4 Nov. PRAVMIR. For 13 years our country celebrates the Day of national unity. Was this day a holiday that unites the people of Russia? What is our unity, whether it is and whether someone? Says Archpriest Dimitry Klimov, Dean of St. Nicholas Cathedral city of Kalach-on-don (Volgograd oblast).
- Faith vs troubles
- Where is it unity?
- Prince Vladimir in Moscow! (photo)
- “When people drowning, we don’t ask what nationality he was,”
- Patriarch: Without Christianity there would be multinational Russia
Man should be interesting with yourself
– October 22, 1612 (in the XX-XXI centuries is November 4), the militia Dmitry Pozharsky took Kitay-Gorod, pushing the poles in the Kremlin. Exactly 36 years later, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, born first son, Tsarevich Dmitry. The day of the birth of an heir became a Federal holiday on the same day by Imperial decree began to celebrate autumn and Kazan.
What do we celebrate on the Day of national unity: the victory over one of the many enemies of Russia, the birth of a Prince, who lived for years, or something else? Where was national unity before taking the militia of Moscow, why do the poles occupied Moscow and what happened to national unity after?
Our attitude to history in two ways. There is a history of science, when scientists investigate the facts, argue: when it took China town, when Confusion overcame. But there is a history as a myth. Is it good, bad, but it’s always been – things have been mythologicals. Peels off unnecessary, priukrashivanii something important to the consciousness of the people. This event is no exception. Many factors contributed to the occurrence of the time of Troubles in Russia. Many factors affected the overcoming of the Troubles. Not to say that it was one or the other. For example, only Minin and Pozharsky militia.
As the poles were in Moscow? Throughout the history of Russia many were there, where would not have: the Vikings were in Kiev, and the Tatars in Vladimir. A lot of foreign influence was. Some historians do say that after the Mongol-Tatar yoke our country its identity lost and later we can talk about the continuation of the story of the Horde, not Russia. Maybe it’s too much, but this opinion is. Therefore, there is nothing terrible that some events that are celebrated are celebrated earlier and now are the myths in which the people have something to teach, to show good examples. It was not only in our history. Plato paid attention to the right myths: he knew that this myth, when it was about heroes, about the gods, but nevertheless stressed the importance of myths for the education of the people.
And our events. Specifically about the Confusion: we, believers, want to think that unity in Orthodoxy, in the belief that a foreign element has infiltrated Russian culture in the form of Polish Catholicism, and our people did not accept him, wanted to defend the Orthodox faith and its traditions. Maybe so, and perhaps economic decline, the crisis in all spheres of life led to the fact that people understood that further so can’t proceed, it is necessary to change something. Anyway, there was some Easter moment in time. The decline of almost death, the splitting of the state, and the moment of connection, when the “whole world, whole people”, the Cathedral elected the new Tsar. Young, soft, non-authoritative, just a compromise figure which has arranged all. But it was important to come together in this core, and everything came together for Mikhail Romanov.
We always talk about unity, we believe that isolation, fragmentation is something awful. But true unity must be formed from the freedom of each person, even of isolation and autonomy – only that it can ripen. It is wrong to consider unity as an exclusive alternative to the decay and entropy.
We are all on each other fixated. I have the feeling that people can not live. Of course, it is impossible to live in the state in isolation: all perform some function and thus help each other to exist. And all people, as Aristotle said, a social animal. But one should be interesting with himself.
There should be a need for something higher in God, and then, maybe this need will arise and the need for people. Not that they do something to give, and that you gave them.
We are looking for unity, trying to find what we like? And sometimes you do not want to be like. I do not want to belong to the community, where people think abortions are the norm. Don’t want to be like those who believe the only equivalent of joy – drinking. Want it to stand apart. And there’s nothing wrong with that in society there is some difference of opinion. But if we really stop to experience people as similar culture, history – it’s too bad.
You just have to dive into the case to which called. Teacher – so teach, the doctor – study is fine to treat people, the priest in the temple, try to communicate with people normally serve, do your duty. And we all think, now I have an idea or a national idea will arise and it will become clear what to do. But if the hand curves, they do not straighten up this idea, if the person is a drunkard or a thief, there’s nothing he the idea will not change. And when a person is immersed in his business, is realized in them, then he will understand how he fit into the context of culture, history as other people to benefit their business, their lives.
Soviet unanimity – illusion
– Maybe it’s longing for the Soviet era? When “we are United, we are invincible”, collectivism, “we are all one blood”, we think about the same? We only later learned that there were dissidents, there were people who protested, but most believed that living in close little world with shared ideals, and then suddenly it was lost. Unity is the oneness of mind and odinochestva?
We went through several stages, when we it seems to be thought that we are one, and then it turned out that it was not. Everyone thought that we are one, when in 1914 the First world war. Patriotic feelings had overcome all the people, and so the people on his knees singing “God save the Tsar” as never sang, and the rating, if expressed in present terms, the Emperor, in these summer days of 1914 grew incredibly – the king was supported even by those who previously criticized.
But now, three years later – and it turned out that there is no unity. There was the party that defended the interests of only one, rather small, class – the proletariat. It turned out that this group has such an iron discipline and will that might, gripping claws and teeth captured by the coup government, not to release her 70 years.
Us during these 70 years, it seemed that we were United. And unity was achieved by breeding – just cut out almost half of the country, and the rest were forced to remain silent. It seemed that everyone was United, all were atheists, they all had the same goals. However, how quickly things change. Starts Afghan war, severe economic crisis and the country literally falls apart into pieces.
Soviet unanimity is an illusion, and when the illusions crumble, that is a lot of debris, dust entering the eye and disturbing to watch.
If all developed organically, without revolutionary changes of the twentieth century, and the unity of this 70 years would not be. The Apostle John the Theologian said: “They went out from us but were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us” (1 Jn. 2:19). So here: if it was real, it would be preserved longer. And the former egalitarianism is not quite the same as unity.
We want to write the history of the twentieth century in the context of the whole story, some meaning in this find, but it is very difficult. What happened to Russia in the twentieth century, like trouble, an illness through which the country had gone through, and will recover it or not – time will tell. While the feeling that no recovery.
The unity called for by the ideology. Now the ideology is possible, but another time. In the Church the principle: in Essentials – unity, in nonessentials liberty and in all things – love. The doctrines there must be unity in all the Churches, traditions and rituals – freedom and in all things – love. This principle and on a national basis it would be possible to project, but carefully, of course, and then get another triad: Orthodoxy – autocracy – nationality.
Many people think that our unity now prevents differences of opinion. Seem to have thought would be all the same, believed the same, dressed the same way, then everything would be well and happy. But in fact this does not happen. And never has been. In any society there are always people who are with you in something does not agree. Or big, or in the details.
Unity begins with respect
– And what then must be our unity?
We see from history: what yesterday seemed so United and strong, today is rotten and falls. Therefore, seemingly so coveted and desirable unity must be based not on political views, not on outcompletely aspirations. We need to rely on the fact that we are all people, we all have two legs, two arms, head. We all have children, no one wants to fight each other, everyone wants to live in peace, tranquility, guaranteed stability, knowing that tomorrow you have your child will not take, do not send to the next war, which will be forgotten in a year, not even bothering to announce this new country won, and why we fought there.
There are basic freedoms and rights of man: individual freedom, freedom of conscience, the right to life and so on. That’s where unity should be, that’s what we ought to learn to be treated equally. As for faith, philosophy, and political preferences – there should be freedom. And all this should be, if not love – it is silly to demand love from the state or intra – state relations respect it. It should be in everything. And with respect we have complicated: as we turn on each other, bite for any reason in the throat due to differences of opinion. Think: if there is unanimity, then we won’t bite. But this is impossible. To make all people think alike, only, again, concentrating so that the blood gushed all over the country.
It is necessary to demand from myself respect for the other person to his opinion. But if it violates the rights, the right to life, to freedom of conscience, freedom of the individual, – that is, those normal tools of the state, as the laws. The laws should be, and the attitude towards laws will have to be cultural, and not like us.
So, I think unity should be first and foremost in relation to fundamental human rights.
Is your look. What unity want the people around you: parishioners, for example? They will celebrate on November 4?
– Parishioners celebrate, mainly, the memory of the Kazan icon of the Mother of God. Very few people think in historical retrospect, and even less of historical perspective. I didn’t notice anyone too seriously for this holiday treated. Someone remembers a demonstration on 7 Nov, anyone wants to do an imitation of these demonstrations is to come out with banners and walk in procession (there were such thoughts in some parishes), in order to remember the impulse, the feeling from walks, spring and autumn. Although the may day demonstration was more fun – the weather was nicer.
And if you ask almost any churchgoer: “What do you want?” almost everyone will answer: “I want all were believers, Orthodox”. But this will never be the same, even if we make the faith of another ideology. It will still be frivolous and ineffective. And when all these celebrations are held formally, it turns out the officialdom for show, to wave flags. People do not understand these holidays, they are not accustomed. Maybe someday settle down, but maybe not.
“Yes,” the myths of heroism, “no” – myths of cannibalism
– How do you feel about the separation between people about a historical myth, when they say “don’t touch our myths!”, and other (historians) these myths destroyed, offering to learn the historical truth?
– If to tell the person that the myth is a myth, it and treat it seriously is not. Therefore, some higher level people need to understand that this is a myth, but ordinary people have to believe that was so. Myth myth alike. You need to understand how content is filled with one or another myth.
The same story of the Panfilov – I am deeply into this topic without going, of course, but I think it is not necessary to destroy such myths. It’s like one unbeliever was trying to dissuade the believer therefore, saying about the Epistles of the Apostle Paul that did not have any of the Apostle Paul and all his Epistles are also written to the other person. What believer said, “So this other one was the Apostle Paul.” These were not guardsmen, they were different people in a different place and under different circumstances – so the other was these very “Panfilov”.
It’s one thing when we are talking about the heroism of the great manifestations of the national spirit, the people’s resistance. Then dress it up all you want, it is not necessary to limit – it’s great achievements, great victories. But when it comes to cruelty, cannibalism – in particular, the Stalinist purges – then the myth should be exposed in every way, because some people try this era mythologizing, to idealize, saying that it was not in this volume, not so bad. No, it was awful. Here the historians must oneself fully and to present those facts that they know.
But historians can’t restrict at the top: these topics you dig, and these don’t hurt? If certain documents are published, their back to the archive will not shove.
– About it and speech, all these designs are complicated. Enough historically unassailable facts, that we understand in our history had many great, beautiful, heroic. But if some events are ambiguous, it is better not to choose them as a national myth.
– 30 Oct was the Day of memory of victims of political repression – that is, it would seem, what could be unity. But, unfortunately, unity is not here, there is no split on this subject, even within the same family. Do you see the separation between people on the basis of historical subjects around historical figures? Whether you need something with this division to do, it is dangerous for the life of the state or is this normal?
– Of course, it was dangerous, but this can be treated, except philosophically? What tools of influence on these processes we have? Only speak, to publish, to preach, to educate, to convince – it’s the only way.
If we had a culture of controversy, but we have this no culture of debate born of a common culture. We can’t argue about the theses and arguments – we will roll down to the individual, we begin to insult, to tease. Therefore, we must begin with in order to learn a civilized way to argue. And by the way, the TV could participate in the education of this culture argument, but it takes the opposite example: what channel will include no – cry everywhere. Who yells louder is right… And people who really have something to say, will stand and be silent, because it is more raised and gives the impression that he has nothing to say, he lost. While we will dispute this way, nothing will move. We did not know the facts, possessing which it would be possible to change something and change yourself.
Why do we have this attitude to memory of victims of political repression? Because there are two sides: the people and the government. The power that this nation destroyed. And though the government is now different, but the theme is still questionable. After all, we need to absorb the idea that all of the above — all from God, we need to think that power is fathers family, about which we think, we want only use. But we forget that power has its benefits, and these benefits, these interests do not always coincide with the interests of the so-called civil society, which, hopefully, we have, albeit in its infancy.
Therefore, it is foolish to believe that the government will itself be sprinkled with ashes and in sackcloth dress, and it’s silly to expect that, as Alexis repented for Ivan the terrible in the death of Metropolitan Philip, the same will happen here. Of course, it is not, therefore society should take the initiative to these dates, the memory of those events remained.
