Saint Petersburg Branch of the Russian Humanist Society
The Clericalization of Education in Russia

The Clericalization of Education and the Reaction of the Contemporary Russian Public

http://hghltd.yandex.com/yandbtm?url=http://religion.sova-center.ru/publications/4C5458F

At the present time in Russia there are 430 national and more than 21,000 locally registered religious organizations (and of these more than 11,000 are related to the ROC, 4,600 are Protestant, and 3,500 are Muslim). According to Article 5 of the 1997 federal law "Freedom of Conscience and Religious Association" each citizen has the right to receive the religious education of his choice, individually or together with other citizens. Religious organizations have the right to have educational institutions from kindergartens to higher educational institutions in accordance with their charters and Russian law. At the present time a minimum of 20 religions and faiths take advantage of this law.

The program and method of instruction in these institutions are developed by the religious organizations themselves. If it provides for the transmission of basic knowledge to the students in accordance with government standards then such institutions can count on state financing in corresponding amounts.

In addition, Point 4 of Article 5 of the Russian law "Freedom of Conscience and Religious Association" says "At the request of parents or guardians and with the consent of the children studying in state or municipal educational institutions the administration of these institutions in accordance with the appropriate local government body affords religious organizations the opportunity to teach children religion after hours, in practice in the afternoon and weekends.

Thus, in Russia there are two ways to achieve one of the most important parental rights, the education of children in accordance with their convictions: in special religious educational institutions and in ordinary ones, but outside the framework of the program of instruction.

Moreover, specific steps began to be undertaken beginning in 2002 at the federal level (and starting at the regional level in 1997) directed at introducing the subject of "Principles of Orthodox Culture (OPK)" into secondary educational institutions. At the same time a government standard in the specialty of theology was approved in 2002, which meant that now specialists in this discipline will be trained in government higher educational institutions and their training in non-government higher educational institutions will be paid out of the budget. Both innovations generated a lively public discussion. In particular, representatives of various social groups had many questions about the proposed introduction of the OPK inasmuch as it affected the fates of millions of schoolchildren, that is, practically every Russian family. Although in 2003 the Ministry of Education announced a change in the name of the proposed subject to "The Principles (History) of World Religions", the role of the ROC in lobbying for this initiative (as in the introduction of the theology standard) continues to cause fear among opponents of the subject. And if at the present time in Russia the question comes up of the clericalization of the educational field then no doubt arises that this is about the efforts by the ROC in this direction and not about the participation of other religions or Christian faiths in this process.

The struggle to introduce OPK and the resistance to this have become a quite important showdown between various influence groups in civil society for present-day Russia using the State as an arbiter. The question has arisen (not substantive as such before 2002) about the permissible boundaries for the penetration of religious organizations into sociopolitical life and the educational system.

This article does not exhaust all the problems associated with the clericalization of education, including the penetration of religious ideas and reasoning into textbooks and lessons on basic subjects (primarily, the humanities), patriotic education in "Orthodox" examples, the practice of inviting clerics to ceremonies opening and closing the school year and also school dedications, the presence of Christian symbols in classrooms displayed at the initiative of the teachers, the construction of "home churches" on the grounds of higher educational institutions (there are more than 50 such cases at the present time), and even schools with half-compulsory catechization of students during field trips to cathedrals and monasteries. The number of such examples is enormous, but all the same the report is devoted to the systematic and authorized [institutsializirovannaya] activity of ROC supporters in transforming the educational environment in accordance with their convictions.

Why Does the Church Need This?

The Church ascribes the reluctance of the overwhelming majority of the Russian population to visit cathedrals to the vestiges of an atheistic upbringing and hopes to be able to bring up the new generation of Russians in the faith. The ROC has no right to this and turning to the government has become the Church's only way out of this situation. It is precisely through the expenditure of its resources and capabilities that the ROC hopes to get young parishioners who in time will bring their children to the cathedral and thereby continue a tradition interrupted by "the godless". A leading Orthodox lobbyist in this area is Vladimir Vorob'yev, Rector of the St. Tikhon Orthodox Theological Institute (PSTBI) [1] and Deputy Chairman of the Educational Committee of the Moscow Patriarchate, who talks about this directly when addressing a church audience: "We in the Church have an idea according to which it is much more important to restore cathedrals and monasteries, build them up, gild the cupola, and then open a tiny Sunday school for the record…and we rejoice in each reopened cathedral but it needs to be understood that no one will enter a restored cathedral if we lose the young generation. But this mistake is happening in front of our eyes. We need to boldly admit that the state of religious education in our country can in no way be considered satisfactory but the Church cannot cope with this problem alone. Deprived of people, material and technical conditions, and financial opportunities it can only crawl like a tiny turtle after the departing train of the present-day educational system" [2].

According to the agenda of the Orthodox education activists the obligatory introduction into secondary schools of some subject after the model of the pre-revolutionary "Divine Law" giving a student basic knowledge about the Orthodox faith (including prayers, respect for saints, and the institution of the Church itself), ought to be the first serious step on the path to attracting the young generation to the Church and strengthening the religiosity of children. In the words of Father Superior Ioann (Ekonomtsev), a representative of the Synodal (general Church) Department of Religious Education and Catechism: "Before the 1917 Revolution we did not have the need in the field of religious education because the entire state system was permeated with Orthodox ideas. Now we should strive toward this in our time" [3].

The ROC leadership proposes the complete replacement of the educational paradigm of the modern-day Russian school and filling the entire curriculum of subjects with deep religious content. For example, the resolution adopted on 24 April 2001 at a Round Table in the State Duma having the emphatically neutral name of "Religious Education in Russia: Problems and Prospects" and in fact composed by lobbyists for Orthodox education and their supporters in the Russian parliament, speaks about this eloquently. The resolution stated: "The basic courses of an education in the humanities and also instruction in natural science disciplines ought to rely on the spiritual, cultural, historical, and moral heritage of the peoples of Russia. They should include the study of the monuments of ancient Russian literature, Church Slavonic, and works and materials of a religiously-oriented world view…This also refers to the moral evaluation of such fields in practical science as nuclear research, generic engineering, and especially to that which distorts God's image in Man. Instruction in the principles of Darwinism (based on the neopagan racist teachings of Malthus) should be accompanied by a notice that this is just one of competing scientific hypotheses about creation" [4].

However, because of the obvious unpreparedness of the greater part of the public and government bureaucrats for such a formulation of the question ROC representatives prefer to advance toward this goal in stages.

At the same time the instructional environment in general educational schools, supposing that the task of not just the communication of knowledge but also instruction rests with educational institutions, is experiencing a need for a moral ideal and "basic values" which can insulate children from the various misfortunes of "modern society" as drunkenness, crime, drug addiction, and early sexual activity. The previous Communist ideal (and, accordingly, the system of examples, proofs, counterarguments, authorities, models of conduct, and sacred texts set aside for the educational process) collapsed and many teachers think that the principles of humanism on which the modern secular school is based are insufficient in the new conditions (we will talk about this in more detail in the second half of the report). The teachers' belief in the usefulness of the model of moral education offered by the ROC and also the formulation of a corps of its supporters through intensive production and training of subject matter teachers (in educational specialties of theology and the principles of Orthodox culture) are, in our view, a no less more important mission for the Church than the "recruitment" of bureaucrats.

The ROC's entry into the educational system and also the academic circles closely associated with it is being done at all levels, from kindergartens to the Ministry of Education and Academy of Sciences. Secondary schools, the most common type of Russian educational institution, forming the conscience of the citizen of the country in a modern state and society, have become the subject of our special attention. A modern person cannot bypass secondary educational institutions and it is there that he can not only be taught literacy and receive basic information about the country in which he lives but which also for the most part determines his frame of reference.

The Penetration of the Church Into the Government Educational System

The introduction of the Church into the educational system is impossible without the assistance of religiously motivated representatives of pedagogical collectives. One or two teachers will be found in many schools who believe in the usefulness of Orthodox education, although at the same time they do not always go to church. In each oblast there are also several school principals with similar ideas ready to use their institution as a test site to work out the methods of Orthodox pedagogy. Some officials of the Ministry of Education and regional educational administrative bodies also support the clericalization of education. Back in 1996 the Church made an attempt to identify and consolidate these people. A series of "practical scientific" conferences were held throughout the entire country practically simultaneously which were organized by the diocesan administrations together with local educational institutions and oblast administrations [5]. As a rule, they were called "readings" and were dedicated to the memory of a local saint. Although the readings soon began to examine a much broader range of questions than was originally envisioned they helped to finally identify the circle of Orthodox teachers but at the same time revealed its limited nature. The potential of this circle was fully represented in the all-Russian "Christmas readings" which are held annually in Moscow during the second half of January. By the end of the 1990s it had become evident to the ROC that there were not enough enthusiasts for a broad penetration of the schools and realization of the mission of introducing "Divine Law" as an obligatory subject for most of the rising generation. Trained and skilled personnel were needed to do this and therefore in several regions with the support of local authorities dioceses began to organize cooperation with pedagogical institutes and universities.

Another way to clericalize teachers besides departments of Orthodox pedagogy lay through organizing courses in regional Institutes to Upgrade Skills and Retrain Educational Officials (IPKiPRO). Such Institutes exist in each Russian region and are an important part of the system of education, helping teachers to acquire new knowledge in their subject or gain a new specialization. Once every five years during school vacations a teacher from an ordinary school must attend a course of lectures at an IPKiPRO and pass an examination. As a rule the teachers (especially in rural schools) try to obtain a specialization in several related subjects in order to not only substitute for colleagues who are ill but also to get additional "load hours" to increase their pay.

For part of the teachers, especially those "underburdened" in their primary specialization, the acquisition of knowledge in a new subject which had acquired legal status in a number of regions in 1997-1999 and in the rest since 2002 meant not only the realization of their religious convictions but also the expansion of opportunities for take-home pay. From then on each teacher certified in OPK at an IPKiPRO objectively becomes a lobbyist for this discipline. His take-home pay depends on the number of classes which will be filled in each optional subject (the degree of voluntary participation in this case is a separate issue). Therefore even at the initial stage the efforts of the enthusiasts of Orthodox education were concentrated at working with local IPKiPRO and multiplying the supporters of OPK with their aid. During all this the Orthodox dioceses directly interfered in this process and controlled it firmly so that OPK did not become a theological subject.

What the Textbook of Alla Borodina Contains and Whether OPK is Really is a School Subject

At the beginning of 2002 Pokrov Publishers published a textbook [called] "Principles of Orthodox Culture" written by Alla Borodina (the initial press run was 10,000 copies) under the stamp of "recommended by the Coordinating Council for Cooperation between the RF Ministry of Education and the ROC Moscow Patriarchate". It became the first such publication to be widely disseminated. Its appearance prompted a discussion about the OPK and made it into a problem of national scope from a subject of behind-the-scenes and regional battles.

A. V. Borodina, Deputy Principal of a Moscow School and methodologist of the Moscow Institute for the Retraining of Educational Workers of the Moscow Education Committee, became the author of the textbook. She offered not only a textbook but an entire concept which essentially means the introduction of a new subject into a school program which covers all classes.

"A positive result of study…is achieved by prescribed student access in stages to the spiritual, moral, and esthetic values of humanity: in elementary school through the mastery of the closer and better understood traditional and culture-forming religion of Russia, Orthodoxy; then, in the 5th grade the children master Church Slavonic, become familiar with the monuments of ancient Russian literature and Biblical texts in Church Slavonic, and compare them with adapted translations; in the 6th grade what was studied earlier is summarized and extended, and deeper and more complex concepts, historical facts, and knowledge about the features of Church art are introduced; in the 7th grade the children study early Christianity, the reasons for the division of the Catholic Church (in scholarly literature this is described as the "schism of the Eastern and Western Churches" – N. M.), the appearance of heresies, currents in Christianity, and become familiar with the works of the Church Fathers; in the 8th grade they study the history of Christianity from the 5th to the 15th centuries; in the 9th, the history of Christianity from the 16th century to the present day; in the 10th grade the students become familiar with ancient religions; and in the 11th grade the course concludes with a modern confessional picture of the world. The study of Church Slavonic proposed for the 5th grade students allows them to handle the assignments not just of this course but also considerably increases their literacy through the linguistic aspect of instruction, deepens their knowledge of Russian, and familiarizes them with the sources and artistic features of high literary style, which promotes a better appreciation and understanding of poetry. In addition, the study of Church Slavonic is an excellent basis for the subsequent mastery of modern Slavic languages [6]. The course is designed for 10 years of study for one hour a week in each class" [7].

In

spite of the fact that supporters of the OPK have convinced the public that the course will convey the cultural heritage and morals to the children, even a brief description of the OPK in the words of the creator of the textbook shows us the depth that questions of theology are delved into (the study of the Old and New Testaments and the lives of the saints are first and foremost), but the course devotes a quite modest place to both ethics and esthetics. In so doing a strictly church culture (icons, cathedrals) is presented as a model of esthetics but not a "decoding" of Orthodox cultural codes in the secular art of the 17th to 20th centuries, and especially not this art itself.

In practice the size of Borodina's textbook has precluded teachers of ordinary schools from following the course and its classification in its second edition as a "training aid" has become an expression of a very complicated situation. In the hands of teachers Borodina's textbook became a source of useful information and an example and had possibly set the general direction of the course. However in such an event the teacher thought he had the right to add everything that he considered useful. Therefore cultural courses based on the verses of I. Brodsky and pictures from the era of the Enlightenment and the subsequent exposition of Biblical subjects and the reading of Divine Law with additional local information are also understood as OPK.

There is also a commercial aspect to the distribution of Borodina's textbook. The Pokrov Publishing House, which published the textbook, has in fact become a monopoly in the publication of all the course materials (this is not just the textbook but all the possible methodological materials and readers and also the Voskresnaya Shkola [Sunday School] newspaper). At the present time it offers a total of about 30 books, including handbooks written by A. Borodina about teaching of OPK according to her textbook and also an alternative textbook "Moral Principles" created by O. L. Yanuskeviciene (a graduate of PSTBI), the Lithuanian author of Divine Law and Christian Ethics. Moreover the founders of the publishing house have become part of the Coordinating Council of the MP [Moscow Patriarchate] and the Ministry of Education. Thus, having de facto ensured itself a government order and the monopoly for its fulfillment, the co-founders of the publishing house were interested in the widest possible dissemination of the subject, which increased the press run and accordingly increased [their] profits.

After the scandal which erupted after Minister of Education V. Filippov's letter of 22 October 2002 the attitude of federal agencies toward OPK obviously changed several times between the beginning of 2003 and the summer 2004. On 9 August 2004 a meeting was held in the Ministry of Education and Science under the chairmanship of the minister at which a decision was made to wait for the development of the textbook "Principles of the World's Religions" which was be jointly developed by the Institute of World History of the RAN [Russian Academy of Sciences] and the RAGS' [Russian Academy of Government Service] Department of Religious Studies. Participants of the meeting expressed serious concern about the practice which had developed of teaching OPK in the schools of a number of regions. At this time in 2003 and 2004 the authorities of a number of large regions where OPK had been introduced (Moscow, Moscow Oblast, St. Petersburg), decided to reject its use.

Public Discussion Around the OPK

The desire of the ROC to spread OPK as much as possible and reexamine the content of several subjects of the school curriculum encountered support from three forces: parts of regional and federal government bodies, Russian nationalist public and political organizations (on the whole, quite small), and a quite narrow group of teachers who are clericalized or materially interested in the subject. They have been forced to overcome resistance from four primary groups: children for whom any new work was a burden; parents who do not want their children to be taught "fantasies"; the main bulk of teachers who have their own ideas about the moral ideals which should be instilled in the rising generation; and liberal public political organizations who see the strengthening of the influence of the ROC in public institutions as a threat to the democratic development of Russia and a violation of the rights of other religions and faiths.

The question of the clericalization of education was raised in connection with the introduction of the theology standard in higher educational institutions for the first time. In 2000 protests by specialists provoked quite pejorative references to the clergy and ROC supporters concerning the subject of "religious studies" and an intention read between the lines of replacing religious studies in the educational system (regarded as outmoded and principally atheistic knowledge) in the future with theology. At the time specialists pointed to the fact that in the national educational tradition there is no experience of teaching theology (secular and religious education in the Russian Empire were separated at the end of the 18th century). The appeal of lobbyists for a standard to a European tradition did not take into consideration Western realities: universities in France or Germany were created firstly to teach theology and only then did other sciences receive support. However these arguments which spread mainly from the academic environment remained unnoticed by the general public [8], although a critical issue for the nation, whether it is ready to pay for religious experiments in the educational system out of its budget and, in particular, whether it is necessary to train the clergy at taxpayers' expense, could have been resolved at this very stage, for example, through decisions of the Constitutional Court.

The publication of the first version of A. Borodina's textbook and especially information about the content of the Ministry of Education's letter of 22 October 2002 provoked a completely different reaction.

The textbook itself published in 2002 turned out to be controversial from the point of view of the modern-day Russian public. Although the author only described the principal Orthodox political and ethnic mythologemes gently (in particular, that the Russian is Orthodox, that "guests or new residents do not always conduct themselves nobly on the territory of a traditionally Orthodox country", about the harm of sects and "heresies", and also that the Jewish people crucified Christ inasmuch as "the idea of eternal life through salvation from sin, passions, and evil was unknown to them") [9], even in such form it provoked vigorous protest from human rights advocates who quickly recognized themselves as a barrier restraining the clericalization of education. The all-Russian public movement "For Human Rights" headed by L. Ponomarev became the leading organization which began the campaign against the textbook. It enjoys support from a coalition of the largest Russian human rights organizations [called] "Joint Action" which began to take a more active anti-clerical position after the mayhem [pogrom] in the Sakharov Museum by Orthodox fundamentalists (activists of the Public Committee [called] "For the Moral Rebirth of the Fatherland").

The increasingly keen recognition by both sides of the principal differences between the Church (rather, its hierarchy and the main body of those who have been clericalized) and the liberal intelligentsia (including longtime parishioners of the ROC) which had been observed in the first half of the 1990s became the reason why the human rights activists got involved in opposing the ROC, more precisely, the Moscow Patriarchate. The liberals, who had actively supported the Church in the question of defending the rights of believers, the restitution of property, and other forms of compensation for the tragedy of Communist times turned out not to be ready to accept its demands about the need to limit civil liberties, first of all freedom of conscience and freedom of self-expression, and also viewed its cooperation with Communists and Russian nationalists with growing bewilderment. Church demands in the educational field and the support given A. Borodina by the leaders of the ROC and the entire propaganda apparatus of the Moscow Patriarchate only emphasized the distance between the philosophical and political positions of the sides.

As noted above, the protests provoked a quite vigorous reaction from the authorities and the Church. Borodina's textbook was edited somewhat and published in 2003 in such a form (although the author left the passages intact which had evoked the most protests). The Ministry of Education, in turn, protested in its own letter and announced the development of a new course. The OPK was thereby actually abandoned (at the federal level, in any event). In the process the movement "For Human Rights" managed to avoid legal persecution by fundamentalist organizations and the procuracy as had occurred in the case of the A. Sakharov Museum. In general and on the whole this could be considered the successful result of the activity of the liberally-minded organizations of a civil society.

What Kind of Conclusions We Can Draw From the Campaign About OPK

The level of consolidation of OPK supporters, their numbers, and the depth of their penetration into the educational system somewhat exceed the capabilities of the liberal structures of civil society. Unquestionably, there are supporters of liberal ideas in the education system and together with "simply" humanistically-minded teachers they possibly represent a majority in educational collectives (the same as Orthodox teachers enjoy the support of ethnonationalistic and militarist colleagues), but they are united by other principles. In a critical situation, for example a sharp confrontation in court (or during a criminal investigation), it is completely possible that authorized liberal public organizations might lose the "battle" inasmuch as they do not have real two-way communication with mass but otherwise formal support groups (for example, with the same movement for teaching tolerance by teachers who teach the course "The Lessons of the Holocaust", editors of a majority of teachers' newspapers, and others). In a critical legal situation human rights defenders could not mobilize such a resource in their own support as the Coordinating Council of the Ministry of Education to Put the Special Federal Program [Called] "The Formation of Attitudes of Tolerant Thought and the Prevention of Extremism in Russian Society" Into Effect which was created back in 2001.

Liberals do not have enough understanding that in an educational environment they are not being opposed by individual "conservatives" but a coalition which closes ranks with each year and which has distinct and actually working mechanisms to realize their wishes.

For more than the ten years of the Christmas and regional readings which thousands of people attended the supporters of the clericalization of education did not simply find support among teachers but also managed to consolidate them at the regional and federal levels through institutions which were legitimate to the government bureaucracy (public councils, methodological groups, the Ministry's Coordinating Council, the Department of Orthodox Pedagogy, etc.). At the same time they also have a distinct ideological center, the Moscow Patriarchate (and the Readings, as a place of assembly and exchange of experiences and ties), a rewards system (ROC awards and, less commonly, Church fund prizes), and with the dissemination of Borodina's textbook and similar publications, unique methodological material. If necessary they can appeal to Orthodox public organizations (representatives of which are obligated to participate in the Readings), whose ranks are not so large but clearly larger than the institutionalized liberal groups (the example of the trials of the Sakharov Museum workers is instructive in this regard). Their views will also be represented in the pages of the federal press, not just the nationalist and communist but completely centrist [press]. In the course of the discussion around the OPK such large publications which are actually read at a regional level as "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", "Tribuna", and "Gudok" spoke out on the side of the Church with sharp accusations against human rights defenders [10]. Although the level of cooperation between Orthodox teachers could still be improved, in the educational field it is an order higher than the liberals have and in the alarmist part of the human rights movement. The situation around Borodina's textbook clearly reflected this situation. Supporters of the OPK could present the court with dozens of "expert opinions" from people with academic degrees supporting their point of view against a single one written by a liberal (the quality of the expert opinions is approximately the same).

It is for this reason that each successive "pulling of the ROC tiger's tail" by human rights defenders and liberals can have increasingly unpleasant consequences for the movement. Liberal groups not only do not have opportunities to mobilize their supporters but in practice also do not any idea about [their] opponents and their capabilities and accordingly cannot adequately calculate the consequences of their actions and prepare for an alternate development of the situation. Reasoning to the atheist consciousness of post-Soviet citizens (which has grown intensively in recent years thanks to the dogmatic activities of the ROC) which is periodically peculiar to liberals by not having (or rather being unprepared for) logical and legal arguments does not always work, especially since ROC supporters quite intensively learn ways to use legal mechanisms to justify their actions. ROC supporters now already have quite sufficient legal (not to mention demagogic and political) arguments in response to the proposition which seems indisputable to liberals about "separation of Church and state". This is why further struggle against the clericalization of education and Russian public life ought to be waged not just by creating much broader coalitions and increasing the level of coordination between their members but also on the basis of a much more thorough, convincing basis.
____________________________________________________________________

[1] This higher educational institution was founded in 1992 in Moscow on the basis of the courses of catechizers. At the present time it is the primary Church educational institution for laymen.

[2] The Problems of Orthodox Education Today; an Interview with Archpriest Vladimir Vorob'yev. Voskresnaya Shkola (Moscow).

[3] "We Are Seeking Rapprochement [idem k sblizheniyu]…"; a Conversation with Father Superior Ioann (Ekonomtsev), Chairman of the Department of Religious Education and Catechism of the Moscow Patriarchate. Rus' Derzhavnaya. Moscow. 2002. N? 2 (69).

[4] A Final Document about Orthodox Education in Russia is Adopted at a Roundtable in the State Duma; Pravoslavie.ru website. 2001.24.01

[5] We know more than 10 places where they have been conducted: Vladivostok, Vologda, Vytka, Kemerovo, Michurinsk, Perm', Rostov-na-Donu, Samara, Smolensk, Tol'yatti, and Alma-Ata, but in all likelihood this is not a complete list. Similar readings were conducted in 1997-1999 in a minimum of five regions.

[6] Given minimal real contact between modern-day Russians and the Slavic population of Europe such study (moreover actually at the beginning of the course) is really directed at overcoming the linguistic divide between the language of the citizens of the country and the language of Orthodox prayer.

[7] Report of A. V. Borodina, methodologist of the Moscow Institute for Open Education of the MKO [Moscow Education Committee] (formerly the MIPKRO), at the Tenth International Christmas Readings. Subject Area [Napravlenie] 1.3. "Orthodox Values in the Modern School". Federation Council Chamber, Ul. Novyy Arbat, 19. 31 March 2002; Alla Borodina's website.

[8] See, for example, A. Andreyev, Ye. Elbakyan. Theology and Religious Studies in Modern-Day Russia. "New Scientific and Educational Specialties" have the nature of a rigid denominational orientation; NG-Religii. 2000.28.06. Ye. Elbakyan. Doctor of Philosophy. Executive Secretary of the magazine "Religiovedenie [Religious Studies]", Editor of religious studies for the Great Russian Encyclopedia. The standard and the famous Orthodox theologian have been subjected to sharp criticism. See Ioann (Pavlov), Father Superior. An Unsuitable Standard. Notes on the State Standard in the Specialty of Theology; NG-Religii. 2000. 28.06. Unmentioned and perhaps the most interesting and detailed article on this question: A. Soldatov. "Secular Theology": the Science About How to Teach Faith Without Becoming a Believer; Otvetstvennyye Zapiski. 2002. N? 1.

[9] A scientific analysis of the content of the textbook was made by the scientific adviser to the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanities University (Moscow) by Doctor of Philosophy N. V. Shaburov and is accessible at the "Religiya I SMI [Religion and Mass Media]" website.

[10] See, for example: D. Lysenkov. Who Is Agitated by "The Principles of Orthodox Culture"?; Tribuna. 2004. 19.02.

Nikolay Mitrokhin

Translated by Gary Goldberg

top