Famous Moscow television host Vladimir Pozner recently incurred the righteous wrath of some Russian Orthodox circles, which could eventually lead to a court action. The reason is the interview Mr. Pozner granted to Kaluzhsky perekriostok weekly. Analyzing the causes of current Russian misfortunes, the journalist expressed the opinion that Russia suffers most from two unfavorable historically-formed factors. “It is not about Russian fools or proverbially bad Russian roads; it is about far more serious things,” he said. First, the point is that the Russian people was deprived for a long time of freedom and the possibility of making a free choice. The other factor is the role of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Russian history. “Orthodoxy,” Mr. Pozner believes, “slowed down our country’s development. All you have to do is compare the prosperity and level of democracy in Orthodox Russia, Greece, and Bulgaria with that in Protestant Scandinavia, Great Britain, and Germany or even in Catholic France and Italy. Sad as it is, Russia lags behind the non-Orthodox countries of Europe.”
These words immediately aroused Orthodox-minded political writers, while Aleksandr Dimitrov from the non-governmental organization For the Fatherland’s Moral Rebirth urged a prosecutor to institute legal proceedings. The lawsuit says, among other things, “The comments of well-known TV journalist Vladimir Pozner carry prosecution under Article 232 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (Fomenting Religious Sedition)... Pozner spread untrue information in the media about the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the history of this country. He said it slowed down the development of Russia. In reality, the level of Orthodox Russia’s economic domination was never surpassed by either the powerful USSR or the present-day democratic Russia.”
Let us not dwell on Mr. Pozner’s views of Orthodoxy’s role — they are by no means new. Suffice it to recall the well-known Russian philosopher PСtr Chaadayev who wrote in the nineteenth century, “Russia drank from a polluted well,” meaning the adoption of Christianity by Kyiv Rus’ from the Eastern, Byzantine, “ossified” Orthodox church. Many twentieth-century Western scholars tried to find a pronounced correlation between the religion professed by the majority in a certain country and the economic development of that country. But it is not so simple to do in the case of such a multi-factored and temporally variegated system as the state. Yet, there are some simple and undeniable facts. For example, only one Orthodox country managed to make its way into the European Union, where it is by far the least economically developed member.
Researchers take quite different views of the church’s overall influence on the history of countries. However, far from all of them seek analytical evidence to support their viewpoints. The Orthodox Church often relies on its unquestioned authority and tradition rather than on factual proof: it does not seem to require facts (could this be a sign of the Orthodox mentality?). Let us take, for example, the mentioned Mr. Dimitrov’s demagogic statement about “Orthodox Russia’s economic domination.” What did he actually mean? That serfdom was abolished in Russia only in 1861 or that most of its citizens were illiterate and lived almost like cattle at the turn of the twentieth century?
But let the Russians take care of their own problems. We will, instead, try to imagine the way future historians will assess the role of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the making of our state. In other words, how will they answer the question “Did Ukraine’s Orthodox churches speed up or slow down the building of the independent Ukrainian State in the first years of its existence, its most difficult period?”
The question also is to what extent the church is worried about the young state’s problems today. What prestige do church shepherds enjoy in today’s society and in whose interests do they make use of this prestige? Can we consider the Orthodox clergy a bearer of genuine spirituality, not just ritual regalia? Has our clergy become a day-by-day example for the flock at a time when society’s moral foundations are dangerously shaky? Is the church carrying the indispensable olive branch of peace into our tempestuous political life or is it just skillfully taking advantage of the struggle among parties? And is it normal that today it is not the wise church that conciliates politicians but the politicians who incessantly try to make peace between Orthodox hierarchs with no apparent success?
Unfortunately, there are never-ending examples of Ukrainian Orthodox churches being simply self-absorbed. They are busy defending their proprietary interests, fostering internecine conflicts in pursuit of offices, church buildings, and influence, and trying to eliminate their spiritual rivals from other churches and denominations.
Will later generations of historians write that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church also played a great positive role in the making of an independent and affluent Ukraine? Or could it be the other way round, and a century or two from now another Pozner will tell our descendants about the historical slowness of Orthodoxy and comparing us — poor, not so industrious, and not always honest Ukrainians — with affluent Protestant Scandinavia?
But perhaps Orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with this for the simple reason that it is out of touch with the hearts and minds of our society.
