Province, kindness, generosity
Many foreigners are enchanted with Russian province. It looks more kind and
generous than metropolis. Moscow plunge you into despair, seems cynical and rude.
Isn�t province a source of hope for Russia? This is common view for very different
people, beginning from Solzhenitsyn.
Certainly, province can be given another esteem, also based on facts. Province
is very isolationist, it doesn�t feel need in strangers and aliens. Province bind
their inhabitants with invisible ties of mutual control, leaving very narrow room
for privacy. Province breeds the habit of cruel and violent decision-making. Moscow
now is very ungracious towards strangers. Militia persecute people of "non-Russian"
personality, from Chechens to Afro-Americans and Africans, Chinese, Indians, as
well as Russian who came from province.
But, alas! Moscow militia is mostly recruited from province, Moscow borned
people despise this work as bad paid and humiliating. So Moscow cruelty is cruelty
of those who left province a year ago on "legal grounds" towards those who came
from province now "unlawfully."
Moreover, urbanization in Russia began, like in the West, in the mid-XIX�th
century, but Communism hampered this process. Russian rural population is larger
than in other European countries. But what is more important, totalitarian regime
locked the development of urban psychology with its understanding of personal
responsibility. In Communist city there was (and there is) no private property
on land, in their everyday life people are dependent from the city powers, big
and small clerks more than in either First or Third world. Russian life, both
in Moscow and in province, is still to the large extent a strange mixture of paternalism
with infantilism on every level.
The opposition of province and capital, urban and rural life doesn�t work any
more. In normal conditions, either capitalist or feudal, there are different sorts
of responsibility and social maturity for people in province and in big cities,
but Communism feeds up only different sorts of irresponsibility.
Province is kind, sometimes very generous for strangers, but on condition that
they are really strangers and do not try to change anything, accept the rule and
order of provincial life. Province in poor countries can be very generous. But
these are double-sided kindness and dangerous generosity. Cruel war in Chechnya
now is waged mostly by people who from Russian province. "Pogroms" were born in
province. All Communist leaders, from Lenin to Yeltsin came from province, and
revolution was victory of province over capital civilization.
In 1990-s Russian province came out to be much more aggressive towards "alien"
missionaries than Moscow. There is a lot of restrictions of religious freedom,
and most dangerous are restriction which are promoted unofficially. It�s a pity
that many Christian missionaries from the West preferred not to defend religious
freedom and even participated in the provincial struggle with those who have been
stigmatized as "totalitarian cults."
Kindness can amalgamate with cruelty if people are deprived of personal responsibility,
During the war in Chechnya in 1994 there was a story about young Russian tankman
from province. He first shoot and destroyed the house of Chechens, then noticed
a kitten, who was blown away with the explosion, and came out of the tank to save
and heal him. Provincial kindness is like a thin coating over massive strata of
hatred.
The same is true concerning provincial generosity. Province hates those who
try to become "rich," to rise over the level of common misery. But at the same
time province joyfully gives a part of its tine resources to those who are poor
and miserable. Misery enjoy giving alms, hates wealth, and dream about wealth.
That mixture of envy and generosity constitutes the flesh of Russian life,
both in Moscow and province.
"Cleptokratia" is not the rule of thieves over honest people, it is the rule
of immorality on every social level. From Kremlin to the tiniest village everyone
is ready to steal without hesitation, justifying this with his disastrous situation
or with one�s generous desire to help one�s neighbor. All Western charitable organizations
received the sad experience of country where dishonesty is conditio sine qua non.
At the same time same people enjoy charity of Communist type. This is a dreadful
parody on the welfare state, most dangerous part of Communist heritage. Every
Russian has this or that "privilege," a lot of "facilities" (free use of public
traffic for pensioners, free medical aid, of low quality for majority and of medium
quality for minority, etc.). Even law became the object of charity: the idea of
justice in such country is that it is possible, wise and obligatory to make some
exception from law and rules in order to help people.
All these features are universal for all parts of Russian society and all regions
of Russia. The opposition of capital and province is secondary. Mostly this opposition
is artificial construction of Romanticism, part of bucolic, pastoral utopia. Even
the opposition of New York, Paris, Moscow and American, French and Russian province
is exaggerated. What is substantial is the difference between creative and consumptory
spirits. Christianity can be provincial in the worst sense, when Christians dedicate
themselves completely to charity and alms-giving, building hospitals and feeding
hungry, and aggressively oppose themselves to science and knowledge.
This is the case with most Christian missions now in Russia: they still put
an accent of charity and are more or less afflicted with anti-intellectualism.
But intellectuals who didn�t gave any alms created Green Revolution. They fed
more people and saved more lives with their "cold-hearted" investigations than
all Christian benefactors of the 20th century.
Certainly, "province" (which is larger than "rural part") constitutes the majority
of population in any country. But Christians must be the last people who measure
truth with figures. Not all minorities represent truth, certainly, but the same
is true concerning majorities.
For example, in Communist and Post-communist countries the majority of intellectual
elite still has no moral values, still prefer to serve to the government, to powers,
whether secular or religious, not to the truth. Many foreigners make a big mistake,
relying on those who have academic titles � who received these titles from Communists.
Certainly, to rely only on those, who don�t have any titles, will be as imprudent.
The way out is in constant checking of creative potential of people, whether provincial
or metropolitan, titled or not. The truth and future lies with creativity and
quality, not with labels and quantity.
This text was was written as a response to the polemics between
Dr. Linzey and Dr. Ham.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I am very glad than Russian affairs are still interesting for Americans. As
concerns discussion of Russian corruption and my own personality (which is much
of much lesser importance and size than corruption .)
Certainly, I am not political analyst, I am Christian historian. But I think
that Christianity is wider than politics and Church history includes world history
in itself, so any Christian intellectual must analyze not only "spiiritual kingdon"
but Caesar's as well.
The facts and analyses of Mrs. Linzey are accurate and precise. Mrs. Haam doesn't
deny it, but states that it is not thebest time to say such bitter things and
that despite these facts we must trust in Christ. Both sides are obviously correct.
History teachs us to be pessimist, Lord Jesus teachs us to be optimists. I believe
Mrs. Linzey decided not to preach Christian hope in the secular media, although
I enjoy doing so.
I don't see any Russophobia in her article, but pain and desire to say the
truth. Certainly, I prefer to discuss Russian problems with Russians, but I cannot
deny that Americans paid enough to recieve the right for participation in our
small turmoil.
As Christian preacher I prefer to be more harsh in words than in deeds: to
speak bitter truth first and to give hope second. I know that American preachers
who come to Russia prefer not to say bitter truths, to be humanistic, to say that
everything Okey, yes, everything fine. Mrs. Linzey is more Russian in her way
of preaching: he say that Russians are sinners, and very weak sinners, not capable
for improvement and people who can use any help for the worst. I agree, it is
that bad, and I am myself this very type of Russian, but - but even such type
or personal can be saved by Christ, if and when I admit that I am such type.
We Russian lied to the whole world and to themselves from 1917 until now. I
think it's a fine time to stop and to repent.
Yakov G. Krotov |
