaching. However, this idea is wholly contrary to Orthodox teaching, which holds the Bible in the highest esteem, and sees it as the book of Christendom.

For the Orthodox, tradition is not a substitute for the Bible, but a necessary supplement to it. The Bible itself needs interpretation, and this interpretation occurs though the action of the Holy Spirit working through the entire believing community.

Such interpretation is never carried out individually, because this would open the door to individual error, fragmentation, and strife—as the fallenness of the world intrudes through the egocentricity that stealthily lurks in each of us. The church guards against this by looking to the believing community as a whole, as expressing itself particularly through the Seven Ecumenical Councils (the last of which was conducted in 787), for proper interpretation.

In other words, there is a repository of commonly accepted wisdom and teaching, the Holy Tradition, which addresses questions and problems that may not be directly and openly dealt with in the Bible. Of course, this teaching can never contradict Holy Scripture. Through this attention to Holy Tradition, Orthodoxy has largely avoided the fragmentation that has plagued Protestantism, while at the same time avoiding the autocratic arbitrariness of the Roman Catholic Church. In Orthodoxy, no single person (aside from Christ), has absolute and infallible authority. This authority is vested in the believing community; this is the heart of the concept of Holy Tradition.

The After-Life and Atonement

As for peoples’ fate in the after-life, the Orthodox Church considers no one, not even Judas Iscariot, as already being damned. To judge someone is not our task—it is God’s prerogative. Therefore, we do not say that any dead persons are already damned, nor do we suggest that any deceased believers—no matter how moral their behavior in life—are without need of further purification or cleansing. The Orthodox Church sees those who have already experienced physical death as being in a state of anticipation of their future fate, of either bliss or suffering. The Orthodox, in keeping with our reservations about over-defining, do not postulate the existence of purgatory along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no bargaining to be done with God to lessen the suffering of those who are trapped at death in a state of sin. Instead, what Orthodoxy encourages is the desire, in living persons, to be cleansed themselves so that they will be more pleasing to God.

Ultimately, the Orthodox believe that the final fate of each person will only be clearly decided at the final judgment, which will occur after the Second Coming of Christ.

The consideration of cleansing brings us to two related teachings—original sin and atonement. The Orthodox, with their Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters, affirm that this world is fallen, and because of this we are born into an environment where it is easier for us to do evil rather than good. Though our solidarity with the rest of humanity, we are entangled in a web of deceit, of hatred and of sin. And through our personal contribution, this state of fallenness continues. Original sin points to our solidarity with the rest of humanity and does not, in a strict sense, imply guilt. Rather, it points to our involvement. The Incarnation, Jesus, is God’s supreme answer to the question of personal and original sin. Because through Christ, we are restored to communion with God. The Incarnation and death of Christ are not viewed by Orthodoxy as solely a settling of accounts nor a ransoming (although there are some aspects of this in Christ’s work). The essence of the Incarnation is love. Christ’s work is not just a reversal of sin and death, but also an inauguration of an essentially new stage in the history of man. We now, at last, see clearly what humanity is to become.

Dr. Alexander Melnyk is a professor of bio-chemistry at Vanier College in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and is also currently a candidate for a master of divinity degree at St. Andrew's College, a Ukrainian Orthodox theological school attached to the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Russian Christianity and the Revolution: What Happened?

Andrew Sorokowski

Russia and the surrounding Slavic countries were at one time considered among the “most Christian” of nations. So where was the church during the revolution that made the USSR atheistic?

It was once known as “Holy Russia,” a land blossoming with the multi-domed church buildings so associated with the Eastern Slavs’ Orthodoxy, a land pregnant with spiritual heritage and strongly in touch with the oldest traditions of the faith. But around the turn of the 20th century, something drastic happened.

The chief nation of the USSR, the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, was once considered to be among the “most Christian” nations in the world—a land with a rich, age-old history of churches and monasteries, the wellspring of numerous revered saints and martyrs, with a cherished and abundant legacy of sacred music, iconography and spiritual literature. Yet within less than a year after March 1917, when the last tsar abdicated, a band of militant atheists had seized power; many Russians were looting churches; were mocking religion and religious people unmercifully; were even murdering priests, monks and other believers by the thousands. What had happened?

