Online

Archives › Статьи

Church, State and Society in the Former Soviet Union. Lessons of the 2013 Year

Feb 2014

Post-Soviet
territories remain heavily, almost one-sidedly dependent on events inside
Russia. Last year was a successful one for Putin’s diplomacy. Russia was able
to regain influence in Ukraine, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and it is now using this
influence to actively impose a more aggressive form of economic and military
cooperation. In Belarus and Kazakhstan, which are already members of the
Customs Union, tightening political and religious oppression have appeared in
Putin’s wake. The dependency on hydrocarbons and loans from Russia is blatantly
evident in the replication of religious policy. What Patrick Buchanan rashly
called Putin’s «conservatism,» his defense of «traditional
values» is just a way of legitimizing Russia’s imperial policy towards
neighboring territories and its repressive policies against non-titular or
non-conformist religious groups.
            In Russia itself, manifestations of
civil and religious liberty are severely limited for reasons of national
security. Rallies in honor of the Bolotnaya prisoners, gatherings by people
against crime and government inaction, and even meetings held by sympathizers
after the attacks in Volgograd have been violently dispersed. Unprecedented
security measures and restrictions on freedom have been enacted on the eve of
the Olympics in Sochi. At the same time, symbolic concessions have been made to
the international community – December, 2013 saw the release of victims of
political repression:  Mikhail
Khodorkovsky and members of the band Pussy Riot – Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and
Maria Alekhina.
Amnesty International had
recognized all of them as prisoners of conscience.
            Characteristically, the Kremlin’s
tough stance against prisoners of conscience is fully shared by the Russian
Orthodox Church. And this can be explained by its habitual
«symphonic» relations with the state. What is harder to understand is
the sympathy in Russian society and the Christian community toward the rigid
policies out of the Kremlin, the call for a «strong hand,»
anti-Western sentiments, legal nihilism, and anti-democratic fashion. This can
partly be explained by fear, partly by lack of information, and partly by
religious traditions.
            Fear compels people to avoid
dangerous topics, to bury their heads in the sand, to focus on the simplest
personal interests. In a society of fear, believers do not talk about social
responsibility, justice, truth, freedom, solidarity, the transformation of
society. They prefer to talk about what is extremely remote and abstract –
about the soul and eternity. 
            The lack of information justifies
passivity and conformity. As a result of aggressive government propaganda and
restrictions, the independent media has turned into the monopolization of
informational space. This has also affected religious organizations, their
official positions and information policy. As Russian folk wisdom puts it,
«The less you know, the better you’ll sleep.» In an environment where
knowledge is dangerous, they prefer not to know, but if you do know, then don’t
speak, and if you do talk, then it’s only to utter the most mundane phrases.
            But post-Soviet religious traditions
themselves restrict civil and even religious activity itself – there where it
intersects the social dimension and touches on painful questions. In local
traditions, the practice is to endure in silence, to make whatever compromises
if only to save the Church. Therefore, even evangelical churches, most of which
were victims of Stalinist repressions, sent congratulatory telegrams to Stalin
as a «great friend of all believers,» and their leaders assured the
West that «the Soviet Union has no prisoners of conscience.» This is
why the Russian Orthodox Church, which was almost completely destroyed by
Stalin in the 1920s and 1930s, publishes an obsequious Stalin calendar in 2014
(by the Dostoinstvo [Dignity]
publishing house of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra). This is why the
leaders of the Protestant associations in Russia talk in the very same
Stalinist spirit about the machinations of the West in Ukraine’s Maidan [central square in Kiev], repeat the myths about brotherly Slavic nations and the older
Russian brother and strangle the neighboring republics in these fraternal
embraces.
            What lessons
from the past year are worth reaping, so that our attitude to what is going on
in the post-Soviet world is more objective and compassionately active?
The
primary impediment to civil and religious liberties is not the excessively
active intervention of the government, but the passive state of society and
indifference of religious organizations. As the cautious Ukrainians say,
«It’s no concern of mine.» [Literally,
«My hut is on the edge»].
            Only a strong society can confront
the state in pursuit of its legitimate rights and freedoms. How to awaken and
strengthen society in the absence of civic institutions? Who can accomplish
this, who is capable of coming up with an inspiring and transformative
initiative? Given a weak civil society, the most effective of its members may
well be the religious organizations. This is why the keys to transforming
society are in the hands of the Church. In turn, the transformation of the
Church, critical self-examination, reassessment, a renewal of its traditions
are possible only in a dialogue of traditions, in close cooperation between
national churches and the global Christian community, through international
partnerships and networking with experts, through educational, informational,
social projects aimed at creating a new generation of leaders for the Church
and society.
            Thus, in post-Soviet society, the
path to the transformation of society is through the reformation of the Church.
What can transform the Church? Training new leaders, interdenominational
partnerships, informational accountability by media and society, the activity
of independent experts, quality analytics of trends in relations between the
Church, society and the state, international support for progressive
initiatives, a broad movement of lay Christians extending beyond the mission in
professional spheres.
            At the same time, it is now that the
most disturbing trends have emerged in the social and theological positions of
the post-Soviet Churches: The nostalgia of the Church for Soviet stability; the
demonization of Europe, and anti-Americanism; disappointment in Christian
opportunities in social reforms; distrust toward the younger generations, the
preservation of key positions behind the leaders of the Soviet era; the quiet
politicization of the Church («silence implies consent»).
            These negative trends are hardly
reversible in the short term. Hope is linked with the new Christian generation
that grew up after the USSR. As Thomas Kuhn put it when speaking about
scientific paradigms, more often than not proponents of new paradigms triumph
not through persuasion, but because the representatives of the old paradigm die
out.
            The most
positive sign of the new times, of the new (post) post-Soviet era is, I
believe, the Ukrainian Maidan – as a manifestation of civil society, as a
peaceful form of protest against a corrupt government, as a manifestation of
freedom. The foundation of the protest movement is made up of students – the
generation of the future. They took upon themselves the brunt of the blow by
the police on the night of the violent dispersal on November 30.
The second pillar of support is
comprised by the journalists, the fifth and for now the only independent estate
in the country.
The third power is the Church. It is Church who opened its doors to the
students hunted by the special police units and protected them.
On the night of December 11,
internal military forces from the Berkut special units launched a second
assault on Maidan, and the Churches rang their bells, summoning the people to
help.
This is similar
to what happened 800 years ago when the Mongol armies of Batu Khan stormed
Kiev.
Then, the last defenders took refuge in Desyatynna Church [the Church of the Tithe]. Today, the last
refuge of freedom and the bulwark of civil society is the Church. It is
regrettable that after twenty years of freedom other institutions of civil
society never took shape. But it is better to support what there is. The
Church, the students and journalists – a worthy triad, and the owners of the
future of the post-Soviet countries. The church bells call the people to defend
their freedom and to be worthy of it. The extreme social situation returns the
Church to a leading role in the development of civil society in post-Soviet
countries. The Ukrainian Maidan was the last important event of the outgoing
year, and there is hope that 2014 will bear the mark of this peaceful
revolution of dignity.

0
0
1
1234
8249
ASR
126
23
9460
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

RU
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:RU;}

            We must not
forget that 2017 is drawing near—the 100 year anniversary of the bloody Russian
Revolution and 500 years since the Reformation of Luther. Events could proceed
either along the path of the Revolution, or along the path of the Reformation.
Without the Reformation of the Church and its active social initiatives,
society will go the way of escalating violence, restrictions on freedoms, and
the dictates of the state. The Church can prove to be either the object of
revolution, or the subject of a Reformation. And so the fate of the post-Soviet
history of the Church and the fate of the people are still inextricably linked,
which is why the Church’s social initiatives are critical to the life of the
state and society.

Evangelical Churches in Russia in the Context of Global Transformations

2010
Support for evangelical churches in Russia, including their
social initiatives and widespread missionary activity, not only has local,
regional implications, but also global, strategic significance.
The post-Soviet landscape is one of social, economic, and
political instability.  In the absence of
a civil society and a lawful government, evangelical churches can play the role
of independent social organizations which defend the freedom of the individual
(first of all freedom of conscience) from infringement by neo-totalitarian
structures.
The Russian Orthodox Church regards the CIS as its canonical
territory and is intensifying its influence over social processes.  Evangelical congregations alone present the
only real alternative to the official church. 
The peaceful co-existence of the Russian Orthodox Church and evangelical
churches in Russia, the expansion of interfaith dialogue, and equal treatment
of all faiths by the government are the main indicators of civil and religious
freedom. 
Evangelical churches, which combine both Eastern and Western
Christian traditions, could become the catalyst for a cross-cultural,
theological synthesis and contextualization of Reformation ideas in an Orthodox
culture.  The weakening or assimilation
of evangelical churches would present the Russian Orthodox Church with a
monopoly of religious power over society, and could strain interfaith
relationships on a global scale. 
The existence of evangelical churches within the Orthodox
canonical territory serves as a historic precedent for the development of a
Protestant-Orthodox dialogue. In contrast to the politicization of the Russian
Orthodox Church, it is the Protestant churches that present an evangelical,
accessible form of Christianity. Any international assistance in the form of
humanitarian, educational, or missionary projects in the CIS can only be
effective with the participation of evangelical churches, which remain
independent subjects of public life.
The secularization of churches in Europe and America is
evoking rejection from post-Soviet evangelical believers who are looking for a
true middle ground between traditional religion and Western modernism.  The cultivation of a new identity for
evangelical churches in the CIS could serve as a positive example for the
global evangelical community.

0
0
1
475
2714
ASR
22
6
3183
14.0

96
800×600

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:»Times New Roman»;}

Because evangelical churches in the CIS still retain the
features of a marginalized sub-culture, partnerships with international
organizations and missions help them to recognize their role in society and to
discover new approaches for social ministry. 
The evangelical church in the CIS is experiencing a systemic crisis,
turning toward post-Soviet society and reconsidering the stereotype of its own
extremely conservative culture. 
International partnerships can assist with the formation of a new
generation of competent and authoritative ministry leaders as well as an “open”
church model which does not retreat into the past, but which embraces the experiences
of other churches and cultures.  By
focusing on a spiritual quest to meet the challenges of modern society, the
evangelical church in Russia can become both relevant and effective.

Christian Philosophy and Evangelical Churches in Russia

Christian Philosophy and Evangelical Churches in Russia



Aug 5, 2011

At first glance it may seem that “Christian philosophy” and “Evangelical
churches” come from completely separate logical camps and aren’t compatible,
especially in Russia, which is well-known for its conservatism and refusal to
accept the intellectual tradition of Western Christianity. Indeed, a topic in
which such words go together is automatically complicated, due to it being such
a strange combination of words. But to take it a step further, the phrase
“Christian philosophy” contains an apparent contradiction, the resolution of
which will make it easier to understand more concrete issues surrounding
Evangelical churches and Russian reality. And the final obvious difficulty in
the title is with the phrase “Evangelical churches in Russia.” The difficulty
of the phrase “Evangelical churches” in the title and in real life is even more
obvious as Russia moves closer to being (though it actually never has been
before) exclusively Orthodox and mono-confessional. Unlike mass perception (for
whom “to be Russian is to be Orthodox”), philosophy casts doubt on such assumptions.
To put it differently, it is in many ways thanks to this phenomenon that Evangelical
churches in Russia can, both in name and in reality, be connected to Christian
philosophy. I will now simply and briefly note a few aspects of Christian
philosophy which are relevant and useful for Evangelical churches in Russia.
The fullness of church life is evident in socio-cultural reality and is
expressed in all the richness of “human” forms. The classic juxtaposition of
churches and sects as different types of religious organizations, proposed by
Ernst Troehsch,
[1] remains
methodologically acceptable today. The Church confirms its place in community
life, and offers its social and worldview reference points. The church does not
respond to atheistic challenges with a quote from the Bible (as though it is a
magical spell or esoteric mystery), but with Christian philosophy: Bible-based
and logically sound.
The Church is reflexive, facing questions about her position and its
expression, appealing to the experience of philosophy and its methods and
language. Christian philosophy is a rethinking and expression of the Christian
faith in the language of academics and culture.
It is within Christian philosophy that one is allowed maximal creative
freedom, rational evaluation of doctrines of faith, and a critical view of one’s
own identity. Christian philosophy is a sort of school of reflection and
practical questioning, in which subjects are considered on the basis of both
internal experience and the outside world. Philosophy makes possible the
explication of the Church’s internal questions for the outside world; it
provides a common language. The lessons of Christian philosophy are the lessons
of translating the Gospel, “special revelation,” into the language of secular
thought, while not losing the meaning, but instead making it clearer.
Christian philosophy makes the spiritual wealth of Christianity accessible
to the inquisitive mind of the modern thinker. But it is also significant that
this thought is translated, read and analyzed by all the richness of human
culture for Christianity, through the prism of its dogmatists. If it is beyond
doubt that all truth is from God, then it is also undoubtedly true that all of
this multi-faceted and compartmentalized truth is worthy of attention and
study.
Christian philosophy assumes not only a diversity of ideas, but also a group
of people, united by a presumption of faith, rationality, culture, and
creativity. This is the ideological foundation for the formation of a Christian
intelligentsia, the ethos of which is Christian humanism. The Church will
always accent theocentrism (Christocentrism), while the secular world focuses
on anthropocentrism, but the role of the Christian intelligentsia is to
consider the connection between God and man and the interpretation and
practical realization of the doctrine of the Incarnation.
A Christian intelligentsia can become a channel of influence on the
public awareness, a social sphere where theology and philosophy come together
and find expression in culturally-acceptable forms.
Culture emerges as an alternative to power. Structures of the last “hermeneutic
of suspicion” can be traced in Christianity’s history, missiology, and
theology.  Converting nations to
Christianity by force turned out to be impractical (not to mention unethical),
and public consciousness rebelled against faith imposed from above. In a
situation of true worldview pluralism, where no single religion or denomination
lays claim to a monopoly and privileged status, dialogue becomes the main form
of testimony, and Christian philosophy becomes the methodology and theory of
argumentation in such dialogue. Evangelical churches don’t have financial or
political resources, but they can exert intellectual and spiritual influence.
In the words of the first apostles, Christians don’t intent to contend with the
world in political power and money, because they have another power, which can
transform, heal, and renew: “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I
give you” (Acts 3:6). Christians must remain politically and economically weak,
because it allows Christians to focus on what is most important to them: the
Word and teaching.
Ethical universalism, the global
characteristic of Christianity, can be the directional, evaluative and ethical
marker for globalization, and an important aspect of dialogue between (as
opposed to clash of) civilizations. According to a study by the French
Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP), 48% of Europeans believe that Christian
values play a key role in the development of dialogue between various cultures
and religions
[2]. Europeans
have ceased to heed the Church’s claims to absolute authority, but they
maintain their loyalty to Christian worldview principles and the Christian
ethos of good neighborliness, without which pluralistic Europe would cease to
exist as a cultural-historical type. This experience is valuable for Russia, whose
diversity can be either enriching or conflict-causing.
The universalism of Christianity requires
both a theological (for the Church) and a philosophical (for the outside world)
foundation. According to Pope Benedict XVI, the success of the latter is a
condition for fulfilling the Great Commission, and an intersection between the
two means of seeking after God was predestined from the beginning: “We must recognize
the hand of fate—the intersection of Biblical faith and Greek philosophy was
indeed providential.”
[3]
In the first few centuries of
Church history Christian philosophy helped formulate the fundamental tenets of
Christian doctrine and defend them in open discussion. It is clear that today
there is an even greater demand for such a synthesis.
Christian philosophy achieves a
synthesis of faith and reason, a perceptive faith and believing reason. Here
the possibility of another reason becomes clear, not self-sufficient, not
proud, but serving and loving, capable of tearing its focus away from itself
and turning it to higher things.
If Evangelical churches, having traveled
the long path of internal revolution and the fight for the right to exist in
Russian society, consciously reject enculturation, socialization, and the consolidation
of Christian intelligentsia, they will run the risk of marginalization and condemnation.
The growth of Christian philosophy can activate the intellectual powers of
Evangelical churches; act as an important sign, potential, and beginning of the
creation of a socio-cultural identity; claim, formalize, and cement its place
in the overall cultural and religious picture of Russia.

0
0
1
1153
6578
ASR
54
15
7716
14.0

96
800×600

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:»Times New Roman»;}


[1] Troehsch E. Die sociallehren der christlichen
Kirchen und Gnippen // Gesammelten Schriften. Tubingen
,
1923.
Bd. 1.
3.
Aufl. S. 361-377.

[2] “Study: Christianity Still Plays an Important
Role in the Lives of Europeans” //
http://www.blagovest-info.ru/index.php?ss=2&s=3&id=33874

[3] Ratzinger,
J. (Benedict XVI) Faith, Truth, and
Tolerance
. –
М.: ББИ,
2007. —
С.
148.

The Theology of Post-Soviet Evangelical Churches in the Intellectual Context of Postmodernity: From Historical Reconstructions to Future Projects

The Theology of Post-Soviet Evangelical Churches in the Intellectual Context of Postmodernity: From Historical Reconstructions to Future Projects

Oct 18, 2011

Modern theology is completing its
historical cycle, returning to its beginning, to the beginning of Christianity.
Having been enriched through the experience of thought, enclosed in complicated
systems and having stood up for confessional traditions, theology returns to
the basics of faith, to its foundations, without which it is left hanging in
air. Like any form of wisdom, whether regarding the world or God, theology can
be like the Tower of Babel, if it does not continually ask itself questions
that are simple in form, yet complicated in terms of responsibility, questions
about its capabilities and its specificity.
Considering itself in the
intellectual context of modernity, theology learns to be “humble” and “generous
[1],” in other words, it learns to receive
gratefully and share generously, which suggests, at the very least, an
intention of good neighborliness and common acknowledgement among other
sciences and cultural traditions.  A
humble theology seeks fellow travelers, does not spurn advice, and, taking
advantage of all available resources, asks bold questions about “justification
of the future
[2],” about looking forward to a future in which
theology becomes an integral part, perhaps even the axis of a new spiritual-cultural
epoch, a new pivotal period and, possibly, a witness of the last days.
Faced with the issue of mutual
enrichment between theology and academic science, theology, more keenly than
ever, feels its irreducibility in relation to science, its simplicity in comparison. And in this renewed realization of
simplicity, theology discovers the secret of faith, the risk of connection, and
the gift of closeness to God.
In this sense Evangelical churches
are fully modern, in step with general trends in theology. Post-soviet
Evangelical Protestants have almost nothing to be proud of in the absence of a
developed theology and rich literary culture. 
But precisely in this moment of humility Protestants gain access to another future, a future which does not
necessarily follow past experience, but arises from a simple trust in God and
the difficult intellectual boldness to begin
theology at the end of her tradition.
Therefore, finding itself in a
situation of general intellectual weariness and disappointment in the
opportunities offered by science, theology feels deeply its unique simplicity,
and only through it can it reflect and continue its intellectual dialogue with
postmodernity. We intend to show that the simplicity inherent in Evangelical churches,
and the astonishing, in light of this simplicity, intent on intellectual
presence and witness in academic circles, call for the projection of a
theological image of the future on the basis of the rediscovery of the Gospel
and the justification of the University as the place for discussion of theology
and her connection to the world.
This return to simplicity can be
observed in various traditions, this synchronicity and universality cannot fail
to draw attention to itself as a sign of sorts, a demonstration of the general
principles of the growth of Christianity and theology as its (Christianity’s)
self-understanding.
A return to the Gospel,
and an unbiased reading of it, a search for new forms of communality, an enlivening
of church life, a rediscovery of the forgotten values of thanksgiving,
fellowship, and service have all become signs of a post-historic Christianity,
i.e., a Christianity which is coming to the end of a major historical era, or
history as a whole.
Beyond the bounds of historical
Christianity a new epoch may arise, a new
history
, which will be made up of only the simplest and most necessary
elements of Christianity’s past.  A brand
new, non-historic modus of Christianity, which will be connected not with a
reclamation of history, but with being faithful to itself in the lead up to its
coming end. In the face of the end, history will lose its meaning, she will not
be lived in or understood;  in light of
the shortness of remaining life there will be no time left for history, which
will make clearer the ultimate meanings, far from the socio-cultural surface.
The Gospel is full of such truths, and its unparalleled relevance is beginning
to be felt today, in light of the twilight of history.   
The simplicity of Evangelical
churches has provoked and still provokes criticism from theologians’ studies,
or sect-fighters from other confessions with a richer theology. Even to
Evangelicals it is clear that the opportunity for reflection, for a
systematization of theology, and a theologization of the church, a development
of her intellectual culture, should be taken. Such an opportunity yet
remains—lost time must be made up for. To turn a lack of intellectualism from a
weakness into a strength is irresponsible before both God and men.
But it is no less irresponsible to,
out of concern for the development of theology, use aged concepts and
approaches, to position the opportunities and special nature of theology in an outdated
picture of the world.
Of course the liberal theology of
the first half of the twentieth century looks more progressive than the
theology it inherited from the Evangelical churches of the second half of the
nineteenth century.  But today both models
are of little use.
The progress of history is such
that in postmodernity everyone found themselves lost, and both modernist and
pre-modernist theology look equally inadequate. Evangelical Christians, unread
and simple, ended up in a situation similar to that of their progressive
Western brothers, who have been so successful at systematization and developing
a diversity of genitive theologies.  Both
groups find themselves in a situation where little is in demand of all their
historical baggage other than the simplest indivisible elements, theological atoms.
Now we must address the following
question: How can we develop theology with full intellectual responsibility, keeping
in mind the disheartening fact that our rich traditions could lose their value?
  This is a complex question, containing two
simple and mutually exclusive questions, which have been asked before.  How can we create our own tradition of
theology for Evangelical churches, leaning on their simplicity?  How can return to the reality of spiritual
experience and simple trust in those, who are versed in theological knowledge
and rich in its traditions?
Today theological-cultural forms,
in which knowledge and experience were expressed and shared, have lost their
value, therefore we are faced with the difficult question of their new
connection—of theology retaining the immediacy of spiritual life with the
highest responsibility for its intellectual expression.  And this point in the history of theology
could become a departing point for dialogue and the joint investigation of
representatives of various traditions, including post-Soviet Evangelical
Christians, who have traditionally kept their distance from such questions and
those who ask them.
A common ground has emerged in
discussions of the future of theology, not mediatory history, but early
history, beginning history, from
which it can project itself, and on the basis of which a system can be
built.  Methodological reconstruction,
restoration, and reproduction of that which was
given in history is replaced by a methodology of projecting that which will be; attempts at modeling, building
on a foundation, preconditions.
The word project scares Evangelical Christians because it suggests taking responsibility
for results and accountability; it arouses negative associations with active
social ministry projects, a majority of which were interrupted because of
irresponsibility and incompetence.  But
it is precisely the word ‘project’ which allows us to make a connection between
the nature of life (“that’s how things turned out”) and the necessity of making
an effort to perfect it (“we must”).
Where and how is the future projected? 
From the foundations of theology, as their new, more relevant, more
promising reading.  And also from
without—from outside sources, in which the image of a forming, developing world
is more brightly presented.
  The first paradigm is the one most closely
resembling the church, because she keeps her connection with the basics of the
faith.  The university is closer to the
second, because it maintains the importance of the intellectual tradition and
is capable of lengthening her life into the future, and again prove the
connection between tradition and life.
In their theological projection,
search for an adequate paradigm, and formation of a ‘vision,’ Evangelical
churches can use internal and external resources. An unlimited resource for the theological project is, first and
foremost, Biblical teaching, the relevance of which is confirmed in every era
with new strength, like a radical incongruity between the authenticity of the
Gospel and established interpretative practices and traditions.
The Gospel, which gave post-Soviet Evangelical
churches their name, forces people to make a personal decision, a
fate-determining choice.  To choose one’s
own vision of the future is the right and responsibility of Christians and
churches, in which they voluntarily unite. 
The theology of Evangelical churches must become an Evangelical theology
based on the Gospel as its foundation, the foremost example of a Christian way
of life, thinking, and service to the world.
Is it possible, at first sight, to
note characteristics which would set apart modern Evangelical theology as a
special type? The theology of modern Evangelical churches is set apart by reformism, an openness to new reforms,
and even new traditions. At the same time this is accompanied by an
all-encompassing eschatologism, which preserves personal condition from
reexamination, and points towards the horizon of currently available options.
Evangelical theology combines new
methods of correlating vertical and horizontal dimensions.  They do not intersect at the critical
juncture, but at every other point.  The cross, the intersection of
dimensions exists everywhere and always. All fullness and every point of
reality is under the sign of the cross.
Evangelical theology is built on rediscovery of the Bible and examining
traditions in her light
.  The latter
becomes a sign of the times—each newly opened tradition amazes, but does not draw
one in.  Tradition serves as a witness to
the diversity of God’s revelation in history, not an argument in favor of
historical churches.
Modern Evangelical theology has
created new syntheses of the rational and the mystic, interpretation and
experience, knowledge and fellowship.
Theology doubts the once and for all givenness, the canonical
firmness of its concepts. Perhaps one of the most pressing tasks facing
theology is overcoming essentialism in the concept of “Evangelical
theology.”  Theology does not exist in
and of itself, it has no being,
rather it is born from within a new and rapidly-changing situation.
Theology listens to the voices of others. 
Others not just outside the Church, not just the surrounding world,
whose otherness is expected and inescapable. 
The other exists within, as part of the general tradition, as a
participant in the community.  Within the
tradition there is a constant dialogue, and the fact that one side is able to
prove its current canonicity does not imply the heretical nature of the other,
it only means there is a certain order, a shift in places of the various components.
Theology rejoices in companions
[3], remembering, that truth is revealed in the
journey, and doesn’t belong, is not owed
to her in a ready and complete form.
The above-mentioned characteristics
make the existence of theology outside
the church
, and her systematic relationship to that which was revealed and
gifted by God to the non-Church or para-Church world, not only possible, but
necessary.
For Evangelical churches, relying
on a Biblical foundation and open to the outside world, the two extreme definitions
of theology as being only within the
church, or only within science, are
equally unacceptable. Theology is seen as an important factor, but
unpredictable and critical, therefore it is always seen as a “guest.”
In a world calling itself
post-Christian and even post-metaphysical, theology is doomed to homelessness.
Having no places of its own, theology knocks on the door of strangers’ homes, and
often the knock is left unanswered, but sometimes she is invited in as a
guest.  Being a guest is not the worst
fate that could face theology, considering the homelessness of God in a godless
world, and even of mankind itself in a dehumanized (unhumanized, humanless)
society.  A homeless theology, it must be
admitted, is not as dangerous as a closed theology.  
The image of theology as a guest
can explain many of the theological shifts of recent times.  “Being a guest” means temporarily being
located in someone else’s home with the permission of the owner, taking
advantage of the openness and hospitality of the host.
First of all, it is a temporary
visit.  The host lives his own life most
of the time, and only sometimes, when he is in the right mood, he invites
guests in. Theology does not have a fundamental status, a firm place in
society, and must be satisfied with temporary interest and changing attitudes
of hosts in “their own” homes.  Theology
must be ready at any moment and in any situation to offer a relevant
conversation, understandable and interesting to the host family; at the very
least it must explain its path—where it is from and why it is there. Wanderers
have always been regarded with suspicion, and theology is no exception.  It must find convincing and sincere words in
order for the doors to homes to be opened to it.
Secondly, “being a guest” means
being in someone else’s home.  This means
not only a certain behavioral etiquette, but also a mental etiquette, a style
of thinking adapted to the host, his home, his world. Like any good guest,
theology must speak in a language acceptable and pleasant to the receiving
side, feel comfortable and behave naturally in any linguistic sphere, “make
itself at home.”  But in addition to
wonderful linguistic preparation, based on a need to travel frequently and stay
in many different “homes,” theology does not forget its own language.  Its own language is rooted in Biblical
passages, full of their meaning and spirit.
Too close of a friendship, an
indivisible mix of theology and science poses the risk of theology losing its
own foundations. When attitudes towards science and the scientific view of the
world change, the theological paradigm will also have to change. “Theology as a
guest” readily redefines its principles, expresses them in a new way in each
paradigm, but never becomes part of or attached to this view of the world. A
similar autonomy is preserved by other sciences, therefore the concept of
“theology as a guest” correlates with the autonomy of sciences.  Today it is not in the least necessary that
all sciences correspond to a single scientific paradigm. Of course it is naïve
to demand conformity to the principles of “methodological anarchism” of
yesterday’s servants of the only true historical-dialectical materialism, but
it is just as naïve not to notice the obvious fact of methodological,
worldview, and paradigmatic pluralism, to which the autonomy of various
sciences and autonomy with individual sciences submit.
Theology stays as a guest in the
homes of various sciences, learns their mechanism, language, experience, and
methodology, trying them all out on its own foundation.  “Theology as a guest” does not seek to build
its own house on the “all sciences” street. It purposely maintains its state of
freedom, staying friendly with all sciences, while enriching and being enriched
by everyone. For “theology as a guest”
there is nothing external; it can be both within the church and outside the
Church, seeking representation everywhere, everywhere serving as a witness to
the faith of the Church, just not through the methods generally used by the
Church.  
One of the best places for
non-Church theology is the university.  It is a place of constant searching and
boundary-pushing, and God is discussed there, even if it is in the context of argument
with Him or a denouncement of Him. Acquiescing to be in the university and
having the boldness to be tested by its wit, theology presents a relevant image
of itself, projects its future in keeping with the spiritual-cultural
development of the world.
For a majority of Protestants,
theology is only possible within the Church. Theology in the university is
bordering on free thinking and does not serve Church interests.  But if the theology of Evangelical churches
is an Evangelical theology, then it should be expressed not only in the Church,
but in universities, and in any other gathering of people interested in
out-of-the-box thinking. In the run-up to the anniversary of the Reformation,
Protestants should remember that Luther was not only a monk and a preacher, but
also a professor at Wittenberg University, and his predecessor Jan Hus was a
master at Charles University in Prague.
In the pre-Soviet period there was
a rich tradition of theological education, which gave life to both national
enlightenment and secular education.  In
Soviet times the tradition was interrupted for a long period, but after
independence and democratic reforms, a unique opportunity arose for previously
persecuted churches to take advantage of religious freedom, and for dialogue
between different Christian traditions. 
One of the main channels of intellectual interaction between churches
and societies was education, because it gave churches the opportunity to take
advantage of their significant social potential, and strengthen
inter-confessional understanding and partnership.  
While Orthodox and Catholic
churches made significant progress in developing their own systems of education
acknowledged by the government and society, Protestant churches, overcoming
negative past experiences with government-Church relations during the Soviet
era, are still in the phase of socialization in a democratic situation, they
are redefining their place in the structure of the nation’s cultural and
religious life and civil society.  A lack
of their own educational institutions with government accreditation leaves Protestants
no choice but to integrate into the existing system of academic education. Many
Protestants have found their place as academic theologians in universities.  
Theology’s inclusion in the body of
sciences does change the character or direction of science as a whole. The
study of theology as a university discipline makes possible an integration with
science on the basis of universal spiritual values, expressed in
Christianity.  Theology offers a
humanization of the sciences on the basis of Christian values, an appeal to the
spiritual world, to the inner life of man, the development of a mature
independence, responsibility, human dignity. For modern religious scholars
studying religion means not just criticizing it, as was done in Soviet
humanitarian sciences, but also respecting it as a national cultural
achievement, trying to understand her inner meaning and logic of growth. The
study of theology acquires a special relevance in the midst of the pluralism of
churches and denominations in Ukraine, and also their connection with overseas
spiritual centers.  For a long time
Ukrainian churches were isolated from world Christianity.  Studying the history of Western theological
teaching, exchanging teachers with overseas universities and churches can help
Ukrainian churches find their place in world Christianity, better understand
their unique place.  This is especially
important for Protestant churches, who combine Eastern cultural forms and
Western theological ideas, connected historically to the European Reformation.   
In integrating into university
sciences, theology must be ready to sacrifice its special status and learn to
serve as an indirect influence.  One of
the signature trends in European educational systems is the replacement of
theology with religious studies. Special theological disciplines are making way
for more general courses, and the interests of churches and
denominations—comparative studies. Such shifts are due to the fact that
individual churches can no longer finance their own educational programs and
support whole institutes. Students also prefer programs which take into account
a pluralism of worldviews, a variety of theological approaches and church and
cultural traditions.  Studying theology
in conjunction with religious studies and fundamental humanitarian disciplines
allows students to more deeply know the unity and diversity of Christian
traditions, the main principles of the Evangelical faith in a world of
coexistence and changes of theological paradigms.  The combination of theology and religious
studies helps escape disciplinary extremes and unite a deep study of church
theology with a wide historical-cultural context.
Thereby the university becomes a place
for the projection of theology in its modern contextual form
, while
university theology (theology expressed in an intellectual form, responding to
the demands of modern university scholarship) can lead to the integration of
the whole “summa theological” into the cultural life of society.  Doubtlessly, the university itself, as the
academic scientific institution of society, is becoming outdated in form and is
in need of reformation.  But despite this
it remains a place where the search for meaning continues, within the desired
limits of the field of theology, where discussion of the presence/absence of
God and the ramifications thereof for the scientific picture of the world
continues.
The University remains a
crossroads, where history either intersects with the future, is discarded by
the future, or is extended into the future. At the same time the Church remains
the most conservative institution in society, and its development continues
only through inertia.  This is why,
maintaining its connection with the Church, theology must not only testify in
the university, but also find in it a living connection of times, movement, a
dynamic of change, and challenges which provoke growth.  
It is noteworthy that in the
beginning of the twentieth century Russian and Ukrainian universities were home
to a powerful and growing Christian student movement, headed by visible
Evangelical Christians—Professor V. Martsinkovsky and Pastor P. Nikolai. Despite
the declared “Christianity” of the movement, it was closer to the university than the church in its
confessional expressions.  Today the
trend is returning—university
Christianity
that is inter- or even non-confessional, therefore theology
within university boundaries will always differ from Church theology.  And in this difference there is a danger as
well as an advantage—the latter is fully possible, if the Church will simply
stop avoiding dialogue with university
theologians
.
How can the university participate
in theology, or theology exist in the university today?  If we reconstruct the history of this
connection, then the university appears in the field of theology only in
certain historical stages. Correspondingly, when history is drawing to a
conclusion, this connection is broken, the university and the Church become
strangers, and theology is divided between them in such a way that unity between
the intellectual and the confessional, culture and the Church, is no longer
possible.
Historical reconstruction can be
juxtaposed with theological projections, by which the Church and the
university, Jerusalem and Athens, are examined in the light of the providential
redemption and justification of the future. 
Today both the university and the Church are freed from history, from
naïve loyalty to quickly-aging traditions and explanatory systems.  This freedom from the past can be welcome if
you keep in mind its positive significance as freedom for the future.  The university becomes open to new sources
and forms of knowledge, turns to theology looking for answers to its questions.  The Church becomes open to the university,
seeing the sciences and scholarship as potential allies in reasonable thought
and natural law.  In this convergence
there is not only the joy of freedom and openness, but also responsibility for
the future in a general theoperspective. 
 
Evangelical churches are poor in
history and theological traditions, which forces and teaches them humility and
simplicity, but it also frees them for a new era and the free choice of a
relevant image, a project of the future, in which they can return to the lost
connection between the simplicity of the Gospel and intellectual boldness for
testimony to gentiles and other “philosophers of this age.”

0
0
1
3715
21178
ASR
176
49
24844
14.0

96
800×600

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:»Times New Roman»;}


[1] Soloviy, Roman. Theology of the Emerging Church: Postmodern Epistemology
and the Interpretation of Scripture // Theological Reflections. Euro-Asian Theological
Journal. – 2010. — #11. – PP. 76-93.
[2] Dubrovsky M. Justification of the Future as a Theological-Social Task //
Reformation vs Revolution. Philosophical-Religious Notebook  №2. –
М., 2011. — С. 38-47.
[3] See Smith D., Moving Towards
Emmaus: Hope in a Time of Uncertainty
. SPCK Publishing, 2007.

Господь не сразу наказывает, сперва предостерегает

Господь не сразу наказывает, сперва предостерегает
Самария могла выдерживать трехлетнюю осаду царя Ассирийского, но не
выдержала грехов своих царей, царей Израильских (4 Царств 17:5). Царство
разрушилось изнутри.
Израильтяне были непобедимы до тех пор, пока слушались Бога. Отступив от
Него, они сделались легкой добычей, потеряли свободу и землю, оказались
пленниками в далекой земле.
Повествуя эту печальную историю, хронист добавляет важный комментарий,
поясняющий логику событий: 

«Когда стали грешить сыны Израилевы пред Господом, Богом своим,
Который вывел их из земли Египетской… и стали поступать по обычаям народов… и
служили идолам… тогда Господь через всех пророков Своих, чрез всякого
прозорливца предостерегал… но они не слушали… и прогневался Господь… и
отвратился Господь от всех потомков Израиля, и смирил их, отдавая их в руки
грабителям» (4 Царств 17:7-20).

Если бы мы не знали этой истории отношений Израиля с Богом, мы никогда бы
не поняли, как так могло случиться, что Бог сперва освобождает народ от царя
Египетского, а затем порабощает царю Ассирийскому. 
Не зная условий завета между
Израилем и Богом, мы сказали бы: «Какой же Бог жестокий!».
Вот почему важно знать не только историю событий, но также историю
отношений. Если отношения с Богом рушатся, события идут по худшему сценарию. 
Но
даже на этом пути Бог не спешит гневаться.
Его любимый народ вовсю грешит, но Бог не употребляет силу, лишь
предостерегает «через всех пророков, чрез всякого прозорливца».
Эти предостережения дают новые шансы, продлевают жизнь и снова ставят людей
перед выбором: вернуться к Богу или пожинать плоды своего отступления. И каждый
раз люди выбирали грех, каждый раз подтверждали Богу свое «нет».
Лишь после этих многочисленных подтверждений Бог отдал народ в руки врагов.
Трудно понять, почему мы так упорствуем в своем грехе и называем это
свободой. 
Трудно понять, почему мы игнорируем все предостережения Бога, а потом
обижаемся на Него за то, что Он наконец нас отпускает и предоставляет самим
себе.

0
0
1
323
1845
ASR
15
4
2164
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Перед тем как обвинять Бога в наших бедах, спросим себя: сколько раз Бог
предупреждал нас и сколько раз мы отвечали Ему: «Оставь меня в покое, отстань,
отпусти»?

«Он потрясет нас как смоковницу»

«Он потрясет нас как смоковницу»
Перечитывая
притчу Христа о бесплодной смоковнице (Луки 13:6-9), я думаю, в первую очередь,
о себе и своей жизни. Не о высоте или красоте своего дерева, но о плодах. И с
этим — большая печаль.
Недавно услышал о
гибели Георгия Великанова, алтарника из Москвы, который погиб под поездом,
спасая бездомного. Я подумал, что это редкая история из Москвы, которая
касается сердца. На фоне агрессии и темноты поступок Георгия выделяется. И
тогда думаешь уже не о стране и нравах, но о себе и своей жизни – как их видит
Бог.
Добрая знакомая
поделилась цитатой из «Писем к Богу» Георгия Великанова:» Когда
Он придет, то потрясет Свою Церковь, как смоковницу, чтобы узнать, есть ли на
ней плоды. «Время начаться суду с дома Божия». Поэтому сейчас время покаяния,
время, когда мы можем раскрыть душу и впустить туда Свет, чтобы Он безраздельно
царил там. Время обелить одежды свои и украсить их цветами маленьких дел любви.
Сделаем наши семьи, наши общины маленькими обителями любви».
«А еще знаете,
что я тут понял?.. Что Господь принимает любую нашу жертву. Для Него очень,
очень драгоценно каждое движение нашего сердца к Нему, каждый акт любви и
отдачи, каждый поступок, мысль или слово, в котором проявилась любовь. Для Него
это подарок… И не важно, много мы подарим или мало и насколько красивая будет
упаковка. Пусть кажется, что просто улыбнуться человеку – это малость, а на
самом деле в этом ВСЕ. И Господь не спрашивает с нас – отдавать столько же,
сколько отдают святые или те, на чей пример мы опираемся и кому хотели бы (но
не можем) подражать. Он смотрит на потенциал каждой души, на ее возможности и
силы», – писал он же в 2012 году.
А вот что
написала о нем Мария Свешникова: «Георгий Великанов не совершал подвига, не
делал ничего необычного. Исходя из принципа христианской любви, он всего лишь
исполнил еще один закон, написанный в главной для каждого христианина книге —
Евангелии — «Нет больше той любви, как если кто положит душу свою за
друзей своих» (Иоанн, 15.13). Сообразуясь с прямым смыслом этих слов, Гоша
и поступил. Разве в таком случае его поступок — подвиг? А вопрос об обычном
христианстве у меня к себе совсем простой: смогу ли я поступить также, если
придется? За девять дней я так и не нашла ответа. Или не нашла в себе сил
ответить. Только одно поняла: может потому жизнь и смерть Гоши Великанова так
потрясли верующих и неверующих, что они увидели наконец того самого обычного
христианина, которого все всегда мечтают встретить, а мы, христиане, надеемся,
что этот образ когда-то отразится и в нас. Ведь образ наш — это отражение
Христа. Но вот проблема — я знаю всего одного человека, о ком могу сказать
наверняка, что он всегда готов поступить как Георгий Великанов. Неутешительный
итог».
Смерть Георгия
была плодом. В том числе для меня. Я могу задуматься о своей пустоте, своем
бесплодии, своей неблагодарности Богу.
Он трясет меня
как смоковницу, ожидая хотя бы малых дел. Из года в год продлевает срок.
Долготерпит, милует.
А разве мне
самому не хочется плодов? А разве меня самого не мучает мое же бесплодие?

0
0
1
508
2901
ASR
24
6
3403
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Разве я не жду
как Авраам? 
Разве не смеюсь над собой как Сара? И не я ли причина своей
собственной пустоты? 
В то время как я долгие годы жду чуда от Бога, Он все это
время ждет от меня зрелости, благодарности, решительности и плода. Не великого
подвига, а хотя бы малого добра. Хотя бы движения доброго.  Хотя бы мысли о том.

Ахаз, сын Иоафама

Ахаз, сын Иоафама
Иоафам был неплохим царем, хотя непоследовательным. Делая «угодное в очах
Господних», он делал не до конца, не в полноте. В то время как царь обновлял
дом Господень, народ продолжал идолопоклонствовать на высотах.
Бог  напоминал о Себе и посылал на
Иудею Сирийские полчища. Но даже эти вражеские нашествия не привели народ к
покаянию, идолослужение продолжалось. Кривизна не выпрямилась, путь вел все
дальше от Бога.
Мы можем удивляться, почему неплохой Иофам был наказуем Господом, но ответ
находим в жизни его сына. Бог знал, что непоследовательность отца проявится в
жизни сына страшными отступлениями и грехами.
Ахаз, сын Иоафама, подражал «мерзостям народов, которых Господь прогнал от
лица сынов Израилевых» (4 Царств 16:3), т.е. делал такое, что Бог не терпит,
такое, заканчивается уничтожением целых народов. Он приносил жертвы идолам
везде, где только можно. Пытаясь завоевать расположение чужих богов, он принес
в огненную жертву даж собственного сына.
И вот странность: Иоафам делал угодное Богу, но терпел поражения от царя
Сирийского и царя Израильского, а нечестивый Ахаз, творящий «мерзости», смог
разобраться с врагами довольно быстро.
Ахаз нанимает царя Ассирийского. За победу над соседями он отдает душу
народа – выносит все сокровища из дома Господнего, опустошает и разоряет храм.
Даже после победы, когда уже не было необходимости что-то ломать и выносить, он
продолжает разрушать святое место (14,17-18).
Ахаз отодвигает в строну медный жертвенник и ставит на его место новый,
«большой», подобный увиденному в Дамаске. Примечательно, что священник Урия
послушно изготавливает новый жертвенник, не переча безумному царю ни единым
словом.
Продав свою душу, Ахаз покупает победу. Враги разбиты.
Спасен трон. Но разорен храм.
Вместо покаяния – дальнейшее отступление.
Вместо жертвенника Божьего – новый, человеческий.
Вместо спасающего Господа – царь Ассирийский.
Нужна ли такая победа? Чего стоит царство, за которое продаются святыни?
Чего стоит власть, за которую приходится сжигать на костре сына? 
Чего стоит
мир, если приходится заложить душу?

0
0
1
312
1784
ASR
14
4
2092
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Грех непоследовательности

Грех непоследовательности
15 глава Четвертой книги Царств повествует о бесконечной серии дворцовых
переворотов в Иерусалиме и Самарии. Захарию убивает Селлум, Селлума — Менаим.
Факию убивает Факей, Осия – Факея.
Иудея и Израиль обречены в силу внутренней слабости и внешней угрозы.
Могучие Ассирийские цари грабят и уводят пленных. Скоро появятся и безжалостные
Вавилоняне.
На фоне упадка и обреченности борьба мелких царьков за троны выглядит
настоящим безумием. За что бороться, если все гибнет? Зачем нужен трон, если на
нем умирают так быстро и страшно?
Среди этой череды безумных царьков выделяются два имени – Азария и
Иоафам.  Они правили в Иудее и делали
«угодное в очах Господним». При этом в обоих случаях историк отмечает
непоследовательность в их богоугодных делах: «Только высоты не были отменены:
народ совершал еще жертвы и курения на высотах» (4 Царств 15:4, 35).
В сравнении с грехами других царей «высоты» выглядят пустяком, и вовсе не
понятно, почему Бог наказывает наших положительных героев – Азарию «поразил
Господь проказой, и был он прокаженным до дня смерти своей и жил в отдельном
доме» (5), а во дни Иоафама «начал Господь посылать на Иудею Рецина, царя
Сирийского, и Факея, сына Ремалиимна» (37). 
Кажется так: чем лучше человек, тем больше Бог требует с него.  Азария и Иоафам почти все делали правильно.
Но Бога «почти все» не удовлетворяет. Он знает: оставь высоты – возродятся и
вырастут и другие грехи.
Бог ожидает последовательности и полноты в наших добрых намерениях. А
потому поражает болезнями и войной. Чтобы цари и народы взыскали его всем
сердцем. Бог говорит Азарии и Иофаму: ты же знаешь, что осталось сделать,
почему остановился, почему не завершил начатое?

0
0
1
233
1545
ASR
29
4
1774
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Или вовсю греши, или вовсю Богу служи.  Но не тормози на полпути.

К чему затевать ссору? Сиди дома

К чему затевать ссору? Сиди дома

Амасия, сын Иоаса, царь Иудейский, «делал угодное в очах Господних». 
Он
казнил убийц своего отца, но помиловал их детей. 
Тем самым он положил конец
бесконечному насилию. Благодаря такой рассудительности «утвердилось царство в
руках его» (4 Царств 14:5).
Царь поразил армию Идумеян и вернул себе некоторые города.
Но затем он делает глупость. Амасия вызывает Иоаса, царя Израильского на
бой лицом к лицу.
Иоас оказывается мудрее и пытается остудить пыл своего визави: 

«Ты поразил
Идумеян, и возгордилось сердце твое. Величайся и сиди у себя дома. К чему тебе
затевать ссору на твою голову? Падешь ты, и Иуда с тобою». 

Тщетно, Амасия хотел
быть героем, хотел победы над соседом.
Случилось так, как предупреждал Иоас. 
Амасия был разбит и пленен, Иерусалим
разрушен, храм Божий разграблен.
Иногда наши малые победы ведут к большему поражению.  

0
0
1
136
776
ASR
6
1
911
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Если сердце возгордилось, лучше сидеть дома.

Реформація під питанням

Реформація під питанням
Перечитуючи написане до ювілею
Реформацію відсвяткували. Обговорили всі можливі аспекти
теми. Але власне Реформація так і відбувался. Чим більше було галасу та суєти,
тим менше ясності і сенсу. Чим більше гасел і пропагандистських штампів, тим
менше глибоких запитань і чесних дискусій.
Та Реформація розпочиналася із запитань та заперечень, тез і
дебатів. Сьогодні наблизитись і доторкнутися до Реформації можна тільки через
запитання. Що означає Реформація для нас? Чому вона все ж актуальна? Чи
продовжується Реформація? Як, у якій формі вона може розвиватися в сучасних
реаліях?
Лише за умови, коли ці запитання ставитимуть (адресуючи їх
усім, хто може щось знати про Реформацію і якимось чином брати участь в подіях,
пов’язаних з нею) і перейматимуться ними (тобто адресуватимуть їх і собі), ми
зможемо уникнути тих профанацій, імітацій, приватизацій, після яких нам
залишаються лише дірки від бублика, пустотілі копії, вірулентні симулякри —
протестантизм без Реформації, революція без Реформації, реформація без
Реформації.
Виходячи з такого запитування, я хочу обумовити кілька
принципових моментів, завдяки яким тема Реформації переходить з режиму
святкування, тобто пригадування праздного, і стає актуальним зусиллям думки,
духу, а далі — й історичним процесом.
По-перше, Реформація триває, тому ми повинні бачити її не
тільки позаду, як подію, що відбулася, але і попереду, як ще-завдання. Імпульс,
заданий Лютером і його сучасниками, сьогодні майже вичерпаний. Найкращим виявом
поваги до їх пам’яті і вірності їх справі може бути не повторення і
закріплення, а творче продовження.
По-друге, Реформація як тема повинна зроджувати у нас
запитання. Інакше це не Реформація. Тобто вже не тільки і не стільки ми ставимо
запитання про Реформацію, але Реформація ставить їх нам — відкриває новий
спосіб нашого самопізнання, мислення, віри, дії. Тут ми опиняємося в пасиві, в
залежності, в послусі. І все, що ми можемо зробити, — відкритися, щоб почути;
чути, щоб стати слухняними. У нас немає точних відповідей, немає чіткого
бачення, немає плану дій. Ми цілковито занурюємося в слухання, стаємо
послушниками. Іншими словами, можна сказати, що входимо в “епоху”, коли
виносимо за дужки все, що знали раніше, як жили раніше. Без цієї паузи нове не
приходить, без розриву лише триває старе.
По-третє, потрібно перейти від дискурсу великих подій до
дискурсу процесів, що тривають, повсякденних подій, малих героїв місцевих
історій. Ми бачимо лише свою частину, лише малий пазл великої і складної
картини. І це аж ніяк не недолік, це і є найголовніше, що ми повинні бачити — своє
покликання в конкретному часі-місці. Реформація не ґрунтується на Лютері, вона
продовжується в ланцюжку великих і не дуже, публічних і таємних реформаторів.
Так що нам потрібно частіше дивитися не вглиб історії, а навколо себе.
По-четверте, у випадку з Реформацією не може бути «занадто».
Тут не може бути занадто глибоко або занадто радикально. Ніхто не розуміє (і не
зобов’язаний розуміти), як глибоко Реформація може зайти, наскільки радикально
ми повинні мислити і діяти. Ми просто повинні знати, що під нами — глибина, і
навіть не намагатися дістати ногами дна.
По-п’яте, Реформація — не тут або там, не з тими чи іншими,
але по той бік того і цього, наших і не наших. Якщо вона буде, вона буде
об’єднувати, а не розділяти; буде примирювати, а не обвинувачувати чи
проклинати. Вона не буде антикатолицькою. Вона не буде антиправославною. Вона
не буде звернена проти основ чужої традиції, вона буде перевіркою підстав
традицій власних. Вона не буде конфліктом Писання та Передання, але їх уважним
перепрочитанням в живій герменевтичній спільноті. Вона не буде конфліктом
вертикалі-єрархії, мовчазної соборності й анархістського загального священства,
але їх уточненням і узгодженням в живій спільноті, керованій Духом. Вона не
буде поверненням у Середньовіччя, але зціленням між епохами, відновленням
такого спадкоємства, де є місце і для античності, і для Ренесансу, і для
Просвітництва, і для постмодернізму, і для постпост… Вона не буде ні новою
секуляризацією, ні контрсекуляризацією, а подоланням самого поділу на секулярне
і клерикальне, сакральне та профанне. Вона можлива лише під загальним знаком
Царства.
По-шосте, Реформація — не стільки і не тільки про
протестантів. Нам потрібно рішуче розділити тему Реформації і тему
протестантизму. Якщо говорити про Реформацію серйозно, то про протестантизм
згадувати не варто зовсім, а якщо й згадувати, то разом з іншими — з
католицизмом і православ’ям. Скажімо прямо: протестантизм — це не успіх
Реформації, а її невдача. Якщо це і прояв Реформації, то далеко не найвдаліший.
Він збентежив би усіх реформаторів — вони отримали зовсім не те, що намагалися
зробити. Протестантизм — це друзка Реформації, яка ніколи не зможе стати цілим
і не повинна видавати себе таким. Якщо ми не можемо говорити про Реформацію без
прив’язки до протестантизму, не переходячи на його внутрішні питання, то не
варто починати розмову зовсім. Для продовження розмови про Реформацію (а тим
більше для продовження самої Реформації) нам потрібна постпротестантська і
постконфесійна оптика. Реформація може розпочатися з середини протестантизму, а
може — ззовні, але в будь-якому випадку вона не буде зважати на конфесійні
кордони.
По-сьоме, Реформація повинна фокусувати нас на темі
майбутнього. Це питання про перспективи християнства і християнських перспектив
для світу, про долю європейського християнства і долю християнської Європи. Що
повинно померти, а що має і буде жити? Чому ми бачимо навколо сліди
постхристиянського декадансу і майже не спроможні побачити знаки Божого
Царства, яке зростає? Чому наше християнство старіє разом зі світом, живе з ним
в одному циклі і навіть не наважується спростувати домагання смерті? Чи можемо ми
дорослішати, не старіючи? Чи віримо ми в воскресіння і життя вічне? Від цієї
віри залежить не тільки наша вічність, а й хід нашої земної історії, надія в
історії. Є лише один спосіб довести свою актуальність — показати на собі чудові
зміни, свіжі оновлення, глибинні перетворення, щоб стати пророчою перспективою
для цілого світу.
На превеликий жаль, названі умови є для більшої частини
сучасних християн неприйнятними. Немає готовності до змін. У кращому випадку
Церкви готові змінювати інших, не себе.
Як заявив один із протестантських лідерів, «ювілей
Реформації — це шанс презентувати себе суспільству, на цьому слід і обмежитися,
не допускаючи богословських дискусій і гарячих соціальних тем». Таке відверте
святкування самих себе можна було б до Реформації і не приурочувати. Тим
більше, що згадувана конфесія швидше псевдопротестантська і стосунку до подій
століття XVI не має майже ніякого. У такому самосвяткуванні проглядається
самозванство.
«Ми можемо перетворити суспільство» — тут відвага межує із
зухвалістю. Це важко зробити, ще важче від спроб відмовитися. Адже християнин
може і повинен прагнути більшого, бути ревним, удосконалюватися, ось тільки все
це повинно бути «з розумом» (Рим. 10: 2, 2Петр. 1: 5).
Так ось поміркуймо: чи можемо ми змінити когось, якщо не
змінимося самі? Захопленість перетвореннями зовнішніми без готовності до
внутрішніх змін може закінчитися дуже погано — дискредитацією слів і
девальвацією сенсів. «Презентувати себе» і «перетворити суспільство»? Спаси
нас, Господи, від таких «реформацій».
У нас все менше часу подумати про те, яким може і має бути
наше християнство, якщо зважитися не тільки називатися, а й бути. І ця
терміновість, ця гострота питання пов’язані зовсім не з ювілеями Реформації,
але й з нашою християнською відповідальністю за світ, що змінюється до гіршого,
і за нас самих, що так боїмося змінитися, і тому не здатні нікого змінити.
Реформація — зовсім не привід для безтурботного свята. Це
радше тривожний сигнал, що пробуджує і протвережує. Це не відповідь, але критично
серйозне питання — і не про «них», а про нас, про наше християнство і нашу
Реформацію.

0
0
1
1178
6719
ASR
55
15
7882
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:»Table Normal»;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:»»;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Свято минуло. Тиша лякає