An international conference took place in Kyiv, Education and the Family in Postcommunist Societies, arranged by a number of organizations, including the Kyiv Pecherska Lavra Monastery of the Caves, Kyiv Theological Academy (UOC Moscow Patriarchy), Kiev-Mohyla Academy National University, Vytoky Association, and others. Taking part were both lay people and clergy involved with education – teachers of parish schools, scholars from universities and teachers colleges, UOC MP clergy, and foreign diplomats. They were gathered to discuss an issue extremely important in the post-Soviet states and beyond. Among those present were noted scholars from Russia, Belarus, France, and Italy. The papers of Academician Sergei Averintsev (Moscow), Bishop Pylyp of Poltava and Kremenchuk, Prof. Nikolai Struve (Paris, Sorbonne), et al., attracted special interest among students from the theological academy, college and university teachers, and journalists. Metropolitan Volodymyr, head of UOC MP, called the conference to order and greeted the participants.
It should be stressed again that the relevance of the subject can hardly be overestimated; today’s society is in no way prepared for a massive Christian enlightenment effort in any respect. There is no universal scholarly paradigm, not enough teachers with proper theological and pedagogic training, no universally accepted curricula or textbooks, no pertinent didactic and procedural literature. Also lacking are books with specially selected religious texts meant for students of different age groups. In general, the system of Orthodox education in the secular environment is reminiscent of the notorious Soviet literacy campaign of the 1920s [a lofty excuse used by the Bolsheviks to finally indoctrinate the population], although at present it faces considerably more complicated tasks. The conference heard plenty of clever and interesting ideas, but it never got around to discussing procedures and methods. In other words, it is safe to assume that the religious and secular teachers present, constantly faced with the questions How? and What? received no answers. Another aspect of the conference held at the Ukrainian capital was that one could hear no Ukrainian from the podium – not on the early days anyway – and this considering that most foreign guests were of Slavic origin or Slavicists from Russia and Belarus, meaning they would have no problem understanding Ukrainian (believed by some to be a dialect of Russian). We would also have been happy to hear papers in Belarusian. Instead, the overall impression was as though the learned delegates were gathered somewhere in Russia, say, at the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius Monastery, not on the Dnipro shore in the land of Taras Shevchenko. It was thus not surprising that an important issue such as Ukrainian translations of religious literature for grade school was neither discussed nor present on the agenda.
This author wishes to inform the reader about several interesting and deep-reaching ideas voiced at the conference, specifically those brought forth by two delegates: Academician Averintsev and Bishop Pylyp.
Academician Sergei AVERINTSEV: “We are witness to an unprecedented confrontation between so-called pop culture and the culture generated by mankind over many centuries... This could also be described as a retreat from culture... Nowadays, parents seem to hand down nothing to their children and the latter refuse to accept anything their parents have to offer.
“We cannot return to our faith as though nothing has happened, as though there had been no massive renunciation of the faith (after the Russian Revolution). Of course, there have been thousands, tens of thousands of martyrs for the faith, but there have also been millions of apostates. Acts of apostasy were committed with a remarkable ease: ‘I do it because I’m no different from the rest.’ So what has happened to what Dostoyevsky called those who carry forth the word of God?
“Neither skepticism nor gullibility know borders... People today are willing to accept any doctrine offered them. As Chesterfield said, ‘He who believes in nothing is prepared to believe anything.’
“The syntax of the Orthodox creed is extremely complicated; it is, however, being simplified these days. This must not be. Words like “but” and punctuation marks like the semicolon are almost out of use (although the semicolon is still being debated). What is left is sheer imperative.
When teaching the faith, one must know how to distinguish between Divine Tradition and, say, old folk church rites. Nor should one impose on parishioners rites they can do without; they must know the difference between rites, however ancient, and the Gospels or the Apostolic Creed. One must learn to use phrases like ‘there is a very old story about...’ or ‘our forefathers believed that...’ and such.”
Bishop PYLYP of Poltava and Kremenchuk: “We are accustomed to idealizing Orthodox Rus’ and the theological education practiced before the revolution. Meanwhile, the prerevolutionary school bred all those theomachists (God-builders), “heroes” of 1917 and subsequent years. Some people likewise idealize the Soviet school and Soviet education with its ‘lofty’ ideals. Was it not from the Soviet school that all our ‘new’ Russians and Ukrainians came, turning into unscrupulous politicians and businessmen?
“Many people joining the Church in the 1990s could not find God in it, so they left, for such is our church school. In particular, the problem is the interrelationship between outer and inner education; at present, the emphasis is on ritual, on how a believer should act in public. There is the widespread concept of easily accessible Orthodoxy, leaving aside the education of one’s soul.
“In Orthodoxy, the main thing is the teacher’s profound spirituality and unwavering faith.”
