Сборник статей - Софиология Страница 50

Furthermore, Bulgakov′s sophiology kept consciously close to secular sociology of the Weberian kind. Bulgakov classified secular sociology as the ′phenomenology of economy′[530] with economy being one of the expressions of the relation between God and the world. Sophiology, in contradistinction to sociology however, had to be capable to discern between good and evil, true or false appearances of God in the world, or between the active presence of God or of Antichrist in the world.[531] Sophiology is therefore Christian sociology and is not only a phenomenology of the ′is,′ but also has to give an account of the ′ought.′ Sophiology is not only sociology, but also social ethics and social theology.[532]

The unorthodoxy of the icon of Sophia remained an obstacle however for the reception of sophiology in official Russian Orthodoxy. For Bulgakov, Sophia was not a hypostasis of God, but an icon of his nature for humanity, and an instrument of hermeneutics for the interpretation of God′s presence in the modern world.[533] Sophia is not only instrumental for human reason as object of human contemplation – the vision of God (theo-reia), but also instrumental for human practical reason that tries to build a better world. Sophia is the key for understanding the relation of humanity to God and of God to humanity, because her world-immanent being reflects her world-transcendent being.

Sophia, on the other hand, is never only an instrument of hermeneutics, or of social ethics, but she is also an active and divine principle. Humanity not only strives up to God, God also comes down to elevate humanity. From an exclusively immanent, e.g. a secular sociological standpoint such as Max Weber′s, it is impossible to decide about true and false phenomena of God′s presence in the world, or to choose between Christ and Anti-Christ. This problem puts us right in the middle of Solov’ëv′s last work Tri razgovora[534] that concluded it is impossible to decide on the question of just wars and the nature of evil from an immanent or exclusively inner-worldly standpoint.

According to Tri razgovora only true belief makes it possible to discern between Christ and Antichrist. The ability to discriminate between good and evil in the world that is given in Sophia is of the utmost importance for sophiology as the study of the progress of Christian humanity in its double task to relate the world to God in a humanization of nature, and to relate humanity to God in a deification through the Church that is Divine humanity or Sophia in actu.[535]

The Osnovy (foundations or principles) of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church are in the plural. This seems to imply the Osnovy depart from various principles and not from the one principle of Sophia

– The Wisdom of God. Chapter I on the basic theological provisions of the Osnovy starts with giving several definitions of the Church. The unifying principle of the Osnovy, therefore, seems to be the Church itself that is at once the universal Church, and the historical Russian Orthodox Church as an expression of the universal Church in this world. The Osnovy depart from the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and its mission in the world and try to determine its inner-worldly relations.

The Church is the assembly of believers in Christ (par 1.1), but also a divine-human organism (1.2, bogochelovecheskll organlzm) and the Body of Christ in this world. The Church is a ′unity of the new humanity′ in Christ. The Osnovy here quote Slavophile Orthodox philosopher A.S. Khomiakov who used the term sobornala cerkov′ in the sense of ′conciliar church′. According to the Osnovy, the Church shares Christ′s mission to save the world, but can only do this through sobornoe sluzhenle or conciliar service

(1.2). In the official document Baslc Teachlng of Russlan Orthodox Church on Human Dlgnlty, Freedom and Rlghts (2008), the substantive sobornost′ is used to denote the Orthodox tradition that ′wants to keep the unity of the society on the basis of the eternal ethical values.′ Here the ROC seems to subscribe to the interpretation of sobornost′ as the principle of cohesion and organization of Orthodox society.

The Osnovy also use the formula ′continuous service (sluzhenle) to God and neighbor′ to describe the life in the Church of every Christian. This formula at first sight seems close to Tolstoi′s ′love of God and neighbor′. In contradistinction with Tolstoi, the sluzhenle of the Osnovy is not individual, but conciliar action. This continuous conciliar service of God and neighbor is closer to Bulgakov′s concept of podvlzhnlchestvo than to Tolstoi′s asceticism. Furthermore, like Bulgakov, the Osnovy explicitly do not admit ′to shun the surrounding world in a Manichean way,′ as Tolstoi preached.[536] The Church on the contrary calls all Christians to participate in the world. This participation in the world ′should be based on the awareness that the world, socium and state are objects of God′s love.′

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

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

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

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

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

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

Н.А. Ваганова 

«Храмовая завеса» епископа Клойнского: об одном софийном мотиве в «Улиссе» Джойса и софиологии С.Н. Булгакова

Когда в 1910-х годах С.Н. Булгаков приступил к оформлению первого варианта своей софиологической концепции, она складывалась у него в результате философской рефлексии над огромным массивом жизненных впечатлений самого разного характера, в том числе эстетических. В частности, он посещает художественные выставки, много размышляет и пишет о литературе, поэзии, живописи. К этому и несколько более раннему времени относится ряд статей, в которых Булгаков, говоря о религиозной природе творчества, пытается обосновать софийную мотивацию в отношении оценки произведений литературы и искусства, пишет о том, в каких смысловых инверсиях, в каких пластических формах идея вечно-женственного начала сказалась в романах Достоевского, живописи Пикассо, творчестве Анны Голубкиной, наконец, софийно-эротической лирике Владимира Соловьева.

О последнем Булгаков не раз говорил, что поэт Соловьев неотделим от Соловьева-философа, что его метафизику невозможно понять без его же поэтики, и даже что первая является своего рода комментарием к последней. Искусство для Булгакова в это время вообще есть та сфера человеческой деятельности, в которой «тварь открывается художнику в осиянии божественной Софии»[539], гениальность же художника-творца сопоставима со святостью святых. Ведь в «интимном общении с душой мира» художнику открывается то особое «просветление плоти», которое иначе дается мистику в опыте откровения. Немногим позже, в «Свете невечернем», Булгаков определит и саму философию как свободное религиозно-художественное творчество.

Формирование софиологии, кроме того, происходит у Булгакова на фоне сильнейшего увлечения идеями и личностью А.Н. Шмидт, мучительными попытками оправдать для себя – «богословски, метафизически, софиесловски» – ее «духовный роман» с Владимиром Соловьевым[540], Для Булгакова итогом этих размышлений в творческом смысле стал небольшой цикл статей «Владимир Соловьев и Анна Шмидт», а его личная духовная эволюция обогатилась важными открытиями, в которых он исповедуется другу – Флоренскому в ряде писем 1914–1921 годов. В одном из них, от 18 августа 1916 года из крымского Кореиза, Булгаков описывает свою долгую прогулку по берегу и пережитое им «мистическое открытие» женской и софийной природы моря. Его вечное движение бесцельно и беспредметно, это томление плененной стихии, неспособной принять форму, безвольное и бессмысленное рассеяние колоссальной энергии, неосознаваемое страдание и тоска меональной материи. Но созерцание этой мучительной в своей основе картины приводит к катарсису: «У меня такое чувство, – признается Булгаков, – как будто я прозрел и разгадал что-то такое, что меня связывало». Это прозрение состоит в следующем: Анна Шмидт была совершенно права в своем отождествлении себя с Софией в случае, если «прав, сам Соловьев»[541]. Впечатление и связанное с ним открытие столь мощно, что ведет к желанию ′е^охп, ибо «вместить это труднее, чем философствовать о „софийности“»[542].