Moral values ​​of Christianity. Historiographical review

Introduction
The moral values ​​of Christianity have played and continue to play a huge role in the history of mankind. They were guided by many states (for example, Byzantium). They laid the foundation for many of the moral systems of our time.
The most important source for studying the moral values ​​of Christianity is the New Testament. The Gospel and the Apostle are the most accessible books for the common people, since they are read at almost every service. During the first year, the New Testament was read in full during the service. Each service was accompanied by a sermon, which was an interpretation of one or another passage from the New Testament. Thus, this book has shaped the moral guidelines of Christians for centuries. Therefore, for a historiographical review, I chose three books that are interpretations of key passages of the New Testament - the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes and the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians. A special place is occupied by the work of Gregory of Nyssa “On the Beatitudes”, because the author is one of the most authoritative teachers of the church.
For the review, I also chose A. Kuraev’s work “Gifts and Anathemas” in order to understand the novelty of the moral values ​​of Christianity in comparison with pagan values.
Lastly, I reviewed the “Note on Moral Theology,” which is a systematic and complete exposition of the Christian (Orthodox) concept of morality and the science of it.

1. A. Kuraev “Gifts and Anathemas”
A. Kuraev, deacon. Gifts and anathemas. What Christianity brought to the world. Reflections on the threshold of the third millennium. Publishing house of the Moscow courtyard of the Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra. – M., 2001, 445 p.
The author of this book is Deacon Andrei Vyacheslavovich Kuraev, Candidate of Philosophy, Candidate of Theology, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, famous Russian missionary and publicist. He is also the author of other books and articles related to contemporary church issues. Kuraev devoted a significant part of his works to ancient Christianity. One of these books is the book “Gifts and Anathemas.” In it, the author assesses what new Christianity brought to the world, what values ​​of ancient civilization it anathematized, what values ​​it retained, and what values ​​it offered for the first time. The title of the book emphasizes that it is an attempt to comprehend Christian values ​​on the threshold of the 3rd millennium, that is, in our time. The object of the author's study is ancient, not modern, Christianity, but the author tries to connect and draw a parallel between ancient Christian values ​​and modern ones. Each of the chapters (there are 13 in total) is an attempt to provide answers to certain questions.
Comparing pagan and Christian values, the author uses the following sources:
1. Ancient literature. To understand the worldview of the ancient Greeks and Romans, it is necessary to study their literature and mythology. They most clearly reflect the moral values ​​of the pagan religion.
2. Linguistic sources. It often happens that people from different eras attach different meanings to the same word. Therefore, the author gives the etymology of Greek and Latin words that are key in both cultures.
3. Bible. The author considers the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be the most important source for the study of Christianity.
4. Creations of the Holy Fathers. The author uses them to characterize the interpretation and disclosure of Christian teaching. Most often the author refers to Aurelius Augustine, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, John of Damascus and others.
5. Research by scientists in the field of theology, philosophy, cultural studies, and religious studies related to this topic.
The main points of the book include the following:
1. Christianity brought to the world:
A) Right direct appeal to God (the idea of ​​a personal God).
B) Christianity returned people to a serious attitude towards their ideological and religious choices and defended their right to choose.
C) Christianity allowed people to look at themselves differently (man is not a microcosm, but a macrocosm, since he, unlike the Universe, has a soul and self-awareness).
D) The world that people discovered inside themselves turned out to be richer than the world that surrounded them outside.
D) Man is not only a part of nature, but also one of his own in relation to God.
E) Christianity returned people to admire nature, because... recognizes it as the result of God's creation.
G) Christianity created the necessary prerequisites for the birth of science (according to pagan religion, for example, the planets are gods, but according to Christianity they are nothing more than celestial bodies, and therefore can be objects of research for astronomy).
2. The most important Christian value is love. In Christianity, even God himself is identified with love.
3. An important value and goal of Christian life is the achievement of eternal bliss, which also consists of love for God and neighbors.

2. N. N. Glubokovsky “The Good News of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians"
N. N. Glubokovsky. The gospel of Christian freedom in the letter of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians. Sofia (Bulgaria), 1935. 216 p.
The author of this book is N.N. Glubokovsky, Honored Ordinary Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The book was written at the beginning of the twentieth century in Bulgaria.
As for the genre of the book, it can be defined as interpretation in Scripture. This is what a science called exegesis (hermeneutics) does.
The book is an interpretation of one of the letters of the Apostle Paul - the letter to the Galatians. The Apostle Paul is one of the founders of Christianity. He is the purported author of the 13 epistles (about half of the New Testament). He is a famous missionary who first put forward the idea of ​​preaching the Christian religion not only to Jews, but also to pagans. The Epistle to the Galatians is an important source for the study of the moral values ​​of Christianity, because... it most expresses the Christian view of such a universal human value as freedom. In chapters V - VI the apostle gives practical advice in terms of morality.
The book consists of 6 parts. In the 1st part N.N. Glubokovsky gives brief information about Galatia, about the people living there, about the missionary activities of St. Paul in Galatia, about the time, place, circumstances of writing the letter, about its authenticity.
In chapters 2-4, the author gives a direct interpretation of each verse of the message. He divides the entire message into 3 semantic parts:
1. Ch. 1 – 2. The evangelical authority of Paul from the origin and dignity of his apostleship.
2. Ch. 3 – 4. “Gospel” of Christ by the Apostle Paul.
3. Ch. 5 – 6. The moral teaching of the Apostle Paul about true Christian life.
The sources used by the author include the following:
1. Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians.
2. Other messages of St. Paul, New Testament.
3. Interpretations of the holy fathers (I. Chrysostom, F. Bulgarian) on the epistle.
4. Works of their predecessors on this topic.
N.N. Glubokovsky finds and examines the following moral values ​​in the Epistle to the Galatians of the Apostle Paul:
1. Grace. Unlike the Old Testament, in which the most important value was the law and its literal fulfillment, in Christianity, according to the apostle, such a value is grace.
2. The unity of all people in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)
3. Freedom. Galatians provides a detailed interpretation of Christian freedom. According to app. Paul, Old Testament righteousness is slavery and submission to the Mosaic law, which no one can fulfill fully. Christian freedom is freedom from literal execution of the law. In the Old Testament, the relationship between people and God can be defined as the relationship between subjects and the Lawgiver, in the New Testament - as the relationship between children and the Father.
4. Faith. The apostle asserts that faith is more valuable than performing rituals (Gal. 5:6).
5. In verses 22 - 23 of chapter 5, the apostle lists the main moral values: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, self-control.

3. V. Kumysh “Sermon on the Mount of the Savior. Experience of interpretation"
V. Kumysh, priest. Sermon on the Mount of the Savior. Experience of interpretation. Publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1997. 52 p.
The author of this book is priest Vladislav Kumysh.
The Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ is the core of Christian moral teaching. It is written in expanded form in the Gospel of Matthew (chap. 5-7) and in abbreviated form in the Gospel of Luke (chap. 6). In the Gospel of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount contains the Beatitudes, the attitude to the Mosaic Law (the commandments “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery”), the attitude toward divorce, temptation, perjury, revenge, love for enemies, almsgiving, and fasting. , to prayer, to court, etc. The Sermon on the Mount helps to understand Christian teaching, and at the same time its moral values.
The author gives a brief interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount of I. Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew.
In addition to the text of the Gospel itself, the author also uses the works of Basil the Great, Macarius of Egypt, Seraphim of Sarov, Cyril of Alexandria, John Climacus, and others.
Main points of the book:
1. Christian values ​​and sources of bliss are: poverty of spirit, crying, meekness, thirst for truth, mercy, purity, peacemaking.
2. Chastity is the most important indicator of respect for the human person.
3. Marriage is a school of Christian love, in which a person must find himself through constant self-denial.
4. Love for enemies is also a value in Christianity. The commandment “thou shalt love thy neighbor” takes on a new meaning in Christianity. A neighbor is not a friend, not a relative, or even a like-minded person. A neighbor is someone whom “I can help here and now.” Anyone can find themselves in this situation, even an enemy. Therefore, the commandment to love one’s enemies logically follows from the Christian understanding of love for one’s neighbor.

4. St. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Beatitudes"
St. Gregory of Nyssa. About the bliss. Publishing house named after St. Ignatius of Stavropol. M., 1997. 127 p.
The author of this work is Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 332 - 395) - Father of the Church, philosopher and theologian, younger brother St. Basil the Great. From 372 - Bishop of Nyssa (deposed by the Arians in 376-378). Participant of the Second Ecumenical Council. Author of the so-called The “Large Catechism”, in which he completed the teaching of the Cappadocians about the Holy Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ. He left many exegetical and moral-ascetic works. In his theology he was influenced by Origen.
Thus, this work differs from the previous works under consideration in that it was written in Byzantium in ancient times (4th century), when the teachings of the Church were just beginning to be consolidated in dogma Ecumenical Councils. Gregory of Nyssa is one of the most authoritative teachers of the Church, along with Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian (the three of them together are called the Great Cappadocians). The works of the Great Cappadocians had a great influence on the doctrine of both the Eastern and Western Christian Churches.
This work is an exegesis (interpretation) of the most important part of the Sermon on the Mount - the Beatitudes. The work is written in the genre of “words”, of which there are only 8, according to the number of beatitudes. Each “word” is a discussion about one commandment. The author gives an interpretation of the key words of the commandments, then asks questions that may arise when reading the text for the first time, then uses logical and everyday examples to understand the commandments. After this, he cites parallel passages from the Bible that repeat the idea of ​​the commandment or can help to understand it more deeply. At the end of each “word” he gives short instructions to those reading and ends with a short doxology.
The author defines bliss in one word. “Bliss, according to my reasoning, is the volume of everything that appears as good, in which there is no lack of anything consistent with good wishes" That is, beatitude is the same as value, and specifically moral value, since all the beatitudes relate to the moral sphere.
Let us consider Gregory of Nyssa’s interpretation of individual beatitudes.
1. Poverty of spirit is understood as humility, i.e. the ability to see yourself as you are.
2. Meekness is understood as the ability to be slow to display bad qualities of character (anger, irritation, envy, despair...), i.e. the opportunity to stop in time and stop the manifestations of your passions.
3. Crying logically follows from the previous 2 commandments and is grief over one’s imperfection. This grief, according to the author, is not a manifestation of despair, but an attempt to become more perfect.
4. Hunger and thirst for truth is understood as an insatiable desire for truth. The commandment gives a promise: for they will be satisfied. That is, the one who strives for truth will achieve it, because truth is imperishable (unlike, for example, earthly things - food, fame, wealth, which can be lost).
5. Grace is understood as the ability to love others as oneself. Having mercy on others is the same as having mercy on yourself.
6. Purity of heart is understood as a person’s state, unclouded by passions and vices, which allows him to partake of the mystery of the Divine.
7. The author considers peacemaking to be the ability to bring a peaceful state of mind to others, not with the goal of avoiding conflicts, but sincerely and naturally.
8. Being expelled for speaking the truth is also a certain value of Christianity, since it is a sign of taking one’s principles and conscience seriously. Gregory of Nyssa understands this commandment as an opportunity not to live by the principles of wicked people, to be, as it were, far from them.

5. Hegumen Filaret “Notes on Moral Theology”
Filaret, abbot. Notes on Moral Theology (based on the book “Christian Life” by Archpriest N. Voznesensky). M., 1990. 110 p.
The author of this book is Abbot Philaret. The book is a summary of Moral Theology. Moral theology is a theological discipline taught in Orthodox spiritual educational institutions, which studies the religious and moral side of Christianity. The abstract is a brief and systematic presentation of the course in this discipline. For historiography, it is useful primarily for such qualities as completeness, accuracy and systematicity.
The book consists of 30 short chapters and applications. In Chapter 1, the author sets out a Christian view of the very concept of morality, moral law and conscience, which are integral parts of human nature. Chapter 2 is devoted to revealing the concept of “sin,” the classification and stages of sins, their causes and sources. In Chapter 3, on the contrary, the concept of “virtue” is revealed. In chapter 4, the author distinguishes between moral (natural to man) and divinely revealed moral laws, and identifies two types of the latter - the Mosaic Law and the New Testament Law. In Chapter 5, the author reveals the issue of free will, compares the concepts of determinism and indeterminism and comes to the conclusion that a person is always free in his choice between good and evil. In the remaining chapters, the author directly reveals the duties of a Christian. He identifies three types of responsibilities:
1. Responsibilities to yourself (chap. 6 – 16):
2. Responsibilities towards neighbors (chap. 17 – 25);
3. Duties to God (chap. 26 – 30).
Revealing the responsibilities to himself, the author first gives a definition of personality. Then he highlights such Christian qualities as humility, spiritual mourning and love of truth. Then he reveals the Christian understanding of repentance, which is inseparable from the most important Christian value - love. At the same time, the author cites as an example the Gospel parable of the prodigal son, which shows that the relationship between God and man can be compared to the relationship between father and son. Then the author shows the path of human salvation, which he sees in the church sacraments, and also touches on the topic of the relationship between the participation of God and the participation of man himself in his salvation. Then the author reveals the importance for a person of the development of his abilities - mind, will, aesthetic and religious feelings, as well as the importance of secular and spiritual education. The author identifies self-education and work as responsibilities. It also characterizes such vices as debauchery, drunkenness, love of money, suicide, etc.; reveals their essence, causes and consequences, shows ways to overcome them.
Starting to describe the duties towards one's neighbors, the author gives an interpretation of Christian justice. Then he identifies lies, hypocrisy, envy, anger, etc. as vices. The author also gives a Christian understanding of personal and public charity, reverence for authority, patriotism, and describes a person’s duties in the family and society. The author puts love as the fundamental moral value of Christianity. In chapter 21, he reveals the essence of Christian love, relying on the famous hymn of love - the 13th chapter of the 1st letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. In chapter 24 he shows the Christian position towards war. Chapter 25 is devoted to comparing the ideologies of Christianity and communism.
Among the duties towards God, the author highlights knowledge of God, prayer, observance of holidays and fasts. The author considers love to be the fundamental principle of the relationship between God and man, and shows the close relationship between three types of love - towards oneself, towards one's neighbors and towards God.

Conclusion
During the review, I came to the conclusion that the most important moral value of Christianity is love (to God and to others). Also important values ​​are humility, meekness, peacemaking, justice, purity of heart, freedom, faith, abstinence, etc.

In our country, every person, perhaps, has come across the concept of “the value of Christian life” in one way or another in a variety of situations. Someone shares them, someone categorically rejects them, but it is rare to find a clear understanding of the subject being discussed. In this article we will look at what the term “Christian values” means, what they are, and how this concept is changing in the modern dynamic world.

What are values?

Let's start with a general concept. These are ideas that are shared and approved by the majority of people in a particular society, ideas about goodness, nobility, justice and similar categories. Such values ​​are the ideal and standard for the majority; they strive for them and try to follow them. Society itself establishes and changes them, and each culture has its own set of significant values.

Accordingly, if values ​​are an ideal for people, then the main Christian values ​​are a standard and example for everyone who considers themselves to be any of the many Christian movements. Of course, first we should talk about eternal ideas, one way or another inherent in any variety of Christianity.

There are some points here in which human value and Christian value differ. Christianity defines value as a certain absolute good that has meaning for all people, regardless of what religion a person belongs to, if at all.

Values ​​of Christian Life

From the speeches of modern Christian authorities (who, of course, draw on a long tradition) it follows first that all important ideas come from God. He sends down to people moral laws, knowledge of how to avoid fears, evil, diseases, how to live in harmony with their environment and - most importantly - with their family. Thus, it is from him that information comes about the only true, according to Christians, way of life.

For every Christian, the most important value, of course, is God in his Triune form. This implies the perception of God as a perfect Spirit. The second is the Bible - the Word of God, which in Christianity is the most authoritative source. In fact, a person must check his every action against this indisputable source. The third value is the Holy Church, for each movement of Christianity it is different. Church in in this case is understood not as a temple or a special place for prayer, but as a community of people united together to support each other's faith in Jesus Christ. Including, the sacraments of the Church are also important here, such as baptism, wedding, communion and some others.

If you do not understand the subtleties of the differences between different directions in Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism in its various types, various kinds of sects - then in general we can say that each of them has its own understanding of the Triune God. Of course, it coincides at least partially, and is fundamentally integral, which does not prevent one confession from considering another as a heretical delusion, which is very difficult to save and set on the true path. Therefore, it will be easier to consider Christian moral values ​​in the context of the movement that is most familiar to us - Orthodoxy.

History of the concept

It would seem that the origin of ideas must have ancient roots. In fact, the concept of “Christian values” only appeared in the 20th century. At this time, axiology was formed in the West - a science that studies important value ideas. It was then that the need arose to try to more or less clearly formulate the basic values ​​of Christian life.

Family life

They are of particular importance in the process of forming a Christian family. Now they like to talk about the destruction of traditional family axiological ideas, which, of course, are understood as Orthodox and unconditional values.

The Christian family and its values ​​are an extremely important element in Orthodoxy. Tradition plays an important role here, which is understood as the basis of the family way of life. These are established and established forms of behavior, customs that are passed on from the older generation to the younger. Within the framework of this understanding, in a Christian family the head must certainly be the husband, the wife becomes the keeper of the home, and children must unquestioningly obey and honor their parents. The values ​​of upbringing in a Christian family are focused primarily on the spiritual life of the child, therefore, in parallel with secular upbringing, children are taught in Sunday schools and taught to regular visits church and observance of church rituals.

However, raising children does not begin with this, but with what the relationship between parents looks like. The child perceives all the subtleties very well and gets accustomed to them from childhood. In the future, it is the relationship between mother and father that he will consider the norm. First of all we're talking about about spiritual relationships and connections between parents. Therefore, it is important to treat each other with respect, love and understanding - however, this extends far beyond the Christian family.

In family life, a child masters not only norms of behavior, but also other forms of spiritual culture, therefore, in Christianity, it is especially important to cultivate appropriate ideas in children.

Eight Eternal Values

Relatively recently, the Russian Orthodox Church, after numerous discussions on this topic in political and social environment a list of eight axiological concepts was compiled. They do not correspond directly with the above-mentioned Christian values. Let's take a closer look at this list.

Justice

In the list of the Russian Orthodox Church, this item implies equality of rights, primarily political. For justice to be realized, it is necessary that the courts be fair, there is no corruption and poverty, and social and political freedoms are guaranteed to everyone. Thus, a person must take a worthy place in society.

This understanding of justice does not directly correlate with its Christian perception, which clearly does not imply legal aspects. In a sense, worldly justice embodied is evil for a Christian.

Freedom

Again, this concept is more of a legal one. Freedom is freedom of speech, entrepreneurship, freedom to choose religion or, for example, place of residence. Thus, freedom presupposes the right to independence, self-determination and independence of Russians.

Such freedom is good for a Christian if it is closely connected with church dogmas and contributes to the adherence to Christian values. Indeed, at the very beginning of biblical history, at the moment of the Fall, the ill-fated freedom of choice played a decisive role in the fate of people. Since then, people have not become wiser, and they often use such freedom not for their own benefit - at least from a Christian point of view. In this understanding, freedom in the absence of God in society is just as evil.

Solidarity

Solidarity here is understood as the ability to unite with other people in difficult situations and share difficulties with them. This power of connection ensures the integrity and unity of the nation.

Of course, this value in the Christian understanding can only exist when there is unification with fellow believers, and not with people of other faiths who are present in the Russian people. This is contrary to the words of the Bible.

Sobornost

By conciliarity we mean the unity of the people and the authorities in work for the benefit of the country and its citizens. This is the unity of a wide variety of cultural communities, combining spiritual and material values.

For Christians, unity can only exist when the government shares basic Christian values; otherwise, there can be no conciliarity, since Christians are not obliged to fulfill the demands of the government that are incompatible with their religion.

Self-restraint

That is, sacrifice. It is clear that this is a refusal of selfish behavior, the ability to sacrifice oneself for the good of the Motherland and the immediate environment, a refusal to use people and the world for one’s own purposes.

It would seem that the value is closest to Christianity, however, there are some nuances here too. In everything it is necessary to maintain moderation, and prudence is most applicable to sacrifice. Moreover, from the point of view of Christianity, there is no need to sacrifice oneself for the sake of heretics or infidels.

Thus, self-restraint extends to fellow Christians, who make up the body of the Church.

Patriotism

Faith in one's country, in the Motherland, and the willingness to constantly work for its good also weakly correlate with Christian values, which do not imply attachment to a specific nation. This item from the list can also be questioned.

The good of man

Here the priority is established for human development, strict observance of his rights, both spiritual and material well-being - all together.

It is clear that in the perception of Christianity, no material values ​​​​can make a person happy; rather, on the contrary, they will bring him a lot of harm. Therefore, striving for any benefits other than Christian and spiritual ones does not bring anything good to a person and is condemned in every possible way by the church.

Family values

And finally, the last item on the list is Christian values ​​in the life of a modern family - love, care for elderly and young family members, fidelity.

If this is a marriage with an Orthodox person, then, of course, these ideas work. Therefore, like all others, family values ​​in Christianity are perceived through a religious prism.

Thus, all eight of the listed ideas, the list of which was compiled by the Russian Orthodox Church, fit into the system of Christian values ​​with some, sometimes very significant, restrictions. Universal human axiological ideas from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are combined with Christian ones insofar as, unfortunately. From this we can draw another conclusion: any value can become Christian if an authoritative organization such as the Russian Orthodox Church.

Denial of Christianity

The denial of Christian values ​​is associated with the name of many philosophers and scientists. Perhaps the most striking example is Friedrich Nietzsche, who denied morality as such, arguing that all moral values ​​in the world are relative. His ideas are revealed especially clearly in the book Ecce Homo.

The denial of Christian values ​​was also propagated by the communists, in particular by the ideologist of communism Karl Marx, who believed that egoism is a form of affirmation of the individual, and it is absolutely necessary.

It cannot be said that the followers of their ideas - the communists and, unfortunately, the Nazis - brought something positive to life; rather, exactly the opposite. Therefore, the idea of ​​value relativism is apparently good only in theory, but applying it in practice, as history shows, is quite difficult. However, the situation with Christian values ​​is no better: in the history of the spread of Christianity there are many sad and not at all peaceful pages.

The ethics of Jesus Christ is defined as the ethics of love. “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one another” (John 13:35).

The core of the ethical system of Christianity is value orientations as the most important elements of the internal structure of the individual, fixed by the life experience of the individual, the totality of his experiences and delimiting the significant, essential for a person from the insignificant, insignificant. Value orientations represent a set of philosophical, political, aesthetic, and moral beliefs of a person, deep and permanent attachments, and moral principles of behavior. The totality of established, established value orientations forms a kind of axis of consciousness, ensuring the stability of the individual and the continuity of a certain type of behavior and activity. Because of this, value orientations act as the determining motive of human behavior.

Christianity contains the entire set of value orientations. The leading place among them is occupied by moral and ethical ones. Figuratively speaking, Christianity is not so much a religion about the structure of the universe and society, but a religion about how to live as a person, about the meaning of human existence, about conscience, duty, honor, etc. Christianity gave even purely cultic liturgical actions a moral and ethical orientation.

The main ethical value in Christianity is God himself. God is love, love for all peoples who recognize and honor him. There is no chosen people for him. The very idea of ​​the superiority of one people over another is alien to Christianity.

Thus, the main direction in the rethinking of Judaism by Christianity is to deepen the substantive moral principle of religious teaching from the point of view of affirming the leading role of the principle of love. The commandment of love - love for God, love for one's neighbor, including one's enemy, is considered by many cornerstone religious and moral teachings of Christianity.

The essence of Christian morality is formulated in the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ. It is most fully set out in the Gospel of Matthew. The main commandments of the Sermon on the Mount include the following: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you and slander you in every way unjustly because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven: just as they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth. If the salt loses its strength, then what will you use to make it salty? It is no longer good for anything except throwing it out there for people to trample underfoot. You are the light of the world. A city that stands on the top of a mountain cannot be hidden” (Bible).

For the first time in the history of religious thought, Christianity formed moral commandments not in a prohibitive sense (what should not be done), but in a positive sense (what should be done). The moral commandments of Christianity are addressed, first of all, to the conscience of man.

The teaching about conscience in the “New Testament” should be understood based on the provisions of the “Old Testament”. Although the four gospels use the terminology of the “Old Testament”, for example, instead of the word “heart”, the Apostle Paul introduced the word “conscience”, borrowing it from ancient culture. The Apostle Paul, as it were, translated the Gospel teaching about the heart into the context of the moral concepts of the culture of the ancient world. As the modern Orthodox theologian Archimandrite Platon (Igumnov) writes, the Apostle Paul “borrowed the term “conscience” in order to most accurately and fully express the central idea of ​​the Christian teaching about salvation by faith and connected the concept of conscience with faith, love and the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual person.” (About faith and morality).

Following the New Testament statements on the issue of conscience, the “church fathers” considered conscience as the most important dignity of moral consciousness and, in general, the entire spiritual integrity of the human person.

Of the many moral precepts of Christianity, the main ones are considered to be love of God and love of neighbor. In the Gospel of Matthew we read: “And one of them, a lawyer, tempting Him, asked, saying: Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”: This is the first and greatest commandment; The second is similar to it: “love your neighbor as yourself”; On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Bible)

An important feature of Christian morality is its active nature, its focus on transforming not only the individual, but also the entire surrounding society. Hence the repeated calls of Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to all “tongues” (nations). Based on this, we cannot agree with the opinion that Christianity is deeply individualistic. Internally, immanently, Christianity is permeated with the ideas of collectivism. This is especially true of early Christianity. On the pages of the New Testament there is much evidence of the attempts of the first Christians to build life on the principles of community of property. “And all the believers were together and had everything in common: And they sold their possessions and all property, and distributed it to everyone, according to the need of each” (Bible, p. 132.). “The multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul; and no one called anything of his property his own, but they had everything in common.” “There was no one in need among them; for all who owned lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold and laid them at the feet of the Apostles; and to everyone was given whatever he needed” (Bible, p. 134).

Early Christianity was characterized by an extremely negative attitude towards wealth. The young man who wished to follow Jesus Christ was told: “...If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give it to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me” (Bible). Elsewhere Jesus Christ says: “How difficult it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It's easier for a camel to pass through needle ears rather than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Bible)

Christian culture reveals and substantiates the absolute significance of the human personality, creativity and freedom. Man was created by God in the “image and likeness of God,” i.e. is a person with freedom and creativity. Personal freedom is connected with the fact that it embodies the supramundane spirit, which comes from the Divine Spirit. The original sin of Adam and Eve violated man's likeness to God and alienated him from God, but the image of God remained intact in man. All further history is considered by Christianity as the history of the reunification of man with God. Christianity itself begins with Jesus, who gives the New Testament and restores man's internal connection with God. If the God of the “Old Testament” is addressed to the entire people as a whole, then in the “New Testament” he is addressed to each individual. The Old Testament God pays great attention to the fulfillment of complex religious law and the rules of everyday life, and the numerous rituals that accompany every event. The God of the “New Testament” is addressed primarily to inner life and the inner faith of every person.

Christian morality is based on the self-worth of the individual (the individual is the “image of God” in man) and the inextricable connection between goodness, truth and freedom. Expressing human freedom, truly Christian faith rests not on fear and external duty, but on love directed towards Christ and towards each person as a bearer of the image of God: “And now these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love” (I Corinthians 13 :13).

In Christianity, moral standards are addressed not to external deeds and external manifestations of faith, but to internal motivation, " to the inner man". The highest moral authority here is conscience, which is the voice of the free spirit, making the individual independent of nature and society and subordinating it only to the highest truth itself. The Christian God is the highest truth of human conscience, personified and deified as the gracious meaning of all existence.

In Christian religiosity, belief in the immortality of the soul and the Last Judgment plays a huge role. While elevating man as a free and god-like supra-mundane being, Christianity cannot free man from the need to live and die in a world where there is no fair reward for good and evil. Belief in the immortality of the soul and reward after death is intended to give a person not only knowledge, but also a direct feeling of absolute power moral standards Christianity.

The most important component of Christianity is eschatology, the doctrine of the end of the world, the second coming of Christ, the physical resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment, after which the Kingdom of the righteous should be established on the new Earth and under the new Heaven.

Christianity has accomplished a great historical synthesis, inheriting and in its own way transforming the intellectual achievements of previous eras, ideas and images different religions Middle East, traditions of Greco-Roman ancient philosophy. At the same time, the development of pre-existing philosophical and religious thought followed the spiritual and moral quest of the era, which gave Christianity a special appeal.

The most important thing for us today in the Bible is the rich moral experience of humanity contained in it, which has developed over centuries and millennia. There is a lot here that is instructive, necessary and quite acceptable for us. The famous dialogues and sermons of Christ are addressed not so much to the disciples as they are aimed at Eternity. The teaching of Christ is transhistorical. Therefore, it is close and understandable to every generation on Earth.

The main Christian virtue is love. The ancient Greek language - the language of the Gospels - knew four words translated into Russian as “love”: eros, philia, storge and agape. Eros is love between a man and a woman. Philia is the love of friends. Storge is the love of parents for their children, and agape is the love of Christians, not only for each other, but for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. Jesus speaks about this love to his disciples in his farewell conversation:

“A new commandment I give to you: love one another, as I have loved you, and you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13: 34-35).

Speaking of friendly and love relationship to people, Jesus taught not to judge anyone, not to condemn other people. When you see your neighbor’s weaknesses, you should not judge him, but have compassion, remembering your own sinfulness. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expressed this idea in one simple demand: “Judge not, lest you also be judged, for with the judgment you judge and with the measure you use, it will be measured out to you. don’t you notice in your eye?” These instructions end with a conclusion that can form the basis of philanthropic and humane morality:

“So in everything you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7: 1-3; Mark 4: 24; Luke 6: 37-38, 41-42).

A person needs to be loved as he is. Jesus preferred to deal with ordinary people. Moreover, all the outcasts, all the outcasts of society found in Him a friend and intercessor. Publicans (tax collectors), who were not recognized as people, and street women were often among those who surrounded Him. When people wondered why the Teacher communicated with people of dubious reputation, He answered them: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Go and learn what it means: “I want mercy, not sacrifice.” I came to call not the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13).

By admitting his sinfulness and repenting, a person takes the first step along the path of salvation. This path is a process of serving the internal moral law, the revelation of the essence of which is the meaning of the actions of Christ. By bringing sinners closer to Himself, Christ wanted to awaken in them repentance and a thirst for new life. Often His kindness and trust performed true miracles.

One day Christ passed through Jericho. A multitude of people met Him at the gates of the city. Everyone wanted Jesus to stay in their home. One of the Jerichoites, named Zacchaeus, “chief of tax collectors,” tried to squeeze through the crowd, hoping to get at least a glimpse of the Teacher, but his short stature prevented him. Then he ran ahead and climbed the tree that Jesus was about to pass by. Jesus actually approached the place and, looking up, noticed a man sitting on a fig tree. “Zacchaeus,” Jesus suddenly said, “come down quickly! Today I need to be with you.”

Overwhelmed with joy, the publican ran home to meet the Teacher, and those around him began to murmur: “He stayed with such a sinful man!”

But the Teacher’s step had an effect. “Lord,” said Zacchaeus, meeting him, “I give half of what I have to the poor, and if I unjustly forced anything from anyone, I will repay him fourfold.” “Now salvation has come to this house,” answered Christ. “For the Son of Man came to seek and save those who were lost” (Luke 19: 1-10).

In numerous sermons and parables, Jesus develops the idea of ​​loving one's neighbor. The Apostle Peter asks: “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother who has sinned against me? Up to seven times?” To this he receives the answer: “I do not tell you - up to seven, but up to seventy times seventy.” Essentially this means a call for unlimited tolerance.

The parable of the prodigal son tells about love for one's neighbor and about mercy. One man had two sons. The younger son demanded part of the estate, then settled “in the far side” and gradually “wasted his estate” as he led a dissolute lifestyle. He had to herd pigs. He was starving and would have gladly eaten even pig food, but no one would give it to him. Then he thought that his father’s workers knew no shortage of bread, while his son was dying of hunger. He decided to return home and repent of what he had done: since he is not worthy to be his father’s son, he will become his servant. He got up and went to his father's house.

The father saw his son approaching from afar, came out to meet him, hugged and kissed him. He ordered the slaves to bring the best clothes and put a ring on his hand. He ordered the fatted calf to be slaughtered and arranged a merry feast in honor of his returning son.

When the eldest son returned home, he heard singing and joyful voices. Having learned about the reason for the fun, he became angry and did not want to enter the house, although his father begged him to take part in the feast. Moreover, the son reproached his father for the fact that he himself had never received a reward for good service to his father, but for his son, who “wasted his property,” he slaughtered a fatted calf.

The father explained his behavior by the fact that the eldest son is always with him and all the goods belong to him: “And about this, it was necessary to rejoice and be glad, that this brother of yours was dead and is alive again, was lost and was found (Luke 15: 11-32) .

There is also a very interesting episode in the Gospel of John with “the woman taken in adultery.” They brought her to Jesus and, reminding her that the law required her to be stoned to death, they asked what His opinion was on this matter. The question was asked for provocative purposes, “to find something to accuse” the Teacher.

And the Gospel paints a vivid picture of how events unfold. Jesus' opponents thought they had now put Him in an impossible position. They knew His extraordinary mercy, flowing where others hated, praising where others despised, and encouraging where others crushed. They also knew how by this mercy He had acquired for himself the enthusiastic love and passionate devotion of many. They knew that the publican was among His chosen disciples, sinners sat next to Him at feasts and harlots freely washed His feet and listened to His teaching. Thus, they were occupied with the question, will He justify this woman and thereby expose Himself to the charge of heresy, openly contradicting the sacred and severe law, or, on the other hand, suppressing compassion in Himself, will mercilessly condemn her? Having done the latter, will He not push away from Himself the crowd of people, carried away by His mercy and the possibility of popular unrest, and will He not incur punishment from the civil authorities on charges of indignation? There seemed to be no way out of this predicament for Jesus.

Jesus did not answer the question asked of Him for a long time, bending down to the ground and mechanically running his finger along it. Then He raised His head and calmly pronounced His wise judgment, which is contained in the famous words: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” He bowed his head again, and those gathered began to slowly disperse one after another. Soon only the woman who had escaped execution remained with Jesus. Jesus turned to her: “Has no one condemned you?” When she answered: “No one, Lord!” - He said to her: “Neither do I condemn you: go and sin no more” (John 8: 7, 15, 17, 24, 46).

