Embodiment and Humility

With the modern cooling of church society towards the church of God, it is unlikely that many fully feel how the Church celebrates the memories of the “Incarnation of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Isn’t there just one peculiarity that has not yet been forgotten: the irmos “Christ is born...” begin to be sung in the Church more than a month before the holiday itself. But the Church devotes entire weeks to preparing for the holiday. In parish churches the approach of the great holiday is little noticeable, because the church charter there has lost all its charm, its thoughtful theology; the holiday begins there almost immediately. Not to mention the fact that in the lives of the laity, the approach of the holiday only affects the multiplication of household worries and troubles. The true element of church life can now be perceived almost only in monasteries, especially in the laurels, where not a single canon, not a single stichera is omitted, but these church songs loudly (for example, in the Kyiv Lavra) resound in the vaults of churches and fill the consciousness of all those present with their content. Therefore, the consciousness of believers there does not break away from the ground for one day or just a few hours, as in parish churches, no, it breaks away from the ground long before the holiday and remains at the height of spiritual uplift, spiritual delight for almost a whole week. Only the Holy Resurrection of Christ is celebrated by the Church no less brightly. But in some respects, the Christmas service is even superior to the Easter service, and if not superior, it still has a completely special character. The Easter service is one solemn, joyful, jubilant hymn of the Church to the Risen Lord. The Christmas service is a special element of theology. In the entire range of church liturgical books, it is impossible to indicate a service richer in dogmatic content than the Christmas service. Here, in brief but powerful expressions, is the main idea of ​​Christianity - the renewal of the corruptible human nature by the incarnation of the Son of God. Here, for example, is the incomparable irmos of the canon at Compline on the day of the feast, unknown, unfortunately, to parish churches: “Do not marvel now, O Mother, seeing as if the Baby was born from the womb before the star, the Father: for to raise up and co-glorify human fallen nature has come clearly, magnifying You with faith and love.” Both in these short words and in the entire Christmas service, precisely the indicated basic idea of ​​Christianity is revealed, from which all Christian theology should emerge. In our school scholastic theology, this great idea of ​​the incarnation for the restoration of fallen human nature is not given its due place, but in the theology of the greatest fathers and teachers of the Church, this very idea underlay everything. See, for example, the word of St. Athanasius the Great “On the incarnation of God the Word and His coming to us in the flesh.” The ancient Church lived with this idea more intensely than the Church of our time. She fought for this idea, suffered for it, striking traitors with menacing anathemas. But in modern religious consciousness this idea moves away from its royal place, and sometimes this basic idea of ​​true religious consciousness disappears completely. How many can now say with Basil the Great: I cannot bow to the creature, because I myself have the command to become a god! Denial of the Incarnation, denial of the Divine dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ is unthinkable in a member of the Church, and any denier, of course, has already fallen away from the Church. “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, denying the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). These words of the first theologian, who reclined on the breasts of the incarnate Son of God, should be repeated as often as possible at the present time, when people talk so much about the Gospel, about the teachings of Christ, but do not want to know the incarnate Only Begotten Son of God in Him. They speak of Christ as a great man, a great teacher, and they think that this is quite enough. The rest doesn't matter. You can be a Christian without everything else. Let them know the words of the son of Gromov, that any denial of the incarnation makes a person an Antichrist, the greatest liar. Listening to the beating of the modern religious pulse, you involuntarily notice that in this sense the Antichrist reigns in the religious consciousness. Lately, high waves of scientific ideas have rushed towards the stone that lies at the foundation of the Church. In the field of New Testament scholarship, in recent years, especially many new or updated ideas have emerged from the comparative study of religions. The latest monumental discoveries are expanding our knowledge of the ancient East, and in the light of this knowledge the Gospel is beginning to be discussed. Once upon a time, wise men and women came from the East to worship the Infant God-Man and carried gold, frankincense and myrrh in their treasuries. From the same countries from which the Magi once came, other wise men are now coming to Europe. Entire scientific expeditions are coming, equipped by both governments and private people, carrying their booty in huge treasuries. There is not gold, frankincense or myrrh in these treasuries; they contain either whole blocks of stone or fragments of stones with mysterious inscriptions. Learned people in European museums will read these mysterious writings and will not worship the born Child. The Eastern Star leads science from Bethlehem. The comparative study of Eastern religions ends with nothing other than the denial of the incarnation of the Son of God. At Caesarea Philippi, Christ asked His disciples: “Who do people say... the Son of Man is? They said: some for John the Baptist, others for Elijah, and others for Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He says to them: Who do you say that I am? Simon Peter, answering, said: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:13-16). The question was asked about the dignity of the Messiah, the Savior of the world. In the response of the disciples through the mouth of Peter the entire Christology of the Church is given. The Savior of the world is the incarnate Only Begotten Son of God. This Christology was new. The flesh and blood of the Jewish religious consciousness could not reveal the truth of the Incarnation. But who do you, representatives of the modern comparative study of religions, consider Jesus Christ to be? Oh, for anyone, but not for the incarnate Son of God. He is Buddha, He is Marduk, Attis, Adonis, He is Mithra, the god of the Magi, He is one of the eastern gods, He is whoever you want, but not the Son of the Living God. In modern works where the comparative study of religions is applied to an assessment of Christ and Christianity, there is always a section entitled “The Pre-Christian Jesus.” Christianity could have appeared without Christ; it was enough to collect, mix and purify the Eastern myths, in which Jesus was already given in its main features. Christ did not create Christianity, but Christianity created Christ. And here you have the mythological theories of Smith, Drews, Jensen, so enthusiastically advertised by the “union of monists” throughout Germany. It is proven, neither less nor more, that Jesus Christ never existed on earth. Jesus, this is just an eastern myth personified. Here are two volumes by Arthur Drews entitled “The Myth of Christ.” Around them is a swarm of brochures entitled “Did Jesus Live?” Drews' book was also translated into Russian, but it was confiscated just a month and a half ago. The liberal press shed crocodile tears about the persecution of science. There was nothing dangerous here, there was only pure science. Yes, pure science engaged in agitation against Christianity, science created by amateurs, as they were called by the “theological majesty” of German science, Adolf Harnack, who himself made a noise not so long ago with his liberal lectures on the “essence of Christianity.” The religious consciousness of the ancient Church was outraged by Arianism, which nevertheless did not deny the incarnation. But now something worse than Arianism appears, they even deny the reality of the earthly life of Christ, and in the Orthodox state the newspapers cry: why was A. Drews’ book “The Myth of Christ” confiscated! And the religious consciousness of Protestantism, which has given birth from its depths to a new worthy child, shudders little: even pastors come to the defense of the mythological theory. It is perhaps society that is more worried than the “hierarchy”. Here, for example, is what a person writes who observed a public dispute between pastors and monists on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus Christ: “On the stage, where the question of the historical existence of the Savior was being decided, everything was calm: the monists and pastors whispered amicably to each other, ate sandwiches, drank beer...” (Priest. N.N. Sakharov. Theological Bulletin. 1911. Vol. 3. P. 777). Well, is such a picture conceivable during the First Ecumenical Council, when St. Athanasius the Great denounced the wicked Arians! There was a feat of the soul, its struggle for its life, for “he who has the Son of God has life, but he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12). And here... here is only an “academic” dispute with beer and sandwiches of well-fed and complacent bourgeoisie. Why such an attitude towards the incarnation of the Son of God? It seems that the roots of this attitude are deeply embedded in the moral self-awareness of modern man. This self-awareness is first of all proud. What does it mean to believe in the incarnation? This means, first of all, to confess that human nature used to be good. This is how it came from the hands of the Creator. Human freedom brought sin, disorder into nature, and “internecine warfare in human nature” began, as one holy father writes. By abusing his freedom, man has so corrupted his nature that he can only exclaim: I am damned, I am a poor man! I can't save myself. We need a new creation, we need the infusion of new grace-filled forces. This is precisely what all humanity must say in order to believe in the incarnate Son of God. Such a humble consciousness, such a humble confession of one’s weakness, one’s guilt before the work of God’s hand—is it in the spirit of modern man? But modern consciousness is imbued with the idea of ​​evolution, the idea of ​​progress, that is, the very idea that can feed human pride. Christianity requires a humble mind. There was a perfect Adam, my ancestor, and I, humanity, brought only sin and corruption. The Church calls for humility when it calls Adam our ancestor. But evolution? But origin from apes? No matter how modestly one may evaluate oneself, one still cannot help but think with some pride: after all, I am not a monkey, nevertheless, progress has been realized in me. Thus, evolution, by calling the ape our ancestor, feeds human pride. If you compare yourself with a monkey, you can be proud of progress, but if you think about the sinless Adam, external progress will lose value. External progress, but also a refinement of sin at the same time. If humanity is progressively moving forward, then we can rely on ourselves. We create ourselves. But the Church says just the opposite. “We could not have become incorruptible and immortal if the Imperishable and Immortal had not first become what we are.” To believe in the Incarnation means to confess that without God all humanity is nothing. The Church has carried the ideal of deification through the centuries. This ideal is very high, but it requires a lot from a person, it is unthinkable without embodiment, it forces a person, first of all, to humble himself. Humanity renounces this high ideal and does not need the incarnation of the Son of God. An infinitely lowered ideal of life allows a person to talk about progress and gives the opportunity to be proud of his successes. It is these two series of ideas that make up two worldviews: ecclesiastical and non-church. Church - origin from the perfect Adam, fall, necessity of incarnation - humility. Non-church - origin from the monkey, progress, uselessness and denial of the incarnation - pride. Acknowledgment of the incarnation is inextricably linked with humility. Pride fights incarnation as unnecessary. Participating in the solemn church celebration of the Nativity of Christ, we must exclaim: Humble yourself, proud man, and believe in the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of God! You might be interested in: