Note on the Religious Education of Children

There is no need to say that every Orthodox Christian is obliged to study the Law of God, or knowledge of his duties toward God, his neighbor, and himself; but we wish to draw attention, first of all, to who precisely has the obligation to teach the people. This obligation rests, in the first place, on parents, then on godparents, and finally on the pastors of the Church.

How does this business presently go in general? Among parents, very, very few fulfill this obligation; on the contrary, very, very many fulfill it poorly or not at all. As for godparents, there is nothing to say: everyone knows how they instruct their godchildren. Thus the obligation to teach the people the Law of God now rests almost entirely on the pastors alone. And how is this obligation fulfilled by them? Thanks be to God, although there are very few, there are pastors who fulfill it as well as one could wish. But, speaking generally, we see the fulfillment of this obligation on the part of the pastors in their teaching of the Law of God in schools, in the delivery or reading of sermons from the ambo (which are moreover printed in books), and besides this, since 1841 so-called catechetical instructions have been established in many churches (which, however, the people do not distinguish from ordinary sermons); and if to this we add the private instructions of priests given at confession and on other occasions, one may say that on the part of the pastors, if not everywhere, then all that is possible is being done, and it remains only to wish that this were done everywhere.

But does all this—that is, teaching in schools, sermons, and instructions—achieve its aim? (We shall speak of the first subject below.)

There is no doubt that sermons and instructions are more or less beneficial. But to whom do they bring, or can they bring, benefit? Only to those who are able to understand what they read and hear.

And if this is so—and it truly is so—then the rest of the people, the greatest part, with few exceptions, remain not only without edification, but even in ignorance (and in what ignorance!) of the most necessary matters of the faith. And this is not at all surprising; it is not even a cause for reproach, for the majority of our people simply cannot understand sermons and instructions, on account of their low level of education.

And if this is so (and it truly is so), then what is to be done so that our people might understand and know what it is necessary for them to know? Establish schools, spread literacy—one hears this from everywhere. Against this, no one will argue, and it has long been a topic of discussion. But however useful schools and literacy may be, we cannot rest all our hopes on them alone, for several reasons.

1) Present-day schools, including even the highest, enlighten and cultivate only the mind, and not the mind and heart together, as is well known to all. This would seem to be contradicted by the fact that there are not a few persons who have completed the course of study in schools and who, by their moral qualities, are exemplary members of society; but upon close examination it turns out that these are people who, in addition to school education, have had an upbringing, either at home or through other circumstances of life. In any case, for every such person one can cite ten or more who have passed through the schools but have not advanced a step in their moral development—and sometimes have even gone backward.

Therefore, the hope of reforming our people morally by means of schools is very weak.

In schools generally, students are taught only to know; and the doing… is left to each person’s own will. Let us add further: in schools, the Law of God is taught not exclusively, but among and alongside other subjects; and as a result, in the minds of the pupils, lessons in the Law of God appear on the same level as lessons in arithmetic or grammar, and have neither more authority nor more practical influence on morality and the heart.

2) Let us suppose that the teaching of the Law of God in schools will, in time, achieve its aim; but many, many years will pass before schools (properly organized) will exist everywhere in our country, and all children of all classes will be educated in them. But meanwhile, generation after generation is growing up without any real moral education, and this is a great, a very great loss.

3) And finally, one must remember that children younger than six or seven years cannot enter schools. Therefore, even with schools everywhere and with the best possible organization of them, very many children may still remain without any education whatsoever. What is to be done with them?

They say: the concern for this is properly the business of parents (and of godparents no one even speaks). Society can do nothing here.

Yes! Society cannot, and parents will not or also cannot. But the Church can—that most loving of mothers, who receives all children into her arms from their very birth. The Church both can and must take care of this.

Before we speak of who should teach, what, when, where, and so forth—we shall say first that this business, that is, the business of teaching small children the knowledge of their duties (or, to call it more simply) the Law of God—is far from as difficult as it may seem at first glance. This business, if it is entered into with love and zeal, may be done easily, pleasantly, and with success by every parish priest, even without any special learning or rhetorical art.

From the foregoing it can already be seen that this is the direct business of parish priests; for to teach one’s parishioners is one of the three principal duties assumed by them at their very ordination, under pain of the judgment of God. But can any of the present-day priests do this? Without a doubt. Whatever may be said about the intellectual level of our rural clergy, there is no priest so simple as not to know how to make the sign of the cross, to recite the Lord’s Prayer, the Symbol of Faith, the Ten Commandments, and the most necessary prayers—and to explain them in simple words.

If this business is regarded as it should be, then no Christian child can be excused from the obligation of attending the spiritual instructor’s conversations—even if some of them are educated in schools or at home; but taking into account that such children are few, and also that the instruction given at home and at school bears more the character of a science, while here it bears the character of the Church—the advantage of having all together is apparent.

To the question: is it not too early to make four-year-old children attend children’s conversations? — It is not too early. An example is the pious, wise mother. Her child of three, or even younger, knows how to make the sign of the cross, can distinguish an icon from an ordinary picture, can say “Lord, have mercy” or something like it. And all this the child not only knows but has imbibed from infancy, and it is for this reason so firmly engraved upon it. This is precisely what the Church-teacher of children must strive to achieve.

Such a question is entirely superfluous for a father who desires, in a Christian spirit, temporal and eternal good for his children. His loving heart will always tell him what and how his children should be taught. The same should be said of the pastor of the Church, who fully understands his calling and has a genuine love for his flock.

One should begin the instruction precisely as a good mother begins: for example, as said above, with how to make the sign of the cross, how to stand at prayer, how to enter the church, how to stand in it, how to make prostrations, and so forth—observing a gradual progression from the simpler to the more complex, and proceeding from the known to the unknown.

One may often occupy the children with the reading or narration of the lives of the saints, or from sacred history, with explanations and moral applications.

Of course, however simple this business may be, printed guides would not be superfluous for ordinary priests; and one may hope that they will be compiled, if children’s conversations come to be numbered among the obligatory pastoral duties. But it seems that in no case should any programmes or schedules be established: the priest-teacher should be left entirely to his own free judgment, with only the overall rule: that the children should understand everything they hear, and should be able to repeat what they have heard.

Since the pupils, if not all, then the great majority, will be illiterate, it goes without saying that for them to retain what is taught, the same thing must be repeated to them several times, and moreover each conversation should begin with the repetition of the last lesson.

The time of the conversations must be short; otherwise the children will grow tired and then bored.

As an aid to teaching children in appropriate cases, instead of books, icons and sacred images may serve—which, as is well known, were introduced into our churches with this very purpose primarily in view, and which in greater or lesser number may always be found in every church.

Extreme care must be observed in the last case: that is, icons must by no means be handled casually, as one may handle pictures and especially simple prints, if any such are found. And even pictures on which Jesus Christ is depicted should not be confused with other sacred images: the difference between them must be explained to the children.

It should not be forgotten that children of a young age are more perceptive than we think. Sometimes from a single movement of the hand they understand what is being spoken of.

Children of middle age can distinguish words spoken in earnest from those spoken in jest. But children of young age—that is, infants—take every word spoken by a priest as earnest; and from this it is evident how careful the priest must be in his words when in the presence of children.

Much more could be added here; but all that might be said on the subject would be no more than what is said in the plans and guides for ordinary schools. Here we shall say something particular and at the same time very important.

1) Priests, as pastors of the Church in the full sense of the word, have not only the obligation but also the right and authority not only to instruct and teach those children of the Church entrusted to them, but to insist upon and therefore to oversee that the children endeavor to fulfill what he teaches them. For example, if he notices that one of his young students is making the sign of the cross improperly, the priest must and may correct this immediately—and not only in church, but also outside it, when he happens to meet the child.

2) If anywhere and at any time, then especially before his own pupils, the priest-teacher must show by example the fulfillment of what he teaches. However much a priest may urge that the sign of the cross be made correctly, if he himself makes it in a frantic manner—as the Old Believers say—then all his instruction will be in vain.

Where and when to teach?

The place for conversations with children must of necessity be the church. The attentive know what a difference there is between hearing the Word of God in church and hearing it in homes. We believe that in the church, as in a consecrated place, the grace of God abides at all times. Consequently, greater success and greater fruits may be expected from instruction given there than from instruction given anywhere else.

The time of the teaching must be only before or after divine service, and never in the middle of it. And it seems that the best and most convenient time for this is the time before the later Liturgy. However, this should be left to the judgment of each teacher or rector of the church.

In those places where priests are not personally occupied with farming or field work, these conversations may take place on every Sunday. As for rural priests, it may be considered sufficient if they engage with the children at least thirty times a year. And in that case, in the course of five or six years, even without any system, a child could learn everything that is essential for a Christian to know.

On the basis of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to call such conversations: Sunday Conversations with Children.

Will any inconveniences or obstacles be encountered in establishing Sunday Conversations with Children?

In those parishes where all the parishioners live beside or near their church, hardly anything of the kind can arise, apart from the unsympathetic attitude of some parents who cannot understand the benefit of such conversations; to them this may appear as an innovation or a notion of the priest without which their fathers, grandfathers, and they themselves got along perfectly well. But such parents will be found opposing every good undertaking, and they should not be heeded.

But here is the most important and almost insuperable obstacle: how to gather small children to the church in those parishes which consist of several villages lying three to twenty versts or more from the church, especially during the busy season or in winter?

In those villages where there are chapels, the priest can still come and gather the children, if only for a short while; but how is this to be done in ordinary villages? It is hard to say from the outside, and indeed one should not say it. Mutual zeal and diligence on the part of the priest and the parishioners can accomplish much and even more than seems possible beforehand.

There is yet another inconvenience, which however may soon, in one way or another, be removed, namely: in many rural parishes the practice has been established of baptizing children and performing other offices precisely at the time when it is proposed to converse with the children.

In conclusion let us say that, after everything said above, it seems there can be no question about the possibility of establishing Sunday Conversations with Children—if not everywhere, then at least in those settlements where there are churches, and if not on every Sunday, then at least on some of them. But let us say something further.

1) Is it necessary to establish Sunday Conversations where schools already exist? — It is necessary; firstly, because, as we said above, far from all children can enter school; and secondly, because even in the lowest of the schools, the duties of a Christian are not taught from the beginning, but so to speak from the middle—from the point where certain knowledge is already presupposed. And moreover, instruction in school bears a different character from that which it should bear in the Church.

2) Will Sunday Conversations bring all the benefit that may be expected of them? — It is our part only to plant and to water; but the increase is God’s work. And it cannot be that they bring no benefit at all, if only those who teach and those who are taught begin with God’s blessing. One may be assured that those who listen to such conversations from their childhood will in adult years come to confession and Holy Communion more willingly, more consciously, and with more benefit.

Finally, let us say that the establishment of Sunday Conversations, if not quickly and not to a great extent, will nonetheless without fail serve as one of the means toward the improvement of the condition of the clergy. A parishioner, whoever he may be, cannot remain indifferent to the needs of his priest, from whom (to say nothing of ordinary church rites) he has received and continues to receive unceasing spiritual benefit—with whom he has, so to speak, grown up together from childhood.