The
first slanderer was the devil. The word
“devil” itself comes from the Greek word
meaning slanderer.
The Lord Jesus Christ said of him, When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and
the father of it (Jn. 8:44). The God-Man, Jesus
Christ was once crucified, and his disciples were
treated in like manner as their Teacher, especially if
they preached their faith.
Out of all the twelve apostles, only St. John the
Theologian did not die a violent death. If we look at
history, we can see that almost all those who spread the
Gospels had to endure slander.
St. Philaret (Drozdov) notes: “The path of a
missionary is not an easy one.”
The wise hierarch gave his advice to the missionary to
the Altai, Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev), that he
should view the missionary work he has taken up with
“a cautious eye. This is an evil age, it does not
readily trust pure goodness; it greedily snatches any
opportunity for complaint and slander. The sting of
mockery, even if it’s unfounded, can sometimes
wound and cause harm to the achievements of good
endeavors”
This advice was given in the early nineteenth century,
but we have to say that never was the degree of hatred
and slander so strong in Russian history as in the late
nineteenth, early twentieth centuries.
Up until 1905, thanks to the censors, it was very hard if
not impossible to slander openly. Therefore, authors took
the alternative route of writing literary works which
portrayed one or another missionary under the guise of
negative characters.
Thus, for example, the outstanding head of the Russian
Orthodox mission in Jerusalem Archimandrite Antonin
(Kapustin) was jeered at and vilified in the novelette,
Sidelocks Pasha and his consorts. Mosaics, cameos, and
miniatures from curious excavations in the slums of the
Holy Land”. This novelette was published in 1881
in St. Petersburg,and the author hid behind a pseudonym.
The reason for the appearance of the novelette, as
Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern) considers, was the struggle
between the Russian consuls in Jerusalem with the Russian
Orthodox Mission. “Taught by our synodal
organization to view the Church as something subject to
its authority, our bureaucrats dreamed of the
mission’s speedy liquidation along with its
indefatigable and independent head.”
Having exhausted all political efforts to remove the
absolutely irreproachable character of Fr. Antonin,
they turned to slander.
To the Archimandrite, who in the words of Professor
Dimitrievsky combed his hair in a way that made it look
like Jewish sidelocks and therefore could easily be
identified with the character Sidelocks Pasha, was
attributed such despicable and base deeds that they
lowered the entire novel to the level of a tabloid. But
unfortunately even that type of “literature”
has its readers. The novelette quickly circulated in both
Russia and the Holy Land. Although the government censors
finally pulled the book from the shelves, the dirty work
of slander had been accomplished—rumors were spread.
The slander did not affect the Synodal authorities’
relationship to Fr. Antonin. Although Archimandrite
Antonin outwardly viewed such “creativity”
with contempt, it must have had an unpleasant effect on
him. “The book brought disturbance into the quiet
and bright course of my life, and this has many times
surprised the people I have contact with,” he wrote
to V. H. Khitrovo on March 24, 1881. “The shameless
attacks on me from this human devil do not allow me to
completely be at peace. Until my death, I will feel like
answering that madman according to his
madness…”
As the contemporary researcher O. L. Tserpitskaya writes,
Fr. Antonin stopped leaving the mission without particular
official need. But people began to come to him for counsel
and consolation.
In Russia, interest in the Holy Land grew ever
stronger, and this was a consolation to the head of the
mission.
Toward the second half of the nineteenth century,
missionary efforts began to be aimed not only at the
spiritual enlightenment of non-Christian peoples as much
as it was at the enlightenment of the long-Orthodox
population of the Russian Empire, a movement which later
received the name, “internal mission”.
One of the most outstanding of these internal missionaries
of that time was St. John of Kronstadt. The majority of
his biographers write that during his studies he wanted to
become a missionary in Alaska, Africa, or China.,
but when he saw the loose life of the capital city, he
came to the conclusion that Russia “has enough of
its own pagans.”
Russia knew no few ascetics of piety at that time, but
there was no one more well-known than St. John of
Kronstadt. In the opinion of the famous Russian writer
Boris Shergin, this is precisely what led to cruel slander
against the righteous priest. Shergin wrote in his diary,
“They knew Fr. John of Kronstadt, but if the liberal
intelligentsia did not wish to notice Ambrose of Optina,
“they” slandered John of Kronstadt and slung
mud at him. Here the axiom, “The world lieth in
evil” (1 Jn. 5:19) is proven true. When it hears of
a saint, and if that saint is placed on a candlestand, our
generation not only does not lovingly appreciate or honor
him—they will take pains to trample his name into
the dirt.
The first noticeable composition aimed against the growing
acclaim of Fr. John was the short story by N. Leskov,
“The Midnighters”.
First published in the liberal magazine, Vestnik
Evropy, (“News of Europe”) at the end
of 1891, the story mocks the official Church and Fr.
John in particular, portraying him as cunning,
hypocritical, highly educated capital city priest,
contrasting him with the “saintly”
followers of Leo Tolstoy’s teachings.
It must be said that during that period N. Leskov
underwent a change in his views. According to Metropolitan
Anthony (Khrapovitsky), he had been drawn into the
sectarian “mysticism of Pashkov, and after a period
of desperate dabbling in spiritualism he joined in with
the views of Count Leo Tolstoy.”
To characterize the motives driving Leskov to write that
story, his correspondence with Count Leo Tolstoy is very
telling. In his letter of December 1890 he writes of Fr.
John, “His glory and the stupidity of society
continue to grow, just like the column beneath the
outhouse of a two story pub in a provincial town. In the
winter frost it even glitters, and no one knows what it
is—one can perceive it as something entirely other
than what it is. But it is a sure measure of
stupefaction.”
“I have gone and continue to go throughout my life,
but I love to check and fortify myself with your
judgments.” The letter is signed, “Your loving
Nicholas Leskov.” In another letter he writes,
“Forgive me for importuning you, and do not deprive
me of your moral support. Your dedicated Nicholas
Leskov.”
Leo Tolstoy likewise supported Leskov’s creative
development in that direction. For instance, he wrote
to Leskov, “Your story about J[ohn] is wonderful,
I laughed the whole time I read it out loud. What 900
years of Christianity has done to the Russian people is
terrible”
However, Leskov’s feelings for the Count were
entirely opposite. We see in the same letter:
Commenting on “The Midnighters”, Metropolitan
Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who had a deep respect for Fr.
John wrote: “In this story … there was a
resounding slap in the face of the Orthodox
Church…. One only has to open any sermon of this
pastor in order to understand how far from the truth these
accusations are of his lack of understanding of the
Christian Sacraments, and in part about new grace-filled
life, and rebirth…. The Orthodox pastor, of course,
has nothing to lose from Leskov’s slander; it would
be too strange if such a well-known figure were not
blackened by anyone, when it is written even of the Savior
Himself: Some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay
but He decieveth the people (Jn. 7:12).
Time has put everything in its place. The Tolstoy
societies have long ceased to exist, while Fr. John of
Kronstadt has been canonized a saint.
But at the time, after the manifesto of October 17, 1905
concerning freedom of speech, the attacks on Fr. John of
Kronstadt increased. In a play by V. P. Protopopov called,
“Black Ravens” created during the 1905
revolution, “The pastor was portrayed as a charlatan
healer, and his supporters as sectarians.”
The play was performed for the public in many theatres
of the empire in December 1907.
The clergy came to the defense of Fr. John. Bishop
Hermogenes (Dolganov; 1858–1918) of Saratov (who
would later become a martyr) did much to have this play
removed from the theaters.
On December 11, 1907, during an audience with Emperor
Nicholas II, the future hieromartyrs Hermogenes,
Seraphim (Ostroumov) and John Vostorgov related in
detail how the pastor was being harassed. “The
Tsar gave orders to Stolypin to remove the play from
the repertoire.”
For Fr. John Vostorgov who participated in the meeting,
Fr. John of Kronstadt was a living witness to the grace of
God that abides in the Church, a confirmation and
consolation to all Her children. “Here is the
manifestation of the power of the Lord,” exclaimed
Fr. John Vostorgov in one of his sermons (after someone
related how a seriously ill woman was healed by Fr. John
of Kronstadt’s prayers). “One of the many
miracles wrought in the presence of the wondrous faith,
meekness and piety of this pastor of all Russia. Have they
written about it in the newspapers?... We will ask all the
right newspapers to print this news. It is sinful to be
silent about the works of God.”
To characterize the spiritual and moral state of society
during the period just before the revolution, Fr.
John’s remarks from 1911 are very telling:
“One thoughtful observer said of modern Russian life
that it is ‘penetrated through and through with
hatred’. That is not a consoling characterization!
But if it is true with respect to political parties,
social strata and day-to-day groups of Russian society and
their interrelationships, then it is even truer with
respect to the feelings currently harbored against the
Church.”
Fr. John Vostorgov noted that on the pages of
“progressive” newspapers, every religion is
supported and respected. Only with regard to Orthodox
bishops, priests, and monks have unbelievably vile insults
and deliberately false accusations been allowed,
undermining any authority the Church may have.
Attacks against the Church from the revolutionary forces
in Russia were, in Fr. John’s words, “even
more vicious than those against the
autocracy.”
In Fr. John’s opinion, this was because it was
precisely the Orthodox Christianity living in
people’s souls that caused the revolution’s
failures.
“An onerous anxiety creeps into one’s heart at
the sight of this yawning abyss of hatred that is
surrounding the Church and those truly religious
people…. Seeing that the Church’s power has
decreased and no longer enjoys its former
“popularity”, the government, using the modern
vulgar expressions, readily refuses to protect the Church,
thinking to curry favor with progressive movements
and—a vain hope!—win them over to its side.
The secret enemy of the Church thus immediately succeeds
in achieving two goals: undermining the Church, and
undermining the government…. In society, amongst
the simple-hearted people who read the newspapers and
believe it all indiscriminately, mistrust and antagonism
toward the Church increase more and more with each passing
year. Among the faithful confusion, perplexity, and
complete misunderstanding grows, not knowing who or what
to believe. From year to year a mistrust of and alienation
from the Church is growing amongst the younger generation.
Especially amongst the simple people, the authority of the
Church is everywhere in decline, the ground is being
prepared for indifference, churchlessness, and the
acceptance of all sorts of sectarianism or even a
particular kind of “peasant nihilism”, which
with its manifestations and consequences is the most
terrible kind.”
It is an interesting thing, but slander has sometimes had
a “curative effect”. For example, slander in
the “progressive” and far right newspapers
about the pastoral courses in Moscow organized by Fr. John
Vostorgov provided the attendees of those courses an
opportunity to be “cured” of their trust of
the press. The papers wrote that the attendees had all
dispersed and that the courses were closed. Meanwhile, not
a single participant had left the course, and they
continued on without interruption.
As a missionary preacher in Moscow and mouthpiece of the
Church’s official position, the holy hieromartyr
John Vostorgov like no one else was subjected to all kinds
of slander and harassment. This was evoked by the fact
that Fr. John tried as hard as he could to guard his flock
from revolutionary ideas. That is why the revolutionaries
hated and persecuted him—he stood, in his own words,
“blocking their path”.
On the other hand, reasonableness and care for the
Church irritated the far right as well.
Harassment of the pastor had begun even during the period
of his service in the Caucasus. After being transferred to
Moscow in 1908, an entire volume of slander was published,
entitled “Archpriest J. I. Vostorgov and his
political activities”, compiled by N. N. Durnovo.
The book was widely distributed. It was given away for
free throughout Russia—it was handed out to all the
members of the State Council and State Duma, ministers,
and all major leaders, reprinted in all the left-wing
newspapers; and when Fr. John made his trip through
Siberia, he was met in every city by the
revolutionaries’ reprints of this lampoon.
The slander was so powerful that even quite sensible
people were perplexed when they met the man who had been
so viciously attacked. Thus, for example, in his memoirs
Metropolitan Evlogy (Giorgievsky) writes of his meeting
with Fr. John, “Archpriest John Vostorgov was a man
of outstanding intellect and great energy. There were many
rumors circulating about him during his lifetime, but
apparently they were unfounded.
To all the slander in force against him, Fr. John only
answered once, in his book, The Slander of N.
Durnovo. The answer of Archpriest Vostorgov,
which was published in 1909, and in which he
systematically, point by point, citing official documents,
revealed the falsity of Durnovo’s compilation.
Nevertheless, slanderous books continued to be
released.
Fr. John himself would say to his friends, “I often
have to walk over the yawning abyss of human hatred. It is
terrible to look into it, and it wrenches my heart with
pain and natural fear.”
Later, when Fr. John became a widower, the slander halted
the decision of the Holy Synod that had been proposed by
Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) of Moscow and Kolomna to
tonsure Fr. John a monk and consecrate him a bishop to the
vicariate of the Moscow diocese with the aim of uniting
all the missionary activity in the metropolia.
Some time later, after a fabricated sentence by the
Cheka, the holy hieromartyr John was executed on
September 5, 1918 in Khodinsky field.
In the modern world of information technology, society
continues to use particular methods of manipulating
information and special technology to control
people’s consciousness. Under such circumstances,
the destructive weapon of slander becomes even more
accessible and effective. This requires of us particular
caution with respect to various information, especially if
it is about people who are conducting vast religious
educational and missionary work.
These words of Patriarch Kirill sound extraordinarily
relevant in this regard: “Today the mass opinions of
people are determined not by God’s truth, but by
information technology… It is very important that
we, the inheritors of great Russia, who have gone through
the terrible trials of the twentieth century, would today
be capable of learning from the past and not repeat the
mistakes our fathers made on the eve of 1917.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment