In the extremely harsh polemics that followed the first edition of this book, as soon as its title was not changed - "How I became an anti-Semite", "How to become an anti-Semite", "Why I am an anti-Semite"... The author still insists on his version of the title of this collection of articles. If we see manifestations of Russophobia among the inhabitants of the former Soviet republics, then it makes sense to think about whether this Russophobia is only a misfortune for the "Russian migrants" or at least partly also their fault? Exactly the same question arises in connection with anti-Semitic sentiments, which surround a large part of the history of the Jewish people. Is there not something in the polemical devices adopted by some Jewish preachers and journalists that contributes to the birth of anti-Semitism? The author of this book believes that anti-Semitism is a disease. But to treat a disease, you need to know its origin. After all, sometimes a sick state of the body is just a normal reaction to poisoned food.
First of all, I would like to ask you to pay attention to the fact that there is no official church blessing on this book. This means that only I am responsible for everything that is written in it, and not the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, I ask those people who find it necessary to speak critically about it, all criticism should be addressed to me, and not to the Church. This is a private project, a private opinion. That is why I would like to ask you to do without the phrase "we have before us yet another proof of anti-Semitism that has engulfed the Russian Orthodox Church."
Since this is the second edition, this is not the first time I have asked for this. Although I know that it is, of course, useless to ask ideologically biased people. "The doctor said - to the morgue, so - to the morgue!" 1. After the first edition of this book of mine, its publication by a secular publishing house was still imputed to the whole Church:
"We will cite only two examples of the prevalence of anti-Semitic ideas in the Orthodox environment. 1) During the transfer and burial of the "Yekaterinburg remains", one of the questions asked by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to a special expert commission was the question of whether the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family was ritual. In view of the fact that the question of regicide has been developed in the literature around the Church, there is no doubt that by the "ritual" character is meant precisely the Jewish one. 2) Another example, the book by deacon Andrei Kuraev "How an Anti-Semite is Made" (Moscow, "Hodegetria", 1998), strictly speaking, can be regarded as incorrect. The author himself writes: "There is no official blessing on this book. This means that only I am responsible for everything that is written in it, and not the Russian Orthodox Church." However, A. Kuraev is a significant figure; he is practically the only person in the Church who is engaged in voicing its position on topical issues, regularly appearing on television and actively publishing explanations about various problems. Within the Church, he is perceived almost as an official authority. As far as we know, there has never been any condemnation or doubt on the faithfulness of his work on the part of the church hierarchy."2
As for the first point, the official response of the Moscow Theological Academy to the Synod was negative: there are no grounds to see the execution of the Imperial Family as a ritual murder. But the laws of information warfare do not allow us to talk about how "scandalous stories" end: the initial turmoil is important.
On the second point, first of all, I would like to thank you for your kind words: the tolerant attitude of the Patriarchate to my journalistic activity is really dear to me. But again, is it fair: I warn that I am doing something NOT in the name of the Church, I leave the church ambo and speak as an emphatically private person, and these words of mine are still put in the dossier on the Russian Church as such... And this dossier is kept by thorough gentlemen: this is "a joint project of the sem40.ru Website and the Anti-Defamation League." The latter is famous for its good memory, peremptory sentences, and very influential connections in Transoceania.3
This collection contains articles from different years, including those that were written after the publication of the first edition of this book in 1998.
The texts collected in this collection are not the fruit of a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the problem. This collection (so far?) lacks a pivotal chapter: a theological conversation about how a Christian should comprehend the historical path of the Jewish people and on the basis of what moral and religious principles he should build his relations with modern Jews. But I did not see the need to write such a text on my own behalf, since the principles of the Gospel are known to everyone, and their application to the "Jewish question," it seems to me, was quite successfully fulfilled in the classic article by Archpriest I. Sergius Bulgakov's "Persecution of Israel" and in general in his collection "Christianity and the Jewish Question".
The articles of mine that have been collected here arose quite reactively, as a reaction to the of the Church and Russia that came across in the activities of Jewish journalists. Well, the main thing has already been said: if there are no injections, there will be no reaction. Those who agree with this need not read the following hundreds of pages: they are only illustrations of this thesis.
There is no analysis of the "current situation" in this book. Rather, its very appearance is a fact that needs to be analyzed. The fact is that here is another person who was brought up in a university and academic environment, who from childhood learned an intolerant attitude towards "zoological anti-Semitism", nevertheless went beyond the red flags of "political correctness". Why?
На этих страницах я как раз и представляю тот материал, встреча с которым подвела меня не к пересмотру, нет, а к расширению представления на тему «русские и евреи». Я и поныне не отрекаюсь от своей статьи "Антисемитизм - это грех" (Еврейская газета. №1, 1992)4. Но кроме этого и еще нечто приходится сказать по заявленной теме.
Этот сборник - скорее исповедь, чем обвинение. Да, антисемитизм - грех, ибо греховна любая ненависть. А раздражение и возмущение есть первая ступенька к ненависти. Я не хочу, чтобы ненависть свила гнездо в моей душе. Но все же не могу не заметить, что чтение демпрессы провоцирует во мне незнакомые мне ранее реакции. Я почувствовал, что в моей душе вдруг начинают мелькать странные тени. Правила аскетики в таких случаях велят присмотреться: откуда это чувство духовно-нравственной нечистоты, что провоцирует эти приступы.
Христианин, конечно, должен быть готов в любом неприятном происшествии увидеть свою вину, свой грех. Но является ли грехом возмущение, которое рождается при слышании кощунств? Кто более виноват в этом случае – кощунник, или же христианин, в чьем присутствии это кощунство было произнесено и который, может, даже слишком вспыльчиво вступился за поруганную святыню?
Ну вот, для того, чтобы этой вспыльчивости не было, и нужно спокойно поговорить. Для начала нужно признать, что проблема есть. Есть проблема недопустимо пренебрежительного отношения некоторых еврейских публицистов к религиозно-национальным чувствам русских людей. И есть проблема недопустимо резкой реакции некоторых из русских на эти оскорбления.
Понимаю, что прежде всего проблема в наших собственных немощах. Говорят, что Саладдин после беседы с Франциском Ассизским сказал, что если бы все христиане были такими, то он с радостью отдал бы им Святую Землю…5 Будь во мне больше любви, молитвенности, духовности, я не раздражался бы при встрече с антирусскими и антицерковными выпадами, а лишь плакал бы с сердечным сокрушением о людях, которым Господь попустил впасть в такое помрачение, да о своих грехах, которые мешают другим людям, в том числе и нашим хулителям, увидеть подлинный свет Евангелия6… Но ведь не Серафимами Саровскими населена русская земля.