At the Turning Point

Interview with Fr. Alexander Men

In the four-meter parish room in Novaya Derevnya, on his desk, along with the prosphora, lies Galich’s book, with numerous bookmarks. It was here that he was baptized, already an adult. But while we could still obtain books by the exiled Galich, until recently we hardly knew about his books… the books of the theologian and philosopher Alexander Men, which can now be found, occasionally, in the Raritet bookstore. Occasionally. That’s why there are queues “for Men” in various parts of Moscow… People want to hear from him about Nadezhda Mandelstam, with whom he was friends, about Tarkovsky, with whom he studied, about why he had reason to argue with Dudintsev about “White Robes” 20 years ago. People want to know why the Brussels edition of the Bible uses his commentaries. We read his articles in secular magazines, see his performances at the “On the Boards” theater… Time! But he still has to explain: “I’m a person just like you, you understand?” It’s hard to understand. But now we’re closer to that understanding than ever.

– Father Alexander, tell us about your upbringing.

– My father graduated from two universities. He worked as a textile engineer. As a child, under the influence of a teacher, he abandoned his faith, although he didn’t become a militant atheist; he was simply non-religious. My mother, however, discovered faith independently in her youth, lived by the love of Christ, and she raised me in the traditions of the Orthodox Church. As a child, I considered serving God in the fields of science or art; I was interested in biology, history, and drawing. But at the age of 12, I decided to devote myself to church service, and that’s when I wrote my first theological opus. At 15, I was already an altar boy, reading and singing in the choir… By the end of school, I had mastered almost the entire seminary curriculum, but I continued studying natural science and history. My spiritual mentor, a friend of our family, Boris Alexandrovich Vasiliev, an ethnographer, anthropologist, theologian, and literary scholar, supported me in my quest to combine science and faith. I never saw a contradiction between faith and knowledge.

– Father Alexander, you once said that dissent is a quality of the soul…

– Dissent, in my opinion, is an individual’s defense of the right to perceive reality in their own way. Not succumbing to group notions. Not blindly and uncritically accepting so-called collective notions, which date back to the primitive communal system. When an individual questions them, they demonstrate their natural independence, their freedom. But when such personal evaluation is absent, the law of the crowd operates, and a person becomes a part of the masses, easily manipulated. “Who knows then whether we will be able to attain those heights of the soul when people are allowed to transcend the masses?”

“Certain circles of our society, particularly in the cultural and creative intelligentsia, have taken this goal seriously. The first steps have been taken, of course, but they are very important ones. I believe the revolutionary nature of Gorbachev’s movement lies in the fact that for the first time he placed his bets on the people, not the masses. After all, the people are a whole that recognizes itself in those who possess the most free and independent thinking. Therefore, the intelligentsia is the most important representative of the people. It is their voice. Naturally, not always correct and adequate, but still, it is the voice not of the crowd, but of the people.”

“Could you give examples from history where dissent was a good thing?”

“Take the history of Russian literature. Tolstoy passionately denounced social injustice and many traditions. And although he vainly tried to create a universal religion from the fragments of Eastern faiths and called it a renewed Christianity.” This is the tragedy of his personality. But we will always admire his moral pathos. Chaadayev, Gogol, Saltykov, and Dostoevsky were all denouncers and dissenters…

– How then should we regard our literature of the period of stagnation?

– If it was real literature, it almost always had at least an undercurrent of free thinking. It was mostly science fiction—it wasn’t so closely watched.

– Is that why you love it so much?

– No, not only because science fiction offers a lot of scope for thought. But some of the Strugatsky brothers’ novels clearly challenged the era of stagnation and were difficult to publish; they were suppressed, yet their books still came out. Such as “Inhabited Island” and “Snail on the Slope.” I consider “Snail” a work of genius, the best work of those years overall. Incidentally, it was never published in its entirety. Parts of the book are scattered across various magazines and almanacs. “While we were awaiting new books from the Strugatskys, your readers were waiting for books from you. But, as we know, theological books aren’t published here.”

“This March marked 30 years since my first article appeared in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. Several dozen of them were subsequently published. At the same time, I was writing books for friends and parishioners. I didn’t put my name on them, since my readers knew who the author was. Of course, they never saw the light of day—they were distributed in samizdat. And then, in 1968, unexpectedly, my book was published in Belgium.”

“The Son of Man” is about the life and person of Christ. Publishers from the center of Eastern Christianity gave it a pseudonym, as did other books. Only later did they begin to be published under my name.

“Father Alexander, all this time they’ve been publishing Russian theologians abroad, mostly dead ones; of those still alive, only you and Dudko. Forgive my curiosity, but it’s natural. Do they pay royalties for theological books?”

“Russian publications there are royalty-free. I’m grateful to them for not having to pay for ink and paper.

Russian religious philosophers are known throughout the world. The twentieth century is proud of them. Only here, until recently, were they unknown creatures.

And this is not surprising. Church scholarly thought was completely destroyed here. All theological schools were closed, printed publications liquidated. All theologians either perished or lost their homeland. This dealt a serious blow to Orthodox theology.”

“We know that atheism didn’t appear in 1917. Do you see a difference between atheism before and after the Revolution, or is there none?” Atheism has always been atheism. Only “before” it was an expression of individual will and a free rejection of faith, while “after” it became profitable, supported and protected by the state. And this is already a violation of the principle of the secular state. They say that the church entered the Constantinian era when it received imperial support in the 4th century. So, some historians ironically say that since 1920, atheism entered its own “Constantine era,” becoming our state religion, and not at all a free worldview. Moreover, it behaved extremely cowardly, because it prevented other opinions from being openly expressed, exploiting its privileged position.

– How do you think the state’s attitude toward the church has changed?

– I think that at first, the church was still respected. Later, in the 1920s, when church schisms began, when it was greatly weakened and its authority was lost in many sectors of society, this was used for the total suppression of religion. Regarding Stalin’s wartime policies… It was a tactical ploy. Maneuvers tailored to the interests of his military allies and the general mood of the masses.

– They wrote he was the best student in the seminary…

– He was hardly the best student. And overall, he was mediocre—a cunning schemer, a pathological power-hungry person. Even his contributions to Marxism are nothing more than a political myth.

– Do you believe, Father Alexander, that religion had nothing to do with his cult?

– Quite directly. He consciously sought to eliminate religion and replace it with his own cult, because it was politically advantageous for him. He understood that it wasn’t mere fear that should strengthen his power as a leader and his complete devotion. If he were considered a supreme being, a deity, that devotion would be assured.

– And did you believe in him in your youth?

– I think I was inoculated against the Stalin cult early on. It was during Stalin’s time, at the market, among nails and guinea pigs, that I found… old books by Vladimir Solovyov and Sergei Bulgakov, and read them… with a shudder. At a time when there was no samizdat or tamizdat, and only nonsense untouchable was published in philosophy, I discovered a world of great thinkers.

– “I studied biology in Moscow and Irkutsk” – that’s what they write about you, Father Alexander, a priest, and for us it’s astonishing…

– After school, I decided to graduate from university. And seminary after I’d completed the required years of service. Biology was my hobby. Naturally, it was my choice. Our Moscow Fur Institute was disbanded under Khrushchev. And after our second year, we were sent to Irkutsk. During my student years, as in school, I continued to intensively study theological and religious philosophy and church regulations. That’s how I mastered the basics of the academic curriculum. As for biology… I never got to work in that field. I was expelled during the state exams—dismissed for being an active church member.

– How did you feel after that?

– I took it as a sign from God. And so I joined the army. And in the summer of 1958, at the age of 23, I was ordained. Later, I graduated from the seminary and academy by correspondence.

– If religious policy had been different back then, would you have become a priest or preferred science?

– My decision wasn’t influenced by politics. But if the situation had been different, I probably would have combined scientific work with pastoral and theological work, as Vasman, Teilhard de Chardin, and Powell did in the West.

– Times are changing here, too. And now some clergymen can combine their work with work in the Soviet Union. How do you assess the election campaign in our country?

– The most positive—it’s the first experiment with some elements of democracy. Of course, they can’t be introduced completely and all at once. Because democracy isn’t a rabbit pulled out of a hat by a magician. A single election isn’t enough. Democracy germinates in people’s minds for a long time, in the traditions of society. A society lacking democratic traditions is ill-prepared for democracy, so its principles must be developed. We must work patiently, persistently, and persistently. We must conduct genuine elections in such a way that people get used to it. So that they finally believe it’s serious, not a game.

– Who, do you think, will benefit from them after the games are put aside, is it more difficult? Is it difficult for young people?

– No! No! They’re mostly indifferent to politics. If anyone has a hard time, it’s the old people. I have an aunt, an elderly party member, a communist. She… she can’t even stand television. It’s excruciating for her to watch something that destroys mythology. And I always told her: our time will come. We are now witnessing the fifth Russian revolution – after 1905, the February, October, and Khrushchev revolutions. I understand that the risk of a fifth revolution is very high; I don’t know whether it will succeed. But that it has begun is certain.

– And at the same time, we ponder and wonder: will anything move forward or not, and who will decide this: the top or the bottom?

– For now, from the top. For now, that’s how it is. Because the fifth revolution… it comes from above. And it must come from above, because at the bottom there is disunity and inertia, the resistance is a tremendous force. And at the same time, you can’t immediately…

So, the time has come. And young people are being criticized for living on everything, being well-fed, yet still wanting something, going crazy. How do you feel about these criticisms, and do you criticize them? Was the film “Is It Easy to Be Young?” a revelation for you?

It was a revelation for those who believed that the story of the struggle for some social ideal was a struggle for a secure, well-fed, and clothed future. That if only everyone were provided for, everything would be wonderful. We know, from a Christian perspective, that this is not true. Provision for everything, and we don’t even have that, still doesn’t solve the purely human problem—the problem of the spirit. “Man does not live by bread alone,” so I understand the tragedy of moral instability—in addition to bread, spiritual ideals are also needed, and they are absent. The problem isn’t that people are well-fed and well-shod, but that they have nothing to live on. Because it is impossible to live on what was offered to them. Materialism is untenable here.

– Is that why more and more crimes are being committed among young people these days?

– It’s the result of profound moral and spiritual, ideological and social crises. We’ve been artificially impoverishing our spiritual culture. While it should have been developing organically, they tried to break it, spur it on, or curtail it through ideological selection. That’s why there was a rift in spiritual tradition. It’s not surprising that such dark elements have surfaced. They can only be tamed by spirituality. If this principle is absent, if a person has no understanding of it, a beast emerges within. Worse than a beast is a demon.

– Tell me, have you found common ground with your children? Are they religious people?

– Yes. I think so. I explained everything to them from the very beginning. I explained the situation in the country. I spoke to them about the truth, about God, about life. At school, everything was different. To believe or not to believe—they made their choice… Their daughter graduated with a medical degree but works as an icon painter. Their son is a musician in a rock band. They are believers.

—Father Alexander, is it only the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’ that has changed attitudes toward the church?

—I think this is merely an appropriate and good reason. I am confident that our government leaders have realized that discrimination against millions of believers and disdain for centuries-old moral and cultural values ​​have brought no good. Moreover, the hostility toward believers, instilled by anti-religious propaganda, brought division and discord into society, creating a large category of “third-class” people. This was dangerous, unfair, senseless. And, of course, undemocratic. After all, one of the first conditions of democracy is freedom of personal belief. And this freedom also presupposes the free exchange of information, which was limited in our country.

—Now local authorities have no right to dictate, say, whether bells should ring in their territory or not. Are any further acts needed to eliminate constitutional inconsistencies and strengthen religious freedom?

– Decrees and regulations are certainly necessary. The struggle will continue. But local authorities can do far more than they are entitled to. Don’t think that a phone call from Moscow can now bring many to heel. Local authorities remain local authorities.

– And not only in relation to the church.

– The new guidelines have encountered many difficulties. The reason is simple: rigidity of thinking, an inability to quickly adapt, to understand the changes. They have happened too quickly, and people live by inertia. After all, officials are the most cautious people in the world. That’s why they are so resilient—from the times of ancient Babylon to the present day. For example, a community asks to register, but local authorities refuse. Trips to Moscow and back begin. Now this is often reported in the press, but previously it was reflected in “Radio Voices” programs. Priests Yakunin and Eshliman spoke on this issue. But they were stripped of their right to serve. Eshliman died, and Yakunin ended up in a camp, then in exile. Now he’s been released and serving, actively working.

– They say you’ve had your share of troubles.

– In my youth, I had a spiritual mentor, Father Pyotr Shipkov. He spent 30 years in camps and exile. Then he was rehabilitated. Given his ordeals, I feel a bit awkward even talking about what happened to me. I’ll say this: during those difficult years, I learned to appreciate every minute. I thank God for the opportunity to serve without interruption for over four decades.

– Despite all this, many consider you a heretic.

– All this is empty speculation. I’ve never defended teachings condemned by the Church. Orthodoxy is steeped in a spirit of freedom, and differences in so-called “theologumena,” or theological opinions, are tolerated. But sometimes people who forget this dismiss ideas they don’t like as heresy. That’s all.

Judging by your publications in secular journals, you write for both believers and non-believers…

For me, all people are God’s children. And I’ve never believed in non-believers. For me, an atheist is a believer who hasn’t realized his faith. Because God lives in the soul of every person.

“And you consider being in the Party and the Komsomol compatible with religion?”

“In many communist parties around the world, this is permitted. The Church doesn’t dictate a person’s political beliefs. But according to the charters of our Party and our Komsomol, such a combination is not recognized.”

“And do you think faith protects against crime?”

“It’s not an absolute guarantee that a person is immune from crime. But it contains a powerful inner impulse directed against evil. And that’s what’s important. Perhaps much more important than the fear of criminal punishment. Crime is more strongly inhibited from within than from without.”

“And if priests were allowed to serve in prisons now, would you go?”

“Of course! There would definitely be people there who need us. Incidentally, the law doesn’t prohibit clergy from visiting prisons. But in practice, this is permitted extremely rarely. I know of only one or two exceptional cases.”

“You often quote in English…”

“Now everything is in English.” Naturally, I don’t have to talk to anyone, and I rarely read fiction, only science fiction. Mainly philosophical and biblical works—that’s my main theme in general.

– Then I’d like to know what you think of the rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar”?

– It’s musical apocryphal. Anyone who’s read the libretto knows what ridiculous and pathetic words are written there. But the music is excellent. People should express their feelings in different ways. We shouldn’t dictate art and creativity. I really like the opera’s music. But the libretto is terrible. And it’s good that it’s hard to understand what they’re singing.

– Father Alexander, could you have imagined a year ago having several lectures a day, your creative evening at the Central House of Writers, articles in “Foreign Literature” and “Horizon”?

– Now I feel like an arrow that has been held taut for a long time. I always did what my duty required, but the scope was limited. The Apostle Paul said, “Woe is me if I do not proclaim the Gospel.” But all my dreams have come true. Except for one so far—working in film. Seriously! Some of my theoretical works could be adapted for the screen.

— Theoretical theological works?

— Yes. I’d like to make a series of documentaries about the foundations of Christianity. My ideal would probably be to make a film about the Bible. Both a documentary and a feature film. I think that will come true to some extent.

— Given your busy schedule? What does a typical day look like?

— Every clergyman adapts his or her day to the circumstances of their life. Personally, I have a fairly strict schedule, both days and even hours. When there’s a service, I get up early, around five. I go to the church in Novaya Derevnya. There’s a service, confession, religious services, and then conversations and fellowship with parishioners who need it. Then, if there are no sick calls, I go about my business. Whenever possible, I walk to the station instead of strolling. I’m a suburbanite—I don’t go to the store for potatoes. We have a garden. On weekends, I write from morning until lunch, and after lunch, I spend my time on housework, letters, editing, and relaxing—books, music, TV shows. Like all Christians, I read the Bible and the works of the saints every day and devote a certain amount of time to prayer. I hardly ever go to the theater. I love the cinema. However, I rarely have time for it. I usually limit myself to, as they say now, “watching the box.”

— And may I ask one last question? It’s a tricky one. Was there ever an end of the world—Atlantis, a great flood? And will there ever be one?

— The second question is more pressing. And your newspaper wrote about it in the most serious tones. As for the first—honestly, the concept is tempting. It captivates us with romantic images of a lost civilization. But I have to disappoint you. There’s no solid evidence that there was a civilization that perished in the flood. It’s a shame, isn’t it?

As for the imminent end of the world, I think… I believe that even if a catastrophe occurs on Earth, the human race will still survive and continue to evolve. And the more it learns from its past mistakes, the less it will repeat them in the future. Unfortunately, we rarely do so. And we pay a heavy price for it.

Source: https://damian.center/men/

Note: The interview with Father Alexander Men (1935-1990) is from the late 1980s, when the Orthodox missionary gathered thousands of people from the collapsing Soviet Union, seeking faith, to his talks.