The Christian image of man: the main lines of Orthodox doctrine. Christian understanding of God and man

Orthodox theological anthropology is predominantly deductive in nature. The main lines of the theological vision of man are derived here from three main sources - from the Holy Scriptures, from patristic testimonies expressing the direct experience of being in unity with Divine Persons and human personalities, and from fundamental dogmatic teachings.

The first part of this report will examine the main aspects of the Christian understanding of man as the image and likeness of God.

The second part will offer a systematically ordered examination of the seven main lines of the Orthodox vision of man, based on the theological understanding of man as a person.

The third part of the report will be devoted to the characteristics of the Orthodox understanding of love, which is considered in Orthodox anthropology as the pinnacle of Christian perfection, meaning a person’s achievement of the utmost fullness of being.

The final part of the report will outline the general perspective of applying the main lines of theological understanding of man to the consideration of a wide range of current humanitarian problems.

1. Understanding man as the image and likeness of God

In Orthodox anthropology, the doctrine of man as the image and likeness of God occupies a central position. It is this teaching that allows us to connect anthropology with the fundamental dogmatic teachings - triadology and Christology. At the same time, clarifying the Christian understanding of the image of God necessarily involves a comprehensive appeal to the teaching about God Himself and therefore represents a complex theological task.

Expressing the Christian understanding of man, a number of Orthodox authors distinguish between the concepts of the image and likeness of God. By the image of God they propose to understand what is given to man and is inseparable from him, and by likeness - what is given to man, what man is called to achieve by revealing and actualizing the image of God in his life, in his relationships with God and people.

In Orthodox theology, in various problematic contexts, man as the image of God is viewed in many different interrelated aspects. In order to reveal the understanding of the image of God in Orthodox anthropology, it is convenient to distribute the relevant theological constructs into five main areas.

1) Firstly, the image of God in man is often understood by Orthodox authors as such perfections of human nature that reflect the fullness of the perfection of the one Divine nature and distinguish man from among other created beings.

Such perfections in Orthodox theology most often include rationality, or spirituality. In addition, holiness, free will, creativity, sovereignty in the created world, and immortality are often considered as manifestations of the image of God.

The theological shortcoming of this approach lies in its primary focus on the natural aspects of understanding God and man. Indeed, as the image of God in man, what is primarily considered here is not the image of the Most Holy Trinity, but the image of the one Divine nature.

At the same time, in anthropology, understanding the image of God as the perfections of nature is associated with the danger of diminishing the extra-natural, personal principle in man, as well as with the danger of individualistic interpretations. Although, on the one hand, the individualistic worldview, aimed at the fullest possible autonomous development of the individual, is opposed to pantheistic attitudes that involve merging with the impersonal absolute, on the other hand, what these two extremes have in common is the reduction of man to nature. In individualism, a person’s personality is reduced to individuality, determined by individual natural characteristics, and in pantheism, a person is absorbed by impersonal nature or its various aspects and manifestations.

Due to the incomplete understanding of the image of God as perfections of human nature, such natural perfections in Orthodox anthropology often began to be called features of the image of God.

2) In a number of theological works, the image of God in man is already understood as the image of the entire Holy Trinity, expressed in such “trinities” as part of a single human nature, such as, for example, mind-knowledge-love, memory-thinking-will and many others.

Such understandings of the image of God, sometimes called psychological analogies, set a solid foundation for the theological justification of the call addressed to man to streamline his mental life, to overcome mental instability, to vigorously resist the tendency towards fragmentation and mismatch of mental spheres, powers and abilities, which has become characteristic of man as a result of his damage by sin, the essence of which lies in separation from God. In anthropology, such understandings of the image of God make it possible to provide a clear theological justification for man's efforts to order, harmonize and bring into unity the various triads of parts, forces and manifestations of his nature.

The theological imperfection of such understandings of the image of God is due to the fact that the Divine Persons, who are in the fullness of personal mutual appeal, are put in correspondence with the impersonal parts, powers and manifestations of a single human nature. At the same time, the unity of nature, which is personally freely determined by the Divine Persons as the unity of love, corresponds here to the unity of individual human nature, conditioned by the internal laws of its structure and functioning.

In anthropology, such understandings of the image of God, assuming that the bearer of the image of the Holy Trinity are not human individuals living in unity of communication, but each individual person, lead to individualistic tendencies.

In order to avoid both depersonalizing and individualistic conclusions, the above-mentioned understandings of the image of God are most often limited by Orthodox authors of the 20th–21st centuries in triadology to the problematic context of affirming the fullness of the unity of the Holy Trinity, and in anthropology to the problematic context of affirming the original and teleological integrity and coherence of the nature of each person.

3) In Orthodox theology, the image of the Holy Trinity in man is often understood as expressed not in the individual, but in various human associations, the participants of which are in communion. It is precisely these understandings of the image of God, sometimes called social analogies, that are considered by many Orthodox authors of the 20th and 21st centuries as the most theologically perfect.

Moreover, the less human communication is legally, organizationally or culturally determined, prescribed in nature, the less it is mediated by any common natural interest, subject to impersonal criteria of effectiveness, the more it is understood as approaching that completeness unity, which is characteristic of personally free intra-trinity communication of Divine Persons.

As the most perfect image of the Holy Trinity in Orthodox theology, the Church is distinguished as a unity determined by the fullness of communion of human persons. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Father, through the Church as the mystical Body of Christ, gathered by the Holy Spirit, bestows upon the participants extremely deep gifts of grace to remain in the fullness of personally free unity of communion with each other and with God. The unity of personally free thanksgiving to God in the Eucharistic Body of Christ transforms the entire way of life of Christians and extends to the entire spectrum of their relationships with God, people and the surrounding impersonal world.

Another important understanding of the image of the Holy Trinity for Orthodox anthropology is the family as a “small church”, as such a unity of human personalities, which in the sacrament of Marriage, rooted in the Eucharist, is given special grace-filled gifts to remain in unity in the image of the Most Holy Trinity, revealed in the unity of Christ and Churches . Connected with the understanding of the family as an image of the Holy Trinity, for example, are the reflections of St. Gregory of Nyssa about Adam, Eve and their son as an image of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son.

4) The perfect - that is, consubstantial with the Father, or, in other words, completely coinciding with the Father in nature - image of the Father, is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Son.

As the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ reveals in the human nature He assumed the same personally perfect image of existence, which determines the completeness of the intra-Trinity communication of consubstantial Divine Persons. Thus, He opens for human individuals the possibility of realizing their created existence in the image of the uncreated existence of Divine Persons. Achieving such completeness of the personal way of being represents the actualization of the image of God in which man was created, or, in other words, the acquisition by man of the likeness of God.

As an image of the Son, or Word, man is often characterized in Orthodox theology as a verbal being. It is literature that distinguishes man from animals and makes it possible for him to know the Father through His Word. The word indicates a person's intelligence. Moreover, it is of a correlative nature, presupposing both the utterer and the perceiver. Thus, literature as a feature of the image of God makes it possible for a person to have a reasonable, purposeful, structured by turning to God, logically ordered exchange of experiences, ideas, thoughts, plans, skills, ministries and other meaningful aspects of his inner world. Literature thus turns out to be a key means of expressing personal relationships both in human communication with God and in interhuman communication.

5) According to the thoughts of leading Orthodox theologians of the 20th–21st centuries, in the most complete and deep theological sense, the image of God is expressed by the concept of human personality.

People as individuals are called upon to give human nature a way of existence that follows from an unconditional focus on the completeness of relationships with Divine Persons and human personalities in the image of the completeness of personal relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This attitude was fully realized by Christ in the fullness of sacrificial service and the fullness of love.

It is the installation for completeness personal communication sets in Orthodox anthropology such a context for understanding the image of God as the perfection of individualized human nature, as well as the orderliness and consistency of its parts, forces and manifestations, which excludes the possibility of individualistic tendencies in their interpretations. Understanding the image of God in man as a person allows us, therefore, to bring together all the main positive sides presented theological reflections on the image of God, while complicating their depersonalizing interpretations.

Understanding the image of God in man as a personality, irreducible to consciousness, any discursive or reflective thinking, will, as well as to any other aspects, qualities, properties and manifestations of nature has important ethical consequences.

Thus, personality, in which the image of God is expressed, is considered by a number of Orthodox theologians as the defining essential feature of a person. This approach to understanding a person means that no flaws and features of a person’s nature, including those affecting consciousness and higher nervous activity, can serve as a basis for not considering him a human person and not treating him as a person. For example, a person, and therefore a person, is a person with mental defects, a person in an unconscious state, a child in the womb, and so on. Based on the same understanding of personality as a defining essential feature of a person, not deduced from any of his natural characteristics, Orthodox anthropology provides the theological justification for the liturgical practice of baptism, confirmation and communion of infants.

Unlike any qualities of nature, the image of God, understood as personality, is considered in Orthodox anthropology as integral to man. The image of God, in particular, cannot be destroyed by sin, and therefore, the sinfulness or criminality of a person cannot serve as a basis for an inhumane attitude towards him.

2. Theological understanding of man as an individual

2.1. Irreducibility of personality to nature

They derive this position from the doctrine of the consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity and from the doctrine of personality as the extremely deep expression of the image of God in man. In fact, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, Their Divine nature is one and the same. In other words, there are no natural characteristics, no parts, manifestations, qualities or properties of nature that do not fully belong to each of the Divine Persons. At the same time, the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity not only do not merge, but are absolutely different. Obviously, such a theological vision necessarily presupposes the irreducibility of the concept of person to the concept of nature. Such a theological vision is possible, in other words, only by recognizing the absolute otherness of the person in relation to nature.

The idea of ​​the irreducibility of the Trinitarian concept of person, or hypostasis, to the concept of essence, or nature, is also presupposed by those seven criteria of distinction that were formulated in the theological works of the Great Cappadocians - Saints Basil the Great (329-379), Gregory the Theologian (330-389) and Gregory of Nyssa (335–394) - to distinguish between these synonymous conceptual pairs.

Thus, a person, or hypostasis, as a particular (irreducible to essence, or nature, as a general). Persons, or hypostases, as particulars, are also irreducible to general nature, since they differ in their distinctive properties. This irreducibility becomes even more obvious in cases of reference to persons, or hypostases, as distinctive properties. The independence of a person, or hypostasis, as the basis that determines original existence, presupposes its irreducibility to essence, or nature, as objects of such a definition, determined not only by its internal laws, but also by diverse interactions with other natures and without a hypostatic definition does not exist at all. The indivisibility of personality, presupposed by the characteristic of a person, or hypostasis, as an individual, constitutes another aspect of its irreducibility to essence, or nature. Pointing to persons, or hypostases, as images of existence allows us to express the irreducibility of personality in its theological understanding both to a general nature, or essence, and to an individualized nature, or individuality. Finally, irreducibility to nature, or essence, follows in the theology of the Great Cappadocians from the definition of the concepts of person, or hypostasis, through the concept of relation.

The irreducibility of the concept of personality to the concept of nature also follows from Orthodox Christology. Thus, the irreducibility of personality to individuality is presupposed by the consistent rejection in Orthodox theology of Nestorian teachings; from the rejection of Apollinarianism, it follows that the personality of a person is irreducible to the highest part of his complex nature - mind, or spirit, and the rejection of monoenergism presupposes the irreducibility of personality to action.

The will of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, due to consubstantiality, meaning the unity of Their nature, is one. Moreover, the absence of a human personality in Christ does not mean - as follows from the rejection of monothelitism in Orthodox Christology - the absence of a natural human will in Him. Therefore, the human personality is considered in Orthodox anthropology as irreducible to such an aspect of nature as will.

In the personal irreducibility of man to nature, two aspects stand out in terms of their significance for biblical anthropology.

Firstly, it is irreducible to nature at the national and tribal - right down to the closest relatives - level. Personal unity in its fullness to which a person is called should be based not on tribal closeness, but on a personal turn towards God. The exactingness of Christ’s calls for the decisive implementation of personal irreducibility to the natural, conditioned family ties community indicates the particular danger of generic depersonalization, in which a person is perceived as a private exponent of generic traits, and not in his personal uniqueness.

Secondly, a person as a person is not reducible to his property. Moreover, personal perfection is generally incompatible with private possession

any property. Such incompatibility

individual possession of property with personal union with God and people, with unity

The first Christians were keenly aware of the Eucharistic.

2.2. Liberty

Orthodox theologians of the 20th–21st centuries call freedom as the next essential characteristic of the theological understanding of human personality, the personal way of being.

It is freedom that is considered in Orthodox anthropology as one of the key components of understanding the image of God in man.

In the complex state in which a person finds himself, in order to reveal the theological understanding of freedom, it is convenient to identify three main ontological levels of existence, closely related to the forms of realization of freedom.

1) Subnatural level of existence.

The subnatural state of man is characterized in Orthodox anthropology as a state of tragic subordination of the way of existence, the relationship to God, interhuman relations, as well as relations with the surrounding impersonal world to motives and attitudes, ultimately determined by mortality.

At the same time, in the mechanism of involving a person in the circle of motives determined by the fear of death, Orthodox authors identify two interrelated determining attitudes. Firstly, a person tries to compensate for the limitations of his life by its peculiar intensification, expressed in the desire to increase pleasures according to the principle: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die!” . Secondly, a person subordinates his life to the desire to avoid suffering.

The implementation of these attitudes leads a person to focus on his individualized nature, to inevitable isolation from God, people and the world around him, to the struggle for life resources. This isolating focus on oneself means involvement in sin as “the sting of... death.” In turn, “a sin committed gives birth to death.” Thus, the way of being of a person in a lower-natural state turns out to be subject to a cycle that is constantly reproducing with increasing intensity: sin-death-sin. In this tragic state, a person is enslaved to sin, his freedom is only potential.

2) Natural.

In the natural state, man lives according to the laws and needs of his individualized nature. The nature of every person, given to him by God, is good and does not contain any sinful parts, qualities, properties or manifestations. Thus, natural virtue corresponds to the natural or natural state of a person.

Moreover, in a logically negative sense, freedom is realized at the natural ontological level of existence as freedom from sin and is expressed in the rejection of any inferior or unnatural pleasures, fears and motives, the satisfaction of which involves focusing on oneself and opposing oneself to God and people.

In turn, in a logically neutral aspect, freedom manifests itself in the form of freedom of choice, which consists in a value-based selection of those tasks and options for their solution that are consistent with universal human nature and take into account the individual natural characteristics of a person.

As for the logically positive aspect of freedom, it manifests itself in the natural state of man in the form of free will, which is expressed in the very setting of goals in life and activity, as well as in the development and implementation of orderly efforts to realize them.

However, the fullness of freedom in the theological understanding is not limited to those forms that are available to man in his natural state.

Thus, freedom as freedom from sin does not imply overcoming either individual natural determination or social and cultural conditioning.

As for freedom of choice, it is inevitably limited by the very set of options available to a person.

Finally, free will is determined by the natural structure of man, the very structure of the internal interaction of will and other spheres, aspects and manifestations of individualized human nature.

3) Supernatural.

In Orthodox anthropology, complete freedom refers to the supernatural state of man. Such complete freedom is characteristic, in other words, of a personal way of being.

Freedom as a characteristic of a personal way of being follows from the position of the ontological primacy of the individual in relation to nature, presupposed by the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and, above all, the concept of the monarchy of the Father. This theological approach allows Orthodox authors to affirm the unconditional fullness of personality in Divine existence, considering, in particular, all the properties of the Divine nature, all Divine energies as the result of the personally free determination of the Father, which the Son and the Holy Spirit personally freely accept.

The theological understanding of human freedom is also associated with the doctrine of the creation of the world from nothing, which means that the world did not develop from the Divine nature - therefore, its existence, and therefore the existence of man, is not subject to its internal laws, is not determined by it.

The fullness of personal freedom to which man is called is revealed in the unconditionally voluntary, personally free incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, sent by the Father and incarnated by the Holy Spirit. The possibility and path of gaining such freedom

Christ reveals to man in His free, unconditional, undeserved sacrificial service, crowned by the Labor of the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension.

In a logically negative sense, the fullness of freedom of human individuals, representing the image of Divine Persons, actualizing this image in their being and acquiring, therefore, the likeness of God, means indeterminism neither by species nature with its needs, nor by individualized nature, nor by the surrounding socio-cultural environment.

This understanding of freedom leads Orthodox authors of the 20th–21st centuries to important conclusions about the nature of the personal image of relationships between people. In fact, personal freedom, consistently realized beyond the limits of natural necessity, also presupposes, paradoxical for ordinary consciousness, the rejection of individual will, characterized in Orthodox theology as a function of nature. This attitude towards the will underlies the traditional Orthodox ascetic practice of obedience and cutting off the will.

In the neutral aspect, freedom, corresponding to the supernatural ontological level of being, is not limited to freedom of choice and can be characterized as freedom to be different.

In its positive aspect, the fullness of personal freedom presupposes the transcendence of individualized nature with its virtues and perfections. Thus, personal freedom is not reduced to the freedom to express individual qualities and finds its ultimate expression in a person’s personally free determination of the way of existence of his individualized nature.

Understanding of man as an individual who freely determines the way of existence of his nature,

allows Orthodox authors to affirm the completeness of his personal responsibility, which ultimately extends to the entire impersonal world created by God. Perceiving everything created, including his own being, as a free personal gift from God, man gathers the world in all its diversity together and brings it to God as a personal free reciprocal gift. Thus, as a free, open personality, man is called to give the whole world a personal dimension, involving him both in personal communication with God and in interhuman communication.

In Orthodox anthropology, personal freedom is also an integral characteristic of the understanding of love as such a Christian virtue, which in the utmost completeness of its expression represents a person’s personal aspiration towards Divine Persons and human personalities, not conditioned by either universal natural laws or individual natural characteristics.

2.3. Openness

Human personality means openness. This characteristic of personality is considered in Orthodox anthropology as a consequence of the teachings about the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, about a special way of Divine existence in uncreated energies, that is, outside the Own essence, and about the Incarnation.

The openness of the personal way of being presupposes a personal transcendence of individualized nature and is closely connected, therefore, with freedom. The openness of a person as an individual is based on a personal appeal to God and people and is expressed in that completeness of unity in which a person, on the one hand, transfers into the sphere of personal communication everything possible for him as a created being, the content of his individualized nature, and, on the other On the other hand, he accepts as the direct natural filling of his personality all the natural content that is conveyed to him by Divine Persons and human personalities.

The human personality reaches its utmost openness in the assimilation of uncreated Divine energies, that is, in spiritualization, understood in Orthodox anthropology as the goal of all Christian life. In Orthodox anthropology, the words of the Apostle Peter about the calling of Christians to become “partakers of the Divine nature” are often understood not in a figurative or metaphorical, but in a conceptually strict theological sense. Following St. Gregory Palamas, many Orthodox theologians insist that man’s vocation is not limited to the perception of Divine actions, or energies, mediated by created phenomena, processes or events. Each person, as a person, as an image of the Divine Person - Christ, is called to perceive, assimilate or hypostasis the uncreated Divine energies, precisely in this sense, becoming a participant in the Divine nature, having become enslaved. Thus, the theological understanding of personality makes it possible to express the doctrine of the imprisonment of man, clearly dissociating himself from depersonalizing pantheistic tendencies.

In interpersonal relationships, personal openness is realized in communication, which leads to unity through participation, compassion, empathy, rejoicing, expressed both in selfless sacrificial service to other people, in giving them one’s time, one’s strength, abilities, the entire content of one’s individualized nature, and in accepting their individual, social, cultural characteristics.

In a paradoxical way for the individualistic anthropological paradigm, it is in personal openness, in the humiliation of individualized nature, that a person achieves the fullness of being, becoming like Christ.

2.4. Creation

Personal freedom, combined with the openness of the personal way of being, makes it possible to identify the next important characteristic characteristic of the individual - creative activity. The creative aspiration of the individual is realized in interpersonal human communication, reaching the fullness of its expression in communication with Divine Persons.

I realize a personal creative attitude, a person sets a unique, personally unique way of expressing everything that he does. Therefore, it is creativity that plays a special role in the perception of personality in its absolute uniqueness, irreducible to any natural characteristics.

At the same time, the absolute example of creative activity associated with the creation of works of art is set for man by God’s creation of the world out of nothing. God creates a world out of nothing, which in no way complements or diminishes the fullness of His existence. The human personality, in communication with Divine Persons and with created personalities, then becomes like God as the Creator, actualizing in itself the image of God as the image of the Creator, when it creates something that does not yet exist, something that is not necessary for its individualized nature, which is not associated with the satisfaction of natural needs, with any selfishness or selfish interest.

2.5. Uniqueness

Orthodox authors highlight absolute uniqueness as the next distinctive feature of the theological understanding of the human person.

In the Trinitarian theology of the Great Cappadocians, the position of the absolute uniqueness of each of the Divine Persons found an extremely clear expression in indications of the personal, or hypostatic, distinctive properties that characterize the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and are eternal and unique. At the same time, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist in an unchanging and incommunicable unique personal, or hypostatic, relationship. On the other hand, the absolute nature of personal uniqueness, meaning the otherness of the personality not only in relation to species nature, or essence, but also in relation to individual characteristics, individualized nature, or individuality, is presupposed by the theological understanding of Divine Persons as unique and unchanging modes of existence. Such an understanding of the Divine Persons makes impossible the common tendencies in non-Christian philosophical thought to diminish the fullness of the ontological status of personal otherness, personality as a whole, which are often perceived here as violating the essential community and, therefore, preventing its comprehension.

The uniqueness of the individual is not only not violated by its openness, but is closely connected with it. It is in the openness of the personal way of being that the absorption of the personality by nature with its generic structure, repeating individual characteristics, quantitative relativity and universal logical determinism is overcome.

Personal uniqueness is sometimes emphasized by Orthodox authors by comparing it with the conditional, relative distinctiveness of individuals, whose individual qualities are not absolute, since each of them is characteristic, if not for all people, then always for a whole group of people. Therefore, individuals themselves ultimately differ only in the degree and forms of expression of repeating qualities.

Personal uniqueness is closely related to the irreducibility of the personality to nature and means, in other words, the absolute otherness of the personality, firstly, in relation to the species nature or essence, secondly, in relation to the individualized nature or individuality, and, finally, thirdly , in relation to other individuals.

Personal uniqueness means, therefore, the uniqueness and originality of each person. At the same time, personal uniqueness reaches its ultimate expression in a person’s relationship with God.

2.6. Integrity

Associated with personal uniqueness is such an essential characteristic of personality as integrity. At the same time, the theological understanding of personal integrity includes ideas about the identity and indivisibility of the individual.

The theological idea of ​​the unconditional integrity of the individual is expressed in Orthodox triadology through the reference to a person, or hypostasis, as an individual, that is, indivisible. As for the unshakable identity of a person, it follows from the patristic instructions on the immutability and intransferability of both personal, or hypostatic, properties and modes of existence, as well as the associated hypostatic relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The integrity of the individual is not destroyed in self-giving, in sacrificial love. Moreover, it is in sacrificial unity with others that a person as an individual achieves the fullness of being and gains “life.”<…>in abundance."

The integrity and uniqueness of a person irreducible to nature is not violated at birth, growing up, receiving education, acquiring or losing various life skills and during any other processes in which the individualized nature of a person is involved throughout his life. The integrity and uniqueness of the individual is not destroyed in death and in the subsequent resurrection.

Each human person affirms its integrity and uniqueness by uniting in the Body of Christ - the Church, both with God and with people, thereby realizing its life according to the model of the existence of Divine Persons and achieving a state of ecstasy.

Thus, each person in the theological understanding is unique, unique, unrepeatable, integral and indivisible. Therefore, the value of each individual is absolute. This means, in particular, that the individual cannot serve as a means for any social, political or religious purpose.

2.7. Unknowability by objectifying methods

An important consequence of the irreducibility of personality to nature, its freedom, uniqueness and originality, as well as integrity and indivisibility, is also its unknowability by analytical objectifying methods.

The concept of personality expresses in Orthodox anthropology the image of God in man. Therefore, the personality of man is unknowable as the image of the incomprehensible God.

At the same time, unknowability in relation to the individual does not imply absolute inaccessibility, as, for example, in the theological position about the unknowability of the Divine essence. Personal unknowability means the impossibility of objectified study, which consists in identifying the properties and qualities of a person with subsequent attempts to derive various kinds of patterns characteristic of its individualized nature. A person as a holistic and unique personality cannot be known through objectified external observation and analysis. Moreover, due to openness, a human personality can be perceived by other human personalities. Such personal perception is possible only to the extent that, on the one hand, the personality itself reveals itself, and, on the other hand, the perceiving individuals reveal themselves in relation to it. Personal perception, therefore, is possible only in personal, that is, based on personal relationships, communication.

As personal relationships and personal communication deepen, the perception of a person is less and less mediated by the preliminary identification of his individual natural characteristics, increasingly acquiring the character of direct experience of all his natural content. Moreover, the very natural content of individuals who know each other loses the inviolability rooted in individualistic isolation and is further determined in the course of that personal communication that follows from their personally unique relationships.

2.8. Definition of the theological concept of personality

In the theological understanding, the personal development of a person consists in the transition from an individualistic, naturally conditioned to a personal way of being and is expressed in the actualization of its essential characteristics. At the same time, the analysis conducted leads to the obvious conclusion about the fundamental impossibility of a strict rational-conceptual definition of the theological concept of human personality. All seven considered essential characteristics of the personal way of being are apophatic in nature; they all reveal various aspects of the “extra-naturalness” of the personality, the otherness of the personality in relation to nature. However, for the purposes of constructing private personal anthropological models, it is useful to present all the named characteristics of a personal way of being in the form of a definition. Such a definition should also include two provisions that are essential for Orthodox theological anthropology - about the ontological priority of the individual in relation to nature and about communication that actualizes personality, determined by personal relationships.

Under these conditions, the definition of the theological concept of human personality takes the following form: Personality is irreducible to nature, free, open, creative, unique, holistic in the sense of both indivisibility and indestructible identity, unknowable by analytical objectifying methods, the ontological basis of man, which determines the way of being of his individualized nature and actualizing itself in communication conditioned by personal relationships.

3. Love as the completeness of a person’s personal way of being

Love is seen in Orthodox anthropology as the highest expression of Christian perfection. It is in love that a person acquires the fullness of his personal way of being. At the same time, following the traditional deductive methodological approach for Orthodox theology to root anthropology in fundamental dogmatic teachings, Orthodox authors of the 20th–21st centuries pay special attention to identifying the key position occupied by the concept of love in triadology and Christology.

Love is considered in Orthodox theology as the highest ontological characteristic of the Most Holy Trinity. In intrauterine existence, love is expressed in the unconditional fullness of natural unity, or consubstantiality, of the Divine Persons in combination with the unconditional uniqueness of Each of Them. Further, the intra-Trinitarian love of the Divine Persons is not a property or quality of the Divine nature, not the result of the implementation of any of its internal laws, but an expression of the completely free hypostatic determination of the Father, completely freely accepted by the Son and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the fullness of love in which the Divine Persons abide is expressed in the fact that the perfection of Their one Divine nature (fuvsiı) is not limited to the internal perfection of the Divine essence (oujsiva), fully and eternally manifesting itself outside it in the Divine energies (ejnevrgeia).

From the doctrine of the Holy Trinity there follow three key provisions that define the Christian understanding of love. Firstly, love is a “unity of different things,” that is, a unity in which its constituent persons are in the fullness of personal uniqueness, without in any way being absorbed, merging or leveling. Secondly, the source of love in its highest understanding is not essence or nature, but a person or hypostasis. Thirdly, the fullness of being, found in the unity of love, is extended by those who love to all the people around them, ultimately to the entire world around them, who, being drawn into this unity of love, become involved in its inherent perfections.

The fullness of the intra-Trinitarian love of the Divine Persons is revealed in the created world by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity - the Son, sent by the Father and incarnated by the Holy Spirit. Having assumed human nature, the Son is in communion with human persons in the same fullness of love that characterizes His communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, He gives man an absolute example of a perfect personal way of life according to the way of being of the Divine Persons.

Christians find their ultimate natural community with the Most Holy Trinity in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which presupposes the unity of prayerful aspiration to the Father through the communication given by the Holy Spirit in the Body and Blood of the Son He sent. This community is understood by Orthodox authors as the fullness of perception of the Father’s love, manifested through communication with the Head of the Eucharistic Body of the Church - Christ and communicated by the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, Christians, through the action of the Holy Spirit, being adopted by the Father in the unity of love with His Only Begotten Son, are united in the Church as the Eucharistic Body of Christ and in the communion of love among themselves in the image of the intra-Trinity communion of the Divine Persons. At the same time, the primary basis of sacrificial unity in love with others is for every Christian his love in the Holy Spirit through Christ for the Father, Who through the Son loves every person in the Holy Spirit and extends grace-filled gifts to him. In other words, a Christian’s love for people is necessarily presupposed by his love for the Most Holy Trinity, Who “is love” and Who pours out His love on all people.

Moreover, Christians are called to extend the Eucharistic experience of unity of love to all spheres of their human relationships, both in the Church and outside it. Special opportunities for achieving the fullness of personal communication of love are also given to man by God in the sacrament of marriage, considered in Orthodox theology from a Eucharistic perspective.

Thus, the experience of being in the fullness of love, determined by the Eucharistic aspiration to the Most Holy Trinity, on the one hand, constitutes the entire spectrum of forms of human communication with Divine Persons and human personalities, and, on the other hand, sets the ultimate teleological perspective of such communication. In the existential refraction of this Eucharistic principle, the life of a Christian in all its forms and manifestations can be considered simultaneously both as an expression of the experience of Eucharistic unity with God and people, and as a movement towards the complete assimilation of such experience.

At the same time, Christians are called upon to involve the entire created world in interhuman communication, rooted in the unity of love with God, thus imparting to it a personal dimension and enduring meaning.

Perfect personal love is possible for a person only in a state of personal freedom, only as a result of a completely free personal determination. Such love is not mediated by any kindred, national, social, economic or any other natural motives, connections and patterns and, thus, has a supernatural, or supernatural, character. Personal love, which unites unique individuals, is also alien to being conditioned by individual natural qualities. Perfect personal love presupposes selfless sacrificial service to God and people with the entire content of individualized nature, including life itself. It is precisely this supernatural fullness of personal love that is implied by the commandment of love for enemies, highlighted by Christ against the background of natural love for those who love.

Further, perfect personal love is incompatible with individualistic isolation. Personal unity in love presupposes openness as a rejection of any individualistic isolation, from the individualistic way of existence itself.

At the same time, along with sacrificial service to God and neighbors, love means openness of the individual to everything natural content both God and man, expressed both in the perception of the created gifts of the Holy Trinity and - ultimately - Her uncreated energies, and in compassion, rejoicing, empathy, obedience to others, to all people, to all humanity - ultimately - in complicity in the one life of all animate beings and the entire cosmos. Thus, sacrificial love not only does not imply a violation of the integrity of the human personality, but also leads to the personal acquisition by the lover of the fullness of life in communication.

Ultimately, the assumption of the fullness of personal love beyond the limits of individualized nature, involved as a result of separation from God and the created world in various processes of aging, mismatch and decay, leads to the acquisition of indestructible personal integrity and means the destruction of the “last enemy” - death.

In sacrificial selfless love, a person also achieves that completeness of personal uniqueness, which cannot be reduced to a set of repeating individual qualities. At the same time, finding in love the fullness of personal uniqueness, a person affirms the supernatural personal uniqueness and originality of those whom he loves.

Thus, the state of completeness of love means the actualization by a person of all the essential characteristics of the personal way of being, the acquisition of personal perfection as likeness to God Himself.

A person’s personal identity is set and affirmed by the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for him, as well as those human personalities who constitute their existence in the image of Divine Persons. Therefore, the original defining principle of human existence as a person can be expressed as follows: “I am loved, therefore I exist.” In this case, the corresponding principle of a person’s actualization of his personal way of existence will be characterized by the maxim: “I love, therefore I exist.”

Revealing Himself as the fullness of love in the creation of the world as not conditioned by any natural reasons, personally free action, Holy Trinity puts love at the basis of the natural structure of the entire created world at all levels of its ontological perfection. The universal constitutive principle given by love can be characterized in an extremely brief form as the principle of unity in difference. In the existence of the created world, this universal principle is expressed, firstly, in the “vertical”, that is, characterizing the hierarchical ordering of the ontological levels of existence, and, secondly, in the “horizontal”, that is, characterizing the internal consistency of each such level, dimensions.

Thus, love as a universal constituent principle finds its expression in the life of impersonal beings who instinctively gather, for example, in herds and flocks or feed and protect their young and chicks. Ultimately, love, understood in such an extremely general sense, constitutes the metaphysical basis of the laws that harmonize and organize all processes that also occur in the inanimate world.

Love in all its forms that constitute the created world is fully characteristic of human nature.

For example, in the very nature of man, the desire for cooperation and mutual assistance is rooted by God. In the case when a person does not drown out these aspirations with an attitude towards individualistic separation from God and people, towards opposing himself as a separate individual to Divine Persons and human personalities, love manifests itself on a natural, or natural, level, expressed in family life, in caring for relatives, in friendly communication, in joint production activities, in participation in various kinds of associations of interests and in many other forms, due to both his involvement in universal human nature and his individual natural inclinations.

4. Conclusion

The theological understanding of man in Orthodox anthropology sets the ontological foundation for the construction of particular applied humanitarian models, relying on which Orthodox researchers gain the opportunity to rethink the presupposed ontological foundations, value systems, terminological systems and corresponding practical conclusions of modern humanities from a theocentric perspective. Such a rethinking makes it possible not only to highlight manipulative, determinative, magical and occult elements that are unacceptable for Christian humanities, but also to select for it factual material and the most valuable theoretical intuitions accumulated in modern humanities.

Thus, analysis of the degree and forms of expression of personal ideas about God and man becomes one of the basic methodological principles of religious studies reflections of Orthodox authors.

The theological understanding of man as a free, open personality, called upon to involve the entire created world in interpersonal communication, bearing personal responsibility for the world before God and people, is placed by Orthodox authors as the basis of the Christian approach to solving environmental problems.

At the same time, turning to humanitarian issues, Orthodox authors of the XX-XXI centuries as one of the main reasons for the difficulties of modern humanities highlight a characteristic attitude towards a determining and objectifying approach to man, aimed at studying his natural characteristics and thus not allowing to take into account freedom, openness, uniqueness and other key characteristics of the human personality in its theological understanding.

Ultimately, analyzing the entire range of humanitarian consequences of the theological understanding of man, a number of Orthodox authors of the 20th–21st centuries make a decisive conclusion about its fundamental significance both for the formation and for the future of all modern civilization.

1. Lossky V.N. Catholic consciousness. Anthropological application of the dogma of the Church / Transl. from fr. V. Reshchikova // Lossky V. N. Theology and vision of God: Collection of articles / Edited by. ed. V. Pislyakova. M., 2000. P. 570; Sophrony (Sakharov), archimandrite. Birth into the Unshakable Kingdom. Essex, 1999. P. 71; It's him. The Sacrament of Christian Life. Essex; Sergiev Posad, 2009. P. 91.
2. Gen 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6; Wis 2:23; Sir 17:1–13; James 3:9; 1 Cor 11:7; Col 3:8–10; Eph 4:24. Compare: Ps 81:6; Matthew 5:48; John 10:34–35; 1 John 4:17; Eph 3:14–15; 5:1.
3. Gregorius Nyssenus. De opificio hominis. Ch. 11 // PG 44. Col. 153D–156B.
4. Meyendorff John, Archpriest. Byzantine theology: Historical trends and doctrinal themes / Transl. from English V. Marutika. Minsk, 2001. pp. 200–201.
5. Lev 11:44–45 (Compare: 1 Peter 1:16); 19:2; 20:7; 20:26; 1 Peter 1:15.
6. Meyendorff John, Archpriest. Marriage and the Eucharist // Meyendorff John, Archpriest. Orthodoxy in modern world. Klin, 2002. P. 24. Compare: Gen 2:15; 2:19–20.
7. Gregorius Nyssenus. De opificio hominis. Ch. 4. Col. 136B–C. Compare: Gen 1:28.
8. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950. pp. 354–355.
9. Zizioulas J. D. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church / Ed. P. McPartlan. Edinburgh, 2006. P. 1, 46, 57, 168, 210–211.
10. Staniloae D. The Experience of God. Vol. 1: Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God / Transl. and ed. I. Ionita and R. Barringer. Brookline (Massachusetts), 1994. P. 276.
11. Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione verbi (Sur l’incarnation du verbe) / Ed. C. Kannengiesser // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 199. Paris, 1973. Ch. 3. S. 3. L. 11–12.
12. Augustine Aurelius. De Trinitate. B. 10. Ch. 17.
13. Ibid.B.6.Ch.11;B.9.Ch.3;B.11.Ch.2,6–9; B. 14. Ch. 15; Idem. De civitate Dei. B. 11. Ch. 25, 26; Idem. Confessions. B. 13. Ch. 12; Gregorius Nyssenus. Ad imaginem Dei et ad similitudinem (Sp.) // PG 44. Col. 1332B–1341B.
14. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Decree. Op. P. 355. 195
15. Basile, st. Letters/Ed. Y. Courtonne. Vol. 1. Paris, 1957. Epist. 38. S. 2. L. 1 - S. 3. L. 33; Vol. 2. Paris, 1961. Epist. 214. S. 4. L. 9–11; Vol. 3. Paris, 1966. Epist. 235. S. 2. L. 20–31; Gregorius Nazianzenus. Orat. 6 (De pace 1). S. 13 // PG 35. P. 740. L. 4–7; Idem. Orat. 22 (De pace 2). S. 14 // PG 35. P. 1148. L. 19–33; Idem. Orat. 23 (De pace 3). S. 13 // PG 35. P. 1165. L. 10–12; Gregor von Nazianz. Die fünf theologischen Reden / Ed. J. Barbel. Düsseldorf, 1963. Orat. 29 (De filio). S. 16. L. 13–15; Orat. 31 (De spiritu sancto). S. 22. L. 6–20; Gregorius Nyssenus. Contra Eunomium/Ed. W. Jaeger // Gregorii Nysseni opera. 2 vols. Leiden, 1960. B. 1. Ch. 1. S. 496–497.
16. Callistus (Ware), bishop. Orthodox Church/ Per. from English G. Vdovina. M., 2001. P. 245.
17. 2 Cor 13:13.
18. 1 Cor 16:19.
19. Cassian (Bezobrazov), bishop. Water and blood and spirit. Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Paris, 1996. pp. 60–61; Meyendorff John, Archpriest. Marriage and Eucharist. P. 25; Zizioulas J. D. Communion and Otherness. P. 81.
20. Gen 1:26–27.
21. Eph 5:22–33. Wed: Song of Songs; Jer 13:27; Hos 2:19–20; John 4:18 (See: Cassian (Bezobrazov), ep. Op. cit. pp. 77–78); 8:41; Rom 9:25.
22. Gregorius Nyssenus. Ad imaginem Dei et ad similitudinem. Col. 1329C–1332A.
23. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image / Trans. from fr. V. Reshchikova // Lossky V. N. Theology and vision of God. pp. 314–317.
24. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb. 1:3 (See: Basile, st. Epist. 38. S. 6–7).
25. Matthew 5:48; Eph 5:1.
26. Zizioulas J. D. Communion and Otherness. P. 165–166.
27. Athanasius Alexandrinus. Op. cit. Ch. 3. S. 3. L. 8–14
28. Ibid. Ch. 3. S. 3. L. 5–7.
29. Ibid. Ch. 11. S. 3. L. 1–7; Ch. 12. S. 1. L. 1–2.
30. 1 Peter 2:2; Rom 12:1.
31. Lossky V.N. Theology of the image. pp. 316–317; It's him. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Lossky V. N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991. P. 95; It's him. Dogmatic theology // Lossky V. N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. P. 214; Yannaras H. Faith of the Church: Introduction to Orthodox Theology / Transl. from modern Greek G. V. Vdovina; Ed. A. I. Kyrlezheva. M., 1992. S. 101–102; It's him. Favorites: Personality and Eros / Trans. from modern Greek G. V. Vdovina; Ed. A. I. Kyrlezheva. M., 2005. P. 138; Sophrony (Sakharov), archimandrite. See God as He is. Essex, 1985. P. 238; Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Holy Trinity // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Moral ideas of the most important Christian dogmas / Ed. archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky). Montreal, 1963. pp. 1–24; Hilarion (Troitsky), svmch. The Trinity of Divinity and the unity of humanity // Hilarion (Troitsky), svmch. Without the Church there is no salvation. M.; St. Petersburg, 2000. pp. 407–431; Filaret (Vakhromeev), Metropolitan. Orthodox theology in the new century // Church and Time. 2002. No 4 (21). P. 22.
32. Gen 2:18; Matthew 11:27; 28:19; John 3:32–34; 6:38–40; 6:57; 7:28–29; 14:9; 14:20–21; 14:23–26; 16:15; 17:8–10; 17:21–23; 2 Cor 13:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:3.
33. John 10:30; 14:10–11; 1 John 5:7.
34. John 10:11; 10:15; 15:13; Rom 5:6–8; Eph 5:2.
35. Yannaras H. Faith of the Church. pp. 99–100, 107–108; Balashov Nikolai, archpriest. The human genome, “therapeutic cloning” and the status of the embryo // Church and Time. 2001. No. 2 (15). P. 71.
36. Chursanov S. A. Face to face: The concept of personality in Orthodox theology of the 20th century. M., 2008. P. 167.
37. Lossky V.N. Essay... P. 95; Callistus (Ware), bishop. Decree. Op. P. 228.
38. John 10:30; 17:10.
39. John 16:15.
40. Lossky V.N. Essay... P. 91, 94; It's him. Theological concept of human personality // Lossky V. N. Theology and vision of God. P. 299.
41. Chursanov S.A. Decree. Op. pp. 45–52.
42. Basile, st. Epist. 214. S. 4. L. 6–9; Vol. 3. Epist. 236. S. 6. L. 1–3.
43. Idem, st. Epist. 38. S. 3. L. 8–12; Epist. 214. S. 4. L. 11–15; Gregorius Nyssenus. Ad Graecos ex communibus notionibus / Ed. F. Mueller // Gregorii Nysseni opera. Vol. 3.1. Leiden, 1958. P. 26. L. 17–18; P. 30. L. 19 - P. 31. L. 1; P. 31. L. 16–20; Idem. Contra Eunomium. B. 1. Ch. 1. S. 277. L. 8 - S. 278. L. 2; Joannes Damascenus. Dialectica sive Capita philosophica / Ed. B. Kotter // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Vol. 1. Berlin, 1969. Recensio fusior. S. 5. L. 133–138.
44. Basile, st. Epist. 38. S. 5. L. 62–63; S. 6. L. 4–6; S. 8. L. 29–30; Gregorius Nazianzenus. Orat. 21 (In laudem Athanasii) // PG 35. S. 25. Col. 1124. L. 44–47; Idem. Orat. 31. S. 28. L. 1–4; Idem. Orat. 33 (Contra Arianos et de seipso) // PG 36. S. 16. Col. 236. L. 3–9; Idem. Orat. 34 (In Aegyptiorum adventum) // PG 36. S. 13. Col. 253. L. 23–26.
45. Joannes Damascenus. Dialectica... S. 5. L. 133–138; S. 67. L. 17–24, 34–36.

Can be likened to a delicate flower. In order to grow this flower, you need to take care of it. It is necessary that it be planted in good (suitable) soil, it is necessary to fertilize the soil in which it grows, and water it in a timely manner. If you don’t take care of it, then it is possible that at first it will be beautiful and emit a fragrance, but it will soon dry out and die.

So in marriage, great skill is required from a person to maintain the original love, establishing it on a solid foundation so that it can endure. It is quite natural that at some point one can become fed up with carnal relationships and external beauty, and then your main, your main relationship with another person comes forward. From this moment on, the person with whom you are married will be your wife or spouse, this will be the person with whom you are on the path from this temporary life to eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Therefore, marriage is a very serious undertaking. It is also necessary to know that procreation is not the main purpose of marriage, but only a secondary one. The main purpose of marriage is that the people who enter into it, after leaving this earthly life, enter into a great marriage with the Lord Christ. And through cultivating mutual relationships based on love for God, jointly overcoming the difficulties encountered in family life, we were able to unite in eternity with Christ.

However, there are times when marriage relationships go beyond love and change. Often married people face serious problems, and many marriages break up. Finding themselves in such a situation, spouses must, as they say, “sit and think” about the difficulties that have arisen in the relationship with their other half, and whether each of them behaves correctly towards the other. This must be done, even if it seems to the person that he is doing the right thing. Because this is “correct” O It is wrong to consider from the standpoint whether your actions satisfy the other person, whether they maintain peace in the family, and not think that just because it seems right, it means it is so. When spouses have a desire to change the situation for the better, starting with themselves, then God Himself helps them, intra-family problems are gradually resolved, a person experiences forbearance and no longer judges the other so harshly. His thinking is restructured: he learns to tolerate another person, reflecting on the fact that the Lord tolerates all of us. If a person begins to work on himself, then he tries to avoid the causes that lead to quarrels.

When spouses in a family are faced with difficult circumstances, it is necessary to act with great love and humility; one family member must support the other, more frail one; at such moments, he must, figuratively speaking, carry him in his arms. Let's assume that the person making a scene and creating problems in the family is not a spouse, but one of the children. What would parents do in this case? Would they kick him out of the house so they wouldn't see him again? Of course not. But if we tolerate our own children and forgive them a lot, why can’t we tolerate our husband or wife? If we look at everything with a kind thought, it will help us to be more tolerant until we, by good practice, learn to avoid the easy paths that lead to divorce. Because it leads to divorce easy way. A the hard way we go when we try to hold on to another person at all costs, when we tolerate him, when we try to help him. True love, which “does not seek its own,” which sacrifices itself for the sake of its neighbor, does not look for easy solutions. Since marriage is a sacrament of love between two people of the opposite sex, it means love is, first of all, . It is this sacrificial love, which endures and endures everything for the sake of another, that the Church teaches us.

Unfortunately, some families experience terrible incidents, incidents that we don’t hear about very often. I'm talking about cases of terrible violence against children. This is a real tragedy! What should you do in this case? If there is a danger from such a “father” or such a “mother,” then this person must certainly be removed from the house where the children live, because he poses a threat to them. There can be no other solution here.

I am sure that such people are mentally ill. It's impossible for a normal person to do something like that. Even if such people have property in the house where the children are, coexistence with such a parent is impossible. Any possibility of a continuation of this tragedy must be excluded. After all, the psyche of children who have been subjected to domestic violence remains traumatized for almost their entire lives.

However, here we must be very careful. Before claiming that something happened, you must first make sure that it really is so, you must make sure that it is not a mistake, not a misunderstanding. I will try to explain what I mean: there is a category of people within whom there is so much loneliness, grief and depravity that they actually commit crimes and immoral acts. But there are other types of patients who groundlessly suspect their spouse of such actions. For example, some women have come to our metropolis more than once and reported that their husband, their brother, or someone else was doing similar things. Then it turned out that in reality nothing of the kind happened, that it was just a figment of the sick imagination of a mother who was sure that her children were being molested. If the person who was informed about this, be he a confessor, a doctor, a policeman or someone else, due to inexperience, is not able to understand the situation, then he can easily believe such a mother who undertakes entire operations to save her child, telling in detail about supposedly occurring cases of domestic violence, which in reality turn out to be her fantasies, in which she believes with such vividness. And this happened more than once. I repeat that we must be very careful before accusing a person of child abuse.

If we talk about the mental trauma that a particular person (or all of us) experiences when he experiences various life shocks at some point in his life, it is possible that with his own human effort such a person will be able to cope with this mental wound. However, from the centuries-old experience of our Mother Church, we know that when a person turns to God and gives freedom to the grace of the Holy Spirit to act through participation in the Sacraments, something glorious happens to this person: he is not only healed from his mental traumas, but over time, with assisted by grace, he himself becomes the cause of many healings. We read about this in one prayer, which says that God made a source of bitter, undrinkable waters a source of healing for many ailments. And our elder Paisiy Svyatogorets said that the Good Lord and deadly poisons transforms into healing potions. Experientially experiencing various actions grace, through prayer and personal relationships with God, a person is healed from excessive sensitivity that is present in his spiritual world due to mental trauma. Gradually, this sensitivity of his is transformed from traumatic to positive, and subsequently he becomes able to help other people. We can often observe this through personal example or through the example of people around us. When a person suffers or is very sensitive to various events that happen in his life, he very easily finds an approach to another person experiencing similar things. Do you see how wisely the Lord organized the Church? There are no hopeless situations in it that, with the help of God’s grace, a person could not overcome, so that he would not have to justify himself later: “Lord, if this tragedy had not happened in my life, I would have been a completely different person, incomparably better.” No, I absolutely disagree with this. If only a person wants, he can achieve perfection with the help of God. Grace operates above the statutes of nature. That is why the Lord took on human flesh and endured temptations, “so that he might help those who were being tempted.” Namely: being a sinless God-man, He humbled himself to the point that he came into this world in the likeness of a stranger, was rejected by the Jewish race, drank the cup of the Passion of the Cross and tasted death, which had no power over Him, thereby setting an example for us who follow Him . Couldn't the Lord help His creation without going through the suffering of the Cross? Of course I could. But the Savior voluntarily, for the sake of man, walked this Way of the Cross in order to show us which path to follow in order to be His disciples. In the same way, a person, having personally gone through suffering, understands his neighbor more deeply and has compassion for him.

We can say that the more constrained a person is by life circumstances, the more preferable is his place before God. The good Lord has mercy on the unfortunate, about whom the prophet David speaks in the 50th Psalm: “God will not despise the heart that is contrite and humble.” It is this contrite and humble heart that the Lord transforms and refines, and it becomes very receptive. Pain, injustice, or suffering of any kind brings benefit to a person. Pain regenerates a person, makes him beautiful, it “crushes” his heart. A person experiencing suffering becomes wise, he recognizes the weakness of human nature, he learns that in the world many suffer besides him, and thus communicates with other people, realizing that they also experience the same.

On the other hand, what happens to a parent who commits domestic violence? Some saint, having heard about a murder, would not grieve as much for the victim as for the murderer. The victim always deserves pity and God's help. And since she is often unfairly offended, the Lord rewards her according to his Divine justice, comforting her with his grace. But this beast, the killer, who will pity him? Who will look at him? And who will he resort to? Even if the thought comes to him to turn to God, what can he say to Him? After all, his hands are stained with blood. This man is like a beast and deserves O greater regret than his sacrifice, since his people also turn away, and he does not have the courage to turn to the Lord. What consolation can such a person have?

But still, even for the most desperate sinner there is a refuge - the Lord.

Yes, even from a murderer, even from a rapist parent, even from such people who are like cattle, the All-Merciful Lord waits. There is nothing that can surpass the love of God. The Lord embraces all humanity with His boundless love, and since we are all His children, there is no sin that could surpass His goodness. Therefore, we should never condemn a person, we should condemn his sin, action, deed. The knowledge of God's boundless love is a great consolation for a sinner. After all, even if the whole world abhors him, there is Someone who accepts his repentance, who does not hate him, who does not condemn him, and this is the Lord Himself. Let us under no circumstances lose hope of changing man, even if he has lost the image of God, even if he has become bestial. Even so, there is hope and the door to God is still open for him. It is possible for the Lord to save every person, if only he himself would give Him freedom to act.

And finally, I want to add something very important that parents should keep in mind: good or negative impressions of their parents live very deeply in children. We must make every effort so that our children see good examples in their families, so that they keep them in their souls. In the future, when they create their own families, these good examples will help them in organizing their personal adult life and, like a healthy immune system, will protect them from everything bad.

Christianity did not avoid the problem of possessing earthly goods and, probably, was perceived by people as a religious teaching that was close to life. The Old and New Testaments are based on the fact that people own private property. It is protected by the moral law, and legal violations are punishable. The Seventh Commandment states: “Thou shalt not steal!” This prohibition is of a sufficiently categorical form that the norm contained in it is not subject to discussion or interpretation. It extends not only to consumer goods, but also to all goods that fall under the category of property. In the same way, in the tenth commandment one can consider the inadmissibility of coveting someone else’s goods: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his village, nor his servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything, great is the essence of your neighbor.”

Wealth in itself cannot be an obstacle to holiness. Therefore, in the Old Testament, when the life of the patriarchs is described, their wealth is mentioned, often quite large. As an example, we can cite the righteous Job. The enumeration of Job's countless riches allows us to conclude that he was a very wealthy man, one might even say very rich. But Job owned his wealth, as if receiving it from the hands of God, and he lived always ready to give an account to God about the ownership of this wealth. Job was the master of his wealth. But in our difficult modern life, not only often, I would even say in most cases, it turns out that wealth owns its owner, the increase in wealth brings joy to the heart and a person becomes greedy, he is ready to increase his well-being by any means. What commandments will be observed here?

There is not a single indication in the Bible of the evil or morally reprehensible nature of property as a basis for its abolition or, at least, for limiting its influence. In the Old Testament there are numerous testimonies that focus on the duty to carefully cultivate the land, take care of large families. But we must not forget that such an insistent obligation to help the poor can be realized only if there is the right to dispose of specific property benefits.

However, there is another interesting point. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew says that when the disciples heard this, they were “greatly astonished” and doubted, “who can be saved?” To this Jesus answered: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This is due to the fact that Christ is concerned that the possession of great material wealth hardens the hearts of people, develops greed and selfishness, and erects barriers to communication with God, which often turn out to be insurmountable.

Very succinctly and briefly, many of the considered views on wealth and property inherent in Christianity are set out in the statements of St. John Chrysostom:

- “And wealth is good, but when it does not possess those who have it, when it saves others from poverty”;

According to the Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément, “Christianity manifests itself in all its essence as a revelation of personality and freedom.” There is no doubt that Christianity has enriched world civilization with a new idea of ​​man as unique and unique phenomenon, according to which a person is not known only through his nature, but by virtue of the freedom and reason given to him from above, he is able to master and dispose of it. One of the prominent representatives of Orthodox theology of the 20th century, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, notes that, in comparison with the ancient worldview, this was a cardinal change, therefore “the idea of ​​personality was, apparently, the greatest contribution of Christianity to philosophy.” Here you can refer to the authority of our remarkable specialist in the field of ancient Greek philosophy A.F. Losev, who said that ancient philosophy, even at the heights of its speculation, does not come to the idea of ​​personality: “There is no personality, no eyes, no spiritual individuality. There is something here, not someone, an individualized It, and not a living person with his own name.”

The very meaning of the term “personality” and its meaning were gradually revealed in the history of Orthodox theology. On this long and difficult path of formation of the doctrine of man as an individual, a rather interesting interaction of theological and philosophical thought took place. It should be said that, despite the serious preparation of the terminological apparatus for the coming personalistic revolution in the field of anthropology, which was done by the Orthodox Greek fathers in Byzantium, interest in this topic first arose quite late, and, moreover, in a philosophical environment. Only in the 19th and early 20th centuries did studies of the phenomenon of human personality appear among philosophers, the most significant of which were the works of our domestic thinkers. According to O. Clément, it is to the representatives of Russian religious thought that “the honor of beginning to reveal the theme of personality in terms of human existence belongs.” Among such philosophers we can mention the names of N.A. Berdyaeva, B.P. Vysheslavtseva, V.I. Nesmelov and L.P. Karsavina.

This situation can be explained by the purely practical attitude of the holy fathers to issues of theology, because for them the main thing was not the theoretical and abstract philosophical understanding of doctrinal truths, but their application to the matter of personal salvation or deification of a Christian. It is in this context that the words of our Orthodox theologian V.N. should be perceived. Lossky, who wrote that he “did not encounter in patristic theology what could be called a developed doctrine of human personality, while the doctrine of the Persons or Hypostases of the Divine is presented extremely clearly.”

Also, in turn, it should be noted that although philosophy was the first to turn to the topic of human personality, it failed to achieve any significant progress in this matter. According to V.P. Leg, in the 20th century, in the philosophical schools of existentialism and personalism, and then in psychology, sociology and even political science, a whole wave of works on the study of personality appeared, but secular thought could not advance beyond the idea of ​​personality as individuality and the totality of its manifestations. “The psychological concept of personality ultimately reduces personality to individuality and its manifestations... does not show the reason for changes in the depths of the human personality and, thus, requires addition in the form of a metaphysical, actually philosophical approach.” Philosophy, in its search for an answer to the question of human essence, suffers from one-sidedness in its definitions, which does not contribute to the comprehension of the depth and mystery of personality. European philosophical personalism could not find suitable terms in the philosophical lexicon to describe this mystery and created only a new term “self”. This is explained by the fact that “the mystery of the human personality is inexpressible in words; rational knowledge can only relate to the individual,” notes the aforementioned modern explorer.

According to the famous Greek theologian Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), despite the attempts of modern humanism to isolate the idea of ​​personality from theology, this is not justified historically and existentially. “Personality, both as a concept and as a living reality, is in its pure form a product of patristic thought. Outside of it, the true meaning of personality can neither be grasped nor substantiated.”

What are the main ideas about personality in Orthodox theology and what are the stages in the development of this teaching? As most researchers of this issue note, the formation of the concept of personality took place in the light of understanding the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the Church. For Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) it is obvious that the solution to the problem of personality within the framework of ancient ontology could not have happened. The ontological monism of Greek philosophy did not leave room for God to go beyond the framework of ontological unity with creation. God is “connected to the world by a relationship of ontological necessity,” in such a world there is no place for the manifestation of freedom, everything is predetermined by the impersonal, eternally existing nature and the need to maintain universal cosmic harmony and unity. In this view, man is only a part of nature, which is hidden under a mask (Greek. prosopon= face) external, characteristic features of each.

Only the comprehension of the Biblical Revelation with its teaching about the creation of the world in time from nothing “ex nihilo”, i.e. the removal of the ontological basis of the existence of the world beyond its limits and its elevation to the Personal and Absolutely free God laid the foundations of a new ontology, within the framework of which the formation of the concept of personality became possible.

The further formation of the Orthodox doctrine of personality occurs in the light of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity with the help of Trinitarian terminology, namely the terms ousia ( ousia) and hypostasis ( hypostasis). It should be said that the term “hypostasis” was first used in relation to God by Origen. However, even during the period of the First Ecumenical Council there was no clear distinction between the terms with which Orthodox theologians tried to express the truth of the Biblical Revelation about the Holy Trinity. A decisive contribution to the establishment of new terminology, thanks to which it became possible to accurately present the Christian dogma about God, One in Nature, but Trinity in His Persons, was made by the Cappadocian Fathers: Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. It is generally accepted that the Great Cappadocians identified the concept of “hypostasis” with the “first essence” (individual and specific being), and ousia with the “second essence” (general and abstract being) in Aristotle.

According to H. Yannaras, in doing so, these holy fathers made a radical turn in the history of philosophical thought, initiating the identification of hypostasis and personality: “For the Cappadocian Fathers, personality is the hypostasis of being.” For the first time, the term “hypostasis” becomes synonymous with “Person” by St. Gregory of Nyssa; a person or hypostasis is defined by him as “a confluence of properties of each being, its unique attribute.”

Another important conclusion from the theology of the Cappadocians for the Orthodox teaching on personality was the understanding of the Divine Hypostases not as parts of a “common whole,” i.e. essence, but as a “private” being that contains and reveals the entire Divine Nature. Saint Gregory the Theologian in his 39th Word states: “Divinity ( those. Divine nature) is One in three, and one is the Three in Whom is the Divinity, or, more precisely, which are the Divine.” Thus, the object of knowledge and communication between a person and God is not a faceless essence, but a Hypostasis, “God is revealed as a “who,” and not a “what.”

The final identification of the terms “hypostasis” and “person” occurred during the period of Christological disputes, as Archpriest G. Florovsky writes about. Mention should be made of the names of Saint Eulogius of Alexandria (†607) and Theodore the Presbyter of Raifa (first quarter of the 6th century), in whose works the term “hypostasis” was further clarified, on the basis of which it became possible to assert that hypostasis is not reducible not only to its own nature (ousia), but also to one’s own distinctive features existence - idioms ( idiomata) . The correctness of this understanding of the term “hypostasis” was later confirmed by iconoclastic disputes. The Monk Theodore the Studite (†826), on the basis of this understanding of the hypostasis, argued convincingly to the iconoclasts that the combination of human nature and the hypostatic idioms of man does not lead in Christ to the recognition of a separate human hypostasis of Jesus. It is also important to note that this holy father partly traces what could be called a kind of philosophy of name. The Monk Theodore says that the name “Jesus” is the proper name of the God-man, thanks to which He differs from all other people, and as the Son He differs from the Father and the Holy Spirit within the Holy Trinity.

From all this follows a very important conclusion for Orthodox personalism that “it is not nature that determines the personality, but, on the contrary, the personality determines its nature, or essence.” Moreover, theological thought in the East believed that it is the hypostasis, and not the private nature, that possesses the reality of individual existence; St. Maximus the Confessor (†662). Impersonal being, which does not belong to anyone, does not exist for anyone, cannot really exist, especially since it is unworthy of God. Personality is the fulcrum through which nature can manifest itself.

Based on the idea of ​​“neopatristic synthesis” proposed by Rev. G. Florovsky, within the framework of which a creative reading of the patristic tradition is assumed, taking into account modern philosophical experience, modern Orthodox theologians have formulated the main characteristics of personal existence.

According to their ideas, personality is, first of all, “irreducible to nature.” Personal existence presupposes such an important and essential characteristic as freedom. According to Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), the ontological “beginning” of Divine existence is connected with His personal freedom, moreover, freedom in the absolute sense. Such absolute freedom is seen in the principle of “monarchy” or the unity of command of the Father in the Holy Trinity, about which the Great Cappadocians wrote: “Where there is one beginning, there the concept of loneliness is not violated.” God the Father, by His Hypostasis, and not essence, absolutely freely asserts His existence and sovereignty, overcoming the ontological necessity, according to which nature alone ( essence) must always correspond to one hypostasis. He manifests His free will to be and independence even from His nature in that which is out of love, i.e. freely, in eternity, gives birth to the Son and brings forth the Holy Spirit. That is why God as a Person, as a Hypostasis of the Father, makes the divine essence what it is - the one God. Divine existence and its properties are determined not by the characteristics of the divine nature, but by the Personality, i.e. absolutely free.

With this approach, it is possible to determine other important characteristics of personal existence, such as uniqueness and at the same time unity, which is manifested in the uniqueness of each Person, cognizable and distinguishable only through personal, hypostatic relationships, which are unthinkable without unity with other Hypostases, openness towards the Other , communication, without which it is impossible to imagine personal existence, because communication is possible only between individuals, not natures. “The existence of God can only be known through personal relationships and love for a specific person, i.e. being means life, and life means communication,” writes Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).

Obviously, the pinnacle of such communication for an individual is love. This is exactly what we see in the being of the Most Holy Trinity: “The communion of the Persons of the Trinity is identical with the Divine being itself. The expression of the Evangelist John “God is love” (1 John 4:16) means exactly this. The absoluteness of love between the three Persons can be described by the Greek term perichoresis, denoting the deepest interpenetrating intimacy." Thus, personal existence is not only uniqueness and originality, but also unity, which does not imply isolation and division into plurality.

Thus, in Orthodox theology it was formed that our Russian philosopher S.S. Khoruzhy calls it a “theological (Trinitarian) personalistic paradigm.” However, "besides the concept of the Divine Person, she ( those. this paradigm) includes another necessary part: provisions on the “human personality,” or more precisely, on the connection between the empirical (created fallen) man and the Divine Personality.”

To do this, we should turn to biblical anthropology. For understanding the Orthodox teaching about personality, the Biblical Revelation about the creation of man in the “image of God” (Gen. 1:27) and the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the need for believers to put on the “image of heavenly” man (1 Cor. 15:49) are of great importance. new Adam, i.e. Lord Jesus Christ. For “the first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47; cf. Eph. 4:24, etc.). At the same time, according to the word of the New Testament Revelation, this putting on Christ renews in us the very image of God, darkened by sin (see: Col. 3, 9-10). Christ himself “is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15); moreover, in relation to Jesus Christ, the phrase “image of the hypostasis” of God is used, which is quite important for the entire teaching about the personality of man (Heb. 1:3).

As the Greek patrolologist Panagiotis Nellas writes, on the basis of such evidence from Scripture, “already in Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, it is clearly seen that Christ represents the image of God, and man is the image of Christ; in other words, that man is the image of the Image." Thus, in Orthodox theology, already in a fairly early period, a connection can be traced between the teaching about man and the teaching about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. Anthropology, Christology and, accordingly, triadology are closely related to each other.

If we turn to the patristic works, then in general the holy fathers have agreement in understanding the image of God in man, which they understood as “man’s ability to reflect Divine perfections.” Church writers saw features of the image of God in rationality, spirituality, freedom, verbal order, power over other living beings, etc. However, already in ancient times there was an awareness that an unambiguous definition of the image of God in man is impossible. The reason for this situation is explained by St. Gregory of Nyssa: human nature is hidden from comprehension, because God Himself is incomprehensible, therefore His image in man also cannot be rationally formalized. In modern Orthodox theology, this approach to the problem of man is called the open anthropological model.

However, modern theologians talk about the possibility of interpreting the image of God not as individual traits or parts of our nature, but as an integral way of human existence, which lies in his ability to be a person. According to our fellow countryman, a graduate of the Saratov Seminary in 1883, Professor Viktor Ivanovich Nesmelov, the human personality is “the real image of God.”

However, in addition to the concept of the image of God in relation to man, the text of God’s Revelation also tells us about his “likeness”: “And God said: Let us make man in our image [and] according to our likeness... And God created man in his own image...” (Gen. 1, 26-27). Most of the ancient fathers and modern Orthodox theologians distinguish between the concepts of the image and likeness of God in man, but these concepts are closely related to each other and cannot be considered in isolation from each other. It is generally accepted that the image of God is a certain given to man, which is understood as the ability for personal existence, and the likeness of God is a certain given - this is what a person should strive for, namely, the realization of his life as an individual. Thus, a person can realize his life “as love and freedom from natural necessity - and in this follow the Divine Persons of the Trinity,” which is an important sign of personal existence.

In addition, as we have established, personal existence presupposes uniqueness, communication and openness, which can also be attributed to a person’s personality. The human hypostasis is based not on the psychosomatic properties of our nature, but on the relationship of man with the Personal God. These relationships are based on communication, standing before the Face of God, on a person’s ability to respond to the unique and unique call of Divine Love addressed to each of us, which sets us apart from the crowd precisely as an individual. A person who opens himself to such communication, capable of agreeing to this call of God, hypostasizes his being, his otherness. He can become a unique and unrepeatable personality, manifest in himself the likeness of God to the extent that he accepts such a call from God, calling him to communication and love.

A person’s communication with God presupposes communion with Him, i.e. deification ( theosis). In deification, the utmost openness of the human personality to another being is already achieved - incorruptible and eternal. According to Rev. G. Florovsky, in deification “there is a secret of personal communication. Theosis means personal meeting. This is that deep communication of a person with God, in which the entire human being is, as it were, imbued with the Divine Presence.” Through communion with what is existentially higher human life- to Divine existence (see: 2 Pet. 1, 4), man himself is transformed and as a person is able not to remain a prisoner of his own nature, i.e. capable of creatively surpassing and transforming it. In this context, we can talk about such a personality trait or attribute as creativity.

Through communication with God, a person is introduced into that existential reality that rises above the atomic fragmentation of individualistic, self-enclosed existence. Through communication and unity with God, a person can realize such a quality of personal existence as unity. According to H. Yannaras, such unity is achieved in the Sacrament of the Church - the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in the unity of the created with the uncreated, when through unity with God a person is introduced into a new reality in which the transcendence of death is overcome. Through life in the Eucharist, which “is love,” the person realizes his unity with God and with other persons in the manner of the Trinity. “Human beings created in the image of the Trinity,” writes Bishop Callistus (Ware), “can realize the divine likeness only when they live a common life, as the Most Holy Trinity lives: just as the three Persons of the Trinity “abide” one in the other, so we We must “abide” in our brothers, living not for ourselves, but in others and for others.” Thus, we can talk about the opportunity for a person to reveal in his life such higher characteristics of personal existence as love and unity.

Thus, both in the teaching about the Divine Hypostases of God, one in His nature, and in relation to man, who was created as the image of God, we see an obvious correlation and similarity in the manifestations of what can be called personal existence. It is obvious that in relation to the Divine Hypostases this being manifests itself in a perfect and absolute manner, but in relation to man only as a certain image and the possibility of likening.

At the same time, trying to reveal the rather complex concept of personality in modern theology, it is necessary not to forget that Orthodox personalism distinguishes what we define as personal being from what is not such, namely individual being. Individuality is opposed to personality; individuality is an attempt to assert human uniqueness through nature. This is the opposite path to personal existence. Orthodox personalism, without rejecting the significance of human nature in the structure of personal existence, says that in the case of individuality, the vector of direction of a person’s efforts changes. Instead of the other, instead of openness and dedication in love, a person tries to assert himself at the expense of his “ego”, by breaking with others in the name of providing the most comfortable conditions for his biological existence. “The body, born as a biological hypostasis, turns out to be a fortress for the human “ego”, a new mask that prevents the hypostasis from becoming a person, i.e. establish your existence on love and freedom." This path leads to death, because... only the personality (and not the body) is truly immortal.

True personal existence is possible for a person only through communication with God. “A personality that is isolated, withdrawn into itself, often loses itself,” writes Archpriest. G. Florovsky. In such a state, something impersonal, instincts or passions, manifests itself in a person’s life. Passions are always impersonal, they deprive a person of freedom, turn him into his slave, as a result of which “he loses his personality, personal identity.”

Thus, the very understanding of salvation in Orthodox personalism is identified with the elevation of the “image of God” or the personal principle in man into the likeness of God, i.e. the manifestation in human life of the qualities of personal existence: “salvation coincides with the fulfillment of personality in man,” says Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).

The concept of personality is multifaceted; its concept can be presented as a set of those properties or characteristics of personal existence that were discussed here: irreducibility to nature, freedom, uniqueness, communication, openness, creativity, unity, love, but which do not completely exhaust its definition. According to H. Yannaras, “the “originality” of a person (its otherness) cannot be defined, but can only be experienced as event, i.e. as the only one, unique and inimitable attitude". As an example, one can cite one of the modern theological definitions of personality: “Personality is irreducible to nature, free, open, creative, unique, holistic in the sense of both indivisibility and indestructible identity, unknowable by analytical objectifying methods, the ontological basis of man, which determines the way of being of his individualized personality.” nature."

Despite the fact that the theological understanding of personality itself is sometimes replete with a wide variety of shades among different authors, it is one of the most important Orthodox theological terms. Such a personalistic understanding of personality, as one of our domestic authors writes, “works” in Orthodox theology, i.e. “helps to express the most important divinely revealed Orthodox intuitions in a language understandable to modern people”

When the concept of “personality” became firmly established in cultural and social life, Russian theology tried to build some bridges to this concept, rethink it theologically and put it in its service. What is personality in the understanding of Orthodox theology? It is a self-aware self, endowed with reason, free will, and a sense of morality.

– A person is capable of acting not for a reason, but in accordance with a chosen goal, that is, he is free.

– It does not contain material nature, it is immaterial and indivisible.

“She is above material nature and controls nature.

All people (like all spirits) are considered free and unique individuals created in the image and likeness of God. Each person, according to the teachings of the Church, is a full-fledged person immediately at the moment of his conception. However, having appeared by the will of God, a person’s personality is eternally revealed, developed, enriched, improved (or, on the contrary, it can degrade and self-destruct).

The concept of “personality,” which is intuitively clear to all of us, corresponds in the writings of the Fathers to the concept of “spirit.”

In the catechism of Met. Philaret, when presenting the dogma of the Trinity, the word Personality (Person) is used as synonym for hypostasis. God is one in essence and threefold in Persons, or Hypostases.

In parallel with the Christian understanding of personality, a different understanding of personality is widespread in society, based on the views of materialistic sciences - sociology, psychology. Let's get to know them too for comparison.

Individual(from Latin - indivisible) - a synonym for the Greek word atom. This is a single representative of human society. Usually used to mean “a specific person.”

Individuality expresses characteristics of an individual that are hereditary or random in nature.

Personality(according to psychology) is the result of the process of education and self-education. “One is not born a person, but one becomes one.” “We come into this world as individuals, create our own character and become individuals,” writes the famous American sociologist. In a simplified version, the personality structure (again, according to psychology) is represented as: temperament + character + social attitudes. A person has the ability to consciously manage his own behavior. This leadership is carried out on the basis of conscious goals and principles.

In sociology, a person’s personality is viewed as his relationships with other people, therefore most important characteristic personality in sociology – its social role.

Despite the significant successes of the materialistic sciences in the study of man, they all stubbornly refuse to notice the metaphysical component in the human personality - the image of God.

Appendix to topic 10