V. Legoyda: Today we are visiting Alexey Ilyich Osipov, professor at the Moscow Theological Seminary and Academy, doctor of theology, a man who trained more than one generation of clergy.
Alexey Ilyich, in one of your articles you call Christianity an “anti-religious religion.” What is the reason for this, in my opinion, very unexpected definition?
A. Osipov: The answers quite often start with something unusual. And I, perhaps, will also use this technique. It seems that Orthodoxy and Marxism are difficult things to combine. But Friedrich Engels, one of the geniuses of Marxism, carefully studied Christian history, - and concluded that Christianity, having emerged on the world stage, came into sharp conflict with all the religions surrounding it. And Karl Marx in his works sometimes directly calls Christianity a religion revolutionary.
What is it about? It turns out that we are talking about very, very serious things. The fact is that Engels’ conclusion really fully corresponds to the essence of Christian teaching - both the doctrine and the understanding of spiritual life itself, and Christian morality. True: Christianity has come into sharp conflict with other religions. What is this contradiction? This is too big a question to answer fully here. But there are some things you can pay attention to.
If we now had representatives of almost all religions sitting before us and we could turn to them and ask the question: “Who will achieve the goal of their life or salvation, from the point of view of your religious teaching?” - then, I think, the answer would be completely clear everywhere. Including from Orthodoxy.
V. Legoyda:And who? Holy man?
A. Osipov: Certainly! One who carefully fulfills all the commandments, all the commands of the Prophet, etc.
V. Legoyda:Isn’t that so, Alexey Ilyich?
A. Osipov: Here is a paradox! If we turn to the history of Christianity, to its very initial stage, then we are faced with an absolutely amazing fact. The first to enter heaven is... well, how can I say... We have somehow become accustomed to the word “robber”... You can say it stronger: scoundrel, murderer! I don’t know what he did that, according to the completely fair standards of both Roman and Jewish legislation, he was sentenced to the most terrible execution. He himself admitted this: “And we are condemned justly, because we received what was worthy of our deeds”...
V. Legoyda:It's about about the thief who was crucified on the right side of Christ?
A. Osipov: Yes. This robber confessed his guilt and realized that he was truly deservedly sentenced to this execution. And what does he hear from the very founder of Christianity, from the One who for Christians is God, Savior, and Ideal? “Today you will be with Me in Paradise”! Who will be in heaven, I ask again? Robber. This is an amazing thing!
V. Legoyda:What does this have to do with? Why is that?
A. Osipov: Good question. But I now draw your attention to the fact that by this fact Christianity has overthrown all the usual, natural norms for a representative of every religion: the saint is saved. Here the scoundrel is the first to enter heaven!
And two or three more points. We see almost the same thing when Christ walks among the noise and crowd and meets Zacchaeus, the tax collector. Who are publicans? These are real scammers who took taxes from people two or three times, I don’t even know how many times more. Deceivers! Zacchaeus wanted to see Christ. And he was short, and he had to climb a tree to see what Christ was like. And here we meet again amazing fact. Christ could see the soul of man. He saw why Zacchaeus climbed that fig tree. Apparently, it was not just out of curiosity, there was something else.
What - it was soon revealed. He says: “Zacchaeus, come down! I will need to be with you today.” Zacchaeus organizes a reception where everyone is present - tax collectors, sinners, etc. And what happens to Zacchaeus? He says: “I will repay everyone whom I have offended fourfold.” Christ answers him: “Salvation has come to this house.” Rescue again - for whom? What good has he done in his life? Nothing!
V. Legoyda:It turns out that Christianity saves scoundrels, or what?
A. Osipov: That's it, that's exactly what I'm talking about. A completely anti-religious religion! Offers terrible things!
V. Legoyda:But these people weren’t saved because they were scoundrels?
A. Osipov: Well, let’s figure it out together, otherwise I probably won’t be able to do it alone! (laughs)
Why did the thief and the tax collector receive such a promise? Why is the woman who was taken the same? They brought her to stone her and asked Christ: “What do you say?” And Christ said: “And I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.” There is a clue in these words. She continued to live, but the robber had nothing left...
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, let’s remind our TV viewers that we are talking about a gospel episode when a woman caught in adultery is brought to Christ. According to Jewish law at the time, she was to be stoned to death. The Pharisees deliberately bring this woman to Christ, setting Him another trap. If He says that she needs to be forgiven, then He is against the law of Moses. And if He says that she should be stoned, then He is in favor of murder. The situation is almost hopeless. And Christ acts in a way completely unexpected for them.
A. Osipov: Yes Yes. So what exactly is Christianity claiming when it offers such strange things? It, unlike other religions that existed before Christ, including the Jewish, Old Testament, revealed religion, draws attention to the very core of the human soul, the human personality and talks about what salvation is.
Salvation is not a debt that God gives to a person who fulfills His commands. Not at all! Salvation is nothing more than a state of soul similar to the properties of God.
What was the idea of God in the pre-Christian era and what idea does Christianity give? Throughout pre-Christian history - in paganism, in Old Testament religion - the deity was an omnipotent being, creator, judge. In some cases, perhaps more merciful, in others – unmerciful, even vindictive. Open the Bible and see: God takes revenge, punishes, etc.
V. Legoyda:Is this in the Old Testament, in the pre-Christian era?
A. Osipov: Yes, in the Old Testament. And in pagan religions they even made human sacrifices - they threw children into the mouth of the red-hot statue of Moloch in order to appease the deity. Only in this way was it possible to receive something from above.
Christianity affirms completely paradoxical and unprecedented things. God needs absolutely nothing: none of our gifts and none of our deeds. God is Love and only Love. God has no vengeance towards man. And it turns out that salvation does not lie in the fact that God gives something to a person for his deeds. And salvation is nothing more than the union of the core of a human being, in which his soul, personality, his “I”, will, heart, mind, - those. the human spirit - with the Spirit of God.
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, if you allow me, I will interrupt you. It seems to me that you have highlighted the two most important differences between Christianity and other religions. First of all, it is the attitude towards people. Christianity is addressed not only to the successful and not to those who rigidly and blindly fulfill the law, even if given from above. It addresses, among other things, those who are having a hard time and who, for one reason or another, are now unable - and he himself understands this - to fulfill this law. And the second, which actually follows from the first, is the idea of God Himself. God appears not only as a judge and creator, but as all-encompassing Love and seeks to extend this love to all people. Are there any other significant differences, from your point of view, between Christianity and other religions?
A. Osipov: I just didn’t finish talking about one very important difference. In all other religions, God is seen as the giver of benefits, and perhaps punishments, depending on human behavior. The attitude towards Him is something like this: I pleased someone significant and rich, I don’t need him myself, I need his gifts, his wallet, not him. It is not God that is needed, but His Kingdom, a little corner of paradise.
Small illustration. At one of the assemblies of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, each plenary session was preceded by small, five-minute films. And one of them is etched in my memory. They showed the entire history of mankind in five minutes, and people were depicted as ants. They started with the Stone Age, then showed bows, arrows, swords, cars. Finally - planes, buildings: Manhattan in New York, skyscrapers... And then suddenly - nuclear explosion, a mushroom rises into the air! Terrible destruction, a pile of stones, everything was destroyed. And from the sky - a huge Divine finger, indicating: this is what you have done to yourself!
And suddenly an ant jumps out of some crack and moves its antennae. Then he sees this finger and starts running around it. Nothing: the finger doesn’t touch him. The ant rises to its feet, touches it, jumps away - no big deal. Finally, having grown bolder, he digs his proboscis into the finger of God and begins to suck blood from there!
This is approximately the attitude towards God in all pre-Christian and, I can say, post-Christian religions. They need God as a source of goods, and not in Himself.
Christianity has decisively rejected this. Those who do not need God, but need His gifts, are precisely the crucifiers of Christ, who, it would seem, did everything to receive a reward - and turned out to be traitors to the Truth. In Christianity, the goal is God Himself, not His gifts. Union with God turns out to be the greatest good, for God, by definition, is Love, but tell me, what could be higher for a person? Nothing.
This is the fundamental and most important difference between Christianity, difference number one: the understanding of God and man’s attitude towards God are completely different.
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, does this mean that, by fundamentally rejecting the relationship between man and God in other religions, coming with a new understanding of this, Christianity thereby rejects other religions? How, then, should a Christian relate to other religions, understanding that their ideas about God are completely different?
A. Osipov: Ideas about God are one thing. Every idea of God stems from the inner, intuitive feeling and quest of a person, his attempt to understand the meaning of his life, the world and all existence as a whole. This is the so-called “natural religion”, a sincere desire to understand such things. Since each person can comprehend this intuition and his sense of God in his own way, different versions of religious ideas arose. But they had this positive impulse, a positive vector of search. It is not without reason that many early Christian apologists of the first centuries called, for example, Greek philosophy “nurser,” “schoolmaster to Christ.” Moreover, they even called the Greek philosophers “Christians before Christ”!
V. Legoyda: Alexey Ilyich, I would like to introduce you and our TV viewers to the regular participants of our program - these are students of MGIMO University and the editorial staff of the Foma magazine. I'm sure the guys have questions. If I may, I would like them to ask them to you, taking this opportunity.
Ilya, student:It turns out that in order to unite with the Spirit of God, you do not have to be righteous. Then the question is: why keep the commandments of Christ, why pray, if you can lead a sinful life, and then simply repent at the end? Why do we need traditions, customs, Sacraments?
A. Osipov: A person can do evil not because he desires evil, but for reasons of a completely different order. Sometimes he can't control himself. How many times have I told myself: “Starting tomorrow, I won’t judge anyone anymore!” In the morning I get a call, I jump up: “Oh, he’s so-and-so, ungreased!” Although I know that you can’t judge anyone. I know that you shouldn’t envy anyone, but suddenly they awarded mine best friend, I am not here, I am out. But I know that I am better! And I turned all green.
It’s one thing when a person would still like to be better, but, unfortunately, it just doesn’t work out. For example, from childhood he found himself in a gang of robbers or in an environment that quite clearly and unambiguously demands things completely contrary to human nature. He lives in this environment, and it has become normal and natural for him. But he does all this not because he strives for evil and wants to be a scoundrel. You try to approach some real scoundrel, if you find such a person, and say: “What a scoundrel you are!” He will show you right away!
A person who does evil not because he wants evil, but because he was brought up in conditions where the foundations and principles of morality are completely different, retains the possibility of repentance. This repentance consists of a decisive rejection of everything that he has seen to be evil. It is not for nothing that the Holy Fathers have an expression that repentance is, first of all, hatred of sin. When a person repents with all his heart, rejects evil, throws it away with hatred, he has the most valuable thing. That's who is being saved.
I spoke about the thief crucified to the right of Christ. But providentially there was another robber who was crucified on the left and about whom nothing positive was said. He never repented, although he was the same robber. This, it turns out, is where salvation lies - in a person’s sincere desire for sacred things, for truth, for truth. “Sincere” means that he wants to do this with all the strength he has. Christianity says that a person who sincerely repents turns out to be superior to the one who fulfills all the instructions and even passes a candle over his right shoulder, and not over his left. But about such “performers,” remember what Christ says in the Gospel? “Snakes and brood of vipers! Coffins painted on the outside! That's what we're talking about.
V. Legoyda: Alexey Ilyich, I would like to clarify. A person may want to be better, but not now, but later. Remember what you wrote in your “Confession”? When he prayed in his youth, he said: “Lord, please make me better - but not now, but a little later! Now I’ll eat and drink some more...” It seems to me that the question asked here is, in fact, dictated by this. For example, I’m a young man, I want to be better, but in twenty years...
A. Osipov: Well, I think everyone will understand that there is deceit here. And “a man with double thoughts (look what wonderful words there are in the New Testament!) is unsettled in all his affairs.” And human lives show that the one who says: “Now I will live for my own pleasure, and then I will repent,” can never do this. An instant, unexpected death may interfere, or in the end the person will fall into such a state of bitterness when there is no question of any repentance. This is an obvious deceit that a person can very easily see if he takes off his rose-colored glasses.
V. Legoyda: Thank you, Alexey Ilyich! Guys, do you have any more questions?
Student:Is there any norm in Orthodoxy, as, for example, in Islam, for a person to do some things, confess all his sins, take communion, and be able to calm down?
A. Osipov: This is not the norm, this is some kind of distorted idea of the norm. Here it must be said that there are commandments, and there are church regulations, norms and rules that have only one single purpose - help fulfill the commandments.
You know, you can fast and turn into a real Satan. To do everything that is required, to follow all the church rules - and imagine myself to be, I don’t know who. “Am I doing everything? All! I am a very good person: faithful in the family, honest at work, I fast, confess, take communion every fast... I am the best in the world, do you understand? Don’t come within a kilometer of me - I’ll be burned by the fire of my holiness!” What's the problem? The fact is that we accepted church regulations and rules as self-sufficient means of connecting with God. And by definition, God is Love and the greatest humility. The Cross of Christ proved this.
I recently watched Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Thanks to him! Finally, throughout the history of Christianity, we were able to see what Christ endured for our sake. What kind of humility and amazing love you need to have to be in such torment, suffering, endure all this and say from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!” This is just something amazing!
God is humility and love, love and humility. Therefore, all commandments must lead a person to this state. If they lead to conceit, then all these church instructions are not only worthless, but become harmful to a person, instruments of his death. And we see any number of such cases.
By the way, who fell into delusion? No, we are all, of course, delusional, but who fell into this special state of conceit? Great ascetics who thought that with these exploits they could please God. Remember there was a vision? Satan appeared to him and said: “Anthony, you eat little, but I don’t eat at all. You sleep little, and I don’t sleep at all. It was not with this that you defeated me, but with humility.” By the way, did you sense any deceit here? Will Anthony become proud of his humility?
Alla, student:One of the gospel parables says that in one vineyard there were workers who worked there all day, then they were joined by people who worked there for half a day. And finally, the third shift arrived and worked there for an hour. And everyone received the same reward. It is clear that by the vineyard we mean work for the sake of the Lord God, and by the reward we mean the Kingdom of Heaven. But this is unfair!
A. Osipov: Yes, it's unfair. Do you remember how indignant those who came in the morning were? This is what we were just talking about: one of the dangers for every Christian is to attach some special meaning to their efforts to do good and fulfill the commandments.
In general, do you know what the criterion of Christianity is? Humility does not see oneself as humble! Moreover, as the Egyptian hermits said, the virtue that becomes obvious to everyone loses all its value. And we find an amazing prediction of the ancient ascetics - by the way, about the last times. They said that the last monastics “will no longer have those deeds that we had (and the deeds that they had are something truly amazing, now we are so weak that we cannot do anything like that), they will be saved by humble patience sorrow." Humble – i.e. with the knowledge that there is nothing they can do. Once again - they will be saved by humility! It turns out that this is the final criterion thanks to which only the human spirit can come to union with God.
Hello, Ilya!
Let's look at the question from three angles:
1. What are the practical consequences of the development of Christianity,
2. What does this religion look like from a philosophical point of view,
3. What follows from the above in the sense of Alakha.
1. Let's start with the good (oddly enough!) - Christianity played an important role in the fate of many peoples, moving them away from paganism. True, these peoples never came to monotheism (see point 2). The Rambam writes that the conquest of most of the world by Christianity and Islam led to the spread of the ideas of the Torah, although distorted, and the knowledge of the coming of the Moshiach and the final Deliverance. When these events happen (probably in our days!), humanity, getting acquainted with the Truth, will discover that most of its postulates are already familiar to everyone.
True, there is not much merit in this for those who spread their faith throughout the world with fire and sword, and along the way, all sorts of crimes were committed, mainly robbery and robbery, not to mention the destruction of entire Jewish communities. The “religion of love” watered the land of Europe with Jewish blood for more than one century, and their ideologists consistently instilled deep contempt and hatred for the Jewish people into the consciousness of the masses. Even those who seemed to sympathize with the persecuted Jews added a dose of poison to their sympathy (see the analysis of the story told by the great Russian writer Leskov at http:// toldot.ru/rus/articles/art/2161). Details, I believe, are unnecessary, refer to history.
2. From the point of view of the Torah, Christianity is a type of idolatry, since it deifies the person, the founder of this religion - Yeshu. A student of the famous sages of the Second Temple era, he was expelled by his teacher for indecent behavior. Offended, he began to fool people, using his knowledge of the Torah, open and secret, and persuading them to follow him, to the “New Truth.” That is, leave the Torah. He was executed, according to some sources, by the Sanhedrin, according to others - by the Romans. He was posthumously declared "resurrected", the Messiah, the son of G-d (in fact, one excludes the other). You can read more about exposing the false premises on which Christianity is built in books dedicated to this. Several such books have been published in Russian in Israel.
The presence of icons, “saints,” “mothers,” and “sons” to which Christian prayers are addressed firmly secures this religion’s status as “avodah zara,” or idolatry. And even those movements that do not have these elements allow “shituf” - they attribute deities to the Almighty, the so-called. "trinity". This contradicts the Unity of the Creator, declared by the Torah, and is not acceptable for a Jew.
3. Hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout history preferred death, exile and humiliation to the wealth and honor offered to them for baptism. The Sanhedrin treatise clearly defines the worship of idols as one of the three prohibitions that a Jew has no right to transgress, even on pain of death. Therefore, it is strictly forbidden to be baptized, even for appearances. You should also not go into churches, and it is advisable not to use them as landmarks to mark the area (“meet me at the church of such and such mother”, etc.)
In conclusion, we note that despite all the sharp, castigating definitions that we give to Christianity, in personal relation to Christians, as to all people, our sages taught us by example be polite and friendly. Do not cultivate hatred towards “others” who are not like us (this does not mean making concessions to idolatry and condoning its planting in the Land of Israel). The path of the Torah is different - to sanctify the Name of the Most High good attitude to everyone (except the villains, of course). Respect all the creations of the Almighty, especially people. To be grateful to those who, despite the general atmosphere of hatred, came to the aid of the oppressed and doomed Jews. Of course, there were Christian priests among them, but they acted like human beings not because they were priests, but contrary to this. The official attitude of the church towards Jews is known. The fig leaves of “reconciliation” and “removal of guilt” of recent decades cannot cover centuries of history. Even if we agree with the official Christian version of the death of their “Teacher,” this would not give any moral right to do what they did for two thousand years. We must assume that the majority of Jews still have enough sense to think about the above, and not to succumb to today’s sweet smiles of missionaries. After all, the existence of the Jewish people proclaiming “Hear, O Israel, there is one G‑d!” - the best answer to everyone who over the centuries tried with carrots and sticks to prevent the Jews from remaining faithful to the Creator.
Answered by: Vasily Yunak
3.117. Dima (dixt@???.ru) writes: “How does Christianity relate to sports? Many scientists are inclined to believe that in the course of daily human activity (especially men), neuroses and aggression accumulate as a completely natural process, and clots of this energy require release, because a person is an active species. For some, the release of this energy is accompanied by depression, for others, conflicts with others, and sometimes even results in wars. To avoid all these negative consequences they recommend channeling this accumulated energy into a peaceful channel - sport. In sports, there is rivalry between brothers, based on egoism, but all this is, as it were, make-believe, outside sports ground they become friendly to each other again."
Christianity, as you understand, has many faces. Therefore, speaking about Christianity, any answer will be correct, but only in relation to certain Christians. Various denominations have directly opposite opinions on this matter: some completely deny sport, while others even present it as an integral part of their creed, while for others sport is one of the types of occupation, such as work in production or trade, so they say absolutely nothing about it.
The Bible also doesn't have much to say about sports directly. Here is almost the only text of the Scriptures that speaks about sports: “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the reward? So run to get it. All ascetics abstain from everything: those to receive a perishable crown, and we to receive an incorruptible crown. And that’s why I don’t run in the wrong way, I don’t fight in a way that just beats the air; But I discipline and enslave my body, so that while I have preached to others, I myself may not remain unworthy” (1 Cor 9:24-27). Someone may also see sport in other words of the apostle: “Flee youthful lusts, but hold on to truth, faith, love, peace with all those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Avoid foolish and ignorant contests, knowing that they give rise to quarrels” (2 Timothy 2:22,23). However, in fairness, it should be recognized that all “competitions” in the Bible primarily imply verbal disputes and legal proceedings.
However, “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision made outwardly in the flesh; But he who is a Jew inwardly, and that circumcision which is in the heart is in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:28,29). The Holy Scripture is silent regarding very many issues, but this does not mean that the Lord approves or accepts everything that is not specifically prohibited in the Bible. The Word of God teaches principles, not specific answers to specific questions. And therefore, in the Holy Scriptures we can find the answer to absolutely any question.
Let's turn to the same “competitions”. Soviet people are accustomed to all kinds of competitions, from sports to “social” competitions, in which, sometimes, it was not clear what it was, but it is important that everyone competes. The Bible everywhere views competition as a negative thing that leads to strife and disputes. And although you say that “In sports there is rivalry between brothers, based on egoism, but all this is, as it were, for fun, outside the sports field they again become friendly to each other.” But is this really true? Do fights on the hockey field actually happen? Do some boxers pretend to kill their opponents? I know that there are noble athletes who are ready to quit the race to help an injured opponent, although they could have become winners. I don't want to measure everyone with the same yardstick. But what is the admission worth: “In sports, there is rivalry between brothers, based on selfishness.” Do you know, dear Brother Dmitry, that the desire for primacy, selfishness and pride are the most terrible sins? It was these vices that gave birth to Satan. No, I would rather believe that athletes are pretending to be friendly to each other. Even in the same team, how do they feel about someone who caused a loss - who missed the ball, for example? How do some fans of sports teams behave? But this is an integral part of sport, because sport without spectators is nothing. Let's think about the super profits of the sports business. Like any other excess profits, this is dishonest earnings.
I could now cite a whole series of texts from Holy Scripture that speak of useful work. What are the benefits of sports? Sport does not even improve your health (if anything does improve your health, it is not sport, but physical education, which has little in common with sports in its essence), but much more cripples people. Exhaustive work, extreme strength, and injuries are the constant companions of an athlete. Often, athletes, and especially female athletes, cannot have healthy children. And what are all the dopings that dishonest athletes resort to, destroying their health in the process? But the human body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Can the Holy Spirit dwell in such people? The Bible calls us to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). And who brings glory to sports competitions? I am sure - to anyone, but not to God!
As you can see, sport has enough negative aspects(I'm not even talking about the fact that aimless actions dull a person). Moreover, not only the athlete himself suffers, both physically and spiritually. Fans suffer, their families suffer (how many family dramas have occurred just because someone was overly carried away by watching sports television). And all this just for the sake of someone being freed from their “neuroses”? Most likely, there is a completely different interest here - Satan, the enemy of the human race, has found a wonderful way to take away a person’s time, health, money, good relationships...
And those scientists who propose to “let off steam” in this way follow the atheistic teachings of some psychiatrists like Freud, who deliberately went to the destruction of Christian morality. But all stress and aggression must not be released, but removed from our lives: “Let all irritation and rage, and anger, and shouting, and slander, along with all malice, be removed from you; But be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph 4:31,32). Christianity has much more effective method combating such a human condition: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22,23).
“Finally, my brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report, if there is any excellence or if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8), “and do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness.” "(Eph 5:11). Therefore, “If we live by the Spirit, then we must walk by the Spirit. Let us not be conceited, let us not irritate one another, let us not envy one another” (Gal 5:25,26).
Christianity is one of the world religions along with Buddhism and Judaism. Over a thousand-year history, it has undergone changes that led to branches from a single religion. The main ones are Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Catholicism. Christianity also has other movements, but usually they are classified as sectarian and are condemned by representatives of generally recognized movements.
Differences between Orthodoxy and Christianity
What is the difference between these two concepts? Everything is very simple. All Orthodox are Christians, but not all Christians are Orthodox. Followers, united by the confession of this world religion, are divided by belonging to a separate direction, one of which is Orthodoxy. To understand how Orthodoxy differs from Christianity, you need to turn to the history of the emergence of world religion.
Origins of religions
It is believed that Christianity arose in the 1st century. from the birth of Christ in Palestine, although some sources claim that it became known two centuries earlier. People who preached the faith were waiting for God to come to earth. The doctrine absorbed the foundations of Judaism and philosophical trends of that time; it was greatly influenced by the political situation.
The spread of this religion was greatly facilitated by the preaching of the apostles, especially Paul. Many pagans were converted to the new faith, and this process continued for a long time. Currently, Christianity has the largest number of followers compared to other world religions.
Orthodox Christianity began to stand out only in Rome in the 10th century. AD, and was officially approved in 1054. Although its origins can be dated back to the 1st century. from the birth of Christ. Orthodox believe that the history of their religion began immediately after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, when the apostles preached a new creed and attracted everyone to religion large quantity of people.
By the 2nd-3rd centuries. Orthodoxy opposed Gnosticism, which rejected the authenticity of the history of the Old Testament and interpreted New Testament in a different way that does not correspond to the generally accepted one. Confrontation was also observed in relations with the followers of the presbyter Arius, who formed a new movement - Arianism. According to their ideas, Christ did not have a divine nature and was only a mediator between God and people.
On the doctrine of the emerging Orthodoxy The Ecumenical Councils had a great influence, supported by a number of Byzantine emperors. Seven Councils, convened over five centuries, established the basic axioms subsequently accepted in modern Orthodoxy, in particular, they confirmed the divine origin of Jesus, which was disputed in a number of teachings. This strengthened the Orthodox faith and allowed more and more people to join it.
In addition to Orthodoxy and small heretical teachings, which quickly faded in the process of developing stronger trends, Catholicism emerged from Christianity. This was facilitated by the split of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern. Huge differences in social, political and religious views led to the collapse of a single religion into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, which at first was called Eastern Catholic. The head of the first church was the Pope, the second - the patriarch. Their mutual separation of each other from the common faith led to a split in Christianity. The process began in 1054 and ended in 1204 with the fall of Constantinople.
Although Christianity was adopted in Rus' back in 988, it was not affected by the schism process. The official division of the church occurred only several decades later, but at the baptism of Rus' they were immediately introduced Orthodox customs , formed in Byzantium and borrowed from there.
Strictly speaking, the term Orthodoxy was practically never found in ancient sources; instead, the word Orthodoxy was used. According to a number of researchers, these concepts were previously given different meaning(orthodoxy meant one of the Christian directions, and Orthodoxy was almost a pagan faith). Subsequently, they began to be given a similar meaning, made synonyms and replaced one with another.
Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Faith in Orthodoxy is the essence of all divine teaching. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, compiled during the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council, is the basis of the doctrine. The ban on changing any provisions in this system of dogmas has been in effect since the Fourth Council.
Based on the Creed, Orthodoxy is based on the following dogmas:
The desire to deserve eternal life in heaven after death is the main goal of those who profess the religion in question. A true Orthodox Christian must throughout his life follow the commandments handed down to Moses and confirmed by Christ. According to them, you need to be kind and merciful, love God and your neighbors. The commandments indicate that all hardships and hardships must be endured resignedly and even joyfully; despondency is one of the deadly sins.
Differences from other Christian denominations
Compare Orthodoxy with Christianity possible by comparing its main directions. They are closely related to each other, since they are united in one world religion. However, there are huge differences between them on a number of issues:
Thus, the differences between the directions are not always contradictory. There are more similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism, since the latter emerged as a result of the schism of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. If desired, the currents could be reconciled. But this has not happened for many years and is not expected in the future.
Attitudes towards other religions
Orthodoxy is tolerant of confessors of other religions. However, without condemning and peacefully coexisting with them, this movement recognizes them as heretical. It is believed that of all religions, only one is true; its confession leads to the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. This dogma is contained in the very name of the movement, indicating that this religion is correct and opposite to other movements. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy recognizes that Catholics and Protestants are also not deprived of the grace of God, since, although they glorify Him differently, the essence of their faith is the same.
By comparison, Catholics consider the only possibility of salvation to be the practice of their religion, while others, including Orthodoxy, are false. The task of this church is to convince all dissenters. The Pope is the head of the Christian church, although this thesis is refuted in Orthodoxy.
The support of the Orthodox Church by secular authorities and their close cooperation led to an increase in the number of followers of the religion and its development. In a number of countries, Orthodoxy is practiced by the majority of the population. These include:
In these countries, a large number of churches, Sunday schools, and secular educational institutions Subjects dedicated to the study of Orthodoxy are introduced. Popularization has reverse side: Often people who consider themselves Orthodox have a superficial attitude towards performing rituals and do not comply with the prescribed moral principles.
You can perform rituals and treat shrines differently, have different views on the purpose of your own stay on earth, but ultimately, everyone who professes Christianity, united by faith in one God. The concept of Christianity is not identical to Orthodoxy, but includes it. Maintaining moral principles and being sincere in your relationships with Higher Powers is the basis of any religion.
