Life and theology of Mikhail Tareev

Contents Editorial I. Life II. Main aspects of the religious and philosophical system of Mikhail Tareev November 7 is the birthday of the outstanding theologian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Mikhail Tareev, the forerunner of religious existentialism, the heyday of which Western theology experienced after the First World War. Reading the works of Mikhail Tareev based on the tragic situation of man in the twentieth century is a matter for the future. So far, theological thought still too correlates the work of Mikhail Tareev with his own context, while he worked as a forerunner, warning about the tragedies of the twentieth century and looking - even before Karl Barth - for a Christianity that can remain effective in times of the collapse of all strongholds: faith in progress, faith in the humanity of man, faith in the power of tradition... He felt the powerlessness of everything that his contemporaries were accustomed to rely on. And he convinced that only Christ is the stone on which to build. But he was misunderstood. And they were considered a destroyer of tradition. Meanwhile, everything that seemed unshakable will fall in just a few years, and Christians will only have to follow the path of the persecuted after the Persecuted, the martyrs after the Martyr, the humiliated for the Humiliated. The path that Mikhail Tareev warned them about. Today, The Theological Portal publishes an article by Abbot Sylvester (Stoichev), a teacher at the Kiev Theological Academy, expecting in the future an active understanding of the work of both Mikhail Tareev himself and the liberal theologians of Kiev who worked in the same era. Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev 1 was born on November 7, 1867 2, in the Ryazan province, in the family of a rural priest. He studied at the Ryazan Seminary (graduated in 1887), then at the Moscow Theological Academy, from which he graduated in 1891 and was retained at the academy for a year with the rank of professorial fellow. In 1891 he defended his master's thesis on the topic “The Temptation of the God-Man” (in the 2nd edition the title of the book was changed to “The Temptation of Our Lord Jesus Christ”). Then Mikhail Tareev successively held teaching positions in Pskov (1893–1899; teaches homiletics, practical theology, liturgics and French) and Riga (1899–1902; teaches Latin) theological seminaries. On September 6 of the same year, he was accepted into the MDA as an extraordinary professor in the department of moral theology. In 1904 he defended his doctoral dissertation “The Humiliation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:5–11). Exegetical and historical-critical research" (Moscow, 1901). Mikhail Tareev then combined both dissertations and his other works under the general title “Fundamentals of Christianity. System of religious thought" (Vol. 1–5. Sergiev Posad, 1908–1910). Tareev’s works were awarded the Metropolitan Macarius Prize, but there was heated controversy against them, to which he often responded in a harsh spirit. Since 1905, M. Tareev has been an ordinary professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences. For five years (1910–1915) Mikhail Mikhailovich was a member of the Biblical Commission. Tareev lectured at the Academy, managed to write articles on theological, philosophical and current social topics; was in correspondence with V.V. Rozanov and Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). During his lifetime, his views aroused wide interest among ecclesiastical and secular circles. Reviews and characteristics of Tareev’s contemporaries, as well as later researchers, are directly opposite - from enthusiastic to negative. In a review of V. Nesmelov’s book “The Science of Man,” N. A. Berdyaev notes: “One also cannot deny the talent and originality of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M. Tareev, who recently published a four-volume work “Fundamentals of Christianity.” Tareev's colleague at the academy, prof. A. M. Tuberovsky wrote: “Tareev strives to penetrate into the intimate essence of Christianity, to creatively reproduce it. Not to mention the results of the plan, the very formulation of such a task is very original and deeply respectable. We understood the absolute superiority of this particular “philosophy” of Christianity... In the establishment of this method and in its brilliant implementation in the system of Prof. We see Tareev’s greatest merit, an exceptional fact of Russian Theology, in which all errors can only have a petty significance.” The Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa Dimitry (Kovalnitsky), who in 1908 conducted an audit of the Moscow Theological Academy, held the opposite opinion about Tareev. In the report he presented to the Synod on the results of the audit, His Eminence Demetrius spoke particularly negatively about the teaching activities of Prof. MM. Tareev, who was accused of deviating from church tradition and striving to create a new system of Christian philosophy and theology. Tareev’s views were characterized as follows: “this is not theology, but nonsense, the impression of which is further enhanced by the sharpness of the tone, for the sake of persuasiveness” 3. Archbishop Dimitri even emphasized that after familiarizing himself with the four-volume theological works of Tareev, he felt sorry that “undoubtedly, a talented scientist, a diligent worker in theological literature, who wants to continue new paths for theology, got entangled in the slums of false teaching” 4. Having familiarized itself with the report, the Holy Synod made the following decision regarding Tareev: “In view of the doubts aroused in readers by the theological works of Mikhail Tareev, an ordinary professor at the Moscow Theological Academy in the Department of Moral Theology, to require him to submit to the Holy Synod a summary of the system of his theology” 5 . Carrying out the decision, Tareev submitted for his consideration a small essay called “A Brief Exposition of My Theology” 6 . The work was submitted for review to Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, who highly appreciated Tareev’s works as “the fruit of his great labors and remarkable talent,” constituting a serious contribution to theology. In conclusion, Yanyshev noted: “Wishing to preserve Mr. Tareev, as a gifted and hardworking professor, for theological science at the academy, I would find it useful to instruct Professor Tareev to refrain, both in his teaching and in the press, from everything that is not in accordance with the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church” 7 . Yanyshev’s authority was taken into account, and M. Tareev was left in his previous position. In addition, in 1911 M. Tareev was even awarded the Metropolitan Macarius Prize. In 1915, prof. M. Tareev became a member of the board of the academy, and on May 4, 1917, he was appointed editor of the academic journal “Theological Bulletin” (replacing Father Pavel Florensky in this position) 8 and was elected as a delegate from the MDA to the commission for the reform of higher theological schools. After the closure of the MLA, Mikhail Tareev continued teaching at the Yaroslavl Law Institute (1918–1927), the Zagorsk Military Electrical Engineering Academy (until 1924) and the Pedagogical College 9. From 1924 to 1934 he lived in Moscow. On June 4, 1934, Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev died of intestinal cancer 10. II. Main aspects of the religious and philosophical system of Mikhail Tareev It is possible to say without exaggeration that Tareev was a representative of liberalism in theology. The professor belongs to a movement called “new theology” or moralism (as Archpriest Georgy Florovsky characterizes this direction). Tareev’s thought is developed in the context of this direction, although Mikhail Mikhailovich himself does not identify his theology with the ideas of the “new theological” direction. The subjective method of theology is the main one for M. M. Tareev: subjective or intimate-personal creative perception and understanding of the Gospel comes first; all this makes the patristic theological tradition unnecessary for subjective spiritual life (Tareev recognizes only the edifying and instructive nature of the patristic works). Dogmas, according to Tareev, although they are the most important in the church tradition, are essentially only a rational set of formulas, the comprehension of which occurs subjectively (Tareev recognizes the significance of rationalism and scholasticism only for the immediate purposes of scientific presentation of the material). Tareev sees the reform of theological disciplines in theological schools as a practical consequence of his ideas: the division of theological sciences into dogmatic theology and moral teaching. The Gospel is the center and basis of the theological thought of Mikhail Tareev; The task of a Christian is to constantly comprehend the Gospel texts. Comprehension and understanding of the Gospel by a Christian must be freed from the influence of two trends - the patristic tradition and biblical criticism. The first obscures Christ from man with a set of authoritative opinions and disparate theological systems, the second does not provide anything new and significant for understanding the Gospel. The main theme of the Gospel, and indeed the entire New Testament in general, is kenosis - the doctrine of the self-abasement of Christ. Mikhail Tareev places the main emphasis of kenosis on the temptations of Christ in the desert. Tareev’s Christology and soteriology can be characterized as varieties of the “moral theory of atonement” (it is no coincidence that Tareev acts as a polemicist with Catholicism and “legalism”). Tareev bases his teaching on kenosis on the Epistle to the Philippians and the Gospel passages about the temptation of Christ in the desert. In patristic literature, the best expression of the doctrine of kenosis, according to Tareev, is presented in the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. But, despite all its authority, the Christology of St. Cyril, like any other patristic theological system, must be placed in the context of a subjectively intimate understanding of them by each individual “creative mind.” Kenosis is considered by Tareev outside of its connection with the doctrine of deification (this also partly reveals a break with the patristic theological tradition). Mikhail Tareev comes to the conclusion about the close relationship between the divine-human psychology of Christ and the inner spiritual world of each individual Christian, i.e. every Christian must have a “divine mood (or self-awareness)”, which Christ Himself had. “A Godly mood” is the basis of personal kenosis for a Christian, as a necessary condition for becoming like Christ. Everyone should strive for a personally creative, rational or free-spiritual religion (an example is given by Tareev himself), on the basis of which an organic combination of religion and philosophy is created - Christian philosophy (philosophy of life). Regarding the Church, we can talk about a certain evolution of the views of Prof. Mikhail Tareeva - from traditional ones to those in the context of his “new theological” system. The Church is necessary for Christianity, but one cannot completely and completely identify Christianity and the Church, because the dominant role is played by the intimate-personal aspect of religion. The Church is an external, symbolic manifestation of a person’s inner, intimate faith. The main stumbling block for Mikhail Tareev was the attitude to the traditional theological heritage of the Church, and in a broader aspect to the entire Holy Tradition in general. Sacrificing the theological tradition in the name of intimate-personal, subjective knowledge of God, Tareev asserts the superiority of the personal aspect over the general church consciousness. The ideas expressed by Mikhail Tareev, in one form or another, found a response both in the church and in the parachurch environment (“new theology”, “new religious consciousness”, religious and philosophical societies, etc.). However, it should be taken into account that Mikhail Tareev opposed himself to everyone else, although he could recognize and agree with the value and correctness of certain positions (for example, Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), etc.). Mikhail Tareev turned out to be a lonely thinker who had enthusiastic fans, but did not create his own school. The revolutionary events that changed the position of the Church in Russia made the scientific and journalistic activities of Mikhail Tareev impossible. For many years his legacy was not republished or studied. Now we can talk about increasing interest in this extraordinary thinker. In “History of Russian Philosophy” prot. V. Zenkovsky's name and patronymic Tareev is Maxim Matveevich. Zenkovsky V., prot. History of Russian philosophy. – P. 549. Zenkovsky’s mistake is pointed out in his work by P. Vallier (Valliere P.R. M.M.Tareev: A Study in Russian Ethics and Mysticism. – Columbia University, 1974. – P. 6.), as well as A.I. Brodsky (see Brodsky A.I. Cited works. – P. 8). The same date of birth is indicated in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (see Tareev / Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, (P) IDDK, 2002 (CD-ROM)), from Archpriest. A. Me (see A. Men, prot. Bibliological Dictionary: in 3 volumes - T. 3: R-Ya. - M.: A. Men Foundation, 2002. - P. 208). Prot. V. Zenkovsky, P. Valliere consider Tareev’s date of birth to be 1866 (see V. Zenkovsky, prot. Cited cit. - P. 549; Valliere P.R. Op. cit. P. 6). [Tareev M.M.] A page from the recent history of theological science: [Revision of academies for 1908]. – T. 2. / BV. – 1917. – No. 6/7. – P. 114 [Tareev M. M.] A page from the recent history of theological science: [Revision of academies for 1908]. / BV. – 1917. – T. 2. – No. 6/7. – P. 114. Right there. – pp. 254–268; [Tareev M. M.] A page from the recent history of theological science: [Revision of academies for 1908]. / BV. – 1917. – T. 2. – No. 10/11/12. – pp. 385–410. Yanyshev I. L., prot. Review of Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev on “A Brief Exposition of the System of Theology” by M. M. Tareev, presented to the Holy Synod. [Tareev M. M.] A page from the recent history of theological science: [Revision of academies for 1908]. / BV. – 1917. – T. 2. – No. 10/11/12. – P. 417. The change in the editor-in-chief of the main publication of the MDA was, to a certain extent, “landmark”. The assessments of this event are diametrically opposed. Igum. Andronik (Trubachev), a descendant of Florensky, offers the following assessment: “After the February Revolution on March 13, 1917 at the Moscow Theological Academy, under the influence of anti-church sentiments beneficial to bourgeois-liberal circles, prof. B.V. Titlinov, seconded as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, conducted an audit. On April 9–10, 1917, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, V. N. Lvov, arrived at the MDA. The rector of the MDA, Bishop Theodore, according to the audit, was dismissed from his post and appointed manager as rector of the Moscow Danilov Monastery. ... Naturally, priest Pavel Florensky, as editor of the Theological Bulletin, appointed and supported by Bishop Theodore, also had to leave his post. Although Father Pavel was formally re-elected as editor of the Theological Bulletin on May 4, the question of his departure was a foregone conclusion back in March. Immediately after the audit of Titlinov B. V., March 20, 1917, Father Pavel submitted a petition to Bishop Theodore for release from his duties as editor “due to ... fatigue from editorial work, which has especially intensified during the current academic year due to the lack of student proofreaders.” About the true reason for leaving, Father Pavel wrote to Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov on June 13, 1917: “I hastened to refuse myself, not having the slightest desire to develop the ideology of the Hamocratic Church and also not wanting to be exposed by my comrades.” The position of Father Paul was appreciated by Archbishop Anthony, who wrote to him on June 16, 1917: “All-honorable Father, Father Paul, ... May the Lord reward you for your nobility in relation to the Most Reverend Theodore. Spiritually devoted Archbishop Anthony.” On May 4, the MDA Council elected Prof. M. M. Tareeva. Having become the head of the magazine, M.M. Tareev published a number of his articles in which he abandoned the patristic tradition and traditions of Russian theological science in favor of the most unbridled Protestantism, and the social orientation of the “Theological Messenger” was sharply changed; from the church-scientific organ of the Moscow Theological Academy, it was turned into a socio-political organ of the bourgeoisie, which descended to the publication of articles discrediting the old Academy. Its (i.e., the journal “Theological Bulletin” - I.S.) cessation, from an internal point of view, was a natural consequence of betrayal of the spirit of churchliness and academic traditions.” See Andronik (Trubachev) abbot. Priest Pavel Florensky is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy and editor of the Theological Bulletin / BT. – 1987. – T. 28. – P. 307. Brodsky A.I. Quote. op. – P. 64.