Alexander Nevsky, Pope Francis, and China

Last updated on: July 28, 2019 at 4:14 am by Henry Karlson

Alexander Nevsky, Pope Francis, and China 2019-07-28T04:14:05-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Grigory Ugryumov: Alexander Nevsky in Pskov/ Wikimedia Commons

One of the most unusual saints from Russia (Rus), St. Alexander Nevsky (1221-1263), is famous in part for being a heroic protector of the Russian lands from various invaders, but is infamous because he acknowledged and defended the Tatar Yoke. There has been a lot of debate as to the reason why Alexander accepted the Tatar Yoke. Critics suggest many reasons, including the power they gave him by recognizing his royal position in Rus; his defenders believe that he was a pragmatist, trying to find a way to save the Russian people, allowing them to come together and slowly grow in self-assertion, biding their time until they could truly become independent from the Mongols.[1]

It is true, Alexander Nevsky offers us a complex, almost, paradoxical representation of Russian autonomy. He is celebrated for the way he defended Russian lands from Teutonic forces (even if much of that fame has been exaggerated). On the other hand, his willingness to work with, and even defend, Mongol rule against all its opposition (he was willing to turn in his brother to the Mongols because his brother was inspiring a revolutionary conspiracy against their rule), seems to go against any form of Russian triumphalism. How can he be, as he has become, an inspiring heroic figure of Russian nationalism when he was willing to subvert nationalistic independence? It is because he was able to hold the Russian people together, to allow them to slowly build themselves up, because his acquiescence to the Mongols actually freed the Russians from many harsh burdens which they would have otherwise faced if they stood strongly against the Tartar Yoke. Officially, he became viewed as a savior of the people (and their Orthodox faith) because his pragmatism had a long-term positive effect. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that many who lived during his reign could have and would have had reasons to question his political strategies.

St. Alexander Nevsky was not unique. Many in Orthodox history followed similar forms of pragmatism. When the Turks took over Constantinople, agreements were made between the Christians and the Turks, and the Turks were active in the appointment of the Patriarchate. While, once again, many questioned the wisdom of this, fearing the Turks would unduly influence Orthodox theology and politics, it remains an example of the pragmaticism which the Christian East has often had to face and the deals they have had to make in order to retain some level of religious freedom. We have seen this in recent more times when the official Russian Orthodox hierarchy made deals with Communist authorities. While many Catholic and Orthodox alike questioned the loyalties of a hierarchy which made deals with the KGB (which led to many of the hierarchy to have connections with the KGB), it still served as a basis by which the Russian Orthodox were able to endure during a time of religious hostility. And if pressed, the Christian tradition could point out that this is not something new; is it not similar to what we read of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their relationship with the Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar?

This tradition, this option, though controversial and riddled with problems, nonetheless remains an invaluable one throughout history; it has had enough success to prove it is a possible option to consider when Christian have to relate to and deal with potentially hostile non-Christian authorities. They must not, of course, become complacent in their engagement, which sadly, happened in Communist Russia. What is vital is that we acknowledge that there can be value with such prudence. When grave injustice is committed or attempted to be enforced, then like Daniel, the response must be to resist such injustice, but when such rule does not, in and of itself, require such injustice by Christians, they can find a way to accommodate to the situation they find themselves in (instead of trying to avoid all such contact with the world, and hide in small little communities which form bubbles that will one day burst). The so-called Benedict Option has little to no real history to it, while options, like what we see with the Orthodox under Alexander Nevsky, while risky, have enough history behind them to indicate they have at least had a limited level of success.

It is in this light that I view the controversial agreements being made between the Catholic Church and China. The Pope is following a prudential and yet traditional approach as he tries to help Christians in China. Like Eastern Christian engagements with Mongols, Turks, and Communist Russia, the Vatican has a history of diplomacy working with hostile governments. Francis is not the first Pope to make such pragmatic deals. One can imagine what the outcries on social media would have been like against Pope St. Leo the Great because of his interaction with Attila the Hun. But, once again, that is history and people who would otherwise act in hostility if they lived through it themselves, know they cannot speak ill against St. Leo today, so they tend to ignore his legacy and its implications to Papal diplomacy today.

We should learn the lessons of history, and understand present Vatican interactions based upon its past interactions with the world. We must recognize what is and it not implied by such diplomacy. The Pope is not indicating that he agrees with what is happening in China; rather, it is an acknowledgment of the real-world situation and how it would be better for Catholics to have some sort of official relations with China than it is to stand in constant hostility with Chinese authorities. This does not mean the deal is easy, nor that what we have today should be the end of all such deals, but without a starting point by which China can be encouraged to treat Christians (and people of other faiths) better, the situation would likely only get much worse. Thus, despite trying to work for better relations, the Pope is willing to criticize the abuses going on in China, and to remind Chinese authorities of the responsibilities they now hold as a result of their deal with the Vatican. The good which has been accomplished by the deal is rarely acknowledged by its critics but the Pope is right, it has helped the average Catholic in China, that they have better access to churches to worship, as those who were involved with the underground church can now be united with those involved with the official organization already approved by China. And yet, for those in China who have problems with the deal, the Pope affirmed their right to follow their conscience and make sure they do not themselves embrace ideologies which they feel is contrary to the Catholic faith.

There are many questions which can be raised by the recent Chinese-Vatican agreement, but to look at it apart from history, apart from traditional forms of Christian diplomatic options, is to misread the agreement itself. It is in this light many of those who try to find any and every reason to be critical of Pope Francis fail to understand their own history and how Pope Francis is being very traditional in his approach. One can think that, at this time, the pragmatic approach will not work; one can debate the prudence behind the deal, but such debates should not be based upon notions that Francis is betraying the Catholic tradition itself. Francis is continuing that tradition, following the ways Popes and Christians in previous eras dealt with similar diplomatic concerns. There is no heresy in what he has done; he might, of course, have chosen the wrong course; it is too soon to tell, but prudential mistakes, if they really are mistakes, are not heresies, nor are they a betrayal of the Catholic faith and its tradition.

[1] See John Fennell, A History of the Russian Church to 1448 (London: Longman, 1995), 124; Fennell himself is critical of this view, and thought Alexander Nevsky’s record showed no inclination to accept any criticism of the Mongols.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Previous Post

July 25, 2019

The Chinese Rites, The Amazon Synod, And The So-Called Traditionalists Attack On Catholic Tradition

Next Post

July 29, 2019 Animals, Saints, and Us

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz