I

Anatoly Maximovich Goldberg: Metropolitan Anthony, I recently happened to hear you on television; At that time, you spoke to English listeners about the Resurrection of Christ. And I was interested; because there is, as it has always seemed to me, something paradoxical in the attitude of all Christian Churches to this question. After all, according to Christian teaching, the main thing is not matter, but spirit; And one of the basic dogmas of Christianity is the immortality of the soul. Why does Christianity place such emphasis on the physical Resurrection of Christ and the physical ascension that followed? It would seem that from a Christian point of view this is completely unimportant. Moreover, this is presented as an attempt to give Christianity a materialistic basis, despite the fact that materialism should be completely alien to Christianity.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: This is where I do not agree with you. I think that both the entire biblical tradition and the Christian tradition, which grew out of it and is, from my point of view, its consummation, believe that both matter and spirit exist in man as if on equal principles. I would put it this way: of all the worldviews that I know, Christianity is the only truly materialistic worldview in the sense (of course, I am playing with words a little) that Christianity takes matter seriously; it teaches that matter is not a temporary or accidental frame of man's life, that man is not a spirit that is "embodied" for a time, that the matter that surrounds us is not just raw material for our life, for the construction of the material world, but has a final meaning, and that man is considered not as a spirit stuck in matter, but as a combination of matter and spirit. constituting a single whole.

And what you say next, that Christianity believes in the immortality of the soul, yes, this is true, but in a more basic, deeper sense. Christianity affirms (you will find this both in the Symbol of Faith and in the consciousness of the Christian Church) the resurrection of the dead: it seems to us that the fullness of human existence is precisely the incarnation, and not the disembodiment of floating spirits.

Anatoly Maximovich: Tell me, has this always been the Christian attitude? Because, as far as I remember, they used to say something completely different. I was taught, for example, that in the Middle Ages the Christian Church believed that life on earth was a transitory state; it is, of course, transitory even now, but, in any case, it was believed that this is a less "important" state than what will come after.

Metropolitan Anthony: It seems to me that there are two points here. First of all, for many centuries there has been a several, let's say, expectant, even suspicious attitude towards the flesh among Christians, because it seemed as if the flesh, the corporeality of man, connected him with the animal world, made him something lower than the spiritual being that man should be. This is the later attitude, this is the attitude of the Christian world, which has already somehow lost its primitive, joyful, all-embracing impulse. For example, in the fifth century, one of the Church Fathers wrote that one should never reproach or rebuke the flesh for being "guilty" of human sin, that the sins of the flesh are sins that the spirit commits on the flesh. So the suspicion that has gradually developed in connection with the ascetic attitude, with the struggle for the integrity of man, the awareness that man sometimes becomes heavier under the oppression of his flesh, is not a theological attitude, but only a practical attitude.

On the other hand, there has always been a living faith in Christianity that, it is true, man lives on earth temporarily; it is true that there will be a separation of soul and body; true, there will be a period when the soul will be alive, while the body will lie bones in the ground; but that in the end there will be a resurrection of the flesh and that the fullness of human bliss is not a disembodied spirit, but an incarnate man, after that catastrophe, that event which we call the Last Judgment, the end of the world—call it what you will, after the moment when all is completed and man becomes full man again, and not only half-man.

Anatoly Maximovich: So, if I understand you correctly, the attitude of Christianity to this question has really changed over the centuries; Maybe not in the main, but in the sense that at one time the emphasis was on one thing, and at other times on another? You said that a suspicious attitude towards the flesh is characteristic of the later period of Christianity, that is, of the Middle Ages; Now this attitude has been abandoned, and the flesh and spirit are again considered as equals?

Metropolitan Anthony: You see, to say that now such an attitude has been abandoned, of course, would be a little optimistic; but the basic, primary faith of the Christian Church, of the biblical tradition, is now being experienced and comprehended with new depth and power.

Anatoly Primakovych: I noted your word "optimistically". But in connection with the Resurrection of Christ —

I can explain to you. If it were simply said that Christ should be considered God by virtue of His ethical teaching, by virtue of the sacrifice He made, then some would believe it, while others would not. And in order to convince a larger number of people of this, a reference to some supernatural event was needed — for many people expect a miracle from God.

Metropolitan Anthony: I think that this is historically incorrect; I think that the Christian faith began from the moment when some people – the apostles, several women who came to the tomb of the Savior after His crucifixion and death, an increasing number of people – had a direct experience, that is, a real experience that the One Whom they saw in the hands of His enemies, the One Whom they saw dying on the cross and lying in the tomb – LIVES, among them. This is not a late dogma, it is one of the first things that the Gospel speaks of; this is the main motif, the main theme of the Gospel preaching: that Christ lives, and since He is alive, everything else becomes reliable, plausible; He is really what He said about Himself and what they thought of Him. I think that it is quite the opposite: this is not an argument that was later invented or brought to the consciousness of people to achieve propaganda goals, it is the primary faith, without which the disciples would simply flee like a defeated army, like a dispersed herd, and would have been finally destroyed.

Anatoly Maximovich: A natural reaction, in other words?

Metropolitan Anthony: What does "natural reaction" mean? I don't understand you.