At first glance, the Church’s stance on slander and blasphemy seems to call for a straightforward negative response. The Old Testament prescribed punishment for unrepentant blasphemers, as dictated by the third commandment from Sinai: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Ex. 20:7).
The New Testament further clarifies: “..every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men,” and “neither in this world nor in the world to come” (Matt. 12:31-32).
Throughout history, starting with the early Christian emperors and continuing with the 19th-century councils, the Church’s stance on slander and blasphemy has been clear: these were condemned as crimes.
A notable exception is the seven decades of state atheism, when slander and blasphemy against faith and the Church became official policy. Even during periods of relative leniency, like the Great Patriotic War, the primacy of matter was upheld. Soviet society remained Orthodox, as evidenced by the 1939 census showing over 70% identifying as Orthodox. Party propaganda relied on slander and blasphemy due to a lack of arguments against faith.
The revival of Orthodox life post-millennium celebration of Russia’s baptism seemed to bridge the gap between the Church and secular society. However, open borders with the Western world introduced not only ideological but also economic freedom. Concepts like pragmatism and liberal thinking emerged, occasionally sidelining God. Orthodoxy’s insistence on living by the love of Christ and Christian principles clashed with material aspirations, leading to its exploitation for political ends. Terms like “religious electorate” surfaced.
Modernity’s challenges prompted the Church to redefine its stance amid a society where faith and values became expendable for advertising or politics. Asserting that the Church is not a state tool, and emphasizing repentance and holiness, invited accusations and insults, often with slander and blasphemy.
In some way, the Church is accountable for the rise of atheistic and anti-Orthodox rhetoric.
It’s crucial to discern why blasphemy against the Church is prevalent today. Understanding the reasons can help address the consequences.
The persistent relevance of Leskov’s statement that “Russia is baptized, but not enlightened” is often overlooked.
Priests, especially superiors, have become akin to managers and businessmen, focusing on constructing and decorating temples. The construction field dominates priestly ministry, contrary to the Statute and priestly oath, becoming a standard for ministry and favor.
Despite the call to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), the Church’s focus shifted to making disciples, leading to the late introduction of “missiology” in theological curricula and the ongoing preparation of its textbook.
The Church’s emphasis on external embellishments, although necessary, should not define it. It risks being seen as an “organization” addressing issues similar to economic or private entities. The prevalent practice of soliciting “sacrifices for bricks” turns spiritual or mental seekers into contributors to Orthodox indulgences.
Adapting to worldly realities contradicts the Church’s transcendence and invites contempt from those opposed to or unable to embrace Christ.
Another mistake lies in ignoring modernity’s calls, claiming “God cannot be blasphemed.”
True, God remains unblasphemed, but faith embodies a quest for personal deification, manifest in the Church. Indifference to slander, blasphemy, and sacrilege demeans God’s grace, separating believers from Christ. Interpreting the Gospel Beatitudes’ commandment, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you” (Matt. 5:11), as silence or superiority is inappropriate today, when a clear, open stance is possible to “confess God in the Trinity glorified.”
Confession must align with Christ’s love, addressing sin, not the sinner. The principle is: “Do not be silent, do not shout, but love.”
Allowing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit equates to rejecting God’s grace, aligning with demonic forces opposing God’s will. Indifference to blasphemous words against the Son of Man denies His sonship.
Thus, indignation against sacrilege and blasphemy is necessary, yet should avoid personal hostility and malice. Irritability and harshness displease God and invite the critique, “You have no love,” followed by scriptural and patristic citations.
Righteous anger should target sin, not the sinner.
Vitaly Kaplan of “Thoma” offers two sound conclusions.
First, serious religious discourse isn’t an insult to Christians, regardless of the interlocutors’ atheistic or
Leave a Reply