On the principle of religious freedom

Author: Professor Nikolai Aleksandrovich Zaozersky

The implementation of the principle of religious freedom in our legislation is ready to meet energetic opposition, as we hear, from the extreme right and especially the clergy of the Orthodox Church. In opposition to the principles of the Supreme Manifesto of October 17, they are wholeheartedly ready to return to the former principles of restricting non-believers and sectarians in favor of the dominant position of the Orthodox Church.

A very natural phenomenon. It has a support for itself, namely: firstly, in the age of these principles and secondly, in zeal for the faith, for the protection and salvation of the Church.

Let us consider how strong this support is.

1) As for the age, there can be no dispute regarding it. It is possible to say almost without sinning against the truth that legally throughout our history, from the beginning of Christianity in Rus’, there has been no religious freedom and it has not been recognized to this day. From the moment of the baptism of the Apostle of Rus, St. Vladimir, the immutable principle was established for a long time both in the consciousness of the leaders of the people and in life itself: “the Orthodox faith of the Greek law is the best and the only holy faith among all faiths.” In accordance with this principle, the actual attitude towards non-believers, apostates from the faith and rebels against this faith was formed, and legislative norms were formulated in accordance with this same principle. Since all other faiths were worthless in comparison with this faith, then, understandably, there could be no question of any competition between them and this one holy faith, and the question of religious freedom could not arise. The first time this question arose was when doubt was openly expressed about the sanctity of this faith and open opposition to it followed from the so-called Strigolniki and Judaizers. The overwhelming majority decided the question of the attitude towards the rebels not in favor of the latter. They were crushed, and ceased to exist. The question of religious freedom arose for the second time when a new party of rebels appeared during the time of Patriarch Nikon (the so-called Old Believers). The question was again decided very categorically: the schismatics, as enemies of the holy faith, were excommunicated from the church and subjected to cruel city executions. In support of such a decision on the issue, very convincing references of a canonical and legal nature were given – to the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and the city laws of the Kormchaya Book1. A new legal dogma has grown up that every rebel against the Orthodox faith and apostate from it is an enemy of the Church and the state and as such must be persecuted, and his impious conviction eradicated by “civil”, i.e. state measures. Our criminal legislation on crimes against faith still adheres to this dogma. The question of the attitude of our Church and state towards non-believers (pagans, Mohammedans, Jews) and heterodox churches and societies, as well as towards irreligious persons and extreme liberals in religion, has been resolved somewhat differently. Although at times the same principle of not recognizing their right to civil existence was applied to them, in general a more lenient and gentle attitude prevailed – tolerance. They can profess their faith, have their own houses of prayer, worship, their own priests and teachers, but they do not have the right to propaganda. and especially the seduction of Orthodox Christians to their faith.

This principle is maintained to this day in our criminal legislation, and again has the same statute of limitations as the first one in relation to renegades from the Orthodox Church. (Unbelievers, or apostates from the Orthodox faith, were treated in the law as persons belonging to the first category if they were open opponents of the faith).

So we must agree that the persecution of one category of non-church societies and persons and only very moderate tolerance of another have an almost indisputable statute of limitations.

But what follows from this? Least of all should we defend these statute of limitations principles as a relic, like an old dress, from which we, Russian citizens, have already outgrown and which has become very shabby, not to say that it has completely decayed. We need completely different principles. And here is why.

Because the antiquity of these principles is far from impeccable and because their dignity has been shattered so that only miserable shreds, so to speak, remain of them. Who disputed, who shattered these principles? It would be very difficult to list by name the individuals who at different moments in church history (Byzantine and Russian) fought against these principles. Their voices were sometimes very loud, sometimes weak, but despite their rather large number, they were still drowned, so to speak, in the mass2. But this is not important. What is more important is that in this mass itself, in its consciousness and in its conscience, certain inner voices never died, which protested against the triumph of the victors, poisoned the sweetness of victory. – These voices are the principles of the Gospel and the Orthodox Church and the natural feeling of humanity, humaneness.

In the Divine Services of the Orthodox Church, the reading of the Gospel is surrounded by such majestic ritual as nowhere else in Christianity. Its reading is very often and always constitutes, so to speak, a very prominent, outstanding part of our ritual: who of those present does not hear it? – Perhaps a deaf person and one who deliberately plugs his ears. Meanwhile, the Gospel very clearly and sharply strikes at any violence in matters of faith and gives a positive commandment about love for all people, even enemies. And it is this voice that fundamentally undermines the principles of eradication and persecution of the enemies of the faith. Our hierarchs, often sick at heart, stifled it by handing over the trial and execution of cases against the faith to city judges and executors, and for themselves they reserved only the duty of admonishing and admonishing those executed for their faith, while our common people always treated those persecuted for their faith either directly as martyrs or as “unfortunate” and “pitied” them. I consider it unnecessary to prove that in theological science it has long been considered an axiom that the principle of freedom of conscience is simultaneous with Christianity, in other words, only Christianity proclaimed it to humanity. Those unfortunate theologians who think to find a justification for the oppression of heterodoxy and dissent are forced to bypass the Gospel and seek arguments only in the Old Testament. In addition to the Gospel, our canon law also fundamentally undermines any oppression of non-believers and disobedient. Here is its fundamental law:

Apostolic 27th rule: “We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who beats the faithful who sin or the unbelievers who have offended and who thereby wants to frighten them, be expelled from the priesthood. For the Lord never taught us this: on the contrary, when He was beaten, He did not strike again, when reproached, He did not reproach in return, when suffering, He did not threaten.”

But perhaps it is impossible for a priest to beat an unbeliever with his own hand, but it is permissible that a Christian layman can beat an unbeliever with a wave of his hand?

No, this is also not permissible. A categorical answer is given in another special rule. (Two-fold rule 9). All that the Church authority can do against its enemy who does not yield to measures of moral influence is to complain to the state authority, and it is up to the latter to satisfy the Church’s complaint one way or another.

Yes, the question of criminal measures against violators of the principle of religious freedom is entirely a question of state policy, and by no means a church question.

Our government once took this point of view – we have in mind the order of Catherine II, but, unfortunately, this good intention was not carried out.

Thus, the statute of limitations is a poor support for the opposition to the principle of religious freedom, especially the opposition of clergy. It only seems strong: for for the oppression of heterodoxy and sectarianism one can cite a large mass of ancient laws and very strict, formidable and cruel laws: but all these are state laws, not church laws – the latter stand in sharp opposition to the former and undermine their crumbling bulk. Here, in this discord between the state and canonical views, lies the reason for the phenomenon that both in Byzantium and in ancient Rus’, the laws against infidels and heretics were harsh, but they were never actually consistently implemented – they only threatened with fear, but were inactive, yielding to a soft view, nurtured directly by the Gospel and a sense of humanity. Thus, in reality, it turned out that in Russia, de jure, there was no religious freedom, but de facto infidels and sectarians lived better here, i.e., more freely, than in Western Europe, where de jure freedom of conscience has long reigned.

2. The second motive for opposition to the principle of religious freedom is zeal for the faith, concern for the protection and salvation of the church from its enemies.

In itself, this is, of course, a very attractive motive, as it is based on a feeling of love and worship of a religious shrine. The opposite of religious zeal is indifference, the property of heartless natures whose hearts have been dried up and emaciated by reflection.

This is true, but we must not in any way “ignore” the following considerations.

1. In reality, cruel, heartless egoists, who downright believe in nothing – bigots, hypocrites – often go hand in hand with sincere zealots of faith and act under the same banner. Such zealots are terrible: they are worse, more evil, i.e., more heartless than the Unbelievers and indifferent people. The Gospel condemns hypocrites, threatens them: woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! And warns good-natured people against them. Hypocrites are worse than the Unbelievers.

This position does not require proof. We only point to it with the aim of making it clear that zeal for faith as a political motive has no value. Opponents will take advantage of the weakness of this argument and will treat the zealots of the faith as hypocrites. But this is not enough. What is more important is that even in the most sincere, genuine zeal for the faith one must distinguish degrees: there is zeal worthy of all praise, but there is zeal that is not very praiseworthy. For example, the Apostle Paul directly condemns unreasonable zeal: they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. And so we think, that people who call for the defense and salvation of the Orthodox Church by means of political, criminal and police oppression have a sincere zeal for God, but not a very reasonable one, and therefore not very valuable.

That it is not of high value is a clear proof that such allegedly Christian jealousy is no different from Mohammedan, Jewish, or pagan jealousy. Every religion, every sect has its zealots, and what zealots they are, downright fanatics. So what? Should a Christian really compete with them in such jealousy? God forbid! It should be shameful for a Christian, and here is why. Religious jealousy, like jealousy in general, has its deep psychological basis in the jealous person’s lack of faith or trust in the being he loves: out of fear of losing this being for himself, out of fear that it will be taken away, or only harmed, insulted, somehow spoiled – in his defenselessness, all the torments of jealousy, all its manifestations, often the insane actions of the jealous person, defending with his own strength the object of his worship, arise. At present, there are many such zealots for the Orthodox Church, such defenders and saviors of it. They sometimes appear in a depressed mood and are ready to despair of saving the church, sometimes with courage and real military tactics they send challenges to the enemies of the faith with the threat of crushing them with their force. Such zealots of the Christian faith are guilty, in our opinion, of the following three sins: lack of faith, pride and unreason. That the Orthodox Russian Church is currently enduring a severe trial is beyond doubt. Troubles are raining down on it from without, and there is unrest within. Who is its enemy, who is its friend – it is difficult to discern. How can one not be cowardly here? How can one not declare a holy war on its enemies? And so many of our zealots are ready to fasten swords to their thighs and, following the example of the Apostle Peter, put them to work to cut off the ears of the enemy, etc. Let them be ashamed of the words of the Lord and open their ears to listen to His words: “Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53).

These words strike point-blank, so to speak, at the modern lack of faith – faint-hearted zealots for the faith.

They are also guilty of another sin – pride, and a rather unreasonable pride: after all, the very thought of saving the Church is a blasphemous and unreasonably proud thought, not at all better than the thought of destroying the Church. Every Christian must care about his personal salvation through the Church, and not about the salvation of the Church. Weep for yourselves, saviors of the Church, and not for her (Luke 23:28).

But the main sin, especially annoying, of such fainthearted and unbelieving zealots of the Church is their, so to speak, tactical imprudence.

Of course, there can be no dispute that measures of repression and intimidation were sometimes tactically appropriate and expedient. In ancient times, when the people had a low culture, the mere fact of the dominance of one or another faith, as well as its external brilliance, in itself produced charm and had an impressive effect on the simple-minded or weak-willed people – captivated them into obedience to the faith. But are these measures easily applicable at the present time?

No, and no! “Persecution irritates human minds.” This truth was created long ago by the humane policy of common sense and condemned persecution as a naive tactical means. In our time, when science and knowledge, mind and culture have entered into open battle with religion, faith, conscience and the human heart – “the system of intimidation by city executions” in matters of faith is not only naive and inappropriate, but directly harmful to religion itself.

For a long time now, our missionaries (against schism and sectarianism) have suffered a lot for their “brotherhood with the police.” They are often sincerely hated and cannot be tolerated by stubborn sectarians. During the revolution of 1905, the union of the Russian people for their defense of Orthodoxy by means of pogroms was called the “Black Hundreds”, and aroused the hatred of both sectarians and the intelligentsia.

In the current moment of passion, have subsided. The time has come for state building on the principles of the Supreme Manifesto of October 17. State policy towards religion must be established on these principles, namely on the principles of religious freedom. Will the State Duma be able to implement these principles? Let us assume two possibilities: let us assume for a moment that the old system of intimidation for apostasy from Orthodoxy and the system of repression for “proving” and promoting a different faith will triumph. What will happen then? It can be positively asserted that the countless multitude of diverse non-believers and sectarians will be united by one feeling towards the Orthodox Church – a feeling of deep hatred. But let us assume another possibility: the principle of religious freedom will triumph. The Orthodox Church will only take first place in a series of heterodox confessions and sectarian communities. It is possible that at first there will be a significant decrease in the composition of its members: there will be deviations into Old Believers, Mohammedanism, into sects. But this quantitative loss will undoubtedly be compensated by the following good consequences: firstly, it will more tightly close the ranks of its members who have remained faithful to it; secondly, it will undoubtedly acquire the sympathies of the intelligentsia, both those sitting on school benches and those active in the political, scientific and social fields.

This second consequence is of great importance. After all, the new generations are the foundation and hope of all our future well-being.

And what is this foundation and hope in the religious sense? After all, there is no need to go into proof of a very sad fact, visible to everyone – the complete absence of religious sentiment in it. The very fact that not long ago, at the end of last year, an American missionary, Miss Rauss, spoke at the higher women’s courses in Moscow – how much it says, how vividly it characterizes the irreligiosity of our youth! When was it ever heard of America sending its missionaries to Orthodox Rus’?!..

And so, in view of this sad fact alone, it is worth thinking about and energetically working for the implementation of the principle of religious freedom in our country, for the removal of the Orthodox Church from its uncharacteristic character of oppressor of religious conscience. And that the implementation of the beginning of religious freedom will reflect favorably on the Orthodox Church and on the Christianization of our youth, is convinced by the following considerations:

1) Man cannot live without religion: the latter is a need of his heart, which neither science nor art can fully satisfy. Until now, no people without religion have been known; there are only a few; let there be many of them at a certain moment, but this is a temporary, transitional phenomenon, as evidenced by the pitiful mood of such individuals, extremely pessimistic.

2) Of all the existing Christian faiths, Orthodoxy is primarily a religion of the heart. This feature of its cult is universally recognized. The principles of its canonical structure are so morally pure and rational in organizational terms that they will withstand competition with any principles of cultural social order. It is only necessary to work on their careful disclosure and implementation in church life – which, of course, the Church Council is able to do with the friendly joint work of pastors and flock.

He who sincerely believes in the inner dignity of Orthodoxy, he can not only be at peace about the fate of its ardent implementation in our fatherland of the principle of religious freedom, but will also find in this conviction the courage to work energetically to strengthen its moral and social authority in order to have a beneficial effect on our cultural elements, now indifferent or even hostile to it.

It is precisely zeal for Orthodoxy that should motivate our pastors to strive for the triumph of the principle of religious freedom.

But, the shepherds will object to us, after all, it is our duty as shepherds not only to nourish our flocks, our sheepfolds, with the word of teaching, admonition, reproof and consolation, but also to protect them from the wolves that roam freely outside, not hiding their wolfish nature, and that penetrate into our sheepfolds – often in the form of humble lambs or affectionate foxes and similar animals. Should we not defend ourselves from them, not repel their attacks on ourselves and on our sheep and lambs? In response to this, it should be noted that the implementation of the principle of religious freedom does not at all deprive the Orthodox Church of the right to demand from the state the fullest possible guarantee of its freedom and the provision of its rights as a primacy religion, to which, primarily, if not exclusively, the Russian state owes its position in the family of European states, under the strong moral influence of which it was formed, gathered, recovered from repeated troubles and turmoil, and which will continue to remain the religion of the majority of its subjects, and at the same time the most important factor in its progressive moral and cultural development. If it is recognized as an axiom that the tasks of a cultural state include the protection of the property rights of individuals, corporations and industrial, scientific and artistic institutions, ensuring their free operation and development, guaranteeing and protecting them by means of state force from offenders who act by violence, fraud, bribery, forgery and other criminal means: then the Orthodox Church has an inalienable and indisputable right to such a protective attitude towards itself on the part of the State. And who knows that a careful review of the current laws regulating the protective attitude of the Russian state towards the Orthodox Church and non-Orthodox faiths will not reveal the strange phenomenon that the officially dominant position of the Orthodox Church, in comparison with the latter, in many respects less secures its rights and the possibility of successful life than the latter? Will it not turn out, for example, that the material support of the Catholic, Protestant and even Mohammedan clergy is higher than that of the Orthodox, that in many respects the latter is much more constrained in its actions than the former, etc., etc.? Will not the implementation of the principle of state equality of the Orthodox Church with other faiths not only be a loss for it, but also a positive gain? But more about this later.

Notes:

1. See the acts of the Great Moscow Council of 1667 in the edition of Professor N. I. Subbotin

2. Not a few evidence on this is collected in the book by Prof. V. F. Kiparisov on Freedom of Conscience.

Source in Russian: Zaozersky N. A. On the principle of religious freedom // Theological Bulletin. 1908. Vol. 1. No. 3. Pp. 506-516.