About life in the Church and about church life

In ancient times, one student enthusiastically told his teacher about how he saw a scientist. “What is he doing?” – the teacher asked his student. “He reads all the time, morning and evening, day and even at night,” he answered. The wise teacher was silent for a while, as if thinking, and then asked his student: “You say that a scientist reads all the time, morning and evening, day and even at night, but... when does he think?” The student was confused and did not know what to answer. Isn't that what we see now? Oh, of course, the same thing, even incomparably sadder, can be said about the learned man of our time. Humanity has accumulated too much knowledge up to now, and a scientist now needs to know too much. It sometimes seems that science has listened to the evil advice of the ancient tempter: you will be like gods, knowing everything. Omniscience is what science wants to be. Knowledge is necessary or unnecessary, useful or harmful, there is not even a question about this - just to know! With equal diligence and dedication, we study the curves along which ominous comets move in the boundless world space, and the digestive organs of the harmless May beetle, and the use of prepositions by the ancient Greek writer. Humanity already knows a lot: in the future it will learn even more. Look at the huge libraries! What a mass of work, facts, theory! Truly, these are like the Egyptian pyramids of materialized human thought. If we were to collect into one point of a single human consciousness the entire mass of information that will end up in the grandiose book depositories of the future, add here all the fiery enthusiasm scattered in countless works of poetry, painting, sculpture - if we were to collect all this into one human consciousness, it would become divine. But, peering into the actual state of affairs, you involuntarily notice the sad tragedy of human knowledge. Human consciousness is only learning its boundaries, becoming convinced of its limitations. Libraries are huge, but how big is the library that an individual can read and the contents of which he can assimilate? Isn’t even the thought of a person who knows all the sciences ridiculous? People are not engaged in science or sciences, but only in fractional departments of sciences. With the modern specialization of knowledge, a man of science is a convict, chained to his wheelbarrow in one vein of a huge mine of knowledge, not knowing who and what is next to him, beyond the walls of his narrow hole. There is a well-known story about how the curator of one museum, a scientist, enthusiastically and passionately spoke to visitors about the objects of his treasury. “What is this?” - asked the interested listeners, turning to the nearby closet. In a dry and completely indifferent voice, the scientist answered: “I don’t know, this closet is not mine.” Sometimes, not just irony, but genuine truth can be heard in the words of our great thinker that such a time will soon come: you come to the doctor to treat your nose, and he tells you: “Sorry, I can’t treat you; your left nostril hurts, but I am a specialist in diseases only of the right nostril.” Yes, the knowledge of mankind is ever expanding, and the knowledge of man is becoming narrower; man eats longer and more fruits from the tree of knowledge, but only more and more does he become convinced that he is naked. If all this is true - and this is undoubtedly the case, then doesn’t it follow that the importance of science in life can only be discussed with some significant limitations? Nowadays one hears so many speeches, sometimes very hot and passionate, about the scientific worldview, about the fact that science can exist and it alone should be the leader of the life of cultural humanity. In these speeches, it seems, there is more enthusiasm and self-deception than thought and thoughtful conviction. Such speeches are especially prone to be repeated by those who, in the words of V.S. Solovyov, “the demands of thinking stop at imaginary truths, supposedly proven by some kind of imaginary science” 1 . In fact, in science there are endless disputes even about the little things of life, especially since science turns out to be helpless and unscientific in solving the basic questions of existence. If you think more deeply about life, you will constantly come across irrational, super-reasonable elements, you will become more and more convinced of the truth of the words of the Apostle Paul: “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). And this is in the nature of things. An analysis of our very consciousness shows that rational scientific forms of knowledge represent only a building built on the surface, under which lies a mystical foundation in the depths of the human spirit. It is the merit of our native Russian philosophy that it, in the person of V.S. Solovyov and S.N. Trubetskoy openly spoke about the dominance of religious and mystical principles in the life of our consciousness. Solovyov’s “Critique of Abstract Principles”, his “Crisis of Western Philosophy”, “On the Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge” are aimed at substantiating this thesis. The same is true in “Foundations of Idealism” by S.N. Trubetskoy. Think about at least two facts of consciousness. Science is convinced that it knows the real world and that its knowledge is reliable. Without this belief, science is impossible. But science cannot prove either one or the other on its own. If we decide to doubt the reality of the world, then there will be no ontological conclusions and evidence that would force us to abandon our doubts. Solipsism, the doctrine that solum ipse sum, that “only I exist,” the thinking subject, solipsism is logically invincible. Materialism and idealism are equally ignorant of the real world. For the materialist, the knowable world is limited, as Condillac put it, by his skin. For an idealist... but didn’t the Hegelian phantasmagoria of thought turn all reality into the idea of ​​a self-conscious spirit? Exactly the same can be observed in the question of reliability. The reliability of reason is unprovable, and this is the commendable frankness of philosophy when, in the person of Descartes, it transferred the question to the religious-mystical realm: “An unfalse could not create my reason as false.” Isn’t it typical that the ideas of reality and reliability, without which science is unthinkable, turn out to lie outside the boundaries of science? This fact establishes once and for all the dependent relationship of reason to faith, and science commits itself to sincere respect for religion. Otherwise, the religious roots of our spirit can say to the scientific branches the same thing that the roots said to the frivolous branches in Krylov’s fable: ...Remember the difference between us: That with the new spring a new leaf will be born, And if the root dries up, The tree will be gone, and neither will you! But the specialty of our higher school is theological science. Is what has been said about science generally applicable and (to what extent) applicable to theological science? Can the science of theology itself be considered along with all other sciences? After all, there is no need to hide the sad fact that theological science is now out of favor. Willy-nilly, we have to prove that we are doing science and not playing science. I think that the basis of a negative attitude towards theological science is sometimes an unconscious and sometimes even a conscious lie, and sometimes just a misunderstanding. You ask a talented young seminarian why he preferred some polytechnic institute to a theological academy. He will say that everything in the academy is boring, scholastic, lifeless, because there is no real science here. But is this really so? Is it really possible to calculate the coefficient of friction for reinforced and ordinary lubrication, study a puzzling course on the resistance of materials, conduct practical classes on bending beams, is all this more vital, more interesting and more scientific than studying the word of God, where on every page the most painful questions of the human soul are touched upon and resolved? Is it really possible that a student at a theological academy with a lot of curses crams his subjects for the exam than a lawyer, Roman law, a technician, his strength of materials and other supposedly so interesting subjects? In preferring the polytechnic to the academy, was not our young man guided, perhaps unconsciously, by such an ordinary - alas! - and in human life, the criterion by which Krylov’s rooster assessed the comparative merits of pearl grain and barley grain and which inclined his sympathies towards barley grain: not so visible, but satisfying? Do not false words about the true scientific nature and vitality of non-theological science represent that fig leaf with which the nakedness of materialistic lack of ideas wants to be covered? But sometimes a negative attitude towards theological science is based on a misunderstanding regarding the general definition of science. For some reason they want to contrast theological science with experimental sciences, forgetting that there are historical and sociological sciences. How, for example, does a Church historian differ from a civil historian in his method of scientific work? Yes, we very often even have common scientific sources. Of course, there is only one misunderstanding in such speeches as: “Show us God through a telescope, the soul through a microscope, give us your dogmatic formulas, put them in a retort and heat them over low heat.” Or: “Submit a miracle for experiment,” as Ernst Renan shouted in the preface to “The Life of Jesus,” promising, however, not to believe anyway. But every thought, every story is not amenable to experiment. If Christ and the Apostles are subject to experiment, then Alexander the Great, all these Charles and Fredericks are also subject to experiment, to their retort! Show us atoms, show us the world ether! Putting aside this misunderstanding, we must recognize theological science as exactly the same science as all others - only it is more vital than all other sciences, because its subject is not the little things of life, but the very essence of life. If theological science is essentially the same science, then everything said above and especially the words of the Apostle are applicable to it: “we walk by faith, not by sight.” These words of the apostle inspire us with caution, lest we replace religious life with theological science. Undoubtedly, theological science is necessary for religious life, but in no case is it the most religious life. Theological science is not even religious knowledge in the strict sense of the word. Theological science is not the knowledge of God, it is not theology. Intellectually, “God is nowhere to be seen” (John 1:18). Intellectually, “It is impossible for man to see God.” For this vision there are other methods than scientific methods, there are other ways than the paths of scientific research. "Pure in heart... they will see God” (Matthew 5:8) - this is the axiom of Christian theology, short, precise, unchangeable, like a mathematical axiom. This axiom is inimitably deeply expressed and easily expressed by representatives of Christian theology, and one can notice the amazing agreement of Christian theologians who lived at different times and in different countries. From deep church antiquity, from the 2nd century, comes the reasoning of Theophilus of Antioch. “If you say: “Show me your God,” then I will answer you: show me your man, and I will show you my God. Show that the eyes of your soul see and the ears of your heart hear. For just as the bodily eyes of sighted people see the objects of this life and perceive the difference, for example, between light and darkness, between white and black, between ugly and beautiful... or as the ears distinguish sounds that are subject to hearing - harsh, heavy or pleasant, so exactly there are ears of the heart and eyes of the soul to see God. And God is visible to those who are able to see Him, whose spiritual eyes are open. Everyone has eyes, but for others they are covered in darkness and do not see sunlight. And although the blind do not see the light of the sun, light still exists, and let the blind complain about themselves and about their eyes. So you too, my friend, the eyes of your soul are darkened by your sins and evil deeds. A person must have a soul as pure as a shining mirror. When there is rust on the mirror, then a human face cannot be seen in the mirror: so a person, when there is sin in him, cannot contemplate God. So, show yourself, are you not an adulterer, are you not a fornicator, are you not a slanderer, are you angry, are you not envious, are you not arrogant, are you not proud, are you not violent, are you not a lover of money, are you not disobedient to your parents? For God does not reveal himself to those who do this unless they first cleanse themselves from all filth. All this brings darkness, and just as illness in the eyes does not allow them to turn to the light of the sun, so you, my friend, are darkened by iniquities so that you cannot see God” 2. From the 4th century we hear the words of the one who was the first after the beloved disciple of Christ to receive the name of “theologian” in the Church - Gregory of Nazianzus: “Ascend through works, so that through purification you may acquire what is pure. Do you want to eventually become a theologian and worthy of the Divine? Keep the commandments and do not go against the commandments. For deeds, like steps, lead to contemplation. Work with your body for your soul." 3 Let's move on to the 8th century and take "The works of our holy father Abba Isaac the Syrian, ascetic and hermit, former bishop of the Christ-loving city of Nineveh." From this great theologian and profound philosopher we will find the following speeches: “Perhaps you think that such spiritual knowledge is acquired by someone through spiritual knowledge? Not only is it impossible to receive this spiritual knowledge with spiritual knowledge, but it is not even possible for anyone who zealously exercises spiritual knowledge to sense it or be granted it. And if some of them want to get closer to this knowledge of the Spirit, then until they renounce this spiritual knowledge and all the twists and turns of its subtleties and its complex methods and put themselves in an infantile way of thinking, they will not be able to approach, even if only a little, to spiritual knowledge. On the contrary, the skill and concepts of spiritual knowledge are a great obstacle for them until they erase this little by little. This knowledge of the Spirit is simple and does not shine through in the thoughts of the soul. Until the mind is freed from the thoughts of many and comes to the single simplicity of purity, it will not be able to feel this spiritual knowledge... No one can receive this spiritual knowledge unless he turns and becomes like a child... It is not acquired by the deeds of thoughts, but can be tasted by grace. And until a person purifies himself, he does not have sufficient strength in himself to even hear about it, because no one can acquire it by studying it. If you, child, achieve purity of heart, produced by faith in silence from people, and forget the knowledge of this world so that you will not even feel it, then spiritual knowledge will suddenly appear before you, without searching for it. Finally, at the end of the patristic period, in the 11th century, the third and last theologian of the Church of Christ, the Venerable Simeon the New Theologian, writes “A Word against those who attempt to theologize without having the grace of the Holy Spirit” (Homily 61), where he says: “They are surprised at those numerous people who, before being born of God and before entering into His childhood, do not tremble to theologize and talk about God. When I hear how many, not understanding Divine things, philosophize about them and, being filled with sins, theologize about God and everything concerning Him without the grace of the Holy Spirit, who gives meaning and reason; my spirit trembles, is horrified, and in some way loses its temper, thinking that while the Divinity is incomprehensible to everyone, we, who know neither ourselves nor what is before our eyes, with boldness and dispassion we begin to philosophize about what is incomprehensible to us, especially being empty of the grace of the Holy Spirit, who enlightens and teaches everything. We sin even in that, given our position, we allow the desire to say something about God... Why, O people, do you not care more about seeing yourself in a better state, but, neglecting your correction, torture what concerns God and Divine things? We must first pass from death to the belly, receive into ourselves from above the seed of the Living God, be born spiritually from Him, become His children, receive the grace of the Holy Spirit into our souls - and then, under the influence of enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, begin to talk about what concerns God, how much is available to us and how much we will be enlightened by God Himself” 5 . All these authoritative arguments of Christian theologians indicate the real place of theological science in life: it is a secondary value that cannot in any way replace religious life itself. If we reduce everything to theological science, then the same tragedy of theological science, the same tragedy of reason that I spoke about, will inevitably be inevitable. After all, theological sciences have now grown to the point that specialization is necessary in order not to be an amateur. The place of learned theologians is occupied by learned representatives of only certain theological disciplines. Genuine theological knowledge, whatever it may be, is always integral; it expresses the whole Christian soul, achieving perfection and at the same time enlightening and refined. Once Adam, God, desired to be, did not exist; knew only that he was naked when he chose the path of self-will and self-affirmation. Meanwhile, “deification” is a true religious ideal, which the Orthodox Church has carried through a number of centuries, along with the truth of the Divinity of its Founder, the Only Begotten Son of God incarnate on earth. Do you remember the religious event that St. Gregory the Theologian narrates in his (43rd) funeral homily for Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia: “Conversation between Basil the Great and Valens. – What and what my arrogance is, I can’t understand it. “The point,” says the first, “is that you do not adhere to the same faith with the king, when all the others bowed down and yielded.” “This is not what my King demands: I cannot bow to the creature, being myself a creature of God and having the command to be a god.” - But what do you think we are? Or do we who command this mean nothing? Why is it not important for you to join us and be in fellowship with us? “You are rulers, and I don’t deny that they are famous rulers, but you are not higher than God.” And it is important for me to be in communication with you (why not? and you are God’s creature); however, it is no more important than being in communion with any other of your subordinates, because Christianity is determined not by the dignity of persons, but by faith. Then the ruler became agitated, became more angry, got up from his seat and began to speak to Vasily more sternly than before. – Well, aren’t you afraid of power? - No, no matter what happens, I won’t tolerate it. “Have you even suffered even one of the many things that are in my will?” - What is it? Explain this to me. – Confiscation of property, exile, torture, death. – If you can, threaten others; but this doesn’t bother us at all. - Because property is not subject to description, who has nothing, will you demand from me this piece of hair and a few books that contain all my belongings? I don’t know about exile; because I am not bound by any place: and the place where I live now is not mine, and everything, wherever they throw me, will be mine. It’s better to say, God’s place is everywhere, no matter where I am as a sojourner and a stranger (Ps. 39:13). And what kind of torture will they take when I don’t even have a body? Do you really mean the first blow, in which you alone have power? Death is beneficial for me - it will sooner send me to God, for Whom I live and work, for Whom I have already died for the most part of myself and to Whom I have been hastening for a long time." It was a heroic stand for the religious ideal of Christian life. In the struggle for this ideal, Basil the Great remained adamant, just as the Church itself is adamant, which together with him can say: in everything else, O ruler, we are modest and humbler than anyone else - this is what the commandment commands us to do, and not only in front of such power, but even in front of anyone else, we do not raise our eyebrows; and when the matter is about God and they dare to rebel against Him, then, despising everything, we mean God alone. Fire, sword, wild beasts and flesh-tearing claws will rather be a pleasure for us than cause horror. In addition to this, insult, threaten, do whatever you want, use your power” 7. The essence of the religious ideal of the Church, the essence of our ideal of life, is deification. The essence of our religious hope is that we have the command and have received the opportunity to become like God Himself in spiritual perfection. The Church has not yet lowered its religious ideal. Listen to church hymns. After all, our rural sextons are still singing about the same religious ideal of deification, which, in contrast to “false knowledge,” was put forward by the greatest theologian of the 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, for which the unshakable adamant Saint Athanasius the Great suffered and fought in the 4th century, about whom in the 8th century the greatest world poet, Saint John of Damascus, marvelously sang, “by the action of the Spirit hitting." The religious ideal should determine a person’s entire life. With the incarnation on earth of the Only Begotten Son of God, humanity received new strength - the restoration of fallen human nature began, the process of creating a new man, a new creature was brought into existence. Saved and being saved humanity is united in the single and indivisible organism of the Church. In this organism live all the Divine powers, which lead the new humanity, the Church to perfection. Only in this organism is life. The falling away of a member from the body is associated with the cessation of its life and development. Likewise, falling away from church life always necessarily means a cessation of the growth of a moral personality and its spiritual death. And life and personal development in the Church brings with it happiness and bliss. This happiness and bliss is not presented as an external reward - it appears as an internal and indispensable consequence of perfection itself, for we affirm the identity of virtue and bliss. Therefore, our Christian hope is a joyful, bright hope. Our eschatology is not dark, but bright, as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9; see also: Is. 64:4). From this it is clear, I think, that outside the life of the church theological science has no meaning; on the contrary, then it has value and significance when it serves the development and preservation of church life. I believe that for a conscious Christian there can be only one view not only on theological science, but also on all science and on all branches of life and earthly activity: everything makes sense only insofar as it serves the Church, that is, the improvement of humanity. An advanced person is only one who fully lives the life of the Church, because only in the Church is that new life for which the Son of God came to the sinful earth possible, and only in the Church is true progress possible! And the progress that our proud age so boasts of does not have much value in the eyes of a Christian, because a Christian first of all asks the question: what is the benefit for eternity, for the salvation of the soul? When answering this question, very often the first are the last. Who is closer to God and the Kingdom of Heaven: the proud conqueror of the air, who rushes with dizzying speed and sets a world record, or the humble, poor old woman, barely wandering with a knapsack on her shoulders along the path to St. Sergius the Monk? Yes, if you look closely at modern progress, it seems impossible not to notice in it an even more terrible tragedy than the described tragedy of reason. Church progress brings with it bliss. But does the progress of humanity, divorced from God and from the Church, bring happiness with it? Humanity is taking big, giant strides along the path of progress. Perhaps that brilliant era is already approaching when air flights will open and joint-stock companies will begin to transport luggage and passengers on huge airships. But will this make a person happier? You can safely answer: no, he won’t be happier. Ships fly through the air, and in the pure air element the same merciless war will open as is now being waged on land and at sea. Air destroyers and battleships will appear. In the impenetrable darkness of thunderclouds and under the blue arches of a pristine sky, the roar of guns will be heard; groans, curses, and loud cries of victory will break the sacred silence of the transcendental countries, and the scarlet blood of the same suffering and dying unfortunate person will flow to the earth from the heights of the sky. Is it not characteristic of modern progress that the new era of aeronautics immediately entered into an alliance with the military department? We have not yet learned to fly, but according to the new Statute of St. George in Rus', there is a reward for the one who causes the greatest harm to the enemy from an airplane. Aircraft are directly adapted to military purposes, and the Krupp factory skillfully casts formidable guns for firing at airships and airplanes. An old, deeply tragic story is repeating itself: chemists and alchemists were looking for a vital elixir to prolong life, but discovered gunpowder to destroy an already short life. It sometimes seems that humanity, with its notorious progress, is spinning in some kind of vicious circle. This circle can perhaps be characterized by the words of the poet: The clouds are rushing, the clouds are swirling. The demon leads us into the field, apparently And what is the eschatology of this progress in its detachment from God and from the Church? What can we hope for? What is the general eschatology of the scientific worldview itself? A person will rot in the ground, and a “burdock will grow” from him. Finally, It will rush like an empty ship, And, wandering between worlds, Like a granite non-speaker. ...The picture is majestic, but... bleak! V.S. Soloviev. Essays. St. Petersburg, 1903. T.8. P.139. Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus. I,2. Works of ancient Christian apologists in the Russian translation by Archpriest. P. Preobrazhensky. St. Petersburg, 1895. P.128–129. St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. 3rd ed. Part 2. M., 1889. P.142. Isaac the Syrian. Word 49. Ascetic words. 3rd ed. Sergiev Posad, 1911. P.216,217. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. A word against those who attempt to theologize without the grace of the Holy Spirit. 2nd ed. M., 1890. P.92,93. St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. 3rd ed. Part 4. M., 1889. P.83–84. You might be interested in: