Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 10

Good evening everyone. I'm going to share my screen and carry on from where I left off yesterday. This particular workshop, which I had to take a rather extended break in because it took four weeks for the telephone company to connect my house up to the phone line, is tracing God's providence from Jesus' ascension up until the Renaissance. I'm trying to work out and discern the way that God has been working and also to look at many cul-de-sacs because God works with whoever responds to His calling. God doesn't know in advance who is going to make the foundation to receive the Messiah. I've been tracing different nations and different spiritual communities. Yesterday, we started looking at God's providence to the Slavs, and before we stopped, we looked at God's providence to the Germanic people and a little bit into the Anglo-Saxon world. Now, working on God's providence with the Slavs is where we got to yesterday. I'm trying to understand why Russia went communist. How is it possible for Satan to invade in that sense? How is it possible for things to go so drastically and terribly wrong? I'm looking at the nature of Christianity as it came to Russia, the kind of Christianity that came to Russia, but also the Russian attitude to Christianity when it came.

This is the sort of conclusion of one Russian Orthodox historian. This Russian historian of the Orthodox Church said that Russians thought all the basic problems of faith and worship had been solved by the Greeks. Christianity came to Russia in the 9th century, and they unquestionably accepted the Orthodox definition of faith and the forms of art, particularly icons and architecture. They assumed they were getting a pure faith and therefore wouldn't allow any changes; no changes were tolerated. What they received, what they understood and assumed to be this pure, complete, perfected faith, they saw themselves as having to preserve it and continue it. A Russian philosopher and historian in the 20th century reflected upon this and said that if there is a feature of Russian Orthodoxy which can be seen as a contrast to the Byzantine perception of Christianity, it is the nervous concern of the Russians in preserving the very letter of the tradition received from the Greeks.

Christianity really is a process. When we study Christian history, just like when you study the history of Judaism, we can see things change, things evolve, things develop, their ups and their downs. When we look at Christian history from the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection, there have been a lot of developments in terms of doctrine, church structure, culture, and many different ways in which things are done. In the early days, there were many different kinds of church structures, many different kinds of doctrines, and styles of worship and liturgy. Christianity is always developing; it's a process. Before and after it came to Russia, there was development and evolution. After Christianity came to Russia in the 9th century, within the Orthodox world and also in Western Europe, it continued to develop and evolve. It wasn't frozen; it didn't stagnate in that sense. Sometimes it did, but that was always a disaster. In Russia, they tried to stop this development or evolution by an eternal repetition of ritual.

If you go to a Russian Orthodox church, the great pride is that the way they worship God, the ritual, the liturgy, has been unchanged for a thousand years. We'll look at this claim later. Unchanged for a thousand years, so in that sense, there's no history because there's no development and no change. When change did come within Russia, it was a very radical break with the past. There wasn't a gradual evolution; it got to a point that when there was change, it was very radical and a break with the past. We looked yesterday at the development of Kievan Rus. This is Kiev here, and Kievan Rus became the ancestor of the three nations that exist today: Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. At that time, Kievan Rus was very culturally advanced and technologically advanced compared to Western Europe. It was ruled over by the Rurik dynasty, which we looked at yesterday. They came from Sweden, the Vikings, and they were invited by the Slavs to come and rule over them because there was a lot of conflict between the different Slavic tribes.

These are the Eastern Slavs; the Western Slavs are over here: the Poles, the Slovaks, the Bulgarians, and the Serbs. Kievan Rus is basically a state of the Eastern Slavs, and the Rurik dynasty was very well connected to other royal dynasties in Europe. As I said, it was culturally very advanced and technologically pretty advanced as well, but often there was a lot of fighting going on over the succession. There was a lot of fractiousness, with members of families getting killed in the fight over who became the next Grand Duke of Kiev. Kiev was a center, and these are some of the major cities: Northgard, Vladimir, and others. It was fairly democratically organized; each large town or city had a veche, or council, and they would often elect their own ruler or prince and invite different princes to become the ruler. The wealth of Kievan Rus came from trade. The Vikings dominated and controlled all the trade routes from up here in the Baltics all the way down to the Black Sea and, of course, Constantinople and Byzantium.

This area was incredibly wealthy, with a lot of furs and other goods. The Vikings engaged in trade down these huge rivers, and the trade also went on through there to Britain. The royal dynasty, the Vikings, were very well organized, a bit like the Normans, who were also descendants of Vikings in northern France who then invaded England. There was a lot of trade, but with the decline of Constantinople, there was also a decline in trade, which led to economic and political decline. One of the reasons for the economic decline of Constantinople was the rise of Islam, which was threatening the borders. The next major event was the invasion of Russia by the Mongols in 1237 to 1240, during the time of the Great Khan Batu, who was a descendant of Genghis Khan. The Mongol army came out of nowhere and devastated Russia. The Russians were traumatized by this experience and never really recovered from it, to be perfectly honest, and Kievan Rus was destroyed.

An eyewitness, an Italian called Giovanni de Plano Carpini, was a papal envoy to the Mongol Great Khan. He wrote a report that the Mongols attacked Rus, making great havoc, destroying cities and fortresses, and slaughtering men. They laid siege to Kiev, the capital of Rus. After they besieged the city for a long time, they took it and put the inhabitants to death. When we were journeying through that land, we came across countless skulls and bones of dead men lying about on the ground. Kiev had been a very large and thickly populated town, but now it was reduced to almost nothing, with scarcely 200 houses left. The inhabitants were kept in complete slavery. At the time of the Mongol invasion, the population here was about 30,000 or 40,000, quite large; Constantinople, by comparison, was about 300,000. It wasn't just Kiev; all the cities and towns were devastated. One of the long-term consequences was that the Eastern Slavs were divided into the states we now call Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, although all three regard Kiev or Kievan Rus as their cultural beginnings.

This is why, for Russia, when Ukraine started to want to engage more closely with the European Union and come out of the Russian orbit, it was traumatic. They could not possibly imagine how Ukraine and Kiev, which was their ancestral home, could leave the Slavic sphere of influence and sense of brotherhood to go off after the European Union. One city remained independent: Novgorod in the north became a center. The church itself was protected because the Mongols believed in the Great God of the Sky; they were religious and generally did not destroy the churches or put the priests to death. The church was protected and supported by the Mongol horde and grew very wealthy. The Khans, the Mongol rulers, would appoint Russian rulers because they were the occupying power, and they ruled Russia through their appointed rulers. The diploma or patent of office for the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir was granted by the Khan of the Golden Horde. Before that, Kiev was the major city, but after the Mongol invasion, Vladimir became the major city.

The person who was the ruler of Vladimir, the Grand Prince of Vladimir, was the Khan's tax collector for all of Russia. He was appointed by the Khan, given this patent, and told to go and collect taxes and then bring them to the Khan. When he got there, he had to prostrate himself before the Khan. This created a sense that might is right. When anybody went to visit the Khan, they had to bow down with their face on the ground and prostrate themselves to acknowledge the power and authority of the Khan. This is what we call Oriental despotism, and this had a huge impact on Russia, which before then was not particularly authoritarian and was certainly not despotic. Most of the feudal society was a very profoundly Christian society with very deep democratic principles, but everything changed very much with the Mongol invasion. At the same time as the Mongols invaded, Sweden and the Teutonic Knights attacked Russia at its weakest. For Russians, this was the second traumatic experience. They expected that Christian Europe would come to their aid against the Mongols and protect them, but we saw some of the conflict there between the Orthodox and the Germanic side of Christianity.

When the Russians were being attacked by the Mongols, not long after that, Sweden and the Teutonic Knights took the opportunity to attack Russia when it was at its weakest. This is something Russians never forgot and led to a huge amount of suspicion and bad feeling towards Western Europe. This attack by a fellow Christian made a deep impact on the Orthodox. A prince of Novgorod, Alexander Nevsky, rose to the challenge. He raised an army and defeated the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights in 1242 in a battle on a frozen lake. This then led to the rise of Moscow. During the Mongol invasion, the Mongol occupation led to the rise of Moscow. Up until this time, there was the Grand Duchy of Kiev that fell, so Vladimir became the most important city after that time. The Grand Prince of Vladimir was a senior title that all of the Russian princes could hold, but there was a lot of rivalry for the title between the Tver and Moscow branches of the House of Rurik.

As I explained yesterday, when the Grand Prince of Vladimir died, he would be replaced by somebody else, probably a prince from one of the other cities. There was a lot of rivalry for this, and it was the Khan who would decide which of the princes would be appointed when the Grand Prince died. Yuri Danilovich of Moscow was the prince of Moscow, but he wasn't eligible for the title because his own father had not been a Grand Prince. He wanted the title, and as far as I remember, the Khan decided to appoint Yuri Dmitrievich of Tver, who was eligible for the title. Yuri was not happy about this and had a battle with Yuri, and then he actually murdered Yuri when they were visiting the Khan. But then Ivan Kalita, who was Yuri's son, was appointed to the...

The title of Grand Prince of Vladimir was appointed by the Khan, and he was from Moscow. However, this was an illegitimate appointment, so none of the other members of the dynasty, the House of Rurik, recognised Danilo Davichi as a legitimate ruler. His authority stemmed entirely from the fact that the Khan had appointed him; he wasn't eligible for this appointment in terms of the normal pattern of succession. From that point, he began to increase the power of Moscow, which outraged the other members of the ruling house. Ivan Kalita, whose nickname was 'Moneybags', was very subservient to the Khan. He bowed to him and worshipped him, raising large amounts of tribute to bring to the Khan, which gained him favour by heavily taxing the people to take money to the Mongols. His other question was how to establish Moscow as a legitimate capital to replace Vladimir.

To achieve this, he started to expand the territory of the Duchy of Moscow. Before then, there were various duchies, including Vladimir and Kiev. He obtained patents from the Horde, which allowed him to take over more land. Additionally, he began to marry into the legitimate branches of the dynasty. He decided to move the headquarters of the church; the capital of Orthodoxy was originally Kiev, then moved to Vladimir in 1299, and finally, in 1326, the Church of the Assumption was established in Moscow. This was a prestigious move, attempting to relocate the church's headquarters to Moscow, which was a way of building legitimacy. This was similar to what King David did when he established Jerusalem as both a religious and political capital.

Kalita then established a new form of succession. Instead of passing the title through uncles and brothers, he decided to limit it to sons, creating a direct lineage of authority. There were those who disagreed with this, and when they refused to accept his authority and legitimacy, they were killed. This oppression is common in illegitimate forms of government; those in power want ordinary people to accept them as legitimate rulers. If people do not accept their authority, the rulers become angry and upset, leading to persecution. This is similar to what is happening in China now with the Communist Party and what occurred in the Soviet Union, where people refused to accept the legitimacy of rulers who attained power through force.

During this time of Mongol occupation, some of the greatest saints in Russian history emerged, including Sergius of Radonezh. At just 20 years old, he decided to retreat into the forest, where many devout Russians would go to meditate and escape the political oppression in towns and cities. He lived a simple life, farming and praying for years. Eventually, he was discovered, and many people were attracted to him due to his character and personality, leading to the development of a community around him. He was known for his extraordinary wisdom and spirituality, and people, including political leaders, sought his advice and guidance.

One day, a political leader came to find Sergius and asked where he was. When told that he was the one weeding the garden, the leader was astonished that the head of the community was working like everyone else. Sergius founded the Church of the Holy Trinity, which became the seedbed of Russian monasticism. Over the next 150 years, 180 Russian monasteries were built, marking the beginning of a spiritual revival in Russia, which had been oppressed by the Tartars and Mongols. This revival encompassed spiritual, political, cultural, and religious aspects of Russian life. His guiding philosophy was encapsulated in a beautiful Russian word, 'sabornost', which translates best as 'unity in freedom'.

Sabornost represents the idea of unity and freedom under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, where individuals cooperate freely without legal or intellectual barriers. This concept is deeply characteristic of Russian Orthodox spirituality. The community founded by Sergius attracted many because everyone was free to come and go, yet they worked hard together, fostering a sense of togetherness and harmony. Despite the ongoing Mongol oppression, the Mongols themselves began to decline, leading to challenges against their rule. The first significant challenge came from Grand Duke Olgerd of Lithuania in 1362, followed by Prince Dmitry Donskoi, who was initially a tax collector for the Mongols.

Dmitry eventually stopped payments to the Mongols, which was seen as an act of rebellion. In 1380, the Mongols raised an army against Moscow. At this time, Dmitry sought advice from Sergius about how to respond to the Mongol threat. Sergius blessed Dmitry before he went to fight the Tartars at the Battle of Kulikovo Field, but only after ensuring that Dmitry had pursued all peaceful means of resolving the conflict. The battle on 8 September 1380 marked the beginning of the end of Mongol rule in Russia, although the Mongols continued to exert influence and Dmitry later reached another accommodation with them.

Dmitry passed on the position of ruler to his son without the Khan's permission, which was a significant act of independence. This period saw the rise of Russian self-consciousness and self-understanding. The Russian Orthodox Church viewed Russia's place within Christianity as significant, claiming that the first Rome fell into heresy. The Eastern Orthodox Church accused the Roman Catholic Church of altering the Nicene Creed by adding the 'filioque' clause, which stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This addition was seen as a deviation from the original creed established by the whole Christian Church, leading to the Orthodox Church's assertion that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into heresy.

The second Rome, Constantinople, was also seen as having fallen, particularly after the Council of Florence in 1439 recognised the authority of the Pope. In 1448, the Russian Orthodox Church became autocephalous, gaining independence from Constantinople and establishing its own patriarchate. The fall of Constantinople to the Seljuk Turks in 1453 further solidified the Russian Orthodox Church's belief that Moscow was the third Rome, inheriting the legacy of both Constantinople and the Roman Empire. In 1472, Ivan III married Sophia Paleologus, the niece of the last emperor of Constantinople, reinforcing this sense of Moscow as the new centre of Christianity.

The Mongol yoke was repudiated in 1480, and Ivan III became the first autocrat of Russia. The Russian Orthodox theologian Philotheus later proclaimed that the Church of Rome fell due to heresy, and with the fall of Constantinople, the Church of the new Rome, Moscow, shone brighter than the sun in the universe. The Russian Orthodox Church's council supported these ideas, and in 1589, Russia became a patriarchate. This led to a self-understanding that Russia had a special mission to preserve and proclaim true Christianity to the world, positioning itself as the final preserver of Orthodoxy and religious truth. Vladimir Soloviev, a significant Russian philosopher, critiqued this notion, arguing that it limited Christianity to one nation and denied the idea of a universal church.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Russian philosophers engaged in significant reflection on Russian history, particularly regarding the influence of the Tatar or Mongol element on the soul of Russia. This influence was not merely superficial; it penetrated the very flesh and blood of the nation. The spiritual Mongol conquest coincided with the political defeat of the Horde in the 15th century, leading to thousands of baptized and unbaptized Tatars entering the service of the Prince of Moscow. This merging with the ranks of men in service contributed to the future nobility and infused it with Eastern concepts and ways of life. The two centuries of Tatar yoke did not mark the end of Russian freedom; rather, freedom perished only after liberation from the Tatars, which was closely tied to the rise of Moscow and the illegitimacy of its rule. The Prince of Moscow sought to assert dominance over others who would not accept his legitimacy, inheriting a form of oriental despotism where might equated to right.

This context highlights the urgent need for reformation, a need that was initiated by Sergius of Radonezh. During this time, there were many parallels with the Reformation occurring in Western Europe. The concept of 'sobornost'—the society of unity and freedom—emerged as a profoundly significant idea, forming the basis of Russian spirituality. Maintaining both unity and freedom is challenging; it is often easier to emphasise one over the other. Within the Russian Church, two distinct strands developed: the Possessors and the Non-Possessors. The Possessors, led by Joseph of Volokolamsk, emphasised unity and believed that salvation came from the beauty and dignity of the liturgy. They argued that worshipping God in church, rather than merely adhering to laws or beliefs, was the path to salvation.

The Russian Orthodox liturgy is characterised by its beauty and dignity, with long services filled with singing, praying, and bowing to icons. This communal worship embodies the concept of 'sobornost', allowing for a unity of worship while also permitting individual freedom, as people come and go throughout the service. The social mission of the Church, according to the Possessors, was to support the poor and engage in good deeds, which necessitated the Church's ownership of property and wealth. They believed that a wealthy Church could better fulfil its social responsibilities, thereby bringing about a kingdom of justice in this world. However, they also held a view of Russian culture as superior to other Christian cultures and supported a paternal autocracy, where the Tsar held authority above the law and coercion against heretics was justified.

In contrast, Saint Nilus of Sora represented an alternative understanding of Christianity's mission. He was an ascetic who emphasised freedom and believed that salvation comes through love, humility, and the inner transformation of one's soul. He argued that the Church's mission was to pray and provide spiritual guidance, which did not require wealth or possessions. Nilus viewed the Church as being on a pilgrimage, not as a kingdom established on Earth, and he advocated for a more universal approach to spirituality, focusing on how one lives rather than on national identity. He also believed that the Church should criticise rulers and speak truth to power, rather than offering unconditional support. This perspective included a commitment to religious tolerance and learning, with figures like Maximus the Greek supporting the Non-Possessors in their reform efforts within the Church.

The division between the Possessors and Non-Possessors ultimately led to significant consequences for Russian spirituality and culture. An excessive emphasis on the Possessor mentality could lead to totalitarianism, while an overemphasis on the Non-Possessor perspective could result in anarchy. This delicate balance of unity and freedom, which Sergius managed to establish, was difficult to maintain. Russian history reflects this division, producing both the greatest anarchists, such as Bakunin, and the most notorious totalitarians, like Stalin. The underlying issue was the Judeo-Christian influence, particularly through the scholar Zachariah in Novgorod, who significantly impacted many priests. Ivan III, attracted to the Possessors, led to tensions that culminated in the persecution of the Non-Possessors, who were labelled heretics and marginalised within the Church.

The conflict reached a critical point when Ivan III sought a divorce to secure a male heir, fearing civil unrest without a successor. The Non-Possessors, including Metropolitan Vassian and Maximus the Greek, opposed the divorce, arguing for the sanctity of marriage. In contrast, Abbott Daniel, a Possessor, prioritised the stability of the nation over individual marital integrity. Eventually, after Vassian's death, Daniel granted the divorce, allowing Ivan to remarry and produce Ivan the Terrible. This decision led to the suppression of the Non-Possessors, who faced imprisonment and persecution, while the Possessor ideology became dominant within the Church and the political sphere. Consequently, Russian culture experienced a one-sided development, with the reform movement going underground and the Church becoming ossified and weakened, ultimately serving as an extension of the government.

Nicholas Zernov, a Russian historian of the early 20th century, evaluated this period, noting that Russian culture became excessively ritualistic and stagnant, sacrificing individual responsibility for the sake of the community. This strong communal sense led to a lack of personal accountability and a failure to recognise moral courage. Those who dared to think independently faced ostracism, and collective actions were often excused, while the Tsars were treated as accountable only to God. The legacy of the Tatar yoke fostered a mentality of passive resignation to supreme power, where might equated to right, and a readiness to submit to autocratic rule. Russian society, lacking a strong legal framework, had little understanding of rights and obligations, leading to a culture where the Tsar viewed himself as the father of the people, unbound by law, and where domestic tyranny became commonplace.

The important virtues of honesty, sobriety, and truthfulness were overshadowed by significant shortcomings that led to the clumsiness of administration, the inferiority of army organisation, the neglect of proper industrial organisation, and a low standard of production. The main social defect was the reduction of a free peasantry to serfdom, which was very harsh. This evaluation comes from a Russian Orthodox historian reflecting on the 1930s, attempting to trace and understand Russian history. The sculptural seeds for communism were already laid, revealing a disunity between two sides, reminiscent of the Cain and Abel issue. Cain killed Abel, symbolising how the possessors oppressed the non-possessors. If they had managed to maintain that sabornost, or unity and freedom, everything might have turned out differently.

Before this disunity, there were numerous challenges, including inheriting the Byzantine tradition of Christianity, which was also problematic. However, one could see God's work attempting to reform things through figures like Sergey Radonezhsky, who inspired a spiritual reawakening in Kievan Rus. The Mongol occupation posed an incredible challenge, similar to the Anglo-Saxon liberal tradition's struggle against the Norman conquest. The question arises: how does one recover from oppression? I believe Russian history would have developed differently if they had maintained sabornost. The failures within the church were mirrored in the political, economic, and social spheres. The loss of freedom within the church translated to losses in these other areas, creating a deep cultural issue that eventually allowed for a Soviet culture to develop in the 20th century.

Nicholas Zotov, a historian I encountered long ago, profoundly impressed me with his interpretation of Russian history. He highlighted the spiritual dimension often overlooked in historical narratives, which tend to focus solely on political aspects. Zotov recognised the significance of the spiritual and cultural sides of history and how these dimensions influenced political, social, and economic implications. His approach to history seemed very biblical, and I appreciated his insights into the spiritual aspects of Russian history.

Ivan IV, known as Ivan the Terrible or better translated as Ivan the Dread, was an incredibly capable ruler. In the early part of his reign, he accomplished many good things, largely due to the influence of his chaplain and spiritual guide, Sylvester. Together, they re-established local elected government, known as the Zemskiy Sobor, and asserted Russian superiority over other nations. However, this was accompanied by a rigid adherence to tradition, which became dominant in the culture of the possessors. Ivan's wife played a crucial role in keeping him grounded and ensuring he made sound decisions, but after her death, he became mentally disturbed and paranoid, leading to the persecution of dissenters.

In 1568, Metropolitan Philip, the head of the church at that time, delivered a sermon rebuking Ivan for his actions. Philip was murdered shortly after for his criticism. This situation raised questions about who would stand up for righteousness and speak truth to power. The church was expected to support autocracy and unconditional obedience, leading to a schism. In 1589, the Moscow Patriarchate became autocephalous, gaining the same status as Constantinople, which allowed it to dominate local traditions and establish a uniform way of worship throughout Russia. Despite this, there were still voices within the church advocating for reform, recognising the need for improvement and modernisation.

During the time of Tsar Alexei, there were ongoing wars, and Russia sought to intervene in conflicts with the Ottomans. When Russians and Greeks met to worship, they discovered significant differences in their liturgies, leading to a crisis of identity. The question arose: who was worshipping God correctly? This was a critical issue for the Russian Orthodox Church, as correct worship was paramount for orthodoxy. Nikon, the new patriarch, sought to align the Russian liturgy with the Greek, believing this would establish unity within the Orthodox world. However, his autocratic approach to reform was met with resistance, as many viewed it as an admission that their ancestors had worshipped incorrectly.

The implications of Nikon's reforms were profound, challenging the doctrine of Moscow as the Third Rome. If the Greeks were right and the Russians wrong, it undermined the entire Russian self-understanding. Many priests rejected Nikon's changes, leading to his arrest and exile. The Tsar, upon returning, was displeased with Nikon's actions, which had divided the nation and the church. In 1666, a council condemned and excommunicated the traditionalists, who became known as the Old Believers. This division weakened the church significantly, as many of the most spiritual and devoted members left, creating a spiritual gap in Russia.

This gap was later filled by the westernisation efforts of Peter the Great and ultimately by Bolshevism. The messianic ideal of Moscow as the Third Rome became distorted, appropriated by the Soviet Union as the entity that would save the world. Tracing the spiritual development of Russia reveals how certain mistakes allowed for a culture to emerge that facilitated the Bolshevik rise to power in 1917. The church's anti-intellectual stance contributed to this vulnerability, as the most intelligent scholars were among those who left the church, exacerbating the spiritual crisis.

Left excommunicated, the spiritual gap was filled by westernisation. The intelligentsia then became predominantly atheist. Peter the Great grew up in Moscow, and I recall he had a childhood trauma; he witnessed a large number of his relatives slaughtered in front of him. This traumatic experience led him to despise the oppressiveness of Muscovy and Orthodoxy. Consequently, he grew up very hostile towards Russian culture and the Russian Church, spending much of his youth outside the church. He took a great interest in modernisation and travelled all over Europe, learning about shipbuilding and various modern technologies. He admired the West immensely and sought to modernise Russia, deciding to replace theocracy, which is ruled by the church, with state absolutism.

Instead of viewing the tsar as the familial figure for all Russian people, he opted for a bureaucratic and militaristic state. His travels in Germany influenced him significantly, particularly in shipbuilding, while his experiences in England shaped his views further. He ultimately destroyed the unity of the Russian people. When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, Peter did not replace him. He dressed in military uniform, which was shocking for Russians, as they did not expect the tsar to be a military ruler; they saw him more as a father figure. After Adrian's death, Peter appointed a governing synod presided over by a secular procurator, effectively making the church a department of state, akin to the departments of education, justice, and military.

This shift mirrored the Byzantine era when Justinian sought to make the church a department of state. Peter used the church for ideological uniformity, similar to the approaches of Vladimir and Justinian. These historical trends recur throughout time. However, Peter faced numerous problems, including the tragic fate of his own son. Upon his death, he left Russia in confusion, without a clear heir. He was a formidable soldier who built up the Russian army and fought against the Swedes, who were the military power of Europe at that time. Sweden invaded Russia, but Peter learned from their tactics and eventually defeated them.

As I conclude this overview of Russian history, I want to highlight how certain events have far-reaching consequences. What occurs in the spiritual realm can significantly impact the political, economic, and social realms. I will revisit Russian history later, focusing on the last 400 years, examining the rise of the intelligentsia from the time of Peter the Great. Under Catherine the Great, they became increasingly secular, with a tendency towards atheism, leading to the rise of Marxism and social revolutionaries. In the very late 19th century, there was an attempt to recover the true spirit of Orthodoxy, exemplified by Dostoevsky's 'Slavophilism' during what was called the Silver Age. However, this movement ultimately faltered due to the first civil war, which weakened the position of the Orthodox Church and enabled the Bolsheviks to take over.