But people in society are divided: some read names and others say: why you need it, there’s probably half of the criminals, which in the case was shot…
– So, maybe it was so: indeed, many were shot first, and then they were shot. All this is difficult to digest…
A collision in this environment and in my surroundings happen to me not all of my congregation agree. Anyone about Stalin remembers with sincere warmth, but what about the terrible – we have a town of simple people academic not enough, therefore, to argue on emotion not interesting, but on the invoice, not all can. So basically trust the priest – the priest will say it is.
Maybe without a king we can’t
– November 4 (old style) 1568 was deposed Metropolitan of Moscow Philip. Then where was national unity? Why is this allowed?
– Very simply: “people’s unity” was at that time in the person of the king, the king was the figure, which is unity personified. He is national unity: what he says will come to pass. I will say that should be deprived of dignity, everyone will say: “of Course, the king-priest, how else?” I will say that you have to kill (although maybe he did not say, and the order did not give, but knowing subordinates know and the thoughts of a head read), so Malyuta Skuratov went and did. To rebel and oppose anyone and did not occur. Such was the world – without a king in any way.
– Maybe the Russian people the only way possible? Only feelings of loyalty to unite?
– Maybe so. Maybe long ago penetrated into the genes, and maybe initially it was. Sometimes I think that without a king we can’t. Unity in the freedom we have does not work, but unity in the fact that their freedom to give to someone, to entrust, to give in the name of the correct actions and thoughts of one person – with this we have easier, more peculiar to our people. But there is all the hopes, aspirations will depend on the personality of the monarch: will be good – everything will be fine, will be crazy paranoid – will be all that bad.
– According to some polls it turns out that people feel now more United than before – in the face of external (possibly imaginary) threats to the rally. Do you like it: the vector goes in the direction of greater unity, or Vice versa?
– It’s like the players sitting in the locker room and talk as they come on the football field and with a flank they will trace their rivals… the game show – was unity or not.
We are now all tie a tangle of some of the contradictions, problems, but when the crisis comes – I mean economic and even not purely political, but this (God forbid, of course), as the time of Troubles, when come together all problems: moral, political, and economic order. And then we will see how it declared the unity was real. But I, frankly, think that everything is moving in the wrong direction, which would be necessary.
Here I have on my Facebook page a lot of friends, more than a thousand, of them I asked to be friends, maybe to a hundred, and the rest came to me, that is saw me as someone who shares their views. And then I posted on his page some simple quote about abortion – and started a controversy. It turned out that there is no unity.
There used to be unity: “if only there was no war.” And now, here division. One sign the petition against war, and others – “if necessary, repeat the”, “turn America into radioactive ash”.
Alas. But it’s understandable. The immune system, which was in the postwar period due to last through the war veterans have all but disappeared. It is not in the national body. Few people understand what war is. Although he was Afghan, was Chechnya. And there is the danger of mythologizing these heroic military events. War is often necessary to show in this view – in a bad, horrible, bloody, smelly, to make people understand that it is not so simple, not so easy.
Our problem is ourselves
– We’ve learned that unity is a word with positive connotation, but is it? If unity is any good?
– All depends on the situation. When all is quiet, normal, and man wants to be alone. He no unity to feel no need. But when the enemy, trouble, disaster, the person becomes clear, as it is vulnerable to mass befallen him trouble. He can’t do it alone. Here, feel the unity, the willingness of another person to come to your aid is very important.
But it is bad that we are constantly in this state of doom and disaster. And most importantly, we want that this state has always been. But it should not be. Should be a quiet, normal life. Now he’s gone, and we blame external enemies: America, Europe. In the face of external danger, we must unite to oppose a United front. But perhaps we exaggerate the extent of the present danger? Maybe people should often go abroad to make sure that there is not all so eager to destroy us and undermine our well-being.
And when people will come back, they are on this contrast will be without evangelism and suggestions to understand that the most important enemies to our country is ourselves. So much harm, how we bring ourselves, no enemy can inflict.
Need to calm down, not to force it, to understand that everything goes in a circle, and get out of this circle on a flat place, to shake things up and think that the unity, of course, good, but, as sung in one song, “Russians, Russians, a restless life, but why, to be strong, we need the trouble?” Maybe now is not the trouble, maybe the trouble is we do? To stop waiting for unity, and to do what really can. Do not expect that someone will come and set your goals: no, learn fine work honestly is what we now have.