N. A. BERDYAEV (BERDIAEV)
DOES THERE EXIST FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE IN ORTHODOXY?
(Russian)
Permission granted for non-commercial distribution
"Ye became like the little and will be all
the smaller:
this Your teaching about humility and obedience hath done".
Paraphrase from Nietsche's "Also sprach Zarathustra".
N. B.†
It has become time already, when it is necessary
to stop with the double-talk and back-biting and to give a straight-forward
and clear answer, -- does the Orthodox Church recognise freedom
of thought and of conscience? Is it equitably just on the part
of the Orthodox constantly to accuse the Catholics, that they
have no freedom, an accusation, based on the premise, that with
the Orthodox themselves there is this freedom. And there arises
still another question: is Orthodoxy bound up with some definite
political system, e.g. with monarchism, with nationalism, with
a class social order, on the sort of the present day with Fascism,
or does it permit of varied points of view? Can an Orthodox, having
become professor of an Orthodox theological school, be a democrat,
a socialist, can he be a defender of freedom, of social justice,
of the dignity of man? This question becomes very acute with the
grievous circumstances regarding G. P. Fedotov. At the suggestion
of the metropolitan, the professors of the Theological Institute
gave G. P. Fedotov an ultimatum: either leave off being a professor
at the Theological Institute or stop writing articles on political
themes in "New Russia" and other organs of a "leftist" persuasion.
This resolution was carried out by people, who had not actually
read the articles of G. P. Fedotov, and who were guided exclusively
by meaning-distortive citations in one newspaper, itself representing
a very ugly example of a jaundiced yellow press. I shall not dwell
at length upon an analysis of this unsightly history, which witnesses
to a shocking absence of manliness and slave-like sentiments which,
alas, are very traditional. What interests me here is the question
on principle. The matter involved not articles on theological
themes, but is on political articles. And the accusation was in
this, that the articles were "leftist" and that the author could
not be numbered in amongst "those thinking nationally". It is
considered improper for a professor of the Theological Institute
to get involved with politics. But this is not true. Professors
of the Theological Institute are permitted to indulge themselves
as they may please with politics, but exclusively with "rightist"
politics. No one would have suggested to a professor of the Theological
Institute to resign his position as professor, had he written
an article in defense of the restoration of the monarchy and extremist
national positions. One of the professors has even headed a rightist
nationalist organisation. The Church in the emigration in the
person of its hierarchs has constantly done political acts with
demonstrations of moliebens, panikhidas and preachings. And by
this it has inflicted grievous wounds on the Church inside Russia.
The Church has not completed the great act of breaking its bonds
with the Old Regime, nor has it cleansed itself. No, the prohibition
to concern oneself with politics relates exclusively to "leftist"
politics. G. P. Fedotov -- is a Christian democrat and an humanist,
a defender of the freedom of man. He cannot tolerate Communism.
He is likewise an undoubtable Russian patriot, which is far worthier
a thing, than to be of "those thinking nationally. He is not at
all given to extremist views. But it would seem, that the defense
of Christian democracy and the freedom of man is not allowable
for a professor of the Theological Institute. An Orthodox professor
ought even to be a defender of Spain's Franco, who betrayed his
fatherland to foreigners and drowned his people in blood. It is
perfectly clear, that the censure of G. P. Fedotov as a professor
of the Theological Institute was a political act namely, an act
deeply compromising this institution, casting upon it a tone of
reaction. They demand of G. P. Fedotov, that he be of "those thinking
nationally", though he least of all can be suspected of sympathies
for internationalism. Nothing is more hideous than the very expression
"those thinking nationally". We know, what it means to be of "those
thinking nationally". In practice this means to be inhuman, greedy
for gain, coercive, spiteful, a provocateur of war and often of
war against one's own people. The world at present perishes from
nationalism, it is choking in blood from "those thinking nationally".
The Church ought to condemn nationalism, and to its honour the
Catholic Church is close to this censuring. Nationalism is a paganism
within Christianity, a debauchery of the instincts of blood and
race. Christians, who do not betray Christ and the Gospel (a large
part of Christians do betray it), do not have the right to be
of "those thinking nationally", to be in accord with the Gospel
morality or still in any case with human morality. And indeed
among the contemporary "those thinking nationally", there is nothing
rational, they do not at all esteem the national culture, as for
example "those thinking nationally" among the Russians do not
esteem the traditions of Russian literature, and "those thinking
nationally" among the Germans do not esteem the traditions of
German philosophy. About "those thinking nationally" amongst the
Russians in the emigration it is best also not to speak, for with
great ease they would hand over Russia to its mortal enemy Hitler.
General Franco they would likewise reckon among "those thinking
nationally", although he led a devastating war against his own
people with the assist of the Italians and the Germans. It is
shameful to pronounce the words "those thinking nationally", "national
politics", for the vileness of the things concealed behind this.
There is only one criterion for a Christian attitude towards politics
-- humanness, i.e. freedom, justice, mercy, the dignity of the
person. Communism comes under a Christian censure not because
those condemning it are "rightists" and "those thinking nationally",
but because of its denial of humanness and freedom, for its absence
of mercy and its cruelty. "Those thinking nationally" would themselves
with glee annihilate every freedom, nor in the least would they
have any regard for the dignity of man and assuredly they would
show no less cruelty. The hideous effects of the Russian Communist
revolution is first of all the fault of the "rightists" and "those
thinking nationally" of the Old Regime.
There is still another accusation against G. P.
Fedotov: he is of the Intelligentsia. It appears thus, that his
not being of "those thinking nationally", and his "leftist" inclination,
is explicable by the nature of his being of the Intelligentsia.
The obscurantist reaction against the Revolution has perverted
the word Intelligent and Intelligentsia into a term of ridicule.
The churlishly ignorant segment of the youth know neither the
nuance of meaning nor the history of the term employed, and they
have no doubt about it, that it was quite bad a thing to be of
the "Intelligentsia". But it is time for this nonsense to stop.
What was it that opposed the "Intelligentsia"? It was first of
all the organic classes of society: the nobility, the clergy,
the merchantry, the petty bourgeoisie and moreover the official
ranks. The Russian Intelligentsia had no lack of deficiencies
and in its own time I more than once criticised it, when to do
so meant it a matter not to be taken lying down. But these classes
of society were defending their own greedy interests, they were
immersed in their own narrow mode of life, and they outdid themselves
in a servile groveling before the powers of this world. The Intelligentsia
in their own way sought for truth and justice, they struggled
for the dignity of man, for the freedom of the people, they were
not guarding any sort of class interests and they rose above class
limitations. The truth is, that from the Russian nobility of the
XIX Century there emerged people, striking in their lack of avarice,
surmounting the prejudices and interests of their class, and who
were participants in the liberation movement. From the nobility
also there emerged creative artists of Russian great literature.
But then they were transformed into Intelligentsia and they followed
the flow of the Intelligentsia, into which emerged also those
of other classes. I have greater grounds to be proud of this,
that I was an "Intelligent", i.e. I sought for truth and righteousness,
than that I am of aristocratic origin. When they say, that the
Orthodox ought to be of "those thinking nationally" and ought
not to be of the "Intelligentsia", then always they are anxious
to protect the old paganism, which entered into Orthodoxy, with
which sprouted forth and from which they do not want it cleansed
away. People of suchlike a formation can be very "Orthodox", but
they are very little Christian. They even regard the Gospel as
a book of the Baptists. They have no true love for Christianity
and they regard it as dangerous for their own instincts and emotions.
The customary everyday Orthodoxy also is a paganism within Christianity.
