The Russian Orthodox Church in the system of socio-political interaction during the Great Patriotic War (using the example of the Penza region)

Sukhova Ol'ga Alexandrovna Doctor of History Dean of the Faculty of History and Languages, Penza State University 440026, Russia, Penza region, Penza, Krasnaya str., 40 savtemp@yandex.ru Inozemtsev Ivan Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0003-3883-2526 Assistant, Department of History of Russia and Methods of Teaching History, Penza State University 440026, Russia, Penza region, Penza, Krasnaya str., 40 Kerskij@mail.ru

Kolpakova Ol'ga Vasilyevna PhD in History Senior Lecturer, Department of History of Russia and Methods of Teaching History, Penza State University 440026, Russia, Penza region, Penza, Krasnaya str., 40 al.olga3443@yandex.ru

The period 1943-1953 is defined by modern researchers as the time of the "religious revival" in the USSR, when the Russian Orthodox Church was able to partially restore its position ^{[1, p. 357.]}. The domestic historiography of the problem under consideration has not yet overcome the stage of formation, and so far we can only talk about the formation of the subject field with the allocation of its key directions, such as: factors of mitigation of anti-religious policy; periodization of state-church relations; organization and activity of the office of the authorized representatives of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and regional executive committees; peculiarities of the organization of church administration; opening of churches and organization of the spiritual life of believers; pastoral ministry of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War and in the post-war years; repressive practice against clergy ^[2]. We can also talk about the beginning of the "maturation" of research concepts, about the gradual transition from the absolutization of the "totalitarian" assessment to a pragmatic approach. In particular, the activities of local commissioners are interpreted more constructively, presented in the context of everyday life as an important channel of socio-political communication, within which believers had the opportunity to contact a specific official to resolve vital issues related to religious policy ^{[2, pp. 70-71]}. The relevance of the development of the topic of socio-political interaction between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state is proved by the project currently being implemented to publish a 6-volume history of the confessional policy of the Soviet state in 1917-1991 ^[3-6].

Of decisive importance for the construction of research concepts is the consideration of the incentives for an ideological turn, the reasons for the actual rejection of the God-fighting policy, and "reconciliation" with the Church. Indeed, the persecuted and persecuted Russian clergy received the opportunity to have a personal audience with I. V. Stalin: a historic meeting took place on September 4, 1943. Metropolitan Sergius (during Stalin's studies at the theological seminary, bishop, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) outlined the necessary conditions for the normalization of state–confessional relations (V. Tsypin, archpriest. The History of the Russian Church // Electronic resource. URL:  https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Vladislav_Tsypin/istorija-russkoj-tserkvi-1917-1997/7 date of appeal: 01.10.2023.). The main and most acute problem, in the assessments of the metropolitan, was the need to create a central leadership of the Church and the election of the Patriarch of All Russia, as well as the opening of parishes and the resumption of parish life, and, consequently, the rejection of God-fighting practices. Among other things, they discussed the training of clergy and the opening of theological seminaries, the resumption of church periodicals, and, finally, the most painful – the release of repressed bishops from places of detention and exile. In many respects, the proposals of the Soviet leadership were ahead of the boldest requests of the metropolitan. Having shown truly "Bolshevik pace" and allocated special air transport, the state ensured the convocation of the Bishops' Council in Moscow on September 8, 1943 (V. Tsypin, Archpriest. The History of the Russian Church // Electronic resource. URL:  https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Vladislav_Tsypin/istorija-russkoj-tserkvi-1917-1997/7 , date of appeal: 01.10.2023.). In 1943, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was established to coordinate state-confessional interaction, and a year later – the Council for Religious Cults ^{[1, p. 357.]}.

The striking change in the views of the Soviet leadership is explained by the desire to demonstrate the openness of the USSR to the perception of liberal values on the eve of the Tehran Conference, i.e., foreign policy and propaganda tasks. In addition, the liberation of the occupied territories required a more flexible policy towards the feelings of believers: during the occupation, the German leadership authorized the activities of parishes and allowed churches to open. The experience of the tragedy of the loss of freedom and Homeland, the loss of loved ones, served as an incentive for an unprecedented rise in religious consciousness. Thus, D. Pospelovsky provides data on the baptism of 200 thousand people in Crimea in December 1942 alone. In Rostov, during the first year of the war, the number of active churches increased from one to eight ^{[7, pp. 184, 216]}.   

One cannot ignore the consistent patriotic position of Metropolitan Sergius: his address to the faithful was made on June 22, 1941, on the feast day of All Saints of the Russian land. The pastoral message with the blessing of the national feat was sent to the parishes in spite of the prohibitions on the interference of the Church in the affairs of the state. On January 5, 1943, he sent a telegram to Stalin asking for permission to open a bank account to make charitable donations collected in the country's temples. By October 1944, the contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church to the defense fund amounted to 150 million rubles. ^{[7, pp. 182-183, 186]}.

Among other things, the rapid revival of parish life testified to the preservation of a high level of religiosity of the population, despite the massive onslaught of the state during the "godless" five-year plans. Thus, according to M. I. Odintsovo, before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, 8 thousand parishes operated in the USSR, and by 1947 their number had grown to 14 thousand ^{[8, pp. 14, 100, 220-477.]}. In the Penza region in 1941, only two churches remained active: Mitrofanovskaya – in Penza and Kazan – in Kuznetsk. On October 1, 1944, a total of 2 active and 504 closed churches were counted in the region, of which 476 buildings were occupied for economic and cultural and educational needs (State Archive of the Penza Region (hereinafter – GAPO). F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 12 vol.). On July 1, 1945, the number of operating churches and houses of worship in the region increased to 9, including: in Penza – 2, in Issinsky district (Nikolo-Pestrovka village) – 1, in Kolyshleisky (Sushchevka village) – 1, in Kuznetsk district (Kuznetsk and Nizhny Ablyazovo village) – 2, in the Poimsky district (Poim and Ershovo villages) – 2, in Chaadaevsky (Lopatino village) – 1. All new churches were opened in 1945 (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. 3. l. 25-26). In the third quarter of 1945, 7 more temples were allowed to open (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 36). According to A. I. Dvorzhansky, by 1947 the total number of revived centers of religious life reached the level of 30 churches and houses of worship. And yet, in 16 of the 41 districts of the region there were no functioning temples at all ^{[9, pp. 344, 352]}. 1945 and 1946 were marked by the highest intensity in terms of the number of appeals from believers for the opening of churches. Thus, according to I. N. Garkin, 55 petitions were received in 1944, 168 in 1945, 192 in 1946, 67 in 1947, and 35 in 1948. In total, from 1944 to 1949, Orthodox believers from 177 settlements sent about 600 applications to various authorities with a request to open a church. The authorities supported only 89 appeals from citizens, out of the number submitted in 1944-1947 ^{[10, p. 104]}.

The rights and duties of the authorized regional commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR were determined by Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 1095 dated October 20, 1943 and the decision of the Executive Committee of the Penza Regional Council of Workers' Deputies, and approved by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of a special instruction on February 5, 1944 (A guide to the funds of the State Archive of the Penza Region of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods / comp. L. N. Kushkova, S. V. Belyaeva, O. V. Vovkotrub, O. A. Ugarkina. Penza: b/i, 2023. p. 42.). The practice of office documentation developed only by the middle of 1944 (quarterly reports, business correspondence), nevertheless, the complex of materials presented in the funds of the State Archive of the Penza region reflects almost all areas of modern research ^{[10, pp. 103-112]}.

The significance of the channel of interaction between the state and the church in the system of local government can be judged by the characteristics of the commissioner's working conditions. As follows from the report of N. I. Lysmankin, Commissioner for the Russian Orthodox Church in the Penza region, for the third quarter of 1944, he assumed his duties on July 12, 1944, having received a position as an addition to the work of chairman of the regional committee of the Union of workers of political education institutions. Lysmankin complained that "the conditions for the work of the commissioner have not yet been created by the regional executive committee, despite repeated reminders to the chairman of the regional executive committee and the secretary. To this day, there has not been a separate room for the reception of believers and the bishop. In response to the importunate demands about this on my part and on the part of the authorized council for religious cults of the regional executive committee, in the end, it was proposed to look for premises for themselves, since there are no vacant rooms in the regional executive committee." Moreover, the two commissioners had to huddle at the same table in the general department. Lysmankin could not even hire a secretary-typist provided for by the commissioner's staff "for lack of a workplace" (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 10-10 vol.).

In total, in 1944, the commissioner received 56 applications for the opening of churches, but all of them were lost during the inspection in the corridors of Soviet power.  It should be noted that the pragmatic approach to the organization of interaction between the management structures, the priesthood and the faithful of the commissioner reflects the temporary tactical nature of the "reconciliation" strategy. So, Lysmankin writes about the illegal activities of the former priest Dukhovnikov, who conducted searches on the houses of believers and the arrest of the latter "through the NKVD." Consideration of the complaint from the authorized believers of the village of Lomovka in the Bolshoy Vyassky district for the illegal conversion of the church into an MTS workshop, although it was stopped, but the regional executive committee appealed to the resolution of the Central Committee in this matter, which authorized the placement of MTS on the basis of a complex of temple buildings (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. L. 10 on. – 11 vols.).

Lysmankin considers holding a general meeting of believers on the opening of a church in the village of Koludarov in the Saltykovsky district (with permission and with the participation of representatives of the village council) as a violation of the instructions for the commissioners. At that time, according to the "instructions of the Council", signatures of 20 believers were required to submit a petition indicating their age, occupation and place of residence (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 13). At the same time, the situation described by the commissioner acts as irrefutable evidence in favor of the strength of the religious basis of the self-consciousness of the Soviet peasantry: the mentioned meeting of 280 people was held with the participation of former priest P. Klyushnev, about whom it was decided to petition "the patriarchate" (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 13). While waiting for the consideration of petitions, prayer houses and services were opened "spontaneously" in a number of villages, and it was common practice to make requests at home. Both were illegal and required the immediate intervention of the commissioner (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 20).

Reporting to the Council on the movement of petitions in 1944, Lysmankin actually acknowledged the existence of an unspoken policy to curb the process of "religious revival." Thus, of the 56 applications of believers received in 1943-1944, 13 were considered by the regional executive committee, 12 were rejected and only 1 petition was granted. And this is in conditions when there were no functioning churches in 34 of the 39 districts of the region. In 1944, only on the opening of churches and houses of worship, a total of 83 visitors were received by the commissioner (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 18-18 vol.).

The main reasons for the refusal to open the church were: recognition of the dilapidation of the buildings in which services were planned to be held, as well as the use of temple complexes for an MTS workshop, a public canteen, a regional house of culture, etc., despite the fact that all converted churches were closed earlier by decision of the general meetings of citizens (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 20).

Nevertheless, the movement of believers increased from year to year, which was officially recognized by the commissioner in the accounting documentation. So, only in the third quarter of 1945, the number of districts from which no applications from believers were received decreased from 12 to 8. A positive solution to the issue became an additional incentive for the population, which contributed to an increase in the number of petitions from those areas where churches had already been opened (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. L. 28). In total, during this reporting period, Lysmankin prepared and sent to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church conclusions on temples: in the village of Solovtsovka of the Kondolsky district – on the opening of the Trinity-Sergius Church, in the village of Kalinovka of the Pachelmsky district – Dmitrievsky Church, in the village of Khovanshchina of the Bekovsky district – Vvedenskaya Church, in the village of Malaya Izhmora of the Zemetchinsky district – Trinity Church and Saltykovo village, the same district – the Arkhangelsk Church. These villages fully satisfied the conditions of organizing parish life in the Soviet way: all appeals came from significant groups of believers (up to 500 people), there was no documentary evidence of the closure of churches (therefore, in the 1930s these churches were closed administratively), there were no functioning churches in the districts before the petition was submitted, and finally, the consent of the faithful was obtained to repair the church premises at their own expense and at their own expense (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 29-30).

A separate area of activity of the commissioner was the control of charitable collections of parishioners to the defense fund and for military needs in general. So, in 1943/44, the Mitrofanov community of Penza collected and transferred to various patriotic purposes in the amount of 930 thousand rubles and in kind (collection of warm clothes) in the amount of 52 thousand rubles. Of the total amount of 930 thousand rubles, 735 thousand rubles were collected in 1943, and the remaining 195 thousand rubles were collected during the first half of 1944 (GAPO. F. r–2391. Op. 1. d. 3. L. 7). The Commissioner had to consider in detail the reasons for the reduction in revenues, taking into account every detail: a reduction in the number of worshippers in connection with summer field work; deterioration of market conditions in the market and a decrease in church revenues from sales of prosphorae and candles; harvesting firewood for heating the church building in winter; and, finally, the bishop's desire for personal gain, and not to increase the collection of "funds to the Homeland Defense fund" (GAPO. F. R.-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. L. 7).

Bishop Kirill (Pospelov), in turn, had to find ways to increase income for patriotic purposes: "in addition to collecting donations from believers for defense by plate collection during each Sunday service, he decided to hold two religious and patriotic services every week," all proceeds from which will go to the national defense Fund. The way out of this situation was seen by the local clergy as the opening of churches in the districts of the region and in the city of Penza itself – the Myrrh-bearing Church, which would significantly increase revenues "for patriotic purposes" (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 7).

The results of the "church-patriotic work" in the Penza region in 1944 can be presented in the following table:

Table 1

The state of Church-patriotic work

in the Penza region in 1944

Sources: GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 12 vol., 15.

Thus, in 1944, two operating parishes collected over 2.7 million rubles for the purpose of defense and support for families of military personnel and the disabled. The pastoral participation in the consolidation of society and the formation of patriotic consciousness has become an equally significant contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The commissioner's opposition to the attempts of the district authorities under the guise of patriotic goals to impose arbitrary levies on the Church is also indicative (for example, "to ask the bishop for funds to buy a horse for Sobes") (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 14).

The position of Bishop Mikhail (Postnikov), regular references in sermons to the decisions of the local council and the speech of the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, G. G. Karpov, caused a patriotic upsurge among the faithful, which was reflected in the receipt of funds to the fund to help children and families of veterans. So, in January 1945, 200 thousand rubles were collected in Penza alone, in February – 100 thousand rubles, in March – 100 thousand rubles (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 22).

In the third quarter of 1945, the churches of the region contributed 351,720 rubles to the funds to help children and families of fallen soldiers of the Red Army, the disabled of the Patriotic War and the 4th State Loan of Victory. According to the commissioner, the faithful expressed special gratitude to the authorities for allowing the bell ringing: "the bishop replied with a telegram of thanks addressed to Comrade Stalin with the message that 150,000 rubles had been collected by the faithful" (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. L. 32). It should be noted that the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated August 22, 1945 on the permission of bell ringing, on granting parish communities the rights of a legal entity and on taking into account the needs of church communities in building materials when planning, in essence, regulated the limits of "reconciliation" between the state and the Church in the conditions of the end of the war. Already in July 1948, in response to the holding of mass prayer services in the field "on the occasion of idleness", N. I. Lysmankin received an instructive letter from the Council on the need to suppress any actions that "warm up" the religiosity of the population (mass prayer services, distribution of photographs of the bishop in the diocese, missionary activities of the bishop, etc.). The facts caused particular indignation of the higher authorities approval of prayer services by the chairmen of councils and collective farms with the provision of supplies to the clergy (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 5. l. 18).

The actions of the commissioner for the organization of civil service of the Church were separately regulated. So, in January 1946, the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church pointed out to Lismankin that he was negligent in compiling reports on church life in the region, noting that in the section on the patriotic activities of the church, he evasively reported that "... the clergy conducts conversations based on evangelical and apostolic readings with the deduction of moral or political morality," while time, as there is no information about the content of the conversations (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 45).

Fixing the patriotic content of sermons and conversations ("the clergy set out to develop in believers a fervent love for the Motherland, for our Government and the brilliant Leader and commander Comrade I. V. Stalin") remained an important area of work of N. I. Lysmankin throughout 1945-1953 ^{[10, p. 104]}. According to the accounting documentation, "the incentive to contribute money to the "Peace Fund" in order to "weaken the economy of the church and direct church funds to socially useful purposes" remained a significant area of activity of executive bodies in the 1960s. So, in 1965, the provision of the patriotic direction of the church's activities amounted to 150,200 rubles, including 125,550 rubles in the cities and working settlements of the region (GAPO. F. r–2391. Op. 1. d. 20. l. 42).

Nevertheless, the above materials testify in favor of the formation of a positive and viable model of interaction between the government and the Church. During the Great Patriotic War, the general trend of changes built a system of socio-political communications in the direction from a total ban on the organization of religious life and the suppression of manifestations of religious feeling to the very effective inclusion of parish communities in solving national tasks.  Institutionally, Soviet society became more complex, not only the mission of the Church to form patriotic consciousness was revised and revived, but the functionality of state authorities and management gradually changed. And now the Commissioner for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church decides on the purchase of a horse for the transport needs of the diocese, conducting a telephone to the bishop's apartment in the church gatehouse, is engaged in the eviction of funeral home workers from adjacent premises, etc. (GAPO. F. r-2391. Op. 1. d. 3. l. 30). Thus, with all the limitations, we can talk about a constructive dialogue that not only strengthened the system, but also created new opportunities for the realization of social needs.