The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The movement of an obnovlenchestvo in the Tyumen region in the 1920th.



DVIZHENIYE OBNOVLENCHESTVA IN the TYUMEN REGION

In the 1920th

Z.Sh. Mavlyutova

Support of church split became one of the directions of policy of soviet leadership in the 1920th. It was expressed in appearance of so-called Renovationists who reproached priests with conservatism of thinking, critically treated many parties of church life. The ideas of an obnovlenchestvo become widespread also among church hierarchy of the Tyumen region.

The ideas of updating of church, its adaptation to the changed political conditions belong to 1905-1907, received the practical embodiment in the 1920th. The group of the Petrograd priests acted as the initiator of split of church. On March 24, 1922 the letter of 12 priests — V. Krasnitsky, A. Vvedensky, Belkov, Boyarsky, etc. was published in the Petrograd newspaper Pravda — in which authors accused clergy of counterrevolutionism, a game of politics during national hunger, required immediate and unconditional return of the Soviet power of all church values. At a meeting of clergy Vvedensky declared a break with "reactionary" clergy and creation of "Live church" which supporters began to be called "live baits", "Renovationists". On May 6, 1922 the patriarch Tikhon accused that opposed withdrawal of church values was arrested. And already on May 12 the imprisoned patriarch was visited by delegation of the St. Petersburg Renovationists — priests Vvedensky, Krasnitsky, Belkov and the Moscow bishop Antonin (Granovsky). They convinced the patriarch to transfer them temporarily office what that agreed to. The constituent assembly of the Live Church group took place on May 16, 1922 in Moscow, also the The Highest Church Management (HCM) at the head of which there was an archbishop Antonin (Granovsky) was formed in the same place.

The authorities provided to Renovationists the legal status at once, and open persecution on those who remained faithful patriarchal Church began. Some bishops hid on places, others were arrested, but the majority quickly recognized obnovlenchesky VCU [Pospelovsky, 1996. Page 247].

On April 29, 1923 the obnovlenchesky Cathedral opened. The cathedral entered a Gregorian calendar, a church service in Russian, the married episcopate, the right of clergy for a divorce and vtorobra-chy, supported closing of monasteries. Then in absentia condemned the patriarch Tikhon, having accused him of shedding of blood, deprived of it all ministries and even monkhood. Constantinople and other east patriarchs recognized an obnovlenchestvo.

From documents of the Politburo of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) on an obnovlenchestvo it is visible that the main actions of Renovationists were initiated top-level the Central Committee of party and the government, always with participation of GPU which then brought the made decisions to the attention of the obnovlenchesky management and provided carrying out them in life [In the same place. Page 251].

Split in Orthodox church in Siberia began with events in the Tomsk diocese. On June 1, 1922 in St. Nicholas Church of Tomsk the first meeting of initiative group of clergy where the issue of situation in Church was discussed took place. The meeting joined the platform of "progressive clergy" in Moscow and Petrograd (A. Vvedensky, V. Krasnitsky, S. Kalinovsky's group, the bishop Antonin). Soon at a meeting of clergy and laymen of the diocese there took place elections of Interim church administration of the Tomsk diocese. The priest Pyotr Blinov became the chairman — Talovsky, members of council the archpriest Toropov, the priest Avdentov, from laymen — Solodilin are elected the vice-chairman and the secretary from clergy.

In the telegram to Moscow the Siberians reported to the All-Russian interim church administration (VVCU, obnovlenchesky) that the priority put the fastest church revolution in all Siberia. The congress decided to rename the Tomsk management into the Highest Siberian church management as a part of the Tomsk, New Nikolaev, Altai, Omsk, Tobolsk, Chelyabinsk, Semipalatinsk, Yenisei, Tyumen and Yakut provinces. For strengthening of own authority on eyes of believers the dissenters addressed the Siberian hierarches with the offer on cooperation. The first accepted the invitation to work in the Siberian church management the bishop New Nikolaev Safrony. In Red

a yarska the former Irkutsk bishop Zosima who renounced monkhood and marrying [Cherkazyanova, entered 1995 into local group of "Live church". Page 165].

