New Martyrs: the Salt of the Earth of the Bitter Pill for State Ideology?

Last Sunday Russian Orthodox Church commemorated new martyrs and confessors of Russian Lands. This is at first sight such an unusual word - new martyrsness. Where was it taken from? Generally speaking, martyrness never stopped and interrupted, only its scale had been changing. So, why should we distinguish something new from this continuous tradition? That means, there is something “ancient”?

The sense of such a special distinguishing and denomination of special category of martyrs is clear. It is the same great thing which already had place, it’s not only episodes of singular devotees, it is an epochal phenomenon which can be compared on the scale and significance with the one, which had place in the dawn of Christianity, on which the Church of Christ asserted itself. Pagan rulers of the Roman Empire had an aim of full and final distraction of the Christian faith. But contrary to human logic something opposite had happened - it is blood of the martyrs that had strengthened and raised the Church up. From those time it common to say that Church is founded on the blood of the martyrs.

So this miraculous phenomenon has happened again after two millennia. Again the power unprecedented by its cruelty and scale, which annihilated and left to rot in camps millions of people. It came not from anywhere outside, it rooted from the depth of the crushed soul of people , which was disappointed and which lost its faith. It was like devil himself was liberated and he took the power over one sixth of the earth. The land, which for centuries was famous because of its piety and fear of God. As it appeared, behind the external spiritual wellbeing the latent spiritual demoralization was hidden. And it suddenly as an long developing festering abscess just ejected outside like such a devil’s rave, that all the world was shocked. Again as two millennia ago the aim was to destruct Church of Christ completely. This aim seemed to teomachists to be so close and real. Church seemed to be weaken and untrusted, scattered and splitting from inside by different trends of dubious character. And generally it was seen as an appendage of the empire and it seemed that only because of state’s protection Church still existed. The enemies of Church were thinking that if empire had fallen down the Church would fall down as well. “Reactionary clergy”, as Lenin wrote to his gang-fellows, must by suppressed “with such a cruelty to make them not to forget this for many decades”. Thus, the goal of physical destruction of Christian Church was accepted as a policy of neo-Pagan state. 1918 was marked by execution of 3000 clerics. During Soviet times in different manner 200 thousand clerics suffered. Lay people who stayed devoted to Christ also experienced persecutions. Churches were closed down, worships were forbidden, clerics who were still alive along with their families experienced humiliations and were deprived from the basic civil rights. It seemed Church will never rise again from the ashes. In the end of 1930-ies enemies of the Church was ready to triumph. After “godless five-year plan” the census was organized and there was on question about religious belonging. Suddenly it appeared that 3/4 of population identified themselves as believers and 2/3 consider themselves as Orthodox. And it was in the situation where such an answer could be resulted in real persecutions. Becoming furious government forbid to publish the results of the census and many its organizers were repressed.

How was it possible that as the result of unprecedented persecutions and shameless anti-religious propaganda it appeared that the authority of the Church grew up instead of falling down? Why open support to the godless element in people didn’t result in its full triumph?

The reason for that - mass witnesses of faith. Even in front of the death the majority of believers were devoted to Christ. And priests appeared to be not functionaries in cassocks, but devotees of the faith. So, the persecution got an opposite result. As once in pagan Roman empire martyrities were strengthening those hesitating and were inspiring those doubting... The Church not only survived, but it appeared itself to the world in its Divine power.

The oppressors understood that by the direct persecution they just were strengthening the Church. So they have chosen another tactics - to tame Church, to demoralize it from the very inside. And ideally - to substitute it with a surrogate. Not only organizationally through recruiting hierarchy and implanting “their agents” to its ranges, but also through substitution of its values and meanings...

It would be strange, if together with that the attempt to falsify history of new martyrs had not be done in the first place.

Till the very end of communistic governing slander against saint martyrs had been deriving from the mouth of church leaders “for the sake of Church rescuing”. They stated that there had been and were no persecution because of the faith, and repressed clergy had been persecuted not for the faith, but for anti-state activities.

But the truth of God triumphed - communistic collosus crashed down, one of the reasons for that was rot of its anti-Christian pseudo-religion in comparison with convincing power of Christianity. New martyrs were glorified. Their deed was considered as holy. It was important not for them, why were glorified by God. It was important for us. We need to purify by their blood and example our souls from “sovok” rot, from fantoms of lie, which were cultivated during several generations. For our faith to be not only replacement of ideological leaven, but was embodied in freedom of Christ.

Of course it provokes opposition. Especially in our times, when Soviet ideology is openly reviving, but in next “paradise” it seems that Church also has its place. Decades of persecution against are presented not as manifestation of the very essence of that ideology, but as a kind of “misunderstanding”. Not daring negate the fact of new martyrs itself modern falsifiers use another methods to level and misrepresent its meaning.

So in television transmission, which claims to be some sort of “Orthodox”, in the very day of celebration in honor of new martyrs we hear that it is a stereotype to consider as new martyrs only those who suffered in 1920-30ies. And that in reality there were also new martyrs under German-fascist occupation as well as after February (“so called democratic” according to the anchorman) revolution. Thus, so easily such hated democrats were put in on range with Nazi. It was apropos moreover because war with fascist Germany in a core of ideological propaganda. Though, we can’t deny to acknowledge that despite of all horrors of occupation and despite of anti-Christian essence of Nazi regime, German government, even if from tactical considerations, didn’t prevent and sometimes even facilitated in opening churches at occupied territories.

But, as the anchorman continues, “only small group of clerics went on a leash of occupants, the majority remained devoted to their fatherland and their people”. And after the discussion goes about two priests, brothers Nikolaj and Georgi Hilkovs, who were executed by fascist because of supporting partizans.

We would not question heroism and patriotism of these selfless priests. And if we consider anti-Christian essence of Nazism, we could say about martyrness. But only with some reverses.

From the one hand, it is not possible to contrast to those heros who chose other selfless way to serve the Church. Let is just pay attention on those, who is included in category of “those who went on leash of occupants” and naturally appeared to be not “devoted to their fatherland and their people” as the anchorman understand this. Probably, it’s, for example, archimandrite Seraphim (Szachmut’), who left during the war the monastery in Zyrovicy and devoted himself to the mission of reviving church life on the territory of Eastern Belarus, where before the war communists didn’t left almost any acting church. With his facilitation hundreds of churches were open, and after the war he was accused in collaboration with occupants and died in Stalin’s torture chamber. Now he is glorified in the Assembly of Belarusian new martyrs. And all the insinuation about “infidelity” of such devotees for Christ’s field who just took advantage of temporary loyalty of German government to church, are nothing else but sacrilege.

From the other hand, we can neglect uniqueness of different kind of Christian deeds, mixing everybody up in the same category of new martyrs. Speaking about new martyrs we mean, in the first place, their martyrdom in the reality of apostasy of their own nation. New martyrs suffered not from the foreign occupants, their suffered from their own people, to whom the served, to whom they carried light of Christ’s truth. They suffered from us and for us, to make us aware of that and to make us with regret in heart to turn again to God and faith.

Now the issue of canonization of Chilkovs are on agenda. The fact as it is seemed to be very conforming. In diversity of deeds of the saint diversity and richness of Church’s experience is open. But if we consider the context of the transmission, we have reasons to expect that they can be glorified as new martyrs. But in this case it will be step to neglect unique in the meaning Christian deed, or better to say, historic phenomenon, which is so vital and topical in the modern apostasy times.

Someone could object that the only transmission on TV is not a reason for anxiety and fundamental conclusions. But it opens quite known tendencies, which are not so safe in the reality of Soviet ideology revival. They also penetrate to the Church, which they want to put in Procrustean bed of relevant mythologems. This alteration to the needed standard results in passing something over in silence, emphasizing the other, emasculating and substituting something else. Maybe it is done unintentionally, that’s just rages are in the air, that it temptation that it is more apt to say like this, it’s more comfortable to do like that. As always for the sake of Church. But in reality - against of it.

07.07.2010

priest Alexander Shramko