Do not touch a "sacred"
Запись от Yurko размещена 10.11.2010 в 21:16
Do not touch a "sacred"
Catherine Shchetkina 09/11/2010 assertion "we live in a secular society" - an empty formula. Formally reproduced in the constitution of the words "separation of church and state" do not give not the slightest idea of how this "separation" should be implemented. Models of secular society set and none of them is not a full model of "isolation" of the church. No one indicator - not France, who does not know what to do with the veil and Christmas trees, or Germany, with its tax on the church, nor England with his queen - the head of the church
Everyone has his own difficulties in finding answers to the "current challenges" the relationship of church and society. The compatibility of modern art and the church - one of the very painful. In the West, he should not be too badly - at least so it seems from this coast furrows, sagging "Iron Curtain". Arise from time to time conflict raises sales and ratings - something Dan Brown "hit" at the Vatican, that Mel Gibson had lied, that the Pope extolled his film. Salman Rushdie because "The Satanic Verses" went into hiding (radical Muslims - are not you Catholic lefevristy) - but the 'best booker' and in the future, they say, "nobelevka. A similar situation with Pamuk. All this is slightly scratched on the nerves and at the same time recalls that religion is still strongly influences the minds. But from time to time and place there these setbacks.
The situation is different from us, in countries who did not know the religious wars, but endured a long period of persecution of the church and religion in general - an era, formed a specific phobia and how consciousness within the church and outside. Distance, formed at this time between the righteous in the church and the whole sinful world, is overcome with difficulty, meets both external and internal resistance, accompanied by excesses.
The complexity of the relationship of the church and the arts - not our invention. Overall, this is the complexity of the relationship of church and secular art in general. Religion and art are in the same field - ever since the artist's work ceased to be just the craft and became a "creative» (creato), after which the figure of the artist gradually replaced, multiplier and the profane figure of a single Creator. In turn, the processes of sacralization and desacralization art and related crises are pushing artists to the spiritual quest - including the religious soil. For its part, the church is looking for a common language with the modern man, and it has its own problems - she needs a revival, not only in the restoration.
Talk to people - the art of arts. It requires the ability to hear, select the desired tone and interesting topics. It requires the ability to respond. That is to conform. In this perspective, the church is in a difficult position, in principle, since the role of interlocutor was never characterized it - it has to do mainly with those who are listening to is "in obedience". Communication and dialogue are alien to it, it does not install on co-correspondence - because it conveys the truth, keeps the truth. In conventional, of course, forms (including language), because the change in shape leads to deformation of the content. And if the Western Church has experienced passion for public debate and the Reformation, to make the issue a subject of public faith, the Eastern church has never been tempted to make their disputes and uncertainties beyond the "spiritual workshop, that is, the vast experience of dialogue with the" world "has not.
Therefore, the secularization of the church was for a challenge in its own way more complicated than outright persecution. Persecution in their own way to strengthen the church. Secularization also involves religious pluralism, turns indifference. Church with its messidzhem turns on a common basis in terms of colossal information density, which accounts for a break to anyone who wants to be heard. In this situation easier to retreat into myself and wait for the seekers of truth will come themselves. But for the church as a public institution is not an option - both because the mission of the Church - preaching, and because the strength of any public institution of its size. So, we should fight for the soul. That is starting to talk. Speak clearly, speak with the expectation of the audience - to speak in modern language, as if it did not seem risky.
"Talking through the arts" - begs itself. First, this method is already well mastered by the church in former times. Secondly, both art and religion of working with the intuitive, irrational part of the mind, play on one field. And if art - is "the way to the heart, then why would not they use it? Especially if the art - it is increasingly the method, the shape, the church holds truth, ie has "content".
However, not all just with the understanding of the religious art. That is possible and simple - as in the Middle Ages, "the artist in the service of the church." This "service" does not necessarily mean the plane - illustrating the "Lives" or iconography. Office this is, roughly speaking, in progress - not necessarily a specific religious doctrine, even, but the lifestyle and way of thinking, value systems, which the church considers "his."
"Frontal" attacks rarely succeed. It turns out that if we replace the membership card in the pocket of his tunic at the scapular of Our Lady, and everything else - movies and the Germans - to leave as it was, nothing good is impossible, because the agitation cosmetics is not correct. "Orthodox" and - increasingly - "Christian" art and its place in modern culture remains a topic of separate discussion.
By contrast, modern artists often prefer otherwise - Modern - understanding of the place of religion and belief in art: as a subject of artistic reflection. Here everything is complicated: a reflection - a risky thing, can make anywhere up to complete atheism. From which, however, representatives of the church too often could benefit - because negative results are also the result. But it requires great effort and good artistic taste.
Artists, if they have no intention to create it "orthodox" ("anti-Orthodox") or "Christian" ("anti-Christian"), for example, a product, usually deal with "faith" or "religion" in general rather than specific religion. And most (if not the intention of provoking the church) with the actual ecclesiastical institutions do not overlap.
Another thing - a church that can not /do not want to ignore the art of intervention to "their" territory. And if the church for one reason or another "in a special position" in the country or even in the world, she may try to protect themselves from having to deal with a modernist model patent everything connected with religion, more broadly, to religion, and even wider - with the spiritual quests of all. In view of secularity and liberal Western Europe is precisely modernity model and firmly in these positions. Confirmation of this - the recent awarding of the author's controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Opinion of radical Islam, blyuduschego their shrines is also well known.
By the medieval model of "patent on the spiritual" also tends Russia, where "state-church monopoly" has already taken place and the church assumed the role of guardian of tradition, that is, declaring "the course on modernization, in fact, from the Institute for Conservative gradually turns into ultra-conservative. Here the relationship between the artist and the faith as a theme of his work sooner or later confronts him with the ecclesiastical institution, which has its own views on what and in what form can and should do in the area "okoloreligioznogo" artistic creativity.
Ukraine is fertile ground for interference in church art is very fertile. But while these interventions disorganized - a maximum of any image from the exhibition will be removed if accidentally Visitor ass does not like it. But censorship is gaining momentum, and representatives of the churches play in this process, an increasingly prominent role.
The contradiction is compounded by the fact that conservatism and pochvennichestve, cherished orthodox church, contemporary art in our region has always targeted to the Western tradition. Post-Soviet artist could even stammer something about the "Slavic mission", "Russian spirit" and other beautiful things, but art forms, creative method, ways of expression, technological solutions - all of it tightly binds specifically to western traditions. Therefore wants the artist or not, acknowledge or deny - he was always "Westerners", as in art content is too high depending on the form.
Therefore, dialogue between the church and contemporary art in our latitudes, inevitably spills over into the wider channel of dialogue with Western culture. Topic is very painful for Orthodoxy in general and the Russian (Ukrainian part) in particular. Mythical "West", ceasing to be a political bogey after the fall of the Iron Curtain "(at least for a while), cultivated in the church as a bugbear of ideological, moral and ethical. Here, the "West" - this is secularism and liberalism, with all its visible manifestations, such as social atomization, greed, sexual promiscuity in general - is not said out loud, but between the lines - immorality. Inchurched people, like society with dominant religious values "can not be liberal. In the case of art it can be read like this: art should not be immoral. No permissiveness, shearing sheets, profane and outrageous things. Any attempts to "holy". Ie direct opposite of the principles that gave birth to modern art - ironic, poking around in the ulcers in the hope of catharsis (or even without it), sakraliziruyuschee profane to complete devaluation of the concept of "holy".
We can assume an early crisis of this approach and generally see the signs of this crisis, to criticize artists for the "outrageous for the sake of shocking." But working with the public need right now. Especially considering the fact that recently the artists come to grips with the church and religion. For a while they tried to stay away from them. But out-of-the totalitarian press orthodoxy has become so noticeable phenomenon of social life that would inevitably become the object of artistic reflection. And sooner or later be some reflection of the church might not like.
It is curious to observe how the Russian Orthodox Church masters of contemporary art - this is probably one of the points of the overall program administration humanitarian sphere of Russia under the watchful "spiritual guide".
Starting point is usually called artistic action "Pop Art" Avdei Ter-Oganyan, held in 1998, Painter was brought to trial, after which he emigrated, and further attempts to put his work in Russia provoked fierce attacks by the professional defenders of Orthodoxy. The most striking performance of "Orthodox activists" in defense of their "religious sentiments" of the artists was the defeat of the exhibition "Caution, Religion". The church announced his "moral mission" in society and under the slogan now required to respect their rules, even at the sites, it does not belong.
In this regard, Gelman even made a manifesto against obscurantism, which warned that the massacre shows - this is only the first step. If it proves successful, the pressure will increase, and victims are not individual artists, and particularly shocking exhibition, this practice will become routine. Confirmation of his fears - the process against the "Forbidden Art", opposing the books, and Viktor Erofeev, Vladimir Sorokin, the pursuit of "ArtChronika" and the recent "curious" - removal of on-demand "Orthodox visitors" erotic scenes from the movie "Who am I", "insulting to believers Women. "
That the site on which artists work - the secular is a problem only until a certain point. Officially, the Church can not demand to ban one or another artistic event - does not consider it necessary to act in a repressive role, for example. But she can not keep informed about that show, for example, "offends the sensibilities of Christians" or "blasphemy".
It becomes a signal for the professional defenders of orthodoxy, with which the official church supposedly has nothing in common - they are simply protecting their interests, rights and so on. In this context okolotserkovnye organization look "conscious elements of civil society, and no longer warps that" civil society "- the same part of the" western myth "as liberalism. Protecting their "offended the religious feelings" they thereby assert the interests of the church on secular grounds.
But if this is an example of a negative decision, that is positive and the samples - a kind of "domestication" of artists. Anyone who wants to live comfortably in Russia, now has to reckon with the visible role, which took over the Russian Orthodox Church. The current leadership of the ROC with their declarations of "modernization" and the resurrection of Russian missionism trying to form a kind of mainstream, "the Russian spiritual revival." And in Russian contemporary art have appeared more or less successful (artistically) attempts to join this mainstream. Not just "Orthodox" - at least not yet. But definitely a "positive spirit". For example, recently epatager brawler and Oleg Kulik turned to "spiritual" and "transcendent" in "I Believe", for which, incidentally, received the State Prize.
But a truly "exemplary performance" was an exhibition in St. Tatiana "Save yourself if you can! Dialogue /Dialogist "designed to demonstrate that the church is not against modern art, but art it can and should be" correct. " The importance of the step that it is not just the artists gathered at his court porefleksirovat on issues of faith, but gathered in a temple ROC, ie, how to get some "official permission" to reflect on these themes, a sort of badge of "authority on matters of faith." In addition, it appeared that made this exhibition mainly in peak "complete atheists" from "Forbidden Art" (in this case it was repeated so many times that no, really it is not associated with them, that believe it was quite impossible).
And why in the church - unless the church is no less risky areas? Just to show that in contemporary art, "there is nothing" that can not be allowed in the temple? But it immediately affected the selection of artists and works. After all, had to really take away what "there was nothing." And those artists who "of anything so" were not seen. And without fail "anything erotic." And to all to understand how progressive action in the preliminary interview several times to refrain fears that "will come any gonfalon and spoil it." It was as if someone had once appeared without a warrant ...
Sam Gelman said: "This exhibition - a very important precedent, as contemporary art and the church is very difficult to communicate. We are all afraid that some idiot picks this difficult dialogue ". And also added that conflicts often occur because of the fact that "obscurantists attacking artists, hiding behind the church." In turn, the clergy in their poblazhlivo-critical comments about these or other works have appeared not at all "obscurantist", and people standing on guard for their own interests, which, by happy coincidence, were also the interests of "a healthy part of society." Which include the artists. Some. Church "obscurantists successfully separated from" normal church representatives. "Right" artists - from the "wrong". The difference is that artists - people are unorganized, and in the church operates a rigid hierarchy that does not involve a broad initiative for the "normal" and for everyone else.
However, to reduce everything to the difficulties of the artist, who now must reckon with the increasing pace of the trend clericalization spiritual life - it greatly simplifies the situation. Church in this way is not too easy. Perhaps the "obscurantism" - too emotional identification, but it actually reflects something with which the church must deal in itself. You can fantasize about how she was interested in their own "manual" obscurantism, protesting against the census, tax numbers, dialogue with non-Orthodox, and - in the same series - modern art. But we have enough and that this has to be considered as a hierarchy. People with the psychology of "remnants of Israel", bred in the tradition of the Church of isolationism, the most conservative part of the flock and at the same time - the most loyal part of it. Do not reckon with their views is impossible, because of their "protest potential" is mobilized very easily - is just someone from the authorities (often, as is customary in the Russian Orthodox tradition, the elders) to indicate a departure leadership of the church "from the truth." And then, with what you can not fight - must lead.
Ie
Catherine Shchetkina 09/11/2010 assertion "we live in a secular society" - an empty formula. Formally reproduced in the constitution of the words "separation of church and state" do not give not the slightest idea of how this "separation" should be implemented. Models of secular society set and none of them is not a full model of "isolation" of the church. No one indicator - not France, who does not know what to do with the veil and Christmas trees, or Germany, with its tax on the church, nor England with his queen - the head of the church
Everyone has his own difficulties in finding answers to the "current challenges" the relationship of church and society. The compatibility of modern art and the church - one of the very painful. In the West, he should not be too badly - at least so it seems from this coast furrows, sagging "Iron Curtain". Arise from time to time conflict raises sales and ratings - something Dan Brown "hit" at the Vatican, that Mel Gibson had lied, that the Pope extolled his film. Salman Rushdie because "The Satanic Verses" went into hiding (radical Muslims - are not you Catholic lefevristy) - but the 'best booker' and in the future, they say, "nobelevka. A similar situation with Pamuk. All this is slightly scratched on the nerves and at the same time recalls that religion is still strongly influences the minds. But from time to time and place there these setbacks.
The situation is different from us, in countries who did not know the religious wars, but endured a long period of persecution of the church and religion in general - an era, formed a specific phobia and how consciousness within the church and outside. Distance, formed at this time between the righteous in the church and the whole sinful world, is overcome with difficulty, meets both external and internal resistance, accompanied by excesses.
The complexity of the relationship of the church and the arts - not our invention. Overall, this is the complexity of the relationship of church and secular art in general. Religion and art are in the same field - ever since the artist's work ceased to be just the craft and became a "creative» (creato), after which the figure of the artist gradually replaced, multiplier and the profane figure of a single Creator. In turn, the processes of sacralization and desacralization art and related crises are pushing artists to the spiritual quest - including the religious soil. For its part, the church is looking for a common language with the modern man, and it has its own problems - she needs a revival, not only in the restoration.
Talk to people - the art of arts. It requires the ability to hear, select the desired tone and interesting topics. It requires the ability to respond. That is to conform. In this perspective, the church is in a difficult position, in principle, since the role of interlocutor was never characterized it - it has to do mainly with those who are listening to is "in obedience". Communication and dialogue are alien to it, it does not install on co-correspondence - because it conveys the truth, keeps the truth. In conventional, of course, forms (including language), because the change in shape leads to deformation of the content. And if the Western Church has experienced passion for public debate and the Reformation, to make the issue a subject of public faith, the Eastern church has never been tempted to make their disputes and uncertainties beyond the "spiritual workshop, that is, the vast experience of dialogue with the" world "has not.
Therefore, the secularization of the church was for a challenge in its own way more complicated than outright persecution. Persecution in their own way to strengthen the church. Secularization also involves religious pluralism, turns indifference. Church with its messidzhem turns on a common basis in terms of colossal information density, which accounts for a break to anyone who wants to be heard. In this situation easier to retreat into myself and wait for the seekers of truth will come themselves. But for the church as a public institution is not an option - both because the mission of the Church - preaching, and because the strength of any public institution of its size. So, we should fight for the soul. That is starting to talk. Speak clearly, speak with the expectation of the audience - to speak in modern language, as if it did not seem risky.
"Talking through the arts" - begs itself. First, this method is already well mastered by the church in former times. Secondly, both art and religion of working with the intuitive, irrational part of the mind, play on one field. And if art - is "the way to the heart, then why would not they use it? Especially if the art - it is increasingly the method, the shape, the church holds truth, ie has "content".
However, not all just with the understanding of the religious art. That is possible and simple - as in the Middle Ages, "the artist in the service of the church." This "service" does not necessarily mean the plane - illustrating the "Lives" or iconography. Office this is, roughly speaking, in progress - not necessarily a specific religious doctrine, even, but the lifestyle and way of thinking, value systems, which the church considers "his."
"Frontal" attacks rarely succeed. It turns out that if we replace the membership card in the pocket of his tunic at the scapular of Our Lady, and everything else - movies and the Germans - to leave as it was, nothing good is impossible, because the agitation cosmetics is not correct. "Orthodox" and - increasingly - "Christian" art and its place in modern culture remains a topic of separate discussion.
By contrast, modern artists often prefer otherwise - Modern - understanding of the place of religion and belief in art: as a subject of artistic reflection. Here everything is complicated: a reflection - a risky thing, can make anywhere up to complete atheism. From which, however, representatives of the church too often could benefit - because negative results are also the result. But it requires great effort and good artistic taste.
Artists, if they have no intention to create it "orthodox" ("anti-Orthodox") or "Christian" ("anti-Christian"), for example, a product, usually deal with "faith" or "religion" in general rather than specific religion. And most (if not the intention of provoking the church) with the actual ecclesiastical institutions do not overlap.
Another thing - a church that can not /do not want to ignore the art of intervention to "their" territory. And if the church for one reason or another "in a special position" in the country or even in the world, she may try to protect themselves from having to deal with a modernist model patent everything connected with religion, more broadly, to religion, and even wider - with the spiritual quests of all. In view of secularity and liberal Western Europe is precisely modernity model and firmly in these positions. Confirmation of this - the recent awarding of the author's controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Opinion of radical Islam, blyuduschego their shrines is also well known.
By the medieval model of "patent on the spiritual" also tends Russia, where "state-church monopoly" has already taken place and the church assumed the role of guardian of tradition, that is, declaring "the course on modernization, in fact, from the Institute for Conservative gradually turns into ultra-conservative. Here the relationship between the artist and the faith as a theme of his work sooner or later confronts him with the ecclesiastical institution, which has its own views on what and in what form can and should do in the area "okoloreligioznogo" artistic creativity.
Ukraine is fertile ground for interference in church art is very fertile. But while these interventions disorganized - a maximum of any image from the exhibition will be removed if accidentally Visitor ass does not like it. But censorship is gaining momentum, and representatives of the churches play in this process, an increasingly prominent role.
The contradiction is compounded by the fact that conservatism and pochvennichestve, cherished orthodox church, contemporary art in our region has always targeted to the Western tradition. Post-Soviet artist could even stammer something about the "Slavic mission", "Russian spirit" and other beautiful things, but art forms, creative method, ways of expression, technological solutions - all of it tightly binds specifically to western traditions. Therefore wants the artist or not, acknowledge or deny - he was always "Westerners", as in art content is too high depending on the form.
Therefore, dialogue between the church and contemporary art in our latitudes, inevitably spills over into the wider channel of dialogue with Western culture. Topic is very painful for Orthodoxy in general and the Russian (Ukrainian part) in particular. Mythical "West", ceasing to be a political bogey after the fall of the Iron Curtain "(at least for a while), cultivated in the church as a bugbear of ideological, moral and ethical. Here, the "West" - this is secularism and liberalism, with all its visible manifestations, such as social atomization, greed, sexual promiscuity in general - is not said out loud, but between the lines - immorality. Inchurched people, like society with dominant religious values "can not be liberal. In the case of art it can be read like this: art should not be immoral. No permissiveness, shearing sheets, profane and outrageous things. Any attempts to "holy". Ie direct opposite of the principles that gave birth to modern art - ironic, poking around in the ulcers in the hope of catharsis (or even without it), sakraliziruyuschee profane to complete devaluation of the concept of "holy".
We can assume an early crisis of this approach and generally see the signs of this crisis, to criticize artists for the "outrageous for the sake of shocking." But working with the public need right now. Especially considering the fact that recently the artists come to grips with the church and religion. For a while they tried to stay away from them. But out-of-the totalitarian press orthodoxy has become so noticeable phenomenon of social life that would inevitably become the object of artistic reflection. And sooner or later be some reflection of the church might not like.
It is curious to observe how the Russian Orthodox Church masters of contemporary art - this is probably one of the points of the overall program administration humanitarian sphere of Russia under the watchful "spiritual guide".
Starting point is usually called artistic action "Pop Art" Avdei Ter-Oganyan, held in 1998, Painter was brought to trial, after which he emigrated, and further attempts to put his work in Russia provoked fierce attacks by the professional defenders of Orthodoxy. The most striking performance of "Orthodox activists" in defense of their "religious sentiments" of the artists was the defeat of the exhibition "Caution, Religion". The church announced his "moral mission" in society and under the slogan now required to respect their rules, even at the sites, it does not belong.
In this regard, Gelman even made a manifesto against obscurantism, which warned that the massacre shows - this is only the first step. If it proves successful, the pressure will increase, and victims are not individual artists, and particularly shocking exhibition, this practice will become routine. Confirmation of his fears - the process against the "Forbidden Art", opposing the books, and Viktor Erofeev, Vladimir Sorokin, the pursuit of "ArtChronika" and the recent "curious" - removal of on-demand "Orthodox visitors" erotic scenes from the movie "Who am I", "insulting to believers Women. "
That the site on which artists work - the secular is a problem only until a certain point. Officially, the Church can not demand to ban one or another artistic event - does not consider it necessary to act in a repressive role, for example. But she can not keep informed about that show, for example, "offends the sensibilities of Christians" or "blasphemy".
It becomes a signal for the professional defenders of orthodoxy, with which the official church supposedly has nothing in common - they are simply protecting their interests, rights and so on. In this context okolotserkovnye organization look "conscious elements of civil society, and no longer warps that" civil society "- the same part of the" western myth "as liberalism. Protecting their "offended the religious feelings" they thereby assert the interests of the church on secular grounds.
But if this is an example of a negative decision, that is positive and the samples - a kind of "domestication" of artists. Anyone who wants to live comfortably in Russia, now has to reckon with the visible role, which took over the Russian Orthodox Church. The current leadership of the ROC with their declarations of "modernization" and the resurrection of Russian missionism trying to form a kind of mainstream, "the Russian spiritual revival." And in Russian contemporary art have appeared more or less successful (artistically) attempts to join this mainstream. Not just "Orthodox" - at least not yet. But definitely a "positive spirit". For example, recently epatager brawler and Oleg Kulik turned to "spiritual" and "transcendent" in "I Believe", for which, incidentally, received the State Prize.
But a truly "exemplary performance" was an exhibition in St. Tatiana "Save yourself if you can! Dialogue /Dialogist "designed to demonstrate that the church is not against modern art, but art it can and should be" correct. " The importance of the step that it is not just the artists gathered at his court porefleksirovat on issues of faith, but gathered in a temple ROC, ie, how to get some "official permission" to reflect on these themes, a sort of badge of "authority on matters of faith." In addition, it appeared that made this exhibition mainly in peak "complete atheists" from "Forbidden Art" (in this case it was repeated so many times that no, really it is not associated with them, that believe it was quite impossible).
And why in the church - unless the church is no less risky areas? Just to show that in contemporary art, "there is nothing" that can not be allowed in the temple? But it immediately affected the selection of artists and works. After all, had to really take away what "there was nothing." And those artists who "of anything so" were not seen. And without fail "anything erotic." And to all to understand how progressive action in the preliminary interview several times to refrain fears that "will come any gonfalon and spoil it." It was as if someone had once appeared without a warrant ...
Sam Gelman said: "This exhibition - a very important precedent, as contemporary art and the church is very difficult to communicate. We are all afraid that some idiot picks this difficult dialogue ". And also added that conflicts often occur because of the fact that "obscurantists attacking artists, hiding behind the church." In turn, the clergy in their poblazhlivo-critical comments about these or other works have appeared not at all "obscurantist", and people standing on guard for their own interests, which, by happy coincidence, were also the interests of "a healthy part of society." Which include the artists. Some. Church "obscurantists successfully separated from" normal church representatives. "Right" artists - from the "wrong". The difference is that artists - people are unorganized, and in the church operates a rigid hierarchy that does not involve a broad initiative for the "normal" and for everyone else.
However, to reduce everything to the difficulties of the artist, who now must reckon with the increasing pace of the trend clericalization spiritual life - it greatly simplifies the situation. Church in this way is not too easy. Perhaps the "obscurantism" - too emotional identification, but it actually reflects something with which the church must deal in itself. You can fantasize about how she was interested in their own "manual" obscurantism, protesting against the census, tax numbers, dialogue with non-Orthodox, and - in the same series - modern art. But we have enough and that this has to be considered as a hierarchy. People with the psychology of "remnants of Israel", bred in the tradition of the Church of isolationism, the most conservative part of the flock and at the same time - the most loyal part of it. Do not reckon with their views is impossible, because of their "protest potential" is mobilized very easily - is just someone from the authorities (often, as is customary in the Russian Orthodox tradition, the elders) to indicate a departure leadership of the church "from the truth." And then, with what you can not fight - must lead.
Ie
Всего комментариев 0
