Translated from Russian
http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/4495228.html
http://rpczmoskva.org.ru/stati/domuschi-stefan-cerkov-necerkovnyx.html
http://internetsobor.org/apostasiia/tcerkov-i-mir/apostasiia/tcerkov-netcerkovnykh
Church of The Unchurchly
April 1, 2015
Domuschy Stefan, priest
The article by Ph.D., candidate of theology priest Stephen Domuschy is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of religious identity and the specifics of its development in the history of Christianity. It focuses on the issue of the mismatch of objective and subjective criteria of belonging to a religious community. Further, the question is discussed about the causes and the possible consequences of the actual legalization of the impoverished religious identity of today.
At present, quite a lot of research is devoted to the issues of identity – both religious and moral. Typically, identity is understood as a "man's awareness of one's belonging to some group, allowing one to determine one's place in the socio-cultural space" [1]. The word group itself, with its clarity, suggests boundaries or criteria of belonging, beyond which it is impossible to identify oneself as [being] a part of it.
Moreover, using the word "awareness" we need to understood that the measure of awareness may be different. A man can be aware of oneself as belonging to a group, without [taking] a thought about what criteria exactly that belonging matches. In the minds of such a man identity boundaries are there implicitly, these have not been given meaning.
Identity can wellbe set by a single sign, and it can alsobe created by a set of signs. In the latter case the signs themselves are different, but for the identity implementation they all prove necessary.
It is important to bear in mind that identity may be subjective and objective. In the former case, a man independently assesses the extent of one's eligibility vis-à-vis that determining the boundaries of the group. At that, one may well mistakenly accept as being the major criteria ones that for the group itself may be necessary, although insufficient, [ones] that may be secondary, an may well even be imaginary, thought-up.
Objective identity presupposes that an individual's perception of one's own belonging to a group must be confirmed [acknowledged] (legitimized) by the group itself. At that it is important to bear in mind that this acknowledgment (identification) may well be both a mere formality, and may presume conformity to many a pithy criterion. This means that objective identity may prove both real and nominal, [i.e.] one that has no significant impact on man's life.
Making actions a man implements each and every time one of his identities: family, professional, or religious. Calls [for one] to "be a human" or "be a man" or even "be a good man" imply that the speaker, just as well as the one to whom the call is addressed, know certain criteria of a particular identity, which at the current time have to be updated. In certain situations, the implementation of identity implies making efforts: at war it takes effort to implement and confirm the identity of a soldier and a patriot, in a scientific debate – the identity of a scientist, in a situation of moral choice – the moral identity. In a situation where identity has not been updated for a long time, there may occur its depreciation, substantial distortion [of its pithy points] or even [its] loss.
Some researchers believe that group identity is built through opposing itself to another group or several other groups. However, in many cases, opposition – although it is there – proves secondary in respect to objectively set criteria. At that, the very notion of objective criteria is arbitrary, since for sociologists and theologians these will be different. Religious outlook suggests that theology is based on God's revelation to men, and criteria for one'sbelonging to a religious group are set not by men, but by God, acting through people. Thus, the identity of the God-chosen people in the Old Testament was lined up on the grounds of the positive law given by God, [and through] observing it they proved [to be] unlike other peoples. Drawing the border-lines of Old Testament identity one may well say that those were determined by the positive criterion of fidelity to God, by entering into the Covenant.
Usually, when talking about identity, they analyze the individual, his consciousness, his compliance or non-compliance to certaincriteria. At the same time, such studies can tell a lot about the state of the group itself.
***
The issue of the "moral" and "religious" ratio in the theological and philosophical milieu is resolved in different manners. Without going into details of the subject, we'll note a few points.
Speaking of moral identity, they mean awareness of one's conformity to moral norms that are accepted in a given society. At that, a society may be understood not only society in the broadest sense (as a synonym for mankind), but also any particular society limited by ethical, professional, and other frames. Observing the rules accepted, one confirms one's choice – to be part of the society. Criteria of moral identity are not only the social laws, but also the unspoken moral norms associated with the concepts of proper and improper [what is due and what is not].
Under religious identity they understand awareness of one's involvement in a religious group. Religious identity is a multi-layer phenomenon, it implies conformity with the norms [regulations] of faith, with the norms of spiritual-and-moral practicing, and with the norms of religiously oriented [everyday] life. What is more, objective religious identity presupposes compliance with all of the norms set out.
It is well known that ancient communities knew no distinguishing between religious and moral norms. Thus, in the Old Testament Israel all the norms, both doctrinal and moral, were given by God. Violation of the Law given by God was seen as exemption of oneself from the Testament, from the rank of the "holy people."
Despite the fact that, historically, all moral norms were conditioned by religion, today it is clear that the moral consciousness as a phenomenon can exist independently of religious consciousness. An example of the existing XX century atheist communities, [that were] not devoid of morality, is a clear evidence to that. Moreover, focusing on the innate moral law, a man can well assess all phenomena, religious ones included. The very possibility to compare religions on the moral grounds seems to some people a sign of superiority of the moral sphere over the religious sphere.
In actual fact, this is a false contradiction, as it is exactly He who reveals Himself to man in the experience of faith who has put in man the moral principle. When Abraham said to God, "That be far from Thee to do after this manner" (Gen. 18:25), he proceeds from the inner perception of what the "Judge of all the earth" should be like.
Thus, crossing each other and being deeply related, religious and moral identities do not match completely. At that, moral identity proves to be wider, since one may be moral and irreligious[2], but one cannot be religious and immoral. It would seems one could produce numerous examples of immoral and at the same time religious people. However, the essence is in the fact that a morality that is independent of religion – is an internally consistent phenomenon. Although a morality that is independent of religion depends on public opinion, and is doomed to variability of its contents, in its depth it is based on the given by God natural moral law. At the same time an immoral religion, although it may happen, proves self-contradictory phenomenon, going counter to the essentials of religious outlook.
The heart of religious identity is faith and dogmatic doctrine that underlie both religiously motivated moral-and-spiritual activities and the religious-oriented way of living. However, by their significance for a layman these grounds are ranked in reverse order, i.e. everyday-life phenomena are often perceived as more serious manifestations of identity than spiritual-and-moral onesand doctrinal ones.
While banning religious life, parts of the religious identity gets lost in the same degree they are indicated. At first, they forget about theology, then – about moral norms, and then – about everyday habits. This happens because the importance of the grounds is defined both by apparent benefit and the frequency of use, and by spiritual efforts that are applied to its implementation.
As already mentioned, identity suggests border-lines through the means of which it is defined. For example, in Christianity doctrinal and moral parts are regulated by dogmatic teaching and canonical law, respectively. No doubt, some of the most important parts of religious everyday life are also described in tradition, although they have a wide variability. In addition, it should be understood that the moral sphere is much wider than the sphere of canon law. Related to the moral sphere is a multitude of inner sins that cannot be controlled by any legal norms. It is the canons that describe that minimum, leaving the boundaries of which a man ceases to be a member of the Church, falls away from Her. This understanding of canons is testified by the prayerful saying "to fall under one's own anathema", i.e. as a result of committing certain acts to fall away from the Church.
The doctrinal part tells about the border-lines between the Church and heretical communities. It does not imply oikonomia (indulgence), as dogmas are unconditional. This, however, does not negate the different opinions on some minor issues. Still, were this issue resolved by the Church definitely – then no indulgence to differing opinions is supposed.
The moralizing part tells about what could conditionally be called the border-lines between the Church and the world. Although these border-lines are also defined by Councils, very clearly one may argue that they are more mobile. Moral rules, unlike the dogmas, are not unconditional; the appraisal of an action often depends on a multitude of factors. Thus, a domestic murder and a killing in war are estimated by the canons differently.
Thus, we can say that the Church has doctrinal and moral criteria of churchliness, it has an opportunity to legitimize (confirm) or – on the contrary – to deny the legitimacy this or that particular subjective identity. At that, it is important to emphasize that these criteria are not just formal norms, but have real manifestations in the life of each and every Christian.
***
Historically, the ratio of religious and moral identity has differed. It is known that in the beginning of our era there existed philosophical currents, which in the area of morality were very similar to Christianity. At that, listening to the apostolic preaching and choosing Christianity, one elected exactly the religious, and not the moral identity. Ones choice was the choice of faith, and not that of moral norms, even though they were indeed an important component of the new life. Tertullian wrote about this era: "One besoms a Christians, and is not born one"[3].
