Christian unity and theological enlightenment in the Orthodox perspective

I would not have taken upon myself the courage to speak so unexpectedly and unexpectedly for me before your venerable assembly on such a most important issue as inter-church unification, if in the presence of my highest hierarchs I was not completely sure that I was expressing here the generally accepted axioms among us, because these are the essence of biblical and patristic truths, i.e. universally required. And they consist in the fact that mutual and universal Christian unity is not only the commandment of Christ the Savior and not only our entire moral obligation. Both are true, but precisely because there is a need for our very Christian existence, which without this cannot exist, function and develop normally. Apart from all dogmatic theories and abstract doctrines, the experience of all peoples and times irresistibly convinces us that after the Fall, humanity was empirically autonomous only for evil and was not able to independently get rid of this terrible situation. Given the universality of such a phenomenon, an original human rebirth turned out to be completely incredible, for this is a natural defect, inherited by everyone without exception. Even the divine law, given for salvation, served in the Old Testament to condemnation and death. The direct participation of the essential divine principle was necessary in order to revive sinful human nature through communication. And so “when this fullness of times had come, God sent His Son” (Gal. 4:4, 5), who, as the God-man, by His death on the cross purchased for us “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). However, the latter is still the property of the Divine Possessor and can only come from Him. Therefore, the closest unity with Christ is imperative, so that the grace-filled deliverance achieved for us is naturally communicated to us and remains our personal Christian property. In the absence of merit in human affairs, the exclusive means is faith, which mysteriously and vitally leads us to merging with Christ, and this saving act is carried out in baptism, when we are buried in Him (Col. 2:12), so that just as Christ rose from the dead by the power of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). This means that a new and abundant source of life has now been acquired, where the best existence arises from our death. But since our death was with Christ and in Christ, then, obviously, He works this great miracle, replacing our sacrifice so much that it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2:20). It is clear that now there is a really mysterious merging with the Redeemer and the absorption in Him of our weakness by the all-effective power of God (Rom. 6:5). At the same time, “all who are baptized into Christ put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27), becoming one with Him through grace-filled organic communion. Then they - according to the excellent interpretation of St. John Chrysostom - they come with the Lord Savior and directly perceive all His prerogatives. Since He is the Son of God, those who are baptized are also children of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26), although - in comparison with Him - our sonship with God is not essential, but derivative and secondary. This is “adoption” (ν ἰ οθεμ ί α) through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 7:23), but not only adoptive and not legal, for we are truly sons of God with all the gifts of the Spirit and rights of inheritance (Gal. 4:5–7; Rom. 8:14). Consequently, Christianity is real sonship with God, which everyone is certainly awarded at his very rebirth. Every Christian, by his rank, necessarily possesses the grace-filled sonship of God. But this is equally certain for all members of the Christian family, and therefore all believers are children of God by the very nature of their Christian existence at its origin. If Christians are children of one Father, then it is natural that they are brothers with each other by virtue of their blessings. Along with the common sonship of God, mutual Christian brotherhood is no less indisputable and real, as inseparable from the very Christian dignity in all justified. But, being a complete brotherhood, Christianity not only must be, but also necessarily is Christian unity. The latter is the main property of our Christian existence, which is normally expressed only by universal fraternal solidarity. Hence, universal Christian unity constitutes the very essence of grace-filled rebirth and confirms it. This is not a dogmatic postulate, but a real Christian fact. In this case, it is also clear that here any unification is possible and legal only on the basis of actual similarity in what expresses the nature of our Christian brotherhood. And these are the “canons” of the “new creation” (Gal. 4:16, 15) or the norms of our Christian existence, determined by precise laws that serve as the eternal foundations of normal life for him. In our reasonable interpretation, these will be dogmas, and they, being obligatory elements of Christian life, are equally necessary for mutual recognition, so that a genuine, real unification can then occur. Therefore, without dogmatic unanimity there cannot be true and complete inter-church unity, since the latter is created exclusively by the fusion of the dogmatic norms of Christian reality. This is an essential, ontological requirement, and cannot be circumvented or overcome in any other way. Even Christian love itself, which “no longer falls away” (1 Cor. 13:8), is not capable of replacing this condition and becoming all-perfect, for without it it will always be uncertain and sometimes insincere. They say that dogmas have often been “elaborate articles of disunion,” and prefer Richlian agnosticism and adogmatic latitudinarism. But the first would be a return to the times of the “unknown God” (Acts 17:23) and is intolerable in Christianity, when the Only Begotten Son confessed the Heavenly Father (John 1:18), and the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (John 17:3). As for adogmatism, it excludes the very need for inter-church unity, easily gets along and is reconciled with everyone, allowing for a wide disparity of beliefs, liturgical order and Christian practice, which introduces objective confusion and makes all sorts of convinced agreements difficult. The object itself disappears into its most typical outlines, and without them there is no living reality. It is the latter that the dogmas state, why they cannot be divisive, but, on the contrary, serve as the only means of true, vital rapprochement. The opposite only happens when dogmas are artificially aimed at separating the Pharisees from the tax collectors or are so petty that they suppress Christian freedom (Gal. 5:1, 13), destroy all individuality and establish a deadening pattern, giving rise to harmful confessional chauvinism. And all this happens solely because it is done contrary to the real object or beyond its nature. It is clear that without this, dogmas become objective qualifications and create a strong objective unification, since they state only the most essential in Christianity and leave everything individually distinctive untouched, as is the case everywhere and always in all other respects. In this sense, dogma is the basis, support and protection of Christian unity. The best confirmation of it is the Holy Council of Nicea, the memory of which brought us here from dispersion, and gave me the high honor of being your guest, dear and venerable colleagues. 1 Then there was a terrible era in the history of Christianity, which was in danger of losing everything it had achieved amid mutual turmoil and being internally weakened by its divisions. There were moments when Arianism captured the majority of the Christian world and threatened to drown it with its heretical intolerance. Salvation began only with a dogmatic formulation in the Creed, and the latter later brought about a complete Christian unification on the basis of a stated essential dogmatic truth, which caused recognition without sacrificing the freedom of individual assimilation. From here we are clearly convinced that in the future, inter-church solidarity should be organized by dogmatic reciprocity according to the principle of Vikenty Lirinsky: ni necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus autem caritas. But, of course, for this there must be a vital gravity, provided by the past and functioning hitherto. On this side, I have the most gratifying union prospects in relation to Anglicanism, with which the Orthodox East has long been closely linked. One of the most learned modern Anglican hierarchs writes that “we have to think of the English Church of that (first) period as being part of an undivided Universal Church, and we have an interesting reminder of that in the fact that one of the greatest of the early Archibishops of Canterbury was Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek, to whom this Church and country owes the first systematic organization of its religious life” (Rt. Rev. Bishop Atthur C. Headlam, The Church of England, London, 1921, p. 25). This good beginning of benevolent reciprocity was preserved later and manifested itself with particular brilliance in recent times, when it was from the Anglican environment that bright rays emanated for suffering Orthodoxy in the midst of general darkness. The merits of Anglicanism in the matter of the ecumenical patriarchy are enormous, where only the energetic participation of your most worthy Archbishop Randall Davidson saved the vital center of canonical unity for Orthodoxy. And for my demonically tormented Orthodox Russia, the Anglican Church - in its head and members - was and remains the only saddened one of its Christian sister, bleeding with the blood of martyrs and confessors, the very blood that was once the “seed of Christianity” and is now the sacred guarantee of our Christian union. And the latter is not assumed accidentally and unconsciously, but is based on an objective readiness for fair dogmatic unanimity. In the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” I edited, back in 1911 (vol. XII, column 731) I had the spiritual joy of printing the following significant statement by a member of the Anglican clergy, Rev. Andrew Amas: “The Anglican Church has always remained faithful to the idea of ​​the holy Catholic Church, both in its organization with bishops, priests and deacons, and in its teaching and its devotion to Catholic symbols, even in difficult times generally known as the Reformation. Resolutely rebelling against the claims of the Roman pontiffs, she firmly adhered to the ancient order and with full right referred to the authority of the primal church, which at the ecumenical councils consecrated the teachings and practices she had adopted - in their canonical foundations. And this very minute I read the significant words (Mr. Hofman Nickerson in “The Christien East” VI, 2: June, 1925, p. 90) “that complete reunion of Anglicans with that venereal Church (Eastern Orthodox) seems to await only the restoration of Eastern Europe to political tranquility.” In turn, the Orthodox churches, desiring a more detailed, distinct formulation of the dogmatic beliefs of Anglicanism, sufficiently recognized their affinity in a favorable judgment on the central point regarding the legality and validity of the Anglican hierarchy. And in Orthodox Russia it has long been instilled, even in our seminary textbooks, that “all data gives the right to hope that the desire for unity between the Anglican and Orthodox churches will end in complete success in the near future.” (P.I. Malitsky, History of the Christian Church; last volume, Tula, p. 312). So, by the grace of God, the ground has been significantly prepared, and we can say in church words: “Thou shalt make the Lord’s time”! There must be worthy figures on our side to carry out this holy work, for its confirmation, continuation and for the always blessed application, so that it is carried out with conviction and carried out “reasonably”. This mission was fulfilled in our country by theological schools, which were always headed by the Academies. We need to take care of them for the purposes of enlightened unionism, and for this we need to know for sure. But I am connected with them by all scientific existence and do not exist outside of them. Therefore, I find it difficult to expand, because to praise oneself is unworthy, and to blaspheme is shameful. I will try to be brief and objective. From the English point of view, the Russian Theological Academies came too late. True, the Kiev Academy, founded under the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (from 1627) Peter Mohyla, then the famous Metropolitan of Kiev (1631–1646), back in 1631, and the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was opened in 1685, but the first was transformed into a scientific institute only in 1817 and actually began to function in 1819, the latter was reformed in 1814. The St. Petersburg (Petrograd) Theological Academy, operating since 1809, received the title of “Alexandro-Nevsky Academy” only in 1797, and previously existed as a “main seminary” (1788–1797), a “Slavic-Greek-Latin seminary” (1725–1788) and a “Slavic school” (1721–1725). However, when assessing these dates, one must take into account the course of Russian history, where there was no real statehood in the strict sense, when English higher schools were already flourishing, and Uppsala University sees its beginning from the era in which Russia was under the Tatar yoke. No less significant is the second circumstance associated with our historical state development and illuminating it from a better side than is commonly thought everywhere. Russia, which gradually concentrated vast, almost immense spaces, did not conquer them at all, but simply annexed them to its state due to the absence of any state power there. At the same time, she was faced with the very responsible mission of introducing these wild places and barbarian peoples to Christian civilization. This was our great providential calling, far from any predatory and despotic aspirations. How we fulfilled it - I leave it to you to judge and expect an assessment not so much lenient as fair. No one can give more than he has, and we gave what we had, but this was our last asset, and you know better how the Lord exalted the contribution of the poor widow in comparison with the rich offerings of the Pharisees... And in this area the exceptional role of our church and spiritual culture is noteworthy. At the beginning, Russian civilization spread everywhere through missionary means thanks to the selfless apostolic zeal of the monks, who, with the lamp of the Gospel, penetrated into the darkest regions and gradually established unifying centers for the vastest regions. Only after this did state power come and try to establish some kind of civil law and order. Along with it and to support it, schools were founded - previously exclusively spiritual-church ones, and the crown and completion of this long preparatory work were the Theological Academies, which were schools of true knowledge and therefore were not limited to theological sciences alone, but in accordance with them they always cultivated many secular disciplines - philosophical, historical, philological, mathematical. Under such conditions, it is clear that the Spiritual Academies did not arise in our country quickly, but that there were few of them, since in a polysyllabic organism there is only one chapter... In the same sense, it was planned to open new Academies - in Vilna, Tomsk and Irkutsk. From what has been said, it is clear that our Theological Academies were the focus of spiritual Christian culture, its guardians and nurseries for all of Russia and in all directions. Our entire higher hierarchy came from them. Academic students adorned our clergy in general, not only in cities, but sometimes in villages. The entire administrative and teaching staff of numerous schools - spiritual, church and - not rarely - secular are indebted to them. But the academicians, who occupied almost all the posts of spiritual and administrative establishment, penetrated into other spheres, even if recently we had as a companion the Minister of Agriculture, a candidate of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. And this was not a betrayal of one’s calling, but the application of it in the spirit of godliness, which is beneficial for all things (1 Tim. 4:8)... It so happens that an official of the Ministry of Railways receives a Master of Divinity degree for a learned dissertation on the ecclesiastical reforms of Joseph II; the manager of an entire department of the State Horse Breeding writes a thorough treatise on the Pharisees; An employee of the State Audit Office is publishing a book about St. Andrew's Kronstadt Cathedral, where the blessedly deceased All-Russian shepherd Fr. John. Et cetera, et cetera. We may not have made a big contribution to the pan-European scientific treasury, but we have worked hard enough to develop our correct heritage and much more in connection with it. In each area there are many major names, sometimes even truly great ones. Not to mention his contemporaries, and especially those present, I will name only a few as examples. In dogmatics we gratefully remember Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Archbishop Philaret (Grumilevsky), Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky), in homiletics and pastorology - Professor V.F. Pevnitsky, in Christian philosophy, according to which “a person can learn the (complete) truth (only) from God or (not at all) learn it,” - Professor V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, in bibliology, studies of the Slavic translation are valuable in connection with textual-critical problems in restoring its Greek prototype; in the field of general church history, Professor A.P. is famous. Lebedev and V.V. Bolotov, and the latter, in terms of the vastness and depth of his knowledge (even Eastern philological, mathematical, astronomical) was the undoubted luminary of all European scholarship; Academician E.E. shines in Russian church history. Golubinsky, regarding the Old Believer schism, Professor N.I. stands out. Subbotin, Professor A.S. did a lot on canon law. Pavlov, N.S. Suvorov, I.S. Berdnikov, for liturgics its interpreter was Professor I.D. Mansvetov, and the Russian Goar is Professor A.A. Dmitrievsky, Professor N.V. is known in church archeology. Pokrovsky. I could continue this list and increase it at least ten to twenty times, but the importance here is not in the quantity, but in the basic guidelines. And on this point, Orthodoxy unshakably professes that Christianity is life, and not a school doctrine, which is why all kinds of theoretical teachings are only secondary in it, reflecting and rationalizing real life phenomena. But life, while it actually exists - at least among the storms and upheavals that are now fiercely and mercilessly tormenting great Russia - must necessarily absorb and reconcile all the diverse currents in a common channel, so as not to cease from their collision and not perish in this chaos. It is clear that normal scientific reproduction of it is certainly completely consistent or no less integral, so that Russian theology by its nature remains unified. Of course, there have always been different views and divergent directions, but there is no isolation of “theological schools”, which in the West diverge to the point of exclusivity and hostility. Russian theology, while maintaining a close connection with the primary sources of life, does not have, at its core, either dogmatic stereotyping or scholastic dryness and is distinguished by vital mobility with all its properties - a constant striving forward and continuous inquisitiveness specifically in relation to the knowledge of God. But life, as the deepest mystery of God, is necessarily an unchanging request and constant interrogation about its reason and purpose for every reasoning thought. Therefore, Russian theology never confines itself to statements and generalizations, but everywhere tries to penetrate into objects and discover their ideological essence. All works of Russian theological knowledge in all areas are ultimately concentrated on philosophical comprehension and fundamental interpretation. This scale is steadily applied to both the great and the small: some explain philosophy with gospel history and construct a “philosophy of life” (Prof. M.M. Tareev), others think to guess the “trinity of the deity” in “monuments of the general history of art” and look for its idea in an Orthodox church (N.I. Troitsky), open at the “exhibition of religious paintings by Vasnetsov” “Orthodox Christian philosophy in Russian art” (Prot. I.I. Solovyov), comment on our “speculation in colors”, highlighting the question of the meaning of life in ancient Russian religious painting (Prince E.N. Trubetskoy), etc. It is possible that here we have more often and more problems than answers and achievements, but true scientific progress is created not by the quietism of ready-made contentment, but by the unquenchable flame of ardent inquisitiveness about the highest ideals and the best paths to them. From this side, Russian theology - even apart from any concrete successes - accomplished the great cultural and historical mission of an arbitrary reminder and cheerful foreshadowing of the divine and eternal, the most important for every being in the world from the beginning of days to the end of time... Given such features, it is not surprising that the atheistic and anti-Christian Bolsheviks hastened to close all theological sources in Russia and destroy all four Academies, completely stopped theological education and roughly destroyed all theological literature, deciding, for example, to burn all publications of my Petrograd Theological Academy. Our lamps with the oil of theological knowledge are broken, and our scientific lamps have gone out... But the sacred truth of theology is eternal and it requires its rational expression for complete assimilation and for the preparation of its worthy servants and faithful confessors. With this sweet hope, a new academic center is founded in Paris to be the beginning and symbol of the future Russia, which must resurrect only as a great spiritual force, Christianly united with all. In the midst of the murderous darkness that oppresses us, here we place our entire trust in the Lord God and pray to Him. In Your light we will see light! Show Thy mercy to those who lead You! Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us! Emeritus Professor Nikolai Glubokovsky. 1925, VII, I/VI, 18 – Wednesday. Kings College Hostel (No. 27) Vincent Square, London S.W. During his stay in England on the occasion of the Nicene celebrations from June 26 (13) (Wednesday) to July 21 (8) (Tuesday), 1925, the author was a guest of the University of London and was completely dependent on the Dormitory of King's College. He meant the members of this high corporation in his present address. You might be interested in: