LEONID KISHKOVSKY ON RUSSIAN CHURCH

He explains (and thus defends) the attempts of the Moscow Patriarchy to oppose individual freedom of conscience due to the great role of Russian Orthodoxy in "the very existence of Russia as a nation and as a culture". But just the same is true with Protestantism and the nation and culture of United States! Yet it would be a little bit old-fashioned now to help Protestantism in the States by some legislative restrictions on "parachurch groups" or Catholic or Orthodox groups. Kishkovsky doesn't mention that modern Russian society is much more tolerable than the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchy.
 

Kishkovsky writes that the question of Church administration's "moral responsibility for cooperation with the communist state and culpability for its crimes" is very complex. "To assess personal moral responsibility one must determine what precisely was said or not said by each person. Did someone suffer imprisonment or persecution or death because of what was said or not said to the secret police? And individuals must have the opportunity to explain their alleged complicity with the government". But the responsibility of Church leaders can't be just "personal". They were responsible for the policy of the Church as a whole.

Fr. Gleb Yakunin was imprisoned when the present bishops all were installed. Then they stated (not to secret police, but to the public -- which is much worse) that Fr. Gleb and other victims of the regime were imprisoned only as penal criminals, that there was no persecution of believers at all. That was a public and evident lie which doesn't need any investigation to be fixed. And - which is most important - now the same persons oppose the present opportunities "to explain their alleged complicity".
 

The shameful past is connected with the shameful present and future. The Moscow Patriarchy on its free will continues to struggle with Yakunin. The parish of Saints Cosma and Damian and other nonnumerous parishes of the same spirit (liberal, ecumenical, intelligent) are treated by the Moscow Patriarchy with great suspicion and restrictions. They are only tolerated, and it seems that they are tolerated merely to make a proper impression on certain foreigners - Fr. Kishkovsky included. He refuses to see that the Moscow Patriarchy is more conservative in ideas and manners than the Roman Catholic Church was under Pius XI.
 

Kishkovsky writes in conclusion: "But if Russia is to be saved, the spiritual and moral vacuum of postcommunism must be filled by Christ. This is the mission to which the Russian Orthodox Church is called." Here the main word is omitted: "only". Fr. Leonid states without any explanations that "This is the mission to which only the Russian Orthodox Church is called." That is why he continues: "Surely the worldwide Christian community is called to assist - or at least not to undermine - the Orthodox Church in this mission".

That is the favorite idea of Patriarch Aleksy II: Protestants can only be allowed to give money to the Moscow Patriarchy. But is it necessary to exclude Catholics and Protestants or anybody not from the Moscow Patriarchy from those who are called to preach Christ in Russia? How can a man be sure that God really gave the Moscow Patriarchy a monopoly of mission in Russia? How can we be sure that any other confession is "undermining" anything really good? And why should only foreign missionaries be excluded? With such an outlook the Catholics and Protestants who have been living in Russia for many centuries also sooner or later will be put to silence, so as not to "undermine" Russian Orthodoxy. Christianity is not a usual busyness where the spirit of struggle with rivals can be positive. He who struggles mostly with the rival missionaries can't be a good missionary himself.