In an era when Christianity became mandatory, one did not always choose one's identity, one could choose the position of the loyalty to the political power in order to live peacefully. The situation where Christians began to be born, and not evolve into one fundamentally changed the attitude to religious identity, which thenceased to be an exploit of faith and a call to the world. To be a member of the Church meant to be a normal citizen of the empire, since ecclesiastical laws oftentimes coincided with the state ones. For hundreds of years one never chose religious identity, but was simplyborn into it. At that, the moral part and, for that matter, the doctrinal one, often proved to be a part of the cultural and national traditions. It is no coincidence that even today the expression goes "Orthodox by birth." Undoubtedly, during the struggle against heresies the doctrinal part of the religious identity proved the choice and call, but that fight was sporadic and by far not always affected wide walks of life.
Thanks to the confrontation with paganism, Christianity in Russia has once again become a call and a personal choice. However, over time, the situation repeated itself, faith has become part of cultural and social traditions. Disruption of doctrinal and everyday-life parts manifested itself with all clarity in the schism of the XVII century. The basis of religious identity for the Old-rite Believers proved not the doctrinal or the moral, but namely the everyday component.
In the Synod period religious identity was largely getting formalized [in numerous aspects]. Although each and every believer was aware of the need not only to participate in the religious-and-everyday life, but also of observing the moral minimum, it was possible to not make confession for years, and this was the work of the orderly and not a matter of conscience[4]. Formally speaking to be excommunication from the Church became almost impossible. Co-ministers, who laughed at Khomiakov's piety were themselves formally members of the Church and were assigned to specific parishes. The religious sphere had ceased to sanctify and transform the whole life, being assigned its special [separated] place in man's life they began to turn to it onlyupon necessity. One cannot say that this had not happened before, but for the Soviet society of that time the exception turned into a rule. This is how St. Theophan the Recluse describes the spiritual state of his contemporaries: "... in school education non-Christian principles have been allowed which spoil the youth. <...> If they fail to change our way of education and the customs of society, then true Christianity will get weaker and weaker, and finally, it will come to a full end; only the name will remain Christian and there will be no Christian spirit"[5].
In the early Soviet period, militant atheism changed the situation and made the boundaries more distinct. The Church cherished any manifestations of religiosity that existed in a society prevailed by atheism, in order to keep the faith in people. However, baptism without Christian education, and church life reduced to a cult, have even further increased the disruption between declared and actual religiosity.
At the end of that very Soviet period when religious life escaped atheistic oppression, the notions that religious identity involves not only a formal baptism but also compliance with a doctrine, and a spiritual-and-moral life was almost lost.
No doubt, there were people who came from unbelief to faith through doubts and struggle. It was them exactly – with their pro-active, often neophyte stand – who actively contributed to the revival of Church life.
Still, millions of baptized Christians were not simply unaware the basic fundamentals of faith, but did not identify the fact of baptism as a child with their assumption of any moral and spiritual obligations. It should be noted here that despite all this certain part of the church everyday life was preserved, which seemed to be quite sufficient[6]. Gradually, in the minds of the post-atheism era people there formed what M. Epstein called a "poor religion"[7], characterized by the absence of a specific creed and utter blurring of the old-time and even of the newly formed moral norms. Furthermore, religious identity here was being replaced (though probably not driven out) by what is perceived as more up-to-date: a man proved in the first place a politician, actor, businessman, and only then a faithful and an Orthodox Christian, that was exactly the way one prioritized.
In the post-Soviet period there conclusively and utterly acute appeared the problem, which could be illustrated by comparing the concepts of "Christian" and "churchman". It is quite obvious that even from a narrow-minded point of view, not every Christian can be called a churchman, while at the same time every churchman is necessarily a Christian. There is no doubt there has always been people who are baptized but do not live with the life of the Church. Often, however, a man who has left the Church or has never entered into it for whatever reasons, was aware of one's condition as a problem, as something improper. The situation of today is paradoxical with the fact that non-church Christianity is widely perceived as the norm. A man may believe differently from what the Church believes, one may live not observing the commandments and statutes, and still consider oneself a Christian.
Contemporary philosophical and sociological works devoted to the faith and moral state of society eloquently illustrate this contradiction. For example, based on surveys by the nonprofit research service "Sreda", not believing in the resurrection of the dead are 54% of our fellow countrymen, more than 50% believe in the evil eye and spoilage, 37% put trust in astrological forecasts[8]. According to surveys of the Public Opinion Fund, 60% of Russians do not believe in afterlife[9]. At that it is worthwhile recalling that denial of the immortality of the soul falls under anathema by the rank of the Triumph of Orthodoxy: "To those who remove the immortality of the soul, the end of time, the future Judgment, and the eternal reward for virtues in the Heavens and condemnation for the sins: anathema"[10]. Furthermore, and to those who believe in the immortality of the soul, but do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, Tradition has preserved the following statement by St. Justin the Martyr: "If you meet people like who ... do not recognize the resurrection of the dead and think that their souls are immediately after death taken to heaven, then do not consider them to be Christians"[11].
Problems associated with Christian identity are no less clearly illustrated by statistics testifying to the moral state of society. Noting the increase in the number of Orthodox faithful from 20% in 1989 to almost 70% in 2003, G. A. Zaval'ko indicates the fact that "the number of murders and murder attempts has increased from 15,600 in 1990 to 33,583 in 2001"[12]. In addition, he points out that Russia has ranked top by the number of suicides, the horrifying statistics on drug addiction, prostitution and domestic violence. We should not forget about the statistics related to pregnancy termination.
In addition, the fact should be noted that out of the several hundred and sometimes thousands of people who are baptized annually at an average urban temple only a few remain there as church-goers.
Especially worth noting is the fact that non-church Christianity has began to be perceived as the norm not only by laypeople, but also by some sociologists. Thus, I. V. Naletova – accusing some researchers in overly rigid criteria[13] on belonging to the number of "traditional believers" – underscores that they are "confusing traditional religiosity with being introduced into the Church [churchedness], which is permissible only in a small religious group, a sect, a Protestant community, but not in Orthodoxy"[14]. In this case, the concepts of "traditional believer" and "one who has been churched" are opposed in an obvious manner, as the latter is not just non-typical, but even unacceptable(!) in Orthodoxy. Maybe, in historical and statistical terms, lay people's poor familiarity with the Church doctrine is traditional for Russian reality, but is it possible to compare the illiterate peasant of XIX century with those who has the ability to read not only the Holy Scriptures, but also a lot of books about faith and Christian life, published during the years of the Church revival?
In addition, the criterion of churchliness, which combines all the above, is by no means something formal or secret. Conventionally, it could be called "life in the Church", everything else relates to it.
Thus, the question that could have been posed in relation to these issues is the following: the lack of knowledge about one's own faith and unchirchliness of the majority of contemporary Russians – is it a historical reality or a conscious choice? And if it is a conscious choice, than what has preconditioned it?
***
But why did Christianity outside the Church cease to be an issue in the minds of modern men?
In the opinion of O. V. Bondarenko and M. S. Leontyeva, individual identity as an "own [proper] concept of oneself, can be sustainable only in case the entity receives a confirmation"[15]. Today, in the minds of the vast majority of inhabitants in Russia the religious (and in our case, the Orthodox) identity is created [established] by the fact of baptism and by nothing else. Despite the fact that the majority of those who identify themselves with Orthodoxy are well aware of the fact that they do not become churchly, stillthey are fully confident in the objectivity and legitimacy of their own identity. Moreover, they do believe that these are impossible to lose! And this happens because at an everyday life level de facto the legitimacy of their identity is confirmed by the reference group itself – the Church. Considered a confirmation in the first place can be the fact that a man who has – for the first time in many years – come to the temple, becomes almost without hindrance[16] a godfather or gets wed. He also knows that he would be commemorated in the temple, and chanted [at his death] based not on the fact whether he was churchly, but only on the fact whether he was baptized. If at the same time we take into account that "solidarity allows one to feel one's community", we can say that, by becoming a mass phenomenon and firmly entering the everyday life and the lives of people, the unchurchly Christianity creates what could provisionally be called "the church of the unchurchly", [of those] feel solidarity in their alienated attitude to faith and life of the Church. This solidarity is evident albeit even by that universal amazement caused by the widely introduced [catechism] talks before baptism.
