The relationship of Christianity to other religions. Why Orthodoxy is the only right choice, who will be saved besides the Orthodox
Without understanding everything that happens in the Church, without basic knowledge about Orthodoxy, a truly Christian life is impossible. The “Orthodox Life” portal looked into what questions and erroneous judgments newcomers have about the Orthodox faith.
The myths are dispelled by the teacher of the Kyiv Theological Academy Andrei Muzolf, reminding: those who do not learn anything risk remaining a beginner forever.
– What are the arguments in favor of the fact that the only right choice on his spiritual path should a person do in favor of Orthodoxy?
– According to Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, a person will never be able to perceive Orthodoxy as a personal faith if he does not see the light of Eternity in the eyes of another Orthodox. One modern Orthodox theologian once said that the only important argument in favor of the truth of Orthodoxy is holiness. Only in Orthodoxy do we find the holiness to which the human soul strives - “Christian” by nature, as the church apologist of the early 3rd century Tertullian says about it. And this holiness is incomparable with ideas about the holiness of other religions or denominations. “Tell me who your saint is, and I will tell you who you are and what your church is,” - this is how a well-known saying can be paraphrased.
It is by the saints of a particular church that one can determine its spiritual essence, its core, because the ideal of a church is its saint. Based on the qualities the saint possessed, one can conclude what the church itself calls for, because the saint is an example to be followed by all believers.
–How to treat saints and shrines of other religions?
– The holiness of Orthodoxy is the holiness of life in God, the holiness of humility and love. It is radically different from the holiness that we see in other Christian and non-Christian faiths. For the Orthodox saint, the goal of life was, first of all, the struggle with one’s own sin, the desire for union with Christ, and deification. Holiness in Orthodoxy is not a goal, it is a consequence, the result of a righteous life, the fruit of unity with God.
The saints of the Orthodox Church considered themselves the most sinful people in the world and unworthy even to call themselves Christians, while in some other confessions holiness was an end in itself and for this reason, willingly or unwillingly, gave birth in the heart of such an “ascetic” only to pride and ambition. An example of this is the lives of such “saints” as Blessed Angela, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Catherine of Siena and others who were canonized Roman Catholic Church, and some of them are even canonized as Teachers of the Universal Church.
The canonization of such saints is the glorification of human vices and passions. The real Church cannot do this. What should be the attitude of Orthodox Christians towards such “saints”? The answer, I think, is obvious.
–Why is the Orthodox Church so intolerant of other religions?
– The Orthodox Church has never called its followers to any intolerance, especially religious, because any intolerance can sooner or later develop into malice and anger. In the case of religious intolerance, hostility can easily be redirected from the religious teaching itself to its representatives and supporters. According to Patriarch Anastasius of Albania, “the Orthodox position can only be critical in relation to other religions as systems; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always an attitude of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be a bearer of the image of God.” St. Augustine warns: “We must hate sin, but not the sinner,” and therefore if our intolerance leads to anger at this or that person, then we are on the road leading not to Christ, but from Him.
God acts in all creation, and therefore even in other religions there are, albeit weak, but still reflections of that Truth, which is fully expressed only in Christianity. In the Gospel we see how the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly praised the faith of those whom the Jews considered pagans: the faith of a Canaanite woman, a Samaritan woman, a Roman centurion. In addition, we can recall an episode from the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, when the Apostle Paul arrived in Athens - a city like no other, replete with all possible religious cults and creeds. But at the same time, the holy Apostle Paul did not immediately reproach the Athenians for polytheism, but tried, through their polytheistic inclinations, to lead them to the knowledge of the One True God. In the same way, we should show not intolerance, but love towards representatives of other faiths, because only by example of our own love can we show others how superior Christianity is to all other faiths. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).
–Why does God allow evil to happen?
– The Holy Scripture says: “God did not create death and does not rejoice in the destruction of the living, for He created everything for existence” (Wis. 1:13). The reason for the appearance of evil in this world is the devil, the highest fallen angel, and his envy. The Wise One says so: “God created man for incorruptibility and made him the image of His eternal existence; but through the envy of the devil death entered the world, and those who belong to his inheritance experience it” (Wis. 2:23-24).
In the world created by God there is no such “part” that in itself would be evil. Everything created by God is good in itself, because even demons are angels who, unfortunately, did not retain their dignity and did not persist in goodness, but who were nevertheless initially, by nature, created good.
The answer to the question of what evil is was well expressed by the holy fathers of the Church. Evil is not nature, not essence. Evil is a certain action and state of the one who produces evil. Blessed Diadochos of Photikis, an ascetic of the 5th century, wrote: “Evil is not; or rather, it exists only at the moment when it is committed.”
Thus, we see that the source of evil lies not in the structure of this world, but in the free will of creatures created by God. Evil exists in the world, but not in the same way as everything that has its own special “essence” exists in it. Evil is a deviation from good, and it does not exist at the level of substance, but only to the extent that free beings created by God deviate from good.
Based on this, we can claim that evil is unreal, evil is non-existence, it does not exist. According to St. Augustine, evil is a lack or, rather, a corruption of good. Good, as we know, can increase or decrease, and the decrease in good is evil. The most vivid and meaningful definition of what evil is, in my opinion, is given by the famous religious philosopher N.A. Berdyaev: “Evil is a falling away from absolute existence, accomplished by an act of freedom... Evil is a creation that has deified itself.”
But in this case, the question arises: why did God not create the universe from the very beginning without the possibility of evil arising in it? The answer is: God allows evil only as a certain inevitable state of our still imperfect universe.
For the transformation of this world, it was necessary to transform the person himself, his deification, and for this, the person had to initially establish himself in goodness, show and prove that he is worthy of those gifts that were placed in his soul by the Creator. Man had to reveal the image and likeness of God within himself, and he could only do this freely. According to the English writer K.S. Lewis, God did not want to create a world of obedient robots: He wants only sons who will turn to Him only out of love.
The best explanation of the reason for the existence of evil in this world and how God Himself can tolerate its existence, it seems to me, are the words of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: “God takes full responsibility for the creation of the world, man, for the freedom that He gives, and for all the consequences to which this freedom leads: suffering, death, horror. And God’s justification is that He Himself becomes a man. In the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, God enters the world, clothed in flesh, united with us by all human destiny and bearing on Himself all the consequences of the freedom bestowed by Himself.”
–If a person was born in a non-Orthodox country, did not receive an Orthodox upbringing and died unbaptized–is there no salvation for him?
– In his letter to the Romans, the holy Apostle Paul writes: “When the pagans, who do not have the law, do by nature what is lawful, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves: they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience testifies them and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another” (Rom. 2:14-15). Having expressed a similar thought, the Apostle asks the question: “If the uncircumcised keeps the statutes of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision to him?” (Rom. 2:26). Thus, the apostle Paul suggests that some non-Christians, by virtue of their virtuous lives and the fulfillment of the Law of God written in their hearts, may still be honored by God and, as a result, be saved.
About those people who, unfortunately, could not or will not be able to accept the Sacrament of Baptism, St. Gregory the Theologian wrote very clearly: “Others do not even have the opportunity to accept the gift [of Baptism], either, perhaps, due to their infancy, or because some coincidence of circumstances completely beyond their control, due to which they are not worthy to receive grace... the latter, who have not accepted Baptism, will not be glorified or punished by the righteous Judge, because although they are not sealed, they are not bad either... For they are not everyone... unworthy of honor is already worthy of punishment.”
Saint Nicholas Kavasila, a famous Orthodox theologian of the 14th century, says something even more interesting about the possibility of saving unbaptized people: “Many, when they had not yet been baptized with water, were baptized by the Bridegroom of the Church Himself. To many he sent a cloud from heaven and water from the earth beyond expectation and thus baptized them, and recreated most of them in secret.” The quoted words of the famous theologian of the 14th century secretly indicate that some people, finding themselves in another world, will become partakers of the life of Christ, His Divine Eternity, since it turns out that their communion with God was accomplished in a special mysterious way.
Therefore, we simply do not have the right to talk about who can be saved and who cannot, because by committing such gossip, we assume the functions of Judge of human souls, which belong only to God.
Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova
Attention! The answer, based on religious studies beliefs, describes occult practices that are frowned upon in most mainstream religions.
Mystic(Greek mageia - sorcery, sorcery, miracle) - a set of ideas, rituals and actions associated with the belief in the ability to influence the surrounding reality (people, animals, objects and phenomena of the impartial world) using special methods that are good from daily practical activity.
Mysticism is one of the foundations of archaic civilization. The origins of this form of religious belief were described by the English ethnographer B. Malinovsky (1884-1942) in his work “Magic, Science and Religion.”
A person turns to magic when he is not confident in his own abilities, when chance and uncertainty rule over him. This forces him to rely on the help of superhuman powers and perform magical acts. In ancient times, magical performances and rituals had a common (undifferentiated) character, but in the future they became differentiated.
Modern ethnographers and religious scholars systematize magic according to the methods and purposes of influence.
By means of influence mysticism is divided into:
By impact goals mysticism is divided into:
Usually, magical techniques were performed by specially trained people - sorcerers, sorcerers and shamans, who enjoyed special honor and respect among primitive people. At later stages of historical development they were pushed into the background by priests and clergy. With the advent of developed religions, their profession was demonized and they themselves were persecuted. But during certain periods of public development, there is an increased enthusiasm for magic and the activities of warlocks, sorcerers and shamans.
Modern science refutes the existence of magical phenomena as an impartial reality, attributing them to manifestations of suggestion and self-hypnosis.
Christian perspective on magic
From a Christian point of view, mysticism is a set of methods of communication and interaction with the infernal (lower, demonic) spheres spiritual world. The methods of magic contain, among other things, religious worship and service (through prayer and sacrifice) to demons. All these actions (the introduction of special symbols, prayers, spells, sacrifices) provide an opportunity for demons to make “contact”, i.e. to direct contact with a person. And man has the opportunity to solve current difficulties with the help of angels (demons) who have fallen away from God. For Christianity, there is no division of magic into “black” and “white” - all sorcerers and sorcerers draw power from one source.
Attitude to magic in Islam
The Koran and Sunnah determine the negative attitude of Islam towards the practice of magic and witchcraft, therefore they are strictly prohibited for Muslims. Anyone who practices mysticism falls into kufr (unbelief). It is believed that a Muslim’s appeal for advice to a sorcerer, fortuneteller or sorcerer leads to the fact that his prayer is not accepted by the Almighty for 40 days.
According to the Sunnah, the Prophet Muhammad said: “He who blows on knots practices magic, and he who practices magic is a mushrik (pagan)” (at-Tabarani). In addition, Abdullah ibn Masud reported that “anyone who goes to a fortuneteller, sorcerer or soothsayer, asking something and believing what is said, then he refutes what was revealed to Muhammad” (al-Bazzar, Abu Ya'ala).
Primary sources:
Additionally on the site:
V. Legoyda: Today we are visiting Alexey Ilyich Osipov, professor at the Moscow Theological Seminary and Academy, doctor of theology, a man who trained more than one generation of clergy.
Alexey Ilyich, in one of your articles you call Christianity an “anti-religious religion.” What is the reason for this, in my opinion, very unexpected definition?
A. Osipov: The answers quite often start with something unusual. And I, perhaps, will also use this technique. It seems that Orthodoxy and Marxism are difficult things to combine. But Friedrich Engels, one of the geniuses of Marxism, carefully studied Christian history - and concluded that Christianity, having emerged on the world stage, came into sharp conflict with all the religions around it. And Karl Marx in his works sometimes directly calls Christianity a religion revolutionary.
What is it about? It turns out that we are talking about very, very serious things. The fact is that Engels’ conclusion really fully corresponds to the essence of Christian teaching - both the doctrine and the understanding of spiritual life itself, and Christian morality. True: Christianity has come into sharp conflict with other religions. What is this contradiction? This is too big a question to answer fully here. But there are some things you can pay attention to.
If we now had representatives of almost all religions sitting before us and we could turn to them and ask the question: “Who will achieve the goal of their life or salvation, from the point of view of your religious teaching?” - then, I think, the answer would be completely clear everywhere. Including from Orthodoxy.
V. Legoyda:And who? Holy man?
A. Osipov: Certainly! One who carefully fulfills all the commandments, all the commands of the Prophet, etc.
V. Legoyda:Isn’t that so, Alexey Ilyich?
A. Osipov: Here is a paradox! If we turn to the history of Christianity, to its very initial stage, we will be faced with an absolutely amazing fact. The first to enter heaven is... well, how can I say... We have somehow become accustomed to the word “robber”... You can say it stronger: scoundrel, murderer! I don’t know what he did that, according to the completely fair standards of both Roman and Jewish legislation, he was sentenced to the most terrible execution. He himself admitted this: “And we are condemned justly, because we received what was worthy of our deeds”...
V. Legoyda:It's about about the thief who was crucified on the right side of Christ?
A. Osipov: Yes. This robber confessed his guilt and realized that he was truly deservedly sentenced to this execution. And what does he hear from the very founder of Christianity, from the One who for Christians is God, Savior, and Ideal? “Today you will be with Me in Paradise”! Who will be in heaven, I ask again? Robber. This is an amazing thing!
V. Legoyda:What does this have to do with? Why is that?
A. Osipov: Good question. But I now draw your attention to the fact that by this fact Christianity has overthrown all the usual, natural norms for a representative of every religion: the saint is saved. Here the scoundrel is the first to enter heaven!
And two or three more points. We see almost the same thing when Christ walks among the noise and crowd and meets Zacchaeus, the tax collector. Who are publicans? These are real scammers who took taxes from people two or three times, I don’t even know how many times more. Deceivers! Zacchaeus wanted to see Christ. And he was short, and he had to climb a tree to see what Christ was like. And here we meet again amazing fact. Christ could see the soul of man. He saw why Zacchaeus climbed that fig tree. Apparently, it was not just out of curiosity, there was something else.
What - it was soon revealed. He says: “Zacchaeus, come down! I will need to be with you today.” Zacchaeus organizes a reception where everyone is present - tax collectors, sinners, etc. And what happens to Zacchaeus? He says: “I will repay everyone whom I have offended fourfold.” Christ answers him: “Salvation has come to this house.” Rescue again - for whom? What good has he done in his life? Nothing!
V. Legoyda:It turns out that Christianity saves scoundrels, or what?
A. Osipov: That's it, that's exactly what I'm talking about. A completely anti-religious religion! Offers terrible things!
V. Legoyda:But these people weren’t saved because they were scoundrels?
A. Osipov: Well, let’s figure it out together, otherwise I probably won’t be able to do it alone! (laughs)
Why did the thief and the tax collector receive such a promise? Why is the woman who was taken the same? They brought her to stone her and asked Christ: “What do you say?” And Christ said: “And I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.” There is a clue in these words. She continued to live, but the robber had nothing left...
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, let’s remind our TV viewers that we are talking about a gospel episode when a woman caught in adultery is brought to Christ. According to Jewish law at the time, she was to be stoned to death. The Pharisees deliberately bring this woman to Christ, setting Him another trap. If He says that she needs to be forgiven, then He is against the law of Moses. And if He says that she should be stoned, then He is in favor of murder. The situation is almost hopeless. And Christ acts in a way completely unexpected for them.
A. Osipov: Yes Yes. So what exactly is Christianity claiming when it offers such strange things? It, unlike other religions that existed before Christ, including the Jewish, Old Testament, revealed religion, draws attention to the very core of the human soul, the human personality and talks about what salvation is.
Salvation is not a debt that God gives to a person who fulfills His commands. Not at all! Salvation is nothing more than a state of soul similar to the properties of God.
What was the idea of God in the pre-Christian era and what idea does Christianity give? Throughout pre-Christian history - in paganism, in Old Testament religion - the deity was an omnipotent being, creator, judge. In some cases, perhaps more merciful, in others – unmerciful, even vindictive. Open the Bible and see: God takes revenge, punishes, etc.
V. Legoyda:Is this in the Old Testament, in the pre-Christian era?
A. Osipov: Yes, in the Old Testament. And in pagan religions they even made human sacrifices - they threw children into the mouth of the red-hot statue of Moloch in order to appease the deity. Only in this way was it possible to receive something from above.
Christianity affirms completely paradoxical and unprecedented things. God needs absolutely nothing: none of our gifts and none of our deeds. God is Love and only Love. God has no vengeance towards man. And it turns out that salvation does not lie in the fact that God gives something to a person for his deeds. And salvation is nothing more than the union of the core of a human being, in which his soul, personality, his “I”, will, heart, mind, - those. the human spirit - with the Spirit of God.
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, if you allow me, I will interrupt you. It seems to me that you have highlighted the two most important differences between Christianity and other religions. First of all, it is the attitude towards people. Christianity is addressed not only to the successful and not to those who rigidly and blindly fulfill the law, even if given from above. It addresses, among other things, those who are having a hard time and who, for one reason or another, are now unable - and he himself understands this - to fulfill this law. And the second, which actually follows from the first, is the idea of God Himself. God appears not only as a judge and creator, but as all-encompassing Love and seeks to extend this love to all people. Are there any other significant differences, from your point of view, between Christianity and other religions?
A. Osipov: I just didn’t finish talking about one very important difference. In all other religions, God is seen as the giver of benefits, and perhaps punishments, depending on human behavior. The attitude towards Him is something like this: I pleased someone significant and rich, I don’t need him myself, I need his gifts, his wallet, not him. It is not God that is needed, but His Kingdom, a little corner of paradise.
Small illustration. At one of the assemblies of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, each plenary session was preceded by small, five-minute films. And one of them is etched in my memory. They showed the entire history of mankind in five minutes, and people were depicted as ants. They started with the Stone Age, then showed bows, arrows, swords, cars. Finally - planes, buildings: Manhattan in New York, skyscrapers... And then suddenly - a nuclear explosion, a mushroom rises into the air! Terrible destruction, a pile of stones, everything was destroyed. And from the sky - a huge Divine finger, indicating: this is what you have done to yourself!
And suddenly an ant jumps out of some crack and moves its antennae. Then he sees this finger and starts running around it. Nothing: the finger doesn’t touch him. The ant rises to its feet, touches it, jumps away - no big deal. Finally, having grown bolder, he digs his proboscis into the finger of God and begins to suck blood from there!
This is approximately the attitude towards God in all pre-Christian and, I can say, post-Christian religions. They need God as a source of goods, and not in Himself.
Christianity has decisively rejected this. Those who do not need God, but need His gifts, are precisely the crucifiers of Christ, who, it would seem, did everything to receive a reward - and turned out to be traitors to the Truth. In Christianity, the goal is God Himself, not His gifts. Union with God turns out to be the greatest good, for God, by definition, is Love, but tell me, what could be higher for a person? Nothing.
This is the fundamental and most important difference between Christianity, difference number one: the understanding of God and man’s attitude towards God are completely different.
V. Legoyda:Alexey Ilyich, does this mean that, by fundamentally rejecting the relationship between man and God in other religions, coming with a new understanding of this, Christianity thereby rejects other religions? How, then, should a Christian relate to other religions, understanding that their ideas about God are completely different?
A. Osipov: Ideas about God are one thing. Every idea of God stems from the inner, intuitive feeling and quest of a person, his attempt to understand the meaning of his life, the world and all existence as a whole. This is the so-called “natural religion”, a sincere desire to understand such things. Since each person can comprehend this intuition and his sense of God in his own way, and different options arose religious ideas. But they had this positive impulse, a positive vector of search. It is not without reason that many early Christian apologists of the first centuries called, for example, Greek philosophy “nurser,” “schoolmaster to Christ.” Moreover, they even called the Greek philosophers “Christians before Christ”!
V. Legoyda: Alexey Ilyich, I would like to introduce you and our TV viewers to the regular participants of our program - these are students of MGIMO University and the editorial staff of the Foma magazine. I'm sure the guys have questions. If I may, I would like them to ask them to you, taking this opportunity.
Ilya, student:It turns out that in order to unite with the Spirit of God, you do not have to be righteous. Then the question is: why keep the commandments of Christ, why pray, if you can lead a sinful life, and then simply repent at the end? Why do we need traditions, customs, Sacraments?
A. Osipov: A person can do evil not because he desires evil, but for reasons of a completely different order. Sometimes he can't control himself. How many times have I told myself: “Starting tomorrow, I won’t judge anyone anymore!” In the morning I get a call, I jump up: “Oh, he’s so-and-so, ungreased!” Although I know that you can’t judge anyone. I know that you shouldn’t envy anyone, but suddenly my best friend was awarded, but I wasn’t. But I know that I am better! And I turned all green.
It’s one thing when a person would still like to be better, but, unfortunately, it just doesn’t work out. For example, from childhood he found himself in a gang of robbers or in an environment that quite clearly and unambiguously demands things completely contrary to human nature. He lives in this environment, and it has become normal and natural for him. But he does all this not because he strives for evil and wants to be a scoundrel. You try to approach some real scoundrel, if you find such a person, and say: “What a scoundrel you are!” He will show you right away!
A person who does evil not because he wants evil, but because he was brought up in conditions where the foundations and principles of morality are completely different, retains the possibility of repentance. This repentance consists of a decisive rejection of everything that he has seen to be evil. It is not for nothing that the Holy Fathers have an expression that repentance is, first of all, hatred of sin. When a person repents with all his heart, rejects evil, throws it away with hatred, he has the most valuable thing. That's who is being saved.
I spoke about the thief crucified to the right of Christ. But providentially there was another robber who was crucified on the left and about whom nothing positive was said. He never repented, although he was the same robber. This, it turns out, is where salvation lies - in a person’s sincere desire for sacred things, for truth, for truth. “Sincere” means that he wants to do this with all the strength he has. Christianity says that a person who sincerely repents turns out to be superior to the one who fulfills all the instructions and even passes a candle over his right shoulder, and not over his left. But about such “performers,” remember what Christ says in the Gospel? “Snakes and brood of vipers! Coffins painted on the outside! That's what we're talking about.
V. Legoyda: Alexey Ilyich, I would like to clarify. A person may want to be better, but not now, but later. Remember what you wrote in your “Confession”? When he prayed in his youth, he said: “Lord, please make me better - but not now, but a little later! Now I’ll eat and drink some more...” It seems to me that the question asked here is, in fact, dictated by this. For example, I’m a young man, I want to be better, but in twenty years...
A. Osipov: Well, I think everyone will understand that there is deceit here. And “a man with double thoughts (look what wonderful words there are in the New Testament!) is unsettled in all his affairs.” And human lives show that the one who says: “Now I will live for my own pleasure, and then I will repent,” can never do this. An instant, unexpected death may interfere, or in the end the person will fall into such a state of bitterness when there is no question of any repentance. This is an obvious deceit that a person can very easily see if he takes off his rose-colored glasses.
V. Legoyda: Thank you, Alexey Ilyich! Guys, do you have any more questions?
Student:Is there any norm in Orthodoxy, as, for example, in Islam, for a person to do some things, confess all his sins, take communion, and be able to calm down?
A. Osipov: This is not the norm, this is some kind of distorted idea of the norm. Here it must be said that there are commandments, and there are church regulations, norms and rules that have only one single purpose - help fulfill the commandments.
You know, you can fast and turn into a real Satan. Do everything you're supposed to do, everything church rules perform - and imagine myself, I don’t know who. “Am I doing everything? All! I am a very good person: faithful in the family, honest at work, I fast, confess, take communion every fast... I am the best in the world, do you understand? Don’t come within a kilometer of me - I’ll be burned by the fire of my holiness!” What's the problem? The fact is that we accepted church regulations and rules as self-sufficient means of connecting with God. And by definition, God is Love and the greatest humility. The Cross of Christ proved this.
I recently watched Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Thanks to him! Finally, throughout the history of Christianity, we were able to see what Christ endured for our sake. What kind of humility and amazing love you need to have to be in such torment, suffering, endure all this and say from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!” This is just something amazing!
God is humility and love, love and humility. Therefore, all commandments must lead a person to this state. If they lead to conceit, then all these church instructions are not only worthless, but become harmful to a person, instruments of his death. And we see any number of such cases.
By the way, who fell into delusion? No, we are all, of course, delusional, but who fell into this special state of conceit? Great ascetics who thought that with these exploits they could please God. Remember there was a vision? Satan appeared to him and said: “Anthony, you eat little, but I don’t eat at all. You sleep little, and I don’t sleep at all. It was not with this that you defeated me, but with humility.” By the way, did you sense any deceit here? Will Anthony become proud of his humility?
Alla, student:One of the gospel parables says that in one vineyard there were workers who worked there all day, then they were joined by people who worked there for half the day. And finally, the third shift arrived and worked there for an hour. And everyone received the same reward. It is clear that by the vineyard we mean work for the sake of the Lord God, and by the reward we mean the Kingdom of Heaven. But this is unfair!
A. Osipov: Yes, it's unfair. Do you remember how indignant those who came in the morning were? This is what we were just talking about: one of the dangers for every Christian is to give some kind of special meaning their efforts to do good and fulfill the commandments.
In general, do you know what the criterion of Christianity is? Humility does not see oneself as humble! Moreover, as the Egyptian hermits said, the virtue that becomes obvious to everyone loses all its value. And we find an amazing prediction of the ancient ascetics - by the way, about the last times. They said that the last monastics “will no longer have those deeds that we had (and the deeds that they had are something truly amazing, now we are so weak that we cannot do anything like that), they will be saved by humble patience sorrow." Humble – i.e. with the knowledge that there is nothing they can do. Once again - they will be saved by humility! It turns out that this is the final criterion thanks to which only the human spirit can come to union with God.
The Orthodox Church lived both in conditions of religious pluralism and in a religiously homogeneous environment. Its relations with other religions were significantly influenced by the socio-political structures within which it existed.
(1) In the first centuries these relations were confrontational, sometimes more and sometimes less acute. In the religious context of the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, the Church experienced powerful resistance, even persecution, when it proclaimed the Gospel and proposed new premises for personal and social life in the light of the mystery of the relationship between God and man.
(2) When the time of “Christian” empires came, the attitude of confrontation remained, although its vector changed. In order to achieve socio-political stability, leaders sought religious uniformity, suppressing adherents of other religious traditions. Thus, some emperors, bishops and monks were in the forefront of the destruction of pagan temples. In the Byzantine Empire and, later, in the Russian Empire, the fundamental principle of Christ “Whoever wants to come after Me...” (Matthew 16:24) often forgotten. And if coercion did not reach the same degree as in the West, religious freedom was not always respected. The exception was the Jews, who received some privileges.
(3) In the Arab and Ottoman empires, Orthodox Christians coexisted with Muslim majorities; they faced various forms of oppression from government authorities, overt and covert, which caused passive resistance. At the same time, rather soft rules were in effect in different periods, so that Orthodox Christians and Muslims coexisted peacefully with each other, or simply with tolerance, or achieving mutual understanding and respect.
(4) Nowadays, in conditions of religious pluralism, we are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church and about harmonious coexistence and dialogue between followers of the Church of different religions while maintaining respect for the freedom of every person and every minority.
Historical overview of the Orthodox position
The theological understanding of the relationship of the Orthodox Church to other religions throughout history has been varied.
(1) Turning to the earliest "layers" of theological thought of the Orthodox East, we see that in parallel with the clear consciousness that the Church expresses the fullness of revealed truth about the "economy" of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, there were constant attempts to understand religious beliefs, existing outside the Christian confession, with discernment and recognition that some revelation of God to the world is possible. Already in the first centuries, when the clash between the Church and the dominant religions reached its peak in both theory and practice, Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, wrote about the “seminal logos”, the “preparatory stage for renewal in Christ” and the “reflections Divine Word”, which can be found in the Greek culture preceding Christianity. However, when Justin spoke about the “seed word,” this did not mean that he uncritically accepted everything that was created in the past by logic and philosophy: “Because they do not know all that pertains to the Logos, who is Christ, they often contradict themselves.” The Christian apologist readily applied the name "Christian" to those who lived "according to reason," but for him it was Christ who was the standard by which the theoretical and practical value of earlier forms of religious life were assessed.
Origen taught with great boldness that God not only gave evidence of Himself to certain peoples at certain periods, but also enlightened chosen souls (for example, Plato) everywhere and at all times. According to this great Alexandrian theologian, we find traces of divine providence not only in philosophy, but also in pagan religious traditions. Moreover, Greek myths, like the stories of the Old Testament, convey deep truths about life under the guise of allegorical tales. Therefore, Christians should not ridicule “likenesses of gods,” since they are attempts to describe the Divine. However, it cannot be said that Origen underestimated the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and the ancient religions; he pointed out the mistakes of the latter and tried to critically examine them.
(2) During the transitional period - before and after the Edict of Milan (313) - the father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339), emphasized the catholicity of Divine revelation addressed to all peoples and all people, believing that religious feeling is innate: “The heavenly word of God... has given to all human beings a mind capable of knowing and contemplating His wisdom.”. However, despite the universal nature of Divine revelation, it, of course, was not understood and accepted by everyone. Nevertheless, at all times and among all peoples there were people "distinguished by righteousness and the fear of God" who, thanks to their inner purity, have assimilated divine truths through inner revelation that opened the eyes of their minds. Eusebius without hesitation calls “Christians in practice” those people marked by God throughout the centuries who "stand out for their righteousness". While criticizing paganism, many Greek Fathers respected ancient wisdom and highlighted in it those elements that could find their place in Christianity. It is well known that the Cappadocian Fathers proposed a synthesis Christian faith and Greek culture, and St. Basil the Great encouraged young people to study deeply pagan literature and science, just as Moses studied the wisdom of the Egyptians and Daniel the wisdom of the Babylonians. Gregory the Theologian (328-390) sharply opposed paganism, but recognized among the ancient Greeks the “aspiration” and “desire to seek God” and the ability for an initial knowledge of God with the help of “our own mind,” which he calls “God-like and divine.” But, of course, Gregory was fully aware of the limits of this knowledge and the need for Divine revelation to complete it.
(3) Starting from the 7th century, with the advent of Islam, the moderate attitude towards heterodoxy, characteristic of the first centuries, became a thing of the past. At this time, the Orthodox Church was an entity with a sociological structure that openly opposed military and political pressure from the new religion that entered the historical scene with a claim to world domination. From an eschatological perspective, the emergence of Islam looked like the beginning of the last great battle described in the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. The reaction of the Christian community was initially expressed in readiness for dialogue, but very quickly took the form of military defense and counterattack. At this time, a whole series of anti-Islamic works appeared in Byzantium.
At first, the Byzantines perceived Islam as a form of revived Arianism and concentrated their criticism on the person of Muhammad; they disputed his prophetic status and compared the life and teachings of the founders of both religions - Christ and Muhammad. They also severely criticized the Koran, believing that it represented a step backward in religious and moral teaching. They were especially critical of the family law it established, its views on holy war, slavery, polygamy, and the aggressiveness it sanctified.
In the first stage of the encounter between Christianity and Islam, the attitude of the Byzantines was characterized by ridicule and rejection. Many of the commandments of the Islamic "heresy" were perceived as "ridiculous", and Islam as a whole was viewed as a "godless and impious doctrine". At the second stage, due to the increasing threat, polemics with Islam intensify (Nikita the Byzantine and others). The third stage is marked by a more moderate tone and readiness for objective dialogue (Manuel II Paleologus, Gregory Palamas, Joseph Bryennius, Gennady Scholarius).
After the Crusades, the vitriol of Byzantine polemics against Islam diminished somewhat, and some form of coexistence was proposed. Political and military expediency also required further expressions of goodwill.
(4) Penetrating into Central, South and East Asia, Orthodox Christianity met such developed religions as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Hinduism and Chinese Buddhism. This meeting took place under extremely difficult circumstances and requires special study. Among various archaeological finds in China, we see the symbol of Christianity - the cross next to the symbol of Buddhism - the lotus, the clouds of Taoism or other religious symbols. On the famous Xian Fu stele, which was discovered in the 17th century and shows how Christianity penetrated into China, in addition to the cross, you can see images related to other religions: the dragon of Confucianism, the crown of Buddhism, the white clouds of Taoism, etc. This composition, which includes various The symbols perhaps indicate the expectation that the Chinese religions would be brought into harmony with the religion of the Cross and find their fulfillment in it.
(5) In later times, from the 16th to the 20th centuries, the Orthodox, with the exception of the Russians, were under Ottoman rule. The coexistence of Christians and Muslims was imposed de facto, but it was not always peaceful, since the conquerors made direct or indirect attempts to convert the Orthodox population to Islam (kidnapping of children by the Janissaries, pressure in the provinces, proselytizing zeal of the dervishes, etc.). To preserve their faith, Orthodox Christians were often forced to take a position of silent resistance. Deteriorating living conditions, a heavy tax burden and various socio-political lures from the civil authorities left the Orthodox two main options: either renounce their faith, or resist even to the point of martyrdom. There were also Orthodox Christians who were looking for a third way, a compromise solution: outwardly giving the impression that they had become Muslims, they remained faithful to Christian beliefs and customs; they are known as crypto-Christians. Most of them were assimilated in subsequent generations by the Muslim majority in whose midst they lived. The Orthodox gained strength by turning to liturgical life or fueling eschatological expectations. During those bitter years of slavery, the belief that “the end was near” spread. Small treatises written in a simple style were circulated among the people, the purpose of which was to strengthen Christians in their faith. They revolved around the statement: “I was born a Christian and I want to be a Christian.” This laconic confession defines the nature of Christian resistance to Ottoman Islam, which was expressed either in words, or in silence, or through the shedding of blood.
(6) In the vast Russian Empire, the clash of Christianity with other religions and the theoretical position of the Church towards them during the modern era took various forms, in accordance with the political and military goals pursued: from defense to attack and systematic proselytism and from indifference and tolerance to coexistence and dialogue. In relation to Islam, the Russians followed Byzantine models. Orthodox Christians faced serious problems after the onslaught of the Kazan Muslim Tatars, whose state fell only in 1552. In their missionary activities, both within the empire and in neighboring states of the Far East, Orthodox Christians of Russia met with almost all known religions: Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, in various directions Buddhism, shamanism, etc. - and they studied them, trying to comprehend their essence. In the 19th century, a tendency spread among the Russian intelligentsia characterized by agnosticism, based on the belief that God's providence is beyond what we can describe with our theological categories. This did not mean avoiding the problem, but rather pointed to a special reverence for the terrible mystery of God, characteristic of Orthodox piety. Everything that concerns the salvation of people outside the Church is the mystery of the incomprehensible God. An echo of this position can be heard in the words of Leo Tolstoy: “As for other faiths and their relationship with God, I do not have the right and authority to judge this” .
(7) In the 20th century, even before the Second World War, the systematic study of other religions began in Orthodox theological schools - the subject “History of Religions” was introduced. This interest was not limited to academic circles, but spread more widely. Dialogue with representatives of other religious faiths developed primarily within the framework of the ecumenical movement, the centers of which were the World Council of Churches and the Vatican Secretariat for Other Religions. Since the 1970s, many Orthodox theologians have taken part in various forms of this dialogue. Given this context, Orthodoxy easily and with complete certainty declares its position on this issue: peaceful coexistence with other religions and mutual contacts through dialogue.
Orthodox theological approach to the religious experience of humanity
(1) Regarding the problem of the meaning and value of other religions, Orthodox theology, on the one hand, emphasizes the uniqueness of the Church, and on the other, admits that even outside the Church it is possible to comprehend basic religious truths (such as the existence of God, the desire for salvation, various ethical principles, overcoming death). At the same time, Christianity itself is considered not just as a religious belief, but as the highest expression of religion, that is, as an experienced connection between a person and the Holy One - with a personal and transcendental God. The sacrament of the “Church” exceeds the classical concept of “religion”.
The Christian West, following the direction of thought set by Augustine, came to a double understanding of reality. Thus, a clear distinction is made between the natural and the supernatural, the sacred and the spatial, religion and revelation, divine grace and human experience. The various views of Western theologians on other religions are characterized by this tendency to emphasize the gap and then look for ways to connect what is divided.
The theology of the Eastern Church is characterized, first of all, by the belief that the Trinity God is always active in creation and in human history. Through the incarnation of the Word, through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, every gap between the natural and the supernatural, the transcendent and the worldly, has been abolished. It is abolished by the Word of God, who took on flesh and dwelt among us, and by the Holy Spirit, who in the course of history brings about the renewal of creation. The Eastern Church leaves room for personal freedom of thought and expression, within the framework of living tradition. In the Western world, discussion of the theological position in relation to other religions largely focuses on Christology. IN eastern tradition this problem is always considered and solved from a Trinitarian perspective.
(a) In contemplating this problem, attention must be called, first, to the world-wide radiance of the glory of God and His constant providence for all creation, especially for mankind, and secondly, to the fact that all human beings have one source of their being, share a common human nature and have a common purpose. One of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith is that God is incomprehensible, inaccessible in His essence. However, biblical revelation breaks the impasse of the unknowability of the nature of God, assuring us that although the essence of God remains unknown, the Divine presence is effectively manifested in the world and in the universe through Divine energies. When God reveals Himself through various theophanies, it is not the essence of God that is revealed, but His glory; and only man is able to comprehend it. The glory of God of the Trinity embraces the universe and all things. Therefore, all people are able to perceive and assimilate something from the radiance of the “Sun of Truth”, God, and join His love.
The great tragedy of the disobedience of the human race did not become an obstacle to the radiation of Divine glory, which continues to fill heaven and earth. The Fall did not destroy the image of God in man. What has been damaged, although not completely destroyed, is humanity's ability to comprehend the divine message, to achieve a true understanding of it. God has not stopped caring for the entire world He created. And it is not so much people who seek God as He who seeks them.
(b) In Christological dogma we find two main keys to the solution of the problem under consideration: the incarnation of the Word and the understanding of Christ as the “new Adam.” In the incarnation of the divine Word, the fullness of human nature was perceived by God. The theme of the acts of the Word before the incarnation and the acts of the risen Lord is at the center of the Orthodox liturgical experience. Intensified eschatological hope culminates in an amazing expectation, which the Apostle Paul expressed: “...having revealed to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He first purposed in Him [Christ], in the dispensation of the fulness of times, in order to unite all things in heaven and on earth under the head of Christ” (Eph. 1:9-10). Divine action has a global dimension - and exceeds religious phenomena and religious experience.
Jesus Christ does not exclude people of other religions from His care. At certain points in His earthly life He spoke with and helped people from other religious traditions (a Samaritan woman, a Canaanite woman, a Roman centurion). He spoke with admiration and respect about their faith, which he did not find among the Israelites: “...and in Israel I did not find such faith”(Matt. 8:10; cf. 15:28; Luke 7:9). He drew Special attention to the feeling of gratitude on the part of the leper Samaritan; and in a conversation with a Samaritan woman, He revealed to her the truth that God is Spirit (John 4:1-24). He even used the image of the Good Samaritan to point out the core element of His teaching - the new dimension of love that He preached. He, the “Son of God,” who at the Last Judgment will identify Himself with the “little ones” of this world (Matt. 25), regardless of their race or religion, calls us to treat every human person with true respect and love.
(c) If we look at foreign religious experience from the point of view of pneumatology, we will open up new horizons for our theological thinking. For Orthodox theological thought, the action of the Holy Spirit exceeds any definition and description. In addition to the “economy of the Word,” the Christian East, with firm hope and humble expectation, also pays attention to the “economy of the Spirit.” Nothing can limit His action: “The spirit breathes where it pleases” (John 3:8). The action and concordant power of God's love in the Trinity exceeds the capacity of human thought and understanding. Everything that is sublime and truly good is the result of the influence of the Spirit. Wherever we encounter manifestations and fruits of the Spirit - with “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23), - we can discern the consequences of the influence of the Holy Spirit. And much of what the apostle listed can be found in the lives of people belonging to other religions. The statement extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church) appeared in the West and was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It does not express the essence of the Orthodox theological approach, even if used in a special, limited sense. For their part, theologians of the Eastern Church, both before and now, emphasize that God acts “also outside the boundaries of the visible Church” and that “not only Christians, but also non-Christians, unbelievers and Gentiles can become joint heirs and members of “one body and partakers of the promise of Him [God] in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6) – through the Church, to which pagans and non-Orthodox people can also invisibly belong by virtue of their faith and the saving grace given to them by God as a free gift, since both have ecclesiastical character» (John Karmiris). Thus, instead of the negative expression “outside the Church,” Orthodox thought emphasizes the positive expression “through the Church.” Salvation is accomplished in the world through the Church. The Church, as a sign and as an icon of the Kingdom of God, is the axis that holds and directs the entire process of anakephaleosis, or recapitulation. Just as the life of Christ, the new Adam, has universal consequences, so the life of His mystical body, the Church, is universal in its scope and effect. The prayer of the Church and her care embrace all humanity. The Church celebrates the Divine Eucharist and offers praise to God on behalf of all. She acts on behalf of the whole world. She spreads the rays of the glory of the risen Lord to all creation.
(2) This theological position encourages us to treat the other religious experiences of humanity with respect and at the same time with reason. Having studied the great religions, both academically and through research trips to countries where they exist today, and as a participant in many dialogues with intellectuals representing other religions, I would like to make the following observations.
(a) The history of religions shows that, despite the differences in the answers they give to the main problems - suffering, death, the meaning of human existence and communication - they all open the horizon towards a transcendental reality, towards Something or Someone , existing on the other side of the sensory sphere. As the fruit of humanity's aspiration towards the "Holy", they open for human experience the path leading to the Infinite.
(b) In dealing with certain religious systems we must avoid both superficial enthusiasm and arrogant criticism. In the past, disordered knowledge about various religions led to “negative fantasies.” Today, receiving fragmentary information about them, we run the risk of arriving at “positive fantasies,” namely the idea that all religions are one and the same. There is also another risk: based on what we know about one of the religions, geographically and theoretically closest to us, to create a generalized idea about all the others.
In our time, efforts aimed at deciphering the sacred symbols of other religions, as well as studying their doctrines from sources available to us, require a highly critical approach. As systems, religions contain both positive elements that can be understood as “sparks” of divine revelation, and negative elements – inhuman practices and structures, examples of the perversion of religious intuition.
(c) Religion is an organic whole, and not a set of traditions and cult practices. There is a danger in such a superficial reading of the phenomenology of religion, which leads to the identification of elements present and functioning in different contexts. Religions are living organisms, and in each of them the individual components are in connection with each other. We cannot tear out certain elements from a particular religious doctrine and practice and identify them with similar elements in other religions in order to create simple and “beautiful” theories.
(d) If we recognize the presence in foreign religious experience of innate values, even “seeds of the word,” we must also recognize that they have the potential for further growth, flowering and fruiting. Justin the Philosopher concludes his brief reflections on the "seminal logos" with a statement of a fundamental principle - and, strangely, this is not sufficiently noted by those who refer to his views. He emphasizes the difference between the “seed” and the fullness of life contained in it. He distinguishes between innate "ability" and "grace": “For the seed and some likeness of something, given according to the measure of acceptability, are a different matter; and the other is the very thing of which the communion and likeness are given by His [God’s] grace.”(Apology II, 13).
(e) Since man retains the image of God even after the Fall, he remains the recipient of messages emanating from the Divine will. However, he is often unable to comprehend them properly. Let us draw an analogy, albeit imperfect, with modern technology: a television set that is poorly installed or faulty produces altered picture and sound compared to those sent by the transmitter; or the distortion is caused by defects in the transmitting antenna.
Everything in the world is in the sphere of influence of God - the spiritual Sun of Truth. Various aspects of religions can be understood as “accumulators” charged by the rays of Divine truth coming from the Sun of Truth, life experiences, various sublime ideas and great inspirations. Such batteries helped humanity by providing the world with imperfect light or some reflections of light. But they cannot be considered as something self-sufficient; they cannot replace the Sun itself.
For Orthodoxy, the criterion remains the Word of God itself - the Son of God, Who embodies in history the love of the Trinity God, as it is experienced in the sacrament of the Church. Love, which was revealed in His person and His action, is for the Orthodox believer the essence and at the same time the apogee and completeness of religious experience.
Dialogue with people of other religious beliefs – the right and duty of “Orthodox witness”
(1) The Orthodox position can be critical of other religions as systems and as organic entities; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always an attitude of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be the bearer of the image of God and desires to achieve godlikeness, since he possesses - as innate components of his being - free will, spiritual intelligence, desire and the ability to love. From the very beginning, Christians were obliged to be in dialogue with people of other religious beliefs, testifying to their hope. Many of our most important theological concepts have been shaped by such dialogue. The dialogue belongs to the church tradition; he was a major factor in the development of Christian theology. Much of patristic theology is the fruit of direct and indirect dialogue with the ancient Greek world, both with religious movements and with purely philosophical systems, which sometimes led to antitheses and sometimes to synthesis.
With the spread of Islam, the Byzantines sought an opportunity to enter into dialogue with Muslims, although this search did not always elicit a response.
Today, in the grandiose metropolis called Earth, in the midst of new cultural, religious and ideological ferments, dialogue becomes a new opportunity and challenge. We are all concerned with human achievements and strive for a global community of peace, justice and brotherhood, and therefore each person and each tradition must offer the best of what they have inherited from the past and, in the light of experience and criticism from others, cultivate the healthiest grains of truth, which he has. Dialogue can contribute to the transfer of new grains from one civilization to another, as well as the germination and development of those grains that lie lifeless in the soil of ancient religions. As noted, religions remain organic entities, and for the living people who experience them, they are “living organisms” capable of development. Everyone has their own entelechy. They experience influences, perceive new ideas that come from their environment, and respond to the challenges of the time.
Various religious leaders and thinkers are discovering elements in their traditions that respond to the new demands of society. Thus, Christian ideas find their way through other channels and develop in the contexts of other religious traditions around the world. In this regard, dialogue is critical.
From such a perspective, the new questions posed by the recent technological and electronic revolution and the new challenges shaking the world community can be viewed more constructively: for example, the demand for world peace, justice, respect for human dignity, the search for the meaning of human existence and history, the protection environment, bioethics, human rights. Although at first glance all this seems to be "external affairs", a deeper look from a religious point of view may well give rise to new ideas and new answers to the questions posed. The doctrine of the incarnation, which abolishes the gap between the transcendent and the worldly in the Person of Christ, has a unique value for humanity, for it is impossible in any non-Christian anthropology.
“Orthodoxy, entering the third millennium with confidence, with the consciousness of fidelity to its tradition, is alien to anxiety, or fear, or aggression, and it does not feel contempt for people of other religious beliefs. The Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who gathered for the solemn concelebration in Bethlehem on January 7, 2000, emphatically emphasize: we are drawn to other great religions, especially to the monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam, with the readiness to create favorable conditions for dialogue with them in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of all peoples... The Orthodox Church rejects religious intolerance and condemns religious fanaticism, no matter where it comes from.” .
In general, the Church stands for the harmonious coexistence of religious communities and minorities and for the freedom of conscience of every person and every nation. We must enter into interreligious dialogue with respect, with reason, with love and hope. We must try to understand what is important to others and avoid unproductive confrontation. Followers of other religions are called upon to explain to themselves how they can interpret their religious beliefs in new terms, in the light of new challenges. Genuine dialogue generates new interpretations on both sides.
At the same time, we have no right, in an effort to be polite, to underestimate the significance of difficult problems. Nobody needs superficial forms of interreligious dialogue. Ultimately, the core of the religious problem remains the search for a higher truth. No one has the right - and it is not in anyone's interest - to weaken this force of human existence in order to achieve a simplified conciliatory consensus of the type of standard agreements that are concluded at the ideological level. In this perspective, the essential contribution of Orthodoxy is not to suppress its own characteristics, deep spiritual experience and conviction, but to bring them to light. Here we come to the delicate question of the Orthodox mission or – as I proposed to say thirty years ago – “Orthodox witness”.
(2) In any truly spiritual communication we always reach a critical point when we are faced with a real problem that creates differences. When the Apostle Paul met with the Athenians in the Areopagus, after dialogue (Acts 17:17) he moved on to direct testimony (17:22-31). In his speech he spoke of the general religious basis, and then turned to the very essence of the Gospel: the significance of the person and work of Christ. This proclamation was completely alien to the ancient Greek worldview and contradicted not only the sophisticated polytheism of the common people, but also the sophisticated atheism of the Epicurean philosophers and the pantheism of the Stoics.
Having rejected the idea of a closed, self-sufficient cosmological system, autonomous and impersonal, Paul began to preach the action of a personal God, who created the universe out of nothing, provides for the world and decisively intervenes in history. In contrast to the idea of the individual living automatically, the emphasis was placed on freedom and love, which are manifested in communication between God and man. With this paradox, which for the Athenians bordered on the absurd, Paul introduced a new type of thinking. He proposed a radical revision of Greek wisdom through the acceptance of Christ as the center of creation, the One who communicates real existence to the world. Until this time, the Greek intellectuals' understanding of man was limited to the idea of a thinking being, aware of himself and his environment through the development of his mind. For Paul, the fundamental, turning point for humanity - its metanoia (change of mind, repentance) - must be directed towards the love of God, who is inaccessible to reason, but revealed in the crucified and risen Christ. Here we have a clear example of understanding and respecting ancient religious ideas and at the same time surpassing them in the truth and power of Christian revelation. Orthodox “witness” (or mission) means precisely the witnessing of experience and confidence. We confess our faith not as an intellectual discovery, but as a gift of God's grace. To neglect the duty of such personal witness is to reject the gospel.
Personal knowledge of the “love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19) remains the most profound Christian experience and has a direct bearing on authentic Christian mission and evangelization. Love releases inner strength and opens up new horizons in life that the mind cannot imagine. The feeling characteristic of an Orthodox Christian that he is united with all humanity, and the love he feels for every person, compels him to inform every neighbor about the greatest good that has been revealed to him.
The gifts of God cannot be selfishly kept to oneself - they must be available to everyone. Although certain actions of God may relate to a certain people and a certain person, they nevertheless affect all mankind. If we are convinced that the highest human right is the right to transcend the animal and intellectual levels of existence through participation in the loving relationship of the Trinity God, we cannot reserve this conviction for ourselves. For this would be the worst of injustices. However, all this does not mean that preaching to another can be accompanied by violence, that it can serve as a cover for achieving other goals, political or economic. This is not about imposing anything on others, but about testifying to confidence, to personal experience. It is significant that in the first centuries Christians spoke about martyrdom - about witness-martyrdom, about witness often at the cost of life. Everything that is peculiar to the human race should be used, but each person should remain completely free in the choice, which ultimately he himself makes. Respect for the freedom of every human person will always be the basic principle of Orthodoxy.
The Church, being the “sign” and sacrament of the Kingdom of God, the beginning of a new humanity transformed by the Holy Spirit, must be given to the whole world. It should not be a closed community. Everything she has and everything she experiences exists for the sake of humanity as a whole.
Orthodox "witness" begins in silence - through participation in the pain and suffering of others, and continues in the joy of proclaiming the Gospel, which culminates in worship. The purpose of witness is always to create Eucharistic communities in new places so that people celebrate the mystery of the Kingdom of God in their own cultural context, spreading the glory and presence of God where they live. Thus, Orthodox witness is personal participation in the spread of the new creation, which has already been accomplished in Christ and which will come to its fulfillment in the “end times.” In order to evangelize the world, the Orthodox Church does not need to use violence or dishonest methods, which have sometimes distorted the essence of the “Christian mission.” She respects the individuality of man and his culture and uses her own methods - liturgical life, the celebration of the sacraments, sincere love. The Orthodox mission cannot be limited to participation in the organization of education, provision of medical care and provision of funds for external development. It must convey to everyone, especially the poor and downtrodden, the belief that each person has a unique value, that, since he is created in the image and likeness of God, his destiny is something greater - to become a “Christ-bearer”, to partake of the divine glory, to achieve deification. It is the basis for all other expressions of human dignity. The Christian faith offers the highest anthropology, beyond any humanistic vision. To accept it or not is a matter of free choice and responsibility of people. Followers of other religions sharply criticize various Christian missions when they see that missionary activities are accompanied by arrogance and pride or are associated with non-religious interests, including the interests of state power. At the same time, it would be wrong to identify Christian mission generally with errors characteristic of some part of Western Christianity or one historical period(for example, the period of colonialism). Harsh criticism is directed at “Christians,” not at Christ. Everything will change in the world if we Christians live and act and measure our mission, following in the footsteps of Christ. The power of God often manifests itself through the paradox of the absence of worldly power and can only be experienced in the sacrament of love, in outer simplicity.
We need constant honest self-criticism and repentance. This does not mean limiting the Orthodox witness, which will lead to a colorless dialogue, but rather a free acceptance of the logic of love, always the revolutionary logic of Christ, who “exhausted himself” in order to come and inhabit a special human reality. Following the pattern of His life and death in ongoing personal transformation “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18). The goal of the Orthodox is not to limit or minimize their “witness,” but to live in accordance with their calling: to follow Christ.
“Those who lived in accordance with the Word (reason) are Christians, even if they were considered atheists: such among the Hellenes are Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the barbarians - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, and Elijah and many others; to retell their actions or names would, I know, be tedious, and this time I will refrain from doing so.”(Apology 1, 46).
For more on this theological position, see: Anastasios (Yannoulatos). Emerging Perspective of the Relationships of Christians to People of Other Faith – An Eastern Orthodox Christian Contribution. – International Review of Mission, 77 (1988); Facing People of Other Faiths from an Orthodox Point of View – Holy Cross Conference, 3rd International Conference of Theological Schools: Icon and Kingdom: Orthodox Face of the 21st Century. – The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 58 (1993).
John Karmiris. The universality of salvation in Christ. – Praktikatis Akadimias Athinon. 1980. Vol. 55 (Athens, 1981). pp. 261-289 (in Greek); See also: The salvation of God's people outside the Church. - Right there. 1981. T. 56 (Athens, 1982). pp. 391-434.
Emperor John VI Cantacuzene (d. 1383) notes: “Muslims prevented their people from entering into dialogue with Christians, of course, so that they could not gain a clear knowledge of the truth during the interview. Christians are confident in the purity of their faith, and in the correctness and truth of the teachings that they adhere to, and therefore they do not create any obstacles for their people, but each of them has complete freedom and power to discuss the faith with whomever he wants.”(Against Muslims).
On October 22, 2013, at the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, in continuation of the special course “History of Christian Thought,” a lecture on traditional religions and their relationship with Orthodoxy was given by the head, chairman, rector, professor and head of the Department of Theology of MEPhI.
Today I would like to say a few words about the relationship between the Orthodox and representatives of world religions, three of which are represented in our country as traditional; we call these religions traditional because they have historically existed among us for centuries. These are Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. I will not talk in detail about each of these religions, but I will try to general outline highlight their differences from Orthodox Christianity and talk about how we build relationships with them today.
Orthodoxy and Judaism
First of all, I would like to say a few words about Judaism. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people: it is impossible to belong to it without having Jewish origin. Judaism sees itself not as a world religion, but as a national religion. Currently, it is professed by about 17 million people who live both in Israel and in many other countries of the world.
Historically, Judaism was the basis on which Christianity began to develop. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and all His activities took place within the then Jewish state, which, however, did not have political independence, but was under the rule of the Romans. Jesus spoke Aramaic, that is, one of the dialects of the Hebrew language, and followed the customs of the Jewish religion. For some time Christianity remained somewhat dependent on Judaism. In science, there is even the term “Judeo-Christianity,” which refers to the first decades of the development of the Christian faith, when it still remained associated with the Jerusalem Temple (we know from the Acts of the Apostles that the apostles attended services in the temple) and the influence of Jewish theology and Jewish ritual on Christian communities.
The turning point for the history of Judaism was the year 70, when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. From this moment begins the history of the dispersion of the Jewish people, which continues to this day. After the capture of Jerusalem, Israel ceased to exist not only as a state, but even as a national community tied to a specific territory.
In addition, Judaism, represented by its religious leaders, reacted very negatively to the emergence and spread of Christianity. We find the origins of this conflict already in the polemics of Jesus Christ with the Jews and their religious leaders - the Pharisees, whom He harshly criticized and who treated Him with extreme hostility. It was the religious leaders of the Israeli people who achieved the condemnation of the Savior to death on the cross.
The relationship between Christianity and Judaism over the course of many centuries has developed in the spirit of polemics and complete mutual rejection. In rabbinic Judaism, the attitude towards Christianity was purely negative.
Meanwhile, Jews and Christians share a significant part of the Holy Scriptures. All of what we call the Old Testament, with the exception of some later books, is also Holy Scripture for the Jewish tradition. In this sense, Christians and Jews retain a certain single doctrinal basis, on the basis of which theology was built in both religious traditions. But the development of Jewish theology was associated with the appearance of new books - these are the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, Mishnah, Halakha. All these books, or rather collections of books, were interpretive in nature. They are based on the Holy Scripture, which is common to Christians and Jews, but they interpreted it differently from those interpretations that have developed in the Christian environment. If for Christians the Old Testament is an important, but not the primary part of the Holy Scriptures, which it is New Testament, which speaks of Christ as God and man, the Jewish tradition rejected Christ as the God-man, and the Old Testament remains the main holy book.
The attitude towards the New Testament and the Christian Church in general among the Jews was sharply negative. Among Christians, the attitude towards Jews was also negative. If we turn to the writings of the 4th century Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, we can find very harsh statements about the Jews: by today's standards these statements could be qualified as anti-Semitic. But it is important to remember that they were dictated, of course, not by some kind of interethnic hatred, but by the polemics that had been going on for centuries between representatives of the two religions. The essence of the disagreement was in the attitude towards Jesus Christ, because if Christians recognize Him as God Incarnate and the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One about whom the prophets predicted and for whom the Israeli people expected, then the Israeli people themselves, for the most part, did not accept Christ as the Messiah and continue to expect the coming of another messiah. Moreover, this messiah is conceived not so much as a spiritual leader, but rather as a political leader who will be able to restore the power of the Israeli people, territorial integrity Israeli state.
It was precisely this attitude that was already characteristic of the Jews of the 1st century, which is why many of them did not accept Christ quite sincerely - they were sure that the messiah would be a man who, first of all, would come and free the Israeli people from the power of the Romans.
The Talmud contains many offensive and even blasphemous statements about Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Theotokos. In addition, Judaism is an iconoclastic religion - it does not have any sacred images: neither God nor people. This, of course, is connected with a tradition dating back to Old Testament times, which generally prohibited all images of the Divine and saints. Therefore, if you go to a Christian temple, you will see a lot of images, but if you visit a synagogue, you will see nothing but ornaments and symbols. This is due to a special theological approach to spiritual realities. If Christianity is the religion of God Incarnate, then Judaism is the religion of the Invisible God, Who revealed Himself in the history of the Israeli people in a mysterious way and was perceived as God first of all of the Israeli people, and secondarily as the Creator of the whole world and the Creator of all people.
Reading the books of the Old Testament, we will see that the Israeli people perceived God as their own God, in contrast to the gods of other nations: if they worshiped pagan deities, then the Israeli people worshiped the True God and considered this their legitimate privilege. Ancient Israel did not have at all, as there is still no in the Jewish religion, any missionary calling to preach among other peoples, because Judaism is conceived, I repeat, as the religion of one - the Israeli - people.
In Christianity, the doctrine of God's chosen people of Israel was refracted in different eras differently. The Apostle Paul also said that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). He believed that the entire Israeli people would sooner or later believe in Christ. On the other hand, already in the theology of the Church Fathers of the 4th century, which, as we remember, was the time of the formation of many historiosophical concepts within Christian theology, there was an understanding according to which the chosenness of God of the Israeli people ended after they rejected Christ, and passed to “ new Israel”, Church.
In modern theology, this approach is called “replacement theology.” The point is that the new Israel, as it were, replaced ancient Israel in the sense that everything said in the Old Testament in relation to the Israeli people already applies to the new Israel, that is, the Christian Church as a multinational chosen people of God, as a new reality, the prototype of which was the old Israel.
In the second half of the 20th century, another understanding developed in Western theology, which was associated with the development of interaction between Christians and Jews, with the development of Christian-Jewish dialogue. This new understanding practically did not affect the Orthodox Church, but found fairly wide recognition in the Catholic and Protestant environment. According to him, the Israeli people continue to remain God's chosen people, because if God chooses someone, He does not change His attitude towards a person, several people or a specific nation. Consequently, God's chosenness remains a kind of stamp that the Israeli people continue to bear. The realization of this chosenness of God, from the point of view of Christian theologians who adhere to this point of view, lies precisely in the fact that representatives of the Israeli people turn to faith in Christ and become Christians. It is known that among people who are Jewish by ethnic origin, there are many who believed in Christ - they belong to different faiths and live in different countries. In Israel itself there is a movement “Jews for Christ”, which was born in a Protestant environment and is aimed at converting Jews to Christianity.
The hostile attitude of Jews towards Christians and Christians towards Jews existed for centuries in different countries and even reached the everyday level. It took a variety of, sometimes monstrous, forms, right up to the Holocaust in the 20th century, right up to the Jewish pogroms.
Here it must be said that in the past, until very recently, in fact, until the 20th century, as we see from history, contradictions in the religious sphere very often resulted in wars, civil confrontation, and murders. But tragic fate of the Israeli people, including in the 20th century, when they suffered massive repressions, extermination, first of all, from the Nazi regime - a regime that we cannot in any way consider related to Christianity, because in its ideology it was anti-Christian - prompted the world community at the political level, rethink the relationship with Judaism, including in a religious context, and establish a dialogue with the Jewish religion. Dialogue now exists at the official level, for example, there is a theological commission on dialogue between Christianity and Islam (literally a few weeks ago the next session of such dialogue was held with the participation of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church).
In addition to this official dialogue, which, of course, is not aimed at bringing positions together, because they are still very different, there are other ways and forms of interaction between Christians and Jews. In particular, on the territory of Russia, Christians and Jews lived in peace and harmony for centuries, despite all the contradictions and conflicts that arose at the everyday level. Currently, the interaction between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Jewish community Russian Federation quite tight. This interaction concerns, first of all, social as well as moral issues. Here between Christians and Jews, as well as representatives of other traditional faiths, there is a very high degree consent.
Well, and the most important thing that probably needs to be said: despite the quite obvious differences in the area of doctrine, despite the cardinal difference in the approach to the person of Jesus Christ, between Jews and Christians what is preserved is what is the basis of all monotheistic religions: the belief in that God is one, that God is the Creator of the world, that He participates in the history of the world and the life of every person.
In this regard, we are talking about a certain doctrinal similarity of all monotheistic religions, of which three are called Abrahamic, because they all go back genetically to Abraham as the father of the Israeli people. There are three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (I list them in order of appearance). And for Christianity, Abraham is a righteous man, and for Christianity, the history of the Israeli people is Sacred history.
If you get acquainted with the texts that are heard at Orthodox services, you will see that they are all filled with stories from the history of the Israeli people and their symbolic interpretations. Of course, in the Christian tradition, these stories and stories are refracted through the experience of the Christian Church. Most of them are perceived as prototypes of the realities associated with the coming of Jesus Christ into the world, while for the Israeli people they are of independent value. For example, if in the Jewish tradition Easter is celebrated as a holiday associated with the memory of the passage of the Israeli people through the Red Sea and the deliverance from Egyptian slavery, then for Christians this story is a prototype of the liberation of man from sin, the victory of Christ over death, and Easter is already thought of as feast of the Resurrection of Christ. There is a certain genetic link between two Easters - Jewish and Christian - but the semantic content of these two holidays is completely different.
The common basis that exists between the two religions helps them today to interact, dialogue and work together for the benefit of people.
Orthodoxy and Islam
The relationship between Christianity and Islam in history has been no less complex and no less tragic than the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.
Islam appeared at the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, its founder is Muhammad (Mohammed), who in the Muslim tradition is perceived as a prophet. The book that plays the role of Holy Scripture in the Muslim tradition is called the Koran, and Muslims believe that it was dictated by God himself, that every word of it is true and that the Koran pre-existed with God before it was written down. Muslims consider Mohammed's role to be prophetic in the sense that the words he brought to earth were Divine revelation.
There is quite a lot in common between Christianity and Islam in terms of doctrine. Just like Judaism, like Christianity, Islam is a monotheistic religion, that is, Muslims believe in One God, whom they call the Arabic word “Allah” (God, the Most High). They believe that, besides God, there are angels, that after the death of people, reward after death awaits. They believe in the immortality of the human soul, in the Last Judgment. There are quite a few other Muslim dogmas that are largely similar to Christian ones. Moreover, both Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are mentioned in the Koran, and they are spoken about repeatedly and quite respectfully. Christians are called the "People of the Book" in the Koran, and followers of Islam are encouraged to treat them with respect.
Islamic ritual rests on several pillars. First of all, this is the statement that “there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” It is obligatory for all Muslims to pray five times a day. In addition, just like Christians, Muslims have fasting, but Christians and Muslims fast differently: Christians in certain days abstain from certain types of food, while for Muslims fasting is a certain period of time called Ramadan, when they do not eat food or even drink water from sunrise to sunset. For Muslims, alms are obligatory - zakat, that is, an annual tax that each Muslim with a certain income must pay in favor of his poorer brothers. Finally, it is believed that a devout Muslim, if he has the physical and material capabilities, must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his life, which is called hajj.
In Islam and Christianity, as I said, there are many similar elements, but it should be noted that just as Christianity today is divided into different faiths, so Islam is a heterogeneous phenomenon. There is Sunni Islam, to which, according to various estimates, from 80 to 90 percent of all Muslims in the world belong. There is Shiite Islam, which is quite widespread, but mainly in the countries of the Middle East. There are a number of Islamic sects, such as the Alawites, who live in Syria. In addition, recently an increasingly important role, including in world politics, has been played by the radical wing of the Islamic world - Salafism (or, as it is now often called, Wahhabism), which the leaders of official Islam disavow as a perversion of Islam, because Wahhabism calls for hatred, aims to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate, where either there will be no place at all for representatives of other religions, or they will become second-class citizens who will have to pay tribute only for the fact that they are not Muslims.
When talking about the differences between Christianity and Islam in general, we must understand one very important thing. Christianity is a religion of free choice of one person or another, and this choice is made regardless of where the person was born, what nation he belongs to, what language he speaks, what color his skin is, who his parents were, and so on. In Christianity there is not and cannot be any compulsion to faith. And, besides, Christianity is precisely a religious, not politic system. Christianity has not developed any specific forms of state existence, does not recommend one or another preferred state system, and does not have its own system of secular law, although, of course, Christian moral values had a very significant influence on the formation legal norms in European countries and in a number of countries on other continents (North and South America, Australia).
Islam, on the contrary, is not only a religious system, but also a political and legal system. Mohammed was not only a religious, but also a political leader, the creator of the world's first Islamic state, a legislator and a military leader. In this sense, in Islam, religious elements are very closely intertwined with legal and political elements. It is no coincidence, for example, that in a number of Islamic states, religious leaders are in power, and, unlike Christian ones, they are not perceived as clergy. Only at the everyday level is it customary to talk about “Muslim clergy” - in fact, the spiritual leaders of Islam are, in our understanding, laymen: they do not perform any sacred rites or sacraments, but only lead prayer meetings and have the right to teach the people.
Very often in Islam, spiritual power is combined with secular power. We see this in the example of a number of states, such as Iran, where spiritual leaders are in power.
Turning to the topic of dialogue between Islam and Christianity, the relationship between them, it must be said that despite all the bitter experience of the coexistence of these religions in different conditions, including the stories of the suffering of Christians under the Islamic yoke, there is also a positive experience of living together. Here again we must turn to the example of our country, where for centuries Christians and Muslims have lived and continue to live together. There have been no interreligious wars in Russian history. We had interethnic conflicts - this explosive potential still exists, which we see even in Moscow, when in one of the city's microdistricts one group of people suddenly rebels against another group - against people of a different ethnic origin. However, these conflicts are not religious in nature and are not religiously motivated. Such incidents can be characterized as manifestations of hatred at the everyday level, having signs of interethnic conflicts. In general, the experience of coexistence of Christians and Muslims in our state over the centuries can be described as positive.
Today in our Fatherland there are such bodies of interaction between Christians, Muslims and Jews as the Interreligious Council of Russia, the chairman of which is the Patriarch. This council includes leaders of Russian Islam and Judaism. It meets regularly to discuss various socially significant issues related to everyday life of people. A very high degree of interaction has been achieved within this council, in addition, religious leaders jointly carry out contacts with the state.
There is also a Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation, which meets quite regularly and before the government authorities represents the general agreed position of the main traditional faiths on many issues.
Russian experience of interaction between Christians and Muslims shows that coexistence is quite possible. We share our experience with our foreign partners.
Today it is especially in demand precisely because in the countries of the Middle East, in North Africa, in some Asian states there is a growing Wahhabi movement, which is aimed at the complete eradication of Christianity and whose victims today are Christians in many parts of the world. We know what is happening now in Egypt, where until recently the radical Islamic party “Muslim Brotherhood” was in power, they destroyed Christian churches, set them on fire, killed Christian clergy, which is why we are now seeing a mass exodus of Coptic Christians from Egypt . We know what is happening in Iraq, where ten years ago there were one and a half million Christians, and now there are about 150 thousand of them left. We know what is happening in those areas of Syria where the Wahhabis hold power. There is an almost complete extermination of Christians, mass desecration of Christian shrines.
The tension that is growing in the Middle East and a number of other regions requires political decisions and the efforts of religious leaders. Now it is no longer enough to simply declare that Islam is a peaceful religion, that terrorism has no nationality or religious affiliation, because we are increasingly seeing the growth of radical Islamism. And therefore, more and more often, in dialogue with Islamic leaders, we tell them about the need to influence their flock in order to prevent cases of hostility and hatred, to eliminate the policy of eradicating Christianity, which is being implemented today in the Middle East.
Orthodoxy and Buddhism
Buddhism is a religion that is also represented in our Fatherland. Buddhism is professed by a considerable number of people, while this religion, in its doctrinal principles, is much further from Christianity than Judaism or Islam. Some scholars do not even agree to call Buddhism a religion because there is no concept of God in it. The Dalai Lama calls himself an atheist because he does not recognize the existence of God as a supreme Being.
However, Buddhism and Christianity have some similarities. For example, in Buddhism there are monasteries, in Buddhist temples and monasteries people pray and kneel. However, the quality of the prayer experience of Buddhists and Christians is completely different.
I had the opportunity back in student years visit Tibet and communicate with Tibetan monks. We talked, among other things, about prayer, and it was not clear to me who Buddhists turn to when they pray.
When we Christians pray, we always have a specific addressee. For us, prayer is not just some kind of reflection, some words that we say, it is a conversation with God, the Lord Jesus Christ, or with the Mother of God, with one of the saints. Moreover, our religious experience convincingly confirms for us that this conversation is not conducted in only one direction: by turning questions to God, we receive answers; when we make requests, they are often fulfilled; If we are perplexed and pour it out in prayer to God, then very often we receive admonition from God. It can come in different forms, for example, in the form of insight, which occurs in a person when he is looking for something and does not find it, rushes about, turns to God and suddenly the answer to the question becomes clear to him. The answer from God can also come in the form of some life circumstances or lessons.
Thus, the entire experience of prayer for a Christian is an experience of interaction and dialogue with a living Being, Whom we call God. For us, God is a Person who is able to hear us and answer our questions and prayers. In Buddhism, such a Person does not exist, therefore Buddhist prayer is, rather, meditation, reflection, when a person immerses himself in himself. Its adherents try to extract all the potential for good that exists in Buddhism from themselves, that is, from human nature itself.
We, as people who believe in One God, have no doubt that God acts in a variety of environments, including outside the Church, and that He can also influence people who do not belong to Christianity. Recently I talked with our famous Buddhist Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: he came to a television program that I host on the Russia-24 channel, and we talked about Christianity and Buddhism. Among other things, he talked about how he visited Athos, stood for six or eight hours in a church during a service and experienced very special sensations: he called them “grace.” This man is a Buddhist, and according to the laws of his religion, he should not believe in God, and yet in a conversation with me he used words such as “God”, “Almighty”. We understand that the desire to communicate with the Supreme Being exists in Buddhism too, only it is expressed differently than in Christianity.
There are many teachings in Buddhism that are unacceptable to Christianity. For example, the doctrine of reincarnation. According to Christian doctrine (and both Jews and Muslims agree with this), a person comes into this world only once in order to live here human life and then pass on to eternal life. Moreover, during his stay on earth, the soul is united with the body, the soul and body become one inseparable being. In Buddhism there is a completely different idea of the course of history, the place of man in it and the relationship between soul and body. Buddhists believe that the soul can migrate from one body to another, moreover, that it can move from the human body to the animal body, and vice versa: from the animal body to the human body.
In Buddhism, there is a whole teaching that a person’s actions in this life affect his future destiny. We Christians also say that our actions in earthly life influence our destiny in eternity, but we do not believe that a person’s soul can pass into some other body. Buddhists believe that if a person was a glutton in this earthly life, then in the next life he can turn into a pig. The Dalai Lama in his book talked about one dog who, no matter how much he ate, always found room for another piece. “I think that in a past life she was one of the Tibetan monks who starved to death,” writes the Dalai Lama.
In this regard, Buddhism is very far from Christianity. But Buddhism is a good religion. It helps to cultivate the will to goodness, helps to release the potential of goodness - it is no coincidence that many Buddhists are calm and cheerful. When I visited Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, I was very struck by the constant calm and hospitality of the monks. They always smile, and this smile is not developed, but quite natural, it stems from some kind of internal experience.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that throughout the history of our country, Christians and Buddhists have peacefully coexisted in different regions for centuries and there is no potential for conflicts between them.
Answers to questions from the audience
— You spoke about the unique experience of the Russian Empire, in which good relations developed between Muslims and Christians - the main population of Russia. However, the peculiarity of this experience is that there are many more Christians in the country than Muslims. Is there any known long and effective experience of good cooperation and good neighborliness in countries where the majority of the population is Muslim?
— Unfortunately, there are much fewer such examples. There is, for example, Lebanon, where until relatively recently there were probably more Christians than Muslims, then they became approximately equal, but now Christians are already in the minority. This state is structured in such a way that all government posts are distributed among representatives of different religious communities. Thus, the president of the country is a Maronite Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, etc. This strict representation of religious communities in government bodies, enshrined in the Constitution, helps maintain the peaceful coexistence of different religions in the country.
—Are we in Eucharistic communion with Ethiopian Christians and Egyptian Copts?
— The word “Coptic” means “Egyptian” and therefore indicates ethnicity, not religious affiliation.
Both the Coptic Church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Church in Ethiopia, as well as some others, belong to the family of the so-called pre-Chalcedonian Churches. They are also called Eastern or Oriental Churches. They separated from the Orthodox Church in the 5th century due to disagreement with the decisions of the IV Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), which adopted the doctrine that Jesus Christ has two natures - Divine and human. These Churches did not accept not so much the teaching itself as the terminology with which this teaching was expressed.
The Eastern Churches are now often called Monophysite (from the Greek words μόνος - “one” and φύσις - “nature, nature”) after the heresy that taught that Jesus Christ was God, but was not a full-fledged man. In fact, these Churches believe that Christ was both God and man, but believe that the Divine and human natures in Him are united into one divine-human composite nature.
Today there is a theological dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches, but there is no communion in the Sacraments between us.
— Could you tell us about Jewish holidays? Do adherents of Judaism have any sacred rites, and is it acceptable for a Christian to participate in their rites?
“We prohibit our believers from participating in the rituals and prayers of other religions, because we believe that each religion has its own boundaries and Christians should not cross these boundaries.
An Orthodox Christian can attend a service in a Catholic or Protestant church, but he should not receive communion from a non-Orthodox church. We can marry a couple if one of the future spouses is Orthodox and the other is Catholic or Protestant, but we cannot marry a Christian with a Muslim woman or a Muslim with a Christian woman. We do not allow our believers to go to prayers in a mosque or synagogue.
Worship in the Jewish tradition is not worship in our sense, because in the Jewish tradition, worship itself was associated with the Jerusalem Temple. When it ceased to exist - now, as you know, only one wall remains of the temple, which is called the Western Wall, and Jews from all over the world come to Jerusalem to worship it - full-fledged worship became impossible.
A synagogue is a house for meetings, and initially synagogues were not perceived as places of worship. They appeared in the period after the Babylonian captivity for those people who could not make at least an annual pilgrimage to the temple, and were perceived, rather, as places of public meetings where they read holy books. Thus, the Gospel tells how Christ entered the synagogue on Saturday, opened the book (that is, unrolled the scroll) and began to read, and then interpret what He read (see Luke 4:19).
In modern Judaism, the entire liturgical tradition is associated with the Sabbath as the main holy day, a day of rest. It does not imply any sacred rites or sacraments, but provides common prayer and reading the Holy Scriptures.
There are also some rituals in Judaism, and the main one is circumcision, a ritual preserved from the Old Testament religion. Of course, a Christian cannot participate in this ritual. Although the first generation of Christians - the apostles - were circumcised people, already in the middle of the 1st century the Christian Church accepted the teaching that circumcision is not part of the Christian tradition, that a person becomes a Christian not through circumcision, but through baptism.
— From the point of view of modern times, the Apocalypse of John the Theologian looks quite funny, because not a single aspect of the evolution of mankind is mentioned there. It turns out that he saw a revelation about the end of the world, but did not see, say, skyscrapers, modern weapons, automatic machines. From the point of view of physics, such statements look especially strange, for example, that one third of the sun will be covered during some kind of punishment. I think that if one third of the sun is covered, the earth will not have much time left to live.
— First of all, I would like to note that a person who writes this or that book does it in a certain era, using the concepts accepted at that time and the knowledge that he has. We call the holy books revealed, but we do not say that they were written by God. Unlike Muslims who believe that the Qur'an is a book written by God and fallen from the sky, we say that all the holy books of the Old and New Testaments were written by people here on earth. They wrote about their experiences in books, but it was a religious experience, and when they wrote, they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
The Apostle John the Theologian describes what he saw in supernatural visions. He, of course, could not see, much less describe, either skyscrapers or machine guns, because such objects did not exist then, which means there were no words to designate them. The words we are used to - machine gun, skyscraper, car and others - simply did not exist then. Therefore, it is natural that such images could not exist in the book of Revelation.
In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that very often in such books, in particular in the books of the prophets, various symbols were used. And a symbol always has a diverse interpretation, and in each specific era of human development it can be revealed in a new way. The history of mankind shows how the biblical Old Testament and New Testament prophecies came true. You just need to understand that they are written in symbolic language.
And I would also like to advise: if you decide to take up reading the New Testament, then start it not from the end, but from the beginning, that is, not from the Apocalypse, but from the Gospel. Read one Gospel first, then the second, third, fourth. Then - the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles. When you read all this, the Apocalypse will become more understandable to you and, perhaps, will seem less funny.
— I often come across the opinion that if a Jew becomes Orthodox, then he stands above an ordinary Orthodox person, that he rises to a higher level...
“This is the first time I’ve heard about such judgments and I’ll tell you right away: there is no such teaching in the Church, and the Church does not approve of such an understanding.” The Apostle Paul also said that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free(see Gal. 3:27) - therefore, nationality in moral and spiritual terms has no meaning. What matters is how a person believes and how he lives.
