Patheos
 
 
Understanding a More Religious and Assertive Russia
April 2, 2014 
 
By Mark Tooley
 
 
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/files/2014/03/Putin.jpg)
 In  his widely analyzed March 18 speech to the Russian 
Parliament, Putin cited the  baptism of Vladimir the Great over 1000 years 
ago in Crimea as the seminal event  binding Ukraine and Russia. That baptism 
is considered the birth of Russian  Orthodoxy. Orthodox faith has been key to 
Moscow’s historic self conceived role  as defender of all Russians, of 
Slavs, and of Orthodox, wherever they are. 
Putin has formed a close association with Russian Orthodoxy, as Russian  
rulers typically have across centuries. He is smart to do so, as Russia has  
experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival. Although regular church goers  
remain a small minority, strong majorities of Russians now identify as 
Orthodox.  Orthodoxy is widely and understandably seen as the spiritual remedy 
to 
the  cavernous spiritual vacuum left by over 70 disastrous, often murderous 
years of  Bolshevism. 
Resurgent religious traditionalism has fueled Russia’s new law against 
sexual  orientation proselytism to minors and its new anti-abortion law. Both 
laws also  respond to Russia’s demographic struggle with plunging birth rates 
and  monstrously high abortion rates that date to Soviet rule. Some American 
 religious conservatives have looked to Russian religious leaders as allies 
in  international cooperation on pro-family causes. 
It remains to be seen whether geopolitical tensions over Putin’s moves in  
Russia temper this alliance. A few liberal commentators have predictably  
denounced it as toxic. A few conservative commentators have cautioned against  
saber rattling against Russia, whose religious revival they hope might 
counter  Western secularism. A realistic perspective should welcome Christian 
vitality in  Russia while recognizing it won’t necessarily mitigate and may in 
fact reinforce  Russia as a strategic competitor with the West. East-West 
rivalry predates  Soviet Communism by a millennium. 
Historically Moscow politically and religiously has understood itself as 
the  “third Rome” and the natural successor to Constantinople as protector of 
 Orthodox civilization. The formal schism between Eastern and Western 
churches a  thousand years ago created an unhealed civilizational divide. 
Western 
powers  have periodically sought Russian alliance against common foes. But 
just as often  Western powers have warred with or at least sought to contain 
Russia. 
The “great game” of which Rudyard Kipling wrote described Britain’s 
ongoing  designs to keep Czarist Russia away from South Asia and warm water 
ports. 
 Britain’s one major hot war with Russia was ironically in Crimea. In 
countering  Russia, Britain sometimes sided with the Turks against Slavic 
people’
s  struggling against Ottoman rule. Gladstone the arch Anglican famously 
urged  British help instead for East European Christians resisting oppressive 
Muslim  rule, while the arch realist Disraeli shrewdly focused instead on 
British  interests in containing Russia. 
Britain and France of course, 100 years ago this year, aligned with Russia  
against Germany, Austria and the Ottomans.  World War I, among its other  
horrors, replaced Czarist Christian Russia with Bolshevik atheism, mass 
murder  and gulags. Excepting World War II, Russia and the West were again 
adversaries  for 70 years. The Yeltsin era after the Soviet collapse briefly, 
perhaps  superficially brought Russia into political commonality with the West. 
Putin’s  more assertive and authoritarian understanding of Russian 
nationhood, which he  sometimes frosts with religious rhetoric, which might 
even be 
sincere, has once  again returned Russia into a strategic adversary for the 
West. 
Among Putin’s political emoluments are renewed claims of Moscow as 
protector  for Russian, Slavic and Orthodox people wherever. Hence, Putin sided 
with 
the  Serbs over Kosovo, putatively with Syria’s Christians and their 
purported  Alawite protectors, with dissident regions in Georgia and Ukraine. 
His  
self-identity as counterweight to the West also has aligned him with Iran’s 
 Shiite regime. 
In his adopted role as Great Russian Nationalist Putin is not a Stalin or a 
 Hitler but a modern czar resuming old understandings and habits. The “
great  game” of the 19th century has resumed, with no fewer chess pieces on the 
board.  This game seems archaic, and Secretary Kerry has mocked Putin as a 
19th Century  figure retro in our own time. 
The other once great imperial game players have long since dissolved their  
empires and exchanged territorial acquisition for democratic market 
economics.  They have also subsumed themselves under the American economic and 
military  umbrella, a subordinate role that does not interest Putin. 
Putin’s church, in keeping with its history, is largely supportive of his  
version of a revived Russia. The Patriarch in Moscow, unlike many pseudo  
pacifist Western church prelates, does not recoil from blessing even Russia’s  
nuclear arsenal as instrumental to his nation’s security. Such nationalist  
loyalties by a bishop seem retrograde and even scary to many Western 
elites, who  dream of a post nation state world. 
One shrill liberal religion columnist has bewailed Russian religious and  
nationalist revival as commensurate with America’s Tea Party, which is the 
worst  kind of insult for a leftist. Some religiously conservative Americans 
are  tempted to minimize Russian authoritarianism and expansionism in homage 
to  renewed Russian religiosity, in contrast with the West’s accelerating  
Kulturkampf against traditional Christianity. 
The challenge is to view an increasingly religious Russia on several  
interlocking levels that range from ennobling to pernicious to banal. Americans 
 
of all ideological stripes more typically prefer clear villains and heroes.  
Churchill famously proposed that Russia is a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, 
 inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national 
 interest.” 
Religious moralists, especially American, cringe from acknowledging the  
intrinsic, pervasive nature of self interest much less national interest. But  
they will need to try, as it relates to Russia, and to  America.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to