To ascribe it all to “the Revolution” begs the question. In fact, there had been more than one revolution in Russia in the first decades of the 20th century. The anti-tsarist uprisings of 1905 had resulted in a constitutional government with an elected legislature, the Durma, and had ushered in a period of liberal reform. The revolution of March 1917 had seen the formation of a provisional government composed mainly of moderate liberals, though with a growing number of socialists. Yet none of this directly threatened the church or religion.

Revival, Then … Revolution!

Indeed, during these years Russia was experiencing something of a spiritual revival. Many disillusioned Marxist intellectuals turned to Christianity. Some yearned for a mystical revolution that would transform life itself. One group, which published the collection Vekhi (Signposts) in 1909, sharply criticized the radicalism of their fellow intellectuals. Among its members were the prominent theologian Sergei Bulgakov and the great philosopher Berdyaev. Both within and without the Russian Orthodox Church, writers, artists and other members of the flourishing Russian intelligentsia were seeking spiritual answers to the problems of the individual and society.

For the Orthodox Churches in the Russian Empire, the tsar’s abdication was a chance to free themselves from state control. Accordingly, the clergy, hierarchy and other representatives of the believers held a sobor, or council, which reestablished the patriarchate that had been suppressed by Tsar Peter the Great in 1721. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) seemed about to enter a glorious new era.

How, then, could the Bolsheviks—a small, conspiratorial party determined to smash the Church and root out religion—take over the vast empire in November 1917 and turn it into the world’s first atheist state?

Certainly it was not without a struggle. The Orthodox bishops and metro politans were perfectly aware of the Bolsheviks’ aims. In January 1918, the newly elected patriarch, Tikhon, warned the new regime not to persecute the church, and excommunicated all those who might be involved in such activity. During the next two years, at least 28 bishops and countless priests were murdered. The surviving clergy were stripped of their civil rights and subjected to intense economic pressure.

As for the mass of believers, those who had any clear political opinions tended to sympathize with the constitutional democrats, or in the case of the peasants who made up most of the population, with the moderate agrarian socialists—not with the Bolsheviks. But in such a far-flung, poor, and overwhelmingly rural country, most people had little knowledge of or concern for politics, and even less political influence. To take control, the Bolsheviks did not need to convince the majority of the correctness of their views. It was more a matter of seizing control of the major cities, the army, and the means of communication; this they did with ruthless efficiency.

Nevertheless, it took a three-year civil war for them to re-conquer most of the old Russian empire and create the new socialist federation, known from 1922 as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In this conflict, many ROC priests and bishops supported the anti-Bolshevi White Armies, though as early as September 1919 Patriarch Tikhon warned his clergy to stay out of politics, and reminded the faithful that the church imposed no political obligations upon them.

An Unprepared Church

The ROC does not seem to have bee really prepared for the Bolshevik onslaught. For nearly two centuries it had been trammeled by the Holy Synod, an agency of the state set up to supervise the church. Not only was the ROC closely linked with the state—it became virtually a part of the bureaucracy. Close identification of church and state was the expressed policy of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a layman who headed the Holy Synod from 1889 to 1905. He saw this, essential for strong government. But it prevented the ROC from developing free life or exercising an independent—and therefore credible—moral authority. Furthermore, the ROC failed to adequately prepare its clergy to meet the philosophical challenges of the day. Too often it was seen—not altogether inaccurately—as an obscurantist and reactionary institution.

But in an empire that was only half ethnically Russian, the ROC was on the largest of several Christian churches and the revolution affected each of them differently. The March Revolution provided an opportunity for other predominantly Orthodox peoples, such as the Byelorussians and Ukrainians, to revive their own traditional churches, which had been suppressed by the tsars.

The Evangelicals and Baptists (whose remarkable growth in the 19th century had been due in part to their strong knowledge of Scripture, but who had been mercilessly persecuted by the government) also benefited from the revolulion—at first. The Bolsheviks initially tolerated these movements because they tended to weaken the established Orthodox church. Later, of course, they would try to destroy them as well.

The Masses and the Party

Most of the peasantry—that is, most the population of Russia—remain, passive throughout the revolution and civil war. Life was precarious enough, and opposing any authority, tsarist or Bolshevik, was dangerous. It has also been said that the Russian Orthodox tradition bore a strain of fatalism and other worldliness that made it all too easy for the godless to take over secular affairs.

Of course, the Bolsheviks did find active supporters. For one thing, the legendary piety of the Russian peasant has been somewhat exaggerated. In the latter half of the 19th century, nihilists and radical populists had made inroads in the countryside, often playing upon the latent anti-clericalism of the peasant.

Besides, the village priest, usually a peasant himself, was not always an object of veneration. However devout the villagers might be, they could only see a poorly educated, sometimes morally corrupt priest, who typically had been born into his state as much as called to it, as merely their equal if not their inferior.

Services in the Church Slavonic language, which the people could barely understand, hardly satisfied their intellectual needs, and without adequate education they could receive little spiritual nourishment from the highly formalistic Church rituals. Besides, an institution that represented the autocratic regime was automatically suspect to many.

Thus, even pious Christians could become alienated from the ROC. This did not make them Bolsheviks, but it could make them unwitting accomplices in the struggle against religion.

In fact, the Bolsheviks welcomed those Christians who, thinking their faith was somehow compatible with Marxism, wished to cooperate. These well-intentioned souls seem to have been unaware that Christian notions of morality were incompatible with the Bolshevik creed, because Marxism taught that morals were conditioned by socio-economic relations.

When conditions changed, so did morals. Morality was relative, not absolute. Nor could the imperatives of class struggle be hindered by scrupulous “bourgeois morality.” One might say that the end justified the means—if there were any need for justification. Indeed, their attitude toward their Christian sympathizers epitomized the Bolsheviks’ morality. They apparently calculated that once these “fellow-travelers” had discovered the inherent contradiction in their position, few would have the courage to renounce Marxism in favor of an increasingly disfavored Christianity.

At the same time, the brutalizing poverty of Russian village life must also have won active support for the Bolsheviks. After all, the liberal-democratic Provisional Government only talked about taking land from the rich landowners and giving it to the peasants; the Bolsheviks encouraged them to help themselves. And alas, one of the largest landowners happened to be the Church.

The Bolsheviks did their best to propagate the image of the Church as a wealthy exploiter, even turning the Church’s piety against it. When famine broke out in 1920–21, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy quickly set up a relief fund and contributed generously to it. However, the Church exempted from the collections its sacramental objects, such as the chalices used in divine worship. Seizing on this, the Bolsheviks organized their own relief effort, then commanded the Church to turn over the sacramental objects as well. When it refused, they put several church men on trial for refusing to help the hungry.

One group of Bolshevik supporters cropped up within the Church itself. During the late 19th century, the Russian Orthodox seminaries had become hotbeds of radicalism. Many young priests had embraced socialist ideas, which were reinforced by their resentment of their immediate superiors, the bishops, as well as by their disapproval of their Church’s social and political role. They were joined by intellectuals who had abandoned Marxism but sought to combine Christianity with a radical social ethic.

In the wake of the Bolshevik take-over some of these activists formed the Renovationist Church. Seeing their opportunity, the Bolsheviks manipulated and eventually took control of the Renovationist movement, using it to weaken the mainstream Patriarchal Church. But then the ROC’s Patriarch Tikhon died, and his successor, Metropolitan Sergii, was persuaded in 1927 to declare his Church’s loyalty to the Soviet state. After this the Bolsheviks had no further use for the Renovationists, and suppressed them.

But even if manipulation of sympathizers helped the Bolsheviks take over, what made it possible for them to hold on? It was one thing for them to use the army and police to crush all active opposition. But how could they win over the souls of a hundred million Christian believers? Or did they?

True Believers?

There is no certain answer to this question. According to one theory, Marxist Leninism was a substitute religion that took the place of Orthodoxy in the hearts and minds of the people. With Marx, Engels and Lenin as its “prophets,” Capital and other writings as its “scripture,” with dialectical materialism as its “theology” and the Communist Party as its “priesthood,” Marxist Leninism was a ready-made secular faith. With skillful propaganda and a good deal of coercion, the Bolsheviks simply “converted” the people from one orthodoxy to another. Accustomed to unquestioning obedience, the masses acquiesced.

While it may be true that Marxist Leninism is in effect the official religion of a confessional Soviet state, this theory tends to exaggerate the Communists’ success. Even today, they are still trying to replace Orthodox rituals with artificial Soviet rites. In fact, despite the Stalinist terrors of the 1920s and ’30s, Christianity was not supplanted with the new Soviet creed except in the minds of the few Party members and sympathizers.

Even in the midst of the revolution, church attendance was high. Martyrdom enhanced the Church’s prestige. Later, most Orthodox Churches simply went underground, where the trials of the catacombs revitalized the faith. Today, convinced atheists are still only a fraction of the population.

While the majority seems indifferent to both religion and atheism, some scholars estimate that as much as 45 percent of the people in the USSR are religious believers. This would include some 50 million Orthodox, perhaps as many as three million Evangelicals–Baptists, some 10 million Catholics, and tens of millions of Muslims and other non-Christian religious people.

One indicator of the strength of Christianity in the militantly atheistic Soviet state was the government’s decision to re-establish the lapsed Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, in return for the latter’s support of the Soviet war effort and the new Russian nationalist policy. This act, however, revived the traditional alliance of church and state—a partnership beneficial to the hierarchy but arguably detrimental to the faith. In fact, leading hierarchs have sided more than once with atheist of officials against overly active and popular priests. And to many Ukrainians, this year’s government-sanctioned millennium celebrations are but another product of this “unholy” alliance between clerics and the commissars.

The Church’s Dilemma

The unequal and uneasy partnership of church and state leaves rank-and-file believers in a quandary. To defy the hierarchs could divide the Church, but to follow their political line strikes many as hypocritical. The resulting cleavage between the institutional Church and the mass of believers is, of course, just what the Bolsheviks ordered. For it was by such techniques of “divide and conquer” that they were able to subjugate the overwhelmingly Christian Russian Empire.

They weakened the Church from within, playing off laity against clergy, clergy against hierarchy. They compromised the Church in the eyes of the faithful by terrorizing the bishops into loyalty to an atheist state. And after the terror of the ’30s they tried to undermine the spiritual revival—one might say the true, inner revolution in the souls of the people—by propping up a lifeless conservative and statebound church establishment.

The sad and perplexing story of the Bolsheviks’ take-over of Christian land bears number of lessons for us today, lessons far more numerous an multi-faceted than can be discussed in this brief space. They include:

Churches must be prepared to meet the intellectual challenge of Marxism and other secular ideologies, particularly in the socio-economic sphere; on the one hand, they must not be passive or unaware of political developments; on the other they must not be draw into facile alliance with latently anti-Christian movements; they must welcome reform from within, but resist manipulation from without and the list goes on.

A final lesson might be: The Soviets have been in power for just over 70 years, some two-thirds of a century and in that time severe generations of them have carried out radically violent and persistent efforts to extinguish the Christian faith in their realm. Yet today, the survival of Christianity in the USSR—yes, even the flourishing of it—is acknowledged by most of the world community, including many Soviets. And not surprisingly.

After all, Christianity has been the religion of the Eastern Slavs for at least 1,000 years—10 centuries. With that comparison in mind, Christians might see Soviet rule as just one more passing trial that will soon be transformed.

Andrew Sorokowski, having both a degree in law and a master’s degree in Soviet studies from Harvard, is now completing a doctoral dissertation in history at the University of London School of Slavonic and East European Studies. From 1984–87 he was in Kent, England, working with Keston College, a research institute that specializes in reporting on religious life in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Of Mass Baptisms, National Churches, and the Great Commission

David M. Kemmerer

Can a king-ordered mass baptism of his nation’s citizens really bring about their genuine conversion to Christ? What are we to make of Christ’s command to “make disciples of all nations”?

The “conversion” of Kievan Rus’ was a king-commanded, soldier-implemented “Christianization” of a people. So was it valid? Kemmerer says it was, and offers a rationale that focuses on problems with the stereotypical Western concept of salvation and how to carry out the Great Commission.

To come appropriately to this millennium of the Christianization of Rus’ is to come respectfully, to come in awareness that one is contemplating the wellspring of a thousand years of rich spirituality and Christian culture among one of the great families of mankind. All protestations of various nationalists notwithstanding, the Christianization of the Kievan Rus’ c. 988 is, in point of fact, a milestone belonging to all the Eastern Slavs: the Ukrainians, the Byelorussians, and the Great Russians. It is not just a single event, but the fountainhead of a vast historic flow of faith.

It is a living legacy, first for the Orthodox believers who are its original children, but also for the enrichment of all Christians and other men and women of humanity and culture. Those who have a mind to appreciate such things must acknowledge that here are a subject and an occasion worthy of the effort to appreciate them. Yet for all of that, many a Western Christian will find certain difficulties in relating to this millennium of the Christianization of a nation.

Reasons for Misunderstanding

The first and most obvious reason for our difficulties is simply our relative ignorance of the lands, cultures, and histories of the Eastern European peoples. In this regard, Russian history has been rendered more or less alien to us by its cultural isolation from the West. In its early years it drew richly from the magnificent civilization and religion of Byzantium, which played its most vital role in our cultural and religious evolution during late antiquity and the period we tend to denigrate and dismiss as the Dark Ages. It is perhaps the single largest blind spot in our historical education.

More particularly, Western Christians are largely ignorant of how much of their own theology and rite comes from this source. Since the Byzantine connection is so much more significant in the East and in Russia, our ignorance of the one immediately sets us at greater distance from the other.

Then, too, the Mongol invasions which destroyed Kiev in 1240, drew a cultural curtain across the Russians lands, isolating them from the West for more than 200 years. Thereafter, Russia only slowly turned away from its eastern orientation, which left a mark on all of Russian society including religion. Writing in The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann can say, “The Russian character was completely coarsened and poisoned by ‘Tatarism’,” which he goes on to describe as “lack of principle and a repulsive combination of prostration before the strong with oppression of everything weak.” Unfortunately, as Moscow began to rise to dominance, this quality became imprinted more deeply in its culture and the strong religious nationalism of “Holy Russia.”

When westernization came it came forcibly, in the early years of the 18th century under Peter the Great. By that time, of course, so much of the Western religious tradition had already been formed without any reference to the East or Russia. And in Russia the westernization went only so far. In one sense, it did not deeply touch the Russian soul. The characteristics of autocracy and a type of monolithic, state-sponsored orthodoxy were deeply ingrained, and they continue on even into the present totalitarian regime.

This in particular presents a barrier to Western sympathy, which has been conditioned by liberal and democratic revolutions and our current pluralism. Of course, to point out this grimmer side of Muscovite Orthodoxy takes nothing away from those examples of deep Christian spirituality that interlace Russian history and literature. Still, to put it plainly, Russia stands outside our own cultural and religious traditions. It is not a major player in the Renaissance, Reformation, or Enlightenment periods.

The problem, however, is not that the difficulties for our understanding are so great, but rather that we fail to recognize our own prejudices and lack of sympathy for what is simply foreign to us. It is a problem of historical naivete, an undetected myopia. And there is a particularly marked tendency toward this among Christians, who assume that what is a heavy spiritual issue for them must be the same weight of issue for other Christians in different historical and cultural contexts.

The Mass-Baptism Question

Perhaps there is no better example of this for modern Western Christians than the whole connection between church and state or nation. In the Russian tradition we are presented with this problem from the very beginning, in Prince Vladimir’s mass baptisms in the Dnieper.

According to history, the Kievan-Rus’ people were “converted” after Vladimir delivered an edict that all the citizens of his realm would be baptized or risk becoming enemies of the state and of the prince himself.

What are we to think of such a “conversion”?

To what extent were the common people coerced by threat of the prince’s displeasure? To what extent had they been sufficiently informed? If we have reservations about such a beginning, how shall we view the Christianization that follows? For it does not appear to be evangelism as we think of it in the West.

Here we run up against two frequent characteristics of the Western Christian mind: first, a simplistic and artificial separation between church and state or nation, one that eschews any such government sponsorship; and second, a simplistic insistence on an individualistic salvation, with its corollary being a suspicion of any en masse conversions.

What can be said in defense of this sort of “conversion”? Of course we must admit that politics were part of the motivation for this edict—but how seldom are they not in this world? Christ’s kingdom ultimately is not of this world, but it is in it; and the faithful may often look to God to move the heart of a prince, politician, or leader of public opinion. In this instance, there was a political catalyst, a proposed dynastic marriage, in which Constantinople insisted upon Vladimir’s baptism as a condition for the royal union.

But certainly more was involved here than just politics. The time was right; pagan Kiev was ripe for conversion. Apparently there had been a growing dissatisfaction with the old paganism and a realization that the Kievan state needed to embrace one of the major faiths pressing upon its borders: Islam, Judaism, Western or Eastern Christianity (these last two were distinct and competitive, though as yet not in schism). Adherents of these religions were urging their faiths upon the prince. So, Vladimir sought the advice of “his boyars (the leading nobles) and the city elders,” who suggested that he “inquire about the ritual of each and how he worships God.” Here the Chronicle is quite specific in saying that this counsel pleased not only the prince, but “all the people.” There was a process of popular consultation here, and a careful albeit primitive, inquiry followed.

The Chronicle tells us that of all the different faiths they observed, the envoys were only impressed positively with the Greek Orthodox services they observed in Byzantium. Back in Kiev, it was also noted that the prince’s grandmother Olga, who had been baptized 30 years before, would not have accepted that faith if it had been evil. Thus, the matter was settled for prince, nobility, and people. But it was left with the prince as to how to proceed, which he did about a year later.

The important thing to note is that the prince’s decision did not occur in a vacuum or hastily. Christianity had already been preached in Kievan territory. In fact, a church had existed in the city for more than 40 years. Even the royal house had already been touched (through Olga, who at one time had been regent). Vigorous trade, as well as missionaries, had for decades maintained contact between Kiev and both Eastern and Western Christian communities. However, Kiev was not ready to embrace the new faith until its prince, with the apparent approbation of the nobles and many of the people, set the corporate process in motion.

But if this still seems to bode too great a danger of compromise or domination by Caesar, we may ask, what was the alternative in Kiev c. 988? It is unlikely that that society would have responded to the type of individualistic evangelism practiced by 19th- and 20th-century American Protestant churches. Moreover, the favor of princes and nobles has been a vital part of the advancement of religion from Old Testament times, particularly the advancement of Christianity through both Eastern and Western Europe. Millions have come to a faith in Christ through such doors of opportunity. So, for better or worse, Vladimir stands in the tradition of Constantine and Clovis.

We should also bear in mind that missionaries from St. Patrick to St. Augustine of Canterbury to the present have not tended to pass up opportunities to baptize and teach people, just because they were influenced by their leaders. And, in those cases where Christianity failed to take advantage of such openings, we have perhaps had reason since to regret it. At any rate, the subsequent history of the Kievan Church shows that it was not dominated by the state, but was able to act with Christian integrity, freedom, and power.

Still, there remains the question of nominalism, which many associate with a baptized but unregenerate paganism. Do mass baptisms like that in the Dnieper lead inevitably to an adulteration of the gospel, superstition, and syncretism? Not necessarily.

A Biblical “People Movement”?

There can be valid “people movements” to Christianity. (For that matter, there can be people movements for religious reform or protestations as well. It is highly questionable whether the Protestant Reformation could ever have occurred without such a phenomenon.) This is a fact which has been brought to the attention of Western Christians of late by the “Church Growth Movement.”

Vladimir’s decision, of course, could not guarantee a true evangelization of his people, but it did open the door to the process. What was important was how the opportunity was pursued. As Waskom Pickett’s mission studies in India in the 1930s revealed, a convert’s eventual maturity or weakness had more to do with the quality of his subsequent pastoral care than even his initial motive for conversion.

In all of this, we do well to remember that Christ’s Great Commission to evangelize the earth was framed in terms of discipling, not individuals, but nations. This recognizes the human bond that exists between a man and his family, his community, and his people. The redemption of man’s full humanity requires a type of Christianizing of the whole life and community of man: his work, his law, his culture, and all his relationships.

So Christ spoke of “making disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (just as the work was begun in the waters of the Dnieper), and “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” In one sense, that final phrase suggests an unending work, extending the impact of the gospel into every aspect of the nation’s life—culture, law, and politics—throughout history.

For Kiev and the Russian peoples, the process of penetrating the masses and transforming the soul of the people would have to take time. There was no strong, organized pagan resistance from any quarter. In fact, the people seem to have supported the change, at least on the surface, but on another level the old ways died slowly. Fr. Schmemann writes candidly about this:

“Its external elements—the divine service, the ritual—were easily accepted; it charmed the people and won their hearts; but there was danger that they would not see, or even try to see, the meaning or logos behind these externals, without which the Christian rite would in fact become pagan in becoming an end in itself. The soul of the people continued to feed upon the old natural religious experiences and images.”

The task begun among the Eastern Slavs was formidable and ongoing, but the effort to Christianize the people, the expanding nation (the ethnos of Matt. 28:19), was sincere and dedicated. Children from the best families were sent to schools for instruction, and Greek and Bulgarian priests, along with some from the West, labored to lay the foundations of Russia’s own Christianity.

Their success can only be evaluated by the historical record. And by that measure it would seem that Kievan Christianity was indeed marked by a high evangelical ideal and an undoubted spiritual vitality, which has passed on a rich and living tradition to subsequent generations.

Writing in the mid-’70s from within the Soviet Union, the dissident Evgeny Barabanov looks upon this great stream of Russian spirituality and Christian culture:

“In the feats of its saints and pious men, the Russian people have never ceased to behold the unfading light of a higher moral truth, which became the object of a quest that permeates the whole of great Russian literature. And looking back we realize that Christian ideas and ideals lay beneath even those aspects of life and culture which, would seem, were not related to them on the surface.

“We need not mention the heritage which has become an inalienable part the spiritual life of all mankind: the cathedrals and icons, especially the icons of Andrei Rublev; the prayers of Sergious of Radonezh (see The Country-Saving Monk); the archpriests Awakum and Serafim Sarovsk the authors Gogol and Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Solovyov; the pleiade of 20th century thinkers; and, finally, those recent innumerable martyrs whose hagiographics have not yet been written an who are remembered by only a few surviving eyewitnesses.”

This is all part of the millennium of the Christianization of Rus’. Although it is outside the Western tradition, the world has grown smaller in these last thousand years and that other great stream of Christianity need no longer seem so far away. For the Westerner who draws from its life and learning, there is much richness to be found, and correctives also for some of the distortions of our own limited perspective.

David M. Kemmerer is the editor of Touchstone, a journal produced by B’rith Christian Union, a Chicago-based organization that encourages a re- examination of the continuity of historic Christian orthodoxy.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

The History of Russian Christianity: Did You Know?

In this series

That Prince Vladimir, the Slavic ruler credited with the Christianization of Rus’ (not Russia), allegedly ordered all the inhabitants of Kiev, his capital city, to appear at the river for baptism on a particular day in 988 or they would be considered enemies of the kingdom?

That one reason Vladimir allegedly decided to accept Christianity was because, after hearing defenses of several major religions, he was healed from an eye disease after his grandmother Olga prayed to her god, the God of the Orthodox?

That another alleged reason for Vladimir’s conversion was his emissaries’ report that when they saw the grandeur of the Eastern Orthodox services in Constantinople, they were so awed that “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty!”?

That believers from the Ukrainian portion of the Soviet Union have for centuries embraced St. Andrew the Apostle as their patron saint, citing several early sources that say that he, the “first-called” apostle, conducted mission work in their homeland c.50–60 A.D.?

That despite the millennium events primarily conducted in Moscow in 1988, the baptism that the millennium celebrates actually took place in the region that is today known as Ukraine, in the ancient city of Kiev (hundreds of miles from Moscow, which hardly even existed in 988)?

That the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which claims direct lineage to the 988 baptism, is today banned in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and its four million adherents are either worshipping “underground” in Ukraine or have scattered across the globe, primarily to the U.S. and Canada?

That the Constitution of the Soviet Union says its citizens are “guaranteed … the right to profess … any religion, and to conduct religious worship”?

That, while statistics from the Soviet Union are very questionable, it seems certain that today some 50 million Soviet citizens are members of the Russian Orthodox church, some 10 million are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and at least another 12 million are members of the Georgian and Armenian Orthodox Churches, and of various Protestant churches?

That adding to the 72 million above the Muslims, Jews, and others, at least 40 percent of the Soviets retain a religious identity, while only 19 million are members of the Communist Party?

That as recently as the late 1950s and early ’60s, during Nikita Kruschev’s policy of “de-Stalinization,” from 7,000 to 10,000 Russian Orthodox Churches—about half of those then open—were closed down and dissolved by government action?

That in some republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, believers can, with little resistance, evangelize, carry out religious instruction, and publish religious literature?

That clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church set foot on what is today known as the State of Alaska in 1794, and established Orthodox churches all the way down to San Francisco, Calif., before Alaska was even purchased from Russia by the United States government?

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube