Answer 29

– But still, why does "The Master and Margarita" have more opponents than supporters among the people of the Church?– Name me at least one secular book that would have more supporters than opponents in the Church! The only exception may be, perhaps, the works of Dostoevsky, and, paradoxically, "The Brothers Karamazov" was very much disliked in the Optina Hermitage [1].Judging by those people who thought about "The Master and Margarita" when they were already Christians, it is clear that there are two main currents of church literary criticism. One group of authors believes (quite reasonably) that this is an occultly anti-Christian work [2], and another group of church literary critics, no less reasoned, believes that this is not so. The question is not how to qualify the "Pilate" chapters in the novel – they are undoubtedly anti-Christian. The question is: what was Bulgakov's attitude towards them? And in order to answer it, a huge complex of testimonies is needed: biographical, memoirs, an analysis of the drafts of The Master and Margarita, and for this it is necessary to go beyond the boundaries of the "green-bound book", that is, the novel itself.Personally, I am closer to the position that in The Master and Margarita Bulgakov tried to give a kind of warning against trust in atheistic propaganda. To do this, he used a technique called redutio ad absurdum, when you take the position of your opponents and agree with it in advance, but bring their position to its logical limit, and this limit turns out to be absurd. Bulgakov did not have the opportunity to argue directly with them for censorship reasons, and therefore he wrote "The Master and Margarita", where the eyes of scientific atheism were inserted into Woland's eye sockets, and it turned out that atheism is precisely Satan's view of Christ, and by no means just science. a harsh review of Dostoevsky in the book: Kontsevich I.M. Optina Hermitage and Its Time. Jordanville, 1970. Pp. 598–599. ^Gavryushin N.K. Lifostroton, or Master without Margarita // Gavryushin N.K. Knights of Sophia. Moscow, 1998 (http://www.kuraev.ru/forum/view.php?subj=22970§ion=14). ^

Answer 30

– Why is the statement that Christ is God so important for Christians in general? Many people, such as Leo Tolstoy, were not atheists, but broke with the Church precisely because of this point of its doctrine. Why do Christians insist that Jesus is not just the best teacher of morality, not just a great and intelligent man, but God Himself?– You know, modern humanity is obsessed with the idea of contacteeism: they really want to find extraterrestrial civilizations. When you ask enthusiasts of these projects: "Why?" they exclaim: "But it's so joyful to know that we are not alone in the universe!" I will say the same about Christianity. It is also vital for Christians to know that we are not alone in the universe, that God is not indifferent to us. It is important for us to know that in the eyes of God, the Creator of the entire universe, we are not abandoned, that we are not some bastards swarming on the outskirts of the universe. The meaning of our life is given by the fact that God did not send us some kind of messenger, but came to us Himself. It turns out that in the eyes of God, we mean something. Remember Dostoevsky's Captain Kopeikin, who said that "if there is no God, then what kind of captain am I?" It's the same here: if there is no God, then we are really just cosmic mold covering the rock that is rushing along the outskirts of the Milky Way. Or, to put it another way, if God does exist, but He has never incarnated, has never become the same person as we are, then in the eyes of this God we are of no value, He did not come to look for us. And if God did not seek us, then why should we look for such a God, since He does not care about us anyway?In addition, it is vital for Christians to know that Jesus is not a creature of the earth, not just one of the great men who created human culture. Because the things that we can create, we can also destroy. And it is important for Christians to know that something indestructible has entered our lives. Something that not only could not collapse itself, but can also save us from destruction. Everything that man creates is subject to decay, so it is important that something superhuman has entered our life and made it imperishable. There is physical, biological death, and there is the death of the soul, which suffocates without God. It is this airless space of the pagan world that Christ filled with Himself, that is, now, when the soul leaves the body, it does not go into emptiness – it goes to God.The desire of many people to see Christ as an ordinary teacher of morality is very understandable. The fact is that Christianity, the Gospel and the world of the Church in general are a world of imperatives, a world of ethics that has the power to execute judgment on a person. Moreover, it is not just a judgment that you yourself make in your conscience over yourself. Christianity is a living tradition, it can refute the false visions of its teaching. Therefore, it is more difficult to remake it in accordance with one's tastes, to adjust it to oneself, as one can do with some "dead" religion.A person understands perfectly well that when he comes into contact with the world of the Gospel, he exposes himself to the arrows of imperatives, commands, and strict demands: from the Gospel text itself, from his conscience, and even from the Church. Of course, he tries to avoid such a situation, but in order not to "quarrel" with Christ at all, such a person pats Him on the shoulder in a friendly way and says: "Yes, I admit that You are a great teacher and a man of high morals." But in fact, he does what can only be called "the kiss of Judas". This is how Dostoevsky characterized the books of the XIX century, in which it was explained that Jesus, of course, is a great man, but not God. But in fact, such recognition means only one thing – we once again bury Christ, we bury Him in the tomb of history, carefully immur Him in it, so that He does not come out of there and invade our lives. People proclaim Christ to be the "Great Teacher of mankind" precisely in order to stop learning from Him.The logic of these non-disciples (or non-students) is simple: since Christ is not God, then the Church founded by Him has nothing to do with God. Accordingly, the books proclaimed by the Church in the name of Christ have no Divine dignity behind them. Then the fairy tale begins that all the Gospels have been corrected, and most importantly, the real Gospel is stored somewhere in Tibet. Man has embarked on the path of constructing Christianity on the principle of "do it yourself". Then the censorship of the Gospel begins: "This is what Christ could not say, because I do not agree with it, but this is undoubtedly His idea, because I like it. And, in general, you know, I think Christ should have said this in this place, because this is my deepest conviction. In fact, He said this, but the subsequent censors simply cut it out."As a result, it turns out that, having proclaimed Christ simply the Great Teacher, a person himself begins to teach Him: what He could do and what He could not. Leo Tolstoy followed this path. He just began to censor the Gospel. He forbade Christ to be resurrected, forbade Him to work miracles, and even more so forbade Christ to take up a whip in order to drive the merchants out of the temple.

Answer 32

– For a person who is far from theological discussions, disputes about the nature of Jesus Christ, about the relationship between the Divine and the human in Him, often seem to be internal "showdowns" between confessions, between trends in Christianity. Is all this dogma really so important for a person who just wants to love Him?– Yes, these are indeed our internal "showdowns", but I do not see anything bad or unnatural in them.

But the appearance and operation of these devices is a direct consequence of discussions among physicists. The same can be said about theology, because the consequences of disputes between theologians are very important not only for those who participate in them, but for the entire human civilization. When there is a beautiful building, we only see what is outside: walls, cladding, frames, and so on. But all this is held together by powerful internal supports, a frame that is not visible to us. The edifice of our civilization is also based on certain pillars and supports, which were created, among other things, in theological discussions, and if even one pillar fails, the whole edifice begins to skew, and if two or three of them are broken, the building will collapse altogether. One of the first disputes in theology was the dispute about whether to consider Christ like God or one with Him. People who received the name of Arians asserted that Christ was not God, that He was not of the same essence with God the Father. In Greek, the dispute was over a single letter: the single one was "omo", and the similar one was "omi". Moreover, this last sound was transmitted by two letters: oi. So, if only the Church had inserted into the dogma this smallest, inconspicuous letter of the Greek alphabet – iota (i), then this novelty would have emptied all the museums of the future Europe.The logic would have been as follows: if Christ is not God, then it means that God did not come to people. He remained incomprehensible, transcendental and invisible in the Old Testament. In this case, the world of Christianity would have become the world of an impersonal God and, as in Islam or Judaism, the ban on His image would have gained full force. There would have been no Andrei Rublev, no Michelangelo, no Rembrandt; there would be no painting either sacred (icon) or secular, as there is none, for example, in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. So all the "unnecessary" theological disputes, as it turned out, directly affect the life of each of us. This is an honest statement of the Gospel facts. Dogma stands guard over the Gospel, so that nothing is lost from there. Some people, reading the Gospel, see only God in Christ and do not notice His humanity, while other people, reading the same Gospel, see in Christ only the Son of Man and do not notice God in Him. And the dogma says: "No. Let's take the Gospel in its entirety: Jesus Christ is both God and man at the same time. How? Many people are afraid of the word "dogma," but one can just as well be afraid of the word "relics." Let me remind you that from Church Slavonic this word is translated as "bones", "skeleton". By the way, Chesterton said that the call to free Christianity from dogma is akin to the call to free me from my bones [1]. The other day I read in a fine Puritan magazine, "Free Christianity from its ossified dogma, and you will see that it is simply a doctrine of the Inner Light." With the same success it is possible to free a person from bones" (Chesterton G.K. Orthodoxy // Chesterton G.K. Vechnyy chelovek. M., 1991. P. 412). ^

Answer 33

– If we assert that Christ is God, that He is sinless, and human nature is sinful, then how could He become incarnate, was it possible? Man and sin are not synonymous. Yes, people have transformed God's world into a catastrophe as we know it. Yet the world, the flesh, and humanity in themselves are not something evil. And the fullness of love is to come not to the one who feels good, but to the one who feels bad. To believe that the incarnation will defile God is like saying: "Here is a dirty barracks, there is disease, infection, ulcers, how can a doctor risk going there, he can get infected?!" Christ is the Physician Who came to the sick world.The Holy Fathers gave another example: when the sun illuminates the earth, it illuminates not only beautiful roses and flowering meadows, but also puddles and impurities. But the sun does not defile because its ray falls on something dirty and unsightly. In the same way, the Lord did not become less pure, less Divine because He touched man on earth, clothed Himself in his flesh.

Answer 34

– How could a sinless God die?– The death of God is indeed a contradiction. "The Son of God died is unthinkable, and therefore worthy of faith," wrote Tertullian in the third century, and it was this saying that later served as the basis for the thesis "I believe because it is absurd." Christianity is indeed a world of contradictions, but they arise as a trace of the touch of the Divine hand. If Christianity had been created by people, it would have been quite straightforward, rational, and rational. Because when smart and talented people create something, their product turns out to be quite consistent, logically qualitative.At the origins of Christianity were, undoubtedly, very talented and intelligent people. It is equally certain that the Christian faith turned out to be full of contradictions (antinomies) and paradoxes. How to combine this? For me, this is a "certificate of quality", a sign that Christianity is not made by hands, that it is a creation of God.From a theological point of view, Christ as God did not die. The human part of His "make-up" went through death. Death occurred "with" God (with what He received at the earthly Nativity), but not "in" God, not in His Divine nature.

Answer 35

– Many people easily agree with the idea of the existence of one God, the Supreme, the Absolute, the Supreme Mind, but categorically reject the worship of Christ as God, considering it a kind of pagan relic, the worship of a semi-pagan anthropomorphic, that is, human-like, deity. What is the difference between these two concepts?– For me, the word "anthropomorphism" is not at all a dirty word, as many people are used to perceiving it. And when I hear an accusation like "your Christian God is anthropomorphic", I ask to translate the "accusation" into understandable, Russian, and then everything immediately falls into place. I said: "Excuse me, what are you accusing us of? Is it that our idea of God is human-like, human-like? Can you create a giraffe-like, amoeba-like, Martian-like idea of God?" We are human beings, so whatever we think about – a blade of grass, the cosmos, an atom or the Divinity, we think about it in a human way, based on our own ideas. One way or another, we endow everything with human qualities.Another thing is that anthropomorphism can be different. It can be primitive: when a person simply transfers, projects all his feelings, passions on nature and on God, without understanding this act of his. Then we get a pagan myth.Christian anthropomorphism knows about itself, it is noticed and thought out, it is realized. And at the same time, it is experienced not as an inevitability, but as a gift. Yes, I, a man, have no right to think about the incomprehensible God, I cannot claim to know Him, much less express it in my horrible little language. But the Lord, out of His love, condescends to clothe Himself in the forms of human speech. God speaks in words that are understandable to the nomadic nomads of the second millennium BC (which were the ancient Hebrew forefathers: Moses, Abraham). And in the end, God even becomes Man Himself.Christianity begins with the fact that God is incomprehensible. But if we stop there, then religion, as a union with Him, is simply impossible. It will be reduced to a desperate silence. Religion acquires the right to exist only if this right is given to it by the Incomprehensible out of the desire to be found. Only when the Lord Himself goes beyond the boundaries of His incomprehensibility, when He comes to people, then the planet of people can acquire religion with anthropomorphism inherent in it. Only Love can step over all the boundaries of apophatic decency.If there is Love, then there is a Revelation, an outpouring of this Love. This Revelation is given to the world of people, creatures who are quite aggressive and incomprehensible. This means that it is necessary to protect the rights of God in the world of human self-will. This is what dogmas are for. Dogma is a wall, but not a prison wall, but a fortress wall. It protects the gift from barbarian raids. In time, the barbarians will also become the guardians of this gift. But first the gift has to be defended from them.And, therefore, all the dogmas of Christianity are possible only because God is love [1].1 Jn. 4, 8.– Ed. ^

Answer 36