I happened to turn to the website affiliated with Radio CIA
and discovered this story. Radio Free Europe is biased to be sure but there are
sometimes hints of interesting stories and in other cases messages are
communicated that tell me more about the reporter than the subject being
reported.
Most Westerners will find this Nationalist Orthodox Cathedral
to be a disgusting thing and rightly so. It is offensive – but I say that not
as an American or Westerner or someone committed to Liberal ideals. Rather I
say it as a Christian. This cathedral represents Sacralism on full display.
Of course a lot more could be said. There's a bigger story to
be told.
Most Westerners still fail to understand the magnitude of the
Eastern Front and what happened there – it was on that front that the Nazis
were defeated – not at the hands of the Americans, British or French but at the
hands of the Soviet Union, a nation that paid an unimaginable price. This is
why the Great Patriotic War (as they call it) looms large. It was the great
crisis of Russian history, perhaps even greater than what the nation faced
under the Mongols. The genocidal aspect of Germany's Generalplan Ost has been downplayed or ignored by Western
historians. The six million deaths in reference to the Jewish Holocaust are
remembered and rightly so – but they're also used by some to justify the
actions of the Zionist state which was born from the ashes of Auschwitz in
1948.
But the roughly 25-30 million dead Russians and Poles are not
considered in the same way. Russia is afforded no such luxury or justification
for its post-war defensive strategic actions. While it's true the Nazis did not
establish extermination camps for the Slavs, the directives of their Master Plan for the East indicate that
their goal was extermination. Millions did die by means of forced labour and
through execution but the Third Reich did not engage in industrial death (as in
death camps) with regard to the Slavs. Nevertheless their policies qualify as
genocidal and thus the events which commenced on 1 September 1939 and more
poignantly 22 June 1941 need to be considered in this light.*
In other words, if World War II looms large in the psyche of
Americans, it must be multiplied ten-fold when one considers its place in the
mind of Russians and for the people of Eastern Europe. And for the Russians,
the fact that they played the major role in winning the European conflict is a
point they will not soon forget – a point of such significance that it eclipses
even many of the horrors they endured under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.
This is not to defend their zeal or fervor or even to glorify
their deeds but it must be acknowledged if one genuinely hopes to understand
where they're coming from and how they think. In terms of lost and worldly
wisdom one understands their patriotism, their devotion to their state and
culture. These things are incompatible with New Testament Christianity but
given that very little of it is to be found in their culture or in their
history – then their deviation from it is understandable and to be expected.**
The fact that they have intertwined their religious instincts
with their culture, national history and the state is also no surprise. This is
as old as Babel – a proclivity that every so-called Christian nation has shown.
In the Christian era these states have looked to Old Testament Israel as an
example and have attempted to both modify and emulate that model. Of course a
careful study of both Old and New Testaments reveal this to be a serious
theological error as Israel was a covenanted nation, chosen by God and
fulfilled a specific role for a specific place and time. It was a type of
Christ and since the Incarnation and His death on the cross (when the veil of
the Temple was rent) that order has ended and has been superseded and
transformed. The New Covenant related concepts of Temple-Church, New Covenant
and Kingdom of Heaven represent the fulfillment of Old Testament Israel and
thus any nation that attempts to appropriate these claims and concretise them
on Earth through their own cultural forms is guilty of error as are the
churches and heretical theologians which support these projects. They
appropriate claims they have no right to and consequently downplay and destroy
the theological claims made in the New Testament that belong to the Church and
the Kingdom of Heaven.
Because their nation is reckoned to be sanctified (and in
Biblical terms) covenanted with God, the wars of the nation, its wealth, power
and policies are viewed as holy, blessed and as such tied to the national
Church's conception of orthodoxy. It's a heresy and one of the most pervasive
and dangerous ones in all of Church history. It has led to bloodshed and many
evils perpetrated in the name of Christ. This error which arose in the wake of
Constantine's policy shift led the Church to invert and reverse its ethics – to
embrace violence, war, money, power and pride. This Judaizing impulse which had
been latent during the pre-Constantinian era of persecution came to the fore.
The restraints of pagan Rome were removed and the worldly and adulterous spirit
of the lawless False Church was unleashed. The agents of the enemy had a
vehicle, a means to corrupt the people of God and Church history was forever
changed.
And this is the story of not just Russia but of all the
nations of Christendom (so called). And it is in the context of Christendom
that the Kingdom of Heaven is substituted by an earthly 'Christian' civilisation.
The Church abandoned its pilgrim identity, its calling to live in sackcloth and
in the wilderness (as it were) and it embraced a new regime that waged 'holy'
war, produced 'sacred' art and architecture, and indeed after centuries of
corruption the so-called 'Church' looked nothing like what is found in the New
Testament and in many respects was its antithesis. In other words the chaste
Bride had turned Whore. And while the Magisterial Protestant Reformation
remedied some aspects of this and moved some things in a more positive
direction, the core error of Constantinianism – the font of the Kingdom heresy
that substitutes the cross and sackcloth for the sword and mammon was retained
and in some respects even amplified. And as such, the New Testament minded
Christian finds little joy or comfort in the subsequent history of the
Protestant nations of Northern Europe and their various colonial permutations.
Interspersed within these lands are testimonies of truth and inspiring stories
of faithfulness and hope but they are few – which given the New Testament
narrative is to be expected.
Indeed we are reminded that the Old Testament is a pattern
for us and this would include the apostasy-remnant
theme that is pervasive. The Old Testament is filled with Esau's, Saul's and
Manasseh's, with false prophets such as Balaam and the constant push to
syncretise and corrupt the worship of Jehovah. And so it has been with the
nations of the West.
But some would argue, isn't the Russian conceptualisation of
this over the top? Isn't this Russian nationalist cathedral beyond the pale?
In one sense it is but as I have laboured to argue their
passion and existential connection to the events of World War II must be
understood. Western nations don't really have a parallel. The Battle of Britain
was certainly a significant episode but it was not the Eastern Front. Britain
was never invaded. France fell and the liberation of Paris in 1944 was a huge
event but it was not the Eastern Front. For the French, the victories of Joan
of Arc during the Hundred Years War are probably a closer parallel and yet the
magnitude of the struggle is not the same – and the English did not represent a
genocidal threat. There just is no parallel and additionally it was so long
ago. The United States has never faced such an event. Even the Civil War does
not qualify as it was an internal conflict – not an external threat.
And yet, the West has its examples and they are (as would be
expected) in a different style or mode. The West is not Byzantine and therefore
its manifestation of these same concepts will be different.
Westminster Abbey immediately comes to mind. Is it a church
or a national shrine? Well, of course it's both. But it's interesting as many
rank pagans are interred within its walls. And why are they there? Because they
are icons, people that enhanced the 'greatness' of Britain – it has nothing to
do with Christ. But of course in the confusion (and delusion) that arises from
sacral thought – as Britain is a Christian nation, service to Britain is
therefore in a tangential sense, service to Christ.
Such heretical and twisted syllogisms are common enough in
the sacral paradigm and there is a logic to it – a false and tortured logic, a
worldly logic but it does cohere with the sacralist worldview.
The United States has no Westminster Abbey but these concepts
are not foreign to American Christians. American culture and iconography arose
in the Enlightenment era and thus it is packaged differently. Nevertheless the
United States has the National Cathedral and one cannot omit structures like
the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church – a so-called 'presidential church'
located near the White House. These buildings have a certain museum or shrine-like
quality about them as they amplify their connections to American history and
famous persons and yet they are obviously rather low-key examples of this
impulse.
No, in the United States the equivalent is actually found on
the National Mall. For many Americans the Mall is a grand sacred space and I've
always found it interesting that while London is an imposing historical city,
the British have not constructed anything like the National Mall. They have
their monuments to be sure but their scale is rather low-key when compared to
the grandeur and scope of Washington's National Mall. Trafalgar is impressive
and yet the Cenotaph is rather downplayed and tame when compared to the
monuments in Washington DC. Of course France has its very impressive Arc de Triomphe, but it is one monument
– and is again dwarfed by the magnitude of the National Mall.
But what does the Mall have to do with the Church? Well, in
one sense nothing per se – and yet in
the American Christian mind as America is an exceptional God-chosen nation, the
monuments and grounds are holy. The Lincoln Memorial is veritably treated as a
temple – silence is enjoined. For many the words and deeds of America's great
men are holy events and near-sacred script. American Christians have constantly
pushed for the incorporation of crosses, Scripture passages and other Christian
iconography to be present on and with these stone monuments and countless
Evangelical organisations offer what are tantamount to 'Sacred History' tours
of Washington DC. Again, the ethos is the same but given that it's Liberal
Capitalist Republican America – the style is altogether different.
Some would still dispute this connection and argue that in
the minds of American Christians the nation is separated from the Church. They
are not joined in the same fashion – it's a wholly different concept than what
is found in Europe and certainly in Russia.
And yet you wouldn't know this when visiting a church on
Memorial Day or July 4th. Apart from the regular presence of flags,
the Sunday's nearest these national holidays are transformed. There are
military celebrations, militarist and nationalist sermons, myth-hero narratives
and homilies accompanied by hymns to America. These sacrilegious practices are
often combined with pledges of allegiance to the nation. Some churches even
show video montages of soldiers fighting, white picket fences and the seemingly
sanctified landscape of this 'exceptional' nation.
There are other related events as well. Churches host dinners
and celebrations for enlisting and returning soldiers. I've seen men decide to
take their military re-enlistment oaths during the church service – again a
sacralist blending of the state (and its lies, thefts and violence) with the
mission and identity of the Church and its calling.
In America there is still a very thin line separating the
Church from the conception of the sacral state. In the Orthodox world that line
is dispensed with. The differences are minimal. If there's a glaring difference
in perception it's really a question of cultural style. In substance I see no
difference between the cathedral being built in Russia and the ethos common in
American Christianity.
Of course in the American context such expressions are
celebrated. But in Russia it's an ominous move, marking the clear relationship
between the Putin regime and the Moscow Patriarchate – a church-state
relationship that many Dominionist Christians would otherwise celebrate. But
because Russia is a geo-strategic foe this is looked on with doubt and scepticism.
And of course it bodes ill for Protestant bodies within Russia as the
church-state alliance means the Establishment will continue working to curtail
their ability to function. Like it or not these Western connected churches are
viewed as subversive and as potential threats to national security – vehicles
for American state activity.
Though the history has been forgotten, the US government
viewed such Orthodox bodies in the same way during the Cold War. Washington did
not like the fact that its substantial Eastern European populations had
patriarchates located behind the Iron Curtain and so it worked to restructure
these ecclesiastical bodies to its own liking.
----
*It is not my intention to downplay the division of Poland in
1939 and the role played by Moscow in this – not to mention the repression and
death the Poles faced at the hands of the Soviets. Stalin's crimes were
atrocious and yet do not constitute the kind of targeted racial genocide seen
with the Nazis.
**There is another dimension to what could be called Byzantine
passion. Their zeal related to World War II also flows from the fact that
Byzantine history has been one of defeats and seemingly hopeless suffering
stands in the face of insurmountable and unimaginable opposition. In many ways
this culminated in the defeat of the Germans in World War II. The age-old foe
had returned but this time with unimaginable power and ferocity – and yet they
defeated them once again. But this time the price was of a magnitude that few
nations would have been able to endure. Most nations would not have had that
capacity for suffering and would have given up. But Russia did not quit. They
defeated Germany not so much with bullets but with their very bodies and lives.
Staggering does not begin to describe their losses.