American Academy of Religion

Russia: Messianism-MarxismAuthor(s): Cornelius KrahnSource: Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 1963), pp. 210-215Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460114 .

Accessed: 07/02/2014 10:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of Bible and Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Russia: Messianism-Marxism

CORNELIUS KRAHN

N AMERICAN religious literature, we seldom encounter the term "messianism." We hardly ever speak of a nation or a group as having a "messianic" calling. However, literature pertaining to the Russia of the nineteenth century abounds in references to that nation as having a sense of mission which is frequently referred to as Russian

messianism. Russia, like America, is that "giant that came late" on the world scene. These two na-

tions have many similarities. They are both "teenagers" who know everything so much better than the older folks. Both find everything much bigger and better in their own country. They are intolerant of criticism and generous in criticizing others. Both are sure that their

respective systems and civilizations are superior.1 This we have to keep in mind when we look critically at the giant of the East.

In any serious study of Russia, its people, and its history, we must take into account that the Russian is an absolutist and that he dislikes a middle-of-the-road philosophy. Fre- quently, an idea once conceived is accepted with such fervor and devotion that it leads to an absurdity. Myshkin, one of Dostoevsky's heroes, says: "It is easier for a Russian to become an atheist than for anyone else in the world. And Russians do not merely become atheists. They invariably believe in atheism, as though it were a new religion, without noticing that they are putting faith in a negation."2

Nicolas Berdyaev speaks of the Russians as a people who are "polarized" to the highest degree, and who consist of a conglomeration of contradictions. He continues by stating that "the Russian people can be paralleled only by the Jews: and it is not merely a matter of chance that precisely in these two peoples there exists a vigorous messianic consciousness."3 The complexity of the Russian soul may be due to the fact that in Russia two streams of world civilization - East and West - jostle and influence one another. Many of the con- flicts within the Russian soul and Russian history are possibly due to the fact that Russia belongs neither fully to the West nor fully to the East.

THE THIRD ROME AND EAST VERSUS WEST

The Russian sense of mission or messianism was born in its early history. Christianity came to Russia around the year 1000 and was introduced by the Kievan government without much resistance. Already during that first century a sense of a national Christian calling was

CORNELIUS KRAHN was born in Russia and studied in the Netherlands and Germany (Th.D., Heidelberg, 1936). He teaches Church History and Russian History at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, is director of the Bethel College Historical Library, and serves as editor of Mennonite Life, having also been co-editor of the four-volume Mennonite Encyclopedia (1955-59). Last year, A Legacy of Faith was published as "A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute" to him (Faith and Life Press, Newton, Kansas). Dr. Krahn has been awarded a Social Science Research Council fellowship and an American Philosophical Society grant for Reformation research in Europe in 1963-64. The present article was first read as a paper before the Rocky Mountain Section of the National Association of Bible Instructors, meeting in Denver, Colorado, October 26-27, 1962.

1 Anatole G. Mazour, Russia Past and Present, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1951, p. 21. SIbid., p. 19. See also Nicolas Berdyaev, The Russian Revolution, Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press,

1961. 1 Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, New York: Macmillan, 1948, pp. 1-2.

210

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RUSSIA: MESSIANISM - MARXISM 211

noticeable in the Russia of Kiev.4 In Kiev, Russian Byzantinism, which stands for a close

co-operation of church and state modeled after Byzantium (Constantinople) was introduced. After the headquarters of the government and the Orthodox Church were transplanted

from Kiev to Moscow, the notion that Orthodox Moscow was the Third Rome originated. The Rome of Italy was the first Rome, Constantinople the second until its fall, and then Moscow claimed this honorable distinction. In 1453 the Byzantine Empire came to an end and in 1480 Russia was liberated from the Tatar yoke. The idea that Moscow was now the Third Rome was promoted by the priest Philotheus. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Moscow tsardom considered itself the only existing Orthodox protector. Philotheus said that "in the God-bearing city of Moscow the Church of the Most Holy Mother of God stands as the representative of the Ecumenical and Apostolic Throne, it shines with light side by side with Rome and Constantinople, it is unique in the whole ecumenical world and it shines brighter than the sun."' The tsars of Moscow regarded themselves as the successors of the Byzantine emperors, and as the representatives of God upon earth. To the tsar be- longed the responsibility, not only for the interests of the state, but also for the salvation of souls. Particularly Ivan the Terrible was insistent along these lines. He convoked the synods of the Church and his will was law in ecclesiastical affairs.6 During this most unholy era of Russia, he declared Russia "holy." This is Russian Byzantinism and messianism at their worst.7 Even under Peter the Great, who opened a "window to the West" in Petersburg, and introduced many Western practices, the Church remained a tool in the hands of the tsars.

When Western Europe underwent the influences of the French Revolution and was conquered by Napoleon, Russia considered itself the main fortress against revolution and the all-embracing military plans of Napoleon. Alexander, who defeated the seemingly unconquerable Napoleon, was hailed as God's anointed one.

In spite of a deep-seated sense that Russia was self-sufficient and had a mission for the world, right alongside this sense of mission there was a craving and longing to learn from the West. This became more and more noticeable during the middle of the nineteenth century. The Russian intelligentsia liked to spend some time abroad to be exposed to French culture and German philosophers. Two schools of thought originated: the Westernizers, who considered Russia a backward country which had to learn from the West and the Slavophils, who emphasized the unique Russian or Slavic character and the mission of the Russian nation and the Orthodox Church. They were willing to listen with one ear, as it were, to the West, and above all they were listening to the Russian soul to discover its genius and make it meaningful. They found the Russian soul among the Russian people (narod) and became known as narodniki (populists).

Representatives of the Slavophils were the brothers Aksakov, Alexis Khomyakov (1804-60), M. A. Pogodin (1800-75), and later also F. M. Dostoevsky (1821-81). Among the Slavophils we find a strong sense of Russia's calling and mission. Russia has a special message and obligation toward the world at large.

4 George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960, p. 405. 1 Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 8. See also Paul Miliukov, Outlines of Russian Culture, Part 1: Religion

and the Church, Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1943, p. 15. 6 Berdyaev, op. cit., pp. 9 ff.; Joseph Ward Swain, The Harper History of Civilization, Vol. II, New

York: Harper & Brothers, 1958, p. 71. 7Johannes Harder, Kleine Geschichte der Orthodoxen Kirchen, Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1961,

pp. 101-2.

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

212 CORNELIUS KRAHN

Some representatives of the Westernizers were Peter Chaadayev (1794-1856), Vis- sarion Belinsky (1811-48), Alexander Herzen (1812-70), and Mikhael Bakunin (1814-76). The Westernizers wanted to learn from the West and improve the status of the Russian peasants. Some of them were forerunners of Marxism and anarchism.

The controversy between the Slavophils and the Westernizers concerned the destiny of Russia and its vocation in the world. They disagreed particularly on how Russia could fulfill its role and mission. Heated debates and discussions in oral as well as literary form were conducted during the first half of the nineteenth century. In typical Russian fashion, so vividly portrayed in Dostoevsky's novels, the debaters would spend all night discussing philosophical problems. Turgenev relates that when at the height of a certain controversy someone pro- posed that they at least have something to eat, Belinsky shouted, "We have not yet decided the question of the existence of God and you want to eat."s

The Slavophils absorbed the Hegelian idea of the predestined role of the nation in world history. The preferred role which Hegel assigned to the German people, the Slavophils applied to the Russians. Aksakov even claimed that the Russian people had a special vocation for understanding the philosophy of Hegel.' Looking at the West and analyzing Western culture as having reachcd its final stage, the Slavophils' sense of mission rose. The West was exhausted and senile. Prince Odoevsky wrote: "Science, art, and religion, the three motors of social life, have lost their force... Western Europe is on the high road to ruin! We Russians on the contrary are young and fresh and have taken no part in the crimes of Europe. We have a great mission to fulfill. Our name is already inscribed on the tablets of victory: victory of science, art and faith await us on the ruins of tottering Europe."'x

The Slavophils found three things which Russia could offer to the world: true Chris- tianity preserved in the Orthodox Church, the village commune (mir), and the autocratic regime. The failure of the West was caused by the rationalism of the eighteenth century. If Russia could not save the West through these three institutions, she could at least save herself from the bankruptcy which had already engulfed the West."

A typical Slavophil deeply convinced of Russia's mission was the poet Tyuchev (1803- 1875). He wrote in 1860:

One cannot understand Russia by reason And measure her by a common yardstick. She has a peculiar nature. One must simply believe in Russia.12

In "Russia and the Revolution" (1848), Tyuchev stated that "Russia is above all the Christian Empire; the Russian people is Christian not only through the orthodoxy of its beliefs but also by something more intimate than belief. It is Christian by that ability of renunciation and sacrifice which forms a basis of its moral nature. The Revolution is above all anti- Christian."'3

8 Berdyaev, op. cit., p. 39. 1 Ibid., p. 40. A detailed treatment of the origin and development of the Slavophil-Westernizer contro-

versy is found in the following books: Peter K. Christoff, An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism: A Study in Ideas, Vol. I: A. S. Xomjakov, The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1961; Martin Malia, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism, 1812-1855, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961; Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism, Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1960.

10 Mazour, op. cit., p. 31. 1x Ibid. 12 Hans Kohn, ed., The Mind of Modern Russia, New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1955,

p. 93. 13 Ibid., p. 95.

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RUSSIA: MESSIANISM - MARXISM 213

M. A. Pogodin was overawed by the greatness of the Russian empire after its victory over Napoleon. This victory appeared to him as a guarantee of an even greater future for Russia planned by God. Being certain that the Slavs had a great mission to fulfill toward the world at large, he raised the question of which of the Slavic nations occupied the first rank and would lead in the fulfillment of the mission. He asked, "Which shows most clearly that it has the conditions for reaching the goal? Which indeed?" He continued:

My heart trembles with joy, oh Russia, oh my Fatherland! Is it not you? Oh, if it were only you! You, you are chosen to consummate, to crown the development of humanity, to embody all the various human achievements (which hitherto have been accomplished only separately) in one great synthesis, to bring to harmony the ancient and modem civilizations, to reconcile heart with reason, to establish true justice and peace. You alone can prove not only that science, liberty, art, knowledge, industry, and wealth are the goal of mankind, but that there is something higher than scholarship, trade and education, freedom and riches - the true enlightenment in the spirit of Christianity, the Divine Word, which alone can impart to Man earthly and heavenly happiness ...0.14 This is a good example of Slavophil messianism.

MESSIANISM, MARXISM, AND NATIONALISM

The seed of the Russia of today was sown during the nineteenth century. Russia's unique history, population, its vast territory, and particularly the Westernizer-Slavophil discussions furnish the background. The Westernizer-Slavophil controversies started around the Russian samovar and lead to what we have today. The Westernizers opened the gate of Russia to the influences of the West and in came Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Some Westernizers, grounded in Marx, developed his theory for Russian Communism. To this, the sense of mission of Russian native Slavophilism was added. In the 1860's Turgenev already described the radicalism and the militant nature resulting from the combination of these two. He stressed the willingness of the young generation to become martyrs for the spread of these radical ideas in the following words of a girl being initiated into membership in the under- ground revolutionary movement:

"To you who desire to cross this threshold, do you know what awaits you?" "I know," replied the girl. "Cold, hunger, abhorrence, derision, contempt, abuse, prison, disease and death!" "I know, I am ready, I shall endure all blows." "Not from enemies alone, but also from relatives, from friends." "Yes, even from them ... ." "Are you ready to commit a crime?" "I am ready for crime, too." "Do you know what you may be disillusioned in that which you believe, that you may discover that

you were mistaken, that you ruined your young life in vain?" "I know that too." "Enter!" The girl crossed the threshold and a heavy curtain fell behind her. Fool! said someone gnashing his

teeth. Saint! someone uttered in reply.15

What fervor, dedication and uncompromising spirit characterizes the pioneers of Marxism! Karl Marx did not take the revolutionary possibilities in Russia seriously.'" According

to his theory, the primitive society develops into an industrialized capitalistic society which 14 Ibid., pp. 67-8. 16 Alan Moorehead, The Russian Revolution, New York: Bantam Books, 1959, p. 33. "1 Swain, op. cit., p. 615; Moorehead, op. cit., p. 36.

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214 CORNELIUS KRAHN

comes to a climax when the proletariat overthrows its oppressors and ushers in the classless

utopia. This theory became the unshakable dogma introduced into Russia by N. V. Lenin and Leon Trotsky. It was accepted and promoted in Russia as the "gospel" by some West- ernizers, in spite of the fact that Russia lacked a large-scale proletariat which results from industrialization and capitalistic developments, as was the case in Western Europe. Thus, the first "proletarian" revolution took place in Russia and not in a so-called ripe country. The Russians were successful because they wholeheartedly accepted the theory or myth pertaining to the proletariat. Marxism was adapted to Russian conventions. The basic idea of Marxism, coupled with the mission of the proletariat, was combined and identified with the Russian messianic idea.

But it did not satisfy Russia to retain the bliss of this salvation for herself. The bringing of happiness and liberation from oppression to the whole world was her goal. In the name of a future happy state, every trace of freedom was "temporarily" sacrificed in order to usher in the universal Marxian kingdom. In this process, Russian atheism, nihilism, and materialism have acquired a religious fervor. Basically, the Russians are eschatologically oriented. A universal salvation is their goal. A sense of martyrdom for the great cause of the future characterizes Russian Marxism. In accordance with Russian tradition, the revolution could

only be totalitarian. What looks like utopia to the West is precisely what appears most realistic to Russia.

Bolshevism has made use of almost every Russian tradition for its own triumph. It continued the tradition of government by imposition. In World War II, Stalin revived the hero worship of national leaders of the past. He ordered the film industry to revive the

memory of the dictator-tsars who had been purged from the pages of Russian history. He did not hesitate to have them cast in his image in order to assure victory over the co-dictator, Adolf Hitler.

Even the deep-seated religious feelings were mobilized in the total war effort. In the

days of the siege of Moscow, the book Pravda o Religiyi v Rossiyi (The Truth About Religion in Russia, 1942), was published in Moscow, showing in text and illustrations and through the

testimony of high church officials, common priests, and believers that Hitler invaded "holy" Russia as anti-Christ and that "Father" Stalin was a true protector of "holy" Russia and the Church. Thus, one of the most ruthless dictators that Russia ever produced made use of Russian messianism in an all-out war effort. It was a parallel to Ivan the Terrible. Stalin

may have come to regret that he called upon the spirits which he later had a hard time con-

trolling. As Goethe puts it:

Great is my dismay! Spirits raised by me Vainly would I lay!.7

In any event, Khrushchev made full use of the newly-kindled nationalistic tendencies and the revival of the interest in personal freedom, even some religious freedom, in order to

replace Stalin's image by his own. However, the basic policy, theory, and mind of Com- munism are the same. The messianic hope of Russian Communism will not be fulfilled until the whole world will have been reached. In this "happy" family of nations, the Marxist Third Rome in Moscow, or the Third International, will have become the center of the world and Russian messianism will have reached its goal.

17 Complete Works of J. W. Goethe, New York: P. F. Collier & Son, Vol. V, p. 134.

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RUSSIA: MESSIANISM - MARXISM 215

Berdyaev states: "Western communists, when they join the Third International, do not understand when in joining the Third International they are joining the Russian people, and help to realize its messianic vocation .... Something has happened which Marx, and the Western Marxists, could not have foreseen, and that is an identification of the two messianisms, the messianism of the Russian people and the messianism of the proletariat."'8

THE CHALLENGE OF A PROPHECY

We can only speculate what other combinations could have been made in connection with nineteenth-century Russian messianism which had its roots in the Slavophil movement. Western Marxism has proven to be a risky marriage partner. Dostoevsky was a prophet predicting the results of this combination. He pointed in the direction of a truly Christian calling of Russia. This is what he said in 1880, a few months before his death, at the unveiling of a monument to Pushkin, the greatest Russian poet:

Beyond all doubt, the destiny of a Russian is pan-European and universal. To become a true Russian is to become the brother of all men, a universal man. Our narrower nationalism, as our Slavophilism, though necessary to history, is only a great misunderstanding .... Our future lies in Universality, not won by violence, but by the strength from our great ideal - the reuniting of all mankind.

... the idea is not new; it has been given expression many times in the past. My fear is that lack of originality may appear presumptuous. "Is this our destiny, the destiny of our poor land? Are we predestined among mankind to utter the new world?"

I speak only of the brotherhood of man, not of the triumphs of the sword, the achievements of science, or of economic grandeurs. For I am convinced that the heart of Russia, more than any other nation, is dedi- cated to this universal union of all mankind; I see this from our history, our great men, and the artistic spirit of Pushkin. Our land may not flourish, but this poor land "Christ traversed with blessing, in the garb of a serf." Should we, then, not content ourselves with His word? Was not He Himself born in a manger?"9

The question may be asked in conclusion: What does all this mean to us and what are we willing to do about it? It has been argued for forty years that Communism will fail because the Russian populace will rebel at the material deprivations they are required to endure. Actually, they espouse Communism with staunch fervor, willing to bear all hardships for their convictions.

Marxism is based on a materialistic philosophy of life. This means that matter is basic and supernatural concepts are illusory. Traditional Christianity claims that the realm of the spirit is primary and matter is secondary. It is said that Marxism originated when the idealist, Hegel, dropped from the clouds to the earth and turned into the materialist Marx. However, let us not forget the following: A comparison of the values most highly cherished within the two countries, the Soviet Union and the United States, reveals that the materialistic philosophy of Russia is promoted with idealistic fervor and eschatological earnestness, while American Christianity cherishes and pursues materialistic values throughout the week as if there are no values beyond. For one hour on Sunday we do lip service to spiritual values, but the rest of the week we are among the greatest materialists on earth. If this is a true picture of contemporary American Christianity, what are we doing about it? Are we ideologically, spiritually and sacrificially prepared to meet the challenge of messianic Marxism?

18 Berdyaev, op. cit., p. 144. 19 Mazour, op. cit., p. 228.

This content downloaded from 139.179.175.160 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions