2024.05.08. Lithuania: rebaptize or rebaptize?, Lithuanian Echo

Marius KundrotsHistorian and political scientist

Lithuania has been baptized more than once. The baptism of Mindaugas took place in the 13th century. in the middle, Lithuania was repeatedly baptized by Vytautas and Jogaila in the 14th century. at the end, and Žemaitija was baptized only in the 15th century. at the beginning Despite this, Martynas Mažvydas in the 16th century. wrote that many Lithuanians in his age still worshiped masks and earthlings.

The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation were two opposing and complementary processes, during which Protestants and Catholics again led Lithuanians towards one or another interpretation of Christianity, realizing that formal baptism is not a sufficient basis for a person to become a Christian.

19th century is called the last age, when some Lithuanians still professed paganism. And this is precisely the age when the re-enactors of paganism appeared. So the question is whether the prayers to pagan deities dated to this age were the end of the old or the beginning of the new.

Baptism of Mindaugas (fragment of a painting by an unknown 17th-century Lithuanian artist depicting Bishop Vita)

In today’s historiography and cultural anthropology currents of nationalists and Christian Democrats are artificially distinguished. Neo-nationalists fondly remember Jonas Basanavičius, Vincas Kudirkas, Vydūnas, sometimes – and as if by mistake – they include the ecumenical Catholic, President Antanas Smetonas, who was one of the first to systematize the worldview of historical nationalists.

It is forgotten that J. Basanavičius was buried as a Catholic, and Vydūnas – as an evangelical Lutheran. To what extent their funerals expressed the relationship of these patriarchs of the nation with Christianity is difficult to say. Signatory Kazimieras Uoka, the patriarch of modern nationalists, was also buried as a Catholic, although many knew him as a Romuvian.

The most important thing is not that. Undoubtedly, freethinkers and heathen sympathizers played an important role in the patriotic revival. But were they the only ones? Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas was a Catholic priest who stood at the origins of the nationalist movement and even shaped its ideology. Mykolas Krupavičius – Patriarch of Krikdems – 1926 opposing the leftists and liberals of his time – he also called himself a nationalist. The nationalist brothers Martynas and Jonas Yčai were reformed. And what would a revival be without Maironi?

Anti-Christian, and often anti-Christian, neo-nationalists are also happy to forget the entire intellectual tradition of the “New Romuva”, whose origin was the same Vaižgantas, and whose most famous representative – Antanas Maceina – harmoniously merged national and Christian philosophy into unity. Paradoxically, today Romuva is the name of a group in which – with rare and honorable exceptions – the prevailing view is that one can only choose between Christianity and Lithuania, while rejecting and denying the other.

The second – anti-Soviet – revival of the Lithuanian nation is also divided into national, Christian and liberal currents. Although many representatives of the second and third streams were also in favor of the restoration of the national state of Lithuania. Alfonsas Svarinskas and Povilas Pečeliūnas stood here next to Antanas Terleckos. It’s just that A. Svarinskas, along with national ideals, also cared about Christianity, and P. Pečeliūnas – about human rights. Different currents of resistance raised different emphases, but they all merged together into one national current.

Today’s Romanians and their political clone – neo-nationalists – seek to rechristen Lithuania. They declare that Lithuania and Christianity are opposites, and they consider the “old” faith of the Balts to be the basis of Lithuania. How old that belief is is a separate issue. When one of the most influential actors of Romuva claims that the gods are human creations, and not the other way around, you realize that you are dealing not so much with historical paganism, but with “New Age” pseudo-philosophy.

The truth is that Lithuanianness and Christianity are not identical. And it should hardly be like that. But they are not opposite either. They overlap. Historically, many Lithuanians were and still are Christians. Especially funny are the hormonalized neo-pagan teenagers who worship imaginary ancestors and despise their well-known Christian parents. And if we also remember that most of the Lithuanian partisans whom these restorers of militant Lithuania worship were Christians of one denomination or another…

Today, many Lithuanians are no longer Orthodox Christians. This can be seen from the statistics of how many Lithuanians who consider themselves Christians believe in reincarnation, horoscopes and other elements of the magical worldview. But they are not Romuvians either. Here is a question for Romans: will you rise above yourself by belittling another?

Christianity today is perhaps the only worldview system that can offer Lithuanians a universal moral worldview. Islam or Buddhism also have universal dimensions, but without deeper traditions in the Lithuanian nation as such. The individual is important, but the whole is even more important.

So maybe today it makes sense to turn to evangelical truths that combine universal justice and universal love of neighbor, where national identity has an important place, but is not a substitute for the whole? Maybe now is the time not to unbaptize, but to rebaptize Lithuania, returning it to Christ and His moral code? When Romuva actors and actresses claim that the moral position is not important, but only that the representatives of one and the other position worship Thunder, it is the Christians who say: the moral position is the most important.

back