The ROC’s Political Ambitions: How the Church Interferes with Russia’s Politics
In the heart of Russia, within the intricate tapestry of its society and politics, stands the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) — a bastion of tradition and a controversial emblem of influence. The ROC isn’t merely a spiritual institution; it is a vessel carrying centuries of history, a symbol of national identity, and an actor on the political stage that continues to shape and be shaped by the ebb and flow of Russian life. The ROC has a close relationship with President Vladimir Putin, who sees the Church as a partner in promoting a narrative of Russian exceptionalism and nationalism. The Church also claims authority over the Orthodox Christian world, especially in the former Soviet territories, which has led to conflicts with other Orthodox churches, such as in Ukraine. The Church faces challenges from the younger, more secular generations and the intelligentsia, who question its conservative stances on social and moral issues. The Church’s power in Russia, therefore, is dynamic, contentious, and not without its critics.
The roots of the ROC dig deep, back to the baptism of Rus’ by Prince Vladimir in 988 AD. This pivotal moment not only marked the Christianization of the country but also laid the foundations for a religious identity that would endure for over a millennium. The ROC sees itself as the torchbearer of Byzantine Christianity, a sacred legacy it upholds with fervent pride. But this pride comes with a potent blend of power and responsibility — for the ROC holds under its care the spiritual wellbeing of around 150 million believers, a staggering number that speaks volumes about its pervasive reach. The ROC also claims the spiritual jurisdiction of the Orthodox Christian world, especially in the lands of the former Soviet Union, which has led to conflicts with other Orthodox churches. The ROC is one of the largest and most influential religious organizations in Russia and the world.
This reach extends beyond the purely spiritual realm and into the very sinews of Russian politics. Under President Vladimir Putin, the symbiosis between the state and the ROC has become increasingly apparent. Putin, a leader known for his penchant for grandeur and historical symbolism, has found in the ROC a partner in promulgating a narrative of Russian exceptionalism and nationalism. The Church, in turn, has often sanctified state policies, embedding religious endorsement in the narrative of national interests — be it in the annexation of Crimea, military interventions such as in Syria, or the fortification of conservative social mores against the tides of liberalism. The ROC also supports Putin’s stance on issues such as human rights, democracy, and foreign policy, often portraying the West as a hostile and decadent force that threatens Russia’s sovereignty and values. The ROC has benefited from Putin’s patronage, receiving tax exemptions, property rights, and access to state media and education. The ROC has also been involved in the restoration of historical and cultural monuments, such as the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, which symbolizes the revival of Russian Orthodoxy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The alignment of the ROC with the Kremlin’s imperialistic and nationalist aspirations, however, is not without contention. It treads the treacherous line between becoming a spiritual guide and a political instrument — a dual role that has historically proven to be a source of both strength and vulnerability. Some scholars argue that the ROC’s influence on the Kremlin’s agenda is quite limited, and that the church does not have much independent ability to either set or sway that agenda. Others suggest that the church supports the Kremlin’s policies as a way of preserving the idea of church and state working harmoniously together in “symphony” — a concept that dates back to Byzantine times. However, the church also has its own objectives and motivations, which may sometimes conflict with those of the Kremlin, especially in relation to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Orthodox Christian world. The ROC’s claim over territories like Ukraine and Belarus has led to schisms and tensions within Orthodoxy, as well as geopolitical challenges for Russia.
The ROC’s claim over the spiritual jurisdiction of the Orthodox Christian world, particularly in the lands of the former Soviet Union, adds another layer of complexity. The assertion of authority over territories like Ukraine and Belarus has sown discord, leading to tensions that rupture the very fabric of Orthodoxy. The schism catalyzed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine’s autocephaly in 2019 is emblematic of the interplay between ecclesiastical ambitions and geopolitical realities — a reminder that the spiritual and temporal are inextricably linked. The autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church was opposed by the Russian Orthodox Church, which broke communion with Constantinople and other Orthodox Churches that recognized it. The Ukrainian Church, however, has gained support from some of its neighboring countries, such as Georgia and Moldova, as well as from the majority of its faithful. The autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church is seen by many as a sign of national sovereignty and identity, as well as a way to heal the wounds of the past.
Amidst this powerful presence and influence, the ROC is not impermeable to challenges. The church’s conservative stances on social issues, such as opposing same-sex marriage, abortion, and feminism, its perceived opulence amidst a populace grappling with economic struggles, and the instances of corruption within its clergy, such as the scandal involving Patriarch Kirill’s luxury watch, all draw criticism from various quarters. There’s a growing discourse among the younger, more secular generations and within the intelligentsia, challenging the Church’s entrenched positions on moral and ethical issues. The ROC’s response to these challenges will be telling of its adaptability and resilience. For example, the Church has recently launched a YouTube channel to reach out to the younger audience and to address contemporary topics.
The Church’s power in Russia, therefore, is not a static monolith. It is dynamic, at times contentious, and certainly not without its critics. The ROC is confronted with the task of navigating the tightrope between maintaining its historical and spiritual integrity while engaging with a rapidly changing world that increasingly questions the established order. The ROC faces challenges from both internal and external sources, such as the rise of secularism, the schism with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the criticism of its wealth and corruption, and the pressure from the Kremlin to support its policies. The ROC has to balance its role as a spiritual leader, a national symbol, and a political actor, while also addressing the needs and expectations of its diverse and global flock.
The Church’s power in Russia, therefore, is not a static monolith. It is dynamic, at times contentious, and certainly not without its critics. The ROC is confronted with the task of navigating the tightrope between maintaining its historical and spiritual integrity while engaging with a rapidly changing world that increasingly questions the established order.
As Russia strides into an uncertain future, so too does its Church, carrying the weight of history and the challenge of remaining relevant in a world where the very essence of power, influence, and moral authority is being redefined. The Russian Orthodox Church remains a formidable force, but it must contend with the reality that its power is neither absolute nor unchallenged. It stands at a crossroads, reflecting the nation’s own search for identity and direction in a world that demands both reverence for tradition and an embrace of change.
