Renaissance to the Second Advent - Day 6

Aren't you okay? Good evening. Just a very brief recap. What we're doing here is looking at how God's providence developed from the Renaissance up until the Lord of the Second Advent. For that to happen, these three foundations receive the Messiah. Normally, when we look at the foundation to receive the Messiah, we've basically just studied it in terms of individuals and families, and the relationships between Cain and Abel with Jacob and Esau. What I want to try looking at here is making the foundation to receive the Messiah on a worldwide level. So obviously, it's much more than just a couple of individuals making an offering and being able to be reconciled with each other. It's something that has to go on a much greater level.

A spiritual community, a national community, living a life of prayer, studying, and worship at the same time, one in which there's freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and this is all guaranteed and protected by the rule of law. So that somebody might come along with new ideas, and people may argue with them, disagree with them, but there's absolute freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of publication, and freedom of association. So that it's possible when the Messiah comes, he can work and be able to do what it is that he wants to do. That's what we're talking about here: a spiritual community that can respond to the Messiah and be able to protect him. That was the kind of world that existed 2000 years ago when Jesus came. There were all kinds of other issues which led to the crucifixion, but also we think about it being very few times that this sort of thing ever existed in human history.

One example I would say is the United States of America. I know that people sometimes complain America didn't do this and America should have done that. At the end of the day, we try to imagine who was Father. Father was a foreigner from Korea. He went to America and he was allowed to do anything he wanted. He was allowed to live there because as long as he kept the law, he couldn't be deported. He was allowed to start his own spiritual community, many different organizations, start newspapers, all kinds of things, businesses. He could do anything that he wanted in America because everything he wanted to do was guaranteed and protected by the rule of law. Which other country in the world would allow a foreigner to come and do that within their country? No other country in the world would allow that. Any other country, you start annoying the local political authorities and they find an excuse to kick you out.

In America, he annoyed a lot of people and they tried to find excuses. In the end, they framed him and he went to prison for a short time on accusations of tax evasion. At the end of the day, they couldn't actually stop him from working and doing what it was that he wanted to do, travelling around the whole country. So as much as people like to judge and criticize America, at the end of the day, is there any other country in the world where the people created that kind of society where the Messiah could do whatever he wanted to do and people were freely able to respond or not respond? Either way, I think we need to recognize the people who created America. That's what they did. God's 2000-year providence has prepared a democratic social legal environment to protect Christ at the Second Advent. That's what we can see in America, and we saw how that developed.

Only by Cain-type Hellenism submitting to Abel-type Hebraisms could Satan be separated from the prevailing spirit of the age. We saw how that happened in England and Scotland, but how it didn't happen in France. They didn't separate Satan from the prevailing spirit of the age, and so under the influence of Deism, France became predominantly atheistic and materialistic, which led to a certain kind of revolution: the French Revolution and the revolutionary wars and Napoleonic wars, and all of that was inflicted upon Europe. So also in Germany, it wasn't possible. Satan wasn't separated from any spirit of the age, and you had, under the influence of French rationalism, the revolutionary wars. Hegel's disciples, a lot of them became left-wing Hegelians and again fell into atheism and materialism.

These are both necessary movements to restore original human nature. Both need to be integrated with Hebrews in the subject position. What I want to move on to look at now is how things developed in Russia because again that was incredibly significant. How the Enlightenment unfolded in Russia led to what happened in the 20th century. We looked at Russian history before; we looked at its Byzantine inheritance, how Christianity came to Russia from Byzantium. It's quite different in terms of character compared to Catholicism, and the Russian Orthodox Church thought that it inherited the perfected faith coming from the Greeks and it tried to preserve it. Along with that came a certain kind of church-state relations. Church-state relations in the Orthodox world have always been very different to church-state relations in Western Europe.

We saw how things developed there with the Mongol invasion and then finally recovering their culture with this very significant figure in Russian history, Sergey Seraphim, who had this vision of sobornost, unity and freedom, trying to create a balanced spiritual society and nation in which everyone was united together but at the same time they were all free. However, that is very hard to maintain, this unity and freedom. We saw there how the Orthodox Church split between two groups: one, the possessors, emphasising unity, and another group, the non-possessors, emphasising freedom. We saw how it was that the possessors dominated the non-possessors and basically wiped them out, and so the ideology of the possessors became the dominant ideology.

After this, there was a great schism and the church split again. Most of the most spiritually profound and deep Christians left the Orthodox Church and formed what's called the Old Believers. They often went into the woods and forests in Siberia. As a result of this, the church was greatly weakened, in a much weaker state than it should have been and could have been. All along here, there are people making choices and decisions. There are reasons why Vladimir the Great chose Orthodox Christianity. Like Constantine, he was looking for a religion to support the state. He thought Orthodoxy would do that because it could establish a national church, whereas with Catholicism, the Pope claimed to be higher than the king, and Vladimir certainly didn't want to go along with that. He also thought Orthodoxy fitted much better with the Russian soul or character.

Certain decisions were made, but then again people had to make decisions and choices. When we look at these things, we can see some really wrong decisions were made, fateful decisions which led to this. Because it became the ideology of the possessors that dominated Russia, it became incredibly ossified and incredibly totalitarian, sort of totalitarian Christianity, you might say. As a result of that becoming the dominant ideology, whenever change happened in Russia, there was always a sharp break or fracture. If something with this unity and freedom, you have unity, but with freedom comes flexibility. With freedom comes the possibility of evolution, change, and development. As the world changes, when you have freedom, it's possible to adjust to the world and change and reform and be constantly renewed. But when you just have the unity side, then there's no possibility of reform, no possibility of freedom, and no possibility of new ideas coming along, and so everything became stuck.

When you have something which is completely stuck, when you want to bring about change, it always leads to a sharp break or fracture. You can see this over and over again in Russian history, even till today. So that's just the way Russia develops: a sharp break with the past because it's very hard for things to evolve and to develop in a sustainable way. Just as it looks at what was going on in Europe before the Renaissance and Enlightenment, then I look a little bit and team up, catching up with where we left them before, what was going on in Russia, so then you can understand the developments and why they happened the way they did. This is something called Nicholas Zernov. He wrote this in the 1930s or 40s, I think. He's a Russian émigré who left Russia after the Russian Revolution and was a professor of Eastern Orthodoxy in Oxford. Anyway, he said Russian culture from that period, this is the period of the possessors which we just looked at briefly, bears the marks of the exclusive influence of the possessors' mentality. It became excessively ritualistic, just following the rituals and the rituals never changed. The reason why the Old Believers left is because Nikon tried to update and to change the rituals, and they said no, you can't change them, and the church split on that basis.

Stagnant intellectually and too ready to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the community, there were no individual rights. That's the possessor unity. You may think you may have a different idea, but you have to conform; you have to unite, so sacrifice individuals for the sake of the community. We think about the principle purpose: the individual purpose of the whole can only be fulfilled when the others are fulfilled. The purpose of the whole cannot be fulfilled without the purpose of the individual being fulfilled, so they both need to be fulfilled. But in Russia, we have this: the purpose of the whole is more important, and if necessary, the purpose of the individual will be sacrificed to fulfill the purpose of the whole. That is contrary to the teachings of the Divine Principle, and so that's how it became problematic. The cost of the strong communal sense was paid in an evasion of personal responsibility and the failure to breed men of moral courage who would stand up and criticize injustice and the rarity of outstanding personalities. Anyone who had an outstanding personality left the country; they went into exile. Otherwise, they'd be arrested and thrown into prison because any man who wanted to think for himself was in danger of departing from the traditional pattern and therefore suspected and discouraged by others.

This is a temptation all religious communities face. You can see a similar sort of thing happen within Islam, and we look at Islam, similar sorts of things happened within European Christianity as well. That's just what was going on in Russian Christianity, and all spiritual communities can go in that direction. This is something which one needs to be aware of and watch out for. Everyone who dared to raise his voice and protest against accepted wisdom was ostracised. Cruelty and crime, if committed not by the individual but by the collective body, were excused. The czars, the heads of the community, were treated in an oriental fashion as persons responsible only to God for their conduct. Their actions were not judged by the standards of the ordinary man. Zernov goes on to say that for centuries, the centuries of the Tartar yoke during the time of the Mongol invasion, several hundred years left a deep trace on the Russian mentality and encouraged the growth of passive resignation before the supreme power. In other words, might is right. You have power, therefore you're right, and readiness to submit unconditionally to the rule of the autocrat. It's not by chance a Russian legend crowned the Moscow czars with the insignia of the Babylonian despots. Russia was not only a Christian family; she was also an oriental monarchy which required for its people blind obedience to the sovereign. Russia was deplorably lacking in legal notions. Her people had little sense of their rights and obligations. Their adherence to the family ideal exposed them to the danger of domestic tyranny and arbitrary oppression. One of the reasons why the czars didn't want to have a constitution was because they felt that if you have a constitution, then laws would get in between him and his children. He saw himself as the father of the people and should be able to interact personally with them and not be constrained by laws. If he wanted to punish them, he could punish them because he, as a parent, had the right and authority to punish them however he saw fit. It's nothing to do with law that people aspire to holiness, but we're inclined to disregard more prosaic but nevertheless all-important virtues of honesty, sobriety, and truthfulness. These shortcomings led to the clumsiness of the administration, the inferiority of the army organization, the pitiful neglect of the proper organization of industry, and the low standard of production. The main social defect was a reduction of the free peasantry to serfdom.

What happened was that Peter the Great, whom I mentioned briefly before, was born into a tumultuous world. His father, a czar, had two wives, and after Alexis died, a power struggle ensued over who would become the next czar. This struggle resulted in Peter witnessing the murder of his mother's family, which profoundly traumatized him. As a consequence, he developed a deep hostility towards Russian culture and the Russian Church, feeling that his culture had allowed such atrocities to occur. Growing up outside the traditional Russian court circle, he did not receive the education typical for a czar's child, which further alienated him from Russian society and culture. He decided to seek knowledge and inspiration elsewhere, leading him to travel extensively throughout Europe.

During his travels, Peter spent significant time in Germany, England, and Denmark, where he was struck by the advanced state of these countries compared to Russia. He became acutely aware of how backward Russia was in terms of its army and industry. This realisation ignited his desire to modernise Russia by importing new ideas and technologies. For example, he observed shipbuilding techniques in Holland, where each ship was crafted by a skilled artisan. However, upon visiting England, he discovered the concept of mass production, which he recognised as a more efficient method. This insight led him to establish the Russian Navy, marking a significant step in modernising Russia's military capabilities.

Peter's quest for knowledge extended beyond technology; he also studied the cultural and governmental structures of European nations. He was particularly interested in the relationship between church and state, noting the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Russian Orthodoxy. Upon returning to Russia, he sought to replace the existing theocratic system, where the czar held divine authority, with a model of state absolutism. He believed that the state should have control over all aspects of life, including the church, which he sought to bureaucratise. This shift marked a significant departure from the traditional role of the czar as a religious figure and leader.

In his efforts to modernise Russia, Peter engaged in a lengthy war with Sweden to secure a warm water port, which was crucial for trade and military access. Despite suffering many defeats, he learned from his experiences and ultimately succeeded in establishing Saint Petersburg as a new capital, symbolising Russia's opening to the West. He aimed to create a more progressive society, moving away from the oppressive atmosphere of Moscow. However, this ambition came at a cost, as he often disregarded the unity of the Russian people and imposed his vision of modernisation without considering the cultural implications.

Peter's reforms extended to the church, which he sought to control for ideological purposes. After the death of Patriarch Adrian, he did not appoint a successor, fearing criticism from religious authorities. Instead, he established a Holy Governing Synod, led by secular officials rather than religious leaders, effectively making the church a department of the state. This shift reflected his desire to modernise Russia along the lines of Lutheran principles, where the church conformed to civil law rather than exerting authority over the state. Despite his brutal methods, Peter's vision for a modern Russia was clear, and he recognised the need for scientific advancement as a foundation for progress.

After Peter's death, his daughter Elizabeth ascended to the throne, continuing her father's westernisation programme. Elizabeth ruled as an enlightened absolutist, influenced by Enlightenment ideas that emphasised the ruler's responsibility to serve the people. Unlike her predecessors, she abolished capital punishment during her reign, reflecting a more humane approach to governance. Elizabeth's rule marked a significant period of reform and modernisation in Russia, as she sought to improve society while maintaining absolute authority. Her successor, Catherine the Great, furthered these reforms, drawing on Enlightenment ideals and establishing herself as a prominent figure in Russian history.

Catherine, originally a German, orchestrated the downfall of her husband, Peter III, to become the tsarina. Like her predecessors, she embraced enlightened despotism, aiming to modernise Russia while suppressing any challenges to her authority. During her reign, Russia expanded significantly, both eastward and westward, while also engaging in the complex political landscape of Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church, having lost its position as a cultural authority, established parish schools to educate the populace, but these institutions often served to indoctrinate rather than enlighten. This period also saw a rise in spiritual confusion, as various sects emerged in response to the church's decline, mirroring similar movements in England during the Commonwealth.

The cultural landscape of Russia underwent a transformation during this time, as Peter the Great's efforts to open the country to Western ideas began to bear fruit. The infusion of Western forms of art, literature, and music into Russian culture led to a remarkable period known as the Russian Golden Age. This era produced extraordinary figures such as Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and others, who contributed to a rich literary tradition that continues to resonate today. Despite the challenges posed by the church's decline and the rise of secularism, the depth of Russian culture flourished, drawing on both its Orthodox roots and the influences of the Enlightenment.

The greatest authors in the model of Tolstoy took the Western form of the novel and infused it with a very different kind of content that came from the depth of the Russian soul and Russian Orthodoxy. Chekhov, one of the foremost playwrights, modernised and transformed plays like Shakespeare. In music, few can compare to Rachmaninoff, Giacchino, and Stravinsky. During the Russian Golden Age, there was a synthesis of Hebraism and Hellenism, where new forms from the West were infused with Russian spirituality, culture, and Orthodoxy. This can be seen as a recovery of the non-possessor tradition, which emphasises freedom and creativity. Dostoevsky writes about individuals known as starets, and much of this transformation occurred outside the formal church, within the Orthodox culture itself.

Russians did not merely imitate Western European forms of art and culture; they transformed and deepened what they received. Even when reading Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in translation, one can find profound insights that can transform one's life. However, it is important to note that without the West, Russian culture could not have developed in the way it did. The Hellenistic tradition was essential for this development. Thus, the unity of East and West produced extraordinary results, and the best Russian culture can be seen as a synthesis of these two influences.

Before the Western influence, Russian religious art was characterised by icons, which were considered windows into heaven. The Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev is a prime example. For Russians, these icons expressed their theology not through written texts but through painted images. The artists spent considerable time in prayer and meditation before painting, infusing their spirituality into their work. By meditating on these icons, people felt they could encounter the living Christ, God, or the saints. One famous icon, the Virgin of Vladimir, is associated with many miracles and serves as a template for Russian iconography.

After the import of Western forms, Russian art evolved significantly. Ivan Kramskoy's 'Christ in the Wilderness' showcases the depth of feeling in these paintings. Nikolai Gay's 'What is Truth?' depicts Pilate questioning Jesus, capturing the pathos and agony of Christ's suffering. Many of these paintings are large and exhibit a European style while retaining distinct Russian elements. The 19th century saw significant changes, particularly following the French Revolution, which led to a reaction in Germany against French cultural dominance. This reaction birthed Romanticism and a renewed sense of German identity, as they sought to assert their own cultural roots.

As Napoleon's armies invaded Russia, the Russian army eventually defeated them, leading to a resurgence of Western ideas among Russian officers. They recognised the advancements in European countries and sought to modernise Russia. Under Tsar Nicholas, reformist ideas emerged, and the Decemberists, army officers who had fought against Napoleon, attempted a coup in 1825 to implement these reforms. However, they were crushed, leading to a circle of intellectuals, including Stankovic, who debated Russia's identity and future. The central question was whether Russia should modernise and westernise or return to its pre-Peter roots, embracing its unique culture.

This debate was not just political but also spiritual, as many of these thinkers were believers. They pondered what God thought about Russia's identity—whether it was Eastern or Western. The philosopher Chekhov argued that while love of one's native land is beautiful, love of truth is even more important. This raised the question of whether one's country is right simply because it is one's own. Chekhov believed that Russia had a vocation to address social order issues and fulfil ideas from past societies, suggesting a unique Russian vision that balanced individual freedom with collective unity.

The concept of Sobornost, or unity within freedom, emerged as a uniquely Russian vision. This idea posited that Russia had a special calling from God to contribute to the world. However, just as there was a split between possessors and non-possessors, a division arose within the intellectual circles of Russia. The debate continued over whether Russia should align itself with Western ideals or return to its historical and cultural roots. The Slavophiles and Westernisers represented two opposing views, each with its own interpretation of Russian identity and history, often failing to recognise the merits of the other side. This lack of balance characterised the ongoing discourse in Russia, where the synthesis of East and West was essential for the greatness of Russian culture.

In Russia, the identity of being a Christian is closely tied to belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. The prevailing sentiment is that it is better to be an honest Russian atheist than to be a Russian Catholic or Methodist. This national church concept creates a strong sense of identity, similar to England, where being truly English often means belonging to the Church of England. If one is Catholic, they are seen as not entirely loyal, as their allegiance is to the Pope rather than the Queen. This dynamic is significant in Russian Orthodoxy, which aims for a unified nation worshipping God in the same manner, fostering a rhythm of spiritual life that includes communal worship, fasting, and celebration of holidays like Christmas and Easter. This shared spiritual practice is foundational to Russian unity, as differing denominations disrupt the sense of community and rhythm.

One of the basic principles of the Slavophiles was that everyone should be a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. The second principle was autocracy; they rejected parliamentary governance in favour of loyalty to the Tsar, viewing him as a paternal figure. This sense of nationhood is deeply connected to the Russian land and soil. Among the profound thinkers of this movement was Hamiako, who articulated the idea of 'sobornost,' which was later developed into a political philosophy of unity and freedom by Sergey Radonezhsky. Although Hamiako was not a priest, he was a significant Christian thinker and a colonel in the Russian army. Much of the intellectual discourse within Russian Orthodoxy occurred outside the church hierarchy, with other notable figures contributing to this political ideology of planned Slavism.

The Westernizers, on the other hand, viewed Russia as a European country, akin to Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, all of which historically belonged to the Catholic realm. They acknowledged that Peter the Great introduced many Western ideas that led to a flourishing of Russian culture and industry. This group included a diverse range of thinkers, some religious and others secular, liberal and conservative, all advocating for Russia to embrace its European identity. However, by the 1840s, the Westernizers began to splinter into factions, with some advocating for gradual reform and others calling for revolution. The latter group, including atheists and anarchists, believed that immediate change was necessary to reshape society according to their vision.

Among the revolutionary thinkers were Bakunin and Kropotkin, who espoused anarchist ideologies, while Tolstoy, a Christian pacifist, represented a different strand of thought. This period was marked by a rich tapestry of philosophical, spiritual, and political ideas, including the emergence of Marxism in Russia. Early Marxists like Plakhanov and later figures such as Lenin and Trotsky contributed to a tumultuous political landscape, leading to the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw increasing pressure for liberalization, culminating in the establishment of the Duma, Russia's equivalent of parliament, as the Tsar attempted to modernize amidst growing discontent.

The Russo-Japanese War further exacerbated tensions, as the Russian navy suffered a humiliating defeat, shocking the nation and leading to widespread criticism of the Tsar's incompetence. This defeat catalysed revolutionary sentiments, and the Duma was eventually dissolved. The subsequent rise of totalitarian communism in Russia can be seen as a continuation of the possessive mentality that had plagued the nation for centuries. The dissident tradition, represented by figures like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, began to emerge as a counter to this oppressive regime, marking a resurgence of the non-possessor mentality that had been suppressed for decades.

From a providential perspective, the history of Russia can be viewed through significant periods, beginning with its conversion to Christianity in 988. This era lasted until 1380, during which Russia faced Mongol invasions that nearly enslaved the population. The defeat of the Mongols at the Battle of Kulikovo marked the beginning of a renaissance in Russia, leading to the development of Moscow as a central power. However, the subsequent period saw the rise of autocracy and feudalism, mirroring the historical trajectory of Israel. The division between possessors and non-possessors within the church further complicated Russia's political landscape, culminating in the communist coup of 1917, which led to a totalitarian state that lasted for 70 years.

This historical trajectory reflects a breakdown of Russian Orthodoxy and the emergence of a radically different society. The events of 1988 and the subsequent years have been marked by confusion as Russia attempts to redefine itself. As we look ahead, it is essential to consider how these historical developments have shaped contemporary Russia and the ongoing struggle between various ideological currents. I will delve deeper into the 20th century and the impact of the world wars in our next discussion.

The religious background led up to all the events that took place in the 20th century. Some of those events were the world wars and the struggles of communism. I will come back to that on Thursday.