The paper deals with the history and the theological context of the document "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today's World," to be presented and adopted by the Pan-Orthodox Council in 2016. The paper makes an overview of Western-Christian and Eastern Orthodox intellectual and theological resources that had an impact upon the discussions over the document and its final text. Debates and arguments that occurred throughout the process showed various theological and political orientations existing within the Orthodox churches. The analysis of the document's content, its assertions, compromises and silences helps to make an overall assessment of the Orthodox vision of today's world.

Keywords: Pan-Orthodox Council, mission of the Orthodox Church, secularism, human person, freedom, morality, conservatism.

Origins and context of the Orthodox understanding of modernity

In this article, I would like to review a small text submitted for approval by the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016-a document entitled "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Modern World"1. Before going to the next one-

1. The mission of the Orthodox Church in the modern world. Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council approved by the Assembly of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy, January 21-28, 2016 / / Website of the Moscow Patriarchate-

page 255
As we continue to discuss this text, I will try to understand the origins and history of its formation in the course of efforts to achieve universal Orthodox unity - that is, within the framework of what is called the "pre-conciliar process".

Like any human community, the Church can think of itself in two ways: it can be a view that looks "inwards" and a view that looks "outwards". In the first case, we are talking about the self-consciousness and self-organization of the Church; in the second, we are talking about self-determination-in the world. My task is to examine precisely this second aspect of Orthodox self-consciousness, for the document in question is dedicated to this "outward view" - a view of the changing world in which the Church exists and operates.

In the entire body of documents and discussions of the pre-conciliar process-as, indeed, in the entire body of internal texts of each of the Orthodox Churches - there is a huge predominance of "looking inside" and only a relatively small number of texts reflecting "looking outside". The coordination of canonical issues, the smallest details of the church's structure, worship, calendar and, especially, the principles of inter-Orthodox relations has always aroused much more interest and became the subject of much more intense disputes. The "outward view" was, as a rule, outside of official church decisions, being rather the subject of private theological works. In any case, the" external context " - mir - has never been the central theme of 2.

Such a clear predominance of the "inward view" is, in general, quite natural and characteristic not only of Orthodoxy. The entire history of ecclesiastical identity was built - at least in the post-Constantinian era, i.e., after Christianity gained a central place in ancient and then medieval culture and politics - in two dimensions: first, during disputes over internal authenticity, or orthodoxy, and second,

khata of the Russian Orthodox Church [https://mospat.ru/ru/2016/01/28/news127353/, accessed from 1.03.2016].

2.Relations with other Christian confessions - the most important source of the Church's collective identity - and, to a lesser extent, relations with other religions have always played a major role in inter-Orthodox discussions. These issues are extremely important for the formation of church identity, but they logically go beyond the scope of the topic I have outlined, and therefore will not be considered here.

page 256
by contrasting the righteous, "saved" ecumene with the chaos of other, non-Christian cultural spaces. Interest in one's own world, as an external environment, can only appear when this world itself, in which the church lives, becomes increasingly Different, when alienation occurs, distance arises. "Looking outside" is aimed at culture and society, which are perceived as external, existing outside. For the Christian view, this world, which is gradually becoming an external object, is already a "non-Christian" world, or at least in a slightly different sense, a "post-Christian" world. It is in the course of this awareness - and as a response to this awareness of growing distance - that an interest in culture and society emerges, an attempt either at emotional defense, like the Syllabus Errorum of 1864, or at analytical integration into secular public discourses, like the Rerum Novarum of 1891 in the Church of Rome or the Social Gospel movement in late-nineteenth-century American Protestantism. - early XX century However, the roots of understanding the world as a given and, in particular, society as a part of it go much deeper into the past, in the millennial "thickness" of theological thought and pastoral practice, but in this article even a brief overview of these roots would be inappropriate.

As this sense of distance deepened, so did the interest in the social, and this interest became more and more direct, direct. In the twentieth century, great efforts of Western Christian theology were directed not only to rethink the world as a whole, but also society and politics as separate objects, from the point of view of the Church's place in them. We should mention, for example, the attempt of Christian sociology and social ethics by Emil Brunner; the "theology of secularization" and the idea of radical historicity of human existence by Friedrich Gogarten; the concept of the "adult world" as a space of freedom by Dietrich Bonhoeffer; the concept of "demythologization" of Christianity by Rudolf Bultmann; attempts to find a new relationship between the world and the supernatural, nature and grace by Friedrich Bonhoeffer. Henri de Lubac and Karl Rahner; the liberal personalism of Jacques Maritain and John Murray; the political theology of Johann Metz and Jurgen Moltmann, as well as the" liberation theology " that is partly based on them. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the preparation and results of the Second Vatican Council, in particular, the Pastoral Constitution on the modern World

page 257
Gaudium et spes, as well as the formation of the official" social teaching " of the church3.

Undoubtedly, the richer and comparatively more organic Christian experience of social and political involvement in Catholicism and Protestantism was an important incentive for Orthodox church hierarchs and theologians to think more systematically about the "external" world. In this sense, Orthodoxy was lagging behind and lagging behind Western Christianity, due not only to the delay in the social transformations themselves in societies historically associated with Orthodoxy, but also to the relative theological inflexibility, introspective isolationism, and the prevailing emphasis on ritualism that has developed as a result of many historical circumstances. Understanding the external - and increasingly alien-world became the absolute mainstream of Western Christian thought and practice in the twentieth century, while remaining a relatively marginal trend in Orthodox communities, which were not so much deaf to these subjects as forced to be cautious - due to institutional lack of freedom - in their formulations concerning changing social and political structures.

However, one important logical caveat must be made here. Despite the clear contrast between" looking in "and" looking out " that I made at the very beginning, we should understand that reacting to the world, to culture in a broad sense, and to treating the social and political as special, different realities, was an unavoidable, everyday experience of millions of clergy and laity, and that is why they are so important to us. They could not but manifest themselves in all the discourses within the church, even if they were very far removed from social problems, which were directed at internal church issues. No matter how unworldly the endless debates about the calendar, worship, fasts, church economy, obstacles to marriage, and inter-church relations may seem, does not social and political "modernity"invade with all its inevitable insistence the seemingly closed and ostentatiously conservative church world? And do not the positions taken on these issues, which often differ, reflect the attitude of individual people towards "modernity"?-

3. This list is necessarily incomplete. For the most important trends in twentieth-century Western Christian thought, see Livingston, J., Fiorenza, F., et al. (2000) Modern Christian Thought, Vol. II, Uppe Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

page 258
groups and churches? After all, these groups and churches are also subjects of a dynamic social reality.

However, if questions of dogma, liturgy, or canon law are embedded in the centuries-old tradition of the Christian language, new social issues require special tension - a new, special ecclesiastical "dialect" must be re-created and invented for them, which nevertheless would contain recognizable Christian semantics and rhetoric. All Christian traditions have faced this language problem, and, as I have already said, Orthodoxy has had the greatest difficulty in creating such a "dialect". This task seemed, to a greater extent than for Western churches, to be a violation of language, ethos, and behavior.4
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties of developing a new language, theological conservatism, and severe conditions of unfreedom, Orthodoxy has accumulated over many centuries certain resources that a new way of thinking about the "social" and "political" could use. These resources were completely different in origin and content. Let's try to make a brief overview of them below.

Such resources include the anthropology of the Church fathers, especially of the Greek Cappadocian school-an anthropology that, according to S. S. Khoruzhy, for many centuries was "encrypted" or "crypto-atropology", "hidden under the forms of dogmatics and asceticism"5. A completely different resource is the beginnings of political theology, which included the texts of Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and the entire imperial Byzantine tradition of the "symphony of secular and spiritual power" as a certain form of perception and justification of power and civitas terrestra in general. A more recent example of this kind is some set of ideas that have been developed.-

4. In particular, see how A. Kyrlezhev explains why "Orthodoxy is not strong in terms of 'political theology'"; why" the political "was not recognized in Orthodoxy as a separate object of theological thinking; and why" he does not have such names as Reinhold Niebuhr, Johann Baptist Metz, Jurgen Moltmann or Stanley Hauerwas - Christian theologians who reflect more or less systematically on political issues and set the appropriate theological agenda." Kyrlezhev A. "Mystical politics" as a contradiction in adjecto. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2014. N 4. pp. 247-248.

5. Horuzhiy S. Orthodox-ascetic anthropology and the crisis of modern man // Orthodox teaching about man. Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, November 5-8, 2001. Materials. Moscow: Synodal Theological Commission, 2004, pp. 161-162.

page 259
tannykh v Moskovskoi Rus ' 6. Of course, the list of such resources should include Slavophilism in the 19th century: this reaction to Western influence, in the form of Slavophil anti-modern romance, may have been the first attempt at a direct understanding of the social from within Orthodoxy. We can also mention the "ethnotheology" that is partly consonant with Slavophilism in other Orthodox churches.7
However, the richest sources of original Orthodox thinking about the world go back to the intensive Russian religious philosophizing before and after the Russian Revolution. The "sophiology" of Vladimir Solovyov, and especially of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, was one of the most determined attempts, within the Orthodox tradition, to combine theoretical speculation with an active Christian worldview.8 The intellectual ferment of the Russian emigration also formed another type of socially active Christian worldview around the Novy Grad magazine (1931-1939); part of its editors 'program was a strong emphasis on the individual and freedom, an attempt to justify "Christian democracy" (as opposed to S. Bulgakov's "Christian socialism").9. However, personalism was most fully and vividly developed by N. A. Berdyaev, who influenced Western Christian theology. Personalism in the twentieth century can be called the theological leitmotif of Christianity in general, and Berdyaev's religious and philosophical program was formed in a dialogue with Western theology and philosophy.

However, the dominant trend in Orthodoxy was the so-called "neopatristics", which was, after the Slavophiles-

6. See K. Kostiuk's detailed analysis, which speaks of an "ideal type of social thought" consisting of a certain "network of concepts and representations", which, however, were poorly developed theologically. History of social and ethical thought in the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 2013, p. 144.

7. See the review of sources of Orthodox "political theology" in: Papanikolaou, A. (2012) The Mystical as Political. Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy, pp. 22-52. University of Notre Dame Press.

8. See Filonenko A. "Theology of Communion and Eucharistic Anthropology" / / Koinonia. Bulletin of V. N. Karamzin Kharkiv National University. 2010. N 904, p. 187; See for a detailed analysis: Valliere, P. (2000) Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviov, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key. London: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; also Vaganova N. A. Sophiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov. Moscow: PSTSU Publishing House, 2010.

9. See Pashkina E. Novy Grad magazine in the ideological and political life of the Russian emigration. Dissertation for Candidate of Historical Sciences, Moscow, 2008.

page 260
the second powerful romantic and ultimately anti-modern response, especially in the works of Fr. George Florovsky, V. N. Lossky, fr. John Meyendorff and some others. This movement was based on a return to the early Church fathers and a new reading of them, with an unqualified emphasis on asceticism, and therefore it focused on the mystical-ascetic practices of theosis, paying much less attention to the perspective of active world involvement.10 "Neo-patristics" became a symbol of Orthodox theological thought, leading to the emergence, starting in the 1960s, of a whole galaxy of Greek theologians, many of whom relied on the Church fathers to search for a special, Orthodox identity, in relation to the new Western theology, in particular, in contrast to the deep worldly involvement of this latter. This search for a special identity, based on the critique of "modernity", often amounted to a deaf anti-Westernism11. Nevertheless, "Neopatristics" also received a strong personalistic dimension, it revealed and expanded the very "encrypted" patristic anthropology; however, in the context of "neopatristics", such an anthropology inevitably became, both in V. N. Lossky and S. S. Khoruzhy, a mystiko-ascetic alternative to the "crisis of modern man" 12.

Finally, parallel to all these trends and in cooperation with them, another strong and original trend of Orthodox thought developed - Eucharistic theology, which was centered not on asceticism, but on the liturgy. The central figures of this trend were Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev and fr. Alexander Schmeman 13. In a different way, but within the framework of a similar program, the largest Greek theologians of the late XX - early XXI centuries worked. Christos Yiannaras, and especially Metropolitan John Zizioulas, who united (neo)patristic trinitarian-

10. Filonenko A. Edict Op.

11. Kalaitsides P. (2013) "The Image of the West in the Contemporary Greek Theology", in G. Demacopoulos and A. Papanikolaou, eds. Orthodox Constructions of the West. NY: Fordham University Press. See also other articles in this book that analyze various forms of Orthodox anti-Westernism.

12. Horuzhiy S., edict of soch.

13. Filonenko generically calls these areas " theology of communion." In addition to Afanasiev's "Eucharistic ecclesiology" and Schmeman's "liturgical theology", Filonenko also refers to this direction the "extra-church liturgy" of Mother Maria Skobtsova," theology of the encounter "of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, and" theology of the glory of God " by S. S. Averintsev (Filonenko A. Decree, op. cit., p. 187).

page 261
social personalism, Eucharistic ecclesiology, and what may be called the anthropology of communion 14. If A. Schmemann's liturgical theology-for all its deep sensitivity to the processes of the modern world - was ultimately fundamentally eschatological and a-social (as well as the ascetic pathos of "neo-patristics"), then Zizioulas ' understanding of koinonia as a liturgical sociality, as well as his interest in "communion with others", was an attempt to develop a certain foundation open Christian ethics to the world. However, in his texts, Zizioulas did not set the task of directly understanding the world as a social and political reality. This was fully attempted by his follower, Aristotle Papanikolaou, who proposed, within the same tradition of Eucharistic ecclesiology, the most energetic attempt to create an Orthodox political theology that justifies the compatibility of the Christian ideal of theosis and liberal democracy.15
Another vivid example of intellectual work on the direct understanding of the "social" problem was a series of official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church that began to appear in 2000; first of all, these are two texts - " Fundamentals of the social Concept "(2000) and "Fundamentals of the doctrine of Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights" (2008).16 These relatively small texts represented something completely new in the history of Orthodoxy - in terms of genre, content, and language; they can be called both a response to similar Catholic and Protestant texts (for example, the Catholic "Social Doctrine"), and a response to the new conditions of independence that were imposed on the Church.

14. See the fundamental dilogy of I. Zizioulas: Zizioulas, J. (2002) Being as Communion. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press; Idem. (2006) Communion and Otherness. London: T&T Clark.

15. Papanikolaou, A. The Mystical as Political.

16. Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii Russkoy pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church] / / Yubileyny Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, August 13-16, 2000. Materials: Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskoy patriarchii, 2001, pp. 329-410; Fundamentals of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on freedom, dignity and human rights // Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate [https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/dignityfreedom-rights/, accessed from 1.03.2016]. There were also other documents on specific topics developed by the Inter-Council Presence; in particular, a Commission on Interaction between the Church, State and Society was established within the framework of this ecclesiastical body on issues of interest to us. This Commission worked on separate documents dealing with public organizations, political parties, ecology, economics, and law; many of these developments were not completed.

page 262
After a long time of enforced silence and isolation, the Russian Church received the following information:

The interpretation of the "political" in Russian documents, with some basic theological consonances with the mentioned works of Greek theologians (for example, the central meaning of theosis, divine-human communion), was fundamentally different, and here an important tension was already revealed. But in general, both texts were probably equally "atypical" for the Orthodox tradition. Particular conceptions of" political theology " aimed at justifying democracy (as in Papanikolaou) looked marginal. But even the Russian documents, despite their official ecclesiastical status and their more conservative political agenda, were a surprise to other Orthodox churches and were generally met with skepticism; however, as far as can be judged, they were also unexpected for the Russian Church itself, because the process of creating documents was largely "elitist" (especially in Russia). "Social Concepts" 2000), although they were approved at the councils.

The reasons for the confusion seem obvious in the light of all that has been said above about the special structure of the modern Orthodox worldview. The dominance of the leading theological "programs" described above, combined with the extreme stability and influence of the monastic tradition, made it very difficult to create a new language designed to describe "this world" in its "innerweltslisch" details.

Nevertheless, the entire set of theological resources developed during the twentieth century. the lack of understanding of the" profane world " undoubtedly affected the content of the pre-council document, to which we can now turn.

Pre-Conciliar Document on the Church-in-the-world: History and controversy

In the course of inter-church contacts that discussed the convocation of the Pan-Orthodox Council, the problems of the "external world" and, more specifically, the problems of the social and political at first occasionally slipped through, gradually gaining a permanent, albeit relatively modest place. Apparently, it was first mentioned in Athens in 1936 in the list of topics discussed at the Congress of Orthodox Theology Faculties: one of the topics discussed

page 263
the topic was "Orthodoxy and current problems of life"17. This issue was then forgotten for a long time, only to reappear in the longest and most comprehensive list of topics, the so - called "Pre - Council Catalog", formulated at the First Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes in 1961.The Catalog sought to cover everything from the composition of holy scripture and the canonical system to the problems of modern society. The last, eighth thematic block was called "Social problems" and included, in particular, subjects in which the current rhetoric of that time is heard: "The Orthodox Church and youth"; "Marriage and Family"; "Social Service"; "Orthodoxy and racial discrimination"; "Orthodoxy and the tasks of Christians in Russia". areas of rapid social change."

The ambitious "Catalog of Topics" of the first Rhodes Conference proved unfeasible, despite the fact that during the 1960s theologians made serious efforts under the dual leadership of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (d. 1972) and Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov of Russia (d. 1978). Under the latter's leadership, a Special Commission attached to the Holy Synod worked in the Russian Church, which developed in detail draft resolutions on most of the Catalog topics; these drafts were presented at the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambesy (Switzerland) in June 1968.

The greatest efforts in the 1960s were focused on canonical issues, issues of worship and church administration; social problems were given much less attention. Among other texts presented by Russian authors in Chambesy was a project entitled "Cooperation of Orthodox Churches in the implementation of Christian ideas of peace, freedom, brotherhood and love among peoples"18. The draft, in keeping with the Soviet rhetoric of the time, emphasized peace, disarmament, and "friendship and mutual understanding among peoples", strongly condemning colonialism and calling for social justice, regardless of racial and national differences. The project on other "social" topics in the Rhodes Catalogue was relatively small and focused on-

17. Ionita, V. (2014) Toward the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. The Decisions of the pan-Orthodox Meetings since 1923 until 2009, p. 23. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag.

18. Metropolitan Nikodim and Pan-Orthodox Unity, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor, 2008, p. 216.

page 264
Christian upbringing; emphasis was placed on the central role of the family, while fundamentally condemning birth control and artificial insemination; other "social problems" were briefly listed; a paragraph on racial discrimination was specifically highlighted; another paragraph was devoted to Third World countries, again condemning the "consequences of colonialism".

Interestingly, the draft explicitly referred to the "widespread secularization of society" (p. 222), which was probably the first time that this concept was included in the "official" theological discourse. The idea of the profane world not only as a" wailing vale "filled with" social problems", but also as a world that was essentially secular, was by nature an important statement of the new context, which required a new definition of the life of the Church and its mission.

Then, in the new format of the First Pre-Conciliar Meeting in 1976, in a significantly modified (and shortened) catalog of topics, a draft document with an even longer title appeared: "The contribution of the Orthodox Church to the triumph of peace, justice, freedom, brotherhood and love among peoples and the elimination of racial and other discrimination." The document was first published and discussed at the Third Pre-Council Meeting in 1986,19 The language of the document and its central goal-achieving peace (as non-war) - was somewhat similar to the language of Russian developments in the 1960s. The text was written in the Soviet rhetorical style, filled with emotional assessments of the negative processes of the modern world, while, by the way, the concept of "secularization" disappeared. The project stated "the danger of disobedience, autonomy in relation to God, and through it the fall", and hence - "the terrible role that evil in man and in the world plays in matters of peace and freedom." This was followed by a somewhat crude and stylistically unsmooth list of social ills, a kind of "Pandora's box": "secularization, violence, licentiousness of morals, negative phenomena observed among some of today's youth, racism, armament, wars and the resulting social evil, the depressed state of the masses, social inequality, the restriction of human rights."-

19. Scobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 2 (19). C. 166.

page 265
human rights violations in the field of freedom of conscience [ ... ], economic backwardness, uneven distribution [ ... ], physical weakness, starvation of millions of people, forced displacement, refugees and emigration, environmental destruction, problems of developing communities [ ... ], gloomy predictions of futurologists... " 20. The document went on to elaborate on the problem of wars and conflicts. to overcome them; the problem of "racial and other discrimination"; the problem of hunger and economic inequality between countries; and the call to witness to love through service as the main mission of the Church.

However, in the text of 1986 there were decidedly new and very strong accents. From the very beginning, the first and second sections of the document focus on "the dignity of the human person" and "the dignity of human freedom". The draft text is rather anthropocentric in the sense that it postulates "the sanctity and divinity of the human person"; calls freedom a "divine gift"; introduces the concept of "dignity" as an absolutely key one. To counter the calamities of the modern world, the Orthodox Church is called upon to show "the face of a Christian person as a person-subject." 21 Another innovation was the addition of "other" discriminations to racial discrimination (which was still strongly condemned), because " a person's freedom is linked to the freedom of the community to which he belongs... [and] pluralism should govern the life of all countries. " 22
The 1986 draft outlined the "skeleton" of a basic document on the modern world, which was later discussed. However, for a long time this document, as well as all the others - as, indeed, the very idea of a Pan - Orthodox Council-faded into the shadows and lost their relevance. Only after a firm decision was finally taken in 2014 to convene the Council in 2016 did inter-Orthodox meetings resume with great intensity. The document on the Church's mission to the world was actively discussed as one of the final list of texts that the Council should adopt by consensus. The document, which still bore the same ponderous title that was formed in the 1970s, was discussed at the meetings of the pre-assembly commission in Chambesy in the fall of 2014.,

20. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church, p. 168.

21. Ibid., p. 169.

22. Ibid., p. 172.

page 266
then in the spring and autumn of 2015, until finally the final version was agreed upon in January 2016 at the highest level - at the Synaskis, a meeting of heads of churches-for approval at a future Council under a new, much simplified title - "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the modern world" .23
The text presented for discussion after almost a thirty-year hiatus was, of course, different from the old text of the 1980s. However, the skeleton of the document remained the same, almost all sections were preserved. It is significant that the new version, like the previous one, began with the sections "Dignity of the human person" and "Dignity of human Freedom" (later I will focus on the key changes made at the very last moment). Also, in accordance with the logic of the old document, the agreed text of 2016 referred to the "desobeissance" (in the French text) of a person, and, as a consequence, the appearance of various types of evil. "Pandora's Box" remained generally the same, but some clarifications and additions were made; in particular, "drug addiction of some young people" and "disinformation and manipulation of public opinion"were added; "forced deportations and human trafficking"; " uncontrolled use of genetic biotechnologies and biomedical procedures in relation to the beginning, continuation and end of human life "(Section B. 2). A whole new section (Section 12) is devoted to the development of biotechnologies and a very conservative assessment of its consequences, which, of course, could not have appeared in the texts of thirty years ago. The same applies, for example, to the "environmental crisis associated with climate change and global warming" (Section E. 10). The new version showed less critical rhetoric in the form of accusations against developed countries and in defense of developing countries.-

23. In addition to the document I am discussing, the following texts were in the process of intensive coordination in 2014-2016 and were finalized in January 2016 at the highest level, during the meeting of the primates of churches in Chambesy, Switzerland: "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world"; "The Sacrament of Marriage and its obstacles"; "The importance of Fasting and its observance today"; "Autonomy and the way it is proclaimed"; "Diptychs"; "Orthodox Diaspora". All these documents, including the one discussed in this article, are published on the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. Draft documents of the Pan-Orthodox Council published (updated) / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4361840.html, accessed from 1.03.2016].

page 267
However, the "moderate left" political agenda, which criticizes economic inequality and calls for social justice, has been preserved. Quite new, compared to the text of the 1980s, was the denunciation of conflicts and wars involving" fanaticism justified by religious principles "and the singling out of one particular region - the Middle East - as an illustration of such conflicts, with an emphasis on the threat they pose to Christians in the Middle East; thus," fanaticism " is essentially a form of religious extremism. He associated with Islam (d. 3). In the new version, the absolute emphasis on racial discrimination disappeared (this concept was retained only in the title until the last moment, until the last one was replaced), and the working initial version emphasized the opposition to discrimination and "intolerance of any kind" (l'intolerance d'aucune sorte).

* * *

A new intrigue around the mission document appeared at the very last stage of approvals. As mentioned above, it was only in January 2016 that the text of this document was finally adopted. Apparently, this was preceded by quite heated disputes in 2014-2015. 24 In any case, at a meeting in April 2015, the document, which was generally edited by the aforementioned Metropolitan John Zizioulas (Patriarchate of Constantinople), was rejected by representatives of several churches, who considered it not ready; six months later, at a meeting in October 2015. he again did not satisfy two churches - Russian and Georgian. The Synod of the Russian Church, in particular, rejected the document as not fully finalized 25. It is obvious that

24. Patriarch Kirill explicitly referred to the "difficult discussions" that preceded the agreement on the document. See Kirill, Patriarch. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate: [http://sobor.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed from 1.03.2016].

25. See the Proceedings of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church dated 24.12.2015. Journal No. 93. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4304773.html, accessed from 1.03.2016]. According to prot. To Nikolai Balashov, Deputy Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, who oversaw inter-Orthodox pre-conciliar discussions, the Synod of the Russian Church considered that the document "still needs serious and fundamental revision." - Pre-assembly meetings. Local churches are preparing for the Pan-Orthodox council. Interview with Archpriest N. Balashov / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2016. N 1. C. 27.

page 268
The Russian Church had the largest number of complaints about the document submitted for discussion in 2014.

What were the most fundamental disagreements at this last stage of coordination in 2014-2016? This can be judged by the changes that were made at the very last moment - in January 2016, compared to the versions of the previous two years. Let's try to give a brief overview of these latest changes.

One of these significant changes was the final revision of the second section of the document: it acquired a different name - " On Freedom and responsibility "(instead of "The value of human freedom"). [Section B. 3]. It is clear that this emphasis was an important cause of disagreement, and the Russian Church insisted on it, thereby seeking to shift the liberal rhetoric towards "conservatism of responsibility" and thereby bring the text more in line with the 2008 Russian document on "human dignity, freedom and rights".

The softening of liberal person-centered rhetoric is also noticeable in other editorial details. The final document (2016) defines "dignity" and "freedom" as a criterion of morality - this word occurs five times in the final version (instead of one in the 2015 version). The "divine gift of freedom" itself from the "top" of the human person becomes only "one of the highest gifts" (my italics. - A. A.).

In the latest edition, the paragraph written in the spirit of the theology of communion by John Zizioulas also disappears; in particular, the following words disappeared: "As an ontological element of the individual, freedom includes respect and acceptance of the other. It is a way of expressing the identity of an individual, from which a certain life position is derived and through which the responsibility of each individual is determined, which is manifested in the movement of one person towards another".26 Apparently, this thesis, too obviously connected with a certain theological concept, could also meet, in the spirit of a more conservative reading, objections in the sense of vagueness criteria and boundaries of "respect and acceptance of the other".

A similar emphasis on stricter tolerance criteria is evident in the final version of the discrimination section: the phrase that there is "no room for any roses" in the Church.-

26. Cf. theological ideas of Zizioulas 'work" Communion and Otherness", op. cit.

page 269
neither, nor for hostility and intolerance of any other kind", received the following form: "...there is no place for discord, nor for hostility and intolerance" (d. 1.); it is important that the words "of any other kind" have disappeared; the types of discrimination are clearly listed: by skin color, religion, race, gender, nationality, language; and it is immediately emphasized that the Church "does not accept discrimination on all of the above grounds" (D. 2.). These added words - "the above grounds" - added certainty, thereby removing the possibility of interpreting the words "of any other kind" as a possible condemnation of discrimination against sexual minorities. An overly broad interpretation of equality and tolerance was thus excluded. However, it should be noted that even in the original version, the penultimate paragraph of the document quite clearly affirmed "the divinely established institution of the family, which has always been based on the sacred sacrament of Christian marriage as the union of a man and a woman" and rejected the legalization of "forms of human cohabitation that are contrary to Christian teaching and tradition" (e. 14).27
Finally, among the consequences of secularization and the " erroneous understanding of freedom as permissiveness "was added" destruction and desecration of sacred objects " (E. 13), which is an important part of the internal Russian church rhetoric.

Outlines of the Orthodox Mission-in-the-world: the "ideal of holiness "versus" secular globalization"

The document on the Church's mission to the world has been the subject of intense controversy and has acquired much greater significance in 2016 than when the movement towards a pan-Orthodox council began almost a century ago.28 Perhaps this problem is not so important-

27. However, following the publication of the document in April 2015, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, head of the Coordination Commission, was forced to strongly refute the report of the Greek news agency Romfea.gr that the Commission allegedly calls for" support " for sexual minorities. See official communique. website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: Communique, 25.04.2015, [https://www.patriarchate.org/announcements/-/asset_publisher/MF6geT6kmaDE/content/com munique/pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_MF6geT6kmaDE_viewMode, accessed on 18.02.2016]. It is possible that the expression "other forms" or "any kind" (discrimination) may have seemed suspicious to some church representatives. At the same time, it is worth remembering that this expression in the document name appeared back in 1986.

28. In his report in February 2016, the Russian Patriarch identified the mission document as potentially the most important achievement of the future Council: see Kirill, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.

page 270
However, the document on peace and mission is certainly significant, fundamental, as it expresses the conscious, essential self-determination of the Eastern Christian tradition, spoken in a modern language.

This self-determination, even if it is contoured and, to a large extent, a compromise, is nevertheless a meaningful testimony. The content of a document that has been discussed in one form or another for at least half a century can be understood from a comparison of the accents and omissions made and based on the general modern context of the Christian understanding of human society, starting with the rich heritage of Western and Eastern theology and ending with church texts such as the" Social Doctrine " of the Roman Catholic Church or Russian Church 29.

The pre-Conclave text evaluates modernity as a secular era: this assessment does not raise doubts among the authors. It is interesting that the reflections on the crisis of secularism, "desecularization" or "post-secular era", which have filled the academic literature and journalism since the 2000s, are not reflected in the document. The text speaks of "secular globalization", hostility to "secular ideology" and secularization as the cause of the "spiritual crisis". The pathos of the text is that the mission of the Church is to resist this state of worldliness and decline.

In this sense, the text of the document is in tune with the confessions of Alexander Schmemann, who wrote more than other Orthodox authors about secularism and the secular world, although with much greater frankness and bitterness. "The world has moved away from Christianity,"Father Alexander wrote. The era of Christian power over the world ended with the" liberation " of the world from this power. Medieval synthesis, in which an attempt is made to-

Arch. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016

29. See an attempt to compare the social doctrines of Orthodoxy and Catholicism in my article: Agadjanian, A. (2014) Turns of Faith, Search for Meaning: Orthodox Christianity and Post-Soviet Experience, p. 133-154. Erfurt Studies in Eastern Christianity series: Peter Lang Edition; also see: Hoppe-Kondrikova, O., Josephien Van Kessel & Evert Van Der Zweerde (2013)." Christian Social Doctrine East and West: the Russian Orthodox Social Concept and the Roman Catholic Compendium Compared", Religion, State and Society 41(2): 199-224.

page 271
to resolve the original antagonism between the Church and "this world", it has disintegrated. ...You have to be blind not to see that new and not at all Christian "revelations" really inspire and "move history", and that human flocks put their undying faith in earthly progress and in earthly happiness into them... Alas, the great road of history has long passed by Christianity. " 30
Schmemann is looking for an answer to this state of the world. He strongly denies both " sacred life "(traditionalist isolation, the aestheticization of "spirituality") and" panicked "apocalypticism and world-negation; 31 he refutes those Orthodox who unequivocally reject "pluralism" - co-existence with other, secular forms of the modern world; he justifies pluralism as "the only defense against chaos and fanaticism" while assuming that pluralism does not necessarily mean relativism32. But Schmemann goes further: he also categorically refutes the" compromisers", "all those who think that Christianity is" useful "and can be even" more useful", provided that it adapts to the"current moment"in some way ".33 He rejects the scheme of" adaptation", when " we [the Orthodox Christians] are not the only ones who are not Orthodox Christians." we perform our colorful ancient rites on Sundays, and from Monday to Saturday we quietly live a secularized life that has nothing to do with these rites"; he denies both "liberation theology" (with a hint of Catholic "liberation theology") and "therapeutic" theology, which adopt modern "discourses" to adapt to the world. to the world 34.

What, then, is A. Schmemann's answer: what is the mission of the Church in the post-Christian era? In a vivid work, "Worship in the Secular Age," Schmemann offers his answer; he later calls it the "third way." He considers secularism, first of all, to be a rejection of the worship of God, a denial of man as a worshiping being - homo adorans. It is the divine service, worship, and liturgy that is the fundamental response of Christ-

30. Prot. Alexander Schmeman Collection of articles 1947-1983 Comp. by E. Y. Dorman. Moscow, Russian Way Publ., 2009, p. 17.

31. Ibid., p. 15; see also: "the spirituality of care, an extremely individualistic spirituality, without any relation to the world." - Schmemann. Ibid., p. 301.

32. Article "Pluralism and Orthodoxy". Ibid., p. 37.

33. The article "If you listen in a new way". Ibid., p. 16.

34. Article "Worship in the secular age". Ibid., p. 78; see also the article "Worship and Eschatology". Ibid., pp. 300-301.

page 272
influence on the secular state of the world. Hence his "liturgical theology", which, like the" third way", opposes both the apocalyptic denial of the world and the" adaptation " to it.35
The pan-Orthodox text on peace and mission reflects the tensions identified by Schmemann, and this fundamental ambivalence between the Church and the world ("to live in the world, but not to be of the world") remains fundamental here (in the preamble), just as it did earlier in the "social concept" of the Russian Church. However, the tone of both the mission document and the Russian concept differs significantly from the "liturgical solution" that Schmemann proposed. The document states: "Finding constant inspiration in this hope and anticipation of the Kingdom of God, the Church does not remain indifferent to the problems of man in every era, but shares his concerns and pressing problems, taking on herself, like her Lord, the pain and wounds caused by the evil that is active in the world...", and continues:"The Orthodox Church shares the concerns and concerns of the people of our time with regard to the pressing problems that concern the modern world, and wishes to contribute to their resolution.. " (Preamble). The pragmatic, positive world-engagement for opposing secularism characteristic of this text contrasts with the liturgical eschatology of Schmemann, as well as with the mystical-ascetic motives of the" neo-patristic " current. In general, this orientation - active opposition to "secular values", the dominance of which is recognized-is quite consonant, for example, with the "social concept" of the Russian Church and the speeches of Patriarch Kirill.

However, it is characteristic and significant that the text begins with anthropology, with the affirmation of the dignity and freedom of the individual as a defining attitude. The Russian Church "social concept" of 2000 is structured differently, even if many assessments and formulations overlap: it puts the chapter on the nation first, then on the state (the most developed of all), then chapters on law, politics, economics, and so on;

"person" and "freedom" are mentioned in passing, mostly in the chapter on law and in relation to human rights. However, we remember that eight years later, in 2008, a large separate document appeared in the Russian Church with the "fundamentals of teaching" on these topics. Generally

35. Ibid.

page 273
the anthropology of the Russian document of 2008 - the high importance of" God-given " freedom, but the impossibility of its absolutization-is close to the corresponding fragments of the pre-council document, which, therefore, does not accept a more radical emphasis on personal freedom.

It is surprising that the mission document contains almost no allusions to "political theology"; it is completely deaf to the problem of relations with the state, to the understanding of politics and law - these words are completely absent from the text, as if these issues were completely irrelevant to the life of the church. It should be recalled that, on the contrary, these questions were central to the Russian "social concept", as well as in the" political theology " of A. Papanikolaou.

However, we can say that the controversy on these issues is hidden in the document-precisely in the interpretation of personal freedom discussed above. It should be recalled that Papanikolaou, as an exponent of the most liberal line in the framework of Christian thinking about the political, polemics with Russian documents, as, indeed, with other Orthodox thinkers (X. Yiannaras, V. Guroyan and others), trying to overcome their "ambivalent", "ambivalent" attitude to democracy - recognition of it as an expression of the ideals of dignity and equality, but at the same time-unwillingness to recognize the principle of separation of church and state and to abandon the cultural predominance of the "national" church36.

The other side of the question of "political" is the controversy surrounding the concept of "human rights". The mentioned Russian document of 2008 does not recognize the absolute Christian origin and meaning of this concept 37. Once again, Papanikolaou argues with Russian authors on two points: it is impossible, he says, as the 2008 document does, to condition human rights either by loyalty to cultural tradition or by following Christian moral principles, because both are arbitrary restrictions on God-given freedom. But at the same time, he admits that "there is a particle of truth in the Orthodox resistance to the language of rights" ("the Orthodox resistance of the human rights

36. Papanikolaou, А. op.cit., p. 51.

37. See analysis in: Stoeckl, K. (2014) The Russian Orthodox Church and Human Rights, p. 69-90. London: Routledge; also several articles on the Russian Orthodox concept of rights in: Makrides, V., Wasmuth, J., Kube, S. (Hgs) (2016) Christentum und Menschenrechte in Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

page 274
language contains a kernel of truth") - because the very fact that people are forced to use the language of" rights " is a consequence of their inability to treat each other in the same way that God treats each of them 38.

This subtle and nuanced controversy is completely overlooked in the mission statement: the very concept of "human rights" is mentioned only twice in all editions of the pre-conciliar text (and not even in the first, "anthropological" sections), without special analysis, but with an important caveat: The Church, respecting human rights, " evaluates the application of these principles in the light of its teaching on the sacraments, on the family, on the status of both gender in the Church and on the values of Church tradition in general "(d. 3).

It is characteristic that the pre-council document almost ignores another topic that is most important for the" world-wide " Orthodox experience - the topic of national and ethnic identity, only casually condemning nationalist motives for wars; similarly, the question of transnational vectors of global peace is omitted. The document only briefly summarizes that "secular globalization" leads "to the loss of peoples' spiritual roots, to historical unconsciousness and oblivion of traditions " (E. 7.) Perhaps the authors simply avoided complex interpretations of the painful question of the national and cultural character of Eastern Christian identity, since this character, on the contrary, is emphasized in most local churches (see, for example, the interpretation of this question in the Russian "social concept", in chapter 2).

At the same time, the document is more sensitive to the economy, especially highlighting the problem of inequality, repeatedly condemning "excessive consumption", thereby revealing an obvious criticism of the neoliberal economic agenda. The document suggests "building the economy on moral principles" (E. 3-5).

The rhetoric of morality, as already mentioned, has generally been significantly strengthened in the latest version of the document, being an important criterion for the permissible limits of freedom. The document also highlights ecology, bioethics, mass media, and science - in all cases from the point of view of the same question about the limits of freedom, the violation of which, due to the dominance of secularism, leads to modern social problems. Finally, to the dominant whether-

38. Papanikolaou, A. Op.cit., p. 129.

page 275
The document contrasts the ideal of holiness with liberal secularism: "The Orthodox Tradition, formed by the realization of Christian truths, is a carrier of spirituality and is distinguished by its ascetic character, which is especially necessary to emphasize and reveal in our time" (e. 13). The ascetic ideal of holiness is proposed here as a challenge, as a reminder, as a witness, and not as a world-denying strategy.

Despite all the compromises and omissions, even with a certain eclecticism, meaningful and pragmatic, which, apparently, allows the Council to take place , we can still, allowing for some averaging, present a certain model of self-determination-in-the-world-a model for which, by and large, the document discussed in this article was compiled. Orthodox authors condemn both "fanaticism" and "syncretism" in their relations with other religions (A. 3.); but this formula also applies to their relation to the "outside world" in general. This attitude is moderately active (without fanaticism!), but also strictly protective, not allowing mixing (without syncretism!). Orthodox churches want to influence the world by keeping a strict distance from it. Referring to the fundamental Christian model of exclusion, Orthodoxy maintains its attitude to the modern secular, neoliberal world as alien, and its main mission is to witness the alternative. At the same time, it leaves room for careful dialogue, in an attempt to link the enlightenment discourse of human freedom with conservative morality, the ideal of social harmony, and transcendent Christian goals.

Bibliography / References

Vaganova N. A. Sophiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov. Moscow: PSTG U Publishing House, 2010.

Journals of meetings of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church dated 24.12.2015. Journal No. 93. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4304773.html, accessed from 1.03.2016].

Kirill, the Patriarch. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate: [http://sobor.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed from 1.03.2016].

Kostyuk K. History of Social and Ethical Thought in the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 2013.

Kyrlezhev A. "Mystical politics" as a contradiction in adjecto. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2014. N 4.

page 276
The mission of the Orthodox Church in the modern world. Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council approved by the Assembly of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy, January 21-28, 2016 / / Website of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church [https://mospat.ru/ru/2016/01/28/news127353/, accessed from 1.03.2016]

Metropolitan Nicodemus and Pan-Orthodox Unity, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor, 2008.

Draft documents of the Pan-Orthodox Council published (updated) / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4361840.html, accessed from 1.03.2016].

Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii Russkoy pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church] / / Yubileyny Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, August 13-16, 2000. Materials. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2001, pp. 329-410.

Fundamentals of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on freedom, dignity and human rights / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate [https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/dignity-freedom-rights/, accessed from 1.03.2016].

Pashkina E. Novy Grad magazine in the ideological and political life of the Russian emigration. Dissertation for Candidate of Historical Sciences, Moscow, 2008.

Pre-assembly meetings. Local churches are preparing for the Pan-Orthodox council. Interview with Archpriest N. Balashov / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2016. N 1.

Schmeman A., prot. Collection of articles 1947-1983. Dorman, Moscow, Russian Way Publ., 2009.

Scobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 2 (19).

Filonenko A. Theology of Communion and Eucharistic Anthropology. Bulletin of V. N. Karamzin Kharkiv National University. 2010. N 904.

Horuzhiy C. Orthodox Ascetic Anthropology and the Crisis of Modern Man // Orthodox teaching about man. Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, November 5-8, 2001. Materials. Moscow: Synodal Theological Commission Publ., 2004.

Agadjanian, A. (2014) Turns of Faith, Search for Meaning: Orthodox Christianity and PostSoviet Experience. Erfurt Studies in Eastern Christianity series: Peter Lang Edition.

Communique, 25.04.2015, [https://www.patriarchate.org/announcements/-/asset_publisher/MF6geT6kmaDE/conten t/communique/pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_MF6geT6kmaDE_viewMode, accessed on 18.02.2016].

Filonenko, A. (2010) "Bogoslovie obshcheniia i evkharisticheskaia antropologiia" ["Theology of communion and eucharistic anthropology"], Koinoniia. Vestnik Khar'kovskogo natsional'nogo universiteta im. V.N. Karamzina 904, pp. 176-189.

Hoppe-Kondrikova, O., Van Kessel., J., Van Der Zweerde, E. (2013). "Christian Social Doctrine East and West: the Russian Orthodox Social Concept and the Roman Catholic Compendium Compared", Religion, State and Society 41(2): 199-224.

Ionita, V. (2014) Toward the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. The Decisions of the pan-Orthodox Meetings since 1923 until 2009. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag.

Kalaitsides, P. (2013) "The Image of the West in the Contemporary Greek Theology", in Demacopoulos and A. Papanikolaou, eds. Orthodox Constructions of the West, pp. 142-160. NY: Fordham University Press.

page 277
Khoruzhii, C. (2004) "Pravoslavno-asketicheskaia antropologiia i krizis sovremennogo cheloveka" ["Orthodox ascetic anthropology and the crisis of modern man"] Moskva: Sinodal'naia bogoslovskaia komissiia], in Pravoslavnoe uchenie o cheloveke. Bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi tserkvi. Moskva, 5-8 noiabria 2001 g. Materialy.

Kirill, Patriarch (2016) "Doklad Sviateishego Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rusi Kirilla na Arkhiereiskom sobore Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi 2 fevralia 2016 g" ["Report of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, February 2, 2016"], Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskoi Patriarkhii. [http://sobor.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed on 1.03.2016].

Kostiuk, K. (2013) Istoriia sotsial'no-eticheskoi mysli v Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi [History of social and ethical thought in the Russian Orthodox Church]. SP b.: Aleteia.

Kyrlezhev, A. (2014) "Misticheskaia politika" kak contradictio in adjecto. Na poliakh knigi Aristotelia Papanikolau" ["Mystical politics" as a contradictio in adjecto. On the margins of the book by Aristotle Papanikolaou"], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 32(4): pp. 247-263.

Livingston, J., Fiorenza F., et al. (2000) Modern Christian Thought, Vol. II. Uppe Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Makrides, V., Wasmuth, J., Kube, S. (Hgs) (2016) Christentum und Menschenrechte in Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

"Missiia Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v sovremennom mire. Proekt dokumenta Vsepravoslavnogo Sobora, odobrennyi Sobraniem Predstoiatelei Pomestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei v Shambezi, 21-28 ianvaria 2016 goda" ["Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Modern World. Draft for Pan-Orthodox Council, Approved by Assembly of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy, 21-28 January 2016"], Sait Moskovskogo Patriarkhata Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [https://mospat.ru/ru/2016/01/28/news127353/, accessed on 1.03.2016].

Mitropolit Nikodim i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Metropolitan Nikodim and Pan-Orthodox unity] (2008). S.-Peterburg: Kniaz'-Vladimirskii Sobor.

"Opublikovany proekty dokumentov Vsepravoslavnogo Sobora (obnovleno)" ["Published draft documents for Pan-Orthodox Council (updated)"], Ofitsial'nyi sait moskovskogo patriarkhata, [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4361840.html, accessed on 1.03.2016].

"Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi" ["Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church"] (2001), in Iubileinyi Arkhiereiskii Sobor Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi, 13 - 16 avgusta 2000 g. Materialy, pp. 329 - 410. M.: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskoi patriarkhii.

"Osnovy ucheniia Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi o svobode, dostoinstve i pravakh cheloveka" ["Bases of Russian Orthodox Church teachings on freedom, dignity and human rights"], Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskoi patriarkhii, [https://mospat.ru/ru/ documents/dignity-freedom-rights/, accessed on 1.03.2016].

Papanikolaou, A. (2012) The Mystical as Political. Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy. University of Notre Dame Press.

Pashkina, E. (2008) Zhurnal "Novyi Grad" v ideino-politicheskoi zhizni russkoi emigratsii. Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uch. st. k.i.n., [Journal "New City" in the ideological and political life of Russian emigration. Thesis for the degree of 'kandidat nauk'] Moskva.

page 278
"Predsobornye vstrechi. Pomestnye tserkvi gotoviatsia k vsepravoslavnomu soboru. Interv'iu s prot. N. Balashovym" ["Pre-Council Meeting. Local churches are preparing for Pan-Orthodox Council. Interview with Archpriest Nikolai Balashov"] (2016), Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii 1.

Schmemann, A. (2009) Sobranie statei 1947-1983 gg. [Collection of Articles 1947-1983] Sost. E. Iu. Dorman. M.: Russkii put'.

Skobei, G.N. (2002) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke Sviatogo i Velikogo Sobora Vostochnoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi "["Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church"], Tserkov' i vremia 2(19).

Stoeckl, K. (2014) The Russian Orthodox Church and Human Rights. London: Routledge. Vaganova, N.A. (2010) Sofiologiia protoiereia Sergiia Bulgakova [Sofiology of priest Sergii Bulgakov]. Moskva: Izd-vo PSTGU.

Valliere, P. (2000) Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviov, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key. London: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Zhurnaly zasedanii Sviashchennogo Sinoda RP ot 24.12.2015. Zhurnal N 93. [Decisions of the Holy Synod of ROC meeting on 12.24.2015. Decision N 93], [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4304773.html, accessed on 1.03.2016].

Zizioulas, J. (2002) Being as Communion. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Zizioulas, J. (2006) Communion and Otherness. London: T&T Clark.

page 279

Permanent link to this publication: