How Russia is trying to rebuild a moral and religious infrastructure while honoring the principle of free choice, sort of. The Associated Press: Russian pupils to have choice of religion, ethics:
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced a pilot project Tuesday that will require schoolchildren to take classes in religion or secular ethics.
The proposal is part of a Kremlin effort to teach young Russians morals in the wake of a turbulent period of uncertainty following the collapse of the officially atheist Soviet Union.
Medvedev said preteen students at about 12,000 schools in 18 Russian regions would take the classes. They will be offered the choice of studying the dominant Russian Orthodox religion, Islam, Buddhism or Judaism, or of taking an overview of all four faiths, or a course in secular ethics.
Students and their parents must be allowed to choose freely, Medvedev said in addressing top clerics and officials at his residence outside Moscow. “Any coercion, pressure will be absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive,” he said.
By 2012, the classes might be expanded nationwide, Medvedev said. The pilot project includes about 20 percent of Russia’s schools.
The offer of a choice appeared aimed to ease concerns that Russian Orthodoxy will be forced on schoolchildren as the church gains influence and tightens ties with the state.
Notice that only one version of Christianity will be allowed. Still, could some version of this scheme work here? What’s the problem with it?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
If you look at the history of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) you will find a notable absence of the Gospel. What will be taught in those classes will be obedience to authority first of all, and ethics afterward, because it is in the interest of both the state and the ROC to have an obedient, well behaved citizenry. The problem, as Luther put it, is that “good works do not make good peoople.”
George, that is over-simplifying.
For you I should write a dissertation? Whether it is Russia or the U.S.A. or Zimbabwe, for us it is the Kingdom that matters. It is so simple we tend to overlook it.
Interesting that there is an implicit acknowledgment that secular humanism is a religion. If only we would acknowledge that here in the U.S.
George,
I find your generalizations fascinating. In reality, the Orthodox Church is an ancient (pre-Catholic), beautiful, and–in accordance with its name–surprisingly authentic manifestation of the Christian religion. It is also culturally united with the Russian tradition in its truest and pre-Communist sense (though not pre-authoritarian, for authoritarianism is nearly synonymous with Russian-ness). I can’t think of a better “version” of Christianity to instill; it is certainly a better version than the dominant evangelical or liberal Protestant strains which dominate America.
Next please.
Cincinnatus: With the exception of “authentic manifestation of the Christian religion,” everything you wrote, with culturally appropriate adjustments, could have been written about the Roman Catholic church of Luther’s day. But that did not make it Christian. What you will have difficulty finding is one of the two essential marks of the Church: the proclamation of the pure Gospel.
Very little of what most of us in the West believe about Russia is true. Most of it is self-serving propaganda from the East, and starry-eyed romanticism from the West. To a great extent this is true because very few westerners are able to speak Russian. Of those who do, very few have the mindset of Lutheran Christians; therefore, they do not ask questions about the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the spiritual Body of Christ.
The important thing is to look for the substantive marks of the Church. Age, culture, Apostolic succession, even ethical teachings are irrelevant. Beauty is among the most seductive; even the non-Christian, Petronius, recognized that when he wrote, “Beauty and wisdom are seldom found together.”
But really, can you imagine Alexis II, KGB code name “Drozdov” (so appropriately, “thrush”) and “Tabak Kirill” (because of the tobacco business he got the church into in the nineties) “taking on the form of a servant”?
George, obviously the Russian branch of the Orthodox church has had its problems with complicity during the Soviet years, but your assessment of Orthodox theology is otherwise entirely incorrect–at least the very few parts that are coherent.
I have several friends who are devout members of Orthodox congregations, most of whom have converted from what they–largely accurately–perceive to be shallow and flippant brands of Protestantism and Catholicism (and no, what I said about Orthodoxy cannot historically be said about Catholicism). Each of them, and their deep love for Christ and the gospel (as well as the sacraments, etc.), proves every word you just said about Orthodoxy as a religion to be untrue. But really, your words about Orthodoxy, other than exuding an impression of disapproval, are somewhat disjointed and incoherent.
I wasn’t saying anything about Russia specifically, as this discussion didn’t turn in a direction that involved Russia at all, really, so what are you talking about again?
Your claims of corruption in the Russian branch of the Church could, by the way, be applied to every single church denomination in history.
Cincinnatus: this discussion was prompted by a story about a proposal to teach religion in Russian schools. Therefore, all of my focus was on what I know about Russia, and if you look closely at what I wrote, you will find no criticism of the theology of the Russian Orthodox church. Therefore, I could not have said anything about it that is not true. I wrote about practice, or the lack of it; specifically, the proclamation of the Gospel which has to be the mark of any church that calls itself Christian. You will have to look long and hard to find it in Russia. Yes, because the Lord of the Church wills it, you will find it occasionally, and it will do its saving work among God’s people.
As to the Orthodox Church in America, I have a very high respect and regard for it, and my life has been very closely associated with it. It would take too long for this venue for me to explain why I prefer to remain a Lutheran, but I know that the Holy Spirit works love and devotion in all of His people. Although, as a Lutheran, I have the usual problems with Apostolic succession, filioque, and a few others; nevertheless, I know we hold the same position on the proclamation of the Gospel.
No, Cincinnatus, the corruption in the Russian Orthodox church over centuries, not just complicity over the Soviet period, has no equivalent in history. Most recently the Russian Orthodox church was mentioned in an U.N. report for illegal dealings with Iraq in the “Food for Oil” program prior to the U.S. invasion. Even if it were as you write, the tu quoque argument is never valid. If you do not read Russian, you may be able to find one or two books by N.S. Leskov in English. Not every one of his works deals with the church, but you are bound to find some hints. Continuous censorship in Russia always prevented any critical writing about the church, and there have not been too many people outside of Russia interested in it.
Definitely, Russian Orthodox Church does not consider “proclamation of the Gospel” as the mark of true church. It is not her language. But it does not mean that the Gospel is not important for her.
Yes, you may point a lot of facts of corruption in her, but, I think it is the common problem of any “state” church. Shall I bring the example of Scandinavian Lutheran Churches?
Being a Russian Lutheran I would only support the class, where children will learn something about Bible and Christianity. Probably you even can not imagine how illiterate Russians in these areas. But my concern (and it does not appear in Associated Press report) is that these religion classes will be taught not by Russian orthodox clerics (priests and deacons), but secular teachers, whose major area of teaching is literature, history, and psychology – what in American schools is called “social studies.” They will have some textbooks, they will go through some courses, but in Russia too many people think that everyone can be a theologian. My personal experience says that especially teachers of “liberal studies” (literature, history) inclined to think this way. So, those “orthodox religion” classes might turn to be a strange “potpourri” of Christianity and all sorts of New Age ideas.