St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

Contemporary Western scholars commenting on Calvin usually concentrate on his use of the concept of communion with Christ as a communion which takes effect solely through the means of grace. The author of this article, however, examines Calvin’s views through the prism of his idea of divine sovereignty - an integral part of his theology. This necessarily diminishes the theological basis for the incarnation, and this comes out clearly in the way Calvin discusses a type of communion with Christ in the Old Testament and outside the Eucharistic sacrament. Primarily, Calvin views the Eucharist as a vivid narrative centering on Christ and His Sacrifice, and only secondarily as an independent reality. The author argues that Calvin did not think that the faithful received the concrete body of Christ in both soul and body during Holy Communion. Calvin’s doctrine of Eucharistic consummation is confined to a spiritual dimension and his use of a kind of realism when discussing the Eucharist should be figuratively understood as a use of metonymy. When Calvin speaks about the Body of Christ in the context of the Eucharist, he metonymically means the life-giving grace of Christ. The Body of Christ is seen by Calvin as a type of conduit which transfers Christ’s spiritual gifts or graces to the faithful. Calvin’s rare statements about the transformation of the body of the communicant should be understood in an eschatological perspective as referring to the resurrection of the body on the Last Day.

Consuming the Body of Christ in John Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology, John Calvin, Eucharist, Consuming of the Body of Christ, Sacrament, Metonymy, Sovereignty of God, Incarnation

1. Kal'vin Zh. Nastavlenija v hristianskoj vere (Institutes of the Christian Religion,), Moscow, 1997–1999.
2. Kal'vin Zh. Tolkovanie na Evangelie ot Ioanna (Commentary on John), Minsk, 2007.
3. Kozlov M., prot. Zapadnoe hristianstvo: vzgljad s Vostoka (Western Christianity: Eastern Look). Moscow, 2009.
4. Mejendorf I., prot. Vvedenie v svjatootecheskoe bogoslovie (Introduction into Patristic Theology), Minsk, 2007.
5. Miter H. G. Osnovnye idei kal'vinizma (General Ideas oft he Calvinism), Saint-Petersbourg, 1995.
6. Nazarevskij S. “Ioann Kal'vin — reformator XVI veka” (John Calvin — the Reformer of the 20th Century) in: Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 1878, vol. 5–6, pp. 43–68; vol. 8, pp. 675–701; vol. 10, pp. 222–245; 1879, vol. 5–6, pp. 143–204; vol. 9, pp. 44–78; vol. 12, pp. 635–713.
7. Ostroumov S., prot. “Mysli o Svjatyh Tajnah” (Some Ideas on the Holy Sacraments) in: Mysli o Svjatyh Tajnah, Kiev, 2004.
8. Sil'vestr (Malevanskij), ep. Opyt pravoslavnogo dogmaticheskogo bogoslovija (Experience of the Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), Kiev, 1897, vol. 4.
9. Uspenskij E. Oblichitel'noe bogoslovie (Revealing Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 1895.
10. Sharapov V., prot. Chto nahoditsja v chashe prichastija? (What is in the Chalice of Communion), Moscow, 2011.
11. Botica D. A. “The Eucharist in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin” in: Perichoresis, 2010, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 279–302.
12. Davis T. J. The clearest promises of God. The development of Calvin’s Eucharistic teaching, New York, 1995.
13. Davis T. J. This is my body: the presence of Christ in Reformation thought, Grand Rapids, 2008.
14. Gerrish B. A. Grace and gratitude. The Eucharistic theology of John Calvin, Eugene, 2002.
15. Gerrish B. A. “The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Confessions” in: Theology today, 1966, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 224–243.
16. Hunsinger G. The Eucharist and ecumenism, Cambridge, 2008.
17. G. Baum et al. (eds.) Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, Braunschweig, 1863–1900.
18. Janse W. “Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper” in: Perichoresis, 2012, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 137–163.
19. Mathison K. A. Given for you: reclaiming Calvin’s doctrine of the Lords Supper, Phillipsburg, 2002.
20. McDonnell K. John Calvin, the Church and the Eucharist, Princeton, 1967.
21. McGrath A. E. A life of John Calvin, Oxford, 2006.
22. Niesel W. The theology of John Calvin, Philadelphia, 1956.
23. Selderhuis H. J. (ed.) The Calvin handbook, Grand Rapids, 2009.
24. McKim D. K. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to John Calvin, Cambridge, 2004.
25. Wolterstorff N. “John Calvin” in: Wandel L. P. (ed.) A companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Leiden, 2013, pp. 97–114.

Drobot Vladimir

The Christian traditions of both East and West closely associate abstract theology (that is the reception and expression of revealed truth) with the everyday life style of the individual theologian, placing specific demands on the type of life he leads. The charism of being a teacher in Christ’s Church implies a degree of personal holiness and integrity as well as the willingness to bear the cross of suffering, both voluntary and involuntary. This apparent truth was examined by the first generation of Slavophiles. It is treated in the correspondence of Slavophile circles during the summer of 1853 and was published by N. P. Kolyupanov in the appendix attached to his biography of A. I. Koshelev. Their conclusions were viewed as authoritative by Khomyakov and his group. They may be summarized as follows. Since suffering is a result of one’s own personal sins or of the general sinfulness of the world, the mitigation or even absence of suffering may be viewed as a special gift of grace. In this way, earthly happiness may be seen as something positive - a special benefit granted to the person by God. As a result, it is not necessary to limit one’s happiness, but only to be grateful for it. Happiness for a Christian forms a special type of ascesis, an ascesis much more difficult to perform than suffering, since the happy person is constantly in peril of forgetting God. To remedy this factor, prayer and mortification are necessary - hence the need especially for the monastic form of life. The only thing that should really be forbidden to the Christian is to ask God in prayer to make oneself happy on earth. Further conclusions to this line of thinking among the Slavophiles await further research. But we might pose the following query: can a refusal to practice the ascesis of the patristic tradition bring out to the road of the patristic theology?

Sense of Suffering, Happiness, Grace, Slavophilism, A. Khomyakov, K. Aksakov, Holiness, Sin, Sinfulness, Theology

1. Barsov N. I. “O znachenii Homjakova v istorii otechestvennogo bogoslovija” (On the Significance of Khomyakov for Russian Theology) in: Hristianskoe chtenie, Saint-Petersbourg, 1878, vol. 1/2, pp. 303–320.
2. Dimitrij Rostovskij, svt. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij (Collected Works), Moscow, 1839–1849.
3. Koljupanov N. Biografija Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva (A. I. Koshelev’s Biography), Moscow, 1889–1892.
4. Samarin Ju. F. “Otryvok iz zapisok” (Fragment from Notes) in: Tatevskij sbornik S. A. Rachinskogo, Saint-Petersbourg, 1899.
5. Fenelon Salin'jak de lja Mot. “Iz’jasnenie myslej svjatyh o vnutrennej zhizni” in: Hondzinskij P., prot. Nyne vse my boleem teologiej, Moscow, 2013, pp. 372–472.
6. Filaret (Gumilevskij), svt. Istoricheskoe uchenie ob otcah Cerkvi (Historical Doctrine about Church Fathers), Sergiev Posad, 1996.
7. Florovskij G., prot. Puti russkogo bogoslovija (Ways of Russian Theology), Moscow, 2009.
8. Homjakov A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij (Collected Works), Moscow, 1900.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

This article is the first in a series of publications dealing with the problem of wider leadership in the Orthodox Church. The opposing positions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of Constantinople in this regard have emerged during animated discussions. This divergence begs for a reassessment of already existing models of leadership, which obviously cannot serve as a basis for the agreement, and for a search to discover new approaches. The author studies the way in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople succeeded in theorizing the idea of a universal primacy and the concept’s theological foundations. The author opines that contemporary scholars do not thoroughly assess the significance of the historical evolution of the doctrine. Neither do they give sufficient thought to a careful study of the process surrounding the debates on the primacy. Careful study of both these issues would explain current contradictions and offer a way of solving the contemporary crisis. The article highlights those factors which influenced the Patriarchate of Constantinople during the nineteen-twenties of the last century to significantly alter its ecclesiastical politics. Sources indicate that Constantinople was swayed by the Greek national political program and that many of its actions were not determined exclusively by ecclesiastical concerns. Theorizing the position of Constantinople as the center of world-wide Orthodoxy during these years stemmed from the strategy of preserving the headquarters of the Patriarchate on Turkish soil. The theory of the primacy in the Orthodox Church likewise served as a way to increase the canonical territory of the Patriarchate, not least since the Patriarchate had lost significant funding for its continued existence.

Patriarchate of Constantinople, Phanar, Turkey, Center of the Orthodox Church, Primacy, Leadership, Pan-Orthodox Initiatives, Meletios Metaxakis, Venize-los, Lausan

1. Alexandris A. “The Expulsion of Constantine VI: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Greek-Turkish Relations, 1924–1925” in: Balkan Studies, 1981, vol. 22/2, pp. 333–363.
2. D’Herbigny M. “Anglicans et “orthodoxes”” in : Etudes, 1921, vol. 168, pp. 415–425.
3. DeVille A. “Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Primacy: A Plea for a New Common Approach” in: Ecumenical Trends, 2008, vol. 37/4, pp. 5–7.
4. Douglas J. A. “The Oecumenical Patriarchate” in: Christian East, 1923, vol. 4/4, pp. 188–191.
5. Geffert B. “Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics” in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2006, vol. 57/2, pp. 270–300.
6. Ἐλπιδόφορος, μητρ. Primus sine paribus: Ἁπάντησις εἰς τὸ περὶ πρωτείου κείμενον το´ Πατριαρχείου Μόσχας in: http:in:www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-gr.pdf.
7. Janin R. “La destinee du patriarcat oecumenique” in : Echos d’Orient, 1925, vol. 24, no. 138, pp. 202–211.
8. Lacombe J. “La recente evolution des Eglises orthodoxes (1914–1934)” in : Echos d’Orient, 1935, vol. 34, pp. 71–83; 167–178.
9. Lausanne Conference on Near Eastern Affairs (1922–1923). Records of Proceedings and Draft Terms of Peace. L., 1923.
10. “Le Patriarchat oecumenique vu d’Egypte” in : Echos d’Orient, 1925, vol. 24, pp. 40–55.
11. Mews S. “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch, 1925–1926” in: Baker D. (ed.) The Orthodox Churches and the West, Oxford, 1976, pp. 293–306.
12. Miller W. “The Changing Role of the Orthodox Church” in: Foreign Affairs, 1930, vol. 8/2, pp. 274–281.
13. Nanakis A. “Venizelos and Church-State Relations” in: Kitromilides P. (ed.) Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship, Edinburgh, 2006, pp. 346–373.
14. Psomiades H. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate Under the Turkish Republic: The First Ten Years” in: Balkan Studies, 1961, vol. 2/1, pp. 47–70.
15. Rustem Bey A. “The Future of the Oecumenical Patriarchate” in: Foreign Affairs, 1925, vol. 3, pp. 604–610.
16. “The Present Danger to the Oecumenical Patriarchate” in: Christian East, 1925, vol. 6/2, pp. 78–83.
17. Μαμάλος Γ.–Σ. Το πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως στο επίκεντρο διεθνών ανακατατάξεων (1918–1972). Εξωτερική πολιτική και οικουμενικός προσανατολισμός. Διατρίβη επι διδακτορία. Πανεπιστόμιο Αθηνων, 2009.
18. “Ο Γέρων Χαλκηδόνος κατά του Πατριαρχείου Μόσχας” in: http:in:www.romfea.gr/oikoumeniko-patriarxeio/oikoumeniko-patriarxeio/20060-2013-11-02-08-12-11.
19. Αλεξανδρής Α. Τό αρχείον του εθνομάρτυρος Σμύρνης Χρυσόστομου, Αθήνα, 2000, vol. 3. pp. 188–189.
20. Χριστοφόρου, μητρ. “Ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ θέσις τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου” in: Πάνταινος, 1924, vol. 316. Ἀριθ. 39 (27 Σεπτ.); Ἀριθ. 40 (4 Ὀκτ.); Ἀριθ. 41 (11 Ὀκτ).
21. Kostrjukov A. A. “K istorii vzaimootnoshenij mezhdu Russkoj Zarubezhnoj Cerkov'ju i Konstantinopol'skoj patriarhiej v 1920–1924 godah” (To the History of Relations between Russian Church Abroad and Patriarchate of Constantinople) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II: Istorija. Istorija Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2011, vol. 6(43), pp. 58–69.
22. Nikon (Rklickij), arhiep. Zhizneopisanie Blazhennejshego Antonija, mitropolita Kievskogo i Galickogo (Biography of Blessed Antony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galic), New York, 1960, vol. 7.
23. “Pravoslavnaja Cerkov' v Turcii” (Orthodox Church in Turkey) in: Vera i zhizn', 1925, vol. 4, pp. 84–86.

Ermilov Pavel, диакон

Two theological disciplines are contrasted in this article: philosophical theology and fundamental theology. The former evolved in Great Britain and the United States and may be considered a type of philosophical and inter-cultural deepening of natural theology. The latter was developed principally in Western Europe and especially in German Roman Catholic schools as Fudamental-Theologie and deals mostly with theology from the standpoint of Christian apologetics. The contrast between the two types is based on the fact that each of them presents differing ways of theologia naturalis (with apology of theism at its heart), both entering the area of theologia revelata. This article is an attempt at mapping out the beginnings of an Eastern Orthodox philosophical theology as an innovative theological program. The author is therefore interested in examining exactly what constitutes such a philosophical theology and in defining the limits which Eastern Orthodox tradition necessarily places upon the evolution of such a system. He also tries to learn what past methodological discussions occurring in the environment of the Russian Orthodox theological schools can contribute to the development of such a system. The author argues that these contributions need to be confined merely to the courses offered by theological schools during the synodal period. Finally, the author wishes to define how philosophical theology and fundamental theology can relate to each other in spite of their theoretical differences. The fields of apologetics and hermeneutics would certainly profit from the development of the school of philosophical theology but exactly in what way remains a question for further research.

Theology, Rational Theology, Revealed Theology, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Fundamental Theology, Methodology, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Argumentatio

1. Kant I. Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1912, vol. 8.
2. Mac Donald S. “Natural Theology” in: Craig E. (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York, 1998, vol. 6, pp. 711–712.
3. Pummer R. “Religionswissenschaft or Religiology?” in: Numen, 1972, vol. 19, pp. 91–127.
4. Schrödter W. “Religion bzw. Theologie, natürliche bzw, vernünftige” in: Ritter J., Gründer K. (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, 1992, vol. 8, pp. 714–715.
5. Shokhin V. “Philosophy of Religion and Varieties of Rational Theology” in: Bradshaw D. (ed.) Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives, Washington (DC), 2012, pp. 5–20.
6. Tennant F. R. Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, 1928–1930, vol. 1–2.
7. Wagner H. “Fungamentaltheologie” in: Kraue G., Müller G. (eds.) Theologiche Realenzylkopädie, Berlin, 1983, vol. 11, pp. 741–751.
8. Antonov K. M. “Istoricheskoe izuchenie religii v duhovno-akademicheskoj tradicii v dorevoljucionnoj Rossii” (Historical Research of the Religion in Theological Academic Tradition in Prerevolutionary Russia) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 1 (33), pp. 42–46.
9. Glagolev S. S. Posobie k izucheniju osnovnogo bogoslovija. Zhenskie bogoslovskie kursy (Manual for Study of Systematic Theology. Female Theological Courses), Moscow, 1912.
10. Golubcov S. A. Moskovskaja duhovnaja akademija v revoljucionnuju jepohu. Akademija v social'nom dvizhenii i sluzhenii v nachale XX veka (Moscow Theological Academy in Revolutionary Epoch. Academy in Social Movement and Service in the Beginning of the 20th Century), Moscow, 1999.
11. Avgustin (Guljanickij), arhim. Rukovodstvo k osnovnomu bogosloviju (Manual for Systematic Theology), Vilnius, 1876.
12. Dobrotvorskij V., prot. Osnovnoe bogoslovie, ili Hristianskaja apologetika. Pravoslavnoe dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie: Lekcii (Systematic Theology or Christian Apologetics. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 2005.
13. Dokinz R. Bog kak illjuzija (God as Illusion), Moscow, 2008.
14. Znamenskij P. V. Istorija Kazanskoj duhovnoj akademii za pervyj (doreformennyj) period ee sushhestvovanija (1842–1870 gg.) (History of Kazan Theological Academy in Its First Period (before Reform)), Kazan, 1892, vol. 2.
15. Kimelev Ju. A. Sovremennaja zapadnaja filosofija religii (Modern Western Philosophy of Religion), Moscow, 1989
16. Kimelev Ju. A. Filosofija religii: sistematicheskij ocherk (Philosophy of Religion: Systematic Essay), Moscow, 1998
17. Kudrjavcev-Platonov V. D. Sochinenija (Writings), Sergiev-Posad, 1898, vol. 2.
18. Lekcii po umozritel'nomu bogosloviju, so slov professora filosofii v MDA prot. F. A. Golubinskogo, zapisannye v 1841/2 uchebnom godu studentom Akademii XIV kursa V. Nazarevskim (Lectures on Speculative Theology by Prof. of Philosophy in Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest F. Golubinsky, written in 1841/1842 Year by the Student of Fourth Year, V. Nazarevsky). Moscow, 1868.
19. Mihail (Mud'jugin), arhiep. Vvedenie v osnovnoe bogoslovie (Introduction into Systematic Theology), Moscow, 1995.
20. Nikolin I. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija, ili Apologetiki (Course of Systematic Theology or Apologetics), Sergiev Posad, 1914.
21. Flint T. P., Rej M. K., Vasil'ev V. V. (ed.) Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoj teologii (Oxford Textbook for Philosophical Theology), Moscow, 2013, pp. 787–860
22. Osipov A. I. Put' razuma v poiskah istiny (The Way of Mind Looking for the Truth), Moscow, 2010
23. Osipov A. I. Put' razuma v poiskah istiny. Osnovnoe bogoslovie (The Way of Mind Looking for the Truth. Systematic Theology), Moscow, 1999
24. Rozhdestvenskij V. G., svjashh. Lekcii osnovnogo bogoslovija (Lectures on Systematic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 1883.
25. Rozhdestvenskij N. P. Hristianskaja apologetika. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija, chitannyj studentam v 1881/2 uchebnom godu. Posmertnoe izdanie SPB duhovnoj akademii (Christian Apologetics. Course of Systematic Theology Read in 1881/1882. Posthumous Edition of Saint-Petersbourg Theological Academy), Saint-Petersbourg, 1884, vol. 1.
26. Svetlov P. Ja., prot. Kurs apologeticheskogo bogoslovija (Course of Apologetics), Kiev, 1912.
27. Sergievskij N. Ob osnovnyh istinah hristianskoj very. Apologeticheskie publichnye chtenija, chitannye v 1871 g. (On Basic Verities of the Christian Faith. Apologetical Public Reading), Moscow, 1872.
28. Smirnov S. Istorija Moskovskoj duhovnoj akademii do ee preobrazovanija (1814–1870) (History of Moscow Theological Academy before Its Foundation (1814–1870)), Moscow, 1879.
29. Tihomirov D. A. Kurs osnovnogo bogoslovija (Course of Systematic Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 1915.
30. Hlebnikov G. V. Filosofskaja teologija antichnosti: analiticheskij obzor (Philosophical Theology of the Ancient World: Analysis), Moscow, 2005.
31. Chistovich I. A. Sankt-Peterburgskaja duhovnaja akademija za poslednie 30 let (1858–1888) (Saint-Petersbourg Theological Academy in Last Thirty Years (1858–1888)), Saint-Petersbourg, 1889
32. Shohin V. K. Vvedenie v filosofiju religii (Introduction into Philosophy of Religion), Moscow, 2010.
33. Jevans S., Mjenis Z. Filosofija religii: razmyshlenie o vere (Philosophy of Religion: Thoughts about Faith), Moscow, 2011.

Shokhin Vladimir

The author details the results of her study of the works of Sergey Sergeyevich Glagolev, a prominent professor of the Moscow Theological Academy. Glagolev’s heritage produces a profound impression by means of its versatility, its original way of looking at diverse problems as well as his unique solutions to the same problems. For this reason, it possesses enduring relevance. Despite this fact, his correspondence is still not well known nor understood. The author focuses on Glagolev’s analysis of the human problem. This choice may be explained by the fact that Sergey Sergeevich considered the problem of man to be the key issue behind the collision of religion and science taking place during the early twentieth century. Glagolev attempted to solve this problem by focusing on certain aspects of the subject: the origin of mankind, the interaction of the spirit and the body, the immortality of the soul, the origin of religion, as well as the way in which religious faith came about. A vital aspect of Glagolev’s treatment of the problem of man is his criticism of Charles Darwin and Darwinism, and thereby of the entire theory of evolution. Glagolev disagreed with the basic premises of this theory as well as with some of its specific conclusions. While opposing the concept of anthropo-genesis, Glagolev formulated his own theory regarding the origins of mankind. Thus, Glagolev viewed the origins and later history of mankind through the prism of his theory of degradation, which allowed him to seamlessly link the biblical narrative of the origins of man with contemporary scientific data. The author concludes that Glagolev was a major influence in the development of Russian theology during the first years of the twentieth century.

Religion, Religious Studies, Problem of Man, Theism in Russian Theological Academies, S. S. Glagolev, Degradation, Duality of Human Nature

1. Abramov A. I. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov po istorii russkoi filosofii. M., 2005.
2. Alekseev P. A. Filosofy Rossii XIX-XX stoletii. M., 2002.
3. Antonov K. M. Istoricheskoe izuchenie religii v dukhovno-akademicheskoi traditsii v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii // Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. 2011. 1(33). S. 39-55.
4. Antonov K. M. Filosofiia religii v russkoi metafizike XIX — nach. KhKh veka. Dis. ... d-ra filosof. nauk. M., 2008.
5. Glagolev S. S. Astronomiia i bogoslovie: [Rets. na:] Astronomie et Theologie par Le K. P. Th. Ortolan. Paris, 1894 // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1897. T. 3. № 9. S. 311-342; T. 4. № 10. S. 150-168, № 11. S. 304-327.
6. Glagolev S. S. Vera i znanie // Vera i razum. 1909. № 21 S. 344-370.
7. Glagolev S. S. Vzgliad Vasmanna na proiskhozhdenie cheloveka // Bogoslovskii vestnik. T. 1. № 4. S. 621-642; T. 2. № 5. S. 1-16; № 7/8. S. 417-450; T. 3. №10. S. 233-265.
8. Glagolev S. S. Vopros o bessmertii dushi // Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii. M., 1893. Kn. 19. S. 1-19; Kn. 20. S. 1-26.
9. Glagolev S. S. Drevo znaniia i drevo zhizni. SPb., 1916.
10. Glagolev S. S. Estestvennonauchnye voprosy v ikh otnoshenii k khristianskomu miroponimaniiu. SPb., 1914.
11. Glagolev S. S. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii cheloveka // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1909. T.1. № 3. S. 450-478.
12. Glagolev S. S. Mnimoe otkrytie: [Pithecanthropus erectus] // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1896. T. 3. № 10. S. 109-122.
13. Glagolev S. S. Ob odnom pastyre // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1916. T. 2. № 9. S. 103-139.
14. Glagolev S. S. Ob otnoshenii filosofii i estestvennykh nauk k nauke Vvedeniia v Bogoslovie: Probnaia lektsiia // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1892. T. 3. № 12. S. 370-390.
15. Glagolev S. S. Potrebnost' v apologeticheskikh trudakh v nastoiashchee vremia: Rech' pered zashchitoi magisterskoi dissertatsii «O proiskhozhdenii i pervobytnom sostoianii roda chelovecheskogo». M., 1894 // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1894. T. 3. № 8. S. 167-180.
16. Glagolev S. S. Proshloe cheloveka // Vera i razum. 1916. № 5. S. 547-586; № 6/7, S. 712— 734; № 8/9, S. 922-945; № 10, S. 1124-1155.
17. Glagolev S. S. Religiia i nauka v ikh vzaimootnoshenii k nastupaiushchemu XX stoletiiu: Vstupitel'nye chteniia po Vvedeniiu v bogoslovie v MDA // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1899. T. 3. № 11. S. 359-385; № 12 S. 585-613; 1900. T. 1. № 1. S. 37-74.
18. Glagolev S. S. Chudo i nauka // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1893. T. 2. №. 6. S. 477-514.
19. Divakov M., diak. Bogoslovskie trudy professora MDA S. S. Glagoleva. Zagorsk, 1972.
20. Za Khrista postradavshie. Goneniia na Russkuiu Pravoslavnuiu Tserkov', 1917-1956: Biograficheskii spravochnik. M., 1997.
21. «Zheleznyi vek» russkoi mysli / B. V. Emel'ianov, sost. Ekaterinburg, 2004.
22. Kesarii (Georgesku), ierom. Kratkoe izlozhenie glavneishikh apologeticheskikh trudov N. P. Rozhdestvenskogo, V. D. Kudriavtseva-Platonova i S. S. Glagoleva i ikh znachenie dlia bogoslova. Zagorsk, 1960.
23. Kuz'mina E. V. Antichnoe religioznoe mirovozzrenie v otechestvennoi istoricheskoi mysli XIX — 20-kh gg. XX v. Tomsk, 2002.
24. Nesmelov V. I. Nauka o cheloveke. SPb., 2000.
25. Pinchuk V. Iu. Metafizicheskaia psikhologiia v russkom dukhovno-akademicheskom teizme XIX veka: dis. ... kand. filos. nauk: 09.00.03. Ussuriisk, 2003.
26. Servera Espinoza A. Kto est' chelovek? (http://www.ontology.pu.ru/index.php?id=62 (data obrashcheniia: 04.11.2013)).
27. Sergii (Stragorodskii), arkhiep. Razbor inoslavnykh uchenii ob opravdanii // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1895. № 4. S. 1-26; № 6. S. 346-364; № 8. S. 141-156.
28. Tareev M. M. Osnovy khristianstva. Sergiev Posad, 1910. T. 4.

Ershova Mar'iana

Besides liturgical and private prayer, lectio divina (literally divine reading) constitutes one of the formative elements of the Christian monastic tradition. Lectio divina means reading in private (that is not in a liturgical format) the Bible, patristic tractates, hagiographies, and other devotional literature. It further entails meditating (meditatio) on these readings and incorporating them into one’s own personal life of prayer (oratio). The author of this article wishes to study how the human consciousness is transfigured through the practice of lectio divina. As sources, he chooses a few classic texts of Western spirituality: the Ladder of the Anchorites by Guido the Carthusian (XII century) and the Meditation on the Life of Christ by Johannes de Caulibus (XIV century). He examines the psychological process through which the monastic reader communes with the text and intuitively assimilates it. The text steps into the role of a type of model-organizer, stimulating and directing the imagination of the reader to assimilate the intuitive meaning of the text. Depending on the tradition which formed the metaphorical structure of the text as well as the starting point of the reader, the experience of the assimilated meaning may result in either or both of two ways: 1) The generation of a new surface structure in the form of a clarification or a revelation which in this case is perceived as emanating from a phenomenal other; 2) The generation of a more profound structure in the form of an inexpressible intuition and/or the immediate sense of being one with the greater All.

Holy Scripture, Meditation, Text, Addressee, Model-Organizer, Symbolism, Intuitive Meaning, Transfiguration of the Consciousness, Metaphor, Prayer, Contemp

1. The Craft of Thought. Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400– Carruthers M 1200, Cambridge, 1998.
2. Edelson M. Language and Interpretation in Psychoanalysis. Chicago, 1984.
3. Gendlin E. Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning, Northwestern University Press, 1997.
4. Rigollot L. M. (ed.) Ludolphus de Saxonia. Vita Jesu Christi… P., 1878.
5. Rabbow P. Seelenführung. Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike, München, 1954.
6. Kiselev A. P., Mushelishvili N. L. “Neprjamaja kommunikacija i peredacha duhovnyh tradicij” (Non-direct Communication and Transfer of Spiritual Tradiotions) in: Sistemnye issledovanija: Ezhegodnik 2001, Moscow, 2003, pp. 29–44.
7. Koval' A. N., Mushelishvili N. L., Sergeev V. M., Spivak D. L. 2005. “Ot problemy istolkovanija v psihoanalize – k probleme istolkovanija religioznogo teksta” (From the Problem of Interpretation in Psychoanalysis to Problem of Interpretation of the Religious Text) in: Religiovedenie, vol. 2, pp. 88–97.
8. Lur'e V. Prizvanie Avraama: Ideja monashestva i ee voploshhenie v Egipte (Calling of Abraham: Idea of Monasticism and its Realization in Egypt), Moscow, 2000.
9. Mushelishvili N. L., Shrejder Ju. A. 1997. “Znachenie teksta kak vnutrennij obraz” (Meaning of Text as an Inner Image) in: Voprosy psihologii, vol. 3, pp. 79–91.
10. Mushelishvili N. L., Shrejder Ju. A. 1997. “Avtokommunikacija kak neobhodimyj komponent kommunikacii” (Auto communication as Necessary element of the Communication) in: Nauchno-tehnicheskaja informacija, vol. 5, pp. 1–10.
11. Hant G. O prirode soznanija. S kognitivnoj, fenomenologicheskoj i transpersonal'noj tochek zrenija (On the Nature of Consciousness: Cognitive, Phenomenological, and Transpersonal Perspectives). Moscow, 2004.
12. Shtejnberg O. M. Evrejskij i Haldejskij jetimologicheskij slovar' k knigam Vethogo Zaveta (Hebrew and Chaldean Etymological Dictionary for the Old Testament), Vilnius, 1878.

Muskhelishvili Nikolai

The author examines how theologians, especially Protestants, have changed their attitude to pop-culture. A veritable evolution has taken place. At one time, Protestant theologians refused to even acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, while today some of these theologians employ examples drawn from pop-culture even in their lessons of theology. The author studies this contemporary development and offers some reasons for why it has come about. One ofthese theologians, a certain Gordon Lynch, has become a convinced apologist for pop-culture and analyses it on the basis of his threefold theory of the levels of the functionality of religion: sociological, existential (hermeneutic), and transcendental. In Lynch’s opinion, pop-culture has taken over the role of religion in many cases. He cites the popular cartoon The Simpsons as one prominent example. Religion plays an important part in this cartoon series and Protestant theologians have begun to take notice an opposite change of attitude towards religion in pop-culture, viewing the development in a positive way. Though pop-cultural products may be used in pastoral ministry and are also being evaluated by theologians, this analysis cannot be called scientific in the strictest sense, since generally it remains within the scope of only theological approach.

Popular Culture, Religion and Theology, Religion and Cinema, Religion in «the Simpsons»

1. Irwin W. More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded. Chicago, 2005.
2. A John Hick Reader. Philadelphia, 1990.
3. Bawler G. God and The Simpsons. The Spirituality of Springfield. Richmond, 2001.
4. Bird M. Film as Hierophany. University of Tennessee Press, 1982.
5. Cobb K. The Blackwell guide to theology and popular culture. Oxford, 2005.
6. Dart J. 2001. “Simpsons Have Soul” in: The Christian Century, January 31, pp. 12–14.
7. Detweiler C., Taylor B. A Matrix of Meanings: Finding God in Pop Culture. Michigan, 2003.
8. Grau Ch. Philosophers Explore The Matrix. Oxford University Press, 2005.
9. Henry M. A. The Simpsons, Satire, and American Culture. New York, 2012.
10. Holloway R. Beyond the Image: Approaches to the Religious Dimension in the Cinema. Geneva, 1977.
11. Hurley N. Theology through Film. New York, 1970.
12. Johnston R. Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Michigan, 2000.
13. Jump H. 2001. “The Religious Possibilities of the Motion Picture” in: Lindvall T. The Silents of God: Selected Issues and Documents in Silent American Film and Religion, 1908–1925. Lanham, 2001, pp. 55–56.
14. Lawrence M. Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy, Oxford, 2004.
15. Lynch G. Understanding theology and popular culture. Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.
16. Miles M. Seeing and Believing: Religion and Values in the Movies. Boston, 1996.
17. Pinsky. M. I. 2007. “The Simpsons: It's Funny 'Cause it's True” in: Tikkun, vol. 22/4, pp. 72.
18. Rosenberg H. 1999. “Fox Does Have Standards and Double Standards” in: Los Angeles Times, June 2.
19. Shalda J. Religion in The Simpsons in: http://www.snpp.com/other/papers/jsh.paper.html).
20. Winfield N. At 150 years, the pope’s newspaper raises eyebrows in: http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2011/02/losservatore-goes-hip-at-150/
21. Yeffeth G., Gerrold D. Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and the Religion in the Matrix. Dallas, 2003.
22. Irvin U. (ed.) «Matrica» kak filosofija (Matrix as Philosophy), Ekaterinburg, 2005.
23. Nibur R. 1996. “Hristos i kul'tura” (Christ and Culture) in: Hristos i kul'tura. Izbrannye trudy Richarda Nibura i Rajnhol'da Nibura, Moscow, 1996, pp. 7–224.
24. Jerion Dzh., Zekkardi Dzh. 2005. “Moral'naja motivacija Mardzh” (Marge’s Moral Motivation) in: «Simpsony» kak filosofija: Jesse, Ekaterinburg, 2005, pp. 66–82.

Mikhel'son Ol'ga