Active work of Renovationists led to the fact that in the middle of August, 1922 in the cities of Shcheg-lovsk, Novonikolayevsk, Semipalatinsk, Biysk, Tyumen new church managements were organized. Most actively the obnovlenchestvo took root in three dioceses: Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk, New Nikolaev. 40 delegates of these dioceses gathered in October in Tomsk on the All-Siberian congress of "Live church". The resolution the congress hailed the chairman of SCU of the archpriest P. Blinov bishop Tomsk and Siberian. It was the first bishop built in this dignity from married priests [In the same place. Page 166].

In the Tyumen province there are also separated groups of both Renovationists, and supporters of the patriarch Tikhon. Division of dioceses into smaller became a serious indicator of process of dissociation, and each of them could be under a certain influence of the broken-up church. Division of the Tobolsk diocese on Yalutorovsk, Ishim, Tyumen and Tobolsk promoted the approval of non-uniform concepts of the church theorists confusing idea of religious doctrines at ordinary parishioners [Polovinkin, 1993. Page 30].

On July 24, 1922 in Tyumen the meeting of "organizing group for designing in Tyumen of Interim administration on church affairs of the Tyumen diocese" as a part of the preosvyashchenny Tyumen bishop Irinarkh, the archpriest Sergius Vinogradov, the priest K. Rebrin and in the presence of the manager of ITO Maxim Lazorevich Sazhin on whom Irinarkh's resolution of July 23 on establishment in Tyumen of Interim church administration on church affairs of the Tyumen diocese, about recognition of the Tyumen diocese independent and about election of the delegate to Moscow for establishment of "the correct contact" with the Highest central church office was discussed took place.

On the first question the meeting decided "immediately and without respect for formalities quickly to open the aforesaid management in Tyumen". It had to consist of the chairman in a presbyteral dignity, companion chairman (layman), two members from clergymen and two from laymen and also the secretary and the copyist clerk. Administrative functions were provided to management. Were chosen: the chairman is the archpriest Sergey Vinogradov, the chairman's companion — the citizen Nikolay Petrovich Rebrin, members from clergymen — the lake Vladimir Marsov, lake Ilya Populov, from laymen — Stepan Mefodyevich Kuzmichev and Mikhail Aleksandrovich Kordovsky, the secretary — the priest of the lake K. Rebrin, the clerk — Nikolay Petrovich Tarkov.

On the second question decided "to recognize as blagovremenny and essential necessary for advantage of the diocese now to announce the territory of the Tyumen independent vikariatstvo the independent diocese what to inform the Vysokopreosvyashcheyneyshy Archbishop Nikolay Tobolsky and Siberian on". The diocese included arrivals of the Tyumen and Turin Counties. As the delegate to Moscow the priest of the lake Ilya Populov [Templing, was outlined 1994. Page 46].

On January 2, 1923 the member of Diocesan council archpriest Vladimir Hlynov at the request of a meeting of clergy and representatives of parish councils of Tobolsk filed a petition to department of management of Tobolsky an uispolkom. He requested permission of convocation on January 23, 1923 of a diocesan congress of representatives of clergy and Tobolsky's laymen, a part Ishim, parts of Tarsky, Yalutorovsk and Turin Counties. This statement was forwarded for the conclusion to provincial department of management, from there to OGPU. Returning correspondence, GPU was recommended by permission to convocation of a congress not to give as "reportedly this congress will have character, undesirable to the Soviet power", however "for tactical reasons" as the reasons it was recommended to expose the foreign reasons, for example non-compliance with the formalities which are precisely regulated by the instruction of VTsIK as was executed. At the same time asked to find out GPU whether on the lawful bases there is Diocesan council, and, in case of detection of any formal violations, "to dismiss it as the illegal organization and to make its executive body responsible" [GUTO GATO. F. R-2. Op. 2. 17. L. 43-43 about.]. Thus, the congress which Tobolsky assumed to call diocesan council in 1922 did not take place, and in the first months 1923 the control in Management already passed to Renovationists, on department the archbishop Mikhail (Nikolaev), the adherent of the obnovlenchesky movement entered.

On March 15, 1923 the archbishop Mikhail Tobolsky asks permission to holding an organizational meeting of clergy and the laymen belonging to obnovlenchesky group "Live

church". The agenda of a meeting joined questions of election of interim committee, of the relation of "Live church" to the Soviet power, to the All-Russian church management and the Siberian department of church management, about the relation to the All-Russian Cathedral, about representation of Sibtserkvi in VCU, about group discipline, about consideration "reactionary activity of the former Diocesan council and the attitude of church towards his members" [GUTOGAT. T. I-716. Op. 1. 53. L. 142-143 about.]. The journal resolution of Tobolsky diocesan management of May 16, 1923 supposed that the diocesan committee of the Live Church group will be present at a diocesan congress which was planned to be held on June 24-27 in full strength. At the same time the archbishop Mikhail appealed to grant permission for convocation in Tobolsk on June 24, 1923 of a diocesan congress of clergy and the laymen belonging to the obnovlenchesky group "Live Church". From GPU in these cases of objections did not meet [Templing, 1994. Page 48].

In the Tyumen diocese to spring of 1923 all members of diocesan management also belonged to the Live Church group. The archbishop Alexy (Kopytov) headed the diocese [GUTO GATO. F. R-2. Op. 3. 1. L. 164-164 about.] (tab. 1).

Table 1

List of members of the Tyumen diocesan department

Alexey Petrovich Kopytov Tyumen, Lyaminskaya St., 37; managing director of the Tyumen diocese, archbishop; instant; except house belongings — any property

Sergius Sergeyevich Vinogradov Tyumen, Podaruyevskaya St., 18; attendant of a religious cult, priest; instant; member of the group "Live church"

Vladimir Aleksandrovich Marsov Tyumen, Zareka, Mostovaya St., 4; attendant of a cult, priest; instant; there is no real estate; chairman of diocesan committee of the Live Church group

Konstantin Petrovich Rebrin Tyumen, Volodarskogo St., 1; attendant of a religious cult, priest; instant; no; member of the group "Live church"

Ilya Georgiyevich Populov Tyumen, Trotsky St., 11; attendant of a religious cult, priest; instant; no; member of the group "Live church"

Alexey Andreevich Tobolkin Tyumen, Lenin St., 20; attendant of a religious cult, priest; instant; no; member of the group "Live church"

Nikolay Petrovich Tarkov Tyumen, Leninskaya St., 43; attendant of a religious cult, priest; instant; no; member of the group "Live church"

Nikolay Petrovich Rebrin Tyumen, Znamenskaya St., 1; the legal adviser gubotdet RKI; average; member of the group "Live church"

Stepan Mefodyevich Kuzmichev Tyumen, Uspenskaya St., 27; employee of Komourallesbumtrest, instant; home; the member of the group "Live church"

Asking at the authorities the permission for carrying out in April-May parish, decent and diocesan meetings, the archbishop Alexy assured that "according to the order of SibOTsU measures that the diocesan provincial congress consisted mainly of members & #34 will be taken; Live церкви"" [Templing, 1994. Page 48].

Formation of groups of "Live church" went actively and in other places of the former Tobolsk diocese. On December 26, 1922 the chairman of parish council of the religious community of the settlement Suyerskoy of the Yalutorovsk County Ignatiy Orlov and the churchwarden filed in gubispolky a petition. In it they asked permission about convocation on January 29, 1923 of a district congress of representatives of orthodox clergy and laymen. Authorized VCU Vladimir Marsov petitioned about it and asked to grant permission for holding a congress as the questions raised on the agenda answer directives VCU and will be considered in the spirit of the obnovlenchesky movement and also assured that any excesses at this congress will not occur. GPU and department of management were not against and recommended to hold a congress till February 10, 1923 [GUTO GATO. F. R-2. Op. 2. 17. L. 51, 52-52 about.].

Spring of 1923 holding a meeting of clergy of the 3rd deanery of the Tyumen County in the village of Pokrovsk for formation of committee of the Live Church group was supposed. For this purpose at the end of February the decent priest P. Zubovsky filed a petition in a gubispolok and the application to Diocesan management. In this case GPU of objections had also [no Templing, 1994. Page 51].

— the beginning of 1923 the obnovlenchesky movement in the territory of the Tyumen province took key positions in the second half of 1922. It was defined by many reasons.

First, the movement of updating of Church was expression of objective interests, the ideas, aspirations of a part of clergy and the believers directed to adaptation of ideology and the organization of Church to new conditions. Secondly, these interests coincided with interests with -

the Vyatka power, directed to split, easing and eventually destruction of Church that provided to the movement secret support from governing bodies at a certain stage. Thirdly, elimination from management of the patriarch Tikhon of Church of spring of 1922 generated a peculiar administrative vacuum which, naturally, could not remain blank. It is characteristic that as soon as the patriarch in June, 1923 declared return to the management, almost at once ranks of obnovlenchesky church begin to thin [In the same place].

Resistance to an obnovlenchestvo in dioceses of the Tyumen province began fall of 1923. It is connected first of all with release of the patriarch Tikhon in June, 1923 and appointment to the Tobolsk bishop's throne of Ioann. On November 6, 1923 the vice-chairman of the Ishim district church council archpriest A. Chudov reported in Tyumen gubotdet managements that "priests: village of Utchanskogo Alexey Divnogorsky, village of Matasinskogo Alexy Vinogradov, village of Teplo-Dubrovskogo Vladimir Ovchinkin, page. Kazantsevo Fedor Zakharov, settlement of the New and Ilyinsky island of Pavel, page. Kamensk Alexander Paryshev with their parishioners separated from the Ishim bishop and Diocesan management and joined the old churchmen headed by the former Patriarch Tikhon..." [GUTO GATO. F. R-2. Op. 2. 17. L. 193-193 about.]

In the Yalutorovsk County the protivoobnovlenchesky movement was headed by the archpriest Preobrazhensky. In 1923 "the reactionary group of clergy directed by Preobrazhensky starts communications with the village, there are data of a parcel them the representatives to Moscow". In the report from Yalutorovsk this group "dreams of the organization of a special circle of tikhonovets... There were attempts of convocation of a district congress of priests, Tychonoff supporters. The population of Yalutorovsk obviously sympathizes with them". Moreover, Preobrazhensky's supporters said that "the obnovlenchesky movement, is no more not less as a trick of communists" [Kononenko, 1992. Page 27].

In relation to an obnovlenchestvo it is possible to distinguish three groups from priests: 1) sincere supporters; 2) "favourites", those who entered an obnovlenchestvo under pressure and at the first opportunity returned to Tychonoff church; 3) ardent opponents of zhivotserkovnik.

These groups were even more designated after an obnovlenchesky Local council which opened on April 29, 1923 in Moscow. Split also was outlined in the obnovlenchestvo. Information on absence at Renovationists of flock repeats in various documents: minutes of meetings of the Commission on disestablishment, regular reports of GPU to Lenin about the general provision in the country in which much attention is paid to church questions and especially a condition of an obnovlenchestvo. If by the end of 1922 in Moscow the patriarchal Church had only four temples against more than 400 at Renovationists, in Petrograd almost all temples were occupied by Renovationists, and through the whole country the Renovationists had about 66% of the operating temples, then by November, 1924 the Renovationists had already about 14 thousand temples, it is no more than 30%. Mass falling away from Renovationists continued also after the death of the patriarch Tikhon. In 1926 they had only 6345 arrivals and 10,815 priests against not less than 30 thousand at patriarchal Church [Pospelovsky, 1996. Page 254].

In the territory of the Tyumen region the activity of Renovationists is reduced. Nevertheless they maintain the arrivals [GUTOGAT. T. 432. Op. 1. 291. L. 5] (tab. 2).