The Orthodox Church lived both in conditions of religious pluralism and in a religiously homogeneous environment. Its relations with other religions were significantly influenced by the socio-political structures within which it existed.
(1) In the first centuries these relations were confrontational, sometimes more and sometimes less acute. In the religious context of the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, the Church experienced powerful resistance, even persecution, when it proclaimed the Gospel and proposed new premises for personal and social life in the light of the mystery of the relationship between God and man.
(2) When the time of “Christian” empires came, the attitude of confrontation remained, although its vector changed. In order to achieve socio-political stability, leaders sought religious uniformity, suppressing adherents of others religious traditions. Thus, some emperors, bishops and monks were in the forefront of the destruction of pagan temples. IN Byzantine Empire and, later, in Russian the fundamental principle of Christ “Whoever wants to come after Me...” (Matthew 16:24) often forgotten. And if coercion did not reach the same degree as in the West, religious freedom was not always respected. The exception was the Jews, who received some privileges.
(3) In Arabic and Ottoman Empires Orthodox Christians coexisted with the Muslim majority; they encountered in different forms oppression by government authorities, overt and hidden, which caused passive resistance. At the same time in different periods acted enough soft rules, so that Orthodox and Muslims coexisted peacefully treating each other or simply with tolerance, or achieving mutual understanding and respect.
(4) Nowadays, in conditions of religious pluralism, we are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church and about harmonious coexistence and dialogue between followers of the Church of different religions while maintaining respect for the freedom of every person and every minority.
Historical overview of the Orthodox position
The theological understanding of the relationship of the Orthodox Church to other religions throughout history has been varied.
(1) Turning to the earliest “layers” of theological thought of the Orthodox East, we see that in parallel with the clear consciousness that the Church expresses the fullness of revealed truth about the “economy” of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, there were constant attempts to understand religious beliefs, existing outside the Christian confession, with discernment and recognition that some revelation of God to the world is possible. Already in the first centuries, when in both theory and practice the clash between the Church and the dominant religions reached its peak, Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, wrote about the “seminal logos” about “ preparatory stage for renewal in Christ" and "reflections of the Divine Word" that can be found in the Greek culture preceding Christianity. However, when Justin spoke about the “seed word,” this did not mean that he uncritically accepted everything that was created in the past by logic and philosophy: “Because they do not know all that pertains to the Logos, who is Christ, they often contradict themselves.” The Christian apologist readily applied the name "Christian" to those who lived "according to reason," but for him it was Christ who was the standard by which the theoretical and practical value of earlier forms of religious life were assessed.
Origen taught with great boldness that God not only gave evidence of Himself to certain peoples at certain periods, but also enlightened chosen souls (for example, Plato) everywhere and at all times. According to this great Alexandrian theologian, we find traces of divine providence not only in philosophy, but also in pagan religious traditions. Moreover, Greek myths, like the stories of the Old Testament, convey deep truths about life under the guise of allegorical tales. Therefore, Christians should not ridicule “likenesses of gods,” since they are attempts to describe the Divine. However, it cannot be said that Origen underestimated the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and the ancient religions; he pointed out the mistakes of the latter and tried to critically examine them.
(2) During the transitional period - before and after the Edict of Milan (313) - the father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339), emphasized the catholicity of Divine revelation addressed to all peoples and all people, believing that religious feeling is innate: “The heavenly word of God... has given to all human beings a mind capable of knowing and contemplating His wisdom.”. However, despite the universal nature of Divine revelation, it, of course, was not understood and accepted by everyone. Nevertheless, at all times and among all peoples there were people "distinguished by righteousness and the fear of God" who, thanks to their inner purity, have assimilated divine truths through inner revelation that opened the eyes of their minds. Eusebius without hesitation calls “Christians in practice” those people marked by God throughout the centuries who "stand out for their righteousness". While criticizing paganism, many Greek Fathers respected ancient wisdom and highlighted in it those elements that could find their place in Christianity. It is well known that the Cappadocian Fathers proposed a synthesis of the Christian faith and Greek culture, and St. Basil the Great encouraged young people to study deeply pagan literature and science, just as Moses studied the wisdom of the Egyptians and Daniel the wisdom of the Babylonians. Gregory the Theologian (328-390) sharply opposed paganism, but recognized among the ancient Greeks the “desire” and “desire to seek God” and the ability to basic knowledge God through “our own mind,” which he calls “godlike and divine.” But, of course, Gregory was fully aware of the limits of this knowledge and the need for Divine revelation to complete it.
(3) Starting from the 7th century, with the advent of Islam, the moderate attitude towards heterodoxy, characteristic of the first centuries, became a thing of the past. At this time, the Orthodox Church was an entity with a sociological structure that openly opposed military and political pressure from the new religion that entered the historical scene with a claim to world domination. From an eschatological perspective, the emergence of Islam looked like the beginning of the last great battle, described in the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. The reaction of the Christian community was initially expressed in readiness for dialogue, but very quickly took the form of military defense and counterattack. At this time, a whole series of anti-Islamic works appeared in Byzantium.
At first, the Byzantines perceived Islam as a form of revived Arianism and concentrated their criticism on the person of Muhammad; they disputed his prophetic status and compared the life and teachings of the founders of both religions - Christ and Muhammad. They also severely criticized the Koran, believing that it represented a step backward in religious and moral teaching. They were especially critical of the family law it established, its views on holy war, slavery, polygamy, and the aggressiveness it sanctified.
In the first stage of the encounter between Christianity and Islam, the attitude of the Byzantines was characterized by ridicule and rejection. Many of the commandments of the Islamic "heresy" were perceived as "ridiculous", and Islam as a whole was viewed as a "godless and impious doctrine". At the second stage, due to the increasing threat, polemics with Islam intensify (Nikita the Byzantine and others). The third stage is marked by a more moderate tone and readiness for objective dialogue (Manuel II Paleologus, Gregory Palamas, Joseph Bryennius, Gennady Scholarius).
After the Crusades, the vitriol of Byzantine polemics against Islam diminished somewhat, and some form of coexistence was proposed. Political and military expediency also required further expressions of goodwill.
(4) Penetrating into Central, South and East Asia, Orthodox Christianity encountered such developed religions as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Hinduism and Chinese Buddhism. This meeting took place under extremely difficult circumstances and requires special study. Among various archaeological finds in China, we see the symbol of Christianity - the cross next to the symbol of Buddhism - the lotus, the clouds of Taoism or other religious symbols. On the famous Xian Fu stele, which was discovered in the 17th century and shows how Christianity penetrated into China, in addition to the cross, you can see images related to other religions: the dragon of Confucianism, the crown of Buddhism, the white clouds of Taoism, etc. This composition, which includes various The symbols perhaps indicate the expectation that the Chinese religions would be brought into harmony with the religion of the Cross and find their fulfillment in it.
(5) In later times, from the 16th to the 20th centuries, the Orthodox, with the exception of the Russians, were under Ottoman rule. The coexistence of Christians and Muslims was imposed de facto, but it was not always peaceful, since the conquerors made direct or indirect attempts to convert the Orthodox population to Islam (kidnapping of children by the Janissaries, pressure in the provinces, proselytizing zeal of the dervishes, etc.). To preserve their faith, Orthodox Christians were often forced to take a position of silent resistance. Deteriorating living conditions, a heavy tax burden and various socio-political lures from the civil authorities left the Orthodox two main options: either renounce their faith, or resist even to the point of martyrdom. There were also Orthodox Christians who were looking for a third way, a compromise solution: outwardly giving the impression that they had become Muslims, they remained faithful to Christian beliefs and customs; they are known as crypto-Christians. Most of them were assimilated in subsequent generations by the Muslim majority in whose midst they lived. The Orthodox gained strength by turning to liturgical life or fueling eschatological expectations. During those bitter years of slavery, the belief that “the end was near” spread. Among the people there were small ones in circulation, written in simple style treatises whose purpose was to strengthen Christians in their faith. They revolved around the statement: “I was born a Christian and I want to be a Christian.” This laconic confession defines the nature of Christian resistance to Ottoman Islam, which was expressed either in words, or in silence, or through the shedding of blood.
(6) In extensive Russian Empire The clash of Christianity with other religions and the theoretical position of the Church towards them during the modern era took different forms, in accordance with the political and military goals pursued: from defense to attack and systematic proselytism and from indifference and tolerance to coexistence and dialogue. In relation to Islam, the Russians followed Byzantine models. Orthodox Christians faced serious problems after the onslaught of the Kazan Muslim Tatars, whose state fell only in 1552. In their missionary activities, both within the empire and in neighboring states of the Far East, the Orthodox of Russia encountered almost all known religions: Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, various branches of Buddhism, shamanism, etc. - and they studied them, trying to comprehend their essence. In the 19th century, a tendency spread among the Russian intelligentsia characterized by agnosticism, based on the belief that God's providence is beyond what we can describe with our theological categories. This did not mean avoiding the problem, but rather pointed to a special reverence for the terrible mystery of God, characteristic of Orthodox piety. Everything that concerns the salvation of people outside the Church is the mystery of the incomprehensible God. An echo of this position can be heard in the words of Leo Tolstoy: “As for other faiths and their relationship with God, I do not have the right and authority to judge this” .
(7) In the 20th century, even before the Second World War, the systematic study of other religions began in Orthodox theological schools - the subject “History of Religions” was introduced. This interest was not limited to academic circles, but spread more widely. Dialogue with representatives of other religious faiths developed primarily within the framework of the ecumenical movement, the centers of which were the World Council of Churches and the Vatican Secretariat for Other Religions. Since the 1970s, many Orthodox theologians have taken part in various forms this dialogue. Given this context, Orthodoxy easily and with complete certainty declares its position on this issue: peaceful coexistence with other religions and mutual contacts through dialogue.
Orthodox theological approach to the religious experience of humanity
(1) Regarding the problem of the meaning and value of other religions, Orthodox theology, on the one hand, emphasizes the uniqueness of the Church, and on the other, admits that even outside the Church it is possible to comprehend basic religious truths (such as the existence of God, the desire for salvation, various ethical principles, overcoming death). At the same time, Christianity itself is considered not just as a religious belief, but as the highest expression of religion, that is, as an experienced connection between a person and the Holy One - with a personal and transcendental God. The sacrament of the “Church” exceeds the classical concept of “religion”.
The Christian West, following the direction of thought set by Augustine, came to a double understanding of reality. Thus, a clear distinction is made between the natural and the supernatural, the sacred and the spatial, religion and revelation, divine grace and human experience. The various views of Western theologians on other religions are characterized by this tendency to emphasize the gap and then look for ways to connect what is divided.
The theology of the Eastern Church is characterized, first of all, by the belief that the Trinity God is always active in creation and in human history. Through the incarnation of the Word, through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, every gap between the natural and the supernatural, the transcendent and the worldly, has been abolished. It is abolished by the Word of God, who took on flesh and dwelt among us, and by the Holy Spirit, who in the course of history brings about the renewal of creation. The Eastern Church leaves room for personal freedom of thought and expression, within the framework of living tradition. In the Western world, discussion of the theological position in relation to other religions largely focuses on Christology. IN eastern tradition this problem is always considered and solved from a Trinitarian perspective.
(a) In contemplating this problem, attention must be called, first, to the world-wide radiance of the glory of God and His constant providence for all creation, especially for mankind, and secondly, to the fact that all human beings have one source of their being, share a common human nature and have a common purpose. One of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith is that God is incomprehensible, inaccessible in His essence. However, biblical revelation breaks the impasse of the unknowability of the nature of God, assuring us that although the essence of God remains unknown, the Divine presence is effectively manifested in the world and in the universe through Divine energies. When God reveals Himself through various theophanies, it is not the essence of God that is revealed, but His glory; and only man is able to comprehend it. The glory of God of the Trinity embraces the universe and all things. Therefore, all people are able to perceive and assimilate something from the radiance of the “Sun of Truth”, God, and join His love.
The great tragedy of the disobedience of the human race did not become an obstacle to the radiation of Divine glory, which continues to fill heaven and earth. The Fall did not destroy the image of God in man. What has been damaged, although not completely destroyed, is humanity's ability to comprehend the divine message, to achieve a true understanding of it. God has not stopped caring for the entire world He created. And it is not so much people who seek God as He who seeks them.
(b) In Christological dogma we find two main keys to the solution of the problem under consideration: the incarnation of the Word and the understanding of Christ as the “new Adam”. In the incarnation of the divine Word, the fullness of human nature was perceived by God. The theme of the acts of the Word before the incarnation and the acts of the risen Lord is at the center of the Orthodox liturgical experience. Intensified eschatological hope culminates in an amazing expectation, which the Apostle Paul expressed: “...having revealed to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He first purposed in Him [Christ], in the dispensation of the fulness of times, in order to unite all things in heaven and on earth under the head of Christ” (Eph. 1:9-10). Divine action has a global dimension - and exceeds religious phenomena and religious experience.
Jesus Christ does not exclude people of other religions from His care. At certain points in His earthly life He spoke with and helped people from other religious traditions (a Samaritan woman, a Canaanite woman, a Roman centurion). He spoke with admiration and respect about their faith, which he did not find among the Israelites: “...and in Israel I did not find such faith”(Matt. 8:10; cf. 15:28; Luke 7:9). He drew Special attention to the feeling of gratitude on the part of the leper Samaritan; and in a conversation with a Samaritan woman, He revealed to her the truth that God is Spirit (John 4:1-24). He even used the image of the Good Samaritan to point out the core element of His teaching - the new dimension of love that He preached. He, the “Son of God,” who at the Last Judgment will identify Himself with the “little ones” of this world (Matt. 25), regardless of their race or religion, calls us to treat every human person with true respect and love.
(c) If we look at foreign religious experience from the point of view of pneumatology, we will open up new horizons for our theological thinking. For Orthodox theological thought, the action of the Holy Spirit exceeds any definition and description. In addition to the “economy of the Word,” the Christian East, with firm hope and humble expectation, also pays attention to the “economy of the Spirit.” Nothing can limit His action: “The spirit breathes where it pleases” (John 3:8). The action and concordant power of God's love in the Trinity exceeds the capacity of human thought and understanding. Everything that is sublime and truly good is the result of the influence of the Spirit. Wherever we encounter manifestations and fruits of the Spirit - with “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23), - we can discern the consequences of the influence of the Holy Spirit. And much of what the apostle listed can be found in the lives of people belonging to other religions. The statement extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church) appeared in the West and was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It does not express the essence of the Orthodox theological approach, even if used in a special, limited sense. For their part, theologians of the Eastern Church, both before and now, emphasize that God acts “also outside the boundaries of the visible Church” and that “not only Christians, but also non-Christians, unbelievers and Gentiles can become joint heirs and members of “one body and partakers of the promise of Him [God] in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6) – through the Church, to which pagans and non-Orthodox people can also invisibly belong by virtue of their faith and the saving grace given to them by God as a free gift, since both have an ecclesiastical character.”(John Karmiris). Thus, instead of the negative expression “outside the Church,” Orthodox thought emphasizes the positive expression “through the Church.” Salvation is accomplished in the world through the Church. The Church, as a sign and as an icon of the Kingdom of God, is the axis that holds and directs the entire process of anakephaleosis, or recapitulation. Just as the life of Christ, the new Adam, has universal consequences, so the life of His mystical body, the Church, is universal in its scope and effect. The prayer of the Church and her care embrace all humanity. The Church celebrates the Divine Eucharist and offers praise to God on behalf of all. She acts on behalf of the whole world. She spreads the rays of the glory of the risen Lord to all creation.
(2) This theological position encourages us to treat the other religious experiences of humanity with respect and at the same time with reason. Having studied the great religions, both academically and through research trips to countries where they exist today, and as a participant in many dialogues with intellectuals representing other religions, I would like to make the following observations.
(a) The history of religions shows that, despite the differences in the answers they give to the main problems - suffering, death, the meaning of human existence and communication - they all open the horizon towards a transcendental reality, towards Something or Someone , existing on the other side of the sensory sphere. Being the fruit of humanity’s aspiration towards the “Holy”, they open up for human experience the path leading to the Infinite.
(b) In dealing with certain religious systems we must avoid both superficial enthusiasm and arrogant criticism. In the past, disordered knowledge about different religions led to “negative fantasies.” Today, receiving fragmentary information about them, we run the risk of arriving at “positive fantasies,” namely the idea that all religions are one and the same. There is also another risk: based on what we know about one of the religions, geographically and theoretically closest to us, to create a generalized idea about all the others.
In our time, efforts aimed at deciphering the sacred symbols of other religions, as well as studying their doctrines from sources available to us, require a highly critical approach. As systems, religions contain both positive elements that can be understood as “sparks” of divine revelation, and negative elements – inhuman practices and structures, examples of the perversion of religious intuition.
(c) Religion is an organic whole, and not a set of traditions and cult practices. There is a danger in such a superficial reading of the phenomenology of religion, which leads to the identification of elements present and functioning in different contexts. Religions are living organisms, and in each of them the individual components are in connection with each other. We cannot tear out certain elements from a particular religious doctrine and practice and identify them with similar elements in other religions in order to create simple and “beautiful” theories.
(d) If we recognize the presence in foreign religious experience of innate values, even “seeds of the word,” we must also recognize that they have the potential for further growth, flowering and fruiting. Justin the Philosopher concludes his brief reflections on the "seminal logos" with a statement of a fundamental principle - and, strangely, this is not sufficiently noted by those who refer to his views. He emphasizes the difference between the “seed” and the fullness of life contained in it. He distinguishes between innate "ability" and "grace": “For the seed and some likeness of something, given according to the measure of acceptability, are a different matter; and the other is the very thing of which the communion and likeness are given by His [God’s] grace.”(Apology II, 13).
(e) Since man retains the image of God even after the Fall, he remains the recipient of messages emanating from the Divine will. However, he is often unable to comprehend them properly. Let us draw an analogy, albeit imperfect, with modern technology: A TV that is poorly installed or faulty produces altered picture and sound compared to those sent by the transmitter; or the distortion is caused by defects in the transmitting antenna.
Everything in the world is in the sphere of influence of God - the spiritual Sun of Truth. Various aspects of religions can be understood as “accumulators” charged by the rays of Divine truth coming from the Sun of Truth, life experiences, various sublime ideas and great inspirations. Such batteries helped humanity by providing the world with imperfect light or some reflections of light. But they cannot be considered as something self-sufficient; they cannot replace the Sun itself.
For Orthodoxy, the criterion remains the Word of God itself - the Son of God, Who embodies in history the love of the Trinity God, as it is experienced in the sacrament of the Church. Love, which was revealed in His person and His action, is for the Orthodox believer the essence and at the same time the apogee and completeness of religious experience.
Dialogue with people of other religious beliefs – the right and duty of “Orthodox witness”
(1) The Orthodox position can be critical of other religions as systems and as organic entities; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always an attitude of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be the bearer of the image of God and desires to achieve godlikeness, since he possesses - as innate components of his being - free will, spiritual intelligence, desire and the ability to love. From the very beginning, Christians were obliged to be in dialogue with people of other religious beliefs, testifying to their hope. Many of our most important theological concepts have been shaped by such dialogue. The dialogue belongs to the church tradition; he was a major factor in the development of Christian theology. Much of patristic theology is the fruit of direct and indirect dialogue with the ancient Greek world, both with religious movements and with purely philosophical systems, which sometimes led to antitheses and sometimes to synthesis.
With the spread of Islam, the Byzantines sought an opportunity to enter into dialogue with Muslims, although this search did not always elicit a response.
Today, in the grandiose metropolis called Earth, in the midst of new cultural, religious and ideological ferments, dialogue becomes a new opportunity and challenge. We are all concerned with human achievements and strive for a global community of peace, justice and brotherhood, and therefore each person and each tradition must offer the best of what they have inherited from the past and, in the light of experience and criticism from others, cultivate the healthiest grains of truth, which he has. Dialogue can contribute to the transfer of new grains from one civilization to another, as well as the germination and development of those grains that lie lifeless in the soil of ancient religions. As noted, religions remain organic entities, and for the living people who experience them, they are “living organisms” capable of development. Everyone has their own entelechy. They experience influences, perceive new ideas that come from their environment, and respond to the challenges of the time.
Various religious leaders and thinkers are discovering elements in their traditions that respond to the new demands of society. Thus, Christian ideas find their way through other channels and develop in the contexts of other religious traditions around the world. In this regard, dialogue is critical.
From such a perspective, the new questions posed by the recent technological and electronic revolution and the new challenges shaking the world community can be viewed more constructively: for example, the demand for world peace, justice, respect for human dignity, the search for the meaning of human existence and history, the protection environment, bioethics, human rights. Although at first glance all this seems to be "external affairs", a deeper look from a religious point of view may well give rise to new ideas and new answers to the questions posed. The doctrine of the incarnation, which abolishes the gap between the transcendent and the worldly in the Person of Christ, has a unique value for humanity, for it is impossible in any non-Christian anthropology.
“Orthodoxy, entering the third millennium with confidence, with the consciousness of fidelity to its tradition, is alien to anxiety, or fear, or aggression, and it does not feel contempt for people of other religious beliefs. The Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who gathered for the solemn concelebration in Bethlehem on January 7, 2000, emphatically emphasize: we are turned to other great religions, especially to the monotheistic religions - Judaism and Islam, with the readiness to create favorable conditions for dialogue with them in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of all peoples... The Orthodox Church rejects religious intolerance and condemns religious fanaticism, no matter where it comes from.” .
In general, the Church stands for the harmonious coexistence of religious communities and minorities and for the freedom of conscience of every person and every nation. We must enter into interreligious dialogue with respect, with reason, with love and hope. We must try to understand what is important to others and avoid unproductive confrontation. Followers of other religions are called upon to explain to themselves how they can interpret their religious beliefs in new terms, in the light of new challenges. Genuine dialogue generates new interpretations on both sides.
At the same time, we have no right, in an effort to be polite, to underestimate the significance of difficult problems. Nobody needs superficial forms of interreligious dialogue. Ultimately, the core of the religious problem remains the search for a higher truth. No one has the right - and it is not in anyone's interest - to weaken this force of human existence in order to achieve a simplified conciliatory consensus of the type of standard agreements that are concluded at the ideological level. In this perspective, the essential contribution of Orthodoxy is not to suppress its own characteristics, deep spiritual experience and conviction, but to bring them to light. Here we come to the delicate question of the Orthodox mission or – as I proposed to say thirty years ago – “Orthodox witness”.
(2) In any truly spiritual communication we always reach a critical point when we are faced with a real problem that creates differences. When the Apostle Paul met with the Athenians in the Areopagus, after dialogue (Acts 17:17) he moved on to direct testimony (17:22-31). In his speech he spoke of the general religious basis, and then turned to the very essence of the Gospel: the significance of the person and work of Christ. This proclamation was completely alien to the ancient Greek worldview and contradicted not only the sophisticated polytheism of the common people, but also the sophisticated atheism of the Epicurean philosophers and the pantheism of the Stoics.
Having rejected the idea of a closed, self-sufficient cosmological system, autonomous and impersonal, Paul began to preach the action of a personal God, who created the universe out of nothing, provides for the world and decisively intervenes in history. In contrast to the idea of the individual living automatically, the emphasis was placed on freedom and love, which are manifested in communication between God and man. With this paradox, which for the Athenians bordered on the absurd, Paul introduced new type thinking. He proposed a radical revision of Greek wisdom through the acceptance of Christ as the center of creation, the One who communicates real existence to the world. Until this time, the Greek intellectuals' understanding of man was limited to the idea of a thinking being, aware of himself and his environment through the development of his mind. For Paul, the fundamental, turning point for humanity - its metanoia (change of mind, repentance) - must be directed towards the love of God, who is inaccessible to reason, but revealed in the crucified and risen Christ. Here we have a clear example of understanding and respecting ancient religious ideas and at the same time surpassing them in the truth and power of Christian revelation. Orthodox “witness” (or mission) means precisely the witnessing of experience and confidence. We confess our faith not as an intellectual discovery, but as a gift of God's grace. To neglect the duty of such personal witness is to reject the gospel.
Personal knowledge of the “love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19) remains the most profound Christian experience and has a direct bearing on authentic Christian mission and evangelization. Love releases internal forces and opens up new horizons in life that the mind cannot imagine. The feeling characteristic of an Orthodox Christian that he is united with all humanity, and the love he feels for every person, compels him to inform every neighbor about the greatest good that has been revealed to him.
The gifts of God cannot be selfishly kept to oneself - they must be available to everyone. Although certain actions of God may relate to a certain people and a certain person, they nevertheless affect all mankind. If we are convinced that the highest human right is the right to transcend the animal and intellectual levels of existence through participation in the loving relationship of the Trinity God, we cannot reserve this conviction for ourselves. For this would be the worst of injustices. However, all this does not mean that preaching to another can be accompanied by violence, that it can serve as a cover for achieving other goals, political or economic. This is not about imposing anything on others, but about testifying to confidence, to personal experience. It is significant that in the first centuries Christians spoke about martyrdom - about witness-martyrdom, about witness often at the cost of life. Everything that is peculiar to the human race should be used, but each person should remain completely free in the choice, which ultimately he himself makes. Respect for the freedom of every human person will always be the basic principle of Orthodoxy.
The Church, being the “sign” and sacrament of the Kingdom of God, the beginning of a new humanity transformed by the Holy Spirit, must be given to the whole world. It should not be a closed community. Everything she has and everything she experiences exists for the sake of humanity as a whole.
Orthodox "witness" begins in silence - through participation in the pain and suffering of others, and continues in the joy of proclaiming the Gospel, which culminates in worship. The purpose of witness is always to create Eucharistic communities in new places so that people celebrate the mystery of the Kingdom of God in their own cultural context, spreading the glory and presence of God where they live. Thus, Orthodox witness is personal participation in the spread of the new creation, which has already been accomplished in Christ and which will come to its fulfillment in the “end times.” In order to evangelize the world, the Orthodox Church does not need to use violence or dishonest methods, which have sometimes distorted the essence of the “Christian mission.” She respects the individuality of man and his culture and uses her own methods - liturgical life, the celebration of the sacraments, sincere love. The Orthodox mission cannot be limited to participation in organizing education, providing medical care and providing funds for external development. It must convey to everyone, especially the poor and downtrodden, the belief that each person has a unique value, that, since he is created in the image and likeness of God, his destiny is something greater - to become a “Christ-bearer”, to partake of the divine glory, to achieve deification. It is the basis for all other expressions of human dignity. The Christian faith offers the highest anthropology, beyond any humanistic vision. To accept it or not is a matter of free choice and responsibility of people. Followers of other religions sharply criticize various Christian missions when they see that missionary activities are accompanied by arrogance and pride or are associated with non-religious interests, including the interests of state power. At the same time, it would be wrong to identify the Christian mission in general with errors characteristic of some part of Western Christianity or one historical period (for example, the period of colonialism). Harsh criticism is directed at “Christians,” not at Christ. Everything will change in the world if we Christians live and act and measure our mission, following in the footsteps of Christ. The power of God often manifests itself through the paradox of the absence of worldly power and can only be experienced in the sacrament of love, in outer simplicity.
We need constant honest self-criticism and repentance. This does not mean limiting the Orthodox witness, which will lead to a colorless dialogue, but rather a free acceptance of the logic of love, always the revolutionary logic of Christ, who “exhausted himself” in order to come and inhabit a special human reality. Following the pattern of His life and death in ongoing personal transformation “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18). The goal of the Orthodox is not to limit or minimize their “witness,” but to live in accordance with their calling: to follow Christ.
“Those who lived in accordance with the Word (reason) are Christians, even if they were considered atheists: such among the Hellenes are Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the barbarians - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, and Elijah and many others; to retell their actions or names would, I know, be tedious, and this time I will refrain from doing so.”(Apology 1, 46).
For more on this theological position, see: Anastasios (Yannoulatos). Emerging Perspective of the Relationships of Christians to People of Other Faith – An Eastern Orthodox Christian Contribution. – International Review of Mission, 77 (1988); Facing People of Other Faiths from an Orthodox Point of View – Holy Cross Conference, 3rd International Conference of Theological Schools: Icon and Kingdom: Orthodox Face of the 21st Century. – The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 58 (1993).
John Karmiris. The universality of salvation in Christ. – Praktikatis Akadimias Athinon. 1980. Vol. 55 (Athens, 1981). pp. 261-289 (in Greek); See also: The salvation of God's people outside the Church. - Right there. 1981. T. 56 (Athens, 1982). pp. 391-434.
Emperor John VI Cantacuzene (d. 1383) notes: “Muslims prevented their people from entering into dialogue with Christians, of course, so that they could not gain a clear knowledge of the truth during the interview. Christians are confident in the purity of their faith, and in the correctness and truth of the teachings that they adhere to, and therefore they do not create any obstacles for their people, but each of them has complete freedom and power to discuss the faith with whomever he wants.”(Against Muslims).
