Sophia: Problems of Spiritual Culture and Religious Philosophy, 1923, p. 125-134.
and the Religious Rebirth of Russia
(1923 – # 60,2)
Two sorts of people are doomed to a lack of understanding concerning the essence and the meaning of the Revolution — the externalistic revolutionaries and the externalistic counter-revolutionaries. Both the one and the other are bereft of freedom of spirit, cast about upon the surface aspect of the revolutionary process and in the grip of evil passions; and both the one and the other believe, that the Revolution will destroy the old life and build a new life. The external revolutionaries think, that the Revolution will destroy the old, the ugly and evil life, and make for a new, beautiful and good life. The external counter-revolutionaries think, that the Revolution will destroy the old, beautiful and good life, and make for a new, an ugly and evil life. Some sense themself as builders of a new life, others — the restorers of the old life. This — is eternal a self-deception, an illusion, arising from concentrating our gaze upon the surface superficiality of life. The inner meaning of the revolutionary process is altogether otherwise, and it remains hidden for those, who let their grasp of the meaning become subject to negative emotional reactions. The Revolution, every revolution (and not only the hapless Russian Revolution) does not represent a breaking off from the old life and a making for a new life. Revolution as regards its metaphysical essence is an effect of the rot and disintegration of the decay and mustiness of the old life, the cast-off garbage of the old order. In it continues to act the old, but in a condition downward and dissolute. Old souls, chained like slaves to the past, are what act in revolutions. The inner impulsive principles in revolutions are such, that they cannot create a new life. When the souls of people, social groups and entire peoples permit themself to have unlimited an hold over them the negative feelings of malice, hatred, envy and vengefulness, they become slaves of an harsh and putrid past, hey cannot get separate from it. People in a revolution become incapable of seeing the eternal in the past, in them is no resuscitative spirit, they remain attached to their malicious and vengeful feelings towards the rot in the past and they lack the ability to turn their view towards what is to come, to get free from this past. Revolution only externally seems to be oriented forwards, inwardly it always is oriented backwards. This obsession with the past, degenerating into an hatred towards it, into malicious destruction and reprisals, is also the predominant impression of the revolutionary aspect. When a revolution, in recovering from its vengeful and malicious feelings, attempts to turn itself forwards, it creates very unrevolutionary, very banal and trite things, it evidences its own emptiness. When the Russian Revolution committed acts of revenge, when it was under the evil obsession against the old “bourgeois” world, it produced very revolutionary an impression, it had revolutionary a pathos and alarmed all the world by its maximalism.
When the Revolution turned towards the future, it started at construction, it formed NEP, it opened a market with kielbasa-sausages, it instituted trusts and started to produce impressions altogether unrevolutionary, very “bourgeois”, bereft of idea and pathos. Revolution is in a condition where it either hates the past and destroys it, or else partially restores it. But there are in it no creative powers. Revolution in its metaphysical essence is a diminishing, a degradation of being, it is not ontological, not existentially durable. It is merely a reflective mirroring of inward failings, spiritual sicknesses. revolutions therefore always become unsuccessful, successful revolutions there are not and cannot be. They always beget not that, towards what they have striven, they always pass over into their opposite. Revolutions possess metaphysically reactionary a nature and this mustneeds be revealed and exposed. Revolutions become the allotted fate of peoples, the tragic fate of peoples, and it is necessary to recognise them, as the expiation of guilt. But there is nothing more pathetic, than idealising them and worshipping them.
In this selfsame fallacy are situated also the external counter-revolutionaries. They no less than the revolutionaries define themself negatively, and not positively. They think, that they can restore the old life. But in actuality they are immersed in the revolutionary destructive torrent and often become one of the powers of failure. They likewise are unable to pass over to a positive creativity, just like with the revolutionaries. The spirit of the times conveys destruction, and yet there wins out the spirit of eternity, conveying the resuscitation of all life. One and the same evil often appears in history under various guises. The ominous shades of the past overshadow the revolutionary process. And the destructive and despicable element of the past tends to avenge itself, as manifest in revolutions in the most repulsive forms. The genuinely eternal in the past, however, withdraws into the hidden depths of life. Revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, each waging a struggle for their interests, cannot free themself from the burden of the past and make the transition to a better life, since they do not want to begin with the essential thing, that would free the spirit for creative work, — with repentance. The revolutionaries will always be slaves of an evil past and powerless to create, since at the basis of their world-view they deny repentance, they remain unrepentant sinners, i.e. burdened by the evil past. The same with those, who fight against the Revolution and upon whom the Revolution has struck a grievous blow, often in principle they admit of repentance, but do not want to repent of the sins, which have led Russia into revolution, not wanting to cleanse themself of the spirits of malice. Thus the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary processes represent various sides of one and the same failing, they remain locked within an inescapable vicious circle. The demons of malice tear at the soul and body of the Russian people, and unrepentant souls render impotent the attempts to create life.
Revolution is a process involving all sides of life. And in Russia is occurring a geological upheaval, rattling and shaking all the substrate of life. And it cannot be imagined, that it would not affect the life of the Church. In the religious life of the Russian people long since already has been something impropitious. Within the Orthodox Church has lived the Russian people in its enormous masses. Without the Orthodox faith it could not have held up under its grievous history. And with the Church is connected the highest upsurges of Russian history. But the entirety of the XIX Century was filled with an awareness of the sins and ills of our spiritual life, of the unfortunate aspect of our churchly arrangement. It evidences a rift between the people and the intelligentsia, between society and the ruling authority. A weakening of faith, a disintegration of spiritual wholeness precedes revolutions. The better sort of Orthodox people over the course of the XIX Century denounced the ulcers of our churchly life and sought paths towards churchly renewal. Even before the revolutionary darkness itself had thickened to the point of cutting its way across the Russian Church and the Russian state had been sensed, that the chastisement from God had to break loose. It suffices to call to mind the fateful image of Grigorii Rasputin. The intelligentsia had long since fallen away from the faith and had poisoned the people with their nihilism; into the people imperceptibly filtered down a negative “enlightenment”; the upper classes of society, the nobility, the bureaucracy, the bourgeoise had an external attitude towards the faith and in utilitarian a manner were prepared o make use of it for their own interests; at the summit of the ruling authority was an affliction with a mystical infirmity. he Testament command of Christ: Bestow unto God what is of God, and unto Caesar what is of Caesar, was not fulfilled, “God’s” and “Caesar’s” got all jumbled together. Christian social truth, Christian brotherhood in the Russian Orthodox kingdom was not realised. And therefore they would attempt to realise social truth not through the freedom of Christ, but through the coercion of the Anti-Christ. The Church had become passive, since the times and the seasons had not yet ensued. The state, the realm of Caesar, was the active element. It was active prior to the Revolution in a certain direction and it became active after the Revolution in a direction of the polar opposite. The dysfunctions and ills of our churchly life are evidenced not by the fact, that the state lorded it over the Church, that the uber prokurators oppressed the Church. This — is external a view, a non-religious view upon the historical fates of our Church and state. On the contrary, the inner weaknesses and infirmities of our churchly life on its human side made it subordinate to the state and gave an especial role to the uber-prokurator. Pobedonostsev, a sincerely believing man, was not to blame for the fact, that our Church was insufficiently free. The inward lack of freedom in churchly life evoked the state civil authority of Pobedonostsev within the Church. That which transpires within the depths of spiritual life, determines the outward order of life. The enslavement of the Church to the state of Caesar is merely a reflection of the condition of the Church itself, in its human aspect a lack of revealedness of Christian community, and not an offspring begotten of the evil will of the state. The holy Russian monarchy fell, because it had lost its religio-mystical point of support in the Church, it felt too great a dependence of the Church upon itself, at a time, when it itself was in need of spiritual a support. The Russian empire assumed a form of humanistic self-affirmation, in it began to govern a ruling power deriving from man, and not from God.
And then ensued the fateful hour, when there fell apart the great bond, uniting the Orthodox Church with an Orthodox kingdom from the time of Constantine the Great. The Church as it were returned to its condition prior to Constantine, it felt a sense of great and frightening freedom. And it came up face to face with the raging elements of this world. The kingdom sacred for the Church itself ceased to hamper the Church with its protection, but a clashing with a godless realm stood before it. The Church began hastily to reorganise itself. And in this urgent deed there were not yet signs of a religious creativity. The restructuring of the Church was determined by a change of elations with the state, with the secular elements and the processes occurring in them. At the height of the historical catastrophe, there were no religious stirrings evident within the Church during the first period of the Revolution. The Revolution had not yet affected the Church inwardly. The Church assumed but a defensive posture, and guarded its sacred matters against the obtrusion of the secular world upon it. Within the elements of the Revolution the Church evidenced a great stability in comparison with other historical entities, which quickly became subject to disintegration. It was the sole spiritual refuge. Russian priests proved far loftier, than might be expected of them from the historical past of the Russian clergy, unaccustomed to struggle and resistance. But the Revolution, like an infective illness, has its own inevitable course to run out to the end, it is impossible to stop it. There had to ensue a moment, when the Revolution would directly and grievously impact the Church, when it not only would begin persecution against the Church, but also would affect inwardly churchly life itself. And then arises the monstrous phantom of a “Red Church”. Will this be a religious stirring, will there be creative life in it, be a breathing of the Spirit? What signifies the appearance of “the Living Church”? Is this the beginning of a Russian Reformation? Are there signs of regeneration in the “reformed Church”, the church of bishop Antonin [Granovsky]?
The revolutionary process has entered into churchly life and there once again has evidenced its non-creative character. But revolution in the Church possesses rather moreso a paltry and reflective, not independent character, than in the state and social life, — it tails along after the Revolution. The revolution in the Church is not a churchly and religious revolution, it is merely the mirroring of the social and political revolution, an adaptation to it, an infecting of it with toxins. In any case, Lenin and Trotsky are more primal, more independent a phenomenon, than the priest Kalinovsky and bishop Antonin. Bishop Antonin goes in tow with Lenin and conforms to him, and not the reverse. This quasi-churchly effort follows in tow with the political movement, fulfills the dictates of the social and political revolution. Within churchly life has begun a class struggle between the white and the black clergy. The sacristans, the cantors and the most democratic part of the white clergy have come to sense themself a “proletariat” and have become pervaded with a revolutionary class consciousness. The struggle against the episcopacy and monasticism has become a struggle against a churchly aristocracy and bourgeoise. The “Living Church”, the “Church of Reform”, and all the other labels, from a churchly-inward, religiously-inward point of view do not signify anything regarding “life” in the Church, nothing of a “renewal” of the Church, no sort of a churchly reformation or religious revolution. On the contrary, from religious a point of view, all these appearances are quite “reactionary”. The Revolution has radically effected a separation of the Church from the state, and the Church has entered into an era of putting to the test a great freedom. I am speaking, indeed, concerning the human element in the Church. The Divine element within the Church can neither be enslaved nor liberated. The Church has come to face not only an irreligious and secular state, but a state openly godless and anti-Christian. It has to determine its attitude towards the new kingdom of Caesar (Caesar in the Gospel is the appellation not only of monarchy, but also every secular domain, albeit a socialistic republic). The Church has stood above the political struggle, its attitude towards the Revolution has been spiritual, and not political. This has to be admitted to the enormous merit of Patriarch Tikhon. The Orthodox Church has remained aloof, in it has not been a great creative stirring, but also neither a servile “reaction”, i.e. an adaptive fawning towards the new kingdom of Caesar. And here the apparent reform and renovative moments in the Church, as manifest in the so-called “Living Church”, are the foremost to bestow that which is of God “unto Caesar”, the kingdom of this world. The “Living Church” has prostrated itself before the godless Caesar, it surrenders the Church to the grip of the state, renders the Church a tool of the most godless of states, it shows forth a slave’s low-bowing craven spirit, it has loved foremost of all “the world” and that, which is of “the world”. It writes hypocritically upon its banners the word freedom and it tramples the freedom of the Church, the freedom of religious conscience. The “Living Church” gives itself over into the power not only of an anti-Christian state, but also of an anti-Christian “enlightenment”, of an anti-Christian rationalism. It begins its activity with denunciations against those, for whom execution threatens. It does not promulgate any sort of creative religious ideas, it speaks only about a subordinating of the Church to the new state, about the accepting of Communism by a new church. Among the activists of the “Living Church” is also that part of the churchly hierarchy afflicted with rationalism, which firstly did not hold up under the testing of freedom sent down from on high, renouncing freedom and giving in to the temptation of the Grand Inquisitor in the name of the millions upon millions of happy “infants”. It is difficult for one to imagine a movement, which to such a degree is bereft of all independence and all creative power. I shall not mention about the wont for bribery among certain of its activists, about their possible connection with the organs of the political police, for this is not the principal question, nor does it interest me. We shall grant, that the initiators of the “Living Church” are sincere and unselfish. But in that case how shallow the figures! Not a single religious thought, no sort of a creative upsurge, no sort of signs of an awareness, advancing beyond that, by which the Russian religious thought of the XIX and XX Centuries has lived! This yet again makes evident, that the revolutionary element reflects a force of qualitative lowering, and not uplifting, in it, always there come out on top the elementary and simplifying principles. When bishop Antonin gave talks at the Peterburg religio-philosophic gatherings [occurring 1901-1903], the minutes of which were published in “Novyi Put'”, he stood at greater an height of religious consciousness, there were put to him themes more complex and deep, than when he undersigned the proclamation of the “Living Church” and founded a “Church of Renovation”. A decline occurred, a “democratisation” of the qualities of religious themes.
The repeating of trite phrases, that Christianity is communistic and that the first Christians were communists, does not evidence any sort of signs of a creative religious thought. This communism is a borrowing from the outside, from a worldly revolution, it was received from the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, and it does not signify the arising among us of any sort of a religious Christian socialism, in which would be its own truth. The “Living Church” is merely the spectre of a vile and putrid past, only the stench of the old rot, a reproducing in new setting of the old relationships between the Church and the state, of the old enslavement of the Church, the evidence long since already of happenings that have killed the Spirit in churchly life, of the triumph of rationalism within our churchly hierarchy. The “Living Church” is a Rasputinism, a debauchery of the revolutionary era, a profligate turgidness and pollution of spirit. In it the bishops and priests are appointed through the organ of the state political administration. This is also the production of profound religious “reaction” within churchly life, a quenching of the Spirit, the loss of spiritual freedom, the freedom of the children of God, a filial sonship with God through Christ the Saviour. This — is not a religious movement, in it are no signs of a religious energy. This is nowise a reformation. Luther was of religiously fiery a nature, in him there was religious an idea, albeit false, but there was religious a fire. The “Living Church” is merely the uniting of the revolutionary ruination and disintegration of a rationalistically minded circle of Orthodox hierarchs, their being drawn in to this elemental process of atomisation. This — is a phenomenon politically and from life, non-religious, signifying a loss of spiritual wholeness, a loss of spiritual freedom and spiritual resiliency in regard to the elements of the revolution, hostile to everything of spirit. It signifies a weakening of the mystical effort within churchly life, in which long already have been indications of the signs of a falling away from a churchly ontologism. The Russian Revolution, certainly, is a manifestation of spiritual, and not only political an order. But in this its aspect it signifies merely a militant assault of natural spirits against a spirit, rooted in God. In this quasi-religious church movement is evidenced the total absence of the unique ideal of Christian society. It consents to serve a foreign master, it is ready to accept an ordering of society, based upon malice and hatred, envy and revenge. Within the Orthodox Church even earlier there was not revealed a Christian societal awareness. The old society likewise was not Christian, in it was lie and untruth, which also led to the Revolution. But greed and envy, malice and vengefulness were not raised into the pearl of creation, were not made into a religion. Everything for the old society was accountable to an awareness of sin and repentance. The new society ceases to be conscious of sin and wants nothing of repentance. And therefore the old lie and untruth within it is intensified. Only a liar or a lunatic is able to assert, that in revolutionary Russia there is moreso Christian brotherhood, than in pre-revolutionary Russia. Of Christian brotherhood there was too little even earlier, but now it has become even less so, all the societal relationships have become saturated with malice and hate. Christianity has never been inclined to teach, that the brotherhood of people can appear as the result of a class struggle involving material interests, that a Christian community can be begotten from evil violence. But those active in the “Living Church” evidently have believed in this. They have come out on behalf of the oppressed — a matter genuinely Christian, but as though not having noticed, that the oppressed already succeeded in being transformed into oppressors. Christianity ought however to actively defend the oppressed and spiritually censure the persecutors. This is something at odds with those, who threaten prison, execution and exile. The tempting allure of communism among churchly activists is begotten in part upon the basis of greedy class interests of a churchly “democracy”, in part also upon the basis of an horrid confusion of brotherhood in Christ with a compulsory uniting of people in the Anti-Christ. The “Living Church” is not a disclosing of authentic life within the Church, it is merely the stench of the rot and corruption in the past, the arising of images of the old sin and the old untruth, the manifestation of a lowly cowering and groveling afront a triumphant power, of a passive surrendering of oneself to the disposition of the non-spiritual powers of this world. This is merely another side of the image of that selfsame sickness and untruth within our churchly life, as expressed also in the Karlovtsy Synod, in the attempts to render the Orthodox Church into an obediently pliant tool of externally manipulative and greedy restorationist intents. Metropolitan Antonii Khrapovitsky, himself a foe to the Imyaslavtsi Name-Praisers, is a rationalist and political the same, as are the activists of the “Living Church”. Too many tend to take advantage of church for political ends. The creative process in our churchly life is still outwardly not in evidence. The strong element within it has been merely a fidelity to churchly sanctities. The creative process can only be by an evidencing of the spirit of the love of Christ, which would possess also its own social expression.
All the attempts at the reformation and renewal of the Church within the revolutionary element tend to have nothing in common with the genuinely creative themes of the Russian religious thought of the XIX and XX Centuries. Evidently, in the conflagration of the revolutionary element the Church can either guard itself, can defend its sanctity from the destructive processes, or it can adapt itself to a revolutionary aspect foreign to it, abjuring its own sanctity, it can either be conservative in the profound and best sense of this word or it can enter upon the path of apostasy. A creative churchly rebirth within the revolutionary process cannot be discerned. And thus it was also in the French Revolution. Catholicism before the Revolution was in decline, and at the time of the Revolution a significant portion of the Catholic clergy apostacised from the faith. After the Revolution, at the beginning of the XIX Century there began a Catholic renewal and it continues on to our day. I have no doubt, that after the Russian Revolution, after the inward spiritual reaction against it, after pondering the enormous effect experienced in it, that in Russia there will be a religious and churchly rebirth. This renewal will be creative, and not simply a matter of restoration. Only by it can there also be the salvation of Russia. For the Church, the Revolution will have positive a significance. All these years in the depths of Russia, in the souls of Russian people occur molecular processes, which also will lead to this renewal. The Russian intelligentsia, traditionally hostile to religion, will turn to religion. But for awhile still this inner movement cannot be manifest. On the surface we shall see either the “Living Church” or the Karlovtsy Synod, two offspring of the revolutionary process of disintegration, and not of the process of creativity. Creativity will ensue after the externals of the Revolution, as a manifestation of an inward revolution of spirit. This inward revolution of spirit might seem to externalist revolutionaries as something counter-revolutionary, but it never will be simply a restoration of the old, of the old life, of the old spirit of decay. In the eternal within the past will combine with the creativity of the new religious life, and in the eternal will be attained an unity of the past and the future. Across the span of the XIX and XX Centuries there was in Russia an original and creative stirring of religious thought, there was passionate a religious searching. Chaadaev, the Slavophils — Khomyakov and I. Kireevsky, Yu. Samarin and I. Aksakov, Dostoevsky, K. Leont’ev, Vl. Solov’ev, Bukharev, N. Fedorov, V. Rozanov and the modernmost religio-philosophic currents — what an amazing wealth of Russian thought, what a depth in the setting of religious themes, how intense a spiritual thirsting! The dominant currents in the Russian intelligentsia tended to bypass this spiritual current, not having taken advantage of this wealth. And the official Russian theology, the official churchly currents almost failed to have contact with this enormous spiritual life. Characteristic to Russian religious thought was a prophetic spirit, it had presentiment of much, it foresaw and predicted much. Dostoevsky, K. Leont’ev, Vl. Solov’ev knew about the revolution, transpiring within spirit earlier, than it transpired within the surface aspect of history. And here now the terrible moment has ensued. All the Russian religious and philosophic thought, all the Russian great literature was toppled down into the dark abyss, proved unneeded for the revolutionary process. The Revolution had other teachers, those, who enjoyed greater a popularity, but in whom was no breath of creative Russian genius, of religious a genius. The Revolution was not the work of Chaadaev and Khomyakov, of Dostoevsky and Vl. Solov’ev, it was the work of Belinsky and Dobroliubov, of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. In the Revolution was embodied not a single genuinely great and original Russian idea, but within it acted a large and sickly Russian element, amidst the genuine foreboding of great and original people. The ideas however were very banal and shallow Western ideas. And when reform and renewal attempts began in the Church, there began also processes of adaption to the Revolution, and then all these “Living Church” and “Church Revivals” began to enrich the churchly consciousness and churchly life not with Chaadaev and Khomyakov, not with Dostoevsky and Vl. Solov’ev, but the rather with Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Plekhanov and Lenin. This — is the remarkable fact. The Russian priests of the “Living Church” have shouldered the shallow booklets of Russian socialism, of the Russian nihilistic enlightenment, but nowise have they shouldered the books of Russian great creative figures, those inspired by a prophetic religious spirit. They tended to pass on from the seminary lesson books over to the five-kopeck brochures of Russian Marxism. Khomyakov and Dostoevsky could moreso teach these priests, striving for renewal, about the freedom of the Church and freedom of spirit, than can Chernyshevsky or Lenin! Chernyshevsky and Lenin can represent but captivity and enslavement for the Church.
The Slavophils were nowise religious conservatives, though they were faithful to the ancestral sanctities and traditions. If one peruse the philosophico-theological articles of Khomyakov concerning the Church and the articles of I. Aksakov on the churchly question, then in their teachings about Christian freedom and love — for them Christianity was first of all the religion of freedom and love — it is possible to find the grounding for a religious reforming (not in the sense of a Reformation) and renewal of the Church. They exposed the sins and ills of our historical churchly order with an extraordinary radicalism. And with Dostoevsky, with Vl. Solov’ev, with Bukharev, with Fedorov and suchlike, it is possible to find prophetic presentiments of a new spiritual epoch in Christianity. But the official Russian churchliness and the official Russian revolutionness have remained stuck in the impasse between the Orthodoxy of metropolitan Philaret, the ober-prokurators and rationalist bishops, alien to authentic spiritual experience, and the socialism and materialism of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. Rather moreso spiritual, hidden, mystical currents within Orthodoxy have been bound up with the aspect of the startsi-elders, with the pilgrim wanderers, and they at present still find for themself an expression in the Imyaslavtsi Name-Praising, which the rationalistically minded bishops have little love for, in the humble priest-elders, in which also one mustneeds seek out the authentic religious life of contemporary Russia. The activists of the “Living Church” — are the inheritors of the official, bureaucratic, synodal uber-prokurator style rationalistic Orthodoxy, and not of the mystical Orthodoxy, the Orthodoxy of saints, startsi-elders, wanderers, the Orthodoxy of the mystical piety of the people, seeking the Unseen City, the New Jerusalem. All the present day churchly reformers and renewers — are rationalistic alike down to the marrow of their bones, as are a significant portion of our churchly princes. Their type is the opposite to the spiritually experiential type in religious life. They are making for a churchly revolution, when they ultimately repudiate all the revelations and mysteries of Christianity, when they transform the Church into a community, wholely devoted to materialism and socialism, when in the Church they cease to perform the sacraments, the priest then renounce the faith in Christ the Saviour and snatch off their cassock. This — is the limit for the churchly revolution. But in the churchly persecution, rather than adaption to the revolutionary dissolution, there has to begin a process of spiritual deepening. From the bosom of the churchly will begin a creative religious rebirth, which will be the continuation of a genuinely spiritual, mystical Russian Orthodoxy and provide a churchly reply to the religious questionings and religious agitation of Russian religious life. In the Church there cannot be revolution, there cannot be even reformation, ought not to be even restoration. The Church lives by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. And the creative religious process of the Church is a revelation of the Spirit within Christian mankind. The religious rebirth in Russia, without which Russia cannot be saved, will be a mystical, and not rationalistic, fulfilling of the great hopes and expectations of Christianity, and not by a borrowing and adaption to that revolutionary socialistic world, which lives and breathes in an apostacy from God and in a struggle against the truth of Christ. It will overcome the falsity and lie of the old world, but it will overcome by the power and the truth of Christ.
N. A. Berdyaev.
© 2010 by translator Fr. S. Janos.
(1923 – 60,2 – en)
“ZHIVAYA TSERKOV'” I RELIGIOZNOE VOZROZHDENIE ROSSII. Article was originally published in the Berdyaev-editored anthology, SOPHIA, Problemy dukhovnoi kul’tury i religioznoi philosophii. — Berlin, Obelisk, 1923; 2nd article, p. 125-134. Republished in the anthology of N. Berdyaev articles entitled, “Padenie svyaschennogo russkogo tsarstva, Publitsistika 1914-1922”, Izdatel’stvo Astrel’, Moskva, 2007, p. 836-846.