It is necessary to theologically comprehend the entire experience of the Russian Orthodox Church in the years of persecution in a broader sense. A clear and unambiguous answer must be given to the question of so-called "Sergianism." Do we consider the course of loyalty to the godless regime taken by the holy Patriarch Tikhon in the last years of his life and continued by Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius to be a forced compromise that deserves condemnation from the point of view of ecclesiastical acrivia, or do we recognize it as the only correct line for that time, which ensured the survival of the Church in the difficult and tragic years of the Leninist-Stalinist terror? Should we repent before the hierarchs of the Church Abroad, as they demand, for having tried with all our might to survive under the conditions of an atheistic regime while they were prosperous in the free West, or should we boldly say that there was no "Sergianism" and that "Sergianism" is a myth created by the ill-wishers of the Russian Church in order to discredit her? Is not "Sergianism" the same position taken by the Apostles, who called for prayer for the Tsar (i.e., the Roman Emperor, a pagan and persecutor of Christianity), which was occupied by the Byzantine hierarchs, who sought a "symphony" between the Church and the state, which was occupied by the Patriarchs of Constantinople during the years of Turkish rule? I would like to see a clear theological answer to all these questions and for this answer to put an end to all the ferment that is taking place in our country around this topic.

In a word, it is necessary to determine all the points of the modern history of the Russian Orthodox Church, to comprehend everything that happened to our Church in the 20th century. Only then will we be able to enter the 21st century with a clear vision of where the Church should be headed.

2. The Heritage of Russian Theological Science

Another important task is to comprehend the rich heritage of Russian theological science. At the beginning of the 20th century, our theological science stood at the level of Western science, and in some areas surpassed it. The works of Russian scholars, professors of theological academies, in the field of biblical studies, patristics, church history, liturgics, and in many other areas have not lost their value to this day.

After the revolution, theological science in Russia practically ceased to exist for several decades. The theological schools revived in 1943 did not set themselves the task of restoring theological science in all its pre-revolutionary volume. The task was much more modest: to prepare pastors to fill priestly and episcopal vacancies. The works of pre-revolutionary authors continued to be used as teaching aids; Modern theological literature was practically inaccessible to our theological schools. This situation persists in theological seminaries and academies to this day.

Meanwhile, in the West, theological science did not stand still. A tremendous leap was made in the field of biblical studies: critical editions of the texts of the Holy Scriptures appeared, many monographs, studies, and articles were written on individual books of the Bible, on biblical history, and on biblical theology. Much has also been done in the field of the study of the patristic heritage: multi-volume critical editions of the Fathers have appeared, on the basis of which patrologists can work. Many other branches of theological science have risen to a new level thanks to the discovery of new sources and the emergence of more modern methods of research. All this wealth remained practically inaccessible to our theologians. Only in recent years have we begun to have research in the field of biblical studies and patristics that takes into account the achievements of modern Western science.

While Russian theological scholarship in Russia itself was completely destroyed, it continued to exist in the West, in emigration. It was there that it was possible to build a bridge between Russian pre-revolutionary and modern Western science: this bridge was the theology of the Russian Diaspora – the works of representatives of the so-called "Paris School". Finding themselves in a foreign land, these scholars continued the traditions of Russian theology on a new soil, in new conditions. The face-to-face encounter with the West turned out to be very fruitful for them: it mobilized their forces to comprehend their own spiritual tradition, which had to be not only defended from attacks, but also presented to the West in a language it understood. The theologians of the Russian Diaspora coped with this task brilliantly. It was thanks to their labors that the Western world learned about Orthodoxy, about which it had previously known only by hearsay.

Moreover, it was by finding themselves in the West that the representatives of the "Paris School" were able to overcome what Florovsky called the "Western captivity" of Russian theology. This "captivity," which began as early as the seventeenth century, fettered Russian theological thought for almost three centuries and held it in the bonds of Latin scholasticism. It was possible to free oneself from it only by returning to what was a truly Orthodox tradition, to the patristic sources of Russian theology. And the representatives of the "Paris School" also managed to do this.

In the theology of the "Paris School" I would single out five most notable trends, each of which was characterized by its own sphere of interest and its own theological, philosophical, historical and cultural attitudes. The first, associated with the names of Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern), Archpriest George Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) and Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, served the cause of the "patristic revival": placing the slogan "forward to the Fathers" at the forefront, it turned to the study of the heritage of the Eastern Fathers and revealed to the world the treasures of the Byzantine spiritual and theological tradition (in particular, the works of St. Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory Palamas). The second trend, personified, in particular, by Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, has its roots in the Russian religious renaissance of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: the influence of Eastern patristics was intertwined with the influences of German idealism, the religious views of Vladimir Solovyov and the priest Pavel Florensky. The third trend prepared the ground for a "liturgical revival" in the Orthodox Church: it is associated with the names of outstanding liturgists, Archpriest Nikolai Afanasiev and Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann. The fourth trend was characterized by an interest in the comprehension of Russian history, literature, culture, spirituality: G. Fedotov, K. Mochulsky, I. Kontsevich, Archpriest Sergius Chetverikov, A. Kartashev, N. Zernov can be attributed to it, to limit ourselves only to these names. Finally, the fifth trend developed the traditions of Russian religious and philosophical thought: its representatives were N. Lossky, S. Frank, L. Shestov, and Archpriest Vasily Zenkovsky. One of the central figures of the "Russian Paris" was N. Berdyaev, who did not belong to any of the trends: he considered himself not a theologian, but an independent religious philosopher, but in his work he touched upon and developed many key theological topics. Such outstanding spiritual writers as Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh and Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) also stand apart.

Representatives of the "Paris School" created a whole library of works on theology, religious philosophy, Church history, and the history of spiritual culture: all these books are now available to Russian readers. However, can we say that the seeds planted by the theologians of the Russian Diaspora brought their shoots to the reviving Russian Church? Can we say that this theology has been introduced by us or at least appreciated? I will not touch upon such phantasmagoric stories as the sensational burning of the books of Fathers Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff by people who, apparently, have never read them. Nor will I speak of the criticism of the theologians of the "Paris School" that is heard from the circles of Orthodox fundamentalists, fighters "for the purity of Orthodoxy": with rare exceptions, this criticism comes from incompetent, unprofessional and uneducated people. I will tell you about something more important. The works of the theologians of the "Paris School" are popular among the intelligentsia, but are not systematically studied in theological schools, which prefer to build their curricula according to the old models of the 19th century. These works have not yet entered the circulation of today's Russian theological science. The "patristic revival" advocated by Florovsky and Lossky, and the "liturgical revival" that Afanasiev and Schmemann had hoped for, have not yet come to us, largely because we have not fully comprehended their legacy.

It seems to me that the legacy of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, one of the most brilliant and original Orthodox theologians of the 20th century, has not been truly studied in our country. The criticism of Lossky and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) against Bulgakov's "sophiology" is far from exhausting the topic and has not put an end to the dispute: it is nothing more than the initial stage of the discussion on the works of Father Sergius Bulgakov, which has not yet really unfolded.

Nor have we comprehended the religious-philosophical trend that the young Losev personified in the first years after the revolution. It was connected, in particular, with an interest in the philosophy of the Name of God and an understanding of the teaching of the "imiaslavtsy", which did not receive a proper theological assessment. The movement of the "imiaslavtsy" was crushed at the beginning of the century by decree of the Holy Synod, but in the pre-conciliar period the discussion about imiaslavie unfolded with renewed vigor. The Local Council of 1917-18 was supposed to make a decision on this question, but did not have time to do so, and the question of the final ecclesiastical assessment of imiaslavie has remained open to this day. I would like to emphasize that this issue is by no means of local importance, and it is interesting not only from a historical point of view. The dispute between the imiaslavtsy and their opponents at the beginning of the 20th century was no less significant from a theological point of view than the dispute between the "Palamites" and the "Varlaamites" in the middle of the 14th century: the imiaslavtsy were the exponents of the centuries-old Athonite tradition of mental work, while the tradition of Russian academic scholarship stood behind the "synodal" theologians. The study of the conflict around imiaslavie can shed a completely new light on the question of the relationship between the "experimental" theology of monasteries and sketes and the "academic" theology of theological educational institutions.

The heritage of Russian theological science opens up the widest field for theological creativity. The pre-revolutionary Orthodox scholars and theologians of the Russian diaspora prepared the ground on which a genuine revival of Russian theology can take place today. It is only necessary to take advantage of the fruits of their labors, put into practice their covenants and continue what they have begun.