The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 1 of 6)

Introduction 

Offered on Scroll Publishing is the book The Russians' Secret with the following description:

When most of us think of kingdom Christians, we think of groups like the Waldensians and Anabaptists—movements that sprang up in western Europe. But the work of the Holy Spirit has never been limited to western Europe and the Americas. No, the Spirit has raised up kingdom Christians at various times and in various places all over the world, including Russia and the East.

The story of the various Spirit-led groups of Christians in Old Russia is quite fascinating. Peter Hoover, author of the popular Secret of the Strength, brings their story to life in his book, The Russian Secret.

The Russians' Secret chronicles a thousand years of Christian life in Russia. Subtitles from two separate editions are descriptive: What Christians Today Would Survive Persecution? (1999) and The Survival of New Testament Christianity in Russia (2014). Having read the book years ago as a Protestant, and recently revisited it as an Orthodox Christian, the book elicited a few questions. First of all, what history of the Russian Church does the book include and exclude, and why? Secondly, is the authors' thesis about the conversion of Rus' valid in light of historical evidence? Thirdly, who are the book's “Russian believers” and how do they relate to the Russian Orthodox Church? Fourth, does the book give an objective and impartial story of Russian nonconformity and “unofficial” religion in Russia? Finally, why does the book focus so much on Leo Tolstoy and what was his relationship to the Orthodox Church? This essay seeks to provide an Orthodox analysis of these historical questions, while interacting with the book's own motifs of persecution, nonviolence, nonconformity, voluntary poverty, and church/state relations.

The Russians' Secret by Peter Hoover and Serguei V. Petrov 

A Brief Summary of The Russians' Secret and its Selective History 

Although The Russian's Secret (CrossReach Publishing, 2006. Kindle Edition; hereafter TRS) is not intended to be exhaustive, it purports to tell about the history of Christianity in Russia over a millennium. The authors' religious backgrounds may be helpful in discerning their representation of Russian history. Peter Hoover is well known among conservative Anabaptists in North America. His books focus on stories from recent centuries of radical Christian movements such as the Anabaptists and Moravians. Complementing Hoover is co-author Serguei V. Petrov of Moscow, a member of the Rockingham Meeting of Conservative Friends. The authors' Anabaptist and Quaker faiths, both radical expressions of Protestant Christianity, are the spectacles through which they view the history of Christianity in Russia. Knowing their backgrounds sheds some light on why their book focuses on similar minority movements in Russia. Expecting the target audience of TRS to be comprised Christians of similar persuasions also accounts for the selective history of the book. Better describing the book than its own title or introduction is an endorsement which says TRS “introduces us to 'another' side of Russian Christianity, . . . the 'little traditions' of sectarian, mystical, and evangelical faith that have always existed alongside the official Orthodox church” (William Rushby, member, Rockingham Meeting of Conservative Friends).

In about 250 pages, TRS covers Prince Vladimir's rule in the 980's to the Soviet regime in the 1980's. Conspicuously absent from the authors' treatment of early Christian life in Kievan Rus' is the important figure St. Anthony of Kiev (983-1073), founder of the Kiev Caves Monastery. The monastery's principal saint, St. Theodosius of Kiev (1009-1074) is mentioned by the authors as establishing a community of “Christian celibates” dwelling in caves, (p. 22) and being the first in Russia to write about “Christ awareness” or the Jesus Prayer (p. 35). Also omitted in TRS is the monastic legacy of St. Sergius of Radonezh (1314-1392), and his founding of the Holy Trinity Lavra in 1340. Given the book's underscoring theme of voluntary poverty, one would expect to encounter these important figures of Russian monasticism. Perhaps St. Sergius didn't make the cut in TRS because he blessed Prince Dmitry Donskoy to fight the Tatars in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380). Even though Dmitry had pursued all peaceful means in resolving the conflict, the Anabaptist/Quaker tradition absolutely rejects any participation in war. Nonetheless, St. Sergius “marked the beginning of a revival of monasticism … that had far-reaching implications in Russian religious life” (See Paul Bushkovitch, Religion & Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992], 12).

Saint Nilus of Sora (+ 1508)

Although readers would never know from reading TRS, Nil Sorski (1443-1508), who is featured in the book with his teachings on the Jesus Prayer, is a canonized saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. But TRS omits the Possessor/Non-possessor conflict, both schools of which can be traced back to St. Sergius. Leading the Non-possessor camp, St. Nil Sorsky opposed monastic ownership of land, whereas St. Joseph of Volotsk (1439-1515) and the Possessors favored strong, influential and powerful monasteries. TRS is one-sided in this case, focusing only on Nil Sorsky, and avoiding the significant controversy between two valid expressions of the Orthodox tradition. In the Russian Orthodox Church the two opponents may be viewed as complementary, reflected in the fact that both are canonized saints. Of the Non-Possessors, Nicholas Zernov wrote:

They were not afraid to criticize, if necessary, the leaders of the State and of the Church. They insisted that monks ought to depend on their own labor and thus maintain their spiritual independence. They were also opposed to the persecution of heretics and taught that in a Christian State no one must be put to death for holding erroneous doctrines. In a century when, in the West, Roman Catholics and Protestants held, with equal vigor, that it was the duty of Christian Governors to execute heretics, the Russian Church alone contained an influential party which considered the practice as incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. (Nicholas Zernov, The Russians and Their Church [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994], 52).

Church and State Relations

Many accounts of church and state relations are narrated in the book. Sixteen times the authors refer negatively to Byzantine and Russian Orthodox Christianity as the “state church,” in contrast to the schismatics who resisted it. A notable example acknowledged by the authors of a canonized Orthodox saint who resisted imperial power was St. Basil the Fool for Christ (1468-1552 or 1557), the prophetic wonderworker of Moscow who rebuked Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584) for “drink[ing] the blood of men” (p. 49), an allusion to his ruthless bloodshed. 

Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584)

There are many more accounts of Russian Orthodox saints resisting imperial authorities which TRS readers may find interesting, but only a couple of observations, also surrounding Ivan the Terrible will suffice for our purposes. Early in the sixteenth century a crisis arose which tipped the scales in favor of the Possessors. Tsar Basil III (1479-1533) had no children by his first wife, Solomonia Saburova, and wanted to marry another woman. He was opposed by Metropolitan Varlaam (1511-1521), a Non-Possessor, who was installed in Varlaam's place, and without the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as had been the norm. In 1521, Metropolitan Varlaam was banished for refusing to participate in Basil's fight against Prince Vasili Shemyachich of Seversk. In 1525, bypassing the ecclesiastic canons, Metropolitan Daniel sanctioned the divorce between Basil III and his childless wife, and had Basil's second marriage blessed by the Church. The offspring of this second union was Ivan the Terrible, the most despotic ruler in Russia until the Communist Revolution. This history would illustrate well the TRS authors' theme of resistance to the state, as well as their criticism of divorce and remarriage among Western Christians (p. 217). 

St. Philip II of Moscow (1507-1569) was the Metropolitan of Moscow and all Rus' from 1567 to 1568, and one of a few metropolitans who dared openly to contradict Ivan the Terrible. During Great Lent, when the Tsar came to the cathedral for Divine Liturgy, Philip refused to bless him and publicly rebuked him for the ongoing Massacre of Novgorod under the aegis of Oprichnina. In his excellent speech to the Sovereign, St. Philip said:  

We are offering here the pure, bloodless sacrifice for the salvation of men, but outside this holy temple the blood of Christians is being shed and innocent people are being killed. Hast thou, Sire, forgotten that thou, too, art dust and needest forgiveness of thy sins? Forgive, and thou shalt be forgiven, for only if we forgive our subordinates shall we escape divine condemnation. Thou hast deeply studied the Holy Scriptures, and why hast thou not followed their counsel? He who does not love his neighbor is not of God (Zernov, 60).

Ivan eventually deposed Philip from his office, had him arrested, fettered with chains, with a heavy collar around his neck, and deprived of food for a few days. In 1569, Philip was martyred, being strangled to death by one of the Tsar's minions. The TRS authors may have intentionally overlooked these episodes of metropolitans confronting tsars because they go against the book's perceivable stereotype of metropolitans and bishops being corrupt and “ordained for money” (p. 53, fn. 2). Throughout the history of the Russian Church, when imperial rulers deviated from Christian principles, they were subject to censure by Christian leaders. 

Old Believer Schism

TRS does narrate the Old Believer schism, a result of the Nikonian Reforms in 1653. According to the authors, Avvakum (1620-1682), who led the opposition to Patriarch Nikon's reforms “sought to please Christ no matter what it cost” (p. 55) and the Old Believers “gave everything up for Christ” (p. 62). Here the Anabaptist/Quaker virtue of nonconformity serves as a vindication for the schism. The authors explain that those who joined or baptized Old Believers were sentenced to capital punishment, and endured severe persecution by the state in the following centuries. However, they fail to mention that in 1667 Nikon was found guilty by church officials at the Great Moscow Synod and deposed. TRS follows the priested and the priestless Old Believer groups, as well as other splinter groups, such as the Stranniki (“wanderers”), an “exciting movement” which called for total forsaking of houses and lands (p. 66). 

Non-conformist Religious Dissidents

With rare exception, TRS abandons the Russian Church after the 17th century to focus instead upon dissident religious groups such as the Strigolniki, and Spirit Christians, such as the Molokans, Dukhobors, and Khlysts. Although these groups represented a wide variety of beliefs and practices, they all held in common a rejection of Orthodox Christianity. For instance, the heterodox Spirit Christian groups rejected ritual and outward observances and have often been compared to the European Radical Reformation, that is, Anabaptist groups like the Hutterites and the Mennonites. For a book that recounts Russia's early Orthodox heritage, it seems odd to omit the Church's official treatment of schismatics and dissidents in Russia. One example in the Orthodox lineage, St. Stephen of Perm (1340-1396) wrote a letter to Patriarch Nilus of Constantinople (r. 1380-1388) about the Strigolniki schism. St. Photius, the metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus', opposed and denounced the Strigolniki teachings, and the heresy was soon put to an end in the early 15th century. The Spirit Christians were typically documented by Russian Orthodox clergy with a label that described their aberrations such as not fasting, meeting on the Sabbath, body mutilation, self-flagellation, and suicide. The Belye Golubi (white dove people), according to the authors, converted “thousands of men and women to their ways,” one of their ways being castration: 

Castration was Christ’s "baptism of fire," the only way to "flee youthful lusts." It was what John did to Christ in the Jordan when the white dove came down and what Christ did to all his disciples except Judas who "kept the bag' and betrayed him” (p. 100).

Skoptsy men would cut off their genitals, while the women would cut off their breasts.

TRS does point out that an “Orthodox priest” (actually Archbishop) Ambrosius of Yekaterinoslav (1768-1771) accused the Dukhobors of wrestling against the Spirit and first called them “Dukhobortsy (Spirit wrestlers)” (p. 94). St. Dimitry of Rostov (1651-1709) wrote against the Khlysty in An Investigation of the Schismatic Faith (c. 1709). Even the Old Believers viewed the Khlysty as heretics.

The authors note that Old Believers died martyrs’ deaths, suffering persecution under the “state church,” (p. 60) or the “Orthodox Church” (p. 69). Rather, groups like the Old Believers and Spirt Christians suffered under tsarist persecution. It was a very rare occasion for the Eastern Orthodox Church as an institution to persecute or condone the persecution of heretics. For the most part, the Orthodox Church has largely been the victim of persecution, such as under the Romans during the first three centuries of early Christianity, the conquering Muslims or Latin Crusaders in the Byzantine Empire, or the atheistic Communist regime in Russia. 

Much of TRS history is occupied with the Mennonites, Moravians, Evangelical Christians, and Baptists who settled in Russia, many of them having in common the conviction of pacifism or “nonresistance.” From an Orthodox perspective, Protestantism in Russia may be viewed in the larger context of Westernization, a process which began in under Tsar Peter I “the Great” (r. 1721-1725), who abolished the patriarchate of Moscow, and established the Holy Synod, presumably intended to mirror the church-state relationship in the Lutheran countries of northern Europe. The new capital, St. Petersburg, was built in Western architectural style, and the nobility was made to conform to Western models of dress, customs, social life, and education. Tsar Peter's successor, Catherine II “the Great” (1729-1796) continued to modernize Russia along Western European lines and invited large numbers of German settlers to Russia, including Mennonites, Lutherans, Reformed and also Roman Catholics.

Tsar St. Nicholas II (r. 1894-1917)

The Bolshevik Revolution

From an Orthodox viewpoint, the authors' perspective on the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) is dubious: “With Tsar Nikolai's fall, Orthodoxy as a state religion ended, and Russians, for the first time in their history, rejoiced in complete religious freedom” (p. 183). To the contrary, Tsar St. Nicholas II (r. 1894-1917) signed an act of religious freedom that ended the persecution of all religious minorities in Russia, such as the Old Believers (as the authors note). It was also Tsar Nicholas who prepared the way for an all-Russian Church Council, with the avowed goal of reestablishing the Church’s independence and eventually restoring the patriarchate, lost since Peter “the Great.” 

Metropolitan St. Vladimir of Kiev (1848-1918) was the first bishop to be tortured and slain by the Communists at the time of the Russian Revolution, but it goes unnoticed by the authors. Another figure conspicuously absent from TRS' tales of “real martyrs” who minister to the poor is Grand Duchess Elizabeth Fyodorovna (1864-1918), the wife of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. After her husband was assassinated by the Socialist Revolutionary Party, she went on to found a convent dedicated to ministering to the poor. She was later martyred by the Bolsheviks, and more recently she has been glorified as a new martyr. 

With reference to the book's emphasis on the official Church's relationship with the state, TRS also surprisingly omits the anathematization of the Bolsheviks by Patriarch St. Tikhon (1865-1925), as well as the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (1867-1944) for clergy to proclaim loyalty to the Soviet State in 1927. While “underground” Christian movements are ubiquitous to TRS, the authors are not concerned with the “underground” Catacomb Church (or “True Orthodox”) and the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in 1922, both of which rejected subordination to Metropolitan Sergius, and adopted anti-Soviet positions. TRS primarily catalogues the persecution of heterodox, “nonconformed believers in the Soviet Union,” (p. 204) but this paints an incomplete picture of the Communist anti-religious campaigns. In addition to “underground” Spirit Christians, Old Believers, and Stundists, what about other “underground” persecuted minorities such as the Greek-Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses? 

When noting Orthodox martyrs, the authors do not identify them as such. For instance, it is not enough to say that Pavel Florensky (1882-1937) was “one among untold millions [of Russian believers] to disappear in the Gulag” (p. 189). Fr. Pavel, martyred during the Bolshevik purges of the 1930's, was an Orthodox priest and theologian. It was rumored that Fr. Pavel was the main organizer in a plot to save the relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh, and that he was sentenced to death for his refusal to disclose the location of the saint's head which the Bolsheviks wanted destroyed.  

Fr. Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky (1882-1937)

New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia

It should be no secret that Russian Orthodox Christians suffered more than any other religious group at the time because they were the Christian majority and most influential in establishing a traditional Christian order in Russia. According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million, predominately Russian Orthodox Christians. The New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, many thousands of victims who suffered under Communism were glorified under Patriarch Aleksy II of Moscow (1929-2008). For a book which glorifies martyrdom, this too is a glaring omission.