The press secretary of Metropolitan Kornily, head of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate (EPTsMP), Archpriest Leonty Morozkin, granted strana.ru an interview. He noted that the last refusal of registration for EPTs was based on purely political motives. The authorities of Estonia support the Constantinople jurisdiction and Estonian President Lennart Meri particularly does not hide this. Fr Leonty recalled that at the time of his visit to Estonia Patriarch Bartholomew held a number of meetings with leaders of Estonia. Besides this, he awarded Estonian President Meri a church medal and he himself received a state award. Estonian President Meri already a few years back appealed to Patriarch Bartholomew with the request for accepting into his jurisdiction all Orthodox believers in Estonia. From that time, Fr Leonty said, political pressure against EPTsMP has not let up with the purpose of forcing into to transfer to Constantinople's jurisdiction. However there are in EPTsMP firm intentions to remain faithful to the mother church and there are no desires to transfer to the patriarchate of Constantinople.
"All the time they urge our church to register as a newly created structure, but we consider ourselves a part of that church which was registered here before the war, and the other part is the Constantinople jurisdiction. It happens that there are two heirs for some property." Fr Leonty stressed that EAPTs also can be considered the legal successor of the prewar EPTs: "We do not think that we are the only legal successor, but the EAPTs is not either." Fr Leonty considers that EAPTs did not behave toward EPTsMP in a brotherly manner when it was registered with the help of the authorities and tries to become the owner of all property.
Father Leonty noted that at the present time churches and other property are possessed by the state and EPTsMP only uses them. "In the soviet period churches belonged to the state just as at the present time they belong to the state." Fr Leonty did not rule out the possibility that churches and property now in the possession of EPTsMP could gradually be reallotted by the state to EAPTs. Thus, for example, Metropolital Stefan, head of EAPTs, often has publicly demanded that Metropolitan Kornily abandon the church administration building in Tallin on the basis that it formally belongs to him. However it still has not happened that Orthodox believers of the MP jurisdiction have been denied access to their churches, but, Fr Leonty noted, newspaper propaganda talking about how the EPTs is a "Russian" and "occupation" church, which Metropolitan Stefan doesn't get tired of repeating, cannot help but cause pain.
"Seven times now in these years we have submitted application for registration, and we have already received a refusal seven time, but this time the head of the Department on Religious Affairs of MVD of Estonia told Metropolitan Kornily that our charter does not contradict the law, which means there are no formal bases not to register us." Fr Leonty said.
EAPTs and the Estonian authorities are trying to present the case as if EPTsMP does not exist. "Actually if there is Orthodoxy in Estonia, it is only our Orthodoxy; this is even formally visible. Around 50,000 persons came to Pascha services in the cathedral church of St. Alexander Nevsky. But only a few persons came to the cathedral chuch of EAPTs."
About a third of the clergy of EPTs are Estonians and there are many Estonians among parishioners. In St. Alexander Nevsky cathedral several services are conducted in Estonian for Estonian parishioners. At the present time EPTsMP has 29 churches and EAPTs, 54, but at the same time the number of EAPTs parishioners is much less and their churches stand empty, since EAPTs has only about 3000 praishioners as over against the 100,000 that EPTs has.
Fr Leonty reported also that at tomorrow's session of the Holy Synod of EPTs a special declaration will be adopted on this matter. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 April 2001)
ORTHODOXY IN ESTONIA DECLARED OUTSIDE THE LAW
by Dmitry Safonov
strana.ru,
25 April 2001
Strana.ru has learned that on 23 April Metropolitan Kornily Yakobs, head of the Estonian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate, received official notification of denial of registration from MVD of Estonia. The application for registration was submitted by EPTsMP to MVD of Estonia on 24 January 2001.
The formal reason for the denial was that the application for registration was submitted in the form of an application for renewal of registration and not in the name of a newly created religious association. The Estonian authorities pointed out that in the application there were no notarized certifications of signatures as required in applications for original registration. The government of Estonia refuses to consider EPTsMP the legal successor of the Estonian Orthodox church formed in 1919, assigning this right to the so-called "Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church" that is under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople patriarchate. A quotation from holy scripture in the document received by Metropolitan Kornily seems especially cynical: "One flock and one shepherd," which cannot in any way apply to current events.
"The association of Orthodox believers, which in 1920 was formed as the Estonian Orthodox church, and in 1923 as the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox church in a jurisdictional sense is an integral association, which revived the continuity of its activity in 1993 and whose charter was reregistered on 11 August 1993, and therefore according to existing legal acts this organization can call itself a part of that integral EAPTs association only with the permission of EAPTs," the document says. The Estonian authorities also demand that EPTsMP change its historic name since it, in their opinion, coincides with the name of EAPTs.
Estonian authorities insist that EPTsMP, to which the overwhelming majority of Orthodox believers in Estonia belong, must submit application for registration as a newly created structure, which simply goes against common sense. In the opinion of attorneys for the Moscow patriarchate, in the current situation there is no possibility of talking about a new registration because EPTs was formed in 1919 and has existed to the present day. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 April 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
"The ecumenical charter stresses the attempt by Europe to construct the future on Christian foundations," says the chairman of the Conference of Catholic bishops of Russia, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz. The head of the Russian Catholics declared this on 25 April after returning from Strausbourg. There he participated in the signing of the protocol for the adoption of the Ecumenical Charter, the first joint document prepared by the Conference of European Churches (CEC) and the Council of Bishops' Conferences of Europe (CBCE), according to a report by the "Blagovest-info" news agency.
Archbishop Kondrusiewicz emphasized that the writing Ecumenical Charter was a historical first; nothing like it has hitherto been adopted in Europe or in the world. "The charter is not a doctrinal nor juridical document; it is of a pastoral nature," he added.
Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz characterized the charter as a sign of the times, the first fruit of four years of joint work by the CBCE and CEC, and a visible sign of the growth of the role of cooperation among churches in Europe. "The charter is conceptual; it needs adaptation to local circumstances and in two or three years we will again meet together in order to review how it has worked," the archbishop noted.
Membership in the CEC includes a majority of Orthodox churches of Europe, and the Anglican, protestant, free and Old Catholic churches. CBCE unites the national conferences of Catholic bishops of Europe. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 April 2001)
CHRISTIANS OF EUROPE SIGN ECUMENICAL CHARTER
Blagovest-info/ Sobornost,
26 April 2001
An unprecedented ecumenical meeting concluded in Strasbourg last Sunday with the solemn signing of the Ecumenical Charter (Charta Oecumenica). The ceremony of signing of the Ecumenical Charter was held 22 April in the St. Thomas Lutheran church.
The document was signed by the president of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), Orthodox Metropolitan Jeremiah (of the Constantinople patriarchate) and the president of the Catholic Council of Bishops' Conferences of Europe (CBCE), Archbishop Cardinal Miloslav Vlk of Prague.
After signing the charter the presidents of the two largest Christian associations of Europe invited all European churches and bishops' conferences "to adopt and adapt" this document to the specific conditions of each society. After prayer, which was delivered by Metropolitan Jeremiah, and reading of the Bible, which Cardinal Vlk did, both bishops distributed to all present copies of the charter in English, French, German, and Italian.
The signing of the charter was preceded by an ecumenical worship service in the same church of St. Thomas, which was led by a woman Lutheran pastor from Germany, Ruth Rohrandt, vice president of CEC, and the French Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who headed the Vatican's organizing committee for conduct of the jubilee year 2000, who previously had been the chairman of the papal council "Justice and Peace."
The Ecumenical Charter defines a policy of cooperation of Christian churches from Europe of twelve denominations. This includes striving for the achievement of "visible unity" of the church, evangelistic activity in Europe, support for the processes of integration on the continent, activity aimed at gaining for women equal rights with men "in all spheres of life," struggle for preserving the environment, resistance to antisemitism, as well as dialogue with other religions, particularly Islam. The charter was composed as the outcome of a two-year-long consultation that began some time after the ecumenical meeting in Graz, Austria, in 1997.
The final text was approved in January of this year at a session of the joint committee of representatives of CEC and CBCE, although, as leaders of both these organizations noted, the charter "does not have a confessional or doctrinal character nor does it have binding force within canon law. Its authority will depend on the voluntary obligations of European churches and ecumenical organizations."
At the same time a number of European churches, including the Russian Orthodox church, expressed reservations regarding a number of provisions of this document. On the eve of signing the charter a worker of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate (OVSTs MP), Deacon Andrei Yliseev, stated in an interview with ENI, the news agency of the World Council of Churches, that this document can turn out to be "harmful and unproductive" for ecumenical dialogue and, besides, lead to "new divisions" among Christians. Andrei Yeliseev told reporters that he informed the central committee of CEC of the position of his church, expressing its disagreement "with both form and contents" of the Ecumenical Charter. RPTs expresses special concern, in Fr Andrei's words, with paragraphs of the charter which speak of a movement for achieving "visible unity of the Church of Jesus Christ in a united faith." According to the deacon, this passage contradicts the declaration on principles of interchurch relations adopted by the bishops' council of RPTs in August of last year.
In the opinion of OVTsS MP, the second version of the draft contains "many ideas and practical and theological positions which do not take into account the current state of the ecumenical movement and inter-Christian dialogue." Moreover, the Moscow patriarchate thinks, the text of the charter can evoke serious criticism within a number of churches and thus bring harm to cooperation of Christians in future.
In light of all that has been said, RPTs views the signing of the charter by Metropolitan Jeremiah and Cardinal Vlk solely as an "act of their own personal volition and convictions and not as the position of their churches as a whole and the Russian Orthodox church in particular."
In commenting on the position of his church, Fr Andrei Yeliseev stressed that the Moscow patriarchate by no means disapproves of the idea of the charter as such, but advocates further clarification of a number of its provisions.
Among protestant confessions expressing reservations about the Ecumenical Charter is the Evangelical Lutheran church of Denmark. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 April 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
An international conference, "Totalitarian sects--21st century threat," was held 23-25 April 2001 in the St. Nicholas Orthodox Educational Center in the city of Nizhny Novgorod. The first deputy director of the Department on Relations with the Public of the administration of Nizhny Novgorod, Igor Simonov, delivered greetings to the conference from the head of the city, Yury Isakovich Lebedev.
In addition to Orthodox participants, addresses of greetings were delivered at the conference by the head of the Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims of Nizhny Novgorod and Nizhny Novgorod province, Mufti Umar-khazrat Idrisov, and the head of the Jewish religious community of Nizhny Novgorod province, Eduard Mikhailovich Chaprak. The conference was attended by Catholic representatives, the pastor of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists church, Nikolai Sergeevich Bichkov, and the secretary for issues of religious freedom of the Volgo-Viatsk conference of Seventh-day Adventist Christians, Vitaly Semenovich Bakhtin.
Conference participants included scholars and religious leaders from Germany, France, Cyprus, Denmark, and China. Among the foreign participants were the chairman of the Inter-ministerial Commission on the Struggle against Sects of the prime minister of the French republic, Alen Viven, and the American writer Gerald Armstrong, the former personal archivist of R. Hubbard who later broke with Scientology and published a lot of critical material about the activity of this organization. Among the Russian participants in the conference were the publicists Deacon Andrei Kuraev and Professor Alexander Dvorkin.
The conference adopted a "Concluding Document," a "Special Determination," pertaining to the neo-pentecostal charismatic movement and containing a negative assessment of it, as well as a second "Special Determination," devoted to issues of Orthodox evangelistic work on the diocesan level.
In the concluding document conference participants expressed concern that "totalitarian sects (destructive cults) are actively attempting to penetrate and invade agencies of education, health services, governmental administration, manufacture, and commerce. In doing so they often change their names and disguise themselves, take recourse to confessional anonymity and pseudonyms, and often operate under the cover of false organizations they create that do not advertise but rather conceal their ties with the sect." They also began an initiative "for introducing amendments and additions to legislation of the Russian federation or adopting new legislative acts for the purpose of introducing strict control, limitation, or complete prohibition of the activity of totalitarian sects (destructive cults) and groups that fall under that definition. In doing this it would be possible to use the legislative experience of such European countries as France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria." The authors of the document emphasized especially that "in speaking of totalitarian sects (destructive cults), we do not have in mind new religious movements but are talking about groups whose ideology and practice are dangerous for the individual and society."
A list of the most dangerous sects in the view of conference participants was published in an appendix to the document. It included in particular the "Church of Scientology" and other Hubbardist organizations (centers of dianetics, "Narkanon," "Crimanon," and the like), "Jehovah's Witnesses," "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)," "Unification Church" and other Moonie organizations (Federation of families for peace in all the world," etc.), "Society of Krishna Consciousness" and other neo-Krishnaite missions in the West, the "New Acropolis," "Sinton of Koslov, "Church of the Last Testament" (Vissarion sect), cult of Porfiry Ivanov, "Reiki," and many other organizations.
During the entire three days of the conference picketing of the Orthodox Educational Center was conducted by a group of Scientology adherents from Moscow, led by the secretary for public communications of the Department on Official Questions of the Hubbard Humanitarian Center, Yuliia Azbenova. Near the center the picketers conducted a pantomime, tying a person to a tree with a sign on his chest saying "Scientologist," which symbolized, in the thinking of the Scientology adherents, the persecution of this organization. Scientology adherents who were present in the meeting room interrupted conference speakers about ten times. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 April 2001)
IN THE MOSCOW OBLAST CITY OF CHEKHOV, ILL-WISHERS BURN AN EVANGELICAL
CHRISTIAN CHURCH TO THE GROUND
Blagovest-Info News Agency, 18 April 2001
On the evening of April 17, unknown ill-wishers burned to the ground the Chekhov-based "Grace of Christ" church of Evangelical Christians.
As the pastor of this church, Pyotr Barankevich, informed Blagovest, on April 17 at exactly 11:30 p.m., three bottles filled with flammable liquid were thrown into the church building from the street. At that time, the 73-year-old mother of the pastor, Mariya Barankevich, was in the building. She was able to inform her son about what was happening over the phone. Arriving at the scene in a car, Pyotr Barankevich pulled his mother out of the burning building and then took her to the hospital with signs of smoke inhalation poisoning.
At the same time, members of the church asked the Chekhov OVD for help because they connected the arson with threats that Pyotr Barankevich had received on April 9 over the phone. An anonymous caller expressed his anger at the active evangelization efforts of the protestants in the "Orthodox city." According to witnesses, the police "responded to the call, but only stood aside and watched the fire."
Appearing on April 18 at the scene of the blaze, Inspector Vasily Shchitov, along with an inspector of the Chekhov fire department, inspected with Pyotr Barankevich the remains of the building and the area surrounding the church. In the course of their inspection in the yard, two more bottles were found. As the police officer suggested, the arsonist, in throwing one of the bottles, broke one against the doorway of the building. The second bottle, for some reason, was not broken. Thus, three bottles filled with flammable liquid were thrown into the building; their remains were found within the reception room and the nursery. Pyotr Barankevich believes that the attackers knew that he, his wife and his four children occasionally spend the night in the church. That is why, says the pastor, the bottles were thrown specifically into those rooms. According to Pyotr Barankevich, the inspector informed him that the record of the inspection will be handed over to an investigator of the Chekhov prosecutor's office.
At noon on April 18, the second pastor of the Chekhov-based "Grace of Christ" church of Evangelical Christians, Igor Rakov, met with one of the most influential Orthodox priests of Chekhov, the rector of the St. John the Forerunner church, Father Georgy, and held a 30-minute conversation with him. He informed him of the arson and the anti-protestant threats that Pyotr Barankevich received. The Orthodox priest called the arson an act of vandalism, while noting that among the Orthodox clergy of the Chekhov district there is "anti-sectarian sentiment." However, he doubted that any Orthodox priest would "bless" the arson.
The Chekhov-based "Grace of Christ" church of Evangelical Christians was founded in 1997 as a result of a schism within the local Evangelical Christian-Baptist church. The reason for the schism was differences over questions of evangelization. Pyotr Barankevich, being a proponent of active evangelization among the populace, founded the independent "Grace of Christ" church of Evangelical Christians. (tr. by Nikolai Butkevich, posted 26 April 2001)
HOUSE OF PRAYER TORCHED IN CHEKHOV
Radiotserkov, 26
April 2001
On 17 April a residential dwelling in which the service of the Evangelical Christian church of the city of Chekhov was set afire. The mother of the pastor, who lived in this building, received burns and spent twelve hours in the resuscitation ward. Near the burned-out building on Soviet street the district inspector and fire department investigator found bottles with flammable liquid and ignition fuses. Nevertheless, according to some reports, the police insist that the building caught fire by "self-combustion."
The "Grace of Christ" church of Chekhov was registered by the Department of Justice of Moscow province in 1997 and was reregistered in 1999. Services have been conducted at the premises of the city theatre, although because of the onset of harassment of "nontraditional" religious association, the church was denied rental of the premises and was forced to conduct its meetings in the aforementioned private home. Believers have met regularly there since 1966 (sic-?).
Previously the administration of the city of Chekhov prohibited the showing of the "Jesus" film in movie theatres (an event in whose planning various evangelical association of the city participated). Initially the prohibition was justified on the basis of a flu epidemic, but later there appeared in the local newspaper an article, "Beware, Sect!," in which all these associations were called "destructive and totalitarian sects," that are simply trying to "destroy the foundations of the holy Orthodox faith," and the "Jesus" film was called sacrilege.
According to the pastor of the "Grace of Christ" church, Petr Barankevich, on 9 April 2001 an unknown person telephoned his home and said that if the pastor did not cease his activity, "he would very much regret it," On 17 April the building was set afire.
The Slavic Legal Center is concerned about the recently growing instances of extreme manifestation of religious intolerance. In just the past month a protestant church in Lipetsk was fired upon and a Baptist pastor was killed in Ivanovo. The burning of the building in Chekhov in which an innocent woman suffered is just another link in this chain. Attorneys of the Slavic Legal Center view these events as a direct consequently of the "educational": activity of sect fighters, of which the best known is the American citizen Alexander Dvorkin. In particular, in one of his recent publication he included among the destructive cults the Baptists ("Vidnovskie vesti" newspaper, 31 March 2001), which is a new page in sectarian studies, a "science" that this activist promotes with evident persistence. As experience shows, such publications are by no means harmless and the have produced tragic incidents in our country. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 April 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
On April 18, 2001 the Central District Federal Court of Chelyabinsk city rejected the Chelyabinsk region public prosecutor’s demand for the liquidation of the local branch of the student organization Collegiate Association for the Research of Principle (CARP). CARP holds seminars on moral education for youth based on the philosophy of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church.
In December 2000 the public prosecutor filed a suit requesting the liquidation of CARP as an organization that "repeatedly and grossly violates the law and Constitution of the Russian Federation." In the same month, representatives from the prosecutor’s office confiscated a computer belonging to a member of CARP in an effort to build their case. Apart from the accusation that CARP was conducting religious activities in violation of its non-religious charter, the organization was accused of delivering lectures that "inflicted harm to one’s personality" and "were dangerous for the physical, mental and moral health of listeners." As evidence, the prosecution presented a medical report on the mental disorder of a certain Galina T., who had undergone psychiatric treatment at the First Chelyabinsk Regional Psychoneurology Hospital. According to the psychiatrist’s report, Galina T. acquired a mental disorder "as a direct result of her involvement with CARP."
However, in the course of the trial another medical examination of Galina T. confirmed the woman’s sound mental health. Her testimony during the hearing revealed that she had been forcibly committed to the psychiatric hospital. Hospital staff had failed to inform the court of her coerced hospitalization. In addition, Galina T. had been subjected to medical treatment without her consent. She also had been pressured to renounce her beliefs by being threatened with indefinite confinement. During questioning the girl’s parents admitted that they had forcibly committed their legal-aged daughter.
The prosecutor’s claim that CARP conducted religious activities in violation of its charter was rejected by the court. In so doing, the court acknowledged CARP’s right to study religious doctrines, including Rev. Moon’s philosophy, distinguishing such study from "religious activities." The court also took into account the testimonies of several witnesses, who affirmed the positive influence that the educational and charitable activities of CARP had produced.
In its ruling, the court acknowledged the right of CARP to exist and denied the public prosecutor’s petition that the organization be liquidated. (posted 27 April 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
The presence of official representatives of the church at the "Eurasia" congress was "routine" and even "modest," according to Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, secretary of the Department of Relations between Church and Society of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow partriarchate (OVTsS MP); there were neither bishops nor directors of synodal institutions in attendance. In addition, of the ideas that Mr. Dugin expressed, many are similar to those of the church hierarchy, Fr Vsevolod noted in an interview with a "Sobornost" reporter. In Fr Vsevolod's opinion, Alexander Dugin "has made a notable evolution in the direction of moderation and greater responsibility for the statements that he makes."
Nevertheless it is impossible to agree with the assertions that the West is an inevitable enemy of Russia. "There is no single concept of the West; quite diverse people live in the West and there are varieties of make-ups of ruling circles in western countries," Fr Vsevolod thinks. "By no means are all of them negatively inclined with regard to Russia."
Speaking of the need for interreligious dialogue, the representative of OVTsS expressed his conviction that this dialogue should be held not on the basis of western models but on the basis of our own traditions. In this part of the movement's program "there is much with which it is possible to agree."
In the interview Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin emphasized especially to the "Sobornost" reporter that he participated in the congress exclusively as an observer and he noted with regret that it had been necessary for him at the congress "to state for all to hear" the principles of relations between the church and political organizations which have been confirmed by three bishops' councils: "The church does not bless political organizations and it does not delegate clergy to administrative bodies, although it is prepared to work together with every one of them," he stressed. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 April 2001)
PROBLEMS OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION DISCUSSED AT STATE DUMA
Communications Service, OVTsS,
Moscow patriarchate, 25 April 2001
On 24 April at the State Duma of the Russian federation a round table was held on the subject "Religious education in Russia: problems and prospects," organized by the duma Committee on Affairs of Public Associations and Religious Organizations. The question of the state of religious education in the country and the prospects for exercising the rights of believers to get religious education within the boundaries of public secondary and higher schools was discussed by pedagogues, politicians, scholars, leaders of public organizations, and representatives of various religious organizations. Participants included the rector of the St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute, Archpriest Vladimir Vorobiev, OVTsS secretary for relations between church and society, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, and workers of the Department of Religious Education and Catechesis and the Evangelism Department of the Moscow patriarchate. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 April 2001)
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN RUSSIA DISCUSSED AT
STATE DUMA
Communications service, OVTsS MP/ Sobornost,
25 April 2001
Participants in the work of the round table "Religious education in Russia: problems and prospects," held 24 April 2001 at the State Duma of RF, included representatives of the Russian Orthodox church, the Central Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims of Russia, the Roman Catholic church, and Jewish, protestant, and other religious associations, as well as workers of the Russian Ministry of Education, the Russian Academy of Education, the Moscow Education Committee, and other state and public organizations.
In the course of discussion of the problems of education, round table participants agreed that the secular nature of the public (municipal) system of education in the Russian federation is satisfactory and the only one acceptable, which includes the fact that no religion (or occultic-mystical doctrine) can be made obligatory for teaching in state and municipal educational institutions; it is similarly impermissible to impose an atheistic or agnostic view of religion in the schools.
Round table participants think that for improvement of the activity of the state system of education under current conditions it would be beneficial to give priority status to the problem of spiritual and moral education and training of students in the objectives of national education in Russia, to conduct educational, cultural, and other events jointly with traditional religious organizations, and to carry out educational projects for the spiritual, moral, civic, legal, and patriotic education of students.
The state should guarantee the possibility for exercising the legal rights of citizens to religious education in state (municipal) educational institutions as well as provide assistance, including specific material and financial aid, for traditional religious organizations for opening and operating nongovernmental general education institutions at various levels, as well as for training the teaching personnel.
Round table participants think that it is necessary to prepare an appropriate legislative basis that would guarantee the possibility of more fruitful cooperation among state (municipal) educational administrative bodies, educational institutions, and traditional religious confessions. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 April 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
An amazing judicial process has concluded in the Golovin Moscow municipal district court. Four times the Moscow procuracy tried to put the Jehovah's Witnesses in the dock (the first time in June 1996), but every time it stopped short because of the lack of the essence of criminality in the activity of the religious society. In 1998 the procuracy charged that the Witnesses had violated the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," adopted in 1997. They supposedly were trying to incite religious conflict in our fatherland, in the name of their faith, and they were encouraging husbands to abandon their wives and wives to flee from their husbands, leaving behind the ashes of a family and sobbing kids. They not only did not wish to serve in the army but they completely refused to join their voices in singing the anthem to Aleksandrov's music.
At the end of September of 1998, with breaks of first three months and then almost a year, what was perhaps the most astonishing trial of the twentieth century went on in the Golovin municipal district court and just concluded the other day. Because however much it was attempted to keep the prosecution within the parameters of ordinary legal procedures, throughout these long months the essence of the case kept slipping out of the realm of jurisprudence and into the realm of faith. The irresistible logic of the case brought against the Witnesses could not help but drag the court into endless discussions of a single question: which faith is better and with which God should the Russian citizen conclude an indissoluble union.
Last February the court convened again. The main actors then were all, in the main, familiar: Judge Elena Prokhorycheva, in black robe, with short cropped and necessary authority helping her to keep a lid on the passions that were ready to explode suddenly in the small room and to get intelligible answers from witnesses and, from time to time, to inflict rather passionate blows to the egoism of Tatiana Kondratieva, the prosecutor.
"Prosecutor! You haven't made an answer! You don't have any at all . . . at this level . . . ." Tatiana Ivanovna blushed, went pale, and in the end decided to fire her big guns: she proposed, so to speak, impeaching the presiding judge for "hysterical attacks upon the prosecution." The judge denied her petition.
But although the relationship of the judge and prosecutor in 2001 unfolded in the image and likeness of 1999, the trial itself showed us many new and absorbing details. It turned out, meanwhile, that the persons participating in the trial, with the exceptions of the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, almost entirely were of the Orthodox confession. The judge, for example, who alluded to her communist past, assured the audience that for some time she has belonged to Orthodoxy. And the citizens called by the prosecution in order to confirm the prosecutor's representation and to pound their nails into the Jehovah's Witnesses' coffin cover certified themselves in overwhelming majority as Orthodox. In the end they helped Tatiana Ivanovna very little, but nevertheless one could not help admiring the zeal with which they exposed the alien faith. A young man, Aleksei Kozlov, some time ago was so influenced by the Witnesses that he completely abandoned his studies in college. "Why do I need to study if the world will end soon," was the way he explained to the judge his decision, wrongly interpreting, it must be said, the attitude of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the multiplication of knowledge and, it seems to me, avoiding the fact that the upcoming Armageddon had become for him merely a justification for his own laziness.
But in the final analysis isn't this an especially private, even better said, personal affair, the religious confession of one or another person? And isn't it all the same to the law and the social justice contained in its articles which church such-and-such a person worships in, whether Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, or even the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Don't you see, my brothers and sisters, that in the concept of religious coexistence we are still in a kind of intermediate position between compulsory unanimity of thought and the achievement of freedom of conscience? To be sure, in our country we still do not require the president and government to take an oath of allegiance on the Bible, but the current agenda already includes the question of the necessity of reverential respect of the flag and anthem. At least in the Golovin court, genuine passions swirled about the topic of the state and its symbols. "Respecting the flag," Tatiana Kondratieva asserted with all her heart, "is standing, so to speak, bowing in a certain pose."
For herself the unfortunate Tatiana Ivanovna should hush up these words, as lawyers began begging her to. Does she know of examples of disrespect by Witnesses to the flag and anthem? Does she possess evidence of outrages against the banner of our motherland by adherents of this faith? Did they spit on it? Burn it? Stomp on it? The prosecution, however hard it tried, could not produce a single concrete instance. In no way did they manage to prove the Witnesses are bad citizens of their fatherland, although a representative of the city Department of Justice, who imagined suddenly the horrible picture of the total conversion of all Russia to the Jehovah's Witnesses, shouted out in alarm: "Nobody would have to defend our state with arms! Nobody would work for the glory of the state!"
What should you say to everybody who call themselves Orthodox but try to put the state at the center of life rather than Christ? Say that the world revolves not around the Kremlin or "White House" (whichever caesars are priding themselves in inhabiting them for now) but around the cross? That the state does not have absolute significance for a person who entrusts himself to God? And that especially for us in Russia it is necessary to learn in the end to maintain a respectful distance between the regime and our personal life and our faith, hope, and love? Over the course of centuries the Russian person has strained under the load of carrying on his shoulders the unavoidable weight of the state. "The state grew fat, the people withered," Vasily Osipovich Kliuchevsky declared, and, recalling this, we all, believers and unbelievers, would be able to cease bowing down to the idol of great state sovereignty and beating our bloody brows.
Christ outlined for those who believe in him the boundaries beyond with the state has no place. Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps, have protected these boundaries with special zeal, at the cost of their own freedom and even life. That is the way it was in nazi Germany, where nothing could force the Witnesses to raise their hands with the shout "Heil Hitler;" and it was that way in USA where they insisted on their right to silence during the raising of the national flag; and it was in USSR, where in choosing between prison and the army they took prison. By the spirit and letter of the gospel they are right. For Christ did not found the church in order for it to become the outrunner horse in the state's harness.
The enormous historical bane of the Orthodox church in general and of ours in particular consists specifically in the fact that from the time of Constantine the Great all the way to the present it has not been able to remove from itself the urge to occupy a place alongside the regime.
It should now be recalled when did the state and church have a kind of honeymoon? Isn't that unthinkable? It seems to me personally that there always is great sense in saying over and over that Orthodoxy, which in its essence is a free, noble, open, and pure expression of Christianity, must not be transformed into the ideology of the state structure, which would be dangerous and sinful. Orthodoxy must not be used in a dangerous and iniquitous manner as an obligatory standard for all the other confessions, whether existing for long or not within Russia. And one must not discuss Orthodoxy as some kind of national feeling that unites us all into a single family.
Five experts were supposed to help the judge make a correct decision.
The experts, I report to you, assembled as at a draft, one more scholarly than another. I think that the last time such a display of scholarship appeared in court was at the trial of Siniavsky and Daniel. Even Elena Ivanovna Prokhorycheva, in my opinion, was at first somewhat intimidated in the presence of the scholarly credentials and authority of these experts. "Perhaps I have posed the question stupidly; excuse me. . . . That is, specifically with which questions are you dealing?" Sergei Andreevich Nebolsin answered with dignity that he is a philologist, literary theorist, textologist, and director of a sector of the Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And Nebolsin added, "I myself belong to one of the leading religions of humanity." The judge asked cautiously, "And you belong to which?" "I belong to Orthodoxy."
To Elena Ivanovna's credit the glamour of academic degrees and titles rather soon ceased to have an effect on her and she simply put the philologist, textologist, and theoretician in his place. "Embellishing the words of the law," he once expressed himself, to which the judge answered sternly, "Let's not embellish; be so kind as to speak directly." The personality of the textologist, theoretician, and philologist returned to its natural sphere when attorney Galina Krylova read to the court and audience several passages from his works to the effect that if it were up to him then it would not be bad even to shoot those who carried out a political transformation (whether this were perestroika or a meeting a Belovezhskaia Pushcha that abolished the Soviet Union--to tell the truth I did not fully understand, but Sergei Andreevich seemed to me to be equally disgusted by both). He supported the procuracy's suit: prohibit the Jehovah's Witnesses. "It is a destructive movement against humanity, especially progressive humanity," is what he said, emphasizing his responses to the judge's questions along with the other experts.
But why? They would be obedient executors of a foreign will--the party said "you must" and Nebolsin and comrades answered "yes"--however bad it makes you feel, it is understood. Man is weak and the devil is strong. However in our case there cannot be any talk about pressure on the experts. For some reason I ask: people who are free, educated, capable, I think, of thinking, posing and drawing conclusions--why does it not enter their educated heads that not only in the dusks of the seventy soviet years but also in the starry and dark hours of all its history it is wrong, impossible, and even criminal to prohibit a form of faith, to put pressure on a religious minority, and without sparing the dark colors to represent the Witnesses as ferocious enemies of society and the state? Secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the past conducted all-out war against adherents of the ancient ritual, torturing them with fire and sword, casting them into prisons, declaring their family unions invalid and taking their children from them. And are we going to be like those of the past? Indeed will the whole Orthodox world learn a lesson from the party of Lenin and Stalin and its faithful oprichniks from the Cheka, GPU, KGB, without a shadow of pity and doubt oppressing those who believe differently from us?
Well there was one other expert. Marina Mikhailovna Gromyko, doctor of historical studies, professor, chief academic associate of the Institute of Ethnology of RAN. Her views on religion, which she declared in court, have the character of applied politics that is often seen now. If, for example, statehood relies on traditional religions it will be firm as a rock. But if this support is destroyed, statehood will collapse. I heard this and I was appalled. Professor! Isn't Russia an example for you? And the Soviet Union, which was not by any means destroyed because the four supporting pillars--Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism-- crumbled (I quote from the preamble to the law "On freedom of conscience")? Besides one religious confession (let's say, Orthodoxy) declares all the others false, destructive deception, fantasies of the devil, and heresy. Marina Mikhailovna deals with the understanding and the breadth of a true scholar. (I add, incidentally, that her current academic speciality is ethno-religious studies.) "All religions," she affably declared to the court, "resort to such criticism." Nevertheless Professor Gromyko is convinced that the Jehovah's Witnesses must be prohibited: "I consider the Jehovah's Witnesses' criticism of Christianity to be dangerous." But what is this, the "traditional religion of the majority"?
I will say this: both you, professor, and your colleagues in the expert study, and all those who still have not had the golden dream of Russia as the canonical territory of Orthodoxy. Actually only a relatively minuscule portion of our countrymen profess Orthodoxy--three, well perhaps five percent. The rest, while calling themselves Orthodox, have an extremely vague concept both of the church and of its alpha and omega, the holy scriptures. Unfortunately they still have not found Christ and thus it is easiest for them to learn hatred of the enemies of the native faith. I will even say further: in the "traditional religion of the majority" it is very difficult to find Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life.
And will one make an absolute demand to prohibit a religious minority from the position of such a religion of the majority? Is it worth using Orthodoxy as a planing tool with which little by little to turn the tree of Russia into a smooth column? Our fatherland will not become a brighter place if this column comes to personify the "traditional religious majority."
Among the five experts, however, there was one quite level headed person, a kandidat of philosophy and religious studies, Sergei Igorevich Ivanenko. For example, Tatiana Kondratieva insisted that he answer what from her prosecutor's point of view was the most important question: "For the Jehovah's Witnesses is Jesus Christ God?" To this Ivanenko calmly answered her: "No. He is the Son of God." And he added, trying to persuade Tatiana Ivanovna: "You know, we are not on the Sanhedrin."
He also tried to persuade his expert colleagues, but it was useless. He remained among them a white crow with his own private opinion: there is not the least juridical or moral basis for liquidating the Moscow society of Jehovah's Witnesses.
What has changed in our life during those years that the Golovin court was hearing civil case 2-452/99?
There has appeared in our country a new president of the Orthodox faith, who greatly respects and esteems the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church. The patriarch responds with paternal love. The personal relations of the two leading figures, secular and ecclesiastical, draw the church and state extremely close in an effort to find in Orthodoxy a new ideology and leaven for turning out patriotically inclined generations. All of this could not help but embolden the prosecutor, who did not conceal from the court and the public the main goal of the trial: after Moscow, then eradicate the Jehovah's Witnesses from all of Russia.
Elena Prokhorycheva could not avoid thinking about this (and about much else). And the trial over which she presided, beginning on 29 Sepember 1998 and ending 23 February 2001, concluded: to deny satisfaction of the representation of the procuracy of the northern administrative district of the city of Moscow for the liquidation of the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Moscow and the prohibition of its activity.
By this decision Elena Ivanovna Prokhorycheva saved the honor of Russia. And she assured the citizens of our fatherland that their hopes for freedom are not in vain. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 April 2001)
Russian
Religion News Current News Items
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.