In 1911, a work came out, a work entitled The Religion of Russia, written by an Anglian Clergyman, a Mr. G.B.H Bishop, who traveled in Russia to observe the practices of the Russian church and report back to London. Mr. Bishop makes it clear that it is a scandal that Englishmen, who know almost nothing about Russia, have certain negative prejudices about her. As a result, Mr. Bishop was sent to accomplish a scientific study of Russia and to file a report based on the most objective understanding that could be had at the time. Both urban and rural, elite and common churches were to be visited, and the report was to be filed with absolutely no bias. Hence, there can be no doubt that what was written almost 100 years ago is a scientific truth. It is also the case that what was written is a standing refutation to “Russia scholars” of the present day.
Thus, the point of this present paper is simply to quote Mr. Bishop on issues that are hotly debated among “Russia scholars” today. Issues such as the moral propensities of clergy, the condition of the peasantry and the connection of the peasant to his church. Given what Mr. Bishop has written, it is clear that the modern understandings of Imperial Russia are mere prejudices rather than scientific and empirical truths, as the below will prove.
“. . .but [the Russian church] is national because it enshrines the deepest convictions of an overwhelming majority of the Russian people” (1). So begins this work. The Russian church was not merely an imperial institution, but, at least at the parish level, was the ultimate representative body of the nation. This is a claim that no tenured historian would dare utter.
“. . .and it follows from this that those who desire to know the real Russia must seek her not in the large towns, but in the more congenial surroundings of the countryside” (2). Another claim made rather often by nationalist Russians. She is an agricultural people, more at home there than any other place. Hence, Mr. Bishop has said two things: first, that it was opposed to the nature of the Russian people that the church be attacked by revolutionaries, i.e. that the revolutionaries did not speak for the population, and second, that the westernizers, completely urban in orientation, as well, did not represent the Russian people. These are two major admissions. And in this vein he writes about Petrograd: “but the only way to nationalize the city itself would be to raze it to the ground and build a village among its ruins.”
Speaking about the church’s role as protector fo the people in the context of the Time of Troubles, Mr. Bishop has this to say, “England owes much to her church, but Russia owes yet more, her very existence.” This is the real reason why Orthodoxy, and she alone, should be the official religion of Russia. There would be no Russia without her. Speaking of Russia without Orthodoxy is like speaking of Tibet without Buddhism.
Interestingly, he concludes, concerning the services of the church, “The long, drawn out rhetorical prayers and anthems are the natural expression of the poetical eastern temperament, and contrast strongly with the brief concise collects of the more prosaic and business-like west” (25).
Concerning chrisimation , it is held by the author that, “It is admitted, however, that Confirmation by the laying on of hands of a bishop’s hands with prayer is permissible as an alternative mode [of confirmation]” (29) This is interesting, for it proves that the Russians accepted conversions based on the laying on of hands, so long as they were a bishop’s. Thence, converts could be taken into the church by this method, which does not involve chrism. It was in this way that Archbishop +JOHN accepted me into the Synod of +AUXENTIOS.
From many conversations with clergy, Mr. Bishop concludes this about the Russian attitude towards grace, “If, however, he [a priest] should offend against the unity of the church either by way of heresy or schism, he ceases to represent the church, and the grace of the priesthood becomes extinct in him.” Maybe this should give pause to the ecumenical priests among us.
Now, more significantly, Mr. Bishop gets to the issues of the clergy and peasantry. He writes the following, “I was told, with how much truth I cannot say, that the peasantry would not appreciate a priesthood recruited from the higher walks of society.” It needs to be remembered that the literature on the Russian priesthood almost always claims that the priest was a simpleton, often drunk, often morally illiterate, and certainly shown no respect by the people. The point of this, of course, is to justify the revolution and its attacks on the church. Mr. Bishop puts all this myths to rest, “Yet these peasant priests of Russia are no means devoid of refinement. Descended, as a rule, from a long line of priests, they exhibit greater intelligence, superior morals, and even a more distinguished appearance than do their social equals among the laity. While it would be untrue to say that scandals do not occur, still the great majority of them lead respectable and useful lives” (37). And concerning the Russian seminary, “The course of instruction provided in a Russian seminary would bear very favorable comparison with that given in the majority of our [English] theological colleges.” This puts to rest the canards about Russian seminaries being “laboratories of obscurantism” and other such prattle.
He is a little hard on the bishops, though for reasons perfectly understandable. He writes of the Petrine system: “Owing to the centralization of authority in the Holy Synod, a Russian bishop has nothing like the independence of our own [Anglican] Fathers in God. He is more like a government official, administering his diocese like a civil governor. . .” (41). However, he does quote another Anglican, a Mr. Bury, who had administrative control over Anglican churches in Central Europe. Mr. Bury remarks, “My experience of the archbishops and bishops of the Russian church is that they are real saints. There is no other name that befits them.” As a matter of course, here’s how Mr. Bishop describes the multitude of clergy in the towns, by reducing them to “types”: “A. Is a rural dean, a quiet, able man, interested in social reform, a temperance worker and an optimist. B. The rector of a small town parish, a grace, simple man, not very hopeful in his estimate of popular morality in religion, but doing his best to improve matters. C. Is a man of considerable intelligence, who deplores the poverty f the clergy and the inequalities of clerical stipends.”
He does the same for rural clergy, “D. Is like a great bear, big, kind, awkward. He welcomes the spread of education, which is much needed. E. Is a priest of the more ignorant type inclined to be argumentative, but he considers the education is working wonders among the peasants, and is sufficiently courageous to express disapproval of the procurator fo the Synod. F. Is alert and enthusiastic and full of hope for the future of Russia.” (42-3)
How far is this scientific observation from the myths of our professional “Russian experts!” Where is all the vocabulary of obscurantism, illiteracy and ignorance? The Russian clergy were clearly bright, happy, active and involved with moral and educational improvement. In fact, Mr. Bishop goes on describing other forms of the clergy, each description more glowing than the first. Clearly then, according to objective and unbiased eyes, the Russian clergy was first rate, well educated and involved in reform. To say the very least, the textbooks need to be re-written. He concludes this section with the laconic phrase: “It would seem, then, that the Russian clergy will bear favorable comparison with those of other lands usually considered to be more enlightened” (44)
Concerning the peasantry, first, Mr. Bishop deplores the myths that were, in his day, circulating in the English press concerning the Russian peasant, that of an ignorant boor. Such a view is mythical. He writes, “We have not lived with the people [peasants of Russia], but in hotels, flats and great country houses. We never came into contact with them except in the newspapers, and newspapers throve on what is abnormal” (46).
Concerning the peasants, he writes, rather strikingly, “The facts of the Christian Revelation are far more real to the [Russian] peasants than they are to us.” And again, concerning the relation between peasant and clergy, “A priest may sometimes be inefficient or unworthy of respect, but since he is only considered as a mouth-piece, a sort of machine for administering the sacraments, his inefficiency does not affect the reverence for which his flock regards his church.” Of course, the church, as the manifestation of the Spirt, performs the sacraments, not the priest as such. He continues, “the laity, too, are guardians of religion, and if necessary, they will forcibly compel a priest to do his duty” (48).
He writes, “To its people Russia will always be Holy Russia, and woe to the invader who profanes its altars and desecrates its sacred soil. In the hour of danger all politics and post are banished, and it is a nation in arms which marches with the watchword of ‘Tsar, Church, and People.’” Ideas that today are found only on the most patriotic of Russian journals is claimed here, in a scientific and empirical manner, to be the very normal attitude of Russians–and this after the revolution of 1905, a revolution, the professional historians tell us, was an age where the peasants rejected the Tsar and Holy Russia.
Concerning he peasant in church, he writes a very telling sentence, “He does not go [to church] to sit and listen, but to stand and pray; he is not there to get something from God, as to give something to God, from the homage of his whole being.” I must say that this encapsulates Russian piety in a way that I have never heard, in a powerful and effective manner beyond all our theologians. He then quotes the Roman Catholic Abbe Morel, who had written earlier “One feels all these gestures [in church] do good for the soul; the religion of the ignorant moujik is worth more than that of the Protestant scholar, who professes to worship God in spirit only.”
Mr. Bishop was hosted by several clergy during his tour of Russia, and he never ceases to comment on their intelligence and inquisitiveness. In fact, it was common for all priests to be musical, playing “four or five instruments, including violin or piano. . .” By and large, this concludes this brief treatment. Mr. Bishop sought to understand Russia, and began to understand how she really was, without any kind of journalistic mythology and distortion. What he found is at variance with nearly everything one reads in works concerning Old Russia prior to the revolution. The conclusions drawn are manifold:
The history of Russia written in English is merely a rehashing of Menshivik propaganda rewritten as “history.” It has no validity. The fact that so many otherwise intelligent scholar merely repeat this kind of nonsense derives from several causes, and, in my experience, I will list just a few:
a. That academia is a corporate culture, with its own sense of solidarity, insiderism and community. Hence, the penalties for going against the grain are severe, and often include expulsion from the “insider” track on advancement and friendship.
b. That the major grant-producing institutions are leftist in their proclivities, and do nothing to hide this fact. Ths includes all corporate grants, as well as the more powerful Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. To research the ideological proclivities of any foundation, merely enter it into the search field at www.capitalresearch.org, and a full list of all grants will be shown. This method proves that all corporate foundations are liberal, as well as dedicating themselves to obscuring this fact by spreading the myth that corporations are “conservative” a myth that could not be farther from the truth. Hence, liberal foundations control grants, and hence, control academic research.
c. That affirmative actions has resulted in the hiring and promotion of sub-stndard minds so as to fulfill a quota, thereby further reducing the competence of historians en masse, and
d. That there are too many kids in college, too many colleges, too many professors and too many Ph.Ds being granted. This has led to a dumbing down of university professors through inflation. As a result, I can honestly say that, in my 15 years experience in academia, most professors I have met have been less than competent, knowing slogans about their field, rather than about the field itself. But since there is such an over-inflation of college students, classes have become simpler and more “massified.” Hence, today, regardless of the institution, professors no longer need to be experts in the field they teach. This holds for the Ivy’s as well as for the larger state schools.
I believe that this largely explains the shocking level of ideological conformity among university professors and their inability to go against the grain, and truly read texts and evaluate evidence with a critical eye. However, thanks to the web, truly critical scholars have an opportunity to publish and have more readers than academic journals offer.