The Making of Holy Russia: The Orthodox Church and Russian Nationalism Before the Revolution

by John Strickland

This book is a critical study of the interaction between the Russian Church and society in the late 19th and early 20th century. While other studies exist that draw attention to the voices in the Church typified as liberal in the years leading up to the Revolution, this work introduces a wide range of conservative opinion that equally strove for spiritual renewal and the spread of the Gospel. Grounded in original research conducted in the newly accessible libraries and archives of post-Soviet Russia, this study is intended to reveal the wider relevance of its topic to an ongoing discussion of the relationship between national or ethnic identities on the one hand, and the self-understanding of Orthodox Christianity as a universal and transformative faith on the other.

Genres: History, Religion, Russia

356 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2013

About the author

Archpriest John Strickland was born and educated in California. After discovering a love of Russian history and culture as an undergraduate at California State University, Fullerton, he went on to do research in St. Petersburg for two years. He obtained his MA in modern European history from the State University of New York , Stony Brook, and was awarded a Ph.D in Russian and European history from the University of California at Davis in 2001. He is currently the rector of St. Elizabeth the New Martyr Church in Poulsbo, Washington, where he resides with wife Yelena and their five children.

Reviews

[Readius Maximus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rather academic and more for the specialist. I found his four volume history of Christendom so good I just got this book assuming it was about Russia leading up to the revolution and would be just as good. It is about Russia but it is a very detailed analysis of the conservative clergy and their patriotic movement in the 30 years leading up to the revolution.

It does not provide a general overview of Russian society before the disaster which is what I was looking for.

Basically the point is showing that focus should not be exclusively on the liberal clergy as this group he details is just as significant. This book is basically his dissertation hence the overly narrow and detailed analysis.

It is interesting to see how the church in Russia was trying to handle and react to the secularization of society. Both conservatives and liberals fail to react properly and stave off collapse.

The conservatives were focusing on maintaining the image of Holy Rus in order to bring about cultural renewal. Part of this was maintaining the Apostle like Tsar as a defender of the church and patron of the internal cultural mission.

This book really highlights tension between the universal aspect of Christianity and the ethnic nationalism of modernity. Which the church failed to really solve before the revolution and realistically can't be resolved without ignoring it or denouncing it as secular, which it is. The conservatives in this story tried to ally themselves after losing the protection of the Tsar with the Paschal edict on religious toleration by siding with the nationalist parties. But this was confusing and incoherent as they put forth the ideal of the medieval conception of Holy Rus which logically would lead one to accept the Old Belief as the true belief.

The problem with all this is instead of focusing on personal repentance and transformation they focused externally on social organization like their secular opponents. Granted they tried to put Orthodoxy central to this scheme.

pg 28 In the third Ecumenical council they gave prerogative to self governing bodies the ability to appoint Bishops to the hierarchy as well as deal with other matters. A point either forgotten or conveniently rationalized away by a certain well known group residing in Italy.

pg 53 "Orthodox patriotism then, was less an expression of clerical conservatism, as historians have always claimed, and more a product of missionary ambition." To save Russia from secularization and the inroads of other heterodox beliefs.

pg 102 The creation of the Duma in 1905 he lost a lot of power and reminded me of the monarchy in France before their revolution. Privilege without power is distasteful. Making the Tsar more easily overthrown and easier to hate. The exception to this is England's monarchy which might be approaching it's end.

One of the mistakes the church seemed to make was to hold onto the idea of the Apostle like Tsar and tying themselves to his ship so to speak instead of realizing that his government was despite good intentions facing serious problems. An easy mistake to make when Christianity is devoid of a political philosophy and the people advocating change are a bunch of religion hating bigoted atheists.

pg 121 The clergy allying themselves with ethnic nationalism was ironic since their cultural missionary project started to combat secular ethnic nationalism. But they were the only one's trying to defend the church.

pg 141 They believed orthodox patriotism could save nationalism from it's pagan aspect.

pg 153 Nationalism was aggressive to other nations while nationality was an acceptable form of community. Nationalism opposed the universal while patriotism was just love towards the fatherland.

[Mimi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure Father John can pick me out of a crowd, but I have met him and enjoy his sermons and podcasts. An interesting discussion of the conflation of Orthodoxy and Nationalism that occurred at the end of the 19th and pre-revolutionary 20th century and how it was, in many ways, intentional.
A bit dry and academic, but good information and one I will keep.

[Cynthia D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good read

The author looks at the decades leading up to the Revolution in Russian at the turn of the 20th century. A look at what Russian Orthodoxy tried, and in some sense, failed to do in its effort to recapture “ Holy Rus.”