This is one of the most significant and profound episodes in the gospel narrative, testifying to the tolerance and humanity of the new faith.

Jesus persistently preaches love for one's neighbor. But one day a certain person asks Him the question: “Who is my neighbor?” Instead of answering, He tells a parable about a Jew who once fell into the hands of robbers. The robbers attacked him, robbed him, beat him and left him half-dead on the road. A priest was walking, saw the victim, but passed by. The temple servant did the same; he came up, looked and went on his way. The last thing the victim expected was sympathy from the Samaritan who was riding behind them. Could this foreigner and heretic have turned out to be better than the priest and the Jew? However, he stopped and, without asking anything, helped the victim: he bandaged his wounds, took him to the hotel on his mule and paid for him in advance.

Which of these three, Jesus asked his interlocutor, do you think turned out to be a neighbor to the one who fell into the hands of robbers?

He who did him kindness, he could not help but admit.

Go and do likewise (Luke 15:11-32).

Consequently, your neighbor does not necessarily have to belong to your people and be your fellow believer - it is enough that he is simply a good person.

Moreover, we must also love the evil: according to the text of Luke, Jesus commands to “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who offend you.” The commandment to love your enemies is the most amazing of all moral truths. The apotheosis of the New Testament attitude towards the enemy is the famous words of Christ: “You have heard what was said - love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who oppress you and persecute you, May you be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you receive? And if you greet only your brothers? yours, what special thing are you doing? Do not the Gentiles also do the same? This is the heart of one of the deepest and most important passages of the New Testament. This is the breathtaking height to which Christ calls man.

Loving your enemies does not at all mean experiencing the same feelings of affection for them that you feel for a loved one, or rejoicing in your soul, as happens when communicating with friends. Here we are dealing with an attitude that is higher than psychological and spiritual attachments, located on a different plane. To love an enemy means to forgive him for his previous atrocities, not in the sense of not considering them as atrocities or making peace with them, and not in the same way as a generous rich man forgives a debt to an insolvent debtor, but in the sense that they cease to be an absolute barrier to new relationships with him. This means re-opening the way for cooperation.

In Leo Tolstoy’s diary there is the following entry: “One of the most common misconceptions is to consider people good, evil, stupid, smart. Man flows, and he has all the possibilities: he was stupid, he became smart, he was angry, became kind, and vice versa. This is the greatness of a person. And from this you cannot judge a person, but he is already different. In a word, in the most evil person there are grains and potentialities of good.

A person with moral wealth is able to follow the New Testament moral commandments. In his sermons, Christ calls on people to lay up imperishable treasures in their souls. Only moral wealth can be considered one’s own property in the true sense of the word, for such a treasure is connected with the inner essence of a person, and no one and nothing has power over it.

The truths set forth by Christ seem simple and clear, because in many ways they are the quintessence of the worldview of an ordinary person. For him, serving God turns into serving people, for it is impossible to love God without loving your neighbor. Moreover, Christ transfers the Kingdom of God into the heart of man, so God and the moral law become identical. To be a Christian means to recognize the spirit of the Gospel and live in accordance with it.

Most often, Christianity is interpreted only as a religion. However, the history of Christianity is an entire civilization. This view of Christianity allows us to rise above the difference between people between believers and non-believers and to re-evaluate the personality of Christ Himself, to see in Him one of the Teachers of mankind and the first humanist.

It is not enough to understand goodness - one must be able to pave the way for it among people, and for this less pure paths are needed. Without the earthly life of Christ, the world would not have become involved in the infinitely high morality that his Father revealed to him. In morality, as in art, the word is nothing, everything is in the deed. The idea hidden in Raphael's painting is worth little - the painting is valued. And in morality, truth is valuable only when it passes to a state of feeling and reaches its value, only when it is realized in the world as a fact. People of mediocre morality wrote very good rules; on the other hand, very virtuous people have done nothing to continue the tradition of virtue in the world. A palm branch to the one who is powerful in word and deed, who felt good and at the cost of his blood brought him triumph (Renan E.Zh., p. 113).

Hegumen Veniamin Novik
Candidate of Theology, Theological Evangelical Academy in St. Petersburg

Christianity and universal values.

The spirit breathes where it wants... John 3:8

Let's start with a definition, at least briefly. Christianity is “a creed centered on the figure of Jesus Christ (Christocentrism - V.N.) and uniting the content of both the Old and New Testaments into a single semantic complex, ensuring the unity of the Bible as a common source for all Christians” (Newest philosophical dictionary, Minsk, 1999, p. 796). Christian ethics is closely related to Christian doctrine. Christian ethics, as presented in the New Testament, is characterized by universalism. The main Christian maxim: this is a benevolent attitude, love (agape) towards all people, regardless of their social, national and religious status. But this is also fully described by the well-known “golden rule”. In terms of ethical instructions, Jesus Christ communicates almost nothing new at the verbal level. But He Himself is the main news and given, He offers Himself to people and sends down to people a new power - grace. The Apostle Paul continues to affirm Christian ethical universalism: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile; There is neither slave nor free" (Gal. 3:28). The Apostle Peter opens the doors of the Church to the Gentiles (Acts 10). /Subsequently, as orthodoxy developed, the religious factor began to be viewed as particularly important, and the attitude towards heretics and schismatics began to differ from the attitude towards ordinary sinners/.

Universal human values ​​(HC) are “a system of axiomatic maxims, the content of which is not directly related to a specific historical period in the development of society or a specific ethnic tradition, but, being filled with its own specific meaning in each sociocultural tradition, is nevertheless reproduced in any type of culture as a value. Universal human values ​​include: human life (its preservation and development in natural and cultural forms). There are values ​​(in connection with the structure of being) natural (ecological) and cultural (freedom, law, education, creativity, communication). According to the forms of spiritual culture, values ​​are classified into moral (goodness, the meaning of life, conscience, dignity, responsibility), aesthetic (beautiful, sublime), religious (faith), scientific (truth), political (peace, justice), legal (human rights, law and order). Each historical era and specific ethnic group express themselves in a hierarchy of values ​​that determine what is socially acceptable. IN modern world The moral and aesthetic values ​​of antiquity, the humanistic ideals of Christianity, the rationalism of the New Age, the paradigm of non-violence of the 20th century are significant. (M. Gandhi, M. L. King). In the modern era of global change special meaning acquire the absolute values ​​of goodness, beauty, truth and faith as the fundamental foundations of the corresponding forms of spiritual culture, presupposing harmony, measure, balance of the integral world of man and his constructive life affirmation in culture.” /Further, however, it is said that goodness, beauty, truth and faith mean not so much adherence to absolute values ​​as their search and acquisition - V.N./. Further, the dictionary entry states: “The Biblical moral commandments are of enduring importance: the 10 commandments of Moses and the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ” (NFS, p. 484).

On the one hand, in the dictionary entry religious values ​​are listed on an equal basis with others (which is typical for a secular type of thinking). On the other hand, the article speaks, although with some reservations, about the absolute timeless significance of universal human values. Thus, judging by the dictionary entry, the era of the Bolshevik struggle against “abstract humanism” is beginning to end.

Let me remind you that during the communist period the very concept of an OC was either denied or identified with the interests of the progressive class. In any case, the OCs were declared exclusively historically, culturally and class-based. In order to avoid the relativization of OCs, they tried to fit them into objective historical necessity (istmatism), which methodologically played the role of God in Marxism. God was called "objective law."

Today, almost no one denies OC, but the question of the origin of OC remains open for discussion. The main question: are they given from above, from God, or are they of earthly origin? In philosophical language, the question sounds like this: are OCs rooted in the transcendental sphere (in the absolute) or in the relative immanent sphere of current reality? The transcendental sphere has one characteristic: it is invisible. This seems to be bad, because... you can't touch it. But if we take into account that the “transcendental thirst” of man (according to Christian anthropology) cannot be satisfied by anything finite (visible), then the absolute should not be visible (a visible absolute would be finite, and therefore not an absolute). Only if there is a common point of reference, a common criterion (one absolute) can we talk about the universality (universality) of moral requirements. In addition, only in the presence of a transcendental sphere can one comprehend, not in terms of defeat, the earthly (immanent) catastrophe of a person who physically dies as a result of his highly moral act. The immanent sphere is visible and even too visible. In the kaleidoscope of events, it is very difficult to understand what is happening, but it is even more difficult to understand what should be happening. It is very easy to show that moral norms are conditioned by the historical sociocultural situation. But it is equally difficult to determine the proper direction of development of the situation. What is considered natural and what is not? It is very easy to show that any kind of decency leads to earthly failure, and bad qualities lead to material well-being (you just need to “not get caught” - i.e. this is a technical question). Ethical relativists like to cite as an example some exotic island where everything is the other way around. Where people are not only “terrible on the outside, but kind inside,” but also inside they are not at all kind, cannibals, for example. Theoretically, it is almost impossible to prove the category of what should be. Here, no statistics will help: in fact, what is more in the world: good or evil? And what do we mean by good and evil? It is too easy to “show” the relativity of these concepts. True, the experience of building the world’s first atheistic state, an “earthly paradise,” is in itself very indicative. Instead of heaven we got a “zone”.

As history shows, the most difficult idea for humanity to assimilate is the idea of ​​universalism. Moreover, oddly enough, not a totalitarian, not a camp type, but a humanistic-liberal type. This is the idea of ​​the unity of the human race, solidarity, a unified system of ethical and OC, respect for the human person, without which no globalization, which is talked about so much today (mainly in the West), will not take place. These values ​​form a common part of the ethical precepts (commandments) of world religions: do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not take revenge, treat people well. These values ​​are clearly expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the recently adopted Ecumenical Charter for Europe and other international documents recognized by many countries, including ours. This general ethical minimum necessary for the very existence of human society is well known. This is the so-called natural morality, the maxim of which is expressed in the well-known “golden rule of morality”, in the virtues known since antiquity: courage, moderation, wisdom, justice. Ancient morality, like any natural morality, was normative in nature.

In the Old Testament there is a harsh experience of creating a moral standard through God's chosen people in a pagan environment. In the Old Testament history there is nothing reminiscent of modern human rights (tolerance); there was a merciless war against idolatry. But still, in the Old Testament there were the beginnings of universal human ethics. The words “truth” and “justice” are often found there, and these concepts began to extend to strangers: “do not oppress the alien and do not oppress him; for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex. 22:21). “The Lord is a God of righteousness” (Is. 30:18).

Christian ethics includes the highest achievements of ancient and Old Testament ethics. The righteousness of the apostles had to surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). The idea of ​​natural morality is reflected in the statement of the apostle: “When the pagans, who do not have the law, by nature do what is lawful, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience and their thoughts bear witness to” (Rom. 2:14-15).

It is important to note that it is in the Biblical-Christian tradition that the unity of the human race is affirmed, originating from one source, the same ancestors (no matter how they are understood: literally or generally allegorically). Jesus Christ himself gives the commandment: “As you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Luke 6:31), which includes the long-known “golden rule” of morality: “do not do this to others.” how you wouldn’t want them to do to you.” The neighbor in Christ’s parable turns out to be not his true believer, but a “foreigner and a heretic” - the Merciful Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), and precisely because he was merciful to to a stranger. In the scene of the Last Judgment, the criterion will not even be a religious sign, but again - good deeds, that is, ethics (see: Matt. 25, 31-46).

But Christian ethics is not only normative, like natural ethics, it is paradoxical, which is clearly expressed in the “Sermon on the Mount.” You should love your enemies, give away your property, and not worry about tomorrow. This paradox is explained:

1. A new eschatological perspective of eternal life. Not everything happens within the visible limits of earthly life. Physical death ceases to be an absolute factor. 2. By introducing a new factor - grace. On the ethical plane, grace produces love, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. 3. A new understanding of eternity as the Kingdom of God, which begins here and now.

It would seem that these two ethical systems (natural and Christian) do not contradict each other. Christian ethics should, it seems, include the best achievements of universal human ethics and complement them with the boundless heights of Christian maximalism. It is possible to combine these two ethics in a hierarchical paradigm of subordination of ethical values, as was done, for example, by the Christian apologist Justin the Philosopher (2nd century. Good belongs to Christians. That is, he called for appreciating goodness in all its manifestations.

But here every now and then a problem arises, identified by Tertullian in the dilemma: “Athens or Jerusalem?” Augustine also said: “the virtues of the pagans are Christian vices.” /Example - honor, chivalry, duels, attitude towards suicide/. The question arises: isn’t Christian ethics self-sufficient? This approach assumes an exclusive paradigm: either-or. If the gospel pearl is found, then everything else seems unnecessary. It is known that people who profess Christianity often deny culture, the OC, opposing them to the heights of the Christian ideal. They tend to create a subculture and do not feel responsible for the state and development of civil society. At the same time, politics is often simply despised by them as a “dirty business.” The concept of social sin, together with social life, is, as a rule, denied by them. This causes a corresponding reaction from society to the church, which is perceived as something marginal and asocial.

This situation is explained by several reasons: Religious reason: all natural sciences and secular culture are oriented towards this (earthly) life. Christianity is more focused not on this life, but on the hereafter. With too strict a dualism between the earthly and the heavenly in the eschatological perspective of salvation, earthly culture loses its meaning. All that remains is asceticism and strict morality.

Social reason: secular society in our era narrow specializations assigned the church a certain function, which does not involve interference in culture, because other specialists deal with culture.

Psychological reason: it is easier for a person to perceive what is happening next to him than to see the picture as a whole. He tends to perceive his environment as a self-sufficient club with its own interests. In paganism, God is perceived only as the guardian of the hearth.

Philosophical reason: absolutism religious values is opposed to all other values, as obviously “weaker” (too strict dualism of the earthly and the heavenly). The same result is possible at the other extreme: a flat, single-level perception of existence. Nothing can stand comparison with the absolute on the same plane. V.V. Rozanov vividly wrote about this in his report: “About the Sweetest Jesus and the bitter fruits of the world” (1907). But with a hierarchically structured perception of existence, everything finds its place. Absolute value (eternal life) does not destroy the relative values ​​of earthly existence (well-being, for example). It is important to remember that matter (God’s creation) is not perceived as something obviously negative.

The degree of Christianization of society can be judged not only by the attendance of churches, but also in relation to the weak: the elderly, children, disabled people, religious minorities and the smallest minority - an individual who may find himself defenseless against the state leviathan or any collective. This is precisely the area where OCs coincide with Christian ones. In paganism, along with the “Golden Rule,” there were other rules: “you can do whatever you want with the enemy, you don’t need to feel sorry for him,” “finish off the weak, there’s no point in messing with him!” But it is about Christ that it is prophetically said: “A bruised reed he will not break, and smoking flax he will not quench” (Isa. 42:3, Matt. 12:20). The Son of God Himself came in a beggarly form, bringing into this life a completely different criterion for evaluation. Now it is not force that must triumph, but truth and truth. “God is not in power, but in truth,” said (according to legend) Alexander Nevsky. What is truth in our time? Yes, the same as many years ago. Truth is closely connected with the relationships between people, with justice, which is always social. And justice, as V.S. Solovyov so well said, is a social expression of love, that very universal love for all people to which Christ has called us and continues to call us. This means that justice is both a universal concept and a Christian one. And the tool for implementing the OC is a legally formalized concept of human rights, focused primarily on protecting the weak (the strong will protect themselves anyway). “The right of the strong” is not right in the human sense. Such right is widespread in the animal world and in the sick imagination of Marx, who defined law as the will of the ruling class elevated to law. But for some reason it is believed that the legal approach leaves no place for Christianity. Where is Christ here? - they may ask. But He has not gone away, Christians simply receive additional help (grace) in fulfilling the generally accepted commandments. But no, our new Orthodox (neophytes) often don’t like this. Where have they seen this, they say that some rights should be respected somewhere!? From here the cynical conclusion is drawn that the very concept of human rights is false. So... everything is allowed again? Others believe that one must continue to “sit quietly,” thinking only about one’s internal balance, “doing one’s own thing,” not defending the very principle of law and “not interfering” in anything. But we do not abandon the principle of goodness, which is also violated everywhere! “The bitter feeling of human baseness should not obscure the heights to which a person is destined” (N. A. Berdyaev). So why abandon the same principle, only expressed in a different, more specific (instrumental) terminology, to the actualization of which the concept of OC, which includes both humanitarian assistance and the protection of human rights, encourages us? Anyone who says that he believes in God, but does not recognize the OC, may not be lying. This is possible. Christianity does offer a higher ethical standard than mere humanism. But any humanism is not simple, just like goodness is not simple, just like doing good is not simple. The denial of humanism should have nothing to do with Christianity. Moreover, Russian religious philosophers of the beginning of the century created, in essence, the concept of Christian humanism. A. Men continued this line in his works.

Appendix to the report

RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (thesis)

“Woe to those who make unjust laws to steal the rights of the weak” Isaiah (10:1)

“While we are burning with freedom...” Pushkin

In legal theory, the question of the source of law is very important. If law is a tool for realizing state interests, merits or privileges determined by the state, then the state can arbitrarily change such a legal system at any time. With such a utilitarian understanding of law, it is understood, first of all, as a set of rules (laws). But there is another way of looking at law. The right must in fact be INALIENAIOUS, and it can be such ONLY if the main source of law is recognized not as “common law” (custom), not as experience developed as a result of joint labor activity, not the practice of social existence, etc., but something transcendent (beyond), rooted in the Absolute, in the One Who is called GOD in the Western tradition. /The term “nature”, which is used by atheists and agnostics, is much weaker, because too vague, does not carry an ethical dimension/. God created man in His image and likeness, endowed man with FREEDOM, which is the basis of law. Hence - human dignity as an absolute category. As V.S. Solovyov said, law is human freedom limited by the equality of people (the freedom of one person is limited by the freedom of another). The law is a boundary between individuals that is forbidden to cross. A person has no rights before God, but he has very definite rights before people. Everyone has the right to demand that others comply with generally accepted standards of behavior, for example.

In the Western theological tradition, God is not only a transcendental being, but also an important PRINCIPLE of existence, giving objective significance to the concepts of goodness and justice. “God is not only in power, but also in truth,” said Alexander Nevsky. The truth is social concept related to justice. Justice is objectified in legal law, which is, figuratively speaking, a secular god for all citizens. And “human rights” are, figuratively speaking, a secular religion. In the United States there is the concept of “civil religion,” which represents the general ethical basis of all world religions: do not kill, do not steal, honor the laws that protect a person from another person, from groups, from the state. Be in solidarity with all that is good. This is universal human ethics. When God is denied, the concepts of goodness and justice inevitably become psychologized, subjectivized and relativized (“everything depends on man,” who is supposedly “the measure of all things”). Therefore, there is a very close (albeit not so obvious) connection between law (as a principle) and religion. Both of these universals are transcendental. Therefore, atheistic countries (Russia for example) have and will continue to have big problems with “abstract and formal” law for a long time. If we have accepted the Western concept of human rights (see the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation), then we must understand its pathos and the way it is legally formalized in Western society, and finally understand what “natural law” is. In the West, belief in God was and continues to be considered natural. In our country, it is considered more natural NOT to believe in God (at the same time, you can observe some rituals “just in case” in the hope of receiving something “from above”). The West remains a big mystery for us, but the paradox is that we don’t feel this, believing that in the West there is “simply” more order. Most human rights activists are far from religion, naively believing that the truth of goodness and justice is self-evident for normal people. “That, they say, is all philosophy.” We, therefore, simply do NOT have the religious and philosophical resources to develop a similar concept of human rights. The main work in Russian philosophy on ethics, “The Justification of Good” (especially the 17th chapter) by V.S. Solovyov, remained unread. We did not notice how we had absorbed the Bolshevik-disdainful attitude towards V.S. Solovyov as an “idealist”. But the Bolshevik-nihilistic attitude towards law as “abstract humanism” is also well known. “Istmat” at one time abolished the law, replacing it with class interest, the “law of force,” obedience not to the law, but to the ruling class. Within the framework of materialism, it is impossible to understand what the force of law is. For materialism, law itself is an abstraction. Materialism understands law only as an instrument in the class struggle, i.e. in fact denies right as such. Today we want to skim the cream off “human rights” without bothering to think through the philosophical foundations of this concept. Therefore, the concept of human rights is not perceived by the public consciousness. It is abstract, without color, figuratively speaking, without smell, it inspires almost no one. Even the chaos in various types of Russian prisons does not awaken legal consciousness. After all, the essence of human rights activity is not in protecting oneself, but in protecting others, in the taste for justice as such. There is, therefore, a very close connection between law and religious absolutism, in which the inalienable dignity of man, created in the image and likeness of God, is rooted.

ABOUT SOCIETY, STATE, LAW

In the theory of law, the question of values, or more precisely, the hierarchy of values, is also very important. What exists for what: the state for the person or the person for the state? In the first case, enshrined, by the way, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 2), the state is considered as a technical or official means for the convenience of citizens. Citizens pay taxes, hire officials and control their work. Decisions are made by polling public opinion. All citizens (including officials) are equal before the law. In the second case, the state is viewed as the highest uncontrollable authority, and citizens as interchangeable cogs. Uncontrolled officials, having taken a supra-legal position, feel not like employees, but commanders. In this case, bureaucracy and corruption flourish. This regime is called statism or totalitarianism. The only good thing is the state (state apparatus) that is under the constant control of civil society, i.e. the first type of political structure of society.

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The question of the relationship between rights and responsibilities is not very simple. The whole point is WHO will determine the balance of rights and responsibilities. If this is one social subject, then it will always skew in its favor (alas, these are the rules of the game in our sinful world). This is how the state will ALWAYS affirm the responsibilities of citizens. The state must be opposed by society, citizens who will emphasize their rights. It is only the society that opposes it that makes a state legal. The state (leviathan) always gravitates towards totalitarianism. Therefore, he alone cannot be entrusted with observing the rights of citizens. A rule-of-law state is a state where, with the competing interests of society and the state, a socio-political balance is formed in which state law, in addition to performing a general regulatory function, protects the inalienable freedoms of citizens. The state has the right only to suppress the actions of citizens and organizations that violate the rights of other citizens and organizations and violate the general interest of society (the common good). The state is obliged to demand compensation for damage caused, including that which concerns the general state treasury intended for everyone. It is important to understand that this is basically ALL that the state can claim. In a state governed by law, there cannot be, for example, a “duty to work,” just as there cannot be a duty to “live” or breathe. The law is the rules of the game that are binding on everyone and nothing more. And of course, the state should not take on the role of God and educate citizens. Let me remind you that in rule-of-law states there are no state media. Strict observance of laws is already good education. Human rights should not depend on a person's social status, on whether he works or not, for example. Only his salary should depend on this. The right to a good salary is conditional on appropriate work. Thus, there are conditional rights (contractual), and there are absolute rights (inalienable). Human rights: freedom of speech, religion, movement, assembly, press - should not be conditional social status person. These are unconditional rights. So the norm of the relationship between rights and duties (to comply with the laws) is established the same for everyone, regardless of a person’s merits. Compliance with this norm should be kept under control by human rights organizations. Otherwise, “benefits”, all kinds of “feeding troughs”, special distributors and supra-legal structures created by officials are inevitable. A paternalistic state maintains control over all kinds of benefits that have nothing to do with law in the legal sense. A simple example: by the number of different types of beneficiaries one can judge the degree legal development states. A paternalistic state forces citizens to pay for benefits that government officials and, quite often, their family members enjoy. A legal state can only be built if there is a society that develops into a civil society.

WHAT IS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY? Democracy, as is known, etymologically means “power of the people.” But the power of the collective, the people, may turn out to be no better than the power of one (the monarch). “Depend on the king, depend on the people - does it really matter?” (A.S. Pushkin). The human person must be protected from any evil power. The concept of human rights allows us to establish legal mechanisms to protect people from any government that exceeds its powers. The salt of modern democracy is the protection of minorities (the smallest minority is a person) from any majorities. Law should not be associated with statistics. This can only be understood on the basis of Christian personalism (one sheep is worth more to the shepherd than ninety-nine sheep; see Matt. 18:12). Here the connection between law and the religious worldview is clearly visible. The political regime in such a state is called liberal democracy. The paradox here is that the government must pass laws that limit this power itself. Due to the presence of insightful, intelligent people in power, this is sometimes possible. An ideal rule of law state does not exist anywhere in the world, but differences in the degrees of approximation to it already have a very significant impact on the standard of living of citizens.

There should not be a “dictatorship of the law”, but a dictatorship of the legal, i.e. fair law. Or better yet: there must be the rule of law.

REASONS FOR THE INDIFFERENCE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO LEGAL ISSUES

It would seem that with such a low standard of living (we live on average 15-20 years less than a Western person), embezzlement and bribery of officials, all kinds of “lawlessness”, the people should have an increased interest in human rights (i.e. in their own rights ), as well as in general to the observance of justice. But this doesn't happen. By the way, with the same indifference people look at environmental problem. I see the following reasons here: 1. Lack of a culture of rationally consistent thinking through issues. Let's not forget that the concept of “human rights” is a product of the New Age, a kind of legal modernism, the key concept and instrument of which is rationalism. It was from the combination of deism and rationalism that the mentioned socio-legal concept was formed. In Russia, the era of enlightenment, if it existed, affected a thin layer of society and did not produce almost any shift in public consciousness. Those. Russia faces the same problem of modernization. 2. The lack of will of the people as a result of the 70-year dictatorship of the communist bureaucracy, which paralyzed the country and destroyed public life. 3. Psychological type Russian religiosity (with all its multi-confessional nature), which has nothing to do with the formation of respect for the individual, for personalism, which is associated in the popular consciousness with simple egoism and individualism. 4. Perhaps indifference to human rights issues is also due to the weakness of the conceptual thinking of many people. The concept, unlike a fur coat, for example, cannot be felt with your hands. But those who do not want to deal with concepts end up without fur coats.

CONCLUSION

As is known, the basis of any theory and any worldview are certain axioms, the acceptance and negation of which takes place in the sphere of the non-rational. But on this basis, completely rational theories are further built. The “image and likeness of God” in every person is an object of non-rational faith. “Human rights” are the result of the work of reason on the specified religious thesis in application to the social sphere. A way out of the current situation is as easy to propose (“develop”, “strengthen”, “enlighten”, etc.) as it is difficult to implement. Therefore, at the risk of being accused of unconstructiveness and the same lack of will, I will not do this here (i.e., propose something specifically). The solution to the problem lies not so much on a theoretical plane, but on an existential one.

The article briefly highlights the main Christian values: the Triune God, the Word of God and the Church. Society today has adopted Christian values ​​and interpreted them for everyday life. In modern society, views on the roles of men and women, the position of the family in society, as well as the role of the family in raising the younger generation have changed.

Download:

Preview:

CHRISTIAN VALUES IN MODERN PERCEPTION

SOCIETY

Chernetskaya E.N.

teacher of disciplines

General humanitarian cycle

OBPOU "Kursk Assembly

technical school (Kursk)

Without God, a nation is a crowd,

United by vice

Or blind or stupid

Or, what’s even worse, she’s cruel.

And let anyone ascend to the throne,

Speaking in a high syllable.

The crowd will remain a crowd

Until he turns to God!

(Hieromonk Roman)

The expression “Christian values” arose only in the 20th century, when a theory of values ​​was formed in Western philosophy, called axiology (Greek axia - value and logos - teaching, word).Value is the significance of a known object (ideal or material) in relation to the goals, aspirations and needs of a person.The concept of moral value first appears in the ethics of I. Kant. Christian values ​​are the great heritage of humanity, but they become a blessed treasure only for those who goes the way salvation[ 1 ].

Christianity proceeds from the understanding of value as an absolute good that has significance in any relationship and for any subject. Christian values ​​are not limited to the Gospel commandments and moral rules. They make up a whole system.

The most important value in Christianity is the Triune God.This belief among Christians was formed not by some scientist, educator or theologian, but by Jesus Christ Himself. This is what He says to the lawyer:“The first of all commandments: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength—this is the first commandment!” [ 2 ].

The second value is the Bible or the Word of God. For Christians, this is an indisputable authority. All Christian authors first of all refer to what the Old and New Testaments say, and only then to the church fathers and other authors.

And the third value for Christians is the Church. This is not a temple or a House of Prayer, but a community or gathering of people who believe in Jesus Christ. The Bible compares the Church to a body, the head of which is Jesus Christ, and believers as its various members [ 3 ]. Moreover, the Church, according to the writings of the Apostle Paul, is the pillar and ground of the truth [ 4 ].

And Christ calls His disciples in the Sermon on the Mount the light and salt of this world, which also relates to the Church [ 5 ].

The adoption of Christian values ​​meant a radical revaluation of values ​​that had existed for a long time. Nietzsche even called it a total rebellion against ancient values.

But given that society today remains mostly atheistic, accepted Christian values ​​have adapted to the realities of life. Love for God finds its expression not only in love for the Heavenly Father, but also in love for one’s neighbor, for humanity as a whole. For most people, Christian standards are expressed in the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. After all, they are for long history of humanity have long become a moral code. And if every member of society observed it, then this would be quite enough for the prosperous existence of humanity without wars, murders, and betrayal. But many despise these norms for the sake of their immoral principles, which are far from both Christian and universal human norms. They allow themselves to become higher than all people, take responsibility for the destinies of many and assume the role of arbiters of the destinies of humanity. It is scary that in society there are now more and more individuals who control the destinies of thousands and millions, starting local and global conflicts. Have they heard about Christian and moral standards and values? Hardly. Or they forgot about them, satisfying their material needs, elevating them to a cult and serving them.

Many build their lives, intuitively subordinating it to Christian and moral standards. Many have their own hierarchy of values ​​that are close to Christian ones.

Faith in God, love for one's neighbor and family are the main Christian values ​​for most Russians. To the corresponding question from sociologists, 93%, 90% and 84% of the survey participants, which was conducted by experts from the Bashkirova and Partners company, answered this way, respectively.

The study, which involved 1.5 thousand people, was devoted to the attitude of Russian citizens towards Christian values ​​and their place in our lives. Meanwhile, such values ​​as work, patriotism, freedom and belief in an afterlife were classified as Christian by approximately half of the respondents (51-57%). But democracy and money, according to the majority of respondents (74% and 62%), do not belong to Christian values.

At the same time, research by sociologists shows that Russians’ opinions about what is fundamentally modern society Christian values ​​are divided - 44% agree with this, and exactly the same number of respondents (44%) hold the opposite opinion [ 6 ]. I am glad that love for one's neighbor and family, in the opinion of many, are at the forefront of Christian values. Since the formation of a person begins with the family, let's take a closer look at this value.

Russia has been an Orthodox country for more than a thousand years. Orthodoxy has entered our life, culture, worldview, and statehood. Therefore, the Russian people have a lot of Christian qualities.

Raising a new member of society begins with the family. Family is what gives a person a solid foundation for his entire life, nourishes and supports him. Neither a career, nor things, nor hobbies, nor friends can give the happiness and prosperity that a family gives.

A strong family is a family with its own traditions. But in modern Russia, changes have occurred related to the understanding of the function and role of the family. First, the roles of men and women have changed. Women wanted equality with men in all spheres, not only family, but also public life. The woman has ceased to be the keeper of the home, and the man has ceased to be the protector and breadwinner.

Views on the concept of “family,” on loyalty in the family, and on raising children have also changed. Many of the traditions that made a family a family were lost. Many families nowadays are more like people who live under the same roof, without having anything in common, and sometimes even without knowing each other. But it is the family that gives a sense of stability and protection from the very beginning. early childhood which we carry throughout our adult lives and pass on to our children.

Children are raised not only by their parents as such, but also by the family life that develops. It is the family that gives rise to a sense of continuity between generations, and through this, involvement in the history of one’s family, and the development of the ideals of patriotism. The family, providing stability, reveals the abilities and strengths in the family member.

Family relationships are primarily spiritual relationships. Therefore, they do not appear simply because two people fell in love with each other and wanted to live together under the same roof. Family is the hard everyday work of spouses, the desire to change themselves in better side, make your spouse happy, and later your children.

The visible manifestation of family life is the home. Home is the place where both the physical and spiritual life of the family unfolds. Family and home are a spiritual fortress that protects everyone living in it from the temptations of the outside world. Every day the family must be prepared to overcome the influences of the world with healthy Christian education.

How do modern teenagers see their family in the future? In humanities classes, we cannot ignore questions about values; we also talk about family. I am glad that teenagers see love and mutual respect, a mutual desire to live together as the basis for creating a family. But they fully admit that the need for a marriage union may arise, because the birth of a child is expected. It is alarming that more than half of students, even before starting a family, are concerned about the division of property in the event of a divorce, and the fate of future children is the last thing they think about. For them, family is something convenient in everyday life and status. Few of them think that they need to work together on relationships and overcome difficulties. For them, everything is simple so far: they didn’t like something - divorce, and put their feelings aside. Maybe this is due to youthful maximalism in them, or maybe the reason is in their own families? After all, about 50% of students themselves were raised in single-parent families and, based on this, formed their vision of their future family. They will pass it on to their children. Therefore, there is no idea of ​​the family as a value that needs to be protected. Based on statistics, half of all marriages break up. This trend is becoming disappointing for Russia. The foundations of the family are also undermined by the so-called free unions, which only create its illusion.

We are all now focusing on Western society, considering it the standard of freedom and democracy.Western democracy was initially based on the Christian values ​​of love for one's neighbor, non-resistance to evil and, most importantly, freedom of conscience. But ultimately, the emphasis on this led the West to legalize same-sex marriage, propaganda of homosexuality, freedom of expression of sinful forms of life, etc. It’s good that young people today categorically do not accept these “values.” Christianity is not a democracy, but a theocracy, i.e. orientation towards God and His will. It is from God, according to the deep conviction of Christians, that true morality, culture and the prosperity of society come from submission to His will.

Links to sources:

1. http://www.pravoslavie.ru

2. Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verses 29-30.
3. Corinthians, chapter 12, verses 14-27; Ephesians chapter 5 verse 23.
4. First Timothy, chapter 3, verse 15.
5. Gospel of Matthew, chapter 15, verses 13-14.
6. http://uucyc.ru/statistics/128