THE RUSSIAN PARISH
The Revival of Parish Life--The Ancient Russian Parish--A Peaceful
Community--Slavophils and the Parish--The Metropolitan and the Emperor
Nicholas I--The Independence of the Church--Father John of Kronstadt--A
Blessing to Russia
Our new Metropolitan of Petrograd, Pitirim, fortunately considers the
Parish question to be of enormous importance. He ascribes to it even
the power for future victory over our enemies. The Metropolitan, of
course, is a great authority, and the Duma seems to be sharing his
views. The proposal in Orthodox Church circles is to bring back life
to the parish, which at present seems to be greatly neglected and to be
losing its legitimate ground. The resurrection of parish life has
indeed long been hoped for. The plan for its revival is complete, and
is only waiting to be made public. The Holy Synod, as is well known,
has presented lately to the Duma a project that was due to the
initiative of M. Sabler (now called Desyatovski). For some reason or
other this project had been abandoned and withdrawn by its author, to
the great dismay of many who are fervently Greek Orthodox.
The Metropolitan, Pitirim, is now making every effort to introduce into
the Duma other projects {279} of great importance. In any case,
however incomplete or imperfect these projects may be, it is imperative
to apply them with as little delay as possible, practical experience
being itself the best leveller of defects. How satisfactorily the
reorganisation of parishes will revive Church life, we shall see.
History, with which all who are interested in this question should
acquaint themselves, gives ample evidence of how gradually this
ecclesiastical arrangement has died out.
The ancient Russian parish was something very different from what is
implied by the present meaning of the term. As everybody knows, a
modern parish is simply a certain amount of property within the
boundaries of a limited distance from a given church. Social life
within the parish has of late been diminishing, and the activities of
parishioners in parish matters scarcely go beyond the election of a
churchwarden, and the payment of his wages. The part allotted to them
in all other matters is purely passive, and consists principally of
paying subscriptions to various brotherhoods and charitable
institutions. In other words, if the priest happens to enjoy some
authority or popularity among his flock, such institutions flourish by
aid of voluntary contributions. In other cases, they exist only on
paper, this deception being used because their upkeep is desired by the
higher powers, disobedience to whom might have occasionally
disagreeable consequences to the parish control.
How different is all this to old-time conditions! In bygone days,
parishioners, in frequent cases, {280} built their own church, and
therefore naturally regarded it as their personal property, dependent
on their care for its needs and its welfare. Never was there an
absentee at elections of churchwardens or other officials. Everyone
was personally interested, the whole parish being like a large family,
whilst all social and other activities revolved round the church.
Close to the church was always a sort of marketplace with booths and
other such erections, where all the affairs of the neighbourhood were
transacted, and where the people collected in gay crowds on festival
days. Here also was a sort of social club, where the parishioners
discussed the news of the day, and rested after their labours. The
people were thus closely linked together, under the protecting shadows
of their church. They had their organisations and their enterprises.
For instance, they would club together to build homes for beggars and
pilgrims to be received therein and fed and helped on their way.
Sometimes also the churchwardens acted as bankers, and advanced money
on prescribed conditions, to needy parishioners. In fact, to quote the
words of Professor Titlinoff, the parish authorities considered it
their duty to look after both the moral and material welfare of their
flock. Family quarrels were regarded as a disgrace. Public opinion
strictly required of all parishioners regular attendance at confession
and communion, with cessation of work on Sundays and Church festivals.
The parish sometimes also made itself responsible for the education of
its children, providing teachers out of the church funds.
On festival days, great feasts were organised, to {281} which all
participants subscribed in money and kind. These feasts were enlivened
by public games and useful amusements. All this drew the people very
closely together into a real, living Church and social organisation.
Such were our parishes, as long as the system of an elected clergy
lasted. But as the electoral system died out, social and independent
parish life declined, the parishioners losing all personal interest in
their church and its clergy. The church gradually ceased to be the
centre of local life, the social club disappeared, the schools ceased
to exist. The authority of the church weakened, and all general parish
organisation was a thing of the past.
In some parts this influence of the Church is almost extinguished.
Now that attention has been drawn to these facts, real and serious
efforts are needed to awaken general interest in the matter. This
question of the revival of parish life is very serious and important.
In the foundation of parishes lies the seed of future economic
victory--for, without a parish, there can be neither solidarity nor
union of interests, nor any means of utilising to the utmost all the
resources of the nation for the benefit of our Church and State.
In view of the rumour that the parish will be renewed, some time ago an
ecclesiastical parish meeting was held. The questions debated regarded
the parish, and many resolutions were passed. One of the most
important was to ask the Metropolitan's consent to renew meetings of
clergymen of the whole town, parish churchwardens and representatives
of parishioners to discuss and decide parish {282} questions, and by
this meeting give a mutual understanding among all concerned in the
question on hand.
Here the most prominent of professors should be allowed to express
their opinions, as well as a number of other laymen.
In the parish life there are instances known only to the clergyman.
Up to now such instances have been the clergyman's realm of Christian
duty which he made his chief care and happiness.
The Russian Slavophils were all supporters of the parish and its
prerogatives. These always appealed to our ancient history and our
traditions, and to see them appreciated at their real value by a man of
such position as the Metropolitan, Pitirim, is certainly an event of
great importance in the life of our Church, and especially welcome in
our times, where there is decidedly a great religious revival
throughout the whole of Russia.
Slavophils always maintained that religion ought to have the upper hand
in questions where the temporal power was attempting to interfere. The
following is a case in point.
As is well known, the Emperor Nicholas I was a very energetic man, who
liked to have his own way. On one occasion he was strongly in favour
of a step of which the Church disapproved. At that time we had as
Metropolitan of Petrograd a very superior man, by name Plato. I must
add that our Metropolitans have no difficulty in obtaining interviews
with the Emperor. The Metropolitan, therefore, after putting on all
his decorations, went without {283} hesitation to the Palace, where he
arrived in great state in his carriage drawn by four or six horses.
"Majesty," he said, laying all his decorations before the Emperor on
the table, "here are all the gifts I have received from you. I will
leave my carriage at your gates and return on foot as a poor monk. But
I will never sanction the reform you demand."
The projected reform was abandoned. So do we, old-fashioned
Slavophils, always supporting the independence of the Church, now
welcome with joy the intention of the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan,
Pitirim, to return to the parish system with all its former privileges
which have of late years been neglected--indeed, almost forgotten.
In our times, in spite of the difficulties, certain efforts have been
made to revive the parish question of ancient days. Thus, for
instance, in Kieff, and in the diocese of Kieff, various brotherhoods
have been organised which began with the starting of preaching and
organising schools. And they soon discovered that in the same province
there existed already about one hundred associations of the same kind,
though in more limited forms. These were exclusively organised by the
clergy. Thus, for instance, in one of the districts, there were
already over thirty consumers' stores, started by the initiative of one
single clergyman. The brilliant result of this initiative in the year
1913 represented already a considerable balance, which helped to open a
second-class school, classes where trades were learned and where there
were stalls of agricultural implements. The Brotherhood's Council then
{284} organised its own special committee, calling it the Agricultural
Committee, whose task it was to "bring help to all ripening
agricultural questions and to discuss them in council." Libraries,
reading-rooms, moving pictures, choral singing, and sermons on
education and other important requirements were thus established.
Naturally those grew the most prominent which were already united by
faith and prayer.
Brotherhoods of this kind admitted of no division in classes,
corporations, or party factions, all being equals in the eyes of the
Church. For general parish work there is room for every one; for the
cultured landowner, the doctor, the teacher, and for every intelligent
man, and also for every intelligent peasant. When an association of
this kind bears the character of clericalism, being under the guidance
of the Church, it is rooted deeper, and has higher objects, than when
it is in private hands, where the interests are often purely
egotistical or trivial.
We had, for instance, a remarkable example in the Reverend Father John,
of Kronstadt, thanks chiefly to whose proverbial disinterestedness and
other high moral powers, tremendous sums of money were offered
voluntarily for his philanthropic work; this was practised on an
incredibly large scale.
Father John, of Kronstadt, daily received streams of money, and always
at once disposed of them in charities, keeping nothing for himself.
When he died he left his widow so poor, that the Tsar intervened and a
pension was allotted to her.
No one could be guided by a better example than we have had in the
Reverend Father John, of Kronstadt, {285} who, though he began life
without any protection, and as a very poor and humble parish priest,
attracted the whole Russian nation, inspiring a faith that approached
the miraculous. Hundreds come daily to salute his grave and pray for
his soul. Similar parish reforms ought to be introduced everywhere in
Russia, and it is a real blessing that the Metropolitan of Petrograd
supports this movement. Had this been done already, the importance of
it would have been realised not only in home policy, but also in
questions of international significance. In former days members of
such brotherhoods jealously pursued the severe dictates of the
ordinances of the Church. It is evident that the chief enlightenment
and prosperity of every Christian country lies in the moral conscience
of her people in respect to the Church, as the arbiter of Power and
Light.
{286}