There is no doubt that entering of the Church takes place with the performing of the sacraments of Baptism, Myrrh-anointing and Eucharist. However, hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) said by no coincidence says that "there is no Christianity without the Church"[17], as after entering the Church one can fall away from it through abandoning the life of faith. St. Gregory Palamas says plainly that "baptism alone is not enough to make one a disciple of the Gospel, but it should be there as well as observance of God's commandments"[18].
Sometimes the modern self-awareness of Russians is called cultural identity or cultural self-identification, suggesting by this that such a position certainly does presuppose knowledge of the doctrinal truths or moral norms. Such an identity would be no problem on its own if the people themselves did not perceive themselves as Orthodox, and the Church – as an institution that is obliged to satisfy their religious needs. This has been clearly stated in his LiveJournal blog by prominent blogger A. Lebedev: "I do not place a cross on myself at seeing a Church, I do not deem Nativity to be a feast, I do not pray... Still the same, for all my relatives, whom I will have to bury, I'll order a funeral chant service in church."
Certain authors believe that in the era of social, cultural and moral change, when everything is tested for durability and fruitfulness, the role of religious identity has greatly increased. In this situation, the existing dogmatic and canonical nihilism, testifying to the deep crisis of religious identity, proves to be a problem much graver than the simple ignorance about specific church-and-jurisdiction norms, or doctrinal truths. The point is that the nominal religious identity – not updated for many years on end and bearing no fruits – is no longer perceived as a value. An identity that provides rights and demands duties only formally is perceived in a consumer way and dismissively.
In order to understand the essence of the problem it suffices to look at the reaction of unchurchly parents who hear that before the baptism of children they need to pass a [catechism] talk. Words of indignation, frank unwillingness to learn at least something about "their" faith, attempts at negotiating a baptism without a [catechism] talk – all this gives grounds for believing that the acquired in this manner religious identity will be rejected, immediately that its implementation will once again be a call to the world.
________________________________________
[1] The religious identity in contemporary culture / S. A. Lyausheva, A. A. Nagoy // Bulletin of Adyghe State University. Ser.: Regional Studies: philosophy, history, sociology, jurisprudence, political science, cultural studies. – 2009. – Issue 1 (42). – p. 221.
[2] Without discussing the qualities of this morality and its stability.
[3] Tertullian, Apol., XVIII. 4.
[4] A man who has for three years failed to take communing was reported to the orderly, as being unreliable.
[5] Theophan the Recluse, saint. Thoughts for every day. According to church readings. From the words of God. M, 2009. p. 363-364.
[6] This is about the sanctification of water on the feast of Baptism of the Lord [Epiphany], the consecration of Easter cakes for Easter etc.
[7] For more details see: Epstein. M. Religion after atheism. New opportunities for theology.
[8] For more details see: Immediate issues, "Sreda", - 2011.
[9] URL: http://fom.ru/TSennosti/11796
[10] URL: http://www.pravmir.ru/chin-torzhestva-pravoslaviya/
[11] St. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr. Works. M., 1995. - p. 265. (Talk with Tryphon the Judean, 80)
[12] G. A. Zaval'ko. The problem of correlation of morality and religion. M .: KomKniga, 2010. – p. 5.
[13] In their study, D. Furman and K. Kaariaynen propose as criteria: 1. Self-identification of themselves as Orthodox. 2. Going to church at least once a month. 3. Regular prayer. 4. Lack of faith in the occult, astrology and reincarnation.
[14] I. V. Naletova "New Orthodox" in Russia: a type or a stereotype of religiousness / I. V. Naletova // Socis: Sociological Studies: Monthly scientific and society-and-political magazine RAS. – 2004., – # 5 (241). – p. 133.
[15] O. V. Bondarenko, M. S. Leonova. Religious Identity: explication of concepts. Humanities # 6, 2010 – p. 287.
[16] Two talks, accepted today as mandatory are only informative and present no significant obstacle.
[17] See. Work of the same name by hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky): http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sretmon/illarion/christchurch.htm
[18] St. Gregory Palamas. Talks (Homilies) part 2. Montreal – 1974. – p. 127.
Keywords:
Church and Society
%2Bby%2BEugene%2BBurnand.jpg)