This paganism, long since having lost its ancient
poetry, is defended as an old tradition, and it is particularly
opposed to humanism. In the Christian sense this tradition is
not very ancient, and in any case it did not arise prior to the
sources of the Christian revelation, prior to early Christianity,
prior to the period of Greek Patristics. But in the pagan sense
it is very ancient, it arose for the tribal cults, for the cults
of the domestic hearth, even for the totemism of the primitive
clans. Beloved prejudices, beloved lifestyle habits are defended,
as a sacred tradition. But there are no sort of grounds to assert,
that every tradition, is something fine. Tradition can be a betrayal
of the present in the past, a conformism with a very ugly merely
human and slavish past. The Gospel is not at all traditional,
it is directed against traditionalism, and in this it is revolutionary.
In history every abomination has been regarded
sacred under the impetus of "the kingdom of Caesar", under greedy
social influences. Slavery, the owning of serfs, as included in
the Catechism of Philaret, a despotic form of governance, the
backwardness of scientific knowledge -- all this was by sacred
tradition. There were no such forms of slavery, despotism and
obscurantism, not sanctified by tradition. There is nothing more
frightening than those inferences, which were made in historical
Orthodoxy from the idea of humility and obedience. In the name
of humility they demanded obedience to evil and injustice. This
was transformed into a school of toadyism, forming in soul slaves
bereft of anything manly, trembling before the power and might
of this world. The civil virtues of bravery and the sense of honour
were incompatible with such a sort of understanding of humility
and obedience. From whence also derives the cringing toadyism
in Soviet Russia. The Russian clergy, the Church hierarchs were
always atremble afront the state power, they adapted themselves
to it and consented to subordinate the Church to it. This remains
so also at present, when there is no longer, glory to God, a pseudo
"Orthodox state". And at present the Church people tremble before
the rightist emigration, which plays the role of the state power
of authority, and they subject themselves to its commands in questions
of churchly politics, instead of teaching it Christianity. We
see this in the history of events with G. P. Fedotov, to his great
honour. Such outstanding people, as Father Sergei Bulgakov, have
fallen victim to the prevailing atmosphere. With sorrow it mustneeds
be recognised, that the official Orthodoxy shows itself to be
very obscurantist and very inert a form of Christianity. There
were only two exceptions -- Greek Patristics, and the Russian
religious thought of the XIXth through beginning XXth Centuries.
From Greek Patristics, from Origen, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St.
Gregory of Nyssa, from St. John Chrysostom and others it is possible
to gather up quotes, which would serve as the distinct reason
for being excluded from among the professors of the Theological
Institute. Thus for example, St. John Chrysostom was a genuine
Communist in his time, the representative of the Constantinople
proletariat. The hapless Russian religious thought officially
is not acknowledged, it is accused of being un-Orthodox and at
present moreso now than when formerly it could lead to excommunication.
But only in Russian religious thought, in Khomyakov, Dostoevsky,
Vl. Solov'ev, in thinkers of the XX Century, has there been freedom
of conscience and thought. It is not and it never was within the
official Orthodoxy, in the official churchliness. Such people,
as Sts. Nil Sorsky and Tikhon of Zadonsk were exceptions. Western
Christians, however, are interested namely and most of all by
Russian religious thought, and frequently they confuse this current
of Russian thought with the official churchliness, not knowing
our inner conflict. This sometimes produces a genuine mystification.
The "rightist" Orthodox all await a "Caesar", who will defend
them and become their protector, wielding the sword upon their
enemies. This expectation is to the ruination of Orthodoxy. They
await "Caesar" not in the name of the Kingdom of God, to whom
long since already they have bestowed their worship in place of
God. Let them take comfort, the wished-for "Caesar" can appear,
if the Christian spiritual powers do not oppose this, but he will
be the fore-runner of the Anti-Christ. Then pity the freedom-loving
democrats. The false and servile teaching about sin, the false
understanding of humility and obedience leads also to an ultimate
kingdom of evil, to the triumph of the spirit of the Anti-Christ
in the world.
We need most of all an intrepid honesty in the
ultimate casting-down of the conditional lie, in which rots both
the official churchliness and also the world. It is necessary
to speak the truth. Within the authoritarian Catholicism there
is more freedom, than there is in Orthodoxy, which in its words
continues to venerate Christ as its sole Head. I shall offer an
example. Jacques Maritain, a very outstanding Catholic thinker
in France, a professor of the Institut Catholique, defends Christian
democracy, Christian humanism, the dignity and freedom of the
human person, he denounces the anti-Christian falsehood of anti-Semitism,
and with an especial fervour he denounces General Franco for having
screened himself behind a veneer of Catholicism, he speaks and
he writes almost the same things, that G. P. Fedotov does, and
no one bothers him, no one suggests that he quit the supreme Catholic
school in France. And what has Pope Pius XI spoken? He defended
the freedom of spirit, the dignity of the human person, he denounced
the dictators, he denounced racism and anti-Semitism, he defended
the peace of peoples. In the emigre Orthodoxy his thoughts would
probably be considered incompatible with holding a professorship
of the supreme theological school. It is quite clear, that they
want to transform Orthodoxy in the emigration into an obedient
tool of reactionary politics, and moreover a politics treasonous
to the Russian people. Let them openly say, whether Orthodoxy
does recognise the personal freedom of conscience, which they
have so boasted of regarding us before the Catholics?
In actuality, the conscience is handed over to
the collective, altogether just as in Communism, and to the horrid
demonically-dark reactionary collectives and to their jaundiced
yellow press. But there is no collegial-board that does not make
bold to infringe upon the sacred rights of man, upon the freedom
of man. Freedom really exists for us only in "modernism", only
in the current striving for reform, beginning with Khomyakov,
and to the woe of the stifling reactionary current of the official
churchliness, the government-chamber Orthodoxy. It is time to
speak the truth on the city squares, hiding nothing and glossing
over nothing, the plain frank truth. Orthodoxy needs reform and
without a reform it begins to decompose and give off corpse-like
vapours. That which they call the "true" the "orthodoks" Orthodoxy,
this is also a rot, moribund. Reform does not at all signify reforms
on the type of the Lutheran or the Catholic, it should be otherwise.
It should defend freedom of spirit, freedom of conscience, the
freedom of thought, moreso than did Luther and Calvin, who defended
it insufficiently and inconsistently. Reform begins with the acknowledgement
of the supremacy of the personal conscience, not subjected to
alienation and exteriorisation, i.e. it is the freedom of spirit
and the independence of spiritual life from the influences of
the "kingdom of Caesar". The communality of Sobornost' has no
sort of meaning, if it does not include within itself the freedom
of spirit and personal conscience. Without freedom, Sobornost'
is nothing more than an outward authoritarian collectivism.
Everywhere in the world at present there occurs
divisions within Christianity and these divisions threaten to
deepen. There is happening a catastrophic path of the cleansing
of Christianity from those historical accretions, which have nothing
in common with the well-springs of Christianity and represent
but inclusions of the social interests of the kingdom of Caesar.
This is a spiritising of Christianity, rendering it more inward
and sincere, more bound up with the commands of Christ and more
creative. There ensues the end of the "mere way of life", i.e.
of the pagan within Christianity, there occurs a sundering off
of the pagan traditions in Christianity, the false sacralisation
of historical entities, whose origins can be explained sociologically.
There is ending the kingdom of the mere conventionally rhetoric,
declamatory word-only Christianity. But before its end it can
still make much havoc, it can still manifest much wickedness.
Christians of a new type, of a new sense of life, creative Christians
of all faith-confessions call out both amongst themselves and
amongst others for a greater closeness, rather than merely within
each faith-confession. They want to get things together.
A Christianity that is cleansed, freed from servility,
which is as yet impossible, will be suspicious of the defending
of class interests and social injustices, it will face a new social
reality and it ought to give creative response to the social problems
of our times. And first of all, Christians ought to forsake the
bad and equivocating habit of not answering the question, which
is put before them. When they ask you, what is your attitude towards
a given conflict of workers with capitalists or towards collective
contracts, then it is unseemly merely to answer: "We believe in
the immortality of the soul", or "we believe in the God-manhood
of Christ". It is proper to give a concrete answer to the particular
question set forth. These evasive answers dodging the point have
always produced impressions of wanting to defend whatever the
injustice. Closer indeed to Christian truth stand such currents,
as the personalist community of the group "Esprit", and the religious
socialism of L. Ragaz, Andre Philippe and others. In the politics
of L. Blum I see a greater Christian humanness, than with the
"rightists", who all the time are calling for murder and deeds
of violence. But herein is what presents itself to me as the most
essential point. It is time to stop talking about words and start
talking about realities. The "right" and the "left" -- these are
conventional standards and these words in our epoch are bereft
of real meaning. It is important to determine, what sort of reality
is hidden behind the words and the slogans. They demand, that
the Orthodox be "rightists", and they see in this an essential
sign of "Orthodoxality". What is it that is practically and really
hidden behind this? In reality, behind the "rightists" is hidden
-- political amoralism, the denial of the dignity and freedom
of man, a grubby cult of power, the practise of coercive violence
in the relationships between people and nations, and the making
of a mockery of the Gospel morality in social life. I do not see
in the "rightists" any noble sitrrings of soul, they are always
defending despotic might, national hostility and war, the capitalists
and the bankers against the workers, the injustices of privilege;
fierceness of punishment, violation of conscience and the suffocating
of free thought. The "rightists" readily render themselves traitors
to their native land and their people. The romantics of conservatism,
the people of ideas, comprise an insignificant group, which has
no practical significance, for it is the realistically skilled
in business that take the lead. The "left" likewise often is phony,
greedy and declamatory with mere words. And even though it is
the "leftists" betraying freedom and humanness, for example the
Communists, it does not infer from this that freedom and humanness
are bad principles. The "rightists" find nothing detestable in
the "falsehood" of Communism, the inhumanity and violence, to
them it even seems justified and evokes envy. They detest the
"truth" of Communism, the principle of a classless brotherly society,
not knowing the exploitation of man by man, the ideal of peace
between peoples. Christianity can stand only for a politics, which
acknowledges the supreme value of the human person, its freedom
and dignity and brotherly organisation of social life, and must
stand opposed to the idolatry afront the state, nationality, outward
churchliness and inhuman collective communities, which serve but
as a screen for the real interests of the ruling classes. A cleansed
Christianity ought to return to the moral principle of life the
sense of its worthiness against the vogues of an Orthodox amoralism,
against the pseudo-mystical and pseudo-sacramental amoralism,
which stands not higher but lower than the morality of humanness.
The supreme principle of the dignity of man shatters the false
and immoral theories of obedience, as have permitted such unsightly
events in history, as have transpired with the Theological Institute.
Amidst all this it mustneeds be said, that the level of standards
of a professor of the Theological Institute is sufficiently high
and a significant portion of the professors there cannot be termed
obscurantists. But they have gotten entangled and proverbially
gotten themselves caught in the middle. We come to the conclusion,
that it would be a mistake to defend the right of a Christian
to defend whatever the political idea that pleases them. Christians
do not have the right to hold to a political current that would
trample down freedom and humanness, that would be opposed to the
Gospel spirit of love, mercy and the brotherhood of people. Christians
ought to unite in a struggle for the freedom of man.
Nikolai Berdyaev.
1939
© 2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos
(1939 - 441 -en)
SUSCHESTVUET LI V PRAVOSLAVII SVOBODA MYSLI I SOVESTI?
In Journal Put', feb./apr. 1939, No. 59, p. 46-54. Also Journal
"Novaya Rossiya", No. 68, 30 May 1939.
† The author takes exclusively upon himself the
responsibility for this article. This responsibility extends neither
to "Put'" at large, nor to individual contributors of "Put'".
The Editor.