Deacon Andrei Kuraev (1963- ), professor at the Moscow Theological Academy (MDA), and popular preacher
An Interview with Fr Deacon Andrei Kuraev
Vladimir Leigoda, Chief Editor of “Foma” magazine
Fr Andrei, why is the Church so unfair to women? It does not allow them to be priests, they must cover their heads at all times [in services], the wife must obey her husband, etc. Why does she have to occupy such an inferior position?
Fr Andrei Kuraev
How does this talk about “injustice” appear? First, we tell people that they have certain rights, which they have never suspected before, and then, we declare them deprived of them! For example, a person lives quite happily without a CD-ROM. Then, suddenly, we tell them that all worthy people have CD-ROMs, but, that the larcenous communist régime robbed him of the right to own one. Thus, the person who never knew about CD-ROMs starts to think that his main goal in life is to fight for the right to own a CD-ROM. We can apply the same logic to the problem at hand.
It is also important to distinguish actual rights and their violation from other things. Besides, we cannot sum up the life of mankind by its struggle for, and enjoyment of, rights alone. In addition to the rights people have, there is also a space for service in their everyday life. Thus, a priest is a priestly servant. He does not become a person with rights of a priest; rather, he enters into the service of the priesthood.
If we go on discussing “discrimination” against women in the Church we will find facts that look like bias against women, mainly in books (namely, texts about women in ascetic guidelines for monks) and among certain parochial practices. However, we have to remember that in all cultures, in all countries, through all the centuries, literature, like culture and politics, has always been a male field. The Church has only preserved a very small amount of theological documents by female Christians. These are some sayings of the so-called ammas (we use the word mother, in Egypt they say amma; amma means mother, while abba stands for father). We know only a few distinctive sayings of the ammas. In general, church literature was literature written by men.
It is only now that we witness a birth of female Orthodox Christian theology, marked by such notable names as Tatiana Goricheva in Paris, Olesia Nikolaeva and Irina Siluianova in Moscow etc. There are also remarkable Orthodox Christian philosophers such as Piama Gaidenko and Renata Galtseva. There are many interesting and bright individuals, but, this phenomenon is very new. What is more, the Church has nothing against such works. The Holy Trinity-St Sergius Lavra is publishing books by Siluanova and by Nikolaeva. The Lavra is a very conservative monastery, but, in this case, it is showing a very laudable originality.
Monks wrote traditional monastic literature for insiders. The elder addressed his novices, who, as he knew certainly, had basic sexual instincts, and were not eunuchs. This instinct was most commonly oriented in a normal way toward females. Therefore, the elder said, “be careful to avoid contacts with young women so that there will be no grounds for any temptations or impure thoughts, etc”. In short, it is a basic ascetical principle. By the way, these maxims are common in all the religions with an ascetic tradition; for example, Buddhism has a very similar set of rules.
Vladimir Leigoda
Are you trying to say that there is no discrimination meant here?
Fr Andrei
Yes. What is more, if one reads the letters written by the elders of convents, we would have found the same guidelines regarding young men there. “Avoid contacts with young men so you would not carry their images in your head; do not meet them, and do not talk to them”. The point is not that a woman is worse than a man, or vice versa, but, that normal human beings naturally have erotic impulses towards the opposite sex.
If the goal of monasticism is to control this impulse, not eliminating it, but, transforming it into love for Christ, then, in convents, the rules will say to be careful when communicating with young men, and in monasteries, be careful when dealing with young women. Once again, I would like to point out that because the literature has been male-oriented; there is an impression that the Church has something against women as such. In reality, we only have a few elementary ascetic principles. Finally, there are some local discriminative customs, and, for the most part, those customs are pagan borrowings.
Today, it is quite the thing to say that Christianity lowered the status of women, while pagan religions glorified her. To see whether this is true or not, let us make a small experiment. Let us divide a blank sheet of paper into two sides, left and right. On the right side, let us write down “good” and “light”, and on the left, “evil” and “darkness”. Now, on which side should we write the word “woman”, and on which side the word “man”, according to folklore, myths, and philosophies of pagan religions? Instead of guessing, let us remember the Taoist symbol of Yin and Yang, and it will make the picture clear. In many non-Christian cultures, woman’s essence was associated with darkness, destruction, and chaos. The Bible’s narration about the creation of the first human beings and the first woman is quite opposite to this view.
Vladimir Leigoda
How? By the creation of a woman out of a rib? Men like to joke that the rib is the only bone that does not have marrow.
Fr Andrei
This is a witty joke, but, it has no nothing to do with the words of the Bible. If you read the first chapter of Genesis carefully, you will not miss the fact that man was created from outer material, that is, nothingness, dust. However, woman was created from inner sacred material; she was taken from the heart’s region (the rib). Adam received a wife in the Garden of Eden, not earlier. She was a child of the Garden. Man was created outside of Eden, but, woman was a Heavenly being. Afterwards, when Adam saw the woman for the first time, he said very strange words, “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”.
We are so used to these words today that we do not notice their novelty. This is a formula for a classic matriarchy. A man leaves his father and mother, and comes to live in his wife’s house. In all subsequent cultures, the opposite was true; the bride left her parents and came to live with her husband. Even now, if a man moves into his new wife’s home, it seems abnormal. The Bible is initially suggesting something directly opposite. Then, however, everything has changed because of the Fall.
Vladimir Leigoda
In what way?
Mother and son at the Liturgy at the Sretensky Monastery in Moscow
Fr Andrei
The Fall is insignificant to the sexes in vulgar meaning of this word. Unlike popular concepts, the fall was not a new type of relations between Adam and Eve. The Church never saw the drama of the Fall in that way; there are no such statements the Bible. The essence of the Fall was nothing but the fact the humans lost faith in God and broke His commandment and their agreement with Him.
However, the Fall told directly on the relations between sexes. Because of the Fall, God changed His original plan regarding humans. The Lord said to the woman, “Your desire is for your husband, and he shall rule over you”. Thus, in the beginning, a man was supposed to come to live with his wife; but it ended with the wife leaving for her husband. It means that something happened in between, namely the wife faced alone the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What happened there is a long story, which is not essential to our topic. However, after the woman tasted this fruit, she came back and enticed her husband to share in her feast. This scene raises an important question, why did the woman want her husband to abet her?
There are two possible explanations for this. The first is a Jewish rabbinical interpretation that reflects a deep knowledge of female psychology. According to it, Eve felt as if she was dying. Then, she thought, “I shall die, but, Adam will live. God will give him a new wife, and he will be happy without me. That shall not happen”! Therefore, Eve decided to poison Adam. To understand this rabbinical concept, one has to know that from their point of view, Eve was the second wife of Adam, not his first. His first wife was Lilith. According to this viewpoint, Eve knew that there could be another wife, so, she decided to act in that way.
On the other hand, in Orthodox Christian theology, St Ephrem of Syria, a saint who lived in the fourth century, presented a detailed analysis of this passage. He pointed out that after committing a serious sin, a man feels a wave of happiness, thinking “I’ve done it, I’ve got over it; I’m different, etc”. A man feels this chilling ecstasy when he falls. For the first seconds, he is filled with joy, and then, comes horror. The same was true with Eve. St Ephrem of Syria suggested that when Eve broke the commandment, she felt that ecstasy. She felt that something had happened to her; she felt as if she were a goddess. Then, she came up to Adam to show him her new quality. Look, Adam, once, I was taken from your rib, and, now, I am a goddess. Here I come to you to teach you how to live. An instinct of power and domination awakened in the woman.
God has to cure this sin of human relations. It is important to know that God does not punish us for a crime, but rather treats this new disease. Everything is put the other way around. The first became last, and last became first. If we accept the explanation of St Ephrem of Syria, the Biblical text becomes clear. God does not impose pointless punishments. The word punishment has two connotations. The first is a disciplinary action, and the second is a tool for enlightenment. God’s enlightenment is a cure, not revenge. If we go to the pharmacy and see people come with prescriptions to buy various medicines, we can guess what they suffer from by what medicine they buy. The same is true here. God prescribes a medicine that cures a relationship between a husband and a wife. This relationship needs healing, because now it has a split, a struggle for power at the core of it. God mends this split. Obviously, the thirst for power first awakened in woman.
Vladimir Leigoda
Where do we see that the husband is empowered with authority over his wife?
Fr Andrei
Firstly, mind the words that I have cited earlier about the wife’s desire for her husband, and the fact that he shall rule over her. Secondly, mark the obscure fact, but, still obvious, that Adam gives a name to his wife, thus, she becomes Eve. Let us think, why did not Adam give her a name earlier? The Bible tells us that Adam named all the animals. Why did not Adam give her a name right after that?
It is because we think that to give someone a name means to have authority over someone. Adam obtains authority over Eve only after the Fall, when God redefines their relationship. It is not that the husband forgot to give a name to his wife earlier; he just could not do it, he did not have that right. The naming of the wife is the last event that happens in Eden, and the first event that happens after God imposes His punishment on human beings.
Vladimir Leigoda
How does the Church state the difference between men and women? Why were two separate beings created? Why did not God create them at the same time?
Fr Andrei
Of course, there can be different interpretations. I have heard an opinion from West Berlin feminist theologians that since God created Adam first, and then, created woman later, then, the ultimate goal of God’s creation was woman, while man was nothing but a prototype for the lord of creation used by God. However, if we read the Bible text seriously, we will discover not only the narration about the first family, but, something more. The Bible draws a sort of an icon of all human history. This is a not a chronicle written by a contemporary writer, but, rather, a fable that each person should know.
There is masculinity and femininity in everyone. The chapter of the Bible that describes the Fall does not contain the words “Adam” or “Eve”; it says “Ga-Adam”, a human as such, with a definite article, which is not a name, and it mentions a wife, who has not received the name Eve yet. Thus, female and male components can be combined in the same female human being. Take care to distinguish this [idea] from occultist myths about hermaphrodites. Each person has masculinity and femininity, both logic and emotion. Adam is the rational part of the soul, and femininity is the emotional part. That is why the primary essence of the human being is “homo sapiens”, i.e. thinking being. The emotional part is a secondary part of our nature.
The most exalted incarnation of the family idea is the Holy Trinity. All the three of them have unitary–human-nature. The Trinitarian love is a full completion, combining agreement and uniqueness; it should be present in each earthly family too. Christianity is a pluralist religion, not a hegemonic one. Many Hindu philosophers say that there is only Oneness, with a capital “O”, inconceivable, unknowable, and unspoken, and everything else is just an illusion. Therefore, if reality is different from Oneness, it is nothing but aberration, violation, and contamination. The Bible from the very beginning says that the world can be diverse, not to be as God is not a sin, and to be unlike God is not a curse. God created a manifold world with His love, and He enjoys the varieties in His creation. Similarly, humans from the beginning vary greatly.
Vladimir Leigoda
Why does the Church consider marriage a sacrament? What is the meaning of marriage? Why is a pure, honest, passionate love, which a couple has not blessed through church ritual, still a sin?
Nikolai Valuev (1973- ), WBA heavyweight boxing champion with his wife and young son. He also has a little daughter, is a devoted husband and father, and is a pious Orthodox Christian.
Fr Andrei
Any family has a sacramental presence because two separate beings become one flesh. We overcome our individuality, and there is the miracle of conception and the giving birth of new life. The sacrament is in essence incomprehensible in itself. The word “sacrament” has an additional clerical connotation, which is an act of God. God makes something happen in the Church, and through the Church, in the world. Thus, the sacrament is not only the wedding ceremony, but it is also the entirety of married life. It is not surprising that the Church did not have a separate marriage ritual for a very long time; the wedding ceremony appeared much later. Originally, the wedded couple came to the church, confessed their sins together, took Communion, and henceforth lived the rest of their life together, both at home and in the church, creating a home church in their family life.
As for secular marriages, the rumours about the ignorance on the part of the church on the matter are much exaggerated. If a family lives together, and has declared its unity legally and socially, then the Church will never ostracise them. The Church acknowledges the validity of all marriages that have taken place outside its borders, i.e. secular marriages, marriages that took place in all religions, Christian or not.
In the eighteenth century, when Orthodox Christian missionaries were doing outreach among Buryats and Kalmycks, who were Buddhist, they baptised entire villages at once. Therefore, the missionaries had a dilemma. They wondered if they should administer the sacrament of marriage to the already married couples or not? They asked the Holy Synod what to do, since all those people were adults with children, and their baptism was only a recent event. The Synod instructed them not to do the wedding ceremonies because the people were already married before God and man. It means that the Church acknowledges such marriages.
Unfortunately, we have to accept that today some overly zealous and undereducated priests say, “If you live with your husband, but, have not been wedded in church, then, you are committing the sin of adultery”. Often priests do not say this, but, rather, the “all-knowing babushkas”. This is a wrong statement; it does not correspond with the tradition of the Church. When meeting with the clergy, Patriarch Alexei always states that this opinion is wrong. Besides, just think, there are cases when the husband is not a Christian, but, the priest presses his wife to have a church ceremony. What does it mean? That the wife in turn would press her husband to go to church and have a ceremony, whilst the husband has no faith. Thus, the Church pushes the husband into committing false testimony.
Is this the right way to find Christ? Shall we lie, and pass the wedding that way? Will it bring people any close to Christ? No, it will not. People should think about it seriously, and not act under emotions or impulses. If we are speaking about a Christian couple, living together without blessing and prayerful connection for them is abnormal. It would be wrong, or even a sin for a Christian to begin something without asking for a blessing and God’s help first, especially when it comes to such important things as love and creation of a new life.
Vladimir Leigoda
However, what about Apostle Paul, who called us to not look for a wife, but stay single, i.e. not to get married?
A nun gives a music lesson to one of the girls at the Novo-Tikhvin Convent orphanage in Yekaterinburg (photo from the convent website, www.sestry.ru)
Fr Andrei
His position reflects a fundamental moral point of view. An ethical person lives according to a hierarchy of values. It is not a conflict or comprehension of contradiction between good and evil. Here we compare the good and the better, the high and the higher. Let us leave our topic for a moment and remember the words of Christ, “Unless someone leaves his father and mother, he can not be worthy of Me”.
Today, these words cause much resentment. They say, “Your Christ and your Bible preach destruction of family, hatred, etc”. Let me remind you of an episode from the well-known movie Seventeen Instants of Spring. There, the Russian pianist Kathy faces a terrible choice, either to sacrifice her newborn son, who is going to be frozen to death by the Nazis, or to betray the Soviet secret agent Shtirlitz. She has at least two responsibilities. One is that of a mother, which is obvious, and the other, which is that of an officer of the Soviet Army. There is also a civic duty, because many other lives are at stake at this moment.
This scene is not shown to the end, but we can guess that Kathy sacrificed her son, i.e. natural bounds, to fulfil her human, civic duty. Please, note that this film was made in the Soviet era, but, people still like it, and sympathise with it, although the situation has changed dramatically. Neither then, nor now, have I seen any publication that claims that this movie preaches the sacrifice of children to Stalinism, or that it is a relic of a totalitarian mentality that has no humanism. There has never been such an accusation nor can we ever make such an indictment. What does it mean? It means that our people, both religious and secular, have a common view and consensus on this issue. The movie is so correct and delicate, so convincing, that when we watch it, we all agree that Kathy has done the right thing.
Now, I have a question for you. If one can sacrifice one’s child for another person, i.e. Shtirlitz, which is socially accepted and approved, why cannot one do that for Christ, if there is such a choice? It is evident that we can interpret any saying without reference to its context. The Bible is a family-oriented book; it makes marriage holy. Even in the New Testament, a family without children was considered cursed. That family must have faced some religious misfortunes. Therefore, when we read the verse “If someone would not leave his father and mother”, we should never take these words literally as a call to destroy families. Obviously, another thing is meant here.
That saying means that a person should decide whether he is primarily a son of his parents, their copy, or rather, a separate being. If family bonds and natural identity contradict one’s self-actualisation and attempts to obtain spiritual identity, if it comes to your parents crying out, “How dare you go to the Seminary? Your grandfather fought in Budyonny’s Army, and I have been a Party member since 1950!” Then, it is the time to say, “Dear father, I do love you very much. Just for our good, I beg you not to kill the love that was born by itself in my heart, i.e. my love for Christ. As soon as you leave this subject alone, we will find a common language”. There is a hierarchy of values in the New Testament regarding many issues “All is permitted to me, but not all is useful to me”, or “This is good, but that is better”.
That is the way to understand Apostle Paul’s words. He blesses marriage, but, states, “For those, whose religious feeling are looking for something bigger, for obtaining spiritual growth, and a complete service to other people in Christ, for them, I bless singleness”. For those who can bear it, let them bear it. I repeat; it is not a choice between “bad” marriage and “good” singleness, but, pointing out a variety of ways and the apostle’s personal point of view, which he, by the way, stresses.
Vladimir Leigoda
Therefore, is monasticism valued higher than family? Is there any use of talking about the family shrine and the Sacraments?
Fr Andrei
The essence of the words starting the chapter about monasticism in the priest’s desk book (a textbook for clergymen, consisting of 7 volumes) is as follows. “For those who are unable to bear the difficulties of married life, the Church offers the way of monasticism”. Thus, you may see which according to the view of the Church is the greater achievement!
I know monks who have chosen to go to the monastery because they felt such a spiritual burning that they decided not to choose anything of a lesser degree. On the other hand, I know monks who have chosen monasticism on very different premises. For example, let me speak of one of my classmates in the Seminary. When I asked him why he decided to become a monk, he replied, “I know I’m a weak person. I will not be able to serve both my family and the Church. I really want to serve the Church. Therefore, monasticism is an easier way for me. I am choosing it because I want to do what is most important in life”.
We must also remember that married life does not end with the honeymoon. It would be a great mistake to think that people are capable of retaining their feeling of first love. Usually, that does not happen. Therefore, there should be deeper relations than just the romantic feelings of the first days of dating. Finally, family life is quite a heavy burden, as one has to allow a stranger inside his or her [world], for one is no longer living for oneself only.
In this way, any serious love and, of course, marriage is similar to suicide, because a person stops living for oneself and begins to live for another. It is very hard and painful. The Church is quite honest here. It says that married life is a martyr’s way. When two people are married in the church, they are crowned with martyrs’ crowns. In addition, the Church, appreciating their path, sings to them “Holy martyrs…”
Yevgeniya Przhebelskaya and Tatiana Zhebyneva translated the text from the original Russian.
Foma magazine
