Читаем Софиология полностью

Софиология

(1.3) Here without naming Sophia, the Osnovy seem to take an inner-worldly position that concentrates on the love of God for the world. The Osnovy also stress the particularity and plurality of gifts in the relation of the Church to society, as well as the fact that everyone (clergy, monk or lay) can realize this participation in different ways and degrees. This seems to correspond as well to the sophiological ideal of sobornost′ of the organization of Church community where everybody can bring and do his or her own service or work for the well-being of the community.[537]

In Chapter VI of the Osnovy, work is presented as an organic element of human life. Work already existed in the Garden of Eden, before the fall, There, work was co-creation and co-operation with God by virtue of the original likeness of humanity to God. After the fall, work became ′labor in the sweat′. Daily work is necessary, according to the Osnovy, but it does not represent an absolute value as it does not contribute to the salvation of humanity. (VI.4). For Bulgakov, as we have seen, the role of work is essential, but not sufficient for the salvation of humanity,

The social involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church is related to its mission of the salvation of Christian humanity and of the world. This certainly is a sophiological theme: salvation is not individual but conciliar and does not only concern humanity, but the world as well. The Church should not only preach, but also do ′good works aimed to improve the spiritual and material condition of the world around her.′ (I.4) The Osnovy here come close to the notions of humanization of nature and churchification of society that Bulgakov′s sophiology defined as the telos of human work as service to God,

Conclusion

Sophiology, Tolstoi and the Russian Orthodox Church present various structural conceptualizations or Weberian Ideal types of the Orthodox attitude to the world and to life in the world. The central aspects of these alternative Orthodox conceptualizations of the world are God′s love for the world and his demand of the love of every Christian for God and neighbor, The various orthodox social teachings differed in their interpretation of the love that should be central in humankind′s relation to God, each other and the world.

Tolstoi chose the side of Christian individualism and combined ascetic individual praxis with a determined abstention and rejection of the world and of everything worldly. Sophiology on the other hand, took a conscious inner-worldly position, with a clear ideal of the salvation of humanity, and the necessary sobornoe deianie to prepare this salvation as Divine-humanity Solov v and Bulgakov developed sobornost′ from a exclusively and narrowly ecclesiological characteristic of life in the Orthodox Church, into the ideal quality of organization of Orthodox Church community and eventually of Orthodox society. Bulgakov determined podvizhnichestvo as the central characteristic of Orthodox active participation in the world.

The Russian Orthodox Church seems to side more with sophiology than with Tolstoi on these points. Despite its basic positive evaluation of the world, however, the further text of the Osnovy seems to limit this considerably: the love for the world does not concern this world in its fallen state and the Church itself is not of this world. This feeling tends to get the upper hand in the other chapters of the Osnovy, where the church seems more concerned to demarcate its specific relation with the Russian State and with Russian secular society. The Russian Orthodox Church in the Osnovy did not venture to engage in an inner search for and outer articulation of its unifying principle of love as the true basis of Christian inner-worldly involvement. In this respect sophiology seems more in line with the recently published Roman-Catholic social doctrine that speaks of a ′civilization of love′ as the implicit telos of the document and of Christian social action.[538]