The Russian Orthodox Church in Search of a New Missionary Role. Last week at the World Russian People’s Council, Patriarch Kirill gave a clear indication of how the church’s missionary policy would change. Predictions that under the new patriarch the church will strive to play a more noticeable role in addressing societal problems have proven valid. The new head of the Russian Orthodox Church not only confirmed the church’s policy but also indicated where efforts would be directed.
The church’s policy toward youth is not some kind of new initiative. Recall that at last year’s World Russian People’s Council this topic was also discussed and the initiative “Russia’s Young Generation” was adopted. Nonetheless in this year’s message to youth there were some notable changes, and it is easy to see the personal influence of the new patriarch in this.
The most discussed event of the last week was perhaps the speech by Patriarch Kirill in front of a youth gathering at Izmailovo Stadium, which four to five thousand people attended. Such meetings may very well become regular events for the new patriarch, and this most recent event was simply the first “show of strength”. Such large-scale meetings, along with the dialog initiated with various youth subcultures say much about the new patriarch’s missionary torch. This can be seen not only in the program documents for this year’s World Russian People’s Council but also in the meeting with the leaders of the biker group Night Wolves. As the patriarch is not in need of any “cheap popularity”, these steps were the result of a conscientious and complex choice. First and foremost, this is a complex decision because such active work with and unusually broad views on the younger generation presents a certain hidden temptation for many Orthodox believers, and it is certain that this danger is recognized by the patriarchate.
The most accurate description of this format of engaging society is a “Chirstian campaign”, with the emphasis on the first word. And the desire to preach to a large audience is nothing to be ashamed of. If there is nothing wrong with a pastor speaking to believers via television, then surely there is nothing wrong with communicating with youth in a live setting. This was real communication, and the patriarch had the courage to speak before perhaps not the most disciplined of crowds and respond to some uncomfortable questions.
We should recognize that Patriarch Kirill is now striving to apply those very same instruments for actively influencing the masses (which is not so much composed of believers and unbelievers as of the undecided) that the Catholic Church successfully employs. After all, Pope John Paul II blessed break-dancers, and his period of papacy is considered a breakthrough era in terms of fostering relations with youth. And even the more reserved and strict Pope Benedict XVI is not going to back away from dialog with youth culture, as this would not even be possible for the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.
It is not yet clear to what extent this missionary policy will be effective in Russia. Here such initiatives oftentimes meet a natural “resistance of the masses”, and not only from the hard-boiled believers but also the automatic perception that large-scale public initiatives, including those of the church, are above all else PR projects (effective or ineffective) that are intended to achieve material gains for a narrow group of people. And this cynical attitude can be explained by the experiences of Russian life over the past decade, with represents perhaps the largest obstacle to taking any steps of this sort.
The interaction of the Russian Orthodox Church and youth subcultures, which was well illustrated by the meeting of the patriarch and the Night Wolves, is an expression of the desire to find a common language with youth rather than a desire for popularity. It appears that the church is beginning to recognize how complicated the younger generation is and how distant the usual church language is from the language of youth. The Russian Orthodox Church still faces the issue of determining that fine line at which the youth subculture ceases to be acceptable either a social or cultural phenomenon. And in actuality, if the church’s intentions develop into something more than declarations, Orthodox missionaries will be facing very difficult and to a large extent thankless work in what to date has been alien territory. At this critical pivot toward marginal movements (which together in essence formulate “youth life” as a social phenomenon) it is clear how serious this missionary mission really is. The church has not set as its goal assimilation of marginal groups into a system of Orthodox youth organizations; however, it is crucial that there is now an understanding of the importance of working in this direction.
The new patriarch and his close colleagues are only beginning to formulate the missionary policy of the church. Until a common language with youth is found, until new formats of engagement are established, mistakes are quite likely, but this is not something to fear. In any case these will be problems related to growth, and with the proper approaches they will be overcome. Of course this remains nothing more than a modest first step, but one wants to believe in the future.
