Article by C. Eltchaninoff published in numbers 1 and 3 of ACER-Tribune (1985)
[I will begin with] a brief analysis of the prehistory of ACER, knowledge of which is necessary to understand why after the Russian revolution, a group of well-known intellectuals who had been chased out of Russia in 1922 decided during a congress in 1923 in Psherov, Czechoslovakia, to found a movement, ACER.
Firstly it is important to say that during their youth these intellectuals passed a deep religious crisis, some of them remaining atheists for more than 10 years. They had also been tempted by Marxism and returned or preferably came to the Church a few years before the 1917 revolution. On one hand they were looking for ways to serve the Church where they were, namely in the West, on the other hand they could not be indifferent to the tragic situation in Russia.
Why and how did these ex-Marxists and progressive intellectuals decide to devote their lives to the service of the Church? It is important to note that before the founders of our Movement other great names of Russian culture passed through a religious crisis - I quote only the most famous: Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Soloviev - Tolstoy, for example, only got out of this crisis at 55!
Here I must carry out a brief historical analysis which should shed light on the state of mind of numerous Russian intellectuals of the 19th century but also - and this is what interests us - on the spiritual journey of the founders of our movement and of numerous intellectuals today in the USSR.
The history of modern Russia begins at the beginning of the 18th century with Peter the Great. Before him, the ideal of the people, society and state was Orthodox Christianity. All was wrapped, we might say, in a religious atmosphere. Private and social life, culture and art all found their unique inspiration in the Church (a little like the middle ages in the West). The Orthodox Church was the moral and spiritual conscience of the people.
Under Peter the Great the Church lost its independence, its freedom; it was decapitated. The patriarch was replaced by a docile administration. The absolute state was the ultimate authority in Church affairs as well as those of the state. For the state, the Church was no more than a ministry of religious affairs. The Church was humiliated and its authority was compromised, because priests and bishops were often docile and servile civil servants. The conscience of the Church took refuge in the monasteries where there was a rebirth of monasticism.
If this reform did not change much for the majority of the lower classes, on the contrary it had a big effect on the intelligentsia and a part of the nobility. For these classes the Church lost its spiritual and moral authority because it was allied to and supporting an oppressive and despotic state. Moreover, those of the intelligentsia and nobility began to open to the Western ideas of the Enlightenment and to progressive, socialist and Marxist ideas of the late nineteenth century. Most students, professional people and intelligentsia of the years 1860-1880 have only one God: Progress, Science. It is interesting to note that among the great Russian noble families of the time people still 'practised': The priest was invited to all great moments of life, people celebrated Easter; it was seen as part of the national tradition. To illustrate what I am talking about, here is an extract from a letter from Bakounin's father when his son - the famous anarchist - cut all ties with his family, left home and became interested in German philosophy:
"True philosophy is not in this hollow daydreaming and vain chatting, but in submission to civil authority, familial and religious customs and the obligations of our milieu…" You can understand why some became anarchists…
Why do I talk about all this? Because the founders of the Movement also left the Church of 'their milieu' in their youth, progressive and Marxist ideas cost them dear, but under the influence of Dostoyevsky, Soloviev and their own spiritual journey, they discovered not the 'faith' of Bakounine's father but a personal, aware, living faith. They discovered that Man does not live by bread alone, that man is a metaphysical animal, that all the great civilizations were born within a religion. And that no civilization can live without spiritual values (otherwise it is condemned to degenerate like ours). They discovered the Church, not as an institution but as a source of life. They discovered Christianity not as a national characteristic ('I am Russian so I am orthodox') but as an evangelical, personal, demanding, committed faith. They discovered this simple truth: one isn't born a Christian, one becomes a Christian.
The extraordinary cultural renewal in Russia in the early 20th century is partly explained by this return to the faith. An interest in religion, philosophy or art is no longer considered as a venereal disease or a lack of culture.
It was a period rich in talented people and ideas. It was an explosion of creation in numerous fields. It is absolutely impossible even to mention the names of these artists. I will just write a few words about our topic, namely the history of the ideas that led to the creation of our Movement, ACER. There were twenty-two significant meetings between the senior clergy of the orthodox Church and intellectuals wanting to get closer to the Church, to learn and understand what the Church thinks of the most daily aspects of life of each man, such as social problems, tolerance, freedom of conscience, the death penalty, marital problems, flesh and spirit, etc.. These intellectuals criticised the Church for only speaking about heaven, for only proposing ideals in terms of the afterlife, and for not taking a stance on life in this world.
Obviously a Christian is confronted by numerous problems of conscience. The Church can and will help him to solve them. These intellectuals were asking the Church to open itself more to the world.
Here, we are at the heart of the problem of the Movement and its founders. Should the Orthodox Church, not only in words, by its teaching, but also by its life, its action, its commitment, help men to solve this or the other problem at a personal, social, cultural, or even philosophical level?
[…]
It is plainly legitimate to wonder: Why the Movement?
To serve the Church? But the Church has existed for nineteen centuries and could cope without our services! - more or less well, some will say… - others say: enter the Church, apply its teaching, and above all, don't be overzealous by wishing to reform the Church.
Yes, why the Movement? Why our societies, congresses, camps, newspapers, publishing house, etc? Why are we always on the move? For the simple reason that God's concerns must be my concerns. Do we think that God is indifferent to the fate of the Christians in Russia, to the future of Orthodoxy in the West, or that he is not interested in each of us, in what we do or do not do?
In our world, men are tempted to see only evil, suffering, the absurdity of existence. Without underestimating evil's might, we believe that Good, beauty, love, justice, and freedom exist and have their source in God, and that God lives and acts in the world through mankind, through us. We are God's collaborators and thus responsible before God for the historical church and the world that have been left in our care.
This idea that we are God's collaborators and that each of us is responsible for the Church lead the founders of our Movement to create the neologism ecclesialisation of life, which essentially means that nothing in man's life (personal life, family, social and creative activity) is closed to the divine Light, to Transfiguration and Sanctification.
Here we are at the heart of our intuition that the Church is more than what we usually think. The limits of the Church become wider, more open, to encompass and sanctify not only man's prayer but also all his life and his activity, as we said, because being the world's creator, nothing escapes God's gaze which transfigures and sanctifies everything.
The Movement has no ideology or own goals: its existence is only justified by the desire to serve the Church everywhere and in all conditions of human existence.
One of the peculiarities of the Movement is that its lay people, in collaboration with clergy, take responsibility in multiple fields of Church life. From the very beginning until now, the movement remained faithful to the deep conviction that lay people have a vocation in the Church and that this vocation can be expressed in different ways: education, mission, publication, social work, cultural creation, etc.
One must say as well that the Movement has always been, and I think continues to be a laboratory of new ideas and new initiatives in numerous areas. I remind you that the idea to found the orthodox theological institute in Paris was born during the 2nd ACER congress in 1924. That it is ACER who long before the Second World War was the main orthodox interlocutor in the inchoate ecumenical dialogue, first with Anglicans, than with Protestants and eventually Catholics. After the war, ACER closely participated in the foundation of Syndesmos, the World Federation of Orthodox Youth Movements, as well as in the foundation of the Orthodox Fellowship in Western Europe, to say nothing of missionary journeys, help to believers in the USSR, our newsletters, etc.
In some orthodox Church milieus, this agitation was and is considered out of place or even dangerous (for who, we wonder?). Probably for those for whom the Church is a quiet refuge.
The history of our movement has shown that lay people are not only capable of fructuous initiatives, but that within our movement numerous priests and even bishops have been formed.
To conclude, one should say that our Church lives in difficult times. It is persecuted in several countries by an atheist power. In other countries it is subjugated to a power whose paternalism kills the spirit of freedom. In France the Church lives in privileged conditions of complete freedom but is asleep and only now begins to break out of the ghettos of ethnic communities.