Brian P. Bennett
Editor’s note: The first half of this article was published in the previous issue of the East-West Church and Ministry Report 22 (Fall 2014): 6-9.
Orthodox Tradition
The concept of Tradition—with a capital T—is central to Orthodox Christianity. “The Orthodox Christian of today sees himself as heir and guardian to a great inheritance received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future” (Ware 1963: 204). Those who support the maintenance of Church Slavonic and those who propose some manner of Russification both appeal to Orthodox Tradition, but they call to mind different personages and periods to bolster their cases.
In general, biblical precedents and prescriptions figure more prominently in the discourse of reformists than that of traditionalists. For one thing, reformists look to the Bible itself for evidence in their favor. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Bible was composed in Koine Greek in order to make it more accessible to people living around the Mediterranean. This, say reformists, has always been the way with Christianity ( Averintsev 1997 [1994]: 10). Specific New Testament sayings or parables are also brought to bear on the language question. For example, Jesus’ remark that nothing on the outside can defile a person (Mark 7: 14-15) leads some to the conclusion that it is wrong to create a dichotomy that posits Church Slavonic as sacred and Russian as profane (Kostromin 1997: 112). Lapkin (1997: 44) warns that to maintain the Gospel in the unintelligible Slavonic idiom is to keep it under a bushel (Mark 4: 21); it is to give a stone to a child who asks for bread (Matthew 7: 9). He compares contemporary defenders of Slavonic to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ time. Zaidenberg (1998: 55) asserts that if even one out of 99 lambs (Luke 15: 3-5) does not understand Church Slavonic, then it must be abandoned and replaced by Russian. All of these statements go back to the intelligibility issue. On this issue, reformists repeatedly invoke St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (14: 5-19), to the effect that clarity is paramount. They also refer to Jesus’ commands to his disciples to spread the Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28: 19). This passage is often linked with the story of Pentecost (Acts 2), which reformists see as sanctifying all languages. Since every language can be a vehicle for the dissemination of the Good News, this necessarily includes Russian.
Traditionalists generally do not invoke specific biblical precedents to the same degree. Some suggest, however, that while Jesus spoke in Aramaic, he prayed in Hebrew—thus setting a pattern for the use of sacred languages in Christian worship. Others contend that Slavonic is indispensable because it has faithfully preserved the Septuagint version of the Old Testament used throughout Orthodox Christianity.
Beyond the Bible, reformists tend to emphasize two aspects of Orthodox Tradition: the missionary and the reforming. After Cyril and Methodius, they probably refer most frequently to St. Stephen of Perm, a 14th-century missionary who is credited with creating a new alphabet for the Permic (Komi) people (Pletneva 1997: 102). Cyril and Methodius, Stephen of Perm—the reformists gladly situate themselves in this stream of the Tradition. Meanwhile, their opponents create a different lineage for reformists, connecting them with such radical figures as Luther, Calvin, and—closer to home—Tolstoy (Murav’ev 1996: 242-43). Beyond specific saints, reformists above all emphasize the council of 1917-18. The basic idea is that the Church was on its way to Russifying the liturgy if only it had been allowed to fulfill its mandate. Contemporary translations of the service books are therefore a legitimate extension and implementation of the spirit of the council. According to the reformists, the “Responses” of the bishops in 1905 show that a majority wanted something to be done to make the liturgy more intelligible, with a minority even supporting the radical idea of replacing Slavonic with Russian altogether (Borisov 1994: 131). Reformists attempt to authorize their actions by claiming that they are, in effect, the delayed implementation of the 1917-18 council’s wishes.
This puts traditionalists in an awkward position, since they would appear to be the ones who are most keen on upholding the authoritative traditions of the Orthodox Church. They make several replies. Some claim that reformists distort the council record, magnifying the number of bishops who truly favored reform. Some go further and cast doubt on the council itself. They note that reforms of the early 20th century were infected by the Western ideologies of humanism and secularism, which are inherently alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition. The council had a democratic—even secular—character, lacking in the Holy Spirit. There was a kind of “Presbyterianist” mutiny on the part of the parish priests against the bishops, who had all spoken in defense of Church Slavonic (Koroblin and Mikhailova 1999: 60-61).
Cyril and Methodius
Reformists claim that Russifying the liturgy is the modern-day equivalent and extension of the mission of Cyril and Methodius. Just as the missionary brothers translated Byzantine Christian texts into Church Slavonic in order to make them intelligible to 9th-century Slavs, translation into Russian is necessary for the current post-Soviet age. Cyril and Methodius thus serve as a charter for the contemporary situation. In the reformist understanding, all who have labored to spread the Gospel in local languages are operating in the true spirit of Cyril and Methodius.
For traditionalists, the key point is not that Cyril and Methodius created a vernacular language, which happened to be Church Slavonic, but that they created, through divine inspiration, Church Slavonic—a special, sacred language. It was designed specifically for the Slavs, and it could not be otherwise. Traditionalists make several additional arguments. One is that Church Slavonic was never a vernacular idiom. According to Klimenko: (2001: 98-99), for instance, it was inspired by and modeled on the Greek literary language of the time. Reformists are said to misinterpret the mission of Cyril and Methodius: They had a choice between the “high” and “low” Greek of the time, and they chose the former. Thus, from the beginning, there was an attempt to make the language special (Asmus 1999: 224). In sum, traditionalists dispute the characterization that Cyril and Methodius created a vernacular language; therefore, they reject the idea that Russian is the modern counterpart of medieval Slavonic.
Soviet Legacy
Regardless of the historical record, in terms of the post-Soviet debate the important point is that those who advocate liturgical reform are branded as “Renovationists” or “NeoRenovationists.” Traditionalists see no difference between Renovationists of the 1920s and “NeoRenovationists”—meaning Kochetkov et al.—of the 1990s. Their ideas are said to be one and the same (Bufeev 1999: 152). Such associations—or accusations—put progressive religionists in a very difficult position. They claim to want to energize and enable the Church to meet the challenging conditions after the fall of Communism, yet they also need to distance themselves from the reputation of the Renovationist movement. Kochetkov invokes the dictum, “the Church is always to be reformed/ renovated.” He provides a roster of church figures who, he says, represent true renovation, from Cyril and Methodius to Prince Vladimir and beyond.
Traditionalists typically repudiate the need for reform. For them, the Church is not in need of change or improvement. The deposit of faith must be safeguarded and transmitted intact from one generation to the next. They suspect renovation is simply a cover for the importation of Western ideologies (freedom, democracy, humanism, modernism) that are inimical to authentic Orthodox Tradition. Linked to secularism and sectarianism, reform can disrupt and ultimately destroy the faith. They see Renovationism as a lethal schism that, by Divine Providence, did not destroy the Church. The agenda of reformists such as Kochetkov is too close for comfort, and they categorically reject it.
Traditionalists are greatly concerned with the threat of schism. They point not only to Renovationists but to Old Believers, who broke away from the Orthodox Church in response to liturgical reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. In traditionalist discourse, this sundering of the Church is evidence of what happens when reformists are allowed to tamper with the liturgical service books. In a kind of doomsday scenario, traditionalists warn that the ispravlenie (correction) of the service books proposed by the likes of Kochetkov could well produce another cataclysmic schism. This point is crucial. In the post-Soviet period, the Russian Church has had to contend with a variety of divisions, turf wars, and contestations (N. Davis 2003). It has faced the peeling away of church organizations in former Soviet territories, most notably Ukraine, and their calls for autocephaly, as well as the appearance of different “catacomb” churches that claim to have preserved the true flame of Orthodoxy, unlike the collaborationist Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, the possibilities of schism were acutely felt in the 1990s, especially by traditionalists.
Reformists answer that no schism will happen as a result of liturgical reform; in fact, introducing the vernacular could prevent such a development because it will stop members from leaving the Church in favor of Protestant “sects.” They also point to the Orthodox churches of Bulgaria and Serbia, where “parallel liturgies” done in Slavonic and the national languages have not led to schism. Other Churches As this last point suggests, the debate about liturgical language inside Russian Orthodoxy often proceeds by reference to what has happened in the history of Protestantism and Catholicism.
Other Churches
As this last point suggests, the debate about liturgical language inside Russian Orthodoxy often proceeds by reference to what has happened in the history of Protestantism and Catholicism. For instance, Nazvanov (1999: 192) complains that Kochetkovites act like a sect: they separate themselves; they have a charismatic leader; they espouse a proselytizing brand of Orthodoxy; they wish to return to putatively apostolic practice— in sum, they peddle a kind of “Eastern-Rite Protestantism.” This is a consistent line of attack on the part of traditionalists:The push for the vernacular is something straight from the Protestant Reformation, and it will yield the same bitter fruits on Russian soil—secularization, fragmentation, and more (Koroblin and Mikhailova 1999: 11). But reformists do not wish to accede to this equation. For them, the use of the vernacular is an authentically Orthodox principle.
Not surprisingly, then, reformists do not look for much support from Protestantism. They do, however, occasionally invoke Catholicism. One of the recurring reformist arguments goes as follows. The Orthodox Church used to upbraid the Catholic Church for its use of Latin—a dead language that was unintelligible to the people. Yet, ironically, the Russian Church now maintains its own “Latin”— namely, Church Slavonic (Averintsev 1997 [1994]: 11; Mikhail 1993: 82). They note that the Catholic Church survived the transition to the vernacular. Russia, so the argument goes, has fallen behind the West, where individual national languages are now widely used and are utterly uncontroversial in Christian worship (Bersenve 1996: 13-14; Ustinov 1996: 61). Traditionalists, however, do not feel that Russia should be following the West’s lead. As for the Catholic Church, they contend that the loss of Latin has been disastrous. The great heritage of Latin culture has been lost (Likhachev 1999 [1998]: 277). As a result the Catholic Church has become much more Protestant in character. One is now confronted with the spectacle of the rock-and-roll Mass and other such debased forms of worship.
Reformists note that different Orthodox churches in the West—in America, France, Finland, and elsewhere—make use of their respective national languages. The cases of Serbia and Bulgaria are particularly important, because they are Slavic Orthodox churches that share the Church Slavonic patrimony, and therefore are the closest in history and ethos to the Russian Orthodox Church. Reformists claim that the introduction of Serbian and Bulgarian, in addition to Church Slavonic, has been largely successful. But traditionalists beg to differ, even though this means criticizing those sister churches. For instance, Bufeev (1999: 309) claims that translation into the national languages in those two countries has resulted in confusion and regret.
Language
Reformists argue that the Orthodox Church has always been a missionary Church, that it has always met the needs of its flock by presenting the Gospel in a readily understandable language. The message, not the medium, is paramount. The message does no change, but the form of expression does. The same Gospel has been translated into different languages, from Aramaic to Greek, from Greek to Church Slavonic, and from Slavonic to a host of others. For traditionalists, the medium is part of the message. Church Slavonic is considered an essential element of the Russian Orthodox Church (Mironova 2009: 3). If you change the language, you change the Church.
Some traditionalists contend that Slavonic is not a conventional or arbitrary sign system. The word is like an icon, mystically partaking of what it depicts. Therefore, it cannot be changed or discarded without doing harm to doctrine. To change the language is to change the spiritual condition of the people (Shargunov 2008; Kaverin 2008). Traditionalists contend that the reformists subscribe to “Protestant” linguistic theory (Kamchatnov 1999). The fact that the two camps advance such radically different ideologies of language makes a resolution hard to imagine.
The liturgical language debate involves a number of factors—history, beauty, tradition, intelligibility, community—that are hard to reconcile. Attempting to do so in the crucible of post-Soviet transition is even harder. It seems as if the bitterness of the 1990s debate has diminished (Kravetskii 2009). Indeed, the official websites of the Moscow Patriarchate betray no hint of tension or turmoil over this issue (Gopenko 2009: 16-17). But the debate has probably only been deferred, not decided.
A number of other factors may influence the next flare-up. One has to do with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), an émigré group that was formed in reaction to the perceived collaborationist stance of the Moscow Patriarchate with regard to Soviet power. In the United States, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) pursued a path of integration and engagement with the surrounding culture. ROCOR, on the other hand, took a more isolationist approach. The respective postures were reflected in differing language policies. Nine out of ten OCA parishes eventually switched to English. At the same time, the OCA tends to be open to converts and inter-faith affairs. On the other hand, 85 percent of ROCOR parishes have maintained Church Slavonic. ROCOR tends to be neutral regarding converts, and negative when it comes to ecumenical endeavors (Krindatch 2002: 544). There is a natural affinity between the OCA and Russian reformists, just as there is between ROCOR and traditionalists. In this connection, it is noteworthy that ROCOR signed an accord with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, ending some 80 years of estrangement and antipathy (Turunen 2007). It is not clear whether this will bolster traditionalist attitudes within the Moscow Patriarchate.
The reconciliation of ROCOR with the Russian Orthodox Church was overseen by Patriarch Aleksii II. His own relationship to the liturgical language debate was contradictory. Early on, he seemed to give some latitude to reformists; however, perhaps because he personally loved Church Slavonic or because he feared schism, he ended up supporting the traditionalist side and put an end to Kochetkov’s linguistic experiments. Late in his life, however, he also criticized those who clung, like the 17thcentury Old Believers, to the letter of the liturgical texts (Bodin 2009: 43). When Kirill was installed as Patriarch in 2009, it was widely reported in the media that some reform of the liturgical language might be in the offing. In an interview with Protestants, Kirill cautioned that there would be no full-scale reform, though he suggested it was possible to replace individual words whose meanings have changed so much that they cause confusion for Russian speakers. He also seemed to envision the possibility that scriptural readings could be done in Russian and the rest of a service in Slavonic. (A number of traditionalists have backed this idea.) But the bigger issue, says Kirill, is that people need to learn the “language” of the faith in the broadest sense of the term. He called for more catechesis (http://www. baznica.info/indes.php; accessed 6 July 2010).
Full-scale translation of the liturgical books continues, though their use in the liturgy is prohibited. “In this way,” warns one traditionalist, “everything is in place for a certain ‘zero hour’ when the conservative hierarchy is replaced by a liberal one.” Then Neo-Renovationists will be ready with their corpus of translated texts (Kaverin 2008: 25). Traditionalists remain on guard for a reformist takeover of the Russian Church.
Bibliography
Asmus, V. “O tserkovnoslavianskom iazyke” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformatsii. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Averintsev, Sergei. “O iazyke liturgii,” Iazyk Tserkvi, Vypusk 1. Moskva: Sviato-Filaretovskaia moskovskaia vysshaia pravoslavno-khristianskaia shkola, 1994.
Bersenev, N. N. “Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk i sovremennaia tserkov’: k postanovke problemy” in V. V. Nizov, ed., Religiia i tserkov’ v kul’turnoistoricheskom razvitii russkogo severa: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, tom 2. Kirov: Kirovskaia oblastnaia nauchnai biblioteka, 1996.
Bodin, Per-Arne. Language, Canonization, and Holy Foolishness: Studies in Post-Soviet Russian Culture and the Orthodox Tradition. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2009.
Borisov, Aleksandr. Povelevshie nivy: Razmyshleniia o Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Moskva: Put’, 1994.
Bufeev, K. “Patriarkh Sergii, Obnovlenchestvo i Nesostoiavshchaiasia reformatsiia russkoi tserkvi XX veka” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformatsii. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Davis, N. A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2003.
Gopenko, A. Traduire le sublime: les débats de l’Église orthodoxe russe sur la langue liturgique. Unpublished thesis, Université d’Ottawa, 2009.
Kamchatnov, A. M. “Sakral’nyi slavianskii iazyk v tserkvi i kul’ture” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformatsii. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Kaverin, N. “Obnovlenchestvo pod maskoi ‘misionerstva’.” Blagodatnyi ogon’ 18 (2008): 7-16.
Klimenko, L. P. “Iazyk sakral’nykh tekstov i sovremennogo bogosluzheniia” in L. E. Shaposhnikov, Tserkov’ i obshchestvoa na poroge tret’ego tysiachletiia. Nizhnii Novgorod: Nizhegorodskii Gumanitarnyi Tsentr, 2001.
Koroblin, G. and N. Mikhailova. “Ispravlenie Bogosluzhebnykh Knig: istoricheskii obzor za period c XV do nachala XX v.” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformats. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Kostromin, A. B. “O perevode bogosluzhebnykh tekstov: pro i contra dvykh iazykov,” Iazyk Tserkvi, Vypusk 2. Moskva: Sviato-Filaretovskaia moskovskaia vysshaia pravoslavno khristianskaia shkola, 1997.
Kravetskii, A. G. “Filolog Aleksandr Kravetskii: bogosluzhebnyi iazyk Russkoi Tserkvi sovershenno ne izuchen,” 2009; http://www.blagovest-info.ru/index. php?ss=2&s=5&id=31021; accessed 2 January 2010.
Krindatch, A. D. “Orthodox (Eastern Christian) Churches in the United States at the Beginning of a New Millennium: Questions of Nature, Identity, and Mission.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41 (No. 3, 2002): 533-63.
Lapkin, I. “O russkom iazyke” in Iazyk Tserkvi, Vypusk 1. Moskva: Sviato Filaretovskaia moskovskaia vysshaia pravoslavno-khristianskaia shkola, 1997.
Likhachev, Dimitry S. “Russkii iazyk v bogosluzhenii i v bogoslovskoi mysli” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformatsii. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Mikhail, Archbishop. “V pomoshch’ pri sovershenii obshchestvennogo Bogosluzheniia.” Put’ Pravoslaviia 1 (1993): 33-86.
Mironova, T. L. Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk, 3rd ed. Moskva: Izdatel’skii Soviet Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2009.
Murav’ev, A. “Sakral’nyi iazyk v istoriko-tserkovnoi perspective.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhi 7 (1996): 63-65.
Nazvanov, D. “Pochemy nel’zia sluzhit’ bogu na iazyke mira sego” in Arkhimandrit Tikhon, ed., Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: storiia, opytki reformatsii. [Moskva]: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 1999.
Pletneva, A. A. “K probleme perevoda bogosluzhebnykh, tekstov na russkii iazyk” in Iazyk Tserkvi, Vypusk 2. Moskva: SviatoFilaretovskaia moskovskaia vysshaia pravoslavnokhristianskaia shkola, 1997.
Shargunov, A. “‘Evangelizatsiia’ Mira i ‘kul’turnaia revolutsiia’ v tservki.” Blagodatnyi ogon’ 18 (2008): 7-16.
Turunen, M. “Orthodox Monarchism in Russia: Is Religion Important in the Present-DayConstruction of National Identity?” Religion, State & Society 35 (No. 4, 2007): 319-34.
Ustinov, M. “Zhizn’ kornei.” Rech’ 1(1996): 45-62.
Zaidenberg, S. “Iazyk Tserkvi—vozvrashchenie k tserkvi. (Razyshleniia posle konferentsii ‘Iazyk Tserkvi’).” Pravoslavnaia obshchina 48 (No. 6, 1998): 54-87.
Edited excerpts published with permission from Brian P. Bennett, Religion and Language in PostSoviet Russia (London: Routledge, 2011), pp. 63-65; 68-81; and 83-84. Brian P. Bennett is professor of religious studies, Niagara University, Niagara, New York.