An important factor that contributes to the expansion of the spiritual and scientific-theological horizon of students of Orthodox theological schools in different countries is the exchange of students between these theological schools. It seems to me that such exchanges should be put on a more regular basis.It is no less important to send students to study theology in secular and non-Orthodox educational institutions abroad. In this sense, I would like to cite the example of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which annually sends students to the best universities in the world, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Princeton, Harvard, Tübingen, Heidelberg. The leadership of our theological educational institutions does not like to send people to study abroad, especially to the West, for fear that students there will become "Catholicized." But what is the price of Orthodoxy if it is "Catholicized" at the first encounter with the West? If students become "Catholicized," the teachers of Orthodox theological schools are primarily to blame for this: it is they who have failed to educate students in the Orthodox spirit. Among the Ukrainian priests who have converted to Uniatism in recent years, there are many graduates of Russian theological schools. No one sent them to the West, they were brought up in the spirit of irreconcilability and fanaticism, but they took it and "Catholicized"! So, the problem is not that we will send students to study in the wrong place, but that we ourselves are teaching them something wrong.For my part, I believe that we (I mean the Russian Church) should send twenty students to the West every year. Even if three of them do not want to return to Russia, and two of them become "Catholics," fifteen will return and teach in our theological schools. With this approach, our theological scholarship will change significantly for the better within ten years.

5) Physical Education

In the Russian theological school, the physical education of students is neglected as something fundamentally incompatible with "spirituality." As a result, students leave the theological school with various illnesses and ailments, which they do not manage to get rid of during the rest of their lives. In one of the largest theological seminaries in Russia, students do not have table lamps on their desks. Those dim lamps that hang on the ceiling 5 meters high and half of which usually do not work are clearly not enough. Students sit in the classroom for 9 hours a day: naturally, their eyes fail and their eyesight weakens.Not to mention the fact that in some theological seminaries, students sleep in barracks for ten, twenty, or even more people, which also has a devastating effect on their health. I am not talking about the fact that in many theological schools the nutrition of students who leave the seminary with gastritis or other stomach diseases is extremely unsatisfactory. I understand that not every seminary is able to provide students with accommodation and good food, but it seems to me that more could be done in this respect than is being done now. Seminarians should have a volleyball or football field, and should have the opportunity to visit a swimming pool.For those who think that sports are incompatible with spirituality, I would like to remind you of the words of Clement of Alexandria: "... Gymnastic schools are useful for young men... They improve the health of young people... (contribute) to the development of not only bodily health, but also mental health... Of the men, some can... to wrestle, others to play ball, especially in the open air."[1] I remember a student at one of the theological schools who used to run every morning: this caused constant indignation among the administration. And the student was an athlete in the past. He told me that if he didn't run for at least two or three days, his body would swell and his heart would ache.I am deeply convinced that "spirituality" should not be fatal to the body, and spiritual education should not physically cripple people. Therefore, the leadership of theological schools should not neglect the physical education of students. Pedagogue 3, 10. ^

6) Discipline. Teachers' attitude towards students

I would like to dwell on the methods of disciplinary influence that exist in our theological schools. These techniques combine to make up what is commonly referred to as "stick discipline." The basis of the stick discipline is the systematic violence against the student's personality. It is obligatory to attend lectures, to participate in divine services, to go to meals, to "self-study" for three hours daily. As soon as a student sleeps through the morning prayer, his behavior score and, consequently, the amount of the scholarship is reduced. If he misses the prayer two or three times, he is threatened with expulsion from the theological school. Imagine a class that you can enter but can't leave with. Inside, for three hours, students sit chained to their desks. They have already sat in this classroom for lectures from nine o'clock in the morning to three o'clock in the afternoon, and now, from five to eight, they are required to engage in "self-study." In fact, this preparation consists in the fact that someone talks, someone learns the hymns for the Saturday vigil, someone darns his trousers, someone sleeps sitting at a desk. The classroom is noisy and stuffy. Of course, it is impossible to work in such an environment. Why not allow the student to study in the library, or in the garden, or somewhere else in a quiet, peaceful place? No, a student is obliged to "sit out" his three hours in class, no matter what the cost to him.The daily routine in theological schools is built in such a way that the student is practically deprived of free time. But he can't even manage his free time. In order to go out into the city, he must ask permission from his superiors. It can be very difficult to get permission to visit parents who live in another city. Some theological seminaries in Russia are a cross between a monastery, an army barracks, and a bursa of the last century. In the bursa, discipline was enforced by the students themselves: from among them were appointed "senior dormitory" and "senior duty officers" (who monitored the behavior of their comrades outside the classroom), "censors" (who monitored behavior in the classroom), "auditors" (who tested the knowledge of other students), and "seconds" ("a student who, on the orders of his superiors, flogged his comrades") [1]. "Nothing destroys the spirit of an educational institution as much as the power of a comrade over a comrade," wrote Pomyalovsky [2]. It is on the power of the comrade over the comrade that the system of ensuring discipline in our theological school is built. "Assistant Inspectors" are elected from among the students, who monitor the behavior of other students. An assistant inspector has a wide variety of functions, but the main one is that of a whistleblower. The assistant inspector, on the other hand, can use other students as informers: they will inform him about what is happening to their fellows. In this way, students are systematically taught to be mean. If he doesn't like a student, he can regularly complain about him to his superiors until that student is expelled from the theological school. On the other hand, having made friends with the assistant inspector, the student will have a variety of benefits, such as extraordinary dismissals to the city, the right to meet with his girlfriend, etc. If the assistant inspector has great power over the students, then the inspector himself (he is appointed from among the teachers) has almost absolute and unlimited power. At eleven o'clock in the evening, he has the right to enter the room of a graduate student of the theological academy and, seeing him sitting with a book in his hands, turn off the light with the words: "At this time of the day you must be in a horizontal position." The inspector has the right to search the student's room in the absence of the student; has the right to view the books that the student reads and the diaries that he writes. The fate of the student literally depends on the inspector. It is the inspector who makes the verdict regarding the "trustworthiness" of the student. It is on his recommendation, as a rule, that a student is expelled from a theological school.Once I had to attend a meeting of the "educational council" of one of the theological schools. It was about a student I had known before he entered the seminary. The inspector said, "I don't like this student with his soldierly gait. I suggest that he be expelled." I said, "He has a soldier's gait because he graduated from a military school before seminary." The student, at my insistence, was not expelled. But if I hadn't happened to be a participant in the meeting and, so to speak, an unwitting witness to the arbitrariness of the inspectorate, he would certainly have been expelled—not because the inspector didn't like him, and not because he had a soldier's gait, but for "violation of discipline." The concept of "violation of discipline" is so broad that anything can be adjusted to it. If the authorities do not like a student, they declare him a "violator of discipline".In large theological schools, disciplinary sanctions and expulsion from the student body are an ordinary and daily matter. In one of the theological schools, announcements appear on a special board every day either about the lowering of a student's score for behavior (students call these announcements "troparia"), or about the expulsion of this or that student from the theological school (the so-called "dismissals"). It costs the administration of theological schools nothing to expel from the seminary a person who has studied for four years, a month before the final exams.There are two traditional terms borrowed from the monastic tradition, with the help of which violence is carried out against the person of a student in theological schools. These terms are "obedience" and "blessing." Academic authorities operate with them in a variety of situations. A student is obliged to do everything "according to obedience" and "with a blessing."Another term that is abused by the authorities of theological schools is "humility." The ancient monastic tradition of the Church knew the verb "to humble oneself"; In theological schools, another verb is much more common: "to humble." The bosses "humble" students in a variety of ways. In the pre-revolutionary bursa, students were flogged. Nowadays, physical punishment and torture are forbidden, so students are flogged morally. An inspector, or assistant inspector, may summon a student and subject him to a humiliating interrogation about certain aspects of his or her private life. Another way to "humble" an obstinate student is to move him from one room to another every three days, "so that he does not forget where he is." In one provincial theological seminary in Russia, the lesson begins with the teacher (by the way, a priest) reading out a list of students present in the class, while deliberately distorting their names (for example, "Smurnov" instead of "Smirnov", "Suchkin" instead of "Suchkov", "Pokhabnov" instead of "Pakhomov", etc.). And this is done with the sole purpose of humiliating, insulting and... I would like to remind such would-be teachers and would-be humblers of the words of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: "One of the mistakes... It is to inspire humility in a person by trampling him well in the mud. You can't get humility in this way, because no matter how much you are trampled in the mud, even if you are really a worm, you try to get out from under the thumb and only begin to get angry at the one who tramples on you."[3] The psychological pressure experienced by students of theological educational institutions is so strong that some seminarians are forced to consult a psychiatrist. Do not humiliate the student, do not "humble" him, do not mock him, do not use your official position to abuse his personality, do not try to trample him in the mud, do not seek to break him spiritually. After all, you will have to answer for everything, if not in this life, then certainly in the next. A student is a human being just like you. It is necessary to communicate with him on an equal footing. He should be called by "You", not by "You"; by first name, not by last name. He must be respected and loved. Don't think that by artificially creating a chasm between yourself and your students, you are gaining more respect for you. Students love those teachers who do not show their superiority in anything. True respect and true love can only be mutual: they are never one-sided.The late Father John Meyendorff was respected and loved not only for his extensive knowledge and encyclopedic scholarship, but above all for his ability to treat students as equals. He did not "humble" anyone, he did not exalt himself over anyone. By the way, he did not avoid informal communication. Once a week, students of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary gathered at his home for a beer and talked about theological and other topics. I am not urging teachers of theological schools to drink beer with students, but it seems that there is nothing shameful in inviting students for a cup of tea. A new approach to the student is needed—one that is more sober, more respectful, more humane, more Christian. The system in which the inspector and his assistants enjoy absolute power over students should be abolished. The "power of comrade over comrade" must be eradicated. Violence against the personality of a student in a theological school is unacceptable. On the threshold of the 21st century, it is impossible to use medieval methods of education. Pomyalovsky. Essays on Bursa. P. 245-246. ^ Essays on Bursa. P. 246. ^ About the meeting. St. Petersburg, 1994. P. 176. ^

7) Monastic presence in a theological school

I would like to say a few words about the role of monasticism in the education of future clergymen. As a rule, in our theological seminaries, monks hold leading positions – rector, vice-rector, inspector. There are many monks among the teachers. In addition, some seminaries are in the immediate vicinity of monasteries. Students have the opportunity to turn to experienced elders for spiritual guidance, to attend monastic services, to come into direct contact with the centuries-old tradition of Orthodox monasticism, and to meet face to face with its best representatives. Some students, after graduating from seminary or academy, choose the monastic path themselves.However, the monastic presence in theological schools also has its negative sides. First of all, I think that in the monastic environment there is a certain traditional distrust of scholarship, a dislike of the sciences. Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern) once wrote about how difficult it is for a learned monk to find a worthy place in an Orthodox monastery: His situation is not only difficult, but indeed tragic... The simple masses are indifferent to science, completely alien to the needs and interests of this learned monk... Such a monk is misunderstood, suspected of being uneasy, untrustworthy, constrained and even persecuted. A typical division appears: "You are scientists, but we are crushed," and, of course, crowding is understood as a necessary plus to salvation, and learning as a direct obstacle. Hence the paradoxical conclusion: obscurantism is a necessary condition for monastic activity... But do humility and prayer preclude science? Does piety interfere with the book and enlightenment?.. Science is just as much a feat; Enlightenment is the same service... One must be able to appreciate the sanctity of scientific achievement... I am not going to talk about why there is widespread distrust of scholarship in the monastic community—this is a topic that deserves a separate discussion. I will only say that some monks consider it their duty to inculcate a negative view of learning in students of theological schools. There are known cases when spiritual monks "did not bless" their spiritual children to continue their studies at the theological academy, since it was "not necessary for salvation." Another negative aspect of the monastic presence in theological schools is that the monk does not always find common ground with the student when the question of the latter's marriage arises. As I have already said, the administration of our theological schools consists mainly of monks. Students, on the other hand, are mostly either already married or preoccupied with finding a bride. A conflict between the monastic administration and the student usually arises when the latter has the misfortune to fall in love. Such a student should be given more free time, make various concessions, and be allowed to go on dates. But all this is alien to the monks, they do not understand it. On the territory of one of the theological schools in Russia there is a "choir director's class" in which girls who hope to become (it seems to be no secret to anyone) "matushkas", i.e. to marry a priest, study. So, a seminarian must ask for a blessing from the inspector-monk every time he wants to escort a pupil of the choir director's class home. If, God forbid, someone informs the inspector that a certain student of the theological seminary somewhere "around the corner" kissed a certain pupil of the choir director's class, there is no way to avoid a formal investigation and a decrease in the score for behavior. Make up your mind and be ordained at once." And the poor student, who has been kept in a cage for four years, begins to feverishly search for his future "mother". But since it is not possible to find her immediately, the inspector-monk (or confessor-monk) advises him to become a monk. And so the student becomes a monk, not because he is called to it, not because his whole previous life has led him to it, but only because he did not manage to get married in time. As a result, there are monks who are unsuccessful: those who later "pull the strings" in the monasteries, i.e., vegetate without joy, without inspiration. Dear brothers! A theological school is not a monastery. Don't discourage students from getting married, don't discourage them from dating. Do not think that by producing unsuccessful monks you are doing a good service to our Russian monasticism. On the contrary, you are destroying it from within. Not to mention the fact that you are crippling people's lives. Let the one who is called to become a monk. For the rest, create normal conditions for entering into a legal Christian marriage. Angels, monasticism, humanity. - Theological Collection. Vol. II. South Canaan, 1955. P. 36-40. ^

8) Piety

The most important aspect of the educational process in theological schools is the education of students in a truly Christian spirit. This is facilitated by daily common prayer in the morning and in the evening, regular attendance at divine services. As the proverb says, "A slave is not a pilgrim." Forced participation in worship and prayer, instead of strengthening a person's faith, can weaken or destroy it. Especially forced confession and communion. And this is practiced in some of our theological schools.I am not calling for making participation in divine services not at all obligatory for students of theological schools. But it is also impossible to force those who, for one reason or another, feel unable to take part in it in any particular case. There should be a thoughtful, differentiated approach. It is necessary to respect a person's personal spiritual life and understand that not always and not everyone is equally ready to meet God. And in any case, a student should go to confession and take communion when he himself considers it necessary. Questions related to confession and communion should be resolved by the student with his spiritual father: the interference of the authorities is completely inappropriate here. The practice of "appointing" a spiritual father to students by the authorities is also inadmissible. The choice of a spiritual father is a personal matter for each student.I know of cases when a spiritual father, being in close relations with the leadership of a theological seminary, reported to his superiors what he heard in confession from a student. There is no need to say that this is a sin for which every spiritual father will be held accountable before God.I would like to remind all those who are entrusted with the care of educating future priests in the spirit of Christian piety, of the great responsibility that we bear before God for the soul of each student. To put it bluntly, neither the compulsion to attend divine services, nor discipline based on fear of superiors, nor the encouragement of denunciation and indoctrination, nor forced "independent" studies in stuffy classrooms – none of this contributes to the growth of religiosity among students of theological schools. Rather. It is no coincidence that the percentage of graduates of theological seminaries and academies who are ordained to the priesthood is falling every year. Some, after graduating from theological school, prefer to remain laymen; More than once I have met students of theological academies and seminaries who told me something like this: "We have come here with such faith, with such fire, with such love for God, with such devotion to the Church, with such a burning desire to learn. We've lost everything here! We have become cynics for whom nothing is sacred."Who is to blame for this? To some extent, probably, the students themselves are to blame, as they did not find the strength to resist the general flow. But first of all, the administration and teachers are to blame for this, who, instead of kindling in the students the fire of love for God and the Church, for learning and spiritual life, extinguished the small flame that was in them before entering the theological school.

Заключение

В 1914 году, заканчивая воспоминания о годах преподавания в Московской духовной академии, содержащие немало критических замечаний в адрес этого учебного заведения, профессор Н. Н. Глубоковский писал:Никому не помня зла, не желаю быть ни суровым критиком, ни холодным судьей, а пишу с любовью благодарного сына, болеющего за мать... В моих словах есть достаточно настоящей правды. Но пусть она ни для кого не будет горькой и никому не колет глаза, поелику это не обличение озлобления и не укор вражде, а скорбный отзвук сердечного соболезнования и душевного благожелания [1].С таким же настроением излагал я выше свои мысли о проблемах и задачах духовных школ на исходе XX столетия. Сказанное мною родилось из глубокой боли о том состоянии, в котором находятся духовные школы Русской Православной Церкви. И если кто–либо узнал себя в моем описании, прошу не обижаться: у меня не было ни малейшего намерения кого–либо оскорбить или выставить на позор.Картина, нарисованная мною, может показаться слишком мрачной. К сожалению, то, что я сказал выше, не является преувеличением: все это списано с натуры. Многое из перечисленного относится к числу болезней роста и, как я надеюсь, будет скоро преодолено. Но чем скорее — тем лучше! Если наши духовные школы вступят в XXI век радикально обновленными, это будет самым лучшим подарком от нас к 2000–летию Пришествия в мир Господа Спасителя.Я глубочайшим образом убежден, что будущее наших Церквей зависит от того, чему и как мы учим пастырей в духовных школах. На преподавателях духовных школ лежит колоссальная ответственность. Воспитывать будущего пастыря — дело священное и прекрасное, но далеко не легкое. Оно требует кропотливого, вдумчивого, многодневного труда. Святитель Григорий Богослов пишет:Кто же способен, словно некую глиняную скульптурку, изготавливаемую за один день, создать защитника истины, который стоит с ангелами, славословит с архангелами, возносит жертвы на горний жертвенник, священнодействует вместе со Христом, воссоздает создание, восстанавливает образ (Божий), творит для высшего мира и — скажу больше! — является богом и делает других богами? [2]В заключение хотел бы обратиться к руководству и преподавателям православных духовных школ. Всечестные отцы, братья и сестры! Люди, которые поступают в духовные школы, в большинстве своем представляют из себя или чистое золото, или золото с серебром. Не дадим этому золоту потерять свой блеск, не будем давить в этих людях ростки самостоятельной мысли, не будем калечить их души палочной дисциплиной, палочным благочестием и бессмысленной зубрежкой. Дадим возможность нашим ученикам раскрыться в полную меру их духовного, интеллектуального и творческого потенциала. Не будем гасить в них огонь веры, но дадим ему возгореться еще сильнее — пламенем, достигающим неба. Не будем бояться, что студент выучит больше, чем мы сами знаем; наоборот, постараемся, чтобы наши ученики нас превзошли. Только так сумеем мы воспитать поколение достойных пастырей Церкви, которые поведут корабль церковный в XXI веке.Хочу также обратиться к студентам духовных семинарий и академий. Дорогие мои братья! Если вам не повезло и вы попали в такую духовную школу, где учебная программа вас не удовлетворяет, не отчаивайтесь: составьте себе свою программу и по ней занимайтесь. Только не теряйте время, не теряйте бесценные дни, которые Богом даны вам для учебы.Если вам говорят, что вы ничего не стоите и что ученость ваша никому не нужна, не верьте этому. Каждый из вас драгоценен в очах Божиих, и от каждого из вас зависит настоящее и будущее Церкви. Православная Церковь задыхается от того, что в ней не хватает богословов, которые сочетали бы в себе глубокие познания в различных областях богословской науки с абсолютной и беззаветной преданностью церковному делу.Если вам внушают, что ваш путь — монашеский, а ваша душа лежит к тому, чтобы вступить в брак, не слушайте непрошенных советчиков. Поступите так, как подсказывает вам голос совести.Дорогие студенты! Изучайте Священное Писание, читайте творения Отцов Церкви, не уставайте пить из «источника знания», который содержится в богатейшем предании Православной Церкви. Изучайте древние и новые языки. Не бойтесь черпать и из сокровищницы светской учености. Но самое главное — неустанно возгревайте в себе тот огонь веры, который привел вас в Православную Церковь и в духовную школу. Не дайте ему погаснуть, даже если все вокруг направлено на то, чтобы угасить его. За тридцать лет (1884-1914). - Церковно-исторический вестник № 2-3, 1999. С. 218. ^ Слово 2, 73. ^

Духовное образование на христианском востоке в I VI веках

Ваше Высокопреосвященство, Ваше Преосвященство, высокочтимые отцы, братья и сестры!Вновь, как и в 1997 году, с большой радостью принял я приглашение выступить на очередной консультации богословских школ, организованной всемирным союзом православной молодежи «Синдесмос». Как и тогда, я выступаю сегодня не как человек, занимающий официальную должность, а как частное лицо, которому, впрочем, далеко не безразличны проблемы, стоящие перед духовными школами России.Эти проблемы я достаточно подробно осветил в своем предыдущем докладе, озаглавленном «Проблемы и задачи русской православной духовной школы» [2]. За прошедшие полтора года в мой адрес поступило немало откликов на него. Очень многие студенты заявляли, что готовы «подписаться под каждым словом» этого доклада, поскольку то, о чем там говорится, полностью соответствует их собственному опыту. Некоторые руководители и преподаватели духовных школ также согласились с основным содержанием доклада. В частности, ректор Костромской духовной семинарии архимандрит Геннадий (Гоголев) в интервью газете «Русская мысль», посвященном теме богословского образования, сказал, что «с удовольствием подписался бы» под большинством тезисов доклада и что, по его мнению, «с этим докладом необходимо ознакомиться всем ректорам новых училищ и семинарий» [3].Впрочем, были и возражения. Кто–то из студентов посчитал, что я слишком «мягко» говорю о проблемах духовных школ и что доклад надо было бы «усилить». С другой стороны, отдельные читатели доклада сочли, что я преувеличил существующие трудности, «сгустил краски». Ректор Московской духовной академии написал весьма критический отзыв на мой доклад, обвинив меня в «небеспристрастном подборе фактов» и «тенденциозных заключениях». В отзыве ректора МДА, впрочем, содержится и положительная оценка некоторых выдвинутых мною предложений:В докладе иеромонаха Илариона, безусловно, правильно определены многие проблемы современной духовной школы. И мы совершенно согласны со многими замечаниями о. Илариона, касающимися организации учебного процесса... Нам представляются совершенно справедливыми и многие конкретные предложения и замечания по учебной программе... Доклад иеромонаха Илариона, безусловно, интересен подобными замечаниями и предложениями. Нам приятно отметить, что многие из них уже рассмотрены рабочей группой по разработке новой концепции богословского образования, представлены на утверждение Священного Синода и частично утверждены.В докладе, прочитанном полтора года назад в Белграде, я призвал к радикальной реформе всей системы духовного образования в России.Должен отметить, что латинский термин «реформа», может быть, не вполне адекватно выражает суть тех перемен, которые нам необходимы: этот термин предполагает изменение форм, тогда как в радикальном преобразовании нуждается само содержание учебных программ и учебного процесса.Если говорить о реформе форм, то она, как кажется, уже началась: запланировано преобразование духовных семинарий в высшие учебные заведения, а академий — в магистратуры с трехлетним циклом обучения; предполагается существенное обогащение куррикулума духовных школ. Однако не ясно, удастся ли при помощи этих нововведений существенно поднять уровень богословской науки и смогут ли улучшенные учебные программы обеспечить устранение недостатков принципиального характера, мешающих успешному развитию духовного образования. Даже если духовные семинарии будут в одночасье объявлены высшими учебными заведениями, в них останутся те же преподаватели, те же учебные пособия, те же академические и дисциплинарные стандарты. Чем же будет обеспечен переход на иную, высшую ступень? Ответ пока, по–моему, не найден.Успех всякой реформы во многом зависит от того, какое видение заключено в ней, какая цель преследуется ее авторами, какая «программа–максимум» стоит за предлагаемыми улучшениями. Иногда создается впечатление, что авторы реформ лишь предлагают отдельные улучшения, но еще не смогли представить новое видение системы богословского образования. При таком подходе радикальная реформа просто невозможна: возможен лишь «косметический ремонт» здания богословской науки.Не могу не отметить и следующее. Всякая реформа в православном понимании представляет собой не столько поиск новых форм, сколько возвращение к старым, проверенным веками традициям, на которых зиждется Православие. Реформа, в которой мы нуждаемся, не предполагает изобретения чего–то принципиально нового. Напротив, нам необходимо вернуться к древнему, забытому наследию богословского образования на христианском Востоке. Как мне представляется, знаменитые школы христианского Востока являлись носителями подлинного духовного образования, и нынешнее положение дел во многом является следствием отступления от принципов, заложенных в этих школах, но вытесненных впоследствии чуждыми Православию католическими и протестантскими влияниями. Может быть, суть требуемой реформы заключается в том, чтобы как можно дальше отойти от схоластических, средневековых подходов к учебному процессу и вернуться к истинно православным традициям богословского образования.Ни для кого не секрет, что нынешние духовные академии и семинарии по своему устройству полностью копируют латинские богословские школы Средневековья. Многие из присущих нашим духовным школам недостатков унаследованы ими от своей «праматери» — Киево–Могилянской академии, устроенной в XVII веке по образцу иезуитских школ того времени. В этой академии «весь план общего образования был снят с иезуитского образца... весь распорядок школьной жизни, все приемы и средства преподавания были те же, что и в коллегиях и академиях иностранных» [4]. Несмотря на прошедшие с тех пор три с лишним столетия, несмотря на все произведенные реформы, коренные недостатки средневековой образовательной системы до сих пор до конца не устранены и не изжиты. И устранить их можно опираясь на опыт истинно православной духовной школы — той, что существовала на христианском Востоке задолго до появления там «латинообразных» богословских школ иезуитского образца.В настоящем докладе я хотел бы рассказать о нескольких «духовных школах» раннехристианского Востока. В рамках одного доклада невозможно дать исчерпывающий анализ всех типов богословского образования, существовавших в христианской древности. Мой доклад и не преследует подобную цель. Мне хотелось бы лишь обратить внимание на некоторые наиболее яркие примеры духовных школ в древневосточной Церкви и вместе с вами подумать о том, что из этого наследия христианской древности мы могли бы применить сегодня, реформируя наши богословские учебные заведения. Доклад на консультации православных богословских школ в Санкт-Петербургской духовной академии, 20-26 января 1999 г. Опубликован в журналах "Христианское чтение" № 18, 1999; "Церковь и время" № 2 (9), 1999. ^ Полностью напечатан в Вестнике РХД № 177. Париж - Нью-Йорк - Москва, 1998. С. 39-82. ^ Русская мысль № 4248. Париж, 3 декабря 1998 г. ^ Ср. Протоиерей Георгий Флоровский. Пути русского богословия. Париж, 1937. С. 51. ^

1. Апостольская община как «духовная школа»