What is the dialogue between religious faiths and society. I.Sh. Aslanova Dialogue as a form of interreligious communication. What interfaith dialogue is not

Define language Azerbaijani Albanian English Arabic Armenian Afrikaans Basque Belarusian Bengali Burmese Bulgarian Bosnian Welsh Hungarian Vietnamese Galician Greek Georgian Gujarati Danish Zulu Hebrew Igbo Yiddish Indonesian Irish Icelandic Spanish Italian Yoruba Kazakh Kannada Catalan Chinese (Ur) Chinese (Trad) Korean Creole (Haiti) Khmer Laotian Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malagasy Malay Malayalam Maltese Maori Marathi Mongolian German Nepali Dutch Norwegian Punjabi Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Cebuano Serbian Sesotho Sinhala Slovak Slovenian Somalia Swahili Sudanese Tagalog Tajik Thai Tamil Telugu Turkish Uzbek Ukrainian Urdu Finnish French Hausa Hindi Hmong Croatian Chewa Czech Swedish Esperanto Estonian Javanese Japanese

Azerbaijani Albanian English Arabic Armenian Afrikaans Basque Belarusian Bengal Burmese Bulgarian Bosnian Welsh Hungarian Vietnamese Galician Greek Georgian Gujarati Danish Zulu Hebrew Igbo Yiddish Indonesian Irish Icelandic Spanish Italian Yoruba Kazakh Kannada Catalan Chinese (Ur) Chinese (Trad) Korean Cre Olean (Haiti) Khmer Laotian Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malagasy Malay Malayalam Maltese Maori Marathi Mongolian German Nepali Dutch Norwegian Punjabi Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Cebuano Serbian Sesotho Sinhala Slovak Slovenian Somali Swahili Sudanese Tagalog Tajik Thai Tamil Telugu Turkish Uzbek Ukrainian Urdu Finnish French Hausa Hindi Hmong Croatian Chewa Czech Swedish Esperanto Estonian Javanese Japanese

Audio feature limited to 200 characters

Conversation with Sergei Bortnik, professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy and employee of the department for external church relations of the UOC.

Our conversation, the purpose of which was to clarify the situation regarding “external relations” and their features, took place in one of the buildings of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, where the department of external church relations is located.

– The other day, on the website of our Church, I once again read about your participation in the International Conference. It took place in Switzerland and was devoted to the issue of synodality in the Churches of the East and West. Please tell us about this event.

– The conference was attended by various representatives of the Catholic Church and all local Orthodox Churches without exception. Bishop Irinei Steenberg from the USA and I from the UOC spoke from the Moscow Patriarchate. The organizers decided that our local Church was too large to be represented by one person. They also invited me to talk about the peculiarities of synodality in the Ukrainian and Belarusian Churches.

– What was the purpose of the conference?

– This was an attempt on the part of Catholic theologians and canonists to better understand the functioning of communication in the structure of the Orthodox Churches. The fact is that in the pair “primacy and synodality” traditionally “primacy” is a feature of the vertical of church power observed in the Catholic Church.

– Is “synodality” a feature of the Orthodox?

– Historically, yes. They use different terms - “collegiality”, “conciliarity”, “synodality”. All of them, to one degree or another, convey the important theological Greek concept of “kinonia,” i.e., “communication.” It is found in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” From the New Testament the term passed into liturgical use, although in the Slavic version it sounds like “communion of the Holy Spirit.” But in Greek it is the same word - “kinonia”.

– What is the essence of koinonia?

– Today we can even talk about a theological movement – ​​“theology of communication.” Some theologians note that the Persons of the Holy Trinity exist precisely in communion. That is, God for Christians is not a separate, lonely “monad”; he manifests himself in the communion of three Hypostases. And such communication can be a model for us, Christian believers.

– How does this relate to the structure of the Church?

- Directly. We say that both the human community and the church structure are called to reflect the existence of God, to be the “image of God.” This form of communication fights the scourge of modern society - individualism and loneliness. What the ancient Greek theologians expressed in the idea of ​​man as a “social animal” receives this biblical justification.

– The conference, according to you, united the participation of Orthodox and Catholics. How should we approach this kind of communication? One can, for example, recall the ambiguous perception of the meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis last year.

– Indeed, this meeting caused a lively reaction in Ukraine – both among Orthodox Christians and Greek Catholics.

– How necessary is this kind of communication? And especially at such a high level?

– Paradoxically, the idea of ​​hierarchy – the “primacy” that I mentioned – comes up again. It is known that Orthodox and Catholics represent two different Christian denominations. On the one hand, they do not have complete unity, and on the other, both recognize the presence of signs of Christian existence in each other - beyond their confessional boundaries. In formal terminology, Catholics and I represent one religion - Christianity, but two different confessions - Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The meeting of the highest church hierarchs and the peaceful resolution of certain issues signal to priests and laity that we, too, can conduct such peaceful inter-Christian communication.

– The word “ecumenism” is often used by critics of such communication. And some consider it “superheresy.” What would you say to those who hold this opinion?

– I would still emphasize that ecumenism is, first of all, an intra-Christian phenomenon. Supporters of such communication are confident that Christ founded one Church - on the rock of faith of the Apostle Peter. In the Gospel of Matthew, He promises: “On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” And “ecumene” is again a Greek word meaning “universe.” For example, the Russian-language “ecumenical patriarch” in English sounds like Ecumenical patriarch.

– What is the relationship between “interfaith communication,” which we talked about at the beginning of the conversation, and the phenomenon of ecumenism?

– In our everyday life these are similar concepts. What was previously called “ecumenical ties,” that is, ties designed to restore the universal unity of Christians, is now called “interfaith ties,” thereby emphasizing the presence of specific faiths and making such communication less amorphous. I think that this trend is generally reasonable - we need to communicate, understand each other, but not dissolve in abstract and amorphous “Christianity.”

– As far as I understand, this conviction is also connected with your teaching at the Academy.

– At the time when I was planning to return to Ukraine after studying in Germany, a reform of our Academy was taking place. New subjects were introduced and teachers were required with knowledge not only from books, but also from reality. So I was assigned to teach the subjects “Catholic Theology” and “Doctrine of Protestant Denominations.”

– Probably to “know the enemy by sight”...

– (Smiles.) I understand your humor. You can say that. When teaching these subjects, I focus on our religious differences, but I also talk a lot about the history of these faiths. For example, for a number of historical reasons, St. Augustine was incredibly important for the formation of both Catholicism and Protestantism. But it is wrong to say that this greatest Father of the Church is alien to the Orthodox tradition. I remember one layman living in Moscow and holding an important position in the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Every year during Lent he rereads St. Augustine’s Confessions and posts short excerpts from this book.

– Interesting: “he posts posts during Lent.”

– (Smiles.) Yes, this is a play on words. But in general, it is important that for the Orthodox, the “Western Father” of the Church is recognized as “one of their own,” like Benedict of Nursia and many others. Since Soviet times, the concept of “saints of the undivided Church” has been actively used, that is, saints before the schism of 1054.

– Let’s assume that in the past – in the first millennium – we were in one united Christian Church. But then the paths diverged...

- I agree with you. Today, and not even for the first decade, “ecumenical relations” are going through a difficult period. Some experts talk about “freezing” relations, and this applies not only to Orthodox Christians.

– On the other hand, these connections remain, and our Church is involved in them to one degree or another.

- Absolutely right. Connections remain primarily with Catholics and traditional Protestants.

– Is this the position of the “romantics of ecumenism” or are there pragmatic reasons?

– (Smiles.) I think there is both. For Ukraine, in a situation of military conflict in the east of the country and a generally unstable political situation, it is important to maintain interfaith peace. Although our country is generally considered Orthodox, there are millions of Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics and Protestants on its territory.

There are various precedents, seizures of churches of our Church by supporters of the “Kyiv Patriarchate”. But the latter are, as it were, “our own”; they are not from the “West”. And by and large, positive relations have remained between Orthodox and Catholics. This generally applies to Greek Catholics, although in recent months there have been difficulties in dialogue with them.

– So you don’t think that there is a war between Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine, as it sometimes sounds in the media?

- In no case. Of course, there is quite aggressive propaganda against our Church. It is often provoked by the non-church public with its own political interests. But churchgoers, people of prayer, do not consider other Christians their enemies. By the Church we are called to go to God, to become like Him. And enmity even with those whom we do not consider our “neighbors” cannot help with this.

– So you are a supporter of inter-church peace in Ukraine?

- Certainly. This trend is spreading in many countries today: politicians, manipulating facts, calling for confrontation and trying to exploit religious potential. The same thing is happening in Ukraine. It's actually a very sad situation. Many cite as an example cases of “separatist sentiments” among the priests of our Church in the east of the country. Sometimes this is true. But I believe that this is more likely the result of their small-town patriotism, rather than a special love for Russia. Make sure that in Ukraine people can live, work, raise children in peace - and we will all be happy to be patriots. I am convinced that all Christian Churches in Ukraine will support such a government and such a president. In general, the people of the Church think in terms of more time than 4-5 years between elections. We are for the stable development of Ukraine, for the prosperity and well-being of all its citizens. It would be strange if Christians, called to “love your neighbor as yourself” and even “love your enemies,” thought differently.

- Thanks for communication!

- And thank you!

Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova

Principles of interfaith dialogue. The role of interfaith dialogue in the modern world is great. This is due to the fact that close interaction between spiritual leaders can remove or soften contradictions between peoples and countries. This will certainly help establish an atmosphere of peace and stability. Dialogue contributes to the unification of believers of different faiths in the fight against global problems of all mankind.

Dialogue of religions is a huge responsibility that not every country could take on. The very concept of dialogue in this context requires clarification. Such communication implies not just the desire to seat representatives of different religions, denominations, trends at a common table and bring them under the common denominator of common beliefs. It is necessary to clearly understand the subject and scope of this dialogue. No one should encroach on the most sacred thing - faith, by forcing adherents of other religions to accept dogmas alien to them. No one should impose their own systems of worship, rituals or customs to prove their superiority. The starting point of the dialogue should be the recognition that for any believer his religion is the only true one and the closest to God.

The modern dialogue of religions has nothing in common with medieval debates, in which theologians representing different faiths tried to prove the superiority of their own faith and expose others. Issues that connect different faiths within society, different states, regions and the world as a whole should be discussed. First of all, this concerns the role of religion in public life and ensuring international peace.

Dialogue between religions can only become effective and useful if its participants adhere to the following principles:

Tolerance and respect for all participants in the dialogue and the particularities of their religious beliefs. Tolerance is manifested in the tolerant attitude of representatives of one faith towards those who adhere to other faiths;

Equality of all partners and the possibility of free expression of opinions, visions and beliefs. None of the participants in the dialogue should have a privileged position in relation to others;

Dialogue should not be aimed at proselytizing representatives of other religions or demonstrating the superiority of one religion over others. The goal of dialogue is not to eliminate differences between religions, but to search for common values ​​and spiritual principles;

Dialogue should be aimed at overcoming prejudices and misinterpretations of other religions, which will create an atmosphere of mutual understanding;

The dialogue should be focused on finding ways of peaceful coexistence and cooperation of all peoples.

Tolerance in interfaith relations. The fundamental basis of interfaith dialogue focused on universal human values ​​is tolerance. Literally, this concept is translated as tolerance or toleration, but in relations between religions, simple tolerance is not enough. After all, tolerance is just an uncritical attitude towards other people’s views, including erroneous ones. A deeper understanding of tolerance is needed.

The time has come to give a more comprehensive interpretation of the principle of tolerance, especially since it continues to be filled with new specific content in the context of interreligious dialogue.

The modern understanding of tolerance was established thanks to the thinkers of the Enlightenment, whose ideas were reflected in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” adopted in 1789 by the Constituent Assembly of France. This declaration became one of the first official documents proclaiming freedom of thought and speech. In 1995, UNESCO adopted the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, which recognizes tolerance as a universal value and a fundamental component of respect for and proper understanding of the world's cultural diversity, religions, forms of expression and ways of expressing human individuality.

Although in its content the concept of “tolerance” is close to the concept of “tolerance”, it would be incorrect to understand these terms as completely synonymous and interchangeable. The “Brief Philosophical Encyclopedia” gives the following definition: “Tolerance is tolerance for other views, morals, and habits. Tolerance is necessary in relation to the characteristics of different peoples, nations and religions. It is a sign of self-confidence and awareness of the reliability of one’s own positions, a sign of an ideological movement open to all, which is not afraid of comparison with other points of view and does not avoid spiritual competition.”

The concept of “tolerance” can be considered quite narrow, because it indicates a certain limitation: it is assumed that a person is forced to endure what he cannot stand. Meanwhile, the term “tolerance” has a broader meaning, incorporating the values ​​of restraint, respect and tact, the ability to understand and forgive.

Thus, tolerance should be defined as respect and recognition of equality, multidimensionality and diversity of human culture, norms, beliefs, rejection of domination and violence, as well as a willingness to accept others as they are and interact with them on the basis of consent.

On the history of interfaith dialogue. Different religions have never existed in isolation from each other. In many countries and regions, representatives of different faiths have long lived side by side. History shows that their relationship was not always peaceful. We know that in the past there have been wars and conflicts over religious beliefs. Relations could be hostile, even if they did not lead to direct clashes. Indeed, religion is based on faith, which presupposes absolute adherence to certain dogmas.

Each religion gives its own understanding of God and offers its own system of worship and rituals. Sometimes minor differences became the causes of bloody conflicts. After all, for a believer, every letter of his holy scripture, every word in prayer is fundamentally important. Therefore, it is obvious that for many it is difficult not only to accept, but also to understand other people's beliefs. Therefore, relations between religions were usually either conflictual or cool.

Of course, in the past there have been attempts to seat leaders of different religions at the same table. Thus, in the Middle Ages, theological disputes were common. At them, spiritual authorities and theologians of different religions (or adherents of different positions within one religion) tried, with the help of all kinds of evidence, to justify the correctness of their own position and the inconsistency of someone else’s. In fact, this can be called not a dialogue of religions, but a confessional polemic.

The participants in the debates did not seek to find common ground; on the contrary, their goal was to try to prove the truth of their own point of view at any cost. The parties saw one of the goals of the controversy as converting opponents to their faith. Naturally, during the disputes, disagreements did not soften, but only intensified. In medieval chronicles one can find many examples of how, when one of the parties did not have enough arguments, disputes ended in the beating and expulsion of representatives of the opposing side.

Of course, such approaches to the relationship of religions are unacceptable today. The starting point of the dialogue of religions today is tolerance and respect for other people's faith, even if it seems wrong.

The history of modern interreligious dialogue began at the end of the 19th century. In 1893, the so-called World Parliament of Religions was convened in Chicago. According to his principles, the optimal foundation for the relationship between religions should be the recognition of their equal value on the path to explaining life and reality.

From 1901 to 1903 In the USA, the International Council of Unitarian Thinkers and Workers operated, whose work was focused on the search for “universal elements” in all religions and the need for their representatives to work together for the moral improvement of the world.

In 1921, the famous theologian Rudolf Otto (1882-1940) organized the Religious Union of Humanity with the goal of easing tensions in international relations by bringing together followers of different faiths.

A new impetus for the development of interreligious dialogue after the Second World War was the expansion of contacts between peoples and faiths, the revival of Eastern religions and the collapse of the colonial system.

In 1960, the international organization “Temple of Understanding” was founded, supported by the Tibetan Dalai Lama, Pope John XXIII, and Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru. This organization later transformed into the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for the Survival of Humanity.

Since 1970, the World Council of Churches has been actively involved in interfaith dialogue, organizing a Conference in Lebanon with the participation of representatives of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. At this forum, it was proposed to organize bilateral discussions on specific issues within the framework of meetings of religious leaders.

In 1986, for the first time in human history, representatives of all major world faiths, at the invitation of the Pope, gathered in the Italian city of Assisi to jointly pray for peace, marking the beginning of the practice of regular interreligious meetings. Assisi meetings have become traditional; representatives of dozens of religions gather at them. Attention to such events showed that all faiths of the world must join forces to solve global problems, relying on the spiritual heritage of humanity, the guardian of which is religion.

To summarize, we can say that, in our opinion, the purpose of religion is to teach a person to see God always and in everything, since it is wrong to think of creation without the Creator. A spiritually mature person sees even the material world in its connection with God, he is able to feel the presence of God in the heart of every living being - even the most sinful, especially since he must learn to see God in other religions. A religion that is unable to teach its followers to see the manifestation of God in everything, including in other spiritual traditions, in our opinion, does not fulfill its purpose. Consequently, we consider the study of other traditions to be an integral part of spiritual culture, and interreligious dialogue is the most effective method of such education, since it allows us to get acquainted with other faiths “from the horse’s mouth.”

Certain differences between religious traditions are inevitable - otherwise there would be no different religions. This is their value: people with different religious needs need different forms of religiosity, which is apparently why the Lord gives different religious systems.

Interreligious dialogue and education also have practical significance - in our diverse society it is necessary to learn to find effective forms of mutual understanding and relationships with different social movements, especially with religious ones, since to one degree or another the sphere of their activities is common and the intersection of interests is inevitable. In other words, reasonable dialogue is simply a necessity, an important condition for peaceful coexistence.

Another practical factor: the exchange of experience in missionary work between faiths can undoubtedly be useful for everyone, especially in the areas of social charity, the fight against crime, drug addiction and other vices.

Third, most of our followers were raised in atheistic families, they are little familiar with other religious traditions, and perhaps their choice is not always conscious enough. Therefore, we consider it necessary to create conditions for receiving systematic, even minimal, interreligious education. This item is included in our training programs.

Based on the classical definition of Vaisnava philosophy that the original position of the soul is to be a servant of the Supreme Lord (Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta, Madhya 20.108), a Vaisnava is not limited to classifying people as Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc., but ultimately everyone sees a soul, an eternal individual particle of God, called to serve Him. This worldview allows a Vaishnava to feel a kinship, a brotherly bond with followers of other monotheistic religions.

The presence of these concepts, which contribute to the cultivation of religious tolerance and respect for representatives of other faiths, allows us to speak of Vaishnavism as a high spiritual culture that can contribute to the development of world religious thought.

From the editor. The outstanding Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, V. N. Lossky, explaining to his contemporaries, who underestimated the importance of what they thought were “abstract” dogmas for the “practical” life of Christianity, found the most precise words to clarify the real meaning of dogmatic tradition.

“The entire complex struggle for dogma that the Church has waged over the centuries appears to us, if we look at it from a purely spiritual point of view, primarily by the tireless care of the Church in every historical era to provide Christians with the opportunity to achieve the fullness of mystical union with God. Indeed, the Church fights against the Gnostics in order to defend the very idea of ​​deification as universal completion: “God became man so that man could become god.” She asserts the dogma of the Consubstantial Trinity against the Arians, for it is the Word, the Logos, that opens the way for us to unity with the Divine, and if the incarnate Word is not of the same essence as the Father, if It is not the true God, then our deification is impossible. The Church condemns the teaching of the Nestorians in order to crush the mediastinum by which in Christ Himself they wanted to separate man from God. She rebels against the teachings of Apollinaris and the Monophysites in order to show: since the true nature of man in all its fullness was taken upon Himself by the Word, our nature in all its integrity must enter into unity with God. She fights with the Monothelites, because without the union of two wills in Christ - the Divine will and the human will, it is impossible for a person to achieve deification: “God created man by His sole will, but He cannot save him without the assistance of the human will.” The Church triumphs in the struggle for icon veneration, affirming the possibility of expressing divine realities in matter as a symbol and guarantee of our deification. In questions that consistently arise in the future - about the Holy Spirit, about grace, about the Church itself - the dogmatic question posed by our time - the main concern of the Church and the guarantee of its struggle is always the affirmation and indication of the possibility, mode and methods of unity of man with God.”

When applied to the present, these words, written a little over half a century ago, need only one addition: another “dogmatic question posed by our time” has appeared - and is becoming increasingly relevant - the question of the relationship between Christianity and other religions and its place in the foreign religious world. It is dogmatic - precisely according to the perfect definition of V.N. Lossky - precisely because it is associated with “indication of the possibility, mode and methods of unity of man with God.” Paraphrasing the constructions of the Russian theologian, we can say without reservation that if what was said by Christ Himself I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me(John 14:6), clarified by the Apostle Paul: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus(1 Tim 2:5) and confirmed by the Apostle Peter: For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved(Acts 4:12) does not contain absolute truth, then our deification is impossible. For it is possible only for the reason already indicated: if the One who became man is the one who said about Himself: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one... let you have no other gods before Me.(Deut. 6:4; 5:7). It is the unity and indispensability of the Christian God that is the object of attacks on today's teachings that are unprecedented in their scale. These teachings differ from all the heresies of the past listed above in that their authors, unlike past heresiarchs, no longer simply reinterpret Scripture and Tradition, but in fact simply deny them or consider them only as ordinary historical sources, no longer relevant for modern spirituality; they no longer simply distort the “dogmatic image” of Christ, but equate Him with the “prophets” of other religions as one of the prisms through which one can see reflections of the Absolute, indifferent to both evil and good; they no longer simply adapt Revelation to their needs, but consider it only as one of the many modes of reflection in human culture of a single impersonal Reality. At the same time, the current countless opponents of “Christ as God” practically reproduce in their constructions the elements of all the main false teachings of the past, starting with the earliest - Gnosticism and Arianism, often and directly expressing regret about their defeat in the history of the Christian Church.

Alpha and Omega begins a series of publications on these newer teachings by considering some aspects of the basic organizational form into which they are predominantly cast and which has received the very popular name interreligious dialogue. Further publications will be devoted to individual theorists and inspirers of this “dialogue of religions.”
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Do not get carried away by different and alien teachings;

for it is good to strengthen hearts by grace,

and not food from which they received no benefit

dealing with them.

1. Religious dialogue has not yet taken root among us. At least one case of failed dialogue is very well known to the author of these lines because he himself refused to participate in it. Namely, when he was offered to enter into a discussion with the Hare Krishnas, he rejected this offer for two reasons. Firstly, this meeting could create a false idea for public opinion that hitherto uninitiated contacts between two world religions - Christianity and “Vedic Hinduism” - have begun in the country - false because despite all their efforts to represent in Russia (and not only in Russia) original Hinduism and convert the “natives” to it, the Hare Krishnas can represent it no more than the “Children of God” or the “Church of Christ” real Christianity, but to be “converted to Vedic Hinduism”, in which it was possible to time just to be born, there is no less semantic absurdity than, for example, “becoming a born brahmana” or a descendant of Rishi Vasishtha for someone who was not such initially. Secondly, it seemed to me that the teachers of shaven-headed young men singing in chorus on Arbat, Red Square and in any other places and joyfully experiencing their “conversion to Vedic Hinduism” can hardly be partners for any serious “religious studies” conversation, and this assumption was subsequently confirmed.

The given example of a failed interreligious dialogue confirms the general situation that these dialogues have not yet become a reality in our country. True, both in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods there were meetings, “consultations”, mutual addresses of official representatives of various religions to each other (for example, in connection with DECR representations at the assemblies of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, etc.), but they are simply were of such a pronounced secularized and biased nature that it was quite difficult to accept them as a “dialogue of religions” in the proper sense. This, however, does not mean that “dialogue of religions” will not become a reality in our future. The future can also be understood as the near future. In fact, there are at least several factors that contribute to future dialogues of this type.

First of all, this is the “Islamic factor,” which is becoming increasingly relevant for Russian politics, especially after the Chechen war. This factor has fully proven its great potential as a source of disintegration of the Russian Federation already in the present, and in connection with the growing support of foreign Islam for Russian Muslims, it will significantly increase its “disintegration” potential in the near future. In this regard, it is more than likely that Russian politicians, as a counteraction to this process of disintegration, will try to use, among other means, certain forms of Christian-Islamic dialogue, the purpose of which may be an attempt to “soften” the differences of opinion of these religions and emphasize their “common denominators” (another issue whether this hypothetical attempt will bring the desired hypothetical results, but it is difficult to doubt that it can be undertaken). But the initiative to organize interreligious dialogues can also come from those opposing political and ideological forces that are not satisfied with the possibility of integration, since they see in it the revival of a “totalitarian empire,” and the historical priority position of the Orthodox Church in Russia also does not suit them, since it can, according to this system of calculations, take on the functions of “the ideology of totalitarianism and nationalism” (among such opponents of Orthodoxy there are Orthodox clergy themselves, some of whom are unsympathetic to even the word itself Orthodoxy, and they prefer “Christianity with a human face” to him). Obviously, there is also a possible interest in interreligious dialogue, which would prove the equality of all religions and the inconsistency of Orthodoxy’s claims to any priorities in comparison with any, even the most dubious, foreign missionary formations, which already now find constant support from liberal journalism. The third “factor” of interest in interreligious dialogues may be the actively reviving Russian theosophy, as well as neo-theosophy (in the form, for example, of Roerich): such dialogues may be intended to confirm the basic theosophical “dogma”, according to which the differences of all private religions are essentially illusory against the background their integral unity in the form of a universal human Religion (the provisions of which are expressed in theosophical and “agniyogic” writings). The fourth “factor” can be directly opposite to the third (as the second was opposite to the first), namely, those Orthodox apologists who are easily provoked into dialogue by the same Theosophists, as well as domestic (like local Hare Krishnas) and visiting foreign religious missionaries, with whom this dialogue with the still dominant Church in Russia is important for their self-affirmation. But the main “factor” will be the fifth - the fact that “dialogue of religions” has become a spirit of the times, what is called Zeitgeist and has occupied a significant position in the religious life of the entire “world community” for at least three decades. Let's start with its main chronological milestones.
2. Interreligious dialogue is always associated with considerable risks and obvious inconveniences. With a risk because its outcome is hardly predictable, because it is largely connected with the ability to show one’s competence in the opponent’s religion, with the success of argumentation and means of persuasion in the face of an opponent who also strives for victory at any cost, and with the unknown reaction to the dispute by that external audience, which both sides are trying to “conquer”. With inconvenience because in the course of dialogue the inevitable need to reveal “one’s own,” which is in its essence a matter of personal faith and “logic of the heart” (in Pascal’s words), and not formal or dialectical logic, to an external audience for which it is “one’s own.” ” is still “stranger”, and in front of an opponent for whom it is already “hostile” in advance. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians entered into interreligious dialogue in many cases under the influence of external circumstances (and it was in such cases that it turned out to be successful), seeing in them the actions of God’s providence for the sake of converting the world of other religions.

One of the most famous examples is the journey of St. Cyril the Philosopher in 858 to Khazaria in response to the request of the Khazar Kagan to Emperor Michael III to send a competent theologian to his country in a situation of rivalry between Jewish and Muslim missionaries in his domains. St. Cyril, who specially studied the Hebrew language to communicate with the Jews, confidently answered all their main objections to Christians: those related to the possibility of the Incarnation, the “illegitimate” novelty of the New Testament, the obligatory nature of circumcision, the imaginary similarities of icon veneration with idolatry, the need to wait for a new messiah, etc. etc., relying on both logical argumentation and detailed knowledge of the Old Testament (primarily prophetic) writings. Based on the same texts, authoritative for Muslims, St. Cyril pointed out the inconsistency of these texts with Islamic claims to the prophetic charisma of Mohammed. As a result of these theological debates, up to two hundred Khazars were baptized, and St. Cyril outlined his polemics with his opponents, according to his “lengthy life,” in a special work, subsequently translated into Slavic St. Methodius.
The interreligious dialogue of the last century differs fundamentally from what is stated above. Christians are not at all drawn into it by external circumstances, but rather create these circumstances themselves, putting them in special organizational forms. Another difference between this dialogue and the “classical” one is that the goal of its Christian participants is not so much the conversion of people of other faiths to their faith, but their own adaptation to the consciousness of another religion. Of course, the results of such a dialogue also correspond to the indicated religious attitudes, which, as can be seen below, are very different from the results of the “classical” dialogue.

Experts on this modern interreligious dialogue reasonably associate its beginning with the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, organized on the initiative of Swedenborgians and liberal Protestants in 1893, among the participants of which were two Eastern missionaries - from Zen Buddhism Shake Soen and from Vedanta Swami Vivekananda. Both immediately found a response in the audience (already sufficiently prepared for the reception of new religious values ​​by the Theosophical Society of E. Blavatsky and G. Olcott), and the second of them immediately offered her the optimal platform for dialogue: all religions are equally valuable on the path to the Real, but Vedanta is such A path in its own sense, especially for modern man, since its identification of “I” with the Absolute frees the individual from the feeling of dependence on supernatural forces and (which is especially important) from the concept of sin, and therefore is more consistent with the scientific picture of the world. Some orthodox evangelicals treated such a “scientific picture of the world” and religious studies, according to which all religions are equal, but one of them is even “more equal,” with legitimate distrust, but the seeds of a new, “dialogical” consciousness were sown, and after a few years in The first Vedanta societies were created in America (Zen Buddhist societies were created later). In 1901–1903 the International Council of Unitarian thinkers and activists acted: the most “diffuse” of all American denominations, the Unitarian sect (its main “dogma” - the denial of the divine trinity - makes it difficult to define it as Christian) emphasized the predominance of “universal elements” in all religions and the need for common the work of their representatives “for the moral upliftment of the world.” In 1921, the famous theologian R. Otto organized the Religious Union of Humanity with the goal of easing tensions in international relations by bringing together believers of different religions. However, the International Missionary Council of Christians and Hindus, founded in 1928, turned out to be more durable. His ideology was outlined in detail in two “manifestoes”: “Rethinking Missions” by W. Hawking (1932) and “West and East in Religion” by the famous political figure and neo-Hinduist S. Radhakrishnan (1933). The platform for dialogue was practically no different from that proposed by Vivekananda, but some new accents were still placed: the comparative study of religions demonstrates the inconsistency of their claims to exclusivity, but behind all of them, as “empirical forms,” hides “the same intention, the same desire, the same same faith.” At the same time, in the 1930s, the “Oxford group” began to work, calling itself the “Moral Rearmament of Humanity” and attracting, along with Christians, representatives of non-Christian religions. However, its achievements were modest in comparison with the aforementioned Missionary Council, which formulated in Madras (1938) a universal modus vivendi as a middle ground between two extremes: “theological imperialism”, which assumes the uniqueness of the true Revelation, and syncretism, which assumes that there are no real differences between the many “revelations” "

Religious scholars see the success of the “dialogue of religions” in the post-war era in the unity of several factors: the expansion of contacts between Christians and non-Christians, the crisis of the world colonial system (which led to inequality in inter-religious relations), the revival of Eastern religions, as well as “internal processes” in Christianity, primarily in the form of a broad rejection (deep or at least declarative) of the “authoritarian basis of religion” in any of its forms. F. Heyler (theologian from Marburg), a participant in the 1958 international religious conference in Tokyo, expressed the hope that “a new era will come in the history of mankind, when religions will come to true tolerance and cooperation for the sake of humanity. To prepare the paths of this faith is one of the best hopes associated with the scientific study of religion.” In 1960, this dream began to materialize when, on the initiative of “ordinary American” Judith Hollister, the international organization “Temple of Understanding” was founded, supported simultaneously by the Dalai Lama, John XXIII, the American Catholic Thomas Merton, Jawaharlal Nehru and Albert Schweitzer. The Temple of Understanding became a founding member of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for the Survival of Humanity and subsequently organized the North American International Association, bringing together 125 interfaith groups in the United States and Canada, as well as hosting “interfaith networking” conferences in Latin America and the Middle East.

Since the 1960s, the very word “dialogue” in connection with interreligious relations has come into fashion among the liberal wing of Catholics and Protestants, as well as among Third World Christians. True, conservative religious circles did not accept this term, since it seems to equate religions or, at least, does not sufficiently explicate the priorities of Christianity. However, in the debate over this term, a significant advantage for liberals over conservatives was ensured by the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), in which the term received unambiguous legitimization. The declaration “On the attitude of the Church towards non-Christian religions” and a number of other official texts indicated that the Church exhorts “its children<…>through dialogue and cooperation with followers of other religions” to recognize and preserve the spiritual and moral values ​​of other religious cultures, and also that Christians “can learn through sincere and patient dialogue what treasures the merciful God has distributed among the peoples of the earth” (cf. Nostra aetate 2; Ad gentes 2.11).

Since 1970, the World Council of Churches, chaired by Dr. Eugene Blake, has been actively involved in the “dialogue of religions.” This year he is holding a conference in Lebanon with representatives from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. The leadership of the Council addressed the participants of the “Temple of Understanding” conference; the address called on the heads of all religions to unite. The Central Committee of the Council, at a meeting in Addis Ababa in January 1971, proposed concretizing interreligious dialogue in the form of organizing bilateral discussions on specific issues. In 1972, as part of this project, a meeting of 40 representatives of Christians and Muslims took place.

The participation of Orthodox representatives in the “dialogue of religions” is more modest than that of other major Christian denominations, but it is also carried out - within the framework of the World Council of Churches and in the form of individual bilateral contacts. Thus, Metropolitan of the Mountains of Lebanon (Orthodox Church in Antioch) George Khodr, at the mentioned meeting in Addis Ababa, called on Christians to enrich themselves with the heritage of universal religious experience and offered his justification for the dialogue in the form of the assumption that “that which is perceived as light when grace descends upon Brahmin, Buddhist and Muslim reading their sacred scriptures - this is Christ.” The membership of some Greek hierarchs in the “Temple of Understanding” dates back to the same year. In 1972, the first bilateral meeting took place: representatives of the Greek Episcopate of North and South America, during two-week consultations, conducted a dialogue with the Jews regarding a possible more “modern” reading of Orthodox liturgical texts.

The 1960s-1970s were examined in such detail because they were the “formative era” of interreligious dialogue. It was then that its main forms were outlined - joint conferences of representatives of the main world religions and bilateral “consultations” of individual participants in the “forum of religions” - and the main driving forces in the form of the World Council of Churches, the Catholic Agiornamento and non-confessional organizations such as the “Temple of Understanding” with its “ projects for the creation of a world community of religions.” The current stage is practically only the disclosure and development of these fully formed trends. Therefore, only two moments in the evolution of this already established religious movement can be noted. The “dialogue of religions” distinguishes between the meetings of religions considered world-class: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism and the first three - monotheistic religions. Thus, in 1989 the book “Three Faiths - One God” appeared. Judeo-Christian-Muslim meeting”, reproducing the materials of the “trialogue” organized by one of the “monopolists” of modern religious studies, John Hick (Claremont, California), author and publisher of more than three dozen books on religious issues and “sponsor” of entire publishing series. During the “trialogue,” representatives of the three religions acted as co-speakers for each other on the problems of understanding God, man and the world, so it quite successfully imitated academic debate, and its materials could well satisfy the most elite reader. At a more esoteric level, the “dialogue of religions” is transformed into a whole “religion of dialogue”, in which the myth of the one God of different religions corresponds to its own “ecumenical” ritual, expressed in the fact that the participants in these “dialogical mysteries” simultaneously pray in their own languages ​​to their gods in parallel (an infernal parody of Pentecost). In 1986, already at the first meeting of religions for world peace in Assisi, organized by the Vatican, Catholic churches were provided to various religions. In one of them, an idol of Buddha was placed on the throne. The “liturgical” part in this new cult follows, as a rule, the “theological” - debate on the subject of mutual understanding or, in other words, dialogue about the dialogue itself.

3. This is the external, chronological outline of the “dialogue of religions,” which, as one can see, led to the formation of a new religious reality in the form of a “religion of dialogue.” But what actual tasks did its participants set and are setting for themselves? The most authoritative specialist on the “dialogue of religions” E. J. Sharp distinguishes four main types of it. The first is “discursive dialogue”. According to him, “for those who believe that human reason is competent to lead individuals to an understanding of truth, the corresponding activity, which was formerly called “dialectic” or “debate”, when transformed in terms of dialogue, can be characterized as "discursive dialogue"". In other words, we are talking about an attempt, in dialogue with representatives of other religions, to identify theoretical similarities and differences between different religious worldviews (their main “tenets”) in order to clarify what can be called the “common denominator” of all religions. Sharp doesn't think this type of dialogue is particularly promising. Firstly, in our time, religiously minded people trust reason less and less, believing that “beliefs” or “intellectual conceptualizations” of faith are of much less value in comparison with living religious experience (we would pay attention to the fact that one of the most influential modern religious scholars W. K. Smith expresses this “spirit of the times” in the position that all religions are relatively true or false in their “conceptions” and absolutely true in their “practice”). Secondly, the participant in the dialogue, whether he wants it or not, is looking for “common denominators” in the conceptual grid of his own tradition, which prevents the achievement of the actual “dialogical” goals.

Sharp characterizes the second type of dialogue as “human dialogue.” The implied task here is to see in a representative of another religion not a bearer of certain “beliefs” and “concepts,” but simply a person as he is, and to understand him in the same way as a participant in a dialogue understands himself (outside his religious identification). This position was taken by K. M. Rogers and the already mentioned Smith. Sharp notes the high humanitarian value of this approach to dialogue and its obvious noble “idealism,” but rightly doubts that dialogue of such an orientation is specifically religious (since to “understand” the interlocutor we must abstract from his “beliefs” and “concepts” "). In addition, he expresses doubts that the very personality of the interlocutor can be completely “separated” from his religious background and corresponding mentality.

The third type is “secular dialogue”, in which people of different religions meet to discuss and solve universal human problems or, in the language of J. Singh (Christian Institute for the Study of Religions in Bangalore), “the common struggle of humanity for food, dignity and justice.” In addition to him, supporters of this dialogue are, for example, the American dialogue specialist R. Tylor and the Dane K. Baage: the latter even believes that religious affiliation is an obstacle to the joint solution of universal problems, and therefore the optimal participants in the dialogue are “those who left the organized church or stands away from her.” Sharp believes that the third type of dialogue is essentially close to the second and that the same claims apply to it as to the previous one: firstly, it is not clear what is actually religious in such a dialogue, and secondly, it is obvious that even the most secular A Christian and a Vedantist still look at the worldly problems of this world differently, and therefore it will not be possible to come to a complete consensus here, bypassing what corresponds to a “discursive dialogue” (about which see above).

The fourth type is “internal dialogue”: “its locus is the mystical, contemplative tradition, and its supporters, as a rule, are those who are already rooted in this tradition.” Among the supporters of this dialogue, D. Griffiths and the famous Indian Catholic Fr. A. Le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda). This dialogue is more promising than others, since it is increasingly a common belief that God reveals Himself in every religious tradition and that the essence of religiosity lies in the mystical experience of the individual's unity with the Absolute. The “common denominator” of all religions is, from this point of view, “negative theology,” which has long been thought of as “a spiritual discipline rather than an intellectual exercise,” as formulated at the Bombay Consultation on Theology within the framework of the Hindu-Christian Dialogue (1969). .). Here you can find common points, for example, between Christian mysticism and Advaita Vedanta, but the problem remains here, since, in Sharpe’s thorough opinion, Christianity is not exhausted by mysticism, and Hinduism is not exhausted by Advaita. In general, Sharpe is of the opinion that uncertainty and ambiguity reign in both the understanding of the semantics of the “dialogue of religions” and the understanding of its tasks. He also has a pessimistic assessment of the “practice” of dialogue itself, which is expressed in the fact that the subject of discussion is the “dialogue” itself and its relevance - to a much greater extent than the specific problems intended for “dialogical solutions”. The future of dialogue therefore depends, in his opinion, on the extent to which its participants can reach consensus and real dialogue beyond “dialogue about dialogue.”

A critical analysis of the objectives of interreligious dialogue by its most authoritative researcher seems to lead to even more pessimistic conclusions about its very meaning than those that Sharpe decided on. In fact, “humanitarian” and “secular” dialogues actually fall outside the definition of “religious dialogue” as such. The “discursive” and “internal” dialogues are designed to solve problems that are essentially problems of completely theoretical religious studies, that is, an objective, scientific study of religious worldviews based on the relevant primary sources, for which meetings of the bearers of these worldviews themselves, pursuing, as a rule, apologetic goals, can not so much to help as to hinder. The only clarification can be connected with the fact that the recently fashionable separation of mysticism from the “doctrinal structure” of religion is completely illegitimate: both the Byzantine Palamites and the German medieval mystics were equally mystics and followed the “contemplative discipline,” but this “ contemplative discipline” in both cases was based on completely different ways of comprehending both God and man’s mystical meeting with Him. Likewise, given the presence in various “developed religions” of apophatic, “negative” theology, Christian apophatism is fundamentally different from the apophatism of Vedantists or Madhyamikas, for the personal Absolute and the impersonal Absolute are significantly different in the very modes of their unknowability.

As a result, it turns out that the dialogues of one group are not religious, the tasks of the dialogues of another group are solvable by completely non-dialogical means, and all dialogues together have as their subject the dialogue itself, and not what can be clarified during it (which, however, does not prevent them be one of the forces guiding modern religious syncretism). From these premises it follows a clear conclusion that existing interreligious dialogues have no meaning as such. One could put an end to this if these dialogues had only an explicitly expressed purpose (interreligious understanding), but did not have some implicit super-task, which Sharpe does not take into account. He does not take it into account because it is present both among the organizers of the dialogue and among their participants rather in the form of “Freudian sayings” than in clear formulations. These “pronouncements” are heard in cases where dialogue theorists discuss its significance for a hypothetical “religion of the future.”

4. “The religion of the future” is conceived in different ways, but the main contours of this ideal, in which something like a “new revelation” should be revealed (the most popular term of today’s “super-ecumenism”), still converge among most authors. “The religion of the future” is, first of all, the mutual openness of different religions towards each other and their “mutual enrichment”, which, however, should not lead to syncretism, merger, or loss of identity. There are, however, disagreements regarding whether primarily theistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) will participate in this process of “unification without merging,” which may then be joined by semi-theistic ones (like Hinduism), and then by non-theistic ones (like Buddhism), or the process may embrace all these religions at once due to a more expanded understanding of the Deity than is currently assumed in theistic consciousness. Supporters of the first model of creating a “religion of the future” include some “theocentrists” like R. Pannikar, the second - for example, the famous American religious scholar H. Coward, to whom the thinking of “super-ecumenical theists” seems unjustifiably conservative. However, none of them has yet succeeded in verbalizing the way in which the “cross-fertilization” of religions (Coward) or their “mutual fertilization” (Pannikar) will not violate the “immaculate” inviolability of the parties involved. And this is really difficult, since they want to combine what is mutually exclusive.

If the builders of the “religion of the future” were a little more familiar with the texts of Eastern religions - the very religions with which theistic religions should “mutually enrich” (ignorance helps in everything, in the synthesis of religions in particular), then they would have found some of their prototypes there. Namely, in several suttas of the Pali Digha Nikaya, for example, the Potthapada Sutta and the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha uses two similes for those who talk about spiritual realities that are beyond the boundaries of their experience and understanding. He compares them to a man who claims to love and desire the most beautiful woman in his country, but cannot answer anything when asked about her, what kind of varna she is, what race she is from, what skin color, what she generally looks like and what kind of her name. According to another comparison, these people remind him of a man who decided to attach a staircase to the balcony of a non-existent house, and when he is asked whether the house faces north, south, west or east and what size it is, he, naturally, cannot answer these questions . The “religion of the future” preached by “super-ecumenists” is exactly the same chimera as a completely unfamiliar but beloved woman or a staircase to the balcony of a non-existent house. But it is even more unreal than these phantom objects, because behind the unfamiliar woman there is still hidden the image of a woman, and behind the unbuilt house - houses, while “inviolability during mutual fertilization” is a logical contradiction, approximately the same as a round square, or, in Indian, the son of a barren woman, and therefore this religion has less reality than, say, the golden mountain or the currently reigning king of France.

Regarding those dreaming about a beloved stranger and building a staircase to the balcony of a non-existent house, the above-mentioned texts posed a rhetorical question like: “What do you think, Potthapada! Doesn’t everything these people say turn into meaningless chatter?” . In the same way, one can define discussions about the possibility for “mutually enriching” religions to preserve their “integrity”. However, there are some nuances here: of all the religions participating in this process at the present time, Christianity is the most subject to deformation - apparently because “inviolability” is more significant for it than for other partners in the “religion of dialogue.”

Let us turn to some facts of the modern history of the “religion of the future”, in addition to the already completely regular interreligious meetings and prayers organized by the World Council of Churches. In 1993, the centenary of the Parliament of Religions was celebrated in Chicago (see the first part of the article), which became, in the words of some of the founders of this anniversary, “a celebration of religious diversity.” This, in a certain sense, unprecedented manifestation of the “worldwide unity of religions” was attended by 6 thousand representatives of 250 religions. The anniversary conference, held this time with the participation of not only Protestants, but also some representatives of the highest Catholic and Orthodox clergy, was “consecrated” by American Indian priests, and one of its culminating points was the speeches of the priestesses of Isis and other representatives of the female priesthood. The conference ended with a general prayer meeting of all representatives of “religious diversity.” Another holiday of “religious spring” was celebrated in 1994 at the conference of the National Council of Churches of Australia. The most exotic events took place in the Catholic Church of St. Christopher in Canberra: after its altar was “consecrated” by local pagan priests, an Aboriginal woman of the same faith made an entrance with the gospel from it, and subsequently monks of different religions, starting with Catholic orders, passed through “cleansing” pagan smoke. Finally, since 1986, the Vatican has held an annual meeting of religions, the first of which took place in Assisi. If the first meeting was attended by 150 representatives from 12 religions, then in 1993 in Milan there were already 300 from 42. The meeting participants, praying one after another in front of a microphone on the podium (this demonstration of religiosity was completed by representatives of all three Christian denominations), gave rise to the cardinal Cassidy stated already in the next year, 1994, that “the spirit of Assisi unites all religions,” and in 1996 the tenth anniversary of these meetings was celebrated in Assisi (marking, in the words of their organizers, the victory of “theology of culture”), already at the first of which Muslims, Shintoists, Hindus and Buddhists were provided with separate Catholic monasteries and temples to perform their worship.

These events, predicted long before the meetings in Assisi by the brilliant author of “The Chronicles of Narnia” in the form of attempts by some Narnians to unite the veneration of the valiant lion Aslan and the monster Tash, are unlikely to cause any wary reaction in a reader without “confessional prejudices.” Moreover, he will probably expose the author of these lines for a certain inconsistency: the author promised to show that the “mutual enrichment” of religions causes deformation in the consciousness of Christians participating in these processes (one might add, processions), while here is only a statement of open , their “broad” attitude towards other “brothers in religion”, which cannot yet indicate “internal processes” in their consciousness, and if it can, it is most likely positive. The author will have to justify himself and defend himself, and the first lines of his defense can be formulated in the form of a question - initially rhetorical: is it good to mislead and deceive other people, even if they belong to other religions? - and then Socratic: doesn’t it mean when we call a thing good that we recognize its correspondence to a certain model, and when it is bad, that it does not correspond to this model (eidos) in any way?

5. Let's start with the most seemingly external moment: joint prayers, which at “super-ecumenical” meetings are held either simultaneously or in alternating speeches in front of the microphone and the audience. According to the recommendation of the One whom Christian participants in these events at least officially recognize as their God, “when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stop and pray in the synagogues and on street corners in order to appear before people. Truly I tell you that they are already receiving their reward” (Matthew 6:5). Prayer with the goal of “appearing before people” is not so much a prayer as a parody of it, for prayer is a secret appeal to “Your Father who is in secret” (Matthew 6:6), in this case the goal is precisely “to appear before people ” - people of modern standards, for whom there are no prejudices and nothing serious (even in such a serious matter as religion in the past). And Christian participants in interreligious prayers receive their reward from public opinion, which is most satisfied with such religiosity of a purely secular, semi-political, semi-game nature: people who pray “without prejudice” and for show cannot make serious demands on themselves, much less on the world this.

Another point worthy of attention is that Christians participating in an interreligious cult act as representatives of a traditional religion, that is, they, unlike Moonies, Scientologists, New Agers and other representatives of “new religions”, in theory should somehow rely on what is called tradition. Christian Tradition, as is known, is preserved by the Church, and among church institutions the most authoritative are conciliar decrees. According to the most ancient of them, “The Book of the Rules of the Holy Apostles,” “if a Christian brings oil to a pagan temple or to a Jewish synagogue on their holidays, or lights a candle, he will be excommunicated from church communion” (canon 71). The first rules of the Council of Ancyra (311–315) distinguished degrees of repentance for those clergy and laity who were forced by violent measures on the part of the pagans to make involuntary sacrifices to their gods and subsequently professed their faith in the One God (rules 1–6), and for those who at least somehow participated in the pagan festival, even without participating in the actual pagan sacrifice (rule 7). According to the rules of the Council of Laodicea (364), Christians should not celebrate together with the Jews, accept cult gifts from them, and “should not celebrate with the pagans and partake of their atheism” (rules 29, 37–39).

To this, Christians with a “modern” consciousness will say that these rules reflect a certain cultural era and, unlike the creed, have only historical significance and are hopelessly outdated for the present time. And they will be right. These rules are so outdated that they do not imply what became possible in a different cultural era, and therefore their compilers apparently did not imagine that there could be “Christians” who would participate in joint religious activities not only with Jews and pagans (all five continents), but also with Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and priestesses of Isis, not forcibly, but absolutely voluntarily on their own persistent, even obsessive initiative; they will not “church” pagan religious buildings, but will invite pagans to “bless” their churches, not shun pagan smoke, but “consecrate” them to “true monasticism.” The church canonists of the “backward era” could not imagine this even in a dream and, apparently, would have taken it for a demonic obsession if they had seen it in reality. And in fact, if Christians were considered people who were ready to endure any martyrdom in order not to participate in anything like that, then “Christians”, who were ready to do anything to participate in this, can bear the same name only homonymously (having no more relation to real Christians than a braid that is used to cut grass has to a braid that a girl braids). The organizers of the “Assisi events” should have little sympathy in their souls for those saints of the “Italian land”, with whom, as belonging to the “Church of Saints”, they should theoretically express their solidarity - with such as Francis of Assisi himself, who embodied the ideal of love not only to neighbors, but also “to all creation,” but who proposed an uncompromising “test of faith” to the Mohammedan muftis, Leo Bishop of Catania († c. 780), who forced the sorcerer Iliodor to enter the fire with him (instead of inviting him to participate in Council of Churches of Sicily!), or the Supreme Apostle Peter, who destroyed all the “miracles” of Simon Magus - the apostle with whom they claim a special relationship.

Representatives of all three Christian denominations participating in the movement of modern “super-ecumenism” at least theoretically recognize the authority of Holy Scripture and even repeatedly refer to it. For example, they willingly present texts at their events such as “that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21; one feminist managed to quote these words at the same National Council of Churches of Australia, where the pagan Aboriginals were commissioned to “bless” the altar of the Catholic Church), completely separating them from their context, according to which the condition for achieving the unity in question is unity in faith in the Son of God . Regarding cult (including prayer) communication with those who believe in other gods, another text directly and unequivocally says: “What is the agreement between Christ and Belial?<…>What is the relationship between the temple of God and idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God said: I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean; and I will receive you” (2 Cor 6:15-17). The above verses have very significant parallels in New Testament writing (cf. 1 John 5:21, Rev. 18:4), which directly states that “the pagans, when they offer sacrifices, offer to demons, and not to God. But I do not want you to be in fellowship with demons” (1 Cor 10:20), as well as in the Old Testament (Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37; cf. Jer 50:8; 51:6; Is 48: 20, etc.). The “super-ecumenists” have only two ways out of this situation. They could honestly reject the Apostle Paul, who, due to his “backwardness” (the same one that determined the above canons of the Church, which are also based on his authority), did not want those who call themselves Christians to be in communion with demons, but this would put They, among other things, have a somewhat ambivalent attitude, for example, towards Muslims, who are relatively respectful of Christians as “people of the Book,” that is, based on the Holy Scriptures (the apostle does not contradict the prophets in any way). But they can choose another move, much more convenient - to pretend that such texts of the Holy Scripture do not exist at all, and, in fact, they adhere to this line.

Of course, the rejection of “out-of-date” Tradition and “inconvenient” Scripture significantly helps blur the boundaries between Christianity and other religions, which is a necessary condition for the formation of a “religion of the future.” But these are still necessary, but not yet sufficient steps for the final victory of “uniformity in diversity”, which the organizers of the “religion of dialogue” strive for. The decisive means of overcoming the latest obstacles from “historically limited” traditionalism are being developed, as they should be, not by the managers and sponsors of this religion, but by its theorists. To concretize this thesis, let us turn to the considerations of the most authoritative among them - J. Hick (about him, see: Alpha and Omega. No. 1(12). 1997. - P. 331).

The history of interreligious relations, Hick wrote in a special article that concluded the collection “Truth and Dialogue” he published, “should be considered in the broad context of the refraction of the Transcendent in the cultural and historical factors that make up the main religions. Since 1000 BC, the world has known the rise of religious movements of mankind towards Reality, which began with the Israelite prophets, continued with Zoroaster, the Greek philosophers, Laozi and Confucius, Buddha and the Bhagavad Gita, as well as Jesus of Nazareth, and ended with the ministry Muhammad. Despite the fact that religions were less isolated from each other than we think, each of them, due to the historical limitations of human cultures, developed in sufficient isolation, which determined their significant mutual differences. Currently, in the “single world” of modernity, religions participating in constant contacts and dialogue are experiencing an era of irreversible rapprochement. This trend will be realized definitively in the future, “when one day such names as “Christianity,” “Buddhism,” “Islam,” and “Hinduism” will no longer designate previously well-known forms of religious experience and faith.” This does not mean that the new forms will be completely uniform, since diversity in cult, organizational forms, theological doctrines, especially in the diversity of psychological types of believers, will certainly remain, but different religions in the conditions of the new culture will be differentiated no more than, say, today's denominations within Western Christianity.

According to Hick, three obstacles currently remain on the path to this convergence of religions, two of which are relatively easy to overcome. The first is differences in the methods of experimental perception of Divine reality: we are talking about differences in the perception of it as a personal and, accordingly, “transpersonal” origin. Since everyone generally understands that God is infinite and transcends human categories, He can be understood as the Lord of the world and as the impersonal Ground of existence, and as a Judge, and as a Father, as a source of justice and a source of love. Here a common language can be found without much difficulty, using, for example, some modern models, such as the “logic of the Absolute” by Sri Aurobindo. The second obstacle is the differences in philosophical and theological interpretations of religious experience, but even the most seemingly serious of them can be, with an interpretation focused not on external formulations, but on the essence of the matter, to a large extent neutralized. For example, Hick does not see any special obstacles for a Christian to believe in reincarnation, or for a Hindu to believe in the continuation of personal existence in other spheres of existence, if, of course, we clarify some points (first of all, where the continuation of life should take place - on earth or in other cosmic spheres ). There is opportunity here, Hick hopes, “for maneuver on both sides” and for “fruitful dialogue and joint research.” The greatest problems are created by the third obstacle - every religion insists on the “exclusiveness” of its founder, sacred texts, or both. The exclusivity of “one’s own” prophet naturally limits the prerogatives of “outsiders,” and this is precisely what prevents interreligious convergence. The most obvious case is the claim of Christians after the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the unique divinity of Christ as consubstantial with the Father. This unique divinity allows traditionalists to insist on the “self-sufficiency” of their religious revelation (which prevents dialogue). However, the matter is not hopeless here: recently, meaningful reinterpretations of the doctrine of the Incarnation have appeared. One of them was put forward by the theologian D. Baillie, the other by the Anglican bishop C. Cragg, who, in his “cautious essay” on the essential similarity of the “messengers” of Jesus and Muhammad, attempted to unconventionally consider what has always divided Christians and Muslims. Hick himself, by his own admission, has already begun to deal with the problem of the modern interpretation of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and will continue to work on this issue. The problem, of course, is fraught with unpredictable complications, and “this is a point at which fresh dialogue and fresh research are as urgent as they are difficult.”

The cited article by Hick was published in 1975, and two years later he published another collection, the team of authors of which entitled their results as “The Myth of the Incarnation” (1977). The question of revising the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon has become one of the most pressing for theorists of interreligious dialogue. In 1981 alone, several special books appeared in which the “main obstacle” was studied. J. Miele published the book “God or Christ: the excesses of Christocentrism.” L. Richard in the book “What do they say about Christ and world religions?” posed the question with all severity. “Can Christianity,” he addressed his opponents, “recognize other religious traditions as adequate means of salvation without abandoning its fundamental conviction regarding the absoluteness and uniqueness of Jesus Christ?” . And the collection of articles “The Divinity of Christ and Religious Pluralism” explicitly stated that the “universalist” claims of Christianity could lead to new crusades and religious imperialism. The fear, of course, was completely unfounded, since we already know that five years later, at the first interreligious meeting in Assisi, Christian temples began to be provided to Muslims, Buddhists and Shintoists (this state of affairs, of course, is far from “imperialism”), but “ the author of the fear” quite consciously appealed to democratic public opinion, clearly “pitting” it against the Council of Chalcedon.

Two monographs by reputable experts on the dialogue of religions, which appeared in 1985, also “thematized” the non-modernity of Christian traditionalism. P. Nitter's book directly polemicized with the opinion of the Apostle Peter, according to which “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The aforementioned G. Coward in the book “Pluralism: a challenge to world religions”, citing the canons of the Council of Chalcedon according to Hick’s collection in 1977 (see above) - it was already noted that the situation with the theorists of interreligious dialogue with the “academic base” is very unsatisfactory - he correctly saw in them the reason for the centuries-old “self-isolation” of Christianity and the justification of its missionary activity (the same activity of Buddhists, from whom this “Christian” theologian considers it necessary for everyone to learn tolerance, did not cause any complaints from him).

If Klostermeier teaches mainly Indologists, then our domestic orientalists G. Pomerantz and Z. Mirkina - great admirers of the current Dalai Lama, who declared the 21st century the century of interreligious dialogue, consider the union of religions to be no less natural than the union of a man and a woman, they believe that the truth is revealed with the understanding that “all dogmas are beautiful, like icons” and only “in a round dance of dogmas,” and the passivity of some Orthodox and other Christians in interreligious dialogue testifies to their spiritual immaturity - they take on the difficult burden of being “friends of humanity.” That is why their book, dedicated not to “one particular” religion, but to all the “great religions of the world,” does not contain, unlike Klostermayr’s, such trifles as dating, or in general any specific information about this or that religious tradition ( the information that can be gleaned from them does not in any way indicate that the authors of the book are representatives of any special field of humanitarian knowledge, Orientalism in particular), but rather the “mood” of the authors about them; Each one seems to them worthy, but still limited. The book contains very few texts: when Orientalist authors translate some established Russian translation, they designate chapters and verses, and when they do not designate, then you can find out which text was “translated” only by associations. The relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism seems typologically close to the relationship between the New Testament and Old Testament religions, but at the same time such a “trifle” is forgotten that the “Indian Old Testament religion” of the caste system, which Buddhism tried to reform, took shape shortly before the Buddha’s sermon, but... after it, because It is still impossible to talk about the caste system in the strict sense in connection with the pre-Buddhist era. Jainism, in contrast to Buddhism, is characterized as a sect or “group of sects” (?!), Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna to fight on the battlefield, fulfilling his dharma, is compared with ... the advice to render to God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s, Rama and Krishna as “full incarnations” Vishnu is compared with the Second Hypostasis of the Christian Trinity (the authors confused the two dogmas of Christianity - the Trinity and the Incarnation, apparently lost in the “round dance of dogmas” - see above), and the early stages of the evolution of the three main movements of Hinduism - Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism are freely illustrated translations from Tagore. The latter is understandable: the authors look at religions “from the point of view of eternity,” and at this height any chronology is completely arbitrary. The authors do not hide their disdain for “ordinary science”: the idea of ​​nirvana as merely the “attenuation” of vitality, based on texts, does not suit them because they have a completely different spiritual image of the Buddha (in which they, like Jin Mahavir, they see the representative of Varna as the Kshatriyas, a kind of “noble intelligentsia”...). This last point is not surprising: for those who feel at home in any “great religion of the world,” textual evidence cannot have any meaning.

Coward was also right in that it was after the decisions of the Second Vatican Council that decisive shifts took place in the Christian mentality, opening up new, “non-Chalcedonian” opportunities for it. Finally, Coward was three times right in seeing obstacles to the correct, from his point of view, perspective of interreligious relations in events in the history of the Christian church that even preceded the Council of Chalcedon. “The significance of the dispute between Arius and Athanasius should be seen in the fact that the position of Arius (making Jesus a subordinate incarnation) would make Christianity,” Coward dreamed, “open in relation to other incarnations, while the view of Athanasius created a closed, exclusivist Christianity with Jesus as the only incarnation."

Coward's regrets turned out to be somewhat exaggerated, since soon after the publication of his book it became clear that the Aria case was “living and winning.” During the already mentioned Christian-Judeo-Muslim “trialogue,” the materials of which were published in 1989, Hick proposed new formulations in connection with overcoming the disunity of religions. Various religious traditions are only “lenses” through which the light of Reality is refracted in human consciousness, and none of them is better or worse than the other. Awareness of their general relativity is a guarantee of religious tolerance and the best counteraction to the claims of any of them to exclusivity. Discrepancies between monotheistic religions are associated only with temporary theological formulations, which are quite easily unified; for example, the trinitarian dogma of Christianity does not contradict the Muslim teaching about the 99 names of Allah (which can be divided into three “columns”). Regarding the exclusivity of Christ as God and Man (the main mediastinum between Christianity and other monotheistic religions), one can recall the original interpretation of D. Baillie, according to which Christ only most fully embodied in Himself what Paul said: “but I labored more than all of them: not I, however , but the grace of God, which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10), and it is in this “paradox of grace” that one should see the incarnation - as the completeness of self-giving to God. This interpretation fits much better with the worldview of modern Christians, among whom there are few for whom the teaching about the “two natures” of Christ will be something more than “grotesque,” ​​but who can fully appreciate the action of grace in their lives. The interpretation of the theologian J. Lampe (who was very highly appreciated in his time by R. Bultmann), who sees in Jesus only a special object of inspiration of God as the Spirit, who found in the Nazareth preacher the optimal “place” for His “active presence”, also corresponds to modern thinking. The significance of Jesus, according to Hick, was, of course, not that He was God in the flesh, but that He was completely “open” to God or the divine Reality. Whether He differed in this from the prophets of other religions is a question for a separate “dialogue,” but it can already be stated, Hick believes, that we become Christians, and not Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus, as a result of being born in our sociocultural environment, and not as a result of such “poetic expressions of love” such as “Son of God”, “Word incarnate”, “King of kings” and other metaphors. These expressions mean a feeling of preference, but do not justify claims to the exclusivity of one “spiritual family” among others, since, in the words of one servant of God, “the lamps are different, but the light is one.”

Hick's Islamic opponent in this actual dialogue was Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqui, an imam, professor of Islamic studies at the University of California (Fullerton and Long Beach) and an active Islamic missionary in America. The Imam praised Hick for his pluralism, but noted serious points of disagreement with him. According to Hick, it turns out that God is only passively reflected in various “lenses”, but is not an active party in Revelation - as a Muslim believer, Siddiqui cannot accept this. The thesis regarding the “equality” of all these “lenses” also raises doubts: does it happen in ordinary life that all lenses are of the same quality and can refract light equally? One should be much more careful about associations that “lie on the surface”, such as the doctrine of the trinity and the 99 names of God in Islam, which are not given so much importance in the tradition and which there is no need to distribute exactly into three “columns”. But Hick’s merit, the imam acknowledged, is undeniable in calling for a rethinking of traditional Christology: “John knows,” he concluded, “that his book, The Myth of the Incarnation, is very well received by Muslims. The Christology proposed by John Hick can serve as a good subject for Christian-Muslim dialogue.”

6. The presented material on the dialogue of religions and “religion of dialogue” so clearly outlines the spiritual appearance of these forms of modern religiosity that, of course, it does not require any comments. But it is not customary to end articles without conclusions, conclusions, or indicating some prospects, and therefore we will not dare to violate the venerable laws of literary genres.

The first of the conclusions that follow from the above material may seem paradoxical, but nevertheless it turns out to be inevitable. It consists in the fact that if by interreligious dialogue we understand the dialogue of Christianity with other religions - and such an interpretation will be legitimate, since the most proactive and active party in this dialogue is the Christian - then this dialogue, despite the numerous cited facts of its existence (and the facts were presented very briefly) is a phantom that actually does not exist. Why? Because the representation of Christianity participating in this dialogue does not correspond to what can be designated as the generic characteristics of the Christian religion. The generic characteristics of a triangle are the presence of three sides and the sum of the angles they form equal to two right angles. The generic characteristics of a Christian as a follower of a particular religion are faith in Tradition, Scripture and, as a distinguishing feature, the recognition of Jesus Christ as not only a Man, but also a God. This distinctive feature appears in the characteristics of Christians already in the first more or less detailed “external” evidence about them - in the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan, and “Christian” without this “distinctive feature” is the same pseudo-concept as a triangle, the sum of the angles of which is not equal to two straight lines and whose sides form a circle. Therefore, Muzammil Siddiqui’s dialogue with John Hick was not an interreligious dialogue: the first spoke on behalf of a certain religion, the second - contrary to his illusions, from none, and the imam-professor’s hopes for a future dialogue with “Christians” regarding the doctrine of the Incarnation are illusory because that those Christians who can take part in such a dialogue are no more Christians than Muslims who do not believe in the prophecy of Muhammad are followers of Islam. Of course, the same events can be interpreted differently depending on the starting points. For Muslims in America, the appearance of educated Christians who deny the Incarnation of God for the sake of the other world and seek His praise for it are blissful signs of the defeat of a once powerful rival; for Christians who correspond to their tribal characteristics, this is only a confirmation of what was said about such people, who are compared to unleavened salt, which “is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out to be trampled under foot by men” (Matthew 5:13).

The second conclusion, following from the development of the first, is that interreligious dialogue poses in a new perspective and with particular persistence one very old question - about the boundaries of the Church. The unanimous opinion of the main theorists of the “religion of dialogue” that faith in Christ as God is the main obstacle to the “mutual enrichment of religions” is based on a completely consistent reasoning: if Christ correctly said: “I am the way and the truth and the life” and “no one does not come to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6), because “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and if “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9 ), then those who believe in this have no need to “enrich themselves” outside the Church “completely enriched” by Him, for in this way they can only “become poor.” Therefore, participation in “super-ecumenical cross-fertilization” means a lack of faith in Christ as God. Participation in joint prayers with Jews, who consider Him a false prophet, Muslims, who see in Him only one of the forerunners of Muhammad, and in sacred communication with pagans, whose cult is clearly assessed in the Holy Scriptures as serving infernal forces, cannot be considered otherwise than renunciation of Christ. And this need to renounce Christ finds direct verbalization among the theorists of the religion of dialogue, who openly identify with the ancient heresiarchs, starting with Arius. From the above it follows that participants in “super-ecumenical” events cannot but be perceived by the Church as being completely outside its borders, regardless of their formal confessional affiliation with Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, with all the ensuing consequences for communication with them, outlined already in the ancient church canons Of course, from what has been said it does not in any way follow that the church’s position is identified with cultural isolationism, as the ideologists of “super-ecumenism” are trying to present, and the history of the Church itself contradicts this false accusation.

The third conclusion is that the task of the survival of the Church in the modern world raises the question of the need for dialogue, but something completely different from the one in which the “super-ecumenists” participate. We must talk about the dialogue of those Christians who hold dear that only “name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). If there is no difference to which confession the participants in “super-ecumenical” events belong, who have equally renounced themselves from the Church, then there is no need to exaggerate the importance of the confessional affiliation of those who are ready to defend the “Chalcedonian obscurantism” that is hated by the world. The differences between Orthodoxy and traditionalist Catholicism are much smaller (for all the centuries-old and bipartisan attempts to exaggerate them) than between Catholicism before and after the Second Vatican Council, and the differences between Orthodox and fundamentalist evangelicals are immeasurably smaller than between the latter and Protestants who defend the female priesthood and legitimization sexual minorities (who will soon become the majority). This means that Christian apologists have a chance to find common ground for the sake of that “little flock” to which eternal promises are given.

Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991, pp. 10–11.

Changing your birth according to Indian concepts is an extremely labor-intensive task. Thus, the ancient mythological sage Vishvamitra, born a king, realized after a long rivalry with the brahman Vasishtha that he could defeat him only by becoming a brahman himself; For this, he left the kingdom and indulged in the most severe asceticism (Mahabharata 1. 165), and only after the most grueling thousand-year labors did he gain Brahmanhood. Whether Hare Krishna proselytes who want to “become Hindus” are capable of the same feats of asceticism is quite problematic.

Thus, Sanaka Kumar, director of the public relations center of the Russian Society for Krishna Consciousness, in his speech at the conference “Neo-Orientalism and Modern Christianity” (MSU, November 26, 1996), expressing regret that the Orthodox have become so behind the times over the past seventy years (and from Catholics) that they are not yet capable of dialogue between religions, stated, among other things, that all Indologists noted the striking similarity of the Christian and Hindu worldviews. This statement indicates that the “director of the center” does not have any information about scientific Indology, because already, starting with F. Schlegel, Indologists emphasized the radical ideological differences between the two religions. It is enough to name the names of M. Monier-Williams, A. Weber, A. Bergen, G. Oldenberg, S. Levy, E. Windisch or A. Roussel, who, using a specific text of the Bhagavata Purana, showed that even where one can talk about external analogies, for example, in connection with the Hindu divine triad ( trimurti) and the trinitarian dogma of Christianity, behind them lie fundamental differences. “Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva are nothing more than a triple illusion, we would even say a triple mensonge, to which nothing corresponds in reality. There is only one supreme Being. Everything else is a pure play of Maya, a fantasy or dream (la fantaisie) of the deity...” He noted the closeness in Hinduism of divine manifestation and mystification, saying that we are talking about the threefold mask of a single Divinity acting under its cover, but in no way about the unity of the Three Persons. Cm. Roussel A. Cosmlogie Hindoue d'apres le Bhвgavata Purвna. P., 1898, pp. 56–61. Among the heterodologists of the 20th century, it is enough to mention only the largest German Sanskritologist and religious scholar P. Hacker, who showed, using a wide range of primary sources, the structural differences between two religious worldviews. Cm. Hacker P. Kleine Schriften. Herausg. von L. Schmithausen. Wiesbaden, 1978 ; Philology and Confrontation. Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta. Ed. by W. Halbfass. N.Y., 1995.

An example of this is the article: B. Falikov. Is dialogue between traditional and new religions possible? // Church and Public Bulletin No. 5, supplement to the newspaper “Russian Thought” dated January 30, 1997.

The Russian translation of the life can be found in the publication: Legends about the beginning of Russian writing. Entry Art., trans. and comm. B. N. Flory. M., 1981, with bibliography - according to the text of the “lengthy life” in the publication: Trendafilov Chr. Life of Constantine (Kirill) the Philosopher (Long) // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. XI - first half of the XIV century. L., 1987, pp. 151–159.

The inauguration of the Theosophical Society in New York took place on November 17, 1875, in 1882 the headquarters of the society had already been established in Adyar (India), in 1888 Blavatsky completed her opus magnum “The Secret Doctrine”, and by the time of her death in 1891 the society already had up to 100 thousand followers in all parts of the world.

Another name for the sect is anti-trinitarians. The origins of this movement, which opposes the main dogma of Christianity, go back to the times of the Reformation (in Poland, Unitarians were called Socinians).

One of the significant results of the initiatives of the “Temple of Understanding” was a trip to the East (more precisely, a pilgrimage) of one of its activists - an extremely cordial, but lacking the gift of reasoning and a very influential left-wing Trappist Catholic, Fr. T. Merton in 1968, culminating in his participation in the first Temple conference in Calcutta. Father Thomas came into contact in Delhi, the Himalayas, Madras and Ceylon with all possible Hindu and Buddhist teachers, amazed the Catholics accompanying him with the statement that pagan Asia was “bright, pure, full of truth” and no longer needed any Christianization, and chose a Tibetan tantricist from among all his gurus, agreeing to accept initiation into the Nyingmapa sect, which, with its immoralism, caused disdain from other Buddhists. This appeal was prevented only by his sudden death immediately after the end of the conference in Bangkok. For his agreement to join the ranks of “left-hand tantra,” see his autobiographical notes: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton / Ed. by N. Burton J. Hick and E. S. Meltzer. Houndmills etc., 1989. It should be noted that the tasks that the participants in the “trialogue” set for themselves were, however, not the same. Thus, the Jews wanted to counteract anti-Semitism with their participation, the Muslims wanted to contribute to their self-affirmation in the West, and only the Christian participants (who failed to seduce the “backward” evangelical fundamentalists with a “trialologue”) proceeded from pure “religious altruism,” successfully proving to everyone that Today's Christians have no interests of their own in this world and are quite ready to “cede” it to anyone who wishes (cf. Ibid., pp. 1–5).

Sharpe E. J. Dialogue of Religion // The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 4/Ed. by M. Eliade. N.Y., 1987, p. 347; Sharpe E. J. The Goals of Inter-Religious Dialogue // Truth and Dialogue. The Relationship between World Religions / Ed. by J. Hick. L., 1977, pp. 81–82.

The Digha Nikaya/Ed. by T. W. Rhys Davids and J. E. Carpenter. Vol. 1. L., 1967. - pp. 193–194, 241, 243.

Classic examples of concepts that have a certain meaning, but lack a real referent (corresponding object); Philosophers A. Meinong and B. Russell worked with sentences containing semantic units of this type.

Isis is the goddess of fertility, water and wind in ancient Egyptian mythology, whose cult spread to the Greco-Roman world. Currently very popular in religious feminism as an alternative to God of “patriarchal” religiosity.

In “The Last Battle,” the lamb, wondering why Narnia should “converge” with Tarkhistan, where Tash is revered, receives an instant rebuke from the Monkey, who brilliantly formulates in a few words the quintessence of “super-ecumenism”: “The Monkey jumped up and spanked the lamb. “Baby,” he hissed, “go to mommy and suck some milk.” What do you mean by this? And the rest of you, listen. Tash is another name for Aslan. All these old views, that we are right and the people of Tarkhistani are wrong, are simply stupid. Now we know everything. The Tarkhistanis call the same thing in other words. Tash and Aslan are just different names for You Know Who. So we don't have to quarrel anymore. Learn this well, you stupid bastards. Tash is Aslan. Aslan is Tash.” Cm. Lewis K. S. The Chronicles of Narnia. Part II. M., 1992. - P. 463. It is interesting that this very popular idea of ​​“just different names”, which turned out to be accessible even to the Monkey, is presented by many “philosophers of religion” as almost the last revelation.

The book of the rules of the holy Apostles, the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers. Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1992. - pp. 24, 137–140, 167, 168–169.

The famous English writer G. Chesterton introduces the reader to the magnificent biography of Francis of Assisi in the essay “St. Francis of Assisi”; In connection with the mentioned episode, see Chesterton G. K. Eternal man. M., 1991. - P. 77; Wed P. 82.

It is natural that the above passages of Holy Scripture are completely ignored by the current Roman First Hierarch in his interpretation of the meaning of the “ecumenical resolutions” of the Second Vatican Council (about them, see the first part of this article - Alpha and Omega. 1997. No. 1(12). - Ss. 329–330). At the same time, one cannot help but note a certain inconsistency in the current pope’s assessment of the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions. Thus, citing the document of the council “Light to the Nations,” 13, which states that the Holy Spirit acts outside the visible organism of the Church, relying on those semina Verbi (“seeds of the Word”), “which form, as it were, a common soteriological root everyone(emphasis added - V.Sh.) religions,” Paul John II soon admits (and with good reason) that the soteriology of Buddhism (and we are talking about the largest world religion) “is to a certain extent the opposite of what is most important in Christianity,” and then warns those Christians who “ardently respond to various proposals coming from the religious traditions of the Far East” in the form of techniques and methods of meditation and asceticism, inviting them to consider whether it is worth “with a clear conscience” to renounce their own spiritual heritage. Cm. Pope Paul John II. Cross the threshold of hope. M., 1995. - pp. 113, 117, 122. The Pope is absolutely right in seeing in the appeal to Buddhist methods of meditation and asceticism a renunciation of the Christian spiritual heritage, but it cannot be denied that the council’s formulation of the common “seeds of the Word” in the soteriology of all religions, which he approves, must seriously disorient his flock in how she should perceive these methods, and his personal initiative in organizing “super-ecumenical” events in Assisi, from which the approval of the utilization of the named “techniques and methods” should logically be completely disoriented. Therefore, the author of these lines was not in the least surprised when he discovered, even in the bookstore of the ancient Benedictine monastery of Maria Lach, along with other “practical aids”, a course on the Buddhist mandala (constituting the most important component of Tantrism).

Hick J. The Outcome: Truth and Dialogue // Truth and Dialogue. The Relationship between World Religions / Ed. by J. Hick. L., 1975. - R. 151.

Hick refers to J. Chubb, who saw in Aurobindo Ghose a promising attempt to note the consistency of the “phenomenological characteristics” of the Absolute. See: Ibid. - Rr. 153, 155.

Cragg directly opens his essay with the hope for the possible success of such a seemingly impossible enterprise as a “non-incarnational expression of the Christian faith” as approximating the Muslim understanding. Cm. Cragg K. Islam and Incarnation // Truth and Dialogue. - R. 126. From this we can make, of course, a purely hypothetical, but still not completely impossible assumption that if in the Anglican Church in those days they ordained bishops for bringing Christology to the standards of understanding Islam, now (as “progress” ) it would be necessary to ordain those whose Christology corresponds to the interpretation of the third “Abrahamic religion”, according to which the founder of Christianity was a false prophet, in relation to whom all sanctions corresponding to similar precedents under the Mosaic Law would be legitimate.

Cm. Stendahl K. Notes for Three Bible Studies // Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism / Ed. by G. H. Anderson and T. F. Stransky. Maryknoll. N-Y, 1981. - pp. 15–17.

Due to the absence of the slightest signs of “imperialism” in modern Christianity, one cannot help but note as one of the important reasons for the phenomenon discussed in this article the obvious crisis in the current Christian body with the beginnings of male energy and, accordingly, the predominance of the opposite. In fact, in the process of what theorists of the dialogue of religions call “mutual fertilization,” there is no reciprocity as such, since the Christian side is invariably “fertilized,” while its partners in the “dialogue” are invariably “fertilized.” Indeed, it does not occur to representatives of other religions to provide Christians with their churches for their worship, and they are by no means in a hurry to master the “techniques and methods” of Christian meditation and asceticism. This completely female “dedication” of Christianity in interreligious dialogue, which actually clears primordially Christian territories for other religions (despite the “assurances of pluralism” of the Dalai Lama and other participants in “super-ecumenical” events who know perfectly well what they want from them) finds typological The parallels in the spread of female priesthood and episcopacy and in the popularity of “feminist theology” are symptoms of very deep processes of degeneration of the human race.

Knitter P. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes towards the World Religions. NY, 1985.

An example is provided by a relatively recent book on Hinduism by K. Klostermeier, an active participant in Christian-Hindu “seminars” in Bangalore and Vrindavan. The author does not hide his disdain for European Indology, which is not at all necessary, since “the Hindu voice speaks for Hinduism,” but he is clearly not familiar enough with it: he attributes to it the phantasmagoric dating of the Upanishads from 4000 BC (!) to 600 BC, he himself dates the “Mimamsa Sutras” to the 3rd century. BC, and Shabarasvamin’s commentary on them is from the 1st century. BC (obviously, poorly imagining that this monument contains polemics with much later philosophical teachings of Buddhism and the development of a theory of knowledge, which could not have developed before the 5th century AD). Cm. Klostermaier K. K. Bolotov V. V.. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. 2. M., 1994. - pp. 68–69.

The ancient Church simply did not know anything like this. Participants in interreligious prayers, of course, are closest to those who apostatized from Christ (lat. lapsi) not under force, but completely voluntarily. The rules about them were not fixed, but changed in different periods depending on the degree of economy of the local churches. According to the 73rd canonical canon of St. Basil the Great, “one who has renounced Christ and become a criminal against the sacrament of salvation” must repent throughout his life and can be accepted into full church communion only at the end of it. About the same thing is the 2nd rule of St. Gregory of Nyssa, which emphasizes the significant difference between voluntary and forced renunciation of Christ (in the latter case, the period of repentance was supposed to be limited). See: Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers. - Ss. 335, 362–363, 277.

It is well known that many Church Fathers were excellent experts in classical ancient literature and rhetoric and successfully applied this knowledge in their own theological work. The complete compatibility of the study of “external” philosophy with the complete rejection of non-Christian religiosity is evidenced by the experience of utilizing classical Greek, as well as Neoplatonic philosophy, among the Fathers of the Church. Among the numerous publications on this topic, relatively recent ones include: Deacon G. Zyablitsev. Plotinus and patristic literature // Theological works. 1992. No. 31. - pp. 277–295. The successful development of modern scientific oriental studies provides the opportunity to utilize the achievements of Indian philosophy in the field of contravertive dialectics, logic, theory of knowledge, categoriology, the study of the problem of universals and other areas of philosophical discourse proper within the framework of the development of modern theoretical thought, with the possibility of a completely painless distance from the Hindu or Buddhist worldview and cult.

As for the participation of Orthodoxy in interfaith contacts in general, a complete rejection of it, which is now being proposed by many and on which the Russian Church Abroad has always insisted, would probably be a rejection of the very mission of Orthodoxy in the modern world. Orthodox participants in inter-Christian meetings, of course, should not participate in “super-ecumenical” events organized by the WCC, but they must undoubtedly testify to the enduring significance of Church Tradition and Scripture in this world, convincing followers of other Christian denominations “not to worship other gods,” and in This is their Christian duty. As for the exclusivist isolationism of the Russian Church Abroad, the Greek “Old Calendarists” and those of their Russian like-minded people who have a biological hostility towards non-Orthodox as such and indiscriminately, it is quite natural that the logic of their sectarian mentality leads them to rejection of representatives of other Orthodox jurisdictions, which for them also “bear the mark of the Antichrist,” and the idea of ​​their own exceptional “purity,” which makes them similar to the ancient schismatic Donatists, in relation to whom the Church was forced to repeatedly accept canonical sanctions. Extremes always ultimately converge, and those for whom “heterodox” are already parishioners of another parish participate in the destruction of the Church along with those who participate in interreligious prayers and rituals, because the extremeness of “narrowness” together with the extremeness of “breadth” are equally incompatible with what the Church Fathers called the “royal way” of spiritual measure and balance, which is the only condition for the life of the church body.

These dialogical contacts could begin at least with systematic mutual information about the apologetic literature itself. A little-known, but quite symbolic fact is the serious response of K. Cumby, an American fundamentalist who wrote an excellent book about the New Age and polemicized with the famous leader of the “new era” B. Cream ( Cumbey C. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism. Shreverport. Lousiana, 1983), based on the book by Fr. Seraphim Rose “Orthodoxy and the religion of the future.” In his address to the Brotherhood, Rev. Herman of Alaska (where Fr. Seraphim’s book was published), she wrote: “About a year ago, an unknown well-wisher sent me a book by Fr. Seraphim. I have not read a more important work on this topic.<…>I always recommend it to listeners.” Quote By: Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen). Not of this world. Life and teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose. M., 1995. - P. 662.

Theory and practice of interreligious dialogue in Lebanon

Sologub Maria Serafimovna,

Master's student in international relations at St. Petersburg State University.

Recently, the problem of interreligious dialogue, especially the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, has become very relevant. Lebanon, where representatives of 18 different religious communities have coexisted relatively peacefully for many centuries and where the percentage of the Muslim population is the smallest compared to other Arab countries (only 60%), can serve as an example of such dialogue.

The multi-religious nature of Lebanon is enshrined both at the level of official documents (according to the Constitution, Lebanon is a secular state) and in already established traditions. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the system of proportional religious representation, according to which the country's president is usually a Maronite Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, and the head of parliament is elected from a Shiite Muslim.

Attempts at interreligious dialogue are also being conducted at a lower level. Recently, Lebanese civil society has taken an active position on this issue: various public organizations are being created, the main task of which is to create an atmosphere of tolerance in the country. Let us note just a few such organizations: for example, training on Christian-Muslim dialogue, conducted under the patronage of the University of St. Joseph. This training consists of lectures and practical sessions for young people - Christians and Muslims. During the training, students should, on the one hand, learn more about another religion, perhaps get rid of some stereotypes, and on the other hand, learn to conduct a dialogue, listening to others and defending their positions. The Adyan Foundation adheres to similar tasks, which, through volunteers, conducts lectures (for example, as part of the “Awareness Program”), publishes brochures, organizes cultural events and interreligious meetings.

All these examples indicate significant progress in Lebanon in promoting interreligious dialogue. However, this is only at first glance. Taking a closer look, interreligious dialogue in the Middle East in general, and in Lebanon in particular, is going through difficult times. I would like to dwell on the problems of this interreligious dialogue.

Let us consider the difficulties faced by the Christian and Muslim sides.

As for Islam, it is now in a state of serious crisis, the beginning of which many researchers associate with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and which concerns, first of all, a rethinking of the theological principles of Islam. The problem is that many followers of this religion have the idea that Islam is inextricably linked with the state. When they were faced with a situation in which the existence of non-Islamic, but at the same time very prosperous states was possible, this plunged them into a state of deep crisis. This crisis is reinforced by other factors. Firstly, since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the triumph of religion has been inextricably linked with its spread through conquest. INIn the 20th century, with the introduction of a ban on wars of conquest, this became practically impossible, or at least illegal. Secondly, the Arab-Israeli conflict also added fuel to the fire: not only was a Jewish state created on the “originally Muslim” lands, on whose territory one of the most important shrines of Islam, Al-Quds, was located, but Israel also managed to win several wars against the Arab states and seize a number of their territories.

This crisis led to the division of Muslim society into several groups. These are the so-called traditionalists, moderate fundamentalists, radical fundamentalists and revisionists (or young Muslims). Let's take a closer look at each of the groups.

Traditionalist Muslims, as the name suggests, try to adhere to Islamic traditions; they are able to accept some innovations if they do not concern deep issues of faith. This group is the most numerous, represented in most Arab states, and the main prominent Islamic political figures belong to it; and it is she who most often enters into dialogue with her Christian partners. However, having started a dialogue, traditionalists immediately face the following problem: often during the dialogue they try to convince the opposite side of the correctness of their faith, or they simply do not hear the other participants in the dialogue.

The second group - fundamentalist Muslims - is even more difficult to engage in dialogue. Its representatives form a kind of closed circle of people who are trying to preserve unchanged or revive traditions and customs that were characteristic of the first centuries of the spread of Islam. Dialogue with them is practically impossible, since they perceive others as infidels or dhimmis, and try to reduce contact with them to a minimum.

However, the most aggressive group, with whom it is impossible not only to conduct a dialogue, but also simply to coexist, are radical fundamentalists. They are often called extremists. Their method is to fight the infidels in any possible way. Note, however, that other groups of Muslim believers do not consider them to be true Muslims. They, in turn, do not consider everyone else to be Muslims.

Finally, the last group - Muslim revisionists - seeks to rethink the role and position of Islam in the modern world. Representatives of this group reserve for religion only the area of ​​the supernatural, personal communication between a person and God, clearly distinguishing between the concepts of “state” and “faith.” Young Muslims are supporters of dialogue with representatives of other faiths, and an active dialogue, during which mutual enrichment of the parties involved occurs, interpersonal contacts are established, and the most relevant areas of interaction are discussed. The difficulty, however, is that many Muslims do not consider revisionists, like extremists, to be faithful and treat them with hostility, or at least with distrust.

Thus, it is clear that on the Muslim side there is not yet a single front on behalf of which representatives could speak at various interreligious conferences, nor a single opinion formed with which they could present themselves. Moreover, for a fruitful dialogue it is necessary to involve the latter group of Muslims in the dialogue, which, however, seems unlikely in the near future.

Now let's turn to Christians. Christianity in Lebanon is also now in a crisis situation, but this situation is very different from the Muslim one. Christians in the Middle East have never been a single force: there are Coptic, Maronite, Melkite, Antiochian, Assyrian, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopian and other Churches. The common task of conducting a dialogue with Islam, of course, helped them find some common ground. However, they never could and still cannot present a united front to the Islamic majority. Moreover, being on the rights of dhimmi, Ahl-al-Kitab came to terms with their secondary position and focused primarily on the problem of survival in the Muslim environment. The impossibility of popularizing one's religion through public preaching has led to the fact that the number of adherents of Christian churches has ceased to grow, and recently has generally declined. The problem is currently compounded by the fact that the birth rate among the Muslim population is significantly higher than that of Christians. Moreover, many Christians, and especially young people, are trying to emigrate from their countries, primarily to the West, without hoping to ever return home. Hiyam Mallat calls such emigration “renunciation,” since the decrease in the Christian population in the Middle East also leads to the loss of Christian culture, which has been part of the unified culture of this region for many centuries. All these factors lead to the fact that the percentage of Muslims and Christians changes significantly, and not in favor of the latter.

Another problem Christians in the Middle East face is loss of identity. As mentioned above, in many Arab states the political sphere is deeply intertwined with Islam, so events occurring in society, be it the revival of Arab nationalism or the war with Israel, are often perceived as inextricably linked with Islam. As for Christians, they are trying to find their identity, either by opposing themselves along the lines of “us versus them,” which cannot have a favorable effect on the position of these “we” in a country where there are more “them”; or, returning to some ancient traditions of the Middle Ages, or even an earlier period, which also cannot be considered a positive sign of identity in our modern world.

Another difficulty, which, although it does not directly depend on Middle Eastern Christians, creates certain difficulties in their relations with Muslim partners, is the policy of Western states, in particular the United States, pursued in the Arab East, which cannot boast of its peaceful intentions ( just remember the war in Iraq or the latest events in Libya). Perceiving Christians as the conductors of this Western policy, Muslims treat them with distrust and often prejudiced hostility, which, of course, complicates the conduct of successful interreligious dialogue.

Thus, we see that all these difficulties do not allow Christians to develop a unified position that they could present to their Muslim colleagues.

All these difficulties mean that positive interreligious dialogue in the Middle East is not yet possible, despite the fact that attempts have been made for many years.

To change the current situation, first of all, all parties and groups must recognize the fact that in the conditions of a multinational state (and Lebanon is one), both Christians and Muslims will have to engage in dialogue and look for ways to interact. The next step would be to realize that the “other” (whether Christian or Muslim) has its own unique characteristics, has its own ancient traditions and can be seriously different from “us”. The Council of Catholic Patriarchs of the East recognized, for example, that “Arab society is characterized by diversity and a high degree of pluralism. The task of religious leaders is to give this diversity the opportunity to manifest itself and develop unhindered for the common benefit of the people.”

Having recognized the unique characteristics of each religious community, it is worth remembering at the same time that they are connected by a single history, in many ways by a single Middle Eastern culture, a single territory, a single Motherland. I would like to quote from the message of the Catholic Patriarchs of the East, which, in my opinion, perfectly confirms this thesis: “We belong to the unique heritage of civilization... Our historical heritage is the proximity of our civilizations. Each of us made a feasible contribution to its formation. We sincerely want to preserve, revive and increase it so that it serves as the basis for our coexistence and mutual assistance. Christians in the East are an integral part of the cultural identity of Muslims, just as Muslims in the East are an integral part of the cultural identity of Christians. Therefore, we are responsible for each other before God and history.”

Perhaps it is the search for such commonalities and common ground that will help Muslims and Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East establish a fruitful interreligious dialogue that will help them achieve a better common future.

Literature

1. Ayyub R. Training on Christian-Muslim dialogue: the path of personal development. // Christianity and Islam in the context of modern culture. St. Petersburg, Beirut, 2009.

2. Tabbara N. “The context of Christian-Muslim contacts in Lebanon and the Arab East: a Muslim perspective” // Christianity and Islam in the context of modern culture. St. Petersburg, Beirut, 2009.

3. Halwani S. Lebanese civil society dialogue initiatives: the experience of the Adyan Foundation. //Christianity and Islam in the context of modern culture. St. Petersburg, Beirut, 2009.

4. Chafri M. Islam et liberté, le malentendu historique. Paris, 1998.

5. Conseil des patriarches catholiques d'Orient, La présence chrétienne en Orient, Mission et Témoignage. Bkerke, 1992. N. 48.

6. Mallat H. Min nata'ij al hiwar al islami al masihi: al wujud al masihi fi ach-charq mas'uliyya islamiyya awwalan. // Al Masihiyya wal Islam: Risalat Mahabba wa Hiwar wa Talaqi. Beyrouth, 2004.