Table 2

Materials about believers across Tobolsk and Tobolsky to the district

Tobolsk Tobolsky district

Quantity relig. island Quantity of prayers. buildings Quantity relig. island Quantity of prayers. buildings

The name of beliefs The head of year Is again registered from y by $ Kohn. years Only Transferred relig. to societies Were used for other purposes Heads of year Were not used It is again registered from y by $ Kohn. years Only Transferred relig. to societies Were used for other purposes Were not used

Right- 1926 13 — 1 12 29 17 10 2 103 4 3 104 151 126 7 18

nice 1927 12 — — 12 29 17 10 2 104 1 1 104 150 126 7 17

1928 12 — — 12 27 15 10 2 104 — — 103 147 123 7 17

New things- 1926 3 1 — 4 4 4 — — 3 1 — 3 4 4 — —

laziness 1927 4 — — 4 4 4 — — 3 — — 4 6 6 — —

1928 4 — 4 6 6 — — 4 — — 4 6 6 — —

The movement of an obnovlenchestvo territorially expands the borders, progressing to Far North.

In 1926 "the progressive clergy" appeared in the village of Obdorsk. On December 5, 1926 there the meeting of priests and laymen of Petro-Pavlovsky church at which there were 116 people the Chairman of the meeting took place was gr. Kozhevin, and secretary gr. Belov. On the agenda there was a question of re-elections of church council in obnovlenchesky church. The report was made by Belov. He informed on situation in Church, explained that he such obnovlenchesky current, and noted that it "passes across all Russia, is recognized as the Soviet power and East Universal Patriarchs" [GUTO GAYANAO. T. 2. Op. 1. 105. L. 6]. Also Stukalov (the Renovationist since 1923) who asked society of believers to go without any doubt to ranks of updating made a speech at a meeting. Having listened to speakers, the meeting as a part of 52 people (apparently, the rest left it) decided: "Unanimously to recognize obnovlenchesky church. From which written down in updating by svoyeruchny signatures to recognize as full members of community of updating" [In the same place].

But such fact is curious. Literally in several days, December 19, 1926, members of society of believers of Petro-Pavlovsky church, in bigger quantity — the 457th persons gather in Obdorsk again. The meeting took place in presence of the chairman of Obdorsky district executive committee Melnikov and Obdorskaya's representative district militia I.G. Dyachkov. The main question which was raised on the agenda — accession to obnovlenchesky church and about an extract of literature of the same church. Having listened to a debate of the parties, namely Nikitina and Stukalova, the meeting decided not to join obnovlenchesky church, not to write out any literature and not to allow distribution [to GUTOGAT. T. 704. Op. 1. 167. L. 62]. On the basis of these documents it is possible to draw a conclusion that in Ob-dorske there was a fight for flock between patriarchal Church and obnovlenchesky.

Having practically got beaten, Renovationists turn the look on "foreigners" who had independent arrival in Obdorsk. On February 7, 1928 in Skorbyashchenska church ("foreign") representatives of the northern people of the Khanty and Nenets in number of the 78th persons gathered. Before them the prior Skorbyashchenska church the priest Claudius Perebe-rin the report "Modern position of Orthodox Russian church" made. He noted that "despite all malicious propaganda against the obnovlenchesky movement which was carried on without restraint by representatives of so-called "starotserkovnichestvo" both in Obdorsk, and in plagues, on the tundra... we make sure that updating is Orthodoxy. And we, recognizing that, on one note we do not doubt treason or substitution of belief of our grandfathers and fathers" [GUTO GAYANAO. T. 2. Op. 1. 105. L. 25-25 about.]. The all-parish meeting decided to enter updating, to conduct a broad explanatory campaign among natives of the tundra and to attract believers in structure with Skorbyashchenska Obdorskaya community. Also elections of parish council, audit commission, the prior of the temple and the churchwarden took place.

The following members of community were a part of parish council:

— from the Russian and Komi-Zyrian population — A.G. Aleksandrov, D.A. Krivodanov, N.S. Ka-nev, A.S. Vokuyev, G.S. Voytsekhovsky, the priest K. Pereberin;

— from Nenets — G.A. Seredete, N.N. Vanuyta, E.I. Yangasov;

— from the Khanty — V.N. Syunzi, P.F. Vozelov, S. Luttoko.

by

the Prior of the temple unanimously elected the priest Claudius Pereberin who was already approved by Tobolsky's decree diocesan management of December 29, 1927 No. 125 [In the same place].

Further Renovationists give in. Bolsheviks stood them until then and in that framework while they promoted easing and destruction of Orthodox church. As show further events of the end of the 1920-1930th, the commitment to the ideas of an obnovlenchestvo did not save priests from prosecutions and repressions [Templing, 1994. Page 50]. In December, 1929, being a prior of Archangel Michael Church of Tyumen, the Renovationist V. Marsov was condemned and sentenced to three years of imprisonment with the subsequent reference for five years and confiscation of all property [Chernyshov, 1992. Page 68]. The Siberian metropolitan Pyotr Blinov in 1937 was put in the Novosibirsk prison.

Why the obnovlenchestvo failed? Many authors, both memoirists, and historians-analysts, agree that the people were pushed away by obvious cooperation of Renovationists with the Soviet power. Some consider that the church people did not accept liturgical innovations of Renovationists, but not their political position. Besides, it is necessary to consider change of structure of urban population after the revolution — inflow of the peasantry.

Orthodoxy in fact of the deep historicism is conservative. Reforms are given it hardly and are accepted, probably, only when planting by their government, and such which the people recognize as orthodox. And here the most active supporters of the Soviet godless and godless power ego-tripping through GPU, resorting to terror of GPU in fight against historical national Church, in persecutions on popular priests were reformers. Besides, a paradoxical image, the movement which began with a protest against symbiosis of Church and the state and calling for office of Church was the most dependent from the state. Together with Renovationists also their ideas were compromised therefore and until now any innovation is taken by Russian Orthodox Church painfully even if it actually is return to sources [Pospe-lovsky, 1996. Page 257].

The atheistic promotion which is carried out by the Soviet state, policy of support of church split, oppression of clergymen and believers weakened positions of Church in society, led to misunderstanding of a role of cult institutes in life of society and finally to crisis of national consciousness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

GUTO GATO. F. R-2. Op. 2. 17. Op. 3. 1.

GUTOGAT. T. I-716. T. 432. T. 704.

GUTO GAYANO. T. 2.

Literature

A.A. Kononenko. Church of the Tobolsk (Tyumen) province in the first years of the Soviet power: Some aspects of history (1921-1923)//Religion and church in Siberia. Tyumen: Tyum publishing house. un-that, 1992. Issue 4. Page 24-29.

N.S. Polovinkin the West Siberian region in the religious relation and church transformations in the 15-20th centuries//Religion and church in Siberia. Tyumen: Tyum publishing house. un-that, 1993. Issue 5. Page 19-23.

D.V. Pospelovsky. Orthodox church in the history of Russia, Russia and the USSR. M, 1996. 408 pages

V.Ya. Templing. Orthodox church of the Tyumen province in the first years of construction of the Soviet power (1921-1923)//Religion and church in Siberia. Tyumen: Tyum publishing house. un-that, 1994. Issue 7. Page 43-55.

Cherkazyanova of I.V. Obnovlenchestvo in Siberia//Izv. Omsk. local historian. museum. 1995. Issue 4. Page 165-173.

A.V. Chernyshov. Dark days of the Russian Orthodoxy: (Documents and materials about oppression of attendants of a cult and religious associations of the Tyumen region in days of the Soviet power of 1917-1965). Tyumen, 1992.

Tyumen State Oil and Gas University

One of the tendencies in the Soviet leaders& policy in 1920s was supporting the church dissent. It was expressed in arising of the so called & #34; renovationists" who used to accuse the clergy in conservatism, criticizing many aspects of the church life. The renovation ideas also grew popular among the church hierarchy in the Tyumen area.

Kim White
Other scientific works: