[Radio Liberty: Our guests: Face to face]

Father Alexander Borisov

Karen Agamirov: Our guest is the rector of the Church of Saints Cosmas and Damian on Stoleshnikov Lane in Moscow, the president of the Russian Bible Society, Father Alexander Borisov.

He is asked questions by journalists Eduardo Guedes, Portuguese newspaper De Noticias, and Maria Sveshnikova, online publication Strana.ru.

As usual, first a short biography of our guest. Borisov Alexander Ilyich was born in Moscow in 1939. His path to the temple of God was somewhat unusual. He initially received a secular education, graduating from the biological faculty of the pedagogical institute. He worked at the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and at the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Scientific specialty - genetics. Candidate of Biological Sciences. In 1972, Borisov left his scientific work and entered the fourth grade of the Moscow Theological Seminary. Upon graduation, in 1973, he was ordained to the rank of deacon. Then he was sent to serve in the Church of the Sign of the Mother of God, near the Rechnoy Vokzal metro station. In 1989 he was ordained to the priesthood. And in 1991, by decree of Patriarch Alexy II, he was appointed rector of the newly opened Church of Saints Cosmas and Damian in Stoleshnikov Lane in Moscow, where he continues to serve to this day. Alexander Borisov translated several books from in English religious content, among them - Raymond Moody "Life after Death" (1976), John Powell "How to Resist in Love. Why I'm Afraid to Love" (1980). Borisov is the author of the brochure “The Beginning of a Christian’s Journey” and two collections of sermons “Do You Love Me?” and “Good and Evil in Our Life.” He is married and has two daughters. The works of Alexander Borisov were noted by Dean Father Oleg Klemyshov when he conveyed congratulations to the hero of the day from His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II and presented him with the medal of the Holy Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow, which the Patriarch awarded to Father Alexander. Active preaching of the Gospel, a commitment to open Christianity, and a clear civic position made the figure of Father Alexander Borisov quite noticeable in Moscow secular and religious circles.

Father Alexander, are there any inaccuracies or additions to your biography?

Father Alexander Borisov: There may be additions, but I think it’s not worth dwelling on them now.

Karen Agamirov: Well, during the conversation we will probably come up with some additions. Let's start our conversation. Easter - May 1st.

Father Alexander Borisov: Easter and Christmas are our two most important and wonderful holidays. And as always, when we think about their main purpose and content, it is worth turning to the liturgical text, which is called the church word “troparion”, and in it we always find the answer that we are celebrating what happened. I think that the troparion of Easter is known to everyone: Christ rose from the dead, trampling down death by death and giving life to those in the tombs (gave life to those who had already died). And here is really our main joy, that we do not just believe in the life of the soul, the human personality after physical death his body, and we believe that this will be followed by the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next age. And so Jesus is the first to overcome this line separating the present century from the future century, and this future life begins in him. And he calls us into this life, which begins for each of us already here, in this life.

And the most amazing thing is that for this amazing new cosmic life, some completely different turn of existence, the Creator of the world needs us. Christianity is the religion of the God of humanity. God enters into an agreement, an alliance with us people, which is called the ancient word “covenant”. First, it concludes with one people - the “Old Testament” - for the salvation of the human people from Egyptian slavery (Old Testament Easter). And then, several centuries later, he concludes this union - the “New Testament” - with all people at the Last Supper, a few hours before his suffering on the cross and death. And in this covenant, the Lord forgives us for our sacrifices, for the unrighteous things we have done in this life, for the bad things we have done with the gift of life, which is given to every person, every living creature.

And it is in the person of man that nature meets God, it understands the Creator, nature gives an answer to the Creator - either yes or no: either it follows exactly the path that the Lord reveals to it, or it resists God, looking for some of its own paths. This struggle, this germination of humanity in nature, in creation, in the cosmos of divine truth and light - this is the essence of Christianity. And it begins precisely with the resurrection of the Son of God. This is an amazing personality, radically different from all human personalities, from all the founders of religion, precisely in what the Church formulates as the fullness of humanity and the fullness of divinity. At the same time, Jesus comes into life as unnoticed as God is present in our lives in general. It seems to us that nature exists on its own, that God is some kind of idea, perhaps very beautiful, but it is nowhere to be seen if we look superficially. And that’s how the Lord Jesus came—came like us. As a wonderful poet would say later, many centuries later:

"He refused without confrontation,
As from things borrowed,
From strength and miracles
And he became like mortals, like us."

And now, having become the same mortal, having gone through our entire human path, the Creator of the world, as it were, takes responsibility for the freedom that he gives to man. He doesn’t just let us into the world with this freedom: you received a gift, and what you did with it - now for all this you receive the hell that you create. He comes to this human hell of ours, already built for us here on earth, and defeats this death, this human evil. Not because he crucifies his executioners, not because in response to their cries: “Come down from the cross - and now we will believe in you” (if this had happened, it would have been simply horror, killing them right there), but he defeats this evil by resurrection, forgiving his executioners, praying for them and paving this way for us.

The Lord gives us an amazing sign - the sign of the cross. A sign that is popular even among people who may have difficulty explaining why they put this sign on themselves, but it is a sign of a new principle of life, the principle of self-sacrifice. Through self-sacrifice, victory over evil occurs. This principle enters life, enters almost imperceptibly. It exists as something weak, like such a small plant. Nevertheless, Christianity changes the history of the world, a new civilization is created, which seems to be powerless in the face of the elements of this world, human evil, human ambitions, lust for power, everything - and yet, it turns out to be indestructible. And the example of our country is perhaps the best illustration of this. And even now, when Christianity is reviving again in our country, in the souls of our people, when there are many problems associated with its formation, nevertheless, we see that we draw the brightest, most wonderful things from it.

Eduardo Guedes: Father Alexander, I have been to your church several times during the holidays, and what immediately impresses a foreigner is that during the Easter Liturgy there is simply no room for people. A lot of people. And my question is: does this reflect some kind of spiritual revival of Russia? Is this reflected in people's lives or for some is it mainly a holiday only within the walls of the church?

Father Alexander Borisov: I think that a person for whom spiritual issues are indifferent is unlikely to come to a place in which, as you yourself said, it is simply difficult to be due to the large number of people. This means that behind this there is some very important desire to be close to this source of life, near this holiday, to come into contact with it in order to receive some very important impulse for yourself, to carry it into your life, to live with this impulse. Because, indeed, faith in the resurrection of Christ gives a person the most important reason - why we live. Because if a person knows why, then, as Hegel said, any “how” is possible. Then we can endure difficulties, troubles, suffering, misunderstanding, because here before us is the triumph of someone who, it would seem, was completely destroyed and erased. However, after three days this victory begins, and it continues as long as the world stands.

Maria Sveshnikova: You began your story about the resurrection of Christ, about Easter, by reading the troparion. You read the troparion in Church Slavonic, and I think that if we now go out into the street and ask people, they will all say that they heard it. But I’m afraid few people can say exactly what these words mean. I know people who come to church with books that are written in English, and they understand this text better than the one spoken in the temple. Maybe at least such significant services should be translated into a language that is understandable to most people?

Father Alexander Borisov: I think that the issue of translation is indeed very important now, and in part it is already, in general, somehow beginning to be resolved. In any case, we often already see that the apostolic readings and liturgies are read in Russian, and this is correct. Someone reads in Church Slavonic, then in Russian. But I think that some fundamental texts may well be in Church Slavonic, since they are short, and if a person is interested, he can easily get an explanation of the meaning. Just like, say, “Our Father” - after all, we won’t say: “Read the prayer “Our Father.” “Our Father” - this is clear to everyone. By the way, many biblical and church expressions have entered our lives precisely in the church language. Slavic language. When we say the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” we say “Thou shalt not kill,” we speak Church Slavonic. And there are a lot of such examples, which suggests that this has firmly entered into our culture, into our vocabulary even before translation of the Bible into Russian, which ended in 1876.

Karen Agamirov: Father Alexander, is it difficult for you to preach today and communicate with parishioners? Today, compared to what it was two years ago, three years ago, five years ago, ten years ago, what is special about communicating with people today?

Father Alexander Borisov: I would not say that there is any particular difference between what is happening now and what happened in 1995. Now, perhaps, it’s even easier, because the temple has already been restored, all sorts of restoration concerns are already fading into the background (for now, anyway) and more attention can be paid to the creation of a community. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy always emphasizes that it is important for us not only to create churches and their roofs, but it is important to create the inner temple of every person. So in 10 years there have been no significant changes, of course.

But I must say that people still come when something happens in their lives, some tragedy, illness, then people turn. Less often, people turn, say, from a search for the meaning of life, from the fullness of being, from some kind of joy. As they say, until the thunder strikes, a man will not cross himself. But the Church and Christ rejoice in every person, and every person has his own paths. So all this, I think, is wonderful - the coming of each person. Of course, there is always a spectrum in terms of temple attendance. Some people come maybe twice a year, other people come every week, several times a week, and all these frequencies in between. But, nevertheless, I think that the church is beginning to occupy more and more place in our lives.

I was just recently thinking about this problem - to introduce or not to introduce the law of God in school. Well, I'm putting it simply; It is clear that this subject can be called differently - the history of the Orthodox Church or the history of religion and so on, but I think that it is important all the same. For a developing person, it is important to know some historical paradigms, some events that are fundamental to our civilization. And there is a very simple example of this. Let's say that from time immemorial Jewish boys began their education with the study of the Torah, the Pentateuch - we see good results, because they always had very good examples: Abraham - his strong faith; behold, his son Isaac, who almost became a victim of his father’s obedience, God saves him; here is Isaac, who, on the one hand, is a clever and cunning man, but still fears God and seeks the ways of God, for him the blessing of God is very valuable, and other events of the Torah, the Pentateuch. So I think it's important for every generation to know some fundamental elements of history. And this is, of course, a spiritual, religious story. Another thing is how to teach it, who will do it. And here, I think, we can rely largely on the experience of the past, when, say, in pre-revolutionary Russia, the law of God was an optional subject for people of other confessions, but they could go to lessons in the law of God. And many did this, indeed, and this impulse became decisive for their future life.

Eduardo Guedes: Father Alexander, a few days ago President Putin gave his speech to the Federal Assembly, and at the end he emphasized that Russia lacks values, moral values. I don’t know what exactly he was thinking about, but maybe he also had in mind the mission of the Church. Do you think the Church can do something today to make society more just, more moral?

Father Alexander Borisov: Thank you for your very important question. I think that the President touched on a very important topic, because in fact the problem of our society is internal problems each person. These are not so much problems of what kind of president we have, what kind of parliament we have, but what kind of people we ourselves are. Because in a society that puts moral values ​​in second, third, tenth place, no laws, even the best ones, will work. When people do not have some kind of internal respect for a person’s personality, for human life, to human rights, to the idea that each individual has his own boundaries that cannot be crossed, and so on, feelings of responsibility: There is such a book “Spirituality as Responsibility” - a very good title. I think that this is really our problem.

And here we received a very difficult legacy. Because when we say that in Soviet times people were better, they were more moral and so on, then we forget that this morality of the 30s, 40s, 50s was the inertia of the previous still a religious period in the life of Russia. There were still living grandmothers who received education in gymnasiums, read the Gospel, and generally took the baton of the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th - early 20th centuries, which, in essence, was formed on Christian concepts, on our XIX literature century, wonderful Russian literature, which is thoroughly Christian. It is especially powerful because Christianity is not declared there head-on, but implicitly, namely Christian basis. Belinsky’s words that we all came out of Gogol’s “The Overcoat,” that is, out of sympathy, compassion for the little man, is perhaps the most Christian paradigm of the 19th century.

And now we have the inertia of the Soviet period, when material well-being and the desire for it were put in first place. There, the aspirations for this in Soviet society were limited in many ways, but now they have opened up - and freedom is used not in the spiritual plane, for which it also opened up, but in a mainly purely material plane. Money and sex become the main values, the main desired goals. And this is very sad, because you are faced with this humiliation of each other all the time, every day, when a rich man parks his jeep so that a tram with people cannot pass, and a line of trams waits in line for this person to drink coffee, get out, gets into his jeep and leaves.

This is some kind of quintessence of our society, you know. The police, who rob visitors, stop them, take away their money, simply because it is cheaper for them to pay off. I was recently stopped by an Armenian, a decent man, and he understood, apparently, appearance that I could understand him, and said: “You know, the police have now taken all my money, and I should at least get to my friends. I’m an Armenian, we make barbecue at the market. Nothing special.” He asked for 46 rubles to take the metro. I gave it to him, of course. This is a society in which you cannot find ends.

Maria Sveshnikova: Another question regarding the current situation, it seems to me, is quite relevant. Quite quickly after Easter, on Krasnaya Gorka, it is allowed to get married. And today you just don’t hear anything about this. I heard, for example: “In order not to just live like this, we will get married, and when we have completely decided, we will go to the registry office and sign.” However, today we have such a diversity of faiths, and people of different religious beliefs get married. I know for sure that Catholics and Orthodox Christians can get married in an Orthodox church. Are marriages allowed between Orthodox and Protestants, Orthodox and Muslims, and Buddhists?

Father Alexander Borisov: According to the “Handbook of a Clergyman,” published back in 1913, its last edition, a large section is devoted to this issue, and it explains that for many cases in such marriages, special permission from the bishop, the ruling bishop, is not even required. That is, we see that in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, marriages between Christians of different confessions were allowed quite often. But at the same time, a signature was taken on behalf of the non-Orthodox that it would not interfere with the upbringing of children in Orthodoxy. Apparently, many clergymen do not know this now, and therefore prevent such marriages by sending them to the bishop. Perhaps it is right that if a person does not know, it would be better for him to transfer responsibility to the ruling bishop. But I must also say that in our country weddings are still performed in relation to spouses who are registered in the registry office, that is, who are spouses from a legal point of view. It’s just that two people fell in love with each other and came to get married - that doesn’t happen. Because we cannot check whether this person was married, was not married, maybe he is married now, and so on. To prevent these conflicts from existing, our Church has a rule that we marry people who are already in a registered marriage. What is now called a civil marriage (a very funny name), when they say that “we live with one person in a civil marriage,” they mean what is legally called simple cohabitation. Because a civil marriage is a marriage that is concluded in a government agency - the Civil Registry Office (Civil Registration Office). And here, of course, we encounter such difficulties when people who actually live in marriage (that’s also what it’s called), who even have children, want to get married before registering. They seem to understand that they need some kind of blessing from a higher principle, but they are not yet ready to bind themselves with legal ties. We, of course, refuse such people, believing that they do not need to rush, they need to make a firm decision, and then ask for the blessing of the church. Because it is clear that the sacrament does not work automatically, it works when people strive for it, and then it really helps them maintain the path that they began by common consent. It seems to me that it is somehow incredibly difficult for non-believers to live with each other. It’s difficult for believers, and for completely non-believers, in my opinion, even this is some kind of miracle, because there is no higher value with which they could relate their shortcomings, their difficulties. What is marriage? This is when two sinners begin life together. It is clear that everyone has their own shortcomings, vices, and so on, and this requires great art, great help from God, in order, despite this, to continue to exist together. And the main thing, of course (this is a continuation of our previous questions), is that here, too, a lack of respect for human life, for the human personality plays such a destructive role. And people who get married, after some time (usually 7-8 years, and 20-25 years - the next crisis) divorce the marriage because they met another person, he or she loves him and so on, and there is no love here, which means there is no need to live. And people forget that the next generation suffers, children suffer first of all. These traumas that are caused by divorce, they then all come back in the form difficult destinies, in the form of difficult characters, depression, illness, and so on. In general, we must understand that we pass on not only our genes to the next generation, we pass on our moral principles, we pass on the childhood traumas that we inflict on them, and then through their character they pass this on to the next and the next. And I think that the most pressing problems for our lives today are respect for the human person, caring attitude. When a conference is held, “The Sacred Gift of Life” is a wonderful name, but it is important that it not only sounds so declarative, but beautiful phrase, and so that we really think that this is our problem - do we have respect for life, starting from the grass that grows on the lawn under the window, and ending with our children, whom we can cripple with our remarks, pestering, some kind of incontinence, whims and so on.

Karen Agamirov: Do you yourself feel that those in power today have respect for human life, for the lives of ordinary people?

Father Alexander Borisov: Hard to say. In any case, there are many actions that give reason to doubt this. The recent so-called monetization of benefits in this regard greatly undermines trust in the authorities. But I think that the point is not in individuals, but in the spiritual state of the country as a whole. We have difficult work ahead of us, which may require more than one generation. We must understand that in the 30s, 40s, 50s, millions of people were destroyed, and the best people, that is, those who rose slightly above the average level. It was they, not only the party elite, but the peasantry, workers, intelligentsia, clergy - it was they who were sent to these Stalinist camps, where they were shot and so on. And it will be incredibly difficult to restore all this.

Karen Agamirov: You know, I also asked because they, the powers that be, go to church on Easter and stand with candles. Previously it was impossible to walk, but now everyone walks. And their subordinates walk, it has even become, to some extent, a tribute to a certain fashion. What do you think about it? Showing on television how all the famous figures stand in the temple - every year this happens, and people will watch, watch this on television, ordinary people:

Father Alexander Borisov: I feel very good about this. Because I sincerely hope that something can always sink into a person’s heart when he comes to church, one word. There is a wonderful parable from Christ that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a sower who went out to sow his seed, and one fell on the road - birds flew in and pecked it, another - on hard, rocky soil - quickly sprouted, but then withered, the third - where the weeds were - the weeds sprang up and were suppressed, and the fourth - on good soil - and bore fruit a hundredfold. So it's the same thing - people's hearts. Someone, you see, will understand something, something will hook him. In any case, he will understand that here is the center of human life, our history, our civilization. This is what shaped our wonderful culture, our wonderful people, our best representatives Russian history and culture. So I think there's nothing wrong with that.

And to say: here they stand there, and they themselves do this and that: And who among us does not do what is in conflict with our the best sides our nature? Man is a contradictory nature, and why should we deny this contradiction to those in power? They are people too.

Karen Agamirov: But they are precisely endowed with powers on which our lives, the lives of ordinary people, depend.

Father Alexander Borisov: You know, their powers are also limited. Still, there is a certain atmosphere that we all create, and we shift our own problems, our own lack of respect, lack of initiative, lack of interest in the spiritual, in the idea of ​​​​a person, how we should live and why we we live because our president is bad or our parliament is bad - I think this is a very childish reaction. Still, this milestone passes through the heart of every person; we all create the atmosphere of our lives. We need a critical mass of decent people, people who love goodness, loving life who have respect for her. If this is achieved, then the parliament, the president, and so on will change.

Karen Agamirov: Can this be achieved through famous non-resistance?

Father Alexander Borisov: What does non-resistance mean?

Karen Agamirov: Tolerance, Christian commandments.

Father Alexander Borisov: Very often such words are understood in a caricatured version: he’s sitting somewhere in the corner, all shriveled up - that’s a non-resistance. No, we cannot say about Christ that he is non-resistance. He very sharply denounced both religious authorities and secular authorities. “Go tell this fox,” he says about King Herod. He speaks to Pilate respectfully, but without any ingratiation. He says: “More guilt lies with the one who gave me into your hands, and not with you.” I think that tolerance and meekness are meekness before God, before his supreme power and the understanding that the fate of the country and the people is determined by the people themselves. Of course, the role of the individual is enormous, but I think that both Stalin and Hitler would not have existed if the people had not been looking for such a firm hand and would not have supported them right away - now it has finally appeared. Therefore, we still need to treat this this way - tolerantly, to understand that the matter of our spiritual growth and prosperity is the matter of the whole country, and not just the president (we elected him - now let’s take the rap for everyone).

Eduardo Guedes: Father Alexander, perhaps, as a Catholic, I am obliged to ask you this question regarding relations between churches. A new Pope was recently elected, and I was even surprised by the positive reaction, at least from the Department for External Church Relations. How do you currently assess the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches at the official level and at the level of the people?

Father Alexander Borisov: You know, this question is not entirely directed at me, because I do not at all represent the official level of the Church and cannot speak for all the people. But as a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, I think that our future, the future of Christians, is still in dialogue with mutual respect, not in confrontation. Because in the face of the threat of the onset of such a secular liberal world, liberal culture, in front of the threat of terrorism, which calls itself Islamic (although in fact it is clear that Islam is perhaps a sign, and there is nothing religious there at all, just ordinary human envy and aggression), it seems to me that Christianity should still present itself as united churches, as sister churches. It is clear that there are historical and cultural differences, difficulties, perhaps some significant, significant ones, but often these difficulties are exaggerated.

But it is also clear that our country as a whole nevertheless emerged from such a communist mentality, when we presented ourselves as the first country to defeat socialism: we are the best, we are the strongest, we are surrounded by enemies, our problems are because of our enemies. The image of an enemy always stimulates people to unite against someone, but, as was said in the same Soviet publications in the past, all this is aimed at diverting the attention of workers from their urgent tasks. So I think that we should not look for the image of an external enemy, but look for truth, light - and then the relationship with the Western part of Christianity will be better visible.

Maria Sveshnikova: For the last few years, the miracle of convergence has been broadcast almost live on TV. Holy Fire. Last year it so happened that I went directly to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and what I saw was quite a large number of false fools and false blessed ones, such an eastern stirring up of excitement by the Israeli police and Arabs. That is, I cannot say that I saw the descent of the Holy Fire. How should we feel about this miracle?

Father Alexander Borisov: You know, I think there are many folk traditions, which are important to the people where it happened. And, nevertheless, this may be associated with such an emotional overflow, which can obscure the true essence of the holiday. In the end, the Lord told us that we will worship the truth in the Spirit, but this does not reject some details, emerging forms of non-Christian life. Therefore, I think that this should be treated with respect, but with sufficient restraint.

We also have some of our own, Russians, Orthodox traditions, which are also dear to our hearts and constitute, as it were, the external design of this holiday. There is always some important spiritual event that needs external decoration; we are people, we live in the flesh, and all this must be embodied in something. But I think that it may be hardly necessary to specifically chase after these phenomena, but for those for whom it somehow helps to open their hearts to God, the feeling of really some kind of reverence before this event (this descent of fire) is very good , this must also be treated with respect. But it is clear that when there are a lot of people around such an event, the law of large numbers always arises - always a crowd, always a crush, and so on.

Karen Agamirov: Do you feel this miracle will happen in Russia someday?

Father Alexander Borisov: What do you have in mind?

Karen Agamirov: I mean a more or less normal life - this miracle will probably happen?

Father Alexander Borisov: Yes, but I think that actually the idea that it will take several more generations is probably correct. Because so far, the people’s awareness of the importance of the spiritual rebirth of each person is low. Even people who have a positive attitude towards the church sometimes come to church, now, towards the end of Lent, a lot of people came who had not been to church for a year, two, three, ten, sometimes they come for the first time in their lives (this part is noticeable) - even these people who came to church, most of them did not read the Gospel or only read two or three pages. It is difficult for them to read, not because it is in Church Slavonic, now there are a lot of publications in Russian of all formats, bindings, now this is not a problem. It is difficult because this is a different mentality, it is difficult for them to cross this line of secular worldview, from such a materialistic vision around themselves and the materialistic problematics of their own life move on to the spiritual significance of their own lives, the people around them, the world in general, the goals of life and so on, combine, unite this our material embodiment and that spiritual part of us that is in each of us, image and likeness.

And it's hard to understand what the Gospel - this little book is central book of our civilization, a book about which Pushkin said: “There is a book in which every word is read many times, interpreted, applied to the most diverse circumstances of our life, explained. And, nevertheless, when you begin to read it, an inexplicable world descends on the soul "This book is the Gospel." Pushkin's words - for him the Gospel was a book read many times. And for our people who believe that they belong to Russian culture, The Gospel is still “terra incognito” (unknown land).

Karen Agamirov: And in general, probably, many people have not yet grasped the basics of religious education. For example, they go to the cemetery on Easter.

Father Alexander Borisov: You know, this is a legacy of the Soviet era, because, firstly, Radunitsa is a few days later, 9 days later. Then in Soviet times, I remember, in the 70s, especially in the 80s, this process, tradition, that emerged before our eyes, was supported by the authorities. Because it was clear that people wanted to do something spiritual. You can’t go to church - it’s somehow dangerous, and there are few churches (46 - in Moscow, and in other places hundreds of kilometers away), but something needs to be done, not connected with this world, something different, different from this world. What's different? The cemetery, of course. Some kind of appeal to eternity, the resurrection of the dead, and so on. And with all this, people went to the cemetery, took strong drinks with them, and so on. I remember in Moscow buses were removed from their routes, and early in the morning they were already traveling from the River Station to one cemetery, another - a whole event. And for people there was, indeed, some kind of reminder that our life is not connected only with this world, but that there is something else. There is something - and it was fully embodied in this very procession to the cemetery.

Now the Church constantly explains that, no, brothers and sisters, we should not celebrate life on Easter, we should celebrate life on Easter, but we should come to our departed on Tuesday of St. Thomas Week.

Karen Agamirov: And do not distract the souls of the departed. They want to be with God, they say, on this day, and you come:

Father Alexander Borisov: No, I think that nothing bad will happen to the souls of the deceased, but we ourselves still need to concentrate on our souls, that this happened for us, that this is our holiday, and not just the dead. And then go to the cemetery.

Karen Agamirov: The headman of your temple is the widow of Alexander Me, right?

Father Alexander Borisov: Yes it is.

Karen Agamirov: Natalya Fedorovna. And his brother, your classmate Pavel Vulfovich Men, runs the Me Foundation, which is located in your church.

Father Alexander Borisov: Yes.

Karen Agamirov: How relevant is My legacy - open Christianity - today?

Father Alexander Borisov: I think it's extremely relevant. Father Alexander was a man who was in the bosom of the church from childhood, literally from infancy. He was baptized at the age of one or a year and a half, and he was then in the catacomb church, this was before the war, 1936-37. And in subsequent years, he was in this, so to speak, underground church, truly absorbing with his mother’s milk wonderful instructions, services, everything, he knew all this from childhood. He did not, like many people, have a pioneer-Komsomol past, and then they realized that, it turns out, there is Orthodoxy. And that’s why this man was deeply religious, Father Alexander Men. But a man who remarkably combined in himself secular education, the talent of a writer-preacher with this church-going spirit. And in many ways, of course, he was ahead of his time, and such people, as a rule, are not very well understood, which is why such rejection arises.

But it must be said that the ruling bishop, Metropolitan Yuvenaly, always treated Father Alexander with support, supported both his lectures and all his endeavors. Our Patriarch Alexy II quite definitely stated that in the works of Father Alexander there is nothing that would contradict the spirit of Holy Scripture. And if there are any disagreements, then, as they say, “there must be disagreements in order for those who are skillful to be revealed.”

And the misunderstanding occurs due to the fact that now everything is beginning to turn more attention that for the revival of Orthodoxy it is important for us to pay attention first of all to the person of Christ, to Christianity itself. With all the value of our national traditions, customs, our national religious life this should still be in second place, and the person of Christ, Christianity itself, the Gospel, and Holy Scripture as a fixed part of tradition should be the main thing for us. Through this we can gain young people into the church, through this we can pass the baton to another generation. Because life changes all the time, and imagine that we can regain our modern life, church, somewhere in the conditions of the 19th century, of course, naive.

Now there is the Internet, all these means of communication, telecommunications and so on, and I think that in 10 years some things that are now unimaginable will be even more powerfully developed, they will become ordinary. And we must adapt to these conditions. This does not mean that we should change anything important. There is an unshakable, main thing - the person of Christ, the Holy Scripture. That sacred tradition, which was transmitted to us through the experience of our fathers, the experience of the saints, is the main thing, it is unshakable. But we must carry it modern world, and not into some world that we will try to restore from the wreckage of the past.

Karen Agamirov: Well, according to tradition, we must sum up the conversation with Father Alexander Borisov. And I think that we will probably just congratulate you on Easter, congratulate all Orthodox Christians on Easter.

Father Alexander Borisov: Congratulations to all our listeners.

Karen Agamirov: Yes, and we wish them health and all the best. The parish of Alexander Borisov now numbers almost 4 thousand people.

Father Alexander Borisov: Well, it’s hard to say, we didn’t conduct statistics.

Karen Agamirov: And a lot of charitable work is done here. He takes care of two hospitals - the Republican Children's Clinical Hospital and the Institute of Prosthetics, and several orphanages. Three times a week, the temple feeds about 300 homeless people.

Father Alexander Borisov: Twice.

Karen Agamirov: Every day they actually deliver free lunches to the elderly and disabled. There is a charity group that provides assistance to refugees, families with many children, and pensioners. Groups gather to study the Holy Scriptures, Christian church singing, and icon painting. Parishioners also work with prisoners, they write letters, send books and linen to them. This is how it should be in the church, whose rector is Father Alexander Borisov.

(1939) - Moscow priest, figure in the modernist movement within the Russian Orthodox Church, ecumenist and promoter of tolerance. Follower.

From 1958 to 1960 he studied at the Institute of National Economy. Plekhanov. In 1960 he moved to the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute. Lenin. In 1964 he worked in the laboratory of radiation genetics of the Institute of Biophysics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by Academician. N. P. Dubinin. The laboratory was soon transformed into the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Candidate of Biological Sciences. He went to work at the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by Academician B. L. Astaurov.

In the 70-80s. member of the informal Orthodox community, led by Fr. A. Men. In 1973 he graduated from the seminary (and later from the Moscow Theological Academy in absentia) and was ordained to the rank of deacon, where he served in the Church of the Icon Mother of God"The Sign" in Aksinin. Candidate of Theology.

In 1989 he was ordained a priest. Since 1991 - rector of the Moscow Church of St. Cosmas and Damian in Shubin. In 2000, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II elevated Fr. Alexandra to the rank of archpriest.

Member of the initiative group of the “Church and Perestroika” movement (1988). From 1991 to 2010 - President of the Russian Bible Society. Since 2011, President of the Bible Institute.

In 1990-93 - Deputy of the Moscow City Council of People's Deputies, in 1995-97. - Member of the public council of the TU "Zamoskvorechye", in 1997-99. - Advisor to the District Assembly of the Zamoskvorechye district. Member of the Commission on Pardons under the President of the Russian Federation.

Translator of the book by exposed pedophile, Catholic priest John Powell, “Why Am I Afraid to Love?” (publishing house). Translator of Raymond Moody's book Life After Death. Permanent host of the TV show “The Fifth Dimension” (Daryal-TV).

In 1994, at the theological conference “Unity of the Church,” organized by the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s Theological Institute, Fr. A.B. was condemned for religious modernism and ecumenism in his book “White Fields. Reflections on the Russian Orthodox Church."

O.A.B. condemned as "extreme" prohibition of “unmarried wives” from receiving communion by some priests who insist on immediate weddings, because it allegedly pushes people away from the Church, and sometimes destroys “families.”

Major works

Whitened fields. Reflections on the Russian Orthodox Church (1994)

The Beginning of a Christian's Journey (1997)

Good and evil in our lives (2004)

translator of the book: priest John Powell. Why am I afraid to love? M.: Life with God, 2008

Sources

Lyudmila Ulitskaya presented her new novel “Daniel Stein, Translator” at the Library of Foreign Literature // Blagovest-Info. 12/14/2006

O. Alexander Borisov: The Church can use its right to grieve to influence the demographic situation in Russia and // Blagovest-info. 01/24/2008

The rector of the Church of Saints Cosmas and Damian in Shubin, Archpriest Alexander Borisov, has many poignant moments in his biography. IN Soviet years he almost ended up in jail for “dissidence.” In the early 90s he actively campaigned against the State Emergency Committee. Later he wrote a book, “White Fields,” about pressing internal church problems, which caused heated debate. At the same time, the intelligent and calm father Alexander is absolutely devoid of any heroic pose. Here's what he said about the most important moments own life.

How God revealed himself to a lover

Archpriest Alexander Borisov

I was born in 1939 in Moscow. My mother taught drawing at school; she and her father separated before the war. I studied in the same class with Pavel Men, my younger brother (Pavel and I are still very friendly). I became part of their family, saw icons there for the first time, and leafed through the Bible with drawings by Gustave Doré. But then the world of faith was foreign to me. I respected it, but did not seek to enter into it. I had my own world: most of all I was interested in biology.

At the age of 17, I once went with a friend to the Church of the Resurrection of the Word on Bryusov Lane. The service was going on, we froze in the vestibule, and suddenly some grandmother began to scold us: “Why are you standing there? Spies! I had to leave. Thirty-five years later, when I was already the rector of the temple in Shubin, it turned out that our temple icon of Saints Cosmas and Damian was kept in that church in Bryusov Lane. It was returned to us.

After school, he worked as a mechanic, earning experience to enter a university. Fell in love. The girl lived in the Moscow region. One summer I saw her off and, standing on the platform, waited for the train. It was a beautiful summer sunset. Suddenly I felt that behind everything that surrounded me was God. “And if so,” I thought, “then the believers are right.” I ran to my friend Pavel and asked him to read the Gospel. I began to learn prayers and prepare for baptism. Elena Semyonovna Men, mother of Pavel and Alexander, helped me. She became my godmother.

On the eve of baptism, a storm of doubts arose in my soul. I prayed as best I could. I was baptized in the Deposition of the Robe Church on Donskoy by Father Nikolai Golubtsov, who a year and a half earlier had baptized Stalin’s daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva here. He became my first spiritual mentor.

My beloved girl reacted to my faith with bewilderment. And a chill quickly developed between us.

...I understood that faith should not be advertised, it is better to hide it if possible. I remember in 1959, in the afternoon, we went to the “Joy of All Who Sorrow” Church on Ordynka. It was May 1st. Thousands of people were moving towards us - Soviet workers, after the demonstration, were walking along Ordynka from Red Square. And we are going in the opposite direction, to the “Carrying out the Shroud” service. Then there was a clear feeling that we were going against the grain.

How I haven't slept for four days

In 1972, I began to feel that I was living too well. Candidate of Sciences, working at an academic institute, teaching ahead, defending my doctorate... I wanted to be useful in an area that is more important for my country - in the area of ​​its spiritual state. Although I really loved and appreciated my work. “In the end, science will not be lost without me,” I reasoned, “but the Church is precisely that part of our life on which everything else depends.” As a result, he decided to become a clergyman.

There was, of course, a risk here. I consulted with my wife, she is a believer and supported me. Our daughters were in first grade then. But my confessor, Father Alexander Men, tried to dissuade me for almost a year. To my requests he answered: “Christians are also needed in science.” And yet I convinced him.

Entered the 4th grade of theological seminary. On Sundays he served at the altar with Fr. Vladimir Rozhkov in the Church of the Prophet Elijah in Cherkizovo, and then studied in absentia at the Theological Academy. The diaconal ordination in 1973 was difficult. The rector of the seminary, Bishop Vladimir (Sabodan), said that in relation to me “there is high resistance" Apparently, each ordination was approved by a representative of the Council for Religious Affairs.

And yet I became a deacon. Amazing event! I remember that after my ordination I hardly slept for four days and felt great - such was the excitement.

How modest voice data did not hinder diaconal ministry

They started recruiting me while still in seminary. A man called and made an appointment in the lobby of the Moscow Hotel. He said: “I will have the Pravda newspaper in my hands.” For three days in a row they called me and tried in every possible way to persuade me. “You are close to Father Alexander Men, there are a lot of young people around him, there are anti-Soviet sentiments, we need you to tell us.” I refused. They even tried to shame me: “You’re a Soviet man!” Finally they warned: “If this is the case, it will be difficult for you!”

At that moment I didn’t think it was serious. I hoped to become a priest in a year or two. Then every year I submitted a petition to the Patriarch, but delicately refused: there are no priestly vacancies yet, serve as a deacon. I wrote to the Patriarch that I have very modest vocal abilities for diaconal service. He answered delicately: the size of the temple where you serve is also modest... And so for sixteen years.

...There was enough work. Father Alexander Me had many spiritual children, and he began to unite them into small groups. Once a week, 10-15 people gathered at someone’s apartment, talked, read the Gospel, organized evenings, performances for Christmas. Without advertising. I had two or three groups in different parts of Moscow. Plus samizdat. They reprinted the Bible, commentaries, and texts of the Holy Fathers. It was necessary to find a typist, carbon paper, paper, and binding. When the photocopier appeared, they began to photocopy...

I had contacts with the authorities in the form of searches twice. The first one was in 1974. Then an acquaintance of mine, a Catholic priest who served according to the Eastern rite, came to Moscow from Belgium with a group of tourists. He loved Russia very much and knew Russian.

Foreigners had the right to bring one book of the New Testament through Soviet customs under the pretext of studying the Russian language. And so each member of that group walked through with one book. As a result, my friend was able to bring 40 identical Gospels. He collected them at the hotel and brought them to me. Apparently someone saw it and reported it. They came to search me on the same day, a few hours later. These were police officers and prosecutors. “We have information that anti-Soviet literature was delivered to you...” They took away the Gospel, a typewriter, and other books published abroad.

Then they called me to Lubyanka. They say: “You previously had contacts with our employees, you reached mutual understanding...” I answer: “Well, if you consider my refusal to cooperate as mutual understanding, then yes, we reached it.”

They appeared for the second time in 1983, under Andropov. We arrived early in the morning, around seven o'clock. The doorbell rings: “Telegram!” I open: the police, witnesses... Later in the conversation they asked me: “Don’t you believe us?!” - “How can I believe if you deceived me from the very first sentence?” - “This is not a hoax! - told me. “This is a welcome!” We found a notebook in which my wife and I wrote down what we gave to whom to read. Fortunately, all our friends behaved correctly: they said that they had not taken any books from us. After that, they signed a non-disclosure agreement and immediately called me.

There was a real threat, of course. The KGB told one of my parishioners: “If your Borisov wants to become a national hero, we will arrange it for him!” They got angry with me the most when I refused to indicate where the entries in the notebook were made in my handwriting and where in my wife’s handwriting. “Can you recognize the handwriting?” - “I can.” - “Then put a cross next to your notes.” I took the notepad, thought and said: “I won’t.” - "How?!" - “I changed my mind.” The investigator rose up: “You promised! Don't keep your word! So unmanly!” Now it sounds funny, but then it was not fun. The conversation took place at Lubyanka, and refusal could be followed by action. But everything ended peacefully: I was forced to write an “explanatory note” and was released.

Archpriest Alexander Borisov serves a memorial service for the homeless. Photo: Sergey Bessmertny

All goes to good

In 1978, I graduated from the Theological Academy and became a candidate of theology. I hoped that after this I would be ordained as a priest, but I had to wait until 1989.

At times, bitterness appeared in my soul. But now, looking back, I understand that it was right. God gave me the opportunity to participate more in raising children (if I were a priest, they wouldn’t see me at home at all) and simply grow up. I do not regret at all that I took the priesthood at the age of 50, and not earlier. A young priest is sometimes faced with many temptations, an exaggerated idea of ​​himself and his capabilities. This may not be the case for others, but it might have happened to me. Therefore, I am grateful to God that everything turned out the way it did.

Seven facts about Fr. Alexandra Borisov

1. At the age of 30 he became a candidate of biological sciences. His opponent at the defense of his dissertation was the outstanding geneticist Nikolai Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovsky.
2. In the 70s I learned how to bind books. He still keeps dozens of “samizdat” books (mostly commentaries on the Bible) in his home library.
3. On August 19, 1991, he became the author of the Moscow City Council’s appeal to the troops who entered the capital on the orders of the State Emergency Committee. On August 20, he himself went to the soldiers and distributed these appeals and Gospels to them (2000 copies were distributed).
4. His twin daughters are surgeons, worked in Africa, now live in France, maintaining Russian citizenship and Orthodox faith.
5. Doesn’t go to the theater, doesn’t watch TV, isn’t interested in fishing or sports (limited to gymnastics with dumbbells at home), that’s all. free time dedicates to books.
6. In 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Bible Society.
7. He has neither a dacha nor a car. A few years ago I went to church and to church services in a Moskvich, but gave up due to traffic jams and now takes the metro.

An abbreviated interview was published in the Moscow Orthodox newspaper Krestovsky Most. “Krestovsky Bridge” is distributed free of charge to churches and social institutions in the capital.

Archpriest Alexander BORISOV was born in 1939 in Moscow. From 1956 to 1958 he worked as a mechanic, earning the work experience that was then necessary, according to N. S. Khrushchev, to enter a university.

From 1958 to 1960 he studied at the Institute National economy them. Plekhanov.
In 1960 he transferred to the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute. Lenin. In the same year he got married. Has two twin daughters born in 1964.

In 1964, after graduating from the institute, he worked in the Laboratory of Radiation Genetics of the Institute of Biophysics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by Academician N.P. Dubinin. The laboratory was soon transformed into the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1969 he defended his dissertation on genetics and was awarded the academic degree of Candidate of Biological Sciences. He went to work at the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by academician B. L. Astaurov.

In 1972 he left his scientific work and, with the blessing of his confessor, Fr. Alexandra Menya, entered the 4th grade of the Moscow Theological Seminary.

In 1973 he graduated from the seminary and was ordained to the rank of deacon, where he served until 1989 in the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God “The Sign” in Aksinin.

From 1973 to 1978 he studied at the Moscow Theological Academy, after graduating he defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic “Teaching about man from liturgical books.” Candidate of Theology.

In 1989 he was ordained a priest (previously such an ordination was impossible due to the negative position of the authorities).

In 1991 he was appointed rector of the Church of the Unmercenary Saints Cosmas and Damian in Shubin, which was returned by the state to the Orthodox Church. A significant part of the spiritual children of the deceased Archpriest Alexander Men moved to this parish.
In 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Bible Society.
In 1999 he was awarded the medal of the Holy Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow.
On November 14, 2000, His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II elevated Fr. Alexandra to the rank of archpriest.

O. Alexander Ilyich BORISOV: interview

“I DIDN’T WANT TO REALIZE WHEN I WAS OLDER THAT I WAS DOING MEANINGLESS THINGS”

From a passion for biology to the first acquaintance with the Bible

I knew the future Archpriest Alexander Men from childhood, since we studied at the same school in Stremyanny Lane (now Moscow Waldorf School No. 1060), and with his brother Pavel, with whom we have been friends for 68 years, we studied for all ten school years in one class. Even at that time, I chose him and his family for communication and friendship. Of course, Alik - that’s what we called Alexander’s future father back then - was 4 years older, and in school time this difference was quite serious. Therefore, I began to consciously perceive it only from the seventh grade. I remember that he was a wonderful, handsome young man who drew beautifully, was witty and cheerful.

We then had similar interests - he, like me, was also interested in biology. But it so happened that we were in different circles: he was in an organization called VOOP (All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation), which was led by the talented teacher Pyotr Petrovich Smolin, and I was in the KYUBZ (Club of Young Zoo Biologists). I would like to note that the entire generation of biologists from the 60s to the present day were either in the KYUBZ or in the VOOP. These were wonderful organizations: one at the zoo, the other at the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University. They constantly had meetings, trips, reports. At that time, I borrowed books on biology from Alik, and we talked about what we had read.

I visited his family's home quite often. I remember they had a lot of interesting books. In particular, the Bible with wonderful illustrations by Gustave Doré. By the way, this was my first acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures. There were also a lot of icons in their house, however, they were kept in a special box, which was almost always closed in case the neighbors stopped by. This was a very intelligent and pious family: the father worked as an engineer at a textile factory for decorating fabrics, the mother had a philological education, but worked as a draftsman.

In addition to their house, I often visited their dacha, especially in the summer. They had such a dacha, which began to be built before the war and was completed within 10 years after the Great Victory. By modern standards, she may seem very modest and even poor. But then its undoubted advantage was its location - the "Rest" station, a wonderful area for those times. There we relaxed, rode bicycles, walked and just talked about various topics. Then our interests began to converge.

About your spiritual insight

One day, when I was 19 years old, I asked Pavel Me to tell me about “their faith.” Because before that, I knew that their family was a believer, but I believed that this was their personal matter, which did not concern me. We had many common interests besides this: skating rink, bicycle, biology, dacha, etc. And then I already realized that if there is a God - and I felt that He really exists! - then everything this family does is right. I was sure that there was no need to choose different spiritual paths and religion. Since I was born in Russia, it means that God wants me to become an Orthodox Christian. After all, if he wanted me to become a Buddhist, then I would have been born in India. These were the thoughts I had at the time, naive, childish, but completely justified.

From that time on, we began to become more closely acquainted. And if my epiphany occurred at the beginning of June 1958, and already at the end of July I accepted the Sacrament of Baptism, for which Elena Semyonovna, the mother of Pavel and Alexandra, was preparing me - a wonderful woman of very ardent faith. And I was baptized in the Deposition of Robe Church on Donskoy by Father Nikolai Golubtsov, who a year before baptized Stalin’s daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva here. He became my first spiritual mentor. Now, looking back at my life, I can say that Baptism was a rather radical event in my life.

Alik was expelled for believing in God

From that time on, I began to visit Father Alexander, who had already become a deacon, more often. I note that his service became possible thanks to his expulsion from the last year of the Fur Institute. Alik was then actually not allowed to pass the state exams, allegedly kicked out for absenteeism, although the main reason was that they found out that he was a believer. But everything was for the better, because after that he didn’t have to mandatory work for three years in their specialty after graduation, as was then required. It turns out that he was released into free swimming. And so Father Nikolai Golubtsov organized a meeting for him with one of the Moscow bishops, who soon ordained him as a deacon. And in the same year of 1958, his service to the Russian Orthodox Church began.

By the way, just at that time he had already written the book “Son of Man” about the Gospel with a circulation of only 6 copies - so many could be printed on a typewriter. There were illustrations that he cut out from magazines. I remember that very decisive anti-religious propaganda began then, which I, however, did not really notice, but the clergy felt it, because many churches were closed under various pretexts. For example, in Moscow, a church on Preobrazhenka was closed under the pretext of metro construction. Hundreds of churches, if not thousands, were closed throughout Russia.

About how Father Alexander was once a cartoonist

I remember when I was still studying at the Plekhanov Institute, I was on the editorial board of the institute’s newspaper, and Father Alexander then drew cartoons for it. Of course, they didn’t know who exactly made them. I just brought it and said: “These are the drawings of my friend.” I remember one funny poem with its humorous illustration. Imagine: a canteen, a lot of people, everyone is pushing through, trying to get food, and then a man climbs over their heads with a pie. And below is my signature: “If you have the strength, guy, come to the buffet to eat!” (Laughs) When Alexander Men studied at the Fur Institute, he also always took an active part, namely as a cartoonist and designer in all the institute’s wall newspapers. Photographs of his cartoons have also survived.

How Stalin's repressions pushed him towards the priesthood

For the Men family, repression was a reality, so Alik understood who was the culprit and initiator. In 1947, during the celebrations of the 800th anniversary of Moscow, a giant portrait of Stalin hung on balloons above the city center, illuminated by spotlights, so that it was visible from everywhere. Alik already understood then that this was service to an idol to which millions of human sacrifices had already been made. They were also in Alik’s family: his father’s brother was repressed back in the 30s, many priests and believers he knew were in prison.

I remember Pavel, when we were in grades 3-4, I traveled from Mytishchi to send food parcels to someone, because it was impossible to do this from Moscow, but it was possible from the region. It remained a mystery to me: where and why is he doing this? I only knew that my mother, Elena Semyonovna Men, encouraged him for this with a certain amount of money, which was quite enough, for example, for going to the movies together. Only over time did I learn that he sent food to believers who were in camps and prisons.

And so, as a counterbalance to all this evil, Alik then decided to become a priest. He recalled in his books how once in his youth he was asked what he wanted to become in the future. He named different professions: zoologist, writer, artist, historian, and only at the very end - priest. We can say that all this came true: he drew wonderfully and had excellent artistic taste, had an ear and a beautiful voice. Whatever specialty he chose from all of the above, he would undoubtedly be very successful there. But he chose to serve God.

Church communities were a sensational discovery

Please tell us what kind of community has developed around him? There is a cliché that he was a shepherd only for the “wild tribe of intellectuals,” but this is not so: there were also very simple parishioners and notorious grandmothers?
- There were ordinary people, of course, although they were not very inclined to create such communities. After all, this requires additional effort. In Soviet times, this was simply impossible - teaching any religion was a criminal offense. Therefore, the church community had to include people who had a special character, a certain cultural level and, of course, an interest in faith. That is, for the most part these are representatives of the intelligentsia.

I don’t know for sure whether there is now modern churches communities that would include ordinary working people, in addition to the intelligentsia. As for our parish, we have a fairly large community, but the Church of St. Cosma and Damian in Shubin is located in the central part of the capital, where there are very few local residents, mostly people purposefully come here from different parts of Moscow. However, we have a lot of people involved in production professions: electric locomotive driver, door installer, social workers etc. So the question of the church community is one of the most serious and important.

I believe that people really should participate not only in conciliar prayer, but also communicate at meetings outside of divine services. The Soviet government prevented this in every possible way, because then only the performance of rituals was allowed, to “satisfy religious needs,” so to speak. But the intelligentsia was characterized by a desire to understand more deeply the subject to which it pays attention. Therefore, naturally, a circle of people gathered around an active priest, who had something to tell, who not only listened to him with interest, but also enthusiastically communicated with each other.

It can be said that from the first months of Father Alexander’s ministry, such a circle was gradually created, first in the village of Akulovo (now Otradnoe station of the Belarusian railway), where he served as a deacon, then in Alabino (Kiev railway). Initially there were not many people, but then, in the early 60s, the idea arose to simply gather at home and read the Gospel together. Then it was some kind of sensational discovery. Such events were of a conspiratorial nature: if we had to talk about it on the phone, then, of course, everyone spoke in Aesopian language, because some words, for example, Gospel, group, seminar, could not be uttered at all.

Often such meetings were combined with the celebration of some holidays. By the way, then Father Alexander began to write his first books precisely for the circle of those people who came to meetings and could learn more about the Gospel. His main, innovative method of pastoring was focusing not only on Divine services, but also on the Holy Scriptures as a revelation that the Lord gives to people so that they know about God, about the world and about themselves. And Divine services in the Church are the tip of the iceberg, where we meet Christ. But we do this for a reason, not just because we are passing exams at the institute or our husband is a drunkard, etc., but precisely out of love for God and for the sake of understanding our whole life.

Now people don't value the religious freedom they have

Did he feel a connection with the Orthodox underground of the 30s, this “spiritual kinship” with his mother, with his aunt and their mentors? Did Father Alexander talk about this?
- He came out of this Orthodox underground or, as it was then called, the “catacomb church” - quite lively, deep, serious. And his aunt is his mother’s cousin, who was baptized about a year after Elena Semyonovna, but took the path Christian faith even before Elena Semyonovna, she wrote an interesting book “Catacombs of the 20th Century”. Father Alexander received baptism in one of these church communities, as they were then called, “non-remembering”, that is, during the Divine service at the Great Entrance and at all prayers, Patriarch Sergius was not remembered - then he was a metropolitan, a patriarchal locum tenens. The “non-rememberers” believed that he made unacceptable compromises with the godless government.

In the Orthodox underground there were people who risked their freedom, and often their lives. Indeed, many priests of these underground communities were arrested and received prison sentences. True, during the war they were not punished as cruelly as in 1937-38, and capital punishment was used less frequently. In 1945, after the election of Patriarch Alexy I, those people who spiritually led such underground communities even from prison, wrote to their spiritual children that the election of Patriarch Alexy I should be recognized as canonical, come out of hiding and go to the patriarchal churches. They did so, after which their church life continued within the framework of the official Church.

Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom

What was it like for you, Soviet boys? Some kind of legend, or something tangible? Now, when so much material has been published - books, memoirs, letters, and archival files, when there is the Internet, we can hardly imagine to what extent it was possible to know nothing at all about these people, living next to the last of them...
- In the 30s - 40s, there were still small groups of believers, mostly intellectuals, but not only, who knew each other, met occasionally, even organized Christmas trees for children and grandchildren, passed on the Holy Scriptures to interested acquaintances and acquaintances of acquaintances , miraculously preserved spiritual literature. Of course, all this was done very carefully, in an atmosphere of extreme secrecy. Of course, Elena Semyonovna and her sister, Vera Yakovlevna, were part of these circles, and Alik received many spiritual books from their friends and acquaintances.

One of the most active educators, whom many knew, was Nikolai Evgrafovich Pestov. A scientist, a chemist who lived not far from the Yelokhovsky Cathedral, one of the rare people then who had a small but separate apartment. He had a good spiritual library, and he gave his books to many trusted people to read. At the same time, he always accepted people one by one and never introduced anyone to each other - conspiracy!

After all, then the Gospel was difficult to get. Some people even rewrote it. Some got it from Baptists, who had their own channels through which they sometimes received the Holy Scriptures. But to go and buy freely in a store, as it is now, was simply impossible to even imagine. Moreover, in the early 60s, when Khrushchev was in power, the entire press was filled with atheistic propaganda.

In those years, they even specifically looked for people who might have some kind of dark spot in their biography, they were forced to renounce their faith, and humiliating materials were published about this. I remember several such cases when people had to do this, but I don’t know how sincere their actions were. But overall it was a disaster for people - a renunciation of faith, and even publicly, with corresponding articles in the press! At the same time, it cannot be said that there were terrible persecutions, but pressure was exerted and obstacles were created, in particular at work.

You and I know that certain positions could only be held by party members, and few people were able to combine this with faith in God. Although some even party workers secretly baptized children. But now it is difficult to judge whether this was done for religious or rather superstitious reasons. In general, life then was far from what we have now. Therefore, we must admit with bitterness that now people do not value the religious freedom that they have. For 25 years now, the Gospel has been sold completely freely. However, in my opinion, hardly more than 5% of our population have read the entire Gospel. But this book is the basis of our culture and, in general, of the entire European civilization.

In books, articles and photographs, Father Alexander makes an impression free man. At the same time, we know that in the early 80s the community experienced a severe crisis associated with KGB pressure. In general, all his life he lived “under the hood” of both the special services and the situation of the unfree church. How did he feel about it? These restrictions, dangers, betrayals, informants in the inner circle... After all, at one time he was seriously ready to be arrested.
- Inner freedom comes from a person’s deep faith and knowledge of Christ. When a person knows this joy of life with Christ, when faith for him is not just a visit to church from time to time, but the center and meaning of his entire life, then he can feel like a free person. He made his choice to understand himself, the purpose of his life, relationships with people and with God.

It is precisely this choice that makes a person internally free, he is not constrained by anything. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. More Venerable Seraphim Sarovsky said that the goal of Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. When a person acquires it, he receives inner freedom. But at the same time he understands that he lives in real world, where he may be called to account and even arrested, so you need to be careful and not once again compromise yourself.

Every time requires its own language

Today, the names of Me, Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh and Father Alexander Schmemann are often listed separated by commas. Does Father Alexander really have something in common with people who grew up and became priests in exile? Why are they standing in one row now?
- They are ranked according to the spiritual level that each of them has achieved in this life, to what level they have risen. They truly were wonderful preachers. They were able to reveal inner meaning to other people Holy Scripture and Christian life, without delving into denominational differences or denunciations. This is what one of the great Christian writers, Clive Lewis, called simply Christianity. Because when Christianity arose in the 1st century with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the victory over death, there were no Protestants or Catholics yet - there were only disciples of Christ, who some time later began to be called Christians.

And Father Alexander Men, and Bishop Anthony of Sourozh, and Father Alexander Shmeman - they are all valuable because they speak about Christianity in modern language. We often hear calls to read the holy fathers and their interpretations. Of course, they are priceless and important, but all this was written a very long time ago, when there were completely different life circumstances, culture, and technical achievements. Of course, the person himself with his problem of good and evil remained the same - nothing has changed, but we now live in different conditions.

I think every time requires its own language. For example, there is such a paradox: Cyril and Methodius created the Church Slavonic language precisely in order to preach to the Slavs of southern, middle, and eastern Europe. More than 1000 years pass, and suddenly they made an obstacle out of this language that no - only in the Church Slavonic language and serve. I think that if they came now and saw that from their translation they had made the same language of the past as from Latin and Greek in their time, they would be very surprised. But their idea was not at all to create another sacred language in addition to Latin and Greek, but rather to create a living language for preaching the Gospel. It turns out that we honor their memory, but we violate their plan, we go against it.

This is an understandable human desire when an ancient language, clothing become antiquity, time sanctifies all these events. This is correct, but we live in a time when we need to address our contemporaries in their language, as, in fact, Saints Cyril and Methodius, Stephen of Perm and Innocent of Irkutsk did in their time, who, for example, preached to the Aleuts in the local language they understood . Of course, our spoken language and Church Slavonic are not so far apart, but at the same time there are many incomprehensible words. Therefore, what is needed is not translation, but rather Russification.

On the one hand, this is a problem precisely because of people’s love for the archaic. On the other hand, this is a huge work that requires a certain literary talent from the translator, because the Church Slavonic language has already been “tested” by time. Of course, it also changed over time, but has not been unshakable since then. If we take the publications of the early, middle and late 19th or 20th centuries, then they will all differ, but formally they will all be in Church Slavonic. It’s just that the editors slowly Russified and adapted the texts for greater clarity.

About the fullness of Christian truth and why Father Alexander did not advise going to Kashpirovsky’s sessions

Today Father Alexander I am often reproached for my interest in esoteric practices, psychics - what was that all about?
- Firstly, following Vladimir Solovyov, who, one might say, was his spiritual teacher, he expressed a very clear thought in Russian religious philosophy that previous religions, including pagan and eastern ones, were not a complete delusion or even demonic obsession. Behind them stood man's sincere search for God and truth. Of course, people received some glimpses. After all, when a person sincerely seeks God, goodness and truth, he will definitely discover something for himself.

Another thing is that this truth was revealed most fully in the revelation that was given to the prophets of Israel. It just so happened that God chose this people. As the Apostle Paul said, the great advantage of the Jews is that they have been entrusted with the word of God. As stated, this is how he felt it in the 1st century AD. Of course, the fullness of truth lies in Christianity. But different degrees of truth and revelation, of course, are present in other religions. And in the same way it is present in the natural abilities of a person. Indeed, there are people who, by simply laying on hands, can heal headaches or something else. Of course, according to my impressions, among 100 people who consider themselves capable of healing others, only 1 can actually do this, and the rest are wishful thinking. Or they have some unknown source of energy that is better not to turn to.

I remember when Kashpirovsky appeared, Father Alexander very seriously warned that if during the sessions, even television ones, one of the parishioners felt something bad, then they should immediately leave or simply turn off the TV. Because it is unknown what the source of this energy is. I remember from my own experience that when I served in a small parish near the River Station, out of 10 participants in Kashpirovsky’s similar sessions, 9 had high blood pressure or heart problems, and 1 had a wart disappear.

The intelligence services nicknamed Father Alexander “Missionary”

After the departure of the shepherd, the community always experiences a crisis. What happened to Father Alexander's community? How do you now, when it is already possible to sum up some results, assess everything that happened after his death?
- Then, in 1990, many from Father Alexander’s circle asked me to lead this community. This was precisely the time when the return of churches to believers began, and I was then a deputy of the Moscow City Council, a member of that very commission for interaction with religious organizations. And I could take the initiative to create a community for spiritual children and parishioners here in Moscow. This was done already in May 1991, less than a year after the murder of Fr. Alexandra in September 1990.

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II blessed the creation of a new parish, and the first meeting was held here, and what was then called “Twenty” was created. That is, 20 people of Orthodox believers who registered as a legal entity and took responsibility for the maintenance of the temple and the life of the new community. And already in December 1991 we celebrated the first Liturgy. From then to the present time, statutory services have been performed in this church, the sacraments have been performed, and there has been a community of Orthodox believers.

Let me clarify that some of the people remained there, in Pushkino, where there was a very good priest, Vladimir Arkhipov, who served under Father Alexander. Then the parish of Father Vladimir Lapshin of the Assumption on Vrazheka, which is nearby in Gazetny Lane, spun off from our parish. Later, the community of Father Viktor Grigorenko was created in Semkhoz, in a church built on the site of the murder of Father Alexander. In general, his spiritual children dispersed to these communities. Although there were those who went to some other places. But a lot of new people came. By the way, among them were those who, in the late 80s and early 90s, heard Father Alexander’s wonderful lectures and read his books.

At that time, for two years Fr. Alexander Men gave about 200 lectures on the Holy Scriptures, the history of the Church, and remarkable figures of the Church in invariably overcrowded classrooms. People continue to turn to the Orthodox faith today thanks to his rich spiritual heritage, collected and made accessible through the works of his widow, brother and many devoted friends and spiritual children. U o. Alexandra I really had a wonderful missionary gift, which, by the way, was also noticed by the Soviet secret services. There, each ward was given his own nickname. So, Father Alexander Men was nicknamed “missionary.” They understood who was who.

The Orthodox faith, like a table, is based on 4 legs

How do you generally answer the question today: what is an Orthodox community, a parish? Is it even necessary for the salvation of each individual person?
- From the first days of the existence of the Church, it represented precisely a community of believers, and not just a gathering of people unfamiliar with each other for joint prayer in the temple. The existence of communities was essentially impossible in Soviet times. Any, even a small group of believers, who gathered outside the church for prayer, and even more so for some kind of joint cause, could be accused of creating an anti-Soviet organization. So the community created in Soviet times by Fr. Alexander Men, was essentially illegal. However, these were small groups of 5 to 15 people who were engaged in catechesis, joint study of the Holy Scriptures, and helped each other in any everyday needs.

Father Alexander even formulated a very simple minimum guide for his flock. He said that the Orthodox faith, like a table, should be based on 4 legs: 1) prayer, 2) reading the Gospel and studying the Holy Scriptures, 3) participation in the life of the Church and its Sacraments, 4) being in a church community or at least in a group for the study of the Gospel, the Old Testament, etc. For example, in our parish there are now about 40 such groups, each of which consists of from 5 to 15 people. There are different groups: helping the homeless and internally displaced persons, correspondence with prisoners, etc. In a word, I think that church communities should certainly be at the heart of the life of the parish.

We made it…

Father Alexander, remember the time of your neophyte. Were there any moments that you remember now with a smile?
“I remember once Pavel and I decided to go to a church service. He came to pick me up. Somehow I still didn’t fully realize that I had to come at the beginning of the Liturgy. Then, having already returned to his house for a cup of tea, we talked with his believing aunt, who asked: “Paul, so you were in time for the service? You left so late...” Before he had time to say a word, I already answer: “Yes, of course, when we entered the temple, everyone sang “Our Father.” (Laughs) At that time, of course, I still didn’t understand that “Our Father” is sung at the very end of the Liturgy and I was very proud that I understood at least something during the service.

What should I do?! Not all at once. Therefore, now, remembering the first months and even years of my neophyte, I am condescending towards new parishioners who do not yet know everything and cannot do everything. I understand that it is difficult for a person to immediately get into the right rhythm. Everything should be gradual, without extremes. The main thing is that a positive trend is developing in our Church, supported by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill. He talks about the need to form special youth groups for the study of the Gospel, about catechesis, and about mandatory public conversations before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

It is also good that the Patriarch encourages frequent communion. For comparison: in Soviet times it was 2 times a year - on Angel’s Day and during Lent. Then there was such an understanding, but now it has changed: a person came to the Liturgy as a participant, and not as a spectator who stood, listened to the sermon and left. Although, of course, in some churches such archaism is still preserved. But we must understand that everyone’s capabilities are different: some, due to intense work, physically cannot go to church services often, others can, so everything is very individual. It is wonderful that many people themselves feel the need for frequent communion. Openness of hearts and a sincere desire to join the Sacraments - this, I think, is very important. You need to take communion at least 2 times a month.

At what point did you realize that you wanted to go further - to study at the Moscow Theological Seminary and take priestly orders? What events influenced your choice? How did your family react to this?
- I implicitly assumed this from the very beginning, when I came to faith at the age of 19. At least, I did not exclude such a possibility for myself. But I consciously felt such a need only in 1972, a year when there were many radical events in the country, for example, abnormal heat. Many that summer obtained permission to travel to Israel, which was almost impossible before. Later I learned that it was during this summer that someone secretly received priestly ordination, and someone took monastic vows. In short, it was a turning point for many.

It was this summer that I, having left the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, decided to enter the Theological Seminary. But my inner impulse was the understanding that I had a very prosperous life: the Academy of Sciences, an intelligent environment, etc. But I wanted something more serious. There was a certain activation, an awakening of consciousness, and a desire appeared to start doing something more for our country than just doing scientific work. Maybe this sounds too pretentious, but it really was so. I understood that the problem of the existence of our country depended not so much on the state of science, but on the spiritual state of society. Of course, I still think the same way, but, of course, this does not mean that everyone should give up everything and go to church, but in my case, in any case, such a decision has matured.

Christians should be everywhere, including in the Academy of Sciences

In one of your interviews, you mentioned that your confessor did not bless you for almost a year to leave the scientific field and become a clergyman. Why did he ultimately change his mind? Did you insist?
- For about a year I tried to persuade Father Alexander to bless me for this. But he said that it was not necessary, because Christians should be everywhere, including in the Academy of Sciences. How did I manage to convince him? I simply said that I look at my senior scientist colleagues and notice that their lives are uninteresting, not alive, even if there are some scientific disputes with human confrontation, discord. I remember how one of my senior colleagues said: “How strange it is that such a complex structure as a person ends its existence in death, everything that he sought and did is destroyed.”

I felt sorry for them, because, despite their deep knowledge of science and their desire for new discoveries, for them everything ultimately ends in nothing - death. And I told Father Alexander that I didn’t want to realize in my old age that I had been doing some kind of work all my life, which later might seem meaningless and would not bring spiritual satisfaction. Subsequently, I found various confirmations of my views on life. Of course, this is not universal in nature, it is all very individual, but nevertheless. For example, Patriarch Alexy II once said wonderful words that for a clergyman, age is not a disadvantage, but rather a privilege. It is clear that with age a person sees and understands more, accumulates more life experience, it is easier for him to love and be forgiving of other people’s shortcomings than for a young person.

My family supported me and were understanding of my choice. The wife was also a believer, and even such an ardent faith. And my mother was always open to something new, although she was not yet a believer. She was baptized as a child, but simply actively denied Orthodoxy. I even told my little granddaughters, our daughters: “Why are you kissing icons?! Here’s a better portrait of Lenin, a kiss!” But she stood for freedom of opinion, and therefore did not oppose my desire to serve God.

No truly great natural scientist was an atheist

Was the tension between scientific and Christian worldviews as relevant in those years? How did you overcome it for yourself? In general, does faith have an impact on a scientist’s scientific work?
- No, of course, there was no controversial confrontation then. Almost the majority of the population was clear that there was no God, that faith in Him was a backward and ideologically harmful worldview. At the same time, serious people and scientists understood that it was unethical to speak out against the Church and faith in God, just as it was not ethical to speak out against the persecuted in general. Because everyone understood that the Church was subjected to the most severe persecution, that it suffered the most severe losses.

The clergy as a class was practically exterminated. Theologians, teachers, bishops, priests - thousands of people were shot. Everyone knew this very well, so there was some sympathy towards the Church. Now this resource of sympathy has already been used up. This is understandable because 20 years have passed. The church now, on the contrary, is perceived as something very prosperous. Therefore, there was no such open confrontation. At least, at the level of relationship psychology.

I remember when I began to serve as a deacon, I even had an interview with my dissertation opponent Nikolai Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovsky. He was a famous Russian geneticist who worked as an exchange student in Germany in 1927, where he later stayed. He was strongly advised to do this, otherwise in the USSR he would simply be shot. After the war, he remained in the Soviet sector, was arrested, etc.

My interview with him took place when he continued to work in Obninsk in the field of radiation genetics. The topic of the conversation is science and religion. And he was a believer, in his youth he even sang in the choir. He recalled how, as students at Moscow University in 1917, he and his classmates helped at the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, so for him there was no confrontation. He emphasized that, in his deep conviction, not a single truly major natural scientist was an atheist. So the attitude was rather sympathetic.

I remembered a funny episode on the topic. One day, my supervisor Nikolai Nikolaevich Sokolov was walking along the corridor - and at that time I was already studying at the seminary, that is, it was soon after I left - and met another prominent scientist. And he just asked Nikolai Nikolaevich: “Well, are we preparing personnel for the Russian Orthodox Church?” Six months pass, and one person from his laboratory leaves for Israel. Nikolai Nikolaevich already meets that scientist and says: “Well, for whom is it better to train personnel: for the Russian Orthodox Church or for Israel?” (Laughs)

About IVF, surrogacy and God's reward for the adoption of abandoned children

Do you follow bioethics issues? Which of them seem most alarming to you today?
- I can’t say that I follow them, although, of course, the essence of the matter is clear to me, but of course I don’t know the technical subtleties. After all, 40 years have passed since I have been engaged in scientific work.

- What is your opinion about modern reproductive technologies - IVF, etc.?
- As for IVF, with this technique several eggs are fertilized in reserve at once, but not all of them survive. Actually, if they are fertilized, then these are already embryos. It turns out that there is a sort of abortive destruction of all the others except one. They claim that it is possible to fertilize only one egg, and thereby avoid the destruction of others. That would be nice.

How do you feel about surrogacy? Do you agree with the belief that “the practice is a violation of the human dignity of the woman, whose body is in this case considered as a kind of incubator”, and also that it “destroys the full natural relationship between mother and child”?
- I am strongly against this! Because the mother’s condition affects the fetus not only at the physiological level, but during the process of formation of its soul and spirit. There is such a thing as “drunken conception.” It would seem that the DNA of the sperm is so “densely packed” that it is completely unclear how alcohol can affect it in this case! Can alcohol have such a detrimental effect on genetic code contained in sperm and eggs?! And, nevertheless, with drunken conception, children are actually born weaker and lag behind in development.

This has long been noticed, which is why the Russian people used to have a tradition: newlyweds at a wedding were not allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. So the state of the father and mother at the moment of conception and gestation, of course, is transmitted to the future fetus. And if this is a surrogate mother who views her position as a means of earning money, then a lot of questions arise here. We know that even children taken from orphanage, sooner or later they will find out the truth about their origin - after all, there are always “well-wishers” around, ready to tell the child this news. And children perceive it as a tragedy.

Now let’s imagine that the child grows up, and they say to him: “You know, it wasn’t your mother who gave birth to you, but that woman from the neighboring house, and for money.” Can you imagine what will happen to a person, to his psyche, to his feelings? This is mental trauma for the rest of your life! And its consequences can be unpredictable and very serious.

- What advice could you give to people thinking about using this method of childbirth?
- I think that we need to use a more Christian method: take a child from an orphanage, because there are a lot of children who need adoption. Although I must admit honestly that approximately 30% of these children already come with a certain “load”. Even an unwanted pregnancy often affects the child’s character and subsequently the person feels unnecessary, superfluous, and unsettled in life.

By the way, in our parish there were three cases when a childless couple took a child from an orphanage, and then they had their own children, even though they had previously been diagnosed with infertility. For example, a married couple of our parishioners had been married for 15 years, but could not conceive a child. They adopted an adopted child, and a year after that they had their own, and after a while another one.

Trying to explain this phenomenon, I admit that, most likely, when a woman begins to care for a child, against this background some kind of hormonal changes occur in her body, she recovers and ceases to be infertile. Of course, if we are not talking about the presence of any serious changes, for example, removal of the uterus. But what exactly is changing is difficult to say. To do this, you need to conduct special research. It seems to me that this is simply a reward from the Lord.

How to quench your spiritual thirst?

Recently, the Gifts of the Magi were brought to Russia from Athos...
- This suggests that behind this there are two serious needs of our society: many insurmountable difficulties in life, and hence the ardent hope for God’s help, and spiritual thirst, albeit in such a manifestation that is not understandable to everyone, often causing condemnation. However, this speaks of the enormous spiritual thirst of people who need spiritual support and strengthening. As the Gospel says: look at the fields, they are white and ready for harvest. Pray that the Lord will send workers into His harvest.

There has been much controversy regarding the authenticity of this shrine. How important is it for an Orthodox person to know whether she is real or not? Or, as the Gospel of Matthew says: “according to your faith, be it done to you”...
- Of course, that’s true too. I think that here we still need to refrain from extreme skepticism and understand that behind this there is still a craving for a meeting with the spiritual reality, which one way or another is behind this. Most likely, this is a powerful symptom of spiritual thirst for us. I think that it can be satisfied with the preaching of the Gospel. The Lord said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” When we discover this for ourselves, we will not be so worried about questions of the authenticity of this or that shrine.

Recorded by Ekaterina Korotneva Photo by Anna Galperina and from the personal archive of Archpriest. Alexandra Borisova
Source: ORTHODOXY AND PEACE Daily Internet Media

Archpriest Alexander BORISOV: IN CHRIST THERE IS NO INTELLECTUAL NOR PROLETARIAN

Did the intelligentsia see only a political ally in the persecuted Church? Can the famous Russian geneticist Nikolai Timofeev-Resovsky be considered a “church intellectual”? What might be the role of the intelligentsia in a particular parish? Today's hero of the Intelligentsia project, Archpriest Alexander Borisov, rector of the Church of Cosmas and Damian in Shubin, answers these and other questions.

The enemy of my enemy?

— There is an opinion that the intelligentsia is a kind of figure of speech, behind which there is no real content. Would you agree?
— No, from my point of view, the intelligentsia is an obvious historical reality. Moreover, its emergence can be clearly dated: 1861, the abolition of serfdom. Although, of course, the intelligentsia does not appear overnight. This is a gradual process associated with the emergence of a large circle of people with good education. And this part of society has one significant feature: the intelligentsia is replenished with people from different classes (under Alexander II, for example, the children of priests received the right to enter universities, which was not the case before). This means that the intelligentsia is the bearer not of narrow-class aspirations, but of interests different layers society. That is, a certain group of people thinks about how to solve the problems not of their class, but of the country as a whole.

— How did this group of people perceive the Church?
— Attitudes towards the Church changed depending on the relationship between the Church and the state. For example, in the 19th century, the Church played an important role in the ideological apparatus of the state, and therefore the attitude towards it was negative. In addition, the intelligentsia could not resist the temptation to contrast religion and science. That is, the ideas of French enlightenment found fertile soil in Russia. And therefore, it was completely natural for representatives of the intelligentsia to position themselves as atheists and anti-clericals. The combination of education and Christian faith until the beginning of the twentieth century was rather an exception in Russia: for example, Vladimir Solovyov, Zinaida Gippius and some other authors of the Silver Age. But even they, accepting Christianity intellectually, were far from church life itself. And the bulk of the intelligentsia was completely hostile towards the Church.

— Did the 1917 revolution change anything?
- Colossal. The attitude of the intelligentsia towards the Church changed radically - from negative to positive. This is understandable: the Church has become persecuted. Many of the smartest people of that time turned in her direction: the future Bishop Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky), Father Sergius Bulgakov. He was ordained in 1918. Even before that, he had done a lot of work on Christianity, but his attitude towards churchism itself was very wary - precisely because of the “link” between the Church and the state. This is quite natural. The best part The intelligentsia is always on the side of the persecuted.

This also partly explains the significant warming towards the Church on the part of the next - already Soviet - generation of the intelligentsia. Those who in one way or another turned towards Christianity after the revolution remained in the minority and led a semi-legal existence, and the new intellectuals (of the first half of the twentieth century) not only absorbed Soviet atheistic ideology, but also to some extent inherited the spirit of the previous century - when churchliness and faith were considered something unworthy of an educated person. But in the 60s of the twentieth century, Khrushchev’s persecution began: representatives of the creative intelligentsia, dissidents and church people found themselves in the same boat. And this brought them together to some extent. It has become, in a sense, prestigious to receive Baptism, to try to go to services secretly, without publicity, and to obtain forbidden literature from abroad. Since this is being persecuted, it means that it fits very organically into the path of a dissident. During this period, missionaries began to play a major role - such as Father Dmitry Dudko and Father Alexander Men. For a huge number of intellectuals, they become genuine authorities and help people move from external, cultural sympathy for the Church to churching itself. Father Dmitry Dudko begins a very bold work: after services he stays in the church to talk with parishioners and answer any of their questions. For that time it was a shock. Moscow believers flocked to his temple in surprise: how is this so? The priest speaks openly on any topic... Father Dmitry has essentially taken a truly dissident position. It is not surprising that this was followed by repression and arrest. Father Alexander Men took a slightly different path: his work was rather educational - and it was also in great demand.
Today, from my point of view, the intelligentsia is the leading principle in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is from this environment that the main cadres of clergy come. It is the intelligentsia that sets the level of discussion within the Church and the bar for the work that the Church is conducting today.

— How did it happen: the intelligentsia in the 19th century arose as an anti-clerical part of society, and by the beginning of the 21st century it became the main leading force of the Church? Where did the fracture occur?
— By intelligentsia I mean thinking, searching people who are not alien to knowledge of the world. In the 19th century in Russia, in the wake of following the European Enlightenment, such knowledge of the world was mainly “responsible” for science, the activity of reason, and faith seemed to be in opposition to it. And that was a real contradiction. Therefore, it seemed to many educated people that faith in God (and therefore the Church) was incompatible with their education. But in the twentieth century, this contradiction between religion and science is removed for many representatives of the intelligentsia. This is facilitated by the emergence of a completely new philosophy of science, which claims that science is only one of the ways of understanding the world, with its own tasks and tools, but by no means the main one and not the only way. It became clear that it is in vain for the natural scientist to see the Bible as a “competitor” to Darwin’s theory. That Darwin's theory explains how man appeared, and the Bible explains why he appeared. Darwin - about the origin of species, about the biological process. The Bible is about the meaning of life. And in the twentieth century, many scientists appeared who, while remaining honest in their profession, read the Bible not as a textbook on evolution, but as Revelation.

— You said that the attitude of the intelligentsia towards the Church strongly depended on the relationship of the Church with the state. It turns out that the intelligentsia turned towards the persecuted Church as “the enemy of my enemy,” and therefore a friend? That is, it was not really dictated by a spiritual search, but rather by political motives?
- Don't think. I see this as just a spiritual search. Yes, the intelligentsia went precisely to the persecuted Church, but not because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Simply, the absence of state servility allowed the Truth that the Church brought to people to shine more brightly. This is the spiritual Truth; it was its presence that the intelligentsia felt and followed. And earlier this Truth was, perhaps, somewhat clouded precisely by political aspects - the iron link between the Church and the state.

Renaissance Man

- There is an opinion that the main problem intelligentsia - this is precisely its position: there is “we and the Church,” that is, two, as it were, equal categories...
- I don’t see such a problem. On the contrary, I have experience communicating with people from among the intelligentsia and I see in them a deep respect for the Church as the bearer of Truth, which, in their opinion, significantly surpasses the intellectual self-awareness. After all, education is, as a rule, a mosaic assembled from different areas knowledge. Christian Truth seems to cover them all with a dome. It gives them a single, common direction and a common goal. So, on the part of the intelligentsia, I saw much more often a reverent attitude towards the Church. At the same time, such people react very sharply to any untruth. Including the one that directly “hits” the Church. For example, human rights activists supported Father Dmitry Dudko not because they were friends with him against the state. They were outraged precisely by the attempt to forcibly silence Christian sermon.

— Was it only political issues that could arouse the righteous anger of the intelligentsia? What untruths within the Church itself caused criticism?
— Again, it’s a question of combining faith and science. In this regard, criticism of the Church was often deserved. When a priest or hierarch speaks out against the theory of evolution and speaks aggressively about biologists and other scientists, this cannot but outrage. Because in this case, this priest or hierarch, who does not have the appropriate education, undertakes to judge things that he does not know, and insults the work of another person. True, the opposite often happened: a scientist who had never read the Holy Scriptures began to “smash” the obscurantist priests...

— Is the expression “church intelligentsia” valid, from your point of view?
- Yes. These are people who engage in intellectual work and at the same time are believers. They combine high intellectual culture and, in fact, church practice. This is a very important part of the Church.

—What was the church intelligentsia like in the Soviet years, when combining life and church practice was quite problematic?
“There were brave people who, despite everything, found the opportunity to confess and receive communion. Although they hid it carefully. It could cost your career and well-being. But there were other striking examples: people retained faith in God, even without the opportunity to lead church life. For example, my good friend and dissertation opponent, the famous Russian geneticist Nikolai Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovsky. He never lost faith in God, but he never went to Church either. I once interviewed him on the topic of combining faith and science, and he argued that among the truly great natural scientists in his circle there was not a single atheist. And he knew what he was talking about: he lived abroad for about 20 years, was the only biologist at the seminar of physicists Niels Bohr. When Nikolai Vladimirovich was already on his deathbed, I asked him: “Perhaps I should bring you a priest? You could confess and receive communion...” He replied: “That would be a great joy for me.” And Father Alexander Men came to him. They were both extremely happy about this meeting. We talked for about two hours. When I went to see them, Timofeev-Resovsky was tearful and completely happy. And on the way back, Father Alexander in our conversation called him a “man of the Renaissance” - that is, as if a resident of the Renaissance, with a broad outlook, covering many different spheres of life with his personality. From the lips of Father Alexander this was the highest assessment.

— Your parish of Cosmas and Damian in Shubin is considered by some to be a temple for the liberal intelligentsia. Do you agree with this?
— We must clearly understand what we mean by the word “liberal.” If, as often happens, homosexual marriages and gay pride parades are approved, then this is not about us. Our parishioners look at this not as a manifestation of human freedom, but as a disease. I really love Zhvanetsky’s joke that if a man declares himself Napoleon, he is sent to a madhouse, and if he declares himself a woman, then they rush to defend his rights. If by liberal intelligentsia we mean people who do not see a contradiction between scientific work and church life, then this is about us. They consider anti-Semitism a grave sin in accordance with (Gen. 12:3) - this is about us. They do not share anti-Catholicism (but they do not intend, contrary to popular fables, to bring our Church under the authority of the Vatican) - this is also about us. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with such liberality.

— What is the role of the intelligentsia in the Church for you as a pastor?
— Representatives of the intelligentsia are, first of all, assistants in educational work. For example, in our church every year we hold catechist courses: a week of lectures, a week of seminars. And so the seminars are led by parishioners who are, for example, literature teachers or historians by profession. And in this sense, the role of the intelligentsia in the Church is the same as in the country as a whole: to be the bearer of knowledge and culture and pass it on to others.

— Isn’t it possible that a division into a kind of strata arises in the parish: the intelligentsia, “ordinary people,” the clergy, etc.?
— No strata arise. If we talk narrowly about catechetical courses, then people from the most diverse backgrounds come to us as students. different levels education and social status. With different intellectual needs. And we do not draw any ideological division between them and draw their attention to the fact that for them there cannot be such a division among themselves. Let us remember the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In the same way, in Christ there is, so to speak, neither an intellectual nor a proletarian. When a person becomes a Christian, he goes somewhere aside from the division into “educated” and “uneducated,” into “us” and “strangers.” In principle, there should not be such a division in the Church. “Serve one another, each one with the gift that he has received” (1 Peter 4:10).

Source: FOMA Orthodox magazine for doubters Interviewed by Konstantin MATSAN

Love for Creation, love for the world around us has always dominated my life

In October 2004, Prot. Alexander Borisov celebrated his 65th birthday. On the eve of his birthday, the priest kindly agreed to meet with us to say a few words to the readers of the Parish Newspaper.

Roman and Marina Nasonov

Roman Nasonov: Father, we have known you probably not for that long - about 10 years. But all these years I have never ceased to admire the wisdom of your views on life, your words and actions. And the first question I have for you is very simple: Have you always been like this?

O. Alexander Borisov: Of course, I am flattered to hear about my wisdom, but I know that this is my weakest point, because I often rush to make decisions and, moreover, often do not think through all their possible consequences. I am well aware of this shortcoming of mine. I once played chess, not on purpose, but like all amateurs, and I also could not think through a combination several moves ahead. Both in chess and in life, I relied on chance, believing that in the course of events it would be possible to better understand and correct something. So what you are talking about is simply the desire not to overcomplicate events, but to try to see some simple way out in every situation, and something positive in every thing. As they say, “every cloud has a silver lining.”

R.N. My seemingly slightly humorous question also had such a serious side. You have lived a long life. What did your spiritual experience consist of? What events had the greatest impact on your life?

O. A. Reflecting on my life since childhood, I see that it has always been easy for me to get along with people, and I have always been attracted to people of a fairly high level of culture. Apparently, I inherited my interest in culture from my mother. She, too, has always been attracted to various cultural phenomena. Although our family was not some kind of elitist, not at all. My mother was born in the village, although she moved to the city quite early, at the age of 8 or 10.

And those two friends whom I chose myself literally from the first grade were boys from cultural families. I had more than just friendly affection for them: one could say that I loved each of them. These were Pavel Men, from the family of Alexander Men’s father (Alik himself was 4 years older than us, which is not much), and another boy, Yura Gaigarov, the son of a fairly famous architect, N. N. Gaigarov. In both houses I saw some photographs that were unusual for me; Pavel had icons, both painted and traditional, which were hidden in the closet from neighbors or generally not very familiar people (of course, they were no longer hidden from me); there are many interesting, outlandish books that I have not seen anywhere else: the Bible, Dante, Descartes, Soloviev. I saw only the spines of these books, although I took Brema from Alik and studied it at home with rapture.

And at Yura Gaigarov I saw large reproductions, for example, “Sunflowers” ​​by van Gogh. When I saw this picture for the first time, I immediately understood: this is something real (although no one told me about impressionism).

This is how my formation took place. I loved to read, but my reading was mainly all kinds of stories about animals and adventure literature - Jules Verne, Seton Thompson, books by domestic authors (Obruchev, Spannberg - there was such a zoologist-traveler). Ever since childhood, as long as I can remember, I absolutely reverently adored all living things, literally everything - especially what moved (I was somehow less attracted to plants). When I spent one part of the summer in a pioneer camp and the other in the village, holidays in the village were the most interesting for me. Chickens, geese, ducks, goats, cows, piglets - it was something amazing! Moreover, they were not like in a zoo, behind bars, but right here. Overall, I was absolutely delighted with it.

My aunt, my mother’s cousin, with whom I was staying then, later told me that her husband, Sergei, looked at me with regret. Sergei was a stern man, he went through the war, captivity, exile in Siberia, the mines... Sometimes he would look at me, look, and say: “Yes, it’s a pity. The boy is not bad, but he’s probably sick.” “Why sick?” - the aunt is interested. “Yes, well, he caught a bug, put it in a box, brought it into the house and kept walking around looking at it. Probably sick...” And Aunt Zina answered him: “Why sick? Maybe he's interested." So they discussed my quirks, in a simple way...

So for me, the choice of profession was predetermined early. Moreover, I was most interested in the behavior of animals, their relationships, and not the structure, anatomy... Later I learned that the science of animal behavior is called ethology.

The Zoo and the Bird Market were the main places for me to spend my leisure time. Until the eighth grade, I visited the zoo 2-3 times a week, then less often. Even in weekdays, if classes were held in the second shift, even before school I had time to go to the zoo to look at some animals. Then, as now, I was most attracted to ichthyology (and the water element in general). I always had aquariums at home with fish in them; they fought among themselves, multiplied - in general, everything happened as expected for them. Although the room was small, it was all filled with these aquariums.

Then, of course, difficulties arose with choosing a university: first I didn’t get into the university through a competition, then I didn’t get into the fisheries institute. The fact is that, at Khrushev’s request, applicants with two years of work experience then had an advantage, and with only one B (with three A’s) I did not pass the competition. But these ones even got three grades... In the third year, I still entered - however, already at Plekhanovsky: so as not to go into the army (besides, it was located next to our house). I studied to become a commodity expert, at the Faculty of Food Products. And there, studying course work, which was devoted to such a practical topic as storing frozen fish, I turned to books on suspended animation (that is, the extinction of life processes, hibernation at low temperatures). Other books appeared, and I was again drawn to biology. And one of my friends at that time was studying at the Pedagogical Institute, Faculty of Biology; I didn't know anything about its existence before. In general, I left Plekhanovsky and moved to pedagogical; and finished it.

Then it turned out that I was immediately recommended for graduate school, albeit in entomology. But at the same time, in the last, fifth, year, one of the old geneticists secretly, illegally taught us a course in classical genetics. And my heart was already given to her, although my diploma was written on soil zoology, on insects, by a wonderful professor, M. S. Gilyarov, who later became secretary-academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It was wonderful person- very witty, widely educated. We maintained good relations until his death (when I remember the late Mercury at the litany, it is he). And although, based on my diploma, I was recommended for graduate school specifically with him, after studying for a year and passing the candidate minimum, I still moved on to N.P. Dubinin, who then headed the laboratory of radiation genetics at the Institute of Biophysics.

In those years, the final rehabilitation of genetics took place, and from this laboratory the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences was created, in which I continued to work with the classical object - Drosophila, with natural populations. But after working for a couple more years after defending my dissertation, I realized that I was still more interested in people. Once talking with Dubinin, when asked: “What do you propose to do next?” — I replied that I was interested in human genetics, that I would like to study exactly that. To which he laughed and said: “You are a brave man,” - he did not add anything more and never returned to this question. And through this interest in man and the realization that spiritual problems are paramount, including for the fate of our people, I decided to leave the Academy of Sciences and enter the Theological Seminary.

True, this was a very extravagant step, but the Lord protected me, and this process was more or less painless; I resigned from the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences and literally a few days later submitted an application for admission to the seminary. The wise advice of Fr. helped me avoid being caught between two stools - which was very likely to happen. Alexandra Me. He told me: “When you tell the director why you are leaving and where, he will immediately ask you: were there any precedents?”

Everything happened exactly like this; the impression was as if Fr. Alexander was present during the conversation in advance. The director told me directly: “I can understand you, but there, at the top, to whom I also have to report...”; he needed some arguments. On the advice of Fr. I answered Alexander that I don’t know about precedents, but I don’t run abroad, I don’t sign anti-Soviet letters, I enter an institution that legally exists: since there is a Church, then there must be people who serve in it. In addition, I came to the institute as an already formed person, I was 26 or 27 years old, so they are not responsible for raising me to be such a religious person. Well, third. As soon as I stick religious views, then I go to the place where they will be fully in demand. Apparently, these three arguments played a positive role, and everything went quite painlessly; in any case, there were no major troubles for the institute. I repeated the same thing when talking with the secretary of the party organization of our institute, A.V. Yablokov - the same one who later became a deputy Supreme Council, and is now engaged in active environmental activities, for which he is honored and praised. (He was an excellent scientist, very energetic, loved zoology very much, but he was also quite active in the party line - I think in order to bring maximum benefit to the situation in which we were all then. I must say that the Academy of Sciences at that time was a hotbed of dissidence and dissent.)

Marina Nasonova: What year was this?

O. A. It was 1972, 4 years after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, 2 years before the expulsion of Solzhenitsyn - the time of samizdat and all sorts of dissidence. But I didn’t openly sign anything. He took some part in samizdat, both before and after that, but after that, it was more likely not in political, but in religious samizdat. In particular, I translated the book “Life After Life” by R. Moody, which describes the experiences of people who have experienced clinical death. And my expectations were justified: the book began to be reprinted and actively passed from hand to hand. At that time, the distribution of such literature was important because it encouraged people to at least think about religious issues.

R.N. You have known Fr. for many years. Alexander Men. His photographs hang in your room - we looked at them while we were sitting here, waiting for you. What could you say about the role played by Fr. Alexander is in your life and probably continues to play?

O. A. His role was, of course, decisive. I experienced his influence both directly and through his brother Pavel - my close friend, with whom I still often consult. Pavel was also largely shaped by the influence of his older brother; they were very friendly and close. Now, after the death of Fr. Alexandra, I often try to imagine what he would say or do in a given situation. Although I do not have a list of recipes, what he said in this particular case, but there is general idea, general intuition of how to act in the spirit of Fr. Alexandra.

Of course, his books played a role here, but above all, of course, the personality of this unusually joyful, unusually loving, deep man. A man who was very much ahead of his time (even though he was very much in tune with his time), unlike many other people in the Church who were rather backward-looking - and not in the sense that they were not converted to eternal values, like o. Alexander Men, but the fact is that, willingly or unwillingly, many people then and now present the task of the Church as the reconstruction of a certain historical situation that they like, be it the first or second half of the 19th century, or something else. In any case, such people are characterized by a certain alienation from what surrounds us in our time.

R.N. Father, there is a feeling that after the death of Fr. Alexander in our Church there is no figure of such a plan, such a scale, such a spiritual authority as he was. A person who, on the one hand, would be equally drawn to modernity, would have the same talent for communicating with people, and on the other hand, would be just as spiritually deep and turned to eternal values.

O. A. This is wrong. Without any stretch, we can say that a person of the same scale, breadth and culture is His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II. Such a figure was the late Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. To some extent, S.S. Averintsev was a similar person... We know a fairly small circle of people. In any case, I think that our land has not yet become impoverished.

R.N. I was not familiar with Fr. Alexander Men personally. But numerous records of his spiritual conversations have been preserved. And today, when we watch and listen to them, an amazing feeling arises: a person is not expressing some position or point of view, but is saying something vital, absolutely necessary for everyone present, whether they expect to hear it or not. This ability to say only the most essential, in my opinion, is unique, especially against the modern background, when everyone does nothing but state their positions.

O. A. Just oh. Alexander had an amazing gift. As one parishioner said, he was “astute to the point of insight.” He was a person who very keenly and quickly felt another person, an audience, and therefore did not set out some homework, previously spoken blocks, but built his speech depending on what he sees and feels now. And his vision was very deep: he seemed to look at many things from above. Therefore, his answers were not a statement of position, but a statement of a vision, and a very precise, extensive one... And it was this vision that gave a feeling of presence - both him and the listeners - as if inside the problem.

M.N. Priests now regularly appear in the media. They are invited to popular talk shows, they are approached for commentary on various kinds of events. What meaning do you see in this and how do you evaluate it?

O. A. You know, I watch quite a bit of TV and therefore hardly see the programs you are talking about. When I'm invited, I always try to go - even to all these talk shows, "To the Barrier", etc. - in the hope that I will be able to say something sensible; I try to give an answer in the spirit of the Gospel, to explain what the Gospel tells us on this matter - to give a Christian reaction. Of course, I don’t think anything through in advance; I expect to answer impromptu, because you can’t guess in advance exactly what questions will need to be answered and how it will need to be said.

It is impossible to say something deep in the minute and a half that are given in such television programs for an answer. But even this kind of statement, although not deep enough, is important in its own way - as a reminder that there is a Church, there is a Christian position and outlook on life.

R.N. Father, you talked a lot about your first profession and the imprint it left on your entire life. And indeed, when delivering a sermon, you often use images of living nature that you have previously studied. On the other hand, when you now watch popular science films about nature, and just look around at what is happening in nature, it becomes clear that man and nature are in many ways opposite things; natural expediency, essentially very cruel, is completely alien to man.

O. A. Of course, between man and animal there lies a huge, impassable gulf. It is no coincidence that three times in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis it is said: he created Heaven and Earth, he created the living soul, he created man. All these three processes are a riddle, a mystery before which science simply stops: the emergence of everything, living things and humans. And of course, we are all well aware of this. Another thing is that examples from my biological past arise quite naturally for me. Let's say o. Georgy gives quotes from Latin and Greek authors, and I give some examples from living nature. Probably, if my first profession was a doctor, then I would give relevant examples from the field of medicine.

R.N. People come to becoming a priest in different ways. Someone first realizes himself in serving society, and many probably did so in those years when you yourself took holy orders...

O. A. No, it happened differently. Both in those years and before, many young people, having served in the army, immediately entered the seminary, graduated from it, and they only had the experience of school and the army behind them. This happens often now.

R.N. What would you advise to those who aspire to become a priest: should they rather follow your path or...?

O. A. It’s probably better not to rush into becoming ordained, but to have some life experience and level of education. Although it is not necessary, there are people who mature early. Fr. Alexander Men immediately after graduating from the institute accepted the rank of deacon, and two years later - the priesthood. But he was a man formed very early.

I served as a deacon for 16 years before becoming a priest at age 50. And, as I think now, it was providential and absolutely right for me. If I had immediately become a priest, I’m afraid I would have messed up a lot, especially because of my rigidity and love of dogma at that time. The organization inherent in my nature could leave its mark on my religious work. So, it’s probably good that my ordination was preceded by a lot of life experience.

R.N. Like Fr. Alexandra Menya, you combine genuine, deep religiosity with love and a keen interest in culture. The notorious “dialogue of culture and religion” takes place in people like you, naturally, as if by itself. But when you get acquainted with works of modern literature and art “on religious themes,” you usually get a feeling of awkwardness. Or when the Church gives advice to artists, conducts a special cultural policy - something inorganic also comes out. One gets the impression that there is simply no need for any special dialogue between culture and religion. Everyone should be fully engaged in their work, and then the points of contact will appear on their own.

O. A. I don't consider myself a human high culture, for various reasons (I won’t go into them). Rather, for me the leitmotif has always been love for the life around us - and not only for living organisms; Every arrangement of nature around us has always deeply touched me. Let's say, when I was a young man doing an internship in geology, I was completely fascinated by looking at different stones and minerals. When you split a stone and look into its interior, you understand that it reflects processes that took place millions of years ago and left traces in the structure of this stone... And every manifestation of living things evokes in me the same reverence. This love for Creation, love for the world around me has always dominated my life.

R.N. Are there any works of art that gave you something important for understanding faith? I mean both fine art and literature.

O. A. If we talk about literature, then this is, of course, Dostoevsky. This was after finishing school, when I had not yet believed. Dostoevsky became my favorite writer of that time. I will not undertake to say that he is my favorite writer now, but then he made a very deep impression on me. Maybe it was partly frontierism, because we didn’t go to Dostoevsky’s school at that time; he was an almost banned writer. His name was mentioned, there was even a portrait in the anthology, but we did not read and could not read anything from Dostoevsky’s works. Only in 1956, after the 20th Congress, it began to be published. Previously, there were only old publications and rarities.

Dostoevsky's writings made a deep impression on me right away. And stories, and novellas, and big things. They instilled in me attention to man, to his inner world, complex and tragic, as the main value, to something most important.

And if we talk about music or fine arts, then I’m not too experienced in this, I know them just like everyone else. Classical music I started listening more Lately. Oddly enough, this is associated with car travel. Because when you’re driving, and especially when you’re stuck in traffic jams (which is a completely pointless activity), you can put on a pre-recorded cassette with the music of Bach or Mozart. And it's very nice. You discover a new world that, unfortunately, you knew little about in your youth. Like everyone else, of course, I visited the conservatory, but not often.

R.N. Do you want to re-read something now?

O. A. Yes, last summer I enjoyed re-reading L.N. Tolstoy. Not many things, of course, mainly Caucasian stories: “Cossacks”, “Cutting Woods”... Partly this was due to the desire to better understand the political situation in the Caucasus, to compare our era and the times of Tolstoy; and, I must say, a lot of similarities can be found here.

R.N. But in general, do you have time for anything that you would like to do?

O. A. You know, very little, although I take time to read. So I try to take advantage of my vacation; I take with me books that must be read, but sometimes I’m happy to take just something at random. This year we stayed in a house in Koktebel, where a very cultural family. They had a lot of books, very different: travel, adventure, research...

I must say that I don’t like detective stories and science fiction, although at one time, somewhere in my 20s or 30s, I really loved science fiction, especially R. Bradbury. I always had a rather cool attitude towards detectives. I once read Agatha Christie in English only for the purpose of learning the language. But this didn’t interest me at all. I just feel sorry for the time I have to spend on this, because I haven’t read so much of what I really need... In general, I still think that I haven’t read much—much less than I could and should have read.

***

R.N. You said that you recently re-read Tolstoy in order to better understand the political situation, and I immediately remembered that at one time you were a people’s deputy. Father, you managed to take a very active part in political events - at a time when they probably really required our direct participation. How do you remember that period of your life now?

O. A. I think this was timely and necessary, because then in the first freely elected Moscow Council people, basically, knew nothing about the Church or Christianity. The presence of three priests, including me, was important for decision-making, the creation of certain commissions, and interaction between the Church and city authorities. So it was useful then. And it must be said that at first, for about a year, the deputies listened to the opinion of the clergy with interest and respect. But then political passions began to take over, and the attitude towards me of some deputies, who “blushed” very much, began to change. But it didn’t surprise me and didn’t particularly bother me. I have maintained good relations with many of my colleagues in the Moscow City Council, and when we meet now, we remember with pleasure the past three years of working together.

I only worked truly actively as a deputy in the first year, especially during the 1991 coup; He even composed an appeal to the troops that entered Moscow. In fact, it was adopted by the Moscow Soviet, and probably played some small role in those events. But then, for the next two years, I was already a bad deputy, because both the work of the rector of the temple and the work of the deputy require all the time. You have to choose between them: either there or here. And not because they are incompatible in essence, but because of the time resource that each job requires. I think that the decision of the Synod that clergy should refrain from participating in bodies of representative power was absolutely correct; We have many of our own specific tasks that no one will solve for us.

But at first, then, it was probably important.

R.N. I’m just thinking about how differently the fates of the people who found themselves at the center of political events then turned out. It burned someone, but someone remained themselves - those people who returned on time...

O. A. To your previous studies.

R.N. When did you realize it was time to choose?

O. A. I realized this very quickly, within a couple of months, because I saw that a lot of good and necessary things can be done in the Moscow City Council, but all this takes time, you need to completely immerse yourself in this work. This means that a choice had to be made: either remain in the Church, or become a political figure. I chose the first one.

M.N. Is there something for you that you discovered in your youth and in which you have become stronger during your ministry? Conversely, was there anything that you gave up over time - were there any major, significant re-evaluations, rethinks over the years?

O. A. I think that there were no radical rethinks, there were very ordinary things: I became convinced that it is always desirable to support, encourage, and praise a person. I do this completely sincerely, and do not use it as a technique. And of course, we need to judge less, try to see that behind all the unpleasant character traits of a person there is always some kind of problem coming from childhood or from the life that he lives. That is, it is rather not the fault, but the misfortune of such a person. And although, of course, the responsibility of the person remains, our task is to understand him as best as possible.

M.N. And did you realize this when you were young?

O. A. Yes, but the more I communicate with people, the more I see the need for such an attitude towards people.

M.N. Have you given up anything “idealistic” that you had in your youth?

O. A. Well, from the idealistic - no. It was different: at first I had a desire to firmly defend some righteous positions from a dogmatic point of view, regardless of faces. But I soon realized that this was all unnecessary.

M.N. A lot of people always came to you. Probably, over the years of your priestly service there have been many more of them. What did they come with before, what do they come with now, and how do you respond to this?

O. A. People often come when they are experiencing grief. Died close person, the family is collapsing, the collapse at work... Of course, I try to console everyone, support them, help them open a new stage in life. But first of all, I try to convey my conviction that if a person comes to Church, he will begin the usual Christian life(reading the Word of God, prayer, participation in the sacraments of the Church), then God will tell him the answers, what to do, how to act. You can’t count on the fact that you came, ordered a prayer service, solved your problems, and that’s it, you can leave and not come here for another three years. Of course, you always try to move a person from such expectations to a more serious relationship with God. Because the Church is not the Ministry of Emergency Situations for this particular case, but new life, giving us the strength to accept all the hardships and dramas of our existence.

M.N. You have been serving for a long time and have always been involved in church and social activities, even before your priestly ordination. Back in the 1970s, people came to you and listened to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at this table. Are other people coming to you now, or is there a sense of continuity?

O. A. Probably the people are the same. As a rule, the intelligentsia comes to us, although ordinary people also come, and I am always very happy about this. It's just easier now. Previously, everything had to be explained; there were 2-3, maximum 5 books in samizdat that could be recommended. Designed, as a rule, for a narrow circle of people, they were devoted to the most pressing problems: prayer, entry into the Church. And now I take this “piece of paper” with me to confession, where the names of books are written down. In these books, the problems that concern people are presented much better than I can explain them in a few minutes in confession. So it's become a lot easier in that regard.

In addition, I always try to select among new books the most relevant ones for the people who come to me. These are books not only for newcomers, but also for young people, for married couples, for people who face tragedy: serious illness, death. I find literature on Christian psychology very important and interesting, as it helps me see my problems in a new light. And it can be very joyful when a person, having taken from me a small list of books about family life, then comes again and says: “It’s good, now some of our problems have begun to be solved more successfully.” This is always the best reward.

M.N. How open are the people who come to your Church to faith now? Or is it because they know much more in advance, their faith is less natural and you have to work with them more? Have you encountered such situations: a person comes to church, he has already read everything, he already has his own position on all issues, but he no longer really needs a meeting with God?

O. A. Situations are different, but at least the majority of people who come have a thirst for a genuine meeting with God, for genuine spiritual growth.

M.N. What do you remember most about these 30 years? What, so to speak, can you praise yourself for?

O. A. First of all, I managed not to lose the joy of performing divine services, especially the Liturgy. It still always makes me happy, and I would say that every year my understanding of the Eucharist becomes deeper and more joyful. Some kind of endless perspective really opens up before me, and sometimes even for a moment I am surprised that we, people, with all our shortcomings, find ourselves in the spiritual channel of the Church.

I understand more and more clearly how important the very atmosphere of a church is for a person—it would seem, such external aspects of the service as the interior or the nature of the singing. All this should meet expectations cultured person entering the church. Of course, we understand the imperfection of painting in our temple. But still, it is not made so crudely and creates the atmosphere of our temple, just like singing. I’m not afraid to say that from the moment when Marina came to us as regent along with those whom she gathered in the choir, I have always been pleased with the singing in our church - very deep, cultural, at a good musical level. Singing creates a very significant component of the atmosphere of the temple, which is extremely important for every person entering here.

Of course, sometimes you want to hear some new chants or for the Znamenny chant to sound more. But here I trust the regent, her taste, and I try not to “pressure”, but very delicately express my wishes, because any pressure can, on the contrary, discourage both the singers and the regent...

R.N. As a musician, I understand very well how important and dear to all of us is what you call the atmosphere of the temple. But still, worship is, first of all, the word heard in the temple. Unfortunately, texts in Church Slavonic are not always fully understandable even to those who have been regularly attending church services for many years. And I must say that both you and Fr. Georgy, you know how to very delicately replace individual, least understandable words and expressions with their more modern equivalents.

O. A. I think I actually use Russian words quite rarely. I think this effect comes from the fact that I try to pronounce the words as clearly as possible; Due to this, they can be heard clearly and become much clearer. The problem you are talking about really exists, but it is gradually being solved. With each edition of liturgical texts, some Russification occurs (to verify this, compare editions with an interval of approximately 5 years). I think that the problem of the Russian language will be recognized by the Church to an increasingly greater extent in connection with another, more common problem- the problem of the missionary orientation of the Church’s activities, to which His Holiness the Patriarch calls us.

Another thing is that all changes should be made with caution. While calling on some, we must not push others away. I think that the time has not yet come for some radical changes. For the Church, restoration of infrastructure and social work are now more important. And the language issue will have to be resolved gradually. This matter is quite complex, and now we do not have the internal readiness for this. I heard all sorts of examples of Russification, and they did not always make a pleasant impression. In some cases, even when done by highly respected authors, the impression was created that their translations were less intelligible than the Church Slavonic text.

R.N. Here a lot depends on understanding the original source.

O. A. Not only from understanding, but also from the ability to convey it in an adequate form.

R.N. But first, we need to deeply comprehend everything internally... It just seems to me that in reality, we are basically facing problems of a completely different kind, not of a philological nature at all. Here's to me at the conservatory before an exam in which I have to talk about church music by J.-S. Bach, students come up and say: but the priest forbade us to read the Gospel, because it is dangerous for us, we might misunderstand something there... It turns out that non-believers can - simply because I ask them to do this as a teacher, - read fragments of Holy Scripture...

O. A. But believers do not. Well, I think the priest showed too much caution here. Of course, the Gospel exists to be read, and not just to be placed somewhere in a place of honor.

R.N. But it’s not about any individual priest. If we talk about our modern spiritual situation as a whole, then probably one of the main problems is the division of our society in its attitude towards religion. On the one hand, we see, perhaps, a small but influential group of people, seemingly churchgoers, but somehow wild and aggressive... Just yesterday, I stood in line to pay the bills for the apartment, and what -that lady who boasted that she constantly attends church goes to bishop's services, with gloomy fanaticism, referring to the Bible, spoke completely wild, misanthropic things. She lamented that the end of the world did not come in 2000, that she never saw how the “oligarchs” would endure hellish torment (and it is not known when this spectacle can now be seen...) On the other hand, there are many seemingly smart, nice, educated people, but very frivolous about the Church and religion, publicly calling themselves “agnostics”... But there are two types of agnostics. There are people who are tormented by their ignorance of God, and there are those who have decided that they simply shouldn’t worry themselves with unnecessary questions, that this way they will live calmer and more rationally, that they need to be above questions of faith. This split between churchliness and civilization is, it seems to me, the essence of our modern spiritual crisis.

Therefore, it especially pains me that in the eyes of society our Church is personified by a small group of fundamentalists hostile to culture, people gripped by some completely archaic fears. Either they are frightened by the introduction of the Taxpayer Identification Number, or it seems to them that the long-overdue reform of the church calendar will somehow destroy Orthodoxy. (And the fact that the widespread celebration by the entire country of the secular New Year in the middle of the Nativity Fast is absurd and a clear temptation both for believers and for those millions who are ready to accept the Orthodox faith, but have not yet joined the Church, does not bother anyone.) And so We are afraid of such people. I myself, having involuntarily listened to this “Orthodox” lady in line for quite a long time, did not dare to say anything in response...

O. A. Yesterday's Soviet people came to the church. They came with their established stereotypes, with very low culture and very little knowledge, with enormous conceit and aggression: they simply changed their slogans in a parody, but their psychology remained exactly the same as it was before. These, speaking in psychological terms, are adults who have largely remained at the developmental level of an infant or preschooler, or, less commonly, a teenager. And for such people as preschoolers or teenagers, it is necessary to belong to some group. They feel calm only when they are among complete like-minded people; they have a contrasting mindset: “they are us.” This kind of people always treat with prejudice and fear everything that is not like them. And having lost Soviet ideology, having accepted faith not as a living connection with God, but as a new ideology that justifies and elevates them, gives them a sense of self-sufficiency and self-confidence, they are terribly afraid of everything else that is not like them. It is possible that they did experience conversion and that the Lord touched their heart, but it affected them in a very small way. And they consider their ideas, limited to this small volume, to be the only correct, the only possible. Anything that differs even slightly from this is immediately branded by them as heresy; people who think slightly differently are perceived as sectarian enemies, and so on. And of course, the sad fact is that in our modern Church, if not the majority of such people, then in any case they are the ones who make the difference. Or maybe even the majority.

I was recently in St. Petersburg, looked in two churches, including the Kazan Cathedral, at a set of books that are sold there: this is Seraphim Rose and other such gloomy books. No Gospel. There is not a single book by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. The Bible lies somewhere in the background. And ahead are prayer books; and this, of course, is good, but there is a feeling that this is not aimed at missionary work, not at attracting people who walk the streets of St. Petersburg to the Church (after all, the Kazan Cathedral stands in the very center of the city), but at some narrow circle like-minded people. They have already converted, and they like to be together, they have their own social circle, their own books. They are not interested in missionary work... But many people come to the Kazan Cathedral different people— some are interested in the cathedral as an architectural monument, others come out of a general interest in the Church. It is clear that this kind of book may rather scare them away, which in fact often happens.

Many people say that their experience of meeting the Church was rather negative: they were scolded, they were told something harsh and unfriendly. And people, on the one hand, understand the importance and necessity of the Church, but on the other hand, they are afraid to even go there.

R.N. Father, doesn’t what you are talking about now scare you? I thought I was looking at things too gloomily, but I'm afraid that compared to what you say, I look like a real optimist. Is it really true that such people in the Church are not an aggressive minority, but almost a majority?

O. A. Statistical research It’s unlikely that anyone has carried out this kind of work, but the impression is that there are quite a few of them, including among the clergy; more than half anyway.

M.N. This is simply a ritual belief: people came to the Church in search of a new “guidance and direction”: having lost the Soviet order, people with the Soviet mentality went in a crowd to where they were offered a certain formative component, and obeyed it.

O. A. Yes, but these people did not submit to anything - they brought it here themselves.

People came out of the totalitarian regime. Why is he scary? That which creates the type of people with the psychology of a preschooler. They are looking for an authority that is always right; their own opinion is not encouraged in any way. And this is the problem of such people, not their fault. And probably the next generation, if it still dares to go to churches and read the Gospel and the Bible, will be different.

R.N. The problems of our church life in some ways remind me of the general situation in our country: people at the head of the state either underestimate their people or are afraid of them - perhaps rightly so. From their point of view, discipline should be strengthened and, if possible, control over those who try to engage in “amateur activities.” In the state, such amateur activity is called civil society. But we also have the internal life of the parish, we have its opinion, and the attitude of the clergy to this is not always the most respectful. The priest is appointed in a directive manner, as in the army, without coordinating this appointment with the opinion of the community, and certainly without listening to its wishes.

O. A. Here you are wrong. For example, from the very beginning we were assigned those clergy or laity that I asked for: Fr. Vladimir Lapshin, Fr. Georgy Chistyakov. As far as I know, even now there is a tendency to meet the wishes of the parish. But, on the other hand, the community should not be given too much freedom in such matters. After all, when Jesus says to Peter: “Feed my sheep,” he means to lead them. The shepherd walks ahead of the sheep, he is called to lead the flock, and not to wander after it.

Another thing is that the Lord gives each one his own gifts: to one - the gift of singing, to another - the gift of drawing, to the third - social service, working with homeless people. And here it is necessary to support and encourage people in every possible way. There must be a reasonable proportion of guidance, on the one hand, and careful attention to what a person has a heart for, on the other.

M.N. What do you value most from the affairs of our parish? Are there any among them who at one time started Fr. Alexander Men, but did not have time, as they say, to see what his undertakings turned into?

O. A. He outlined a lot. And the organization of evangelical groups, and work in a children's hospital. However, RDKB is no longer my diocese, but Fr. Georgy Chistyakov, who has been working there selflessly for many years; I don’t even try to somehow participate in this, because it is physically impossible to be both here and there.

But even the best plans are never realized if there is no what is called initiative from below. The ministries that we have now - feeding the homeless, clothing the poor - were born not as my idea, but as a natural desire of the people who began and continue to do this. This work is often unpleasant, and I am infinitely glad to see how they do it - patiently and without self-abuse, receiving satisfaction from their work. All I can do is support the wishes of the parishioners themselves.

M.N. And in general, you are satisfied with the way our parish lives and works.

O. A. Yes, we managed to create conditions for people in which they can express themselves. Many new areas of our activity are emerging, such as working with teenagers. People with alcohol and drug addiction come to us. Sometimes almost 50 people gather in small rooms (the last time I saw them leaving a small room, I remembered scenes from old comedies when 20-30 people come out of the door of a small car in a row; and how did they all fit in there? ). Not all of these people will subsequently go to worship services (although some will definitely start going later), but it is still important for them that their meetings take place in church. The very presence in the temple, in the church building, apparently somehow has a positive effect on the souls of these people. Once started, these movements do not fade away, they continue to exist, and I think that this great luck our arrival.

I also really appreciate the mutual support groups organized in our church. What they are doing is very important from the point of view of Christian psychology. A priest at confession cannot always help a person solve his problems. Sometimes this requires long-term therapy - an opportunity to gather and talk to each other. Such groups are a very good addition to regular work Churches, although in no case replace, of course, confession, participation in the sacraments, and the impact of our divine services on the soul of a person in general.

M.N. Who started working in prisons?

O. A. You mean what is now about. Is John working?

M.N. And this, and what A. Zorin does, and your constant trips...

O. A. Zorin also began to do this himself - he collected books for prisoners, which people brought to him in entire libraries.

M.N. Did your trips to the colonies begin in connection with your work on the Pardon Commission?

O. A. This happened in parallel. In connection with that work, several people appeared with whom I began to correspond and now continue to do so. There are not many of these people, there are two people left: one was released about four years ago, the other is still in prison (he was sentenced for life, perhaps he will serve twenty-five years, which is practically the same thing). In addition, at one time we went to the Mozhaisk colony for Easter and Christmas. And then I stopped these trips because I saw that many Christians of other denominations, from other churches, were traveling to this famous colony.

I have always strived to ensure that assistance to prisoners is organized on a territorial basis, because it is impossible for one parish to support colonies throughout Russia. We have a huge city, and there are a lot of people sitting in Butyrki, in Matrosskaya Tishina. Therefore, we are now trying in every possible way to support Fr. John. If the need arises, we organize a fundraiser and provide him with transportation if necessary.

R.N. Helping the sick and disadvantaged is beneficial for all those who provide it.

O. A. It is very important for people to have not only a “vertical” connection with God, but also “horizontal” connections with each other. Social work and charitable activities bring people together very much. But here, it seems to me, we need support and participation from the state. The church has a great potential for volunteers who could work in social sphere, but creating the infrastructure for such work is, of course, a matter for the state. The Church cannot build nursing homes and orphanages, but it can provide personnel to work in them. All this is a matter of the future, since the state does not yet understand that a significant part of social work can be carried out by us together. But I hope that this will gradually be realized, and cooperation between the Church and the state in the social sphere will expand.

R.N. Father, congratulating you on your anniversary and 30th anniversary of your service to the Orthodox Church, we would like to express to you, on behalf of our entire parish, deep gratitude, sympathy and support. We understand how great a responsibility lies with you. We know how much more difficult it is for you than for each of us. We admire your energy for kindness and tolerance, and try to follow your example in this. Please tell me what supports you in your work, where do you get your strength?

O. A. I always remember the aspiration of Fr. Alexandra Me to work and try to do what is possible under the given circumstances. Helping people come to Christ and the Gospel is the most important thing in my ministry. And the Patriarch constantly calls us to this in his articles, interviews, and speeches at diocesan meetings. He asks us to support people, to accept them, to make sure that upon entering the temple, a person wants to come there again, so that in no case is there any rudeness or lack of culture on our part. His Holiness the Patriarch always stands for such a merciful attitude towards people - even in those cases when they clearly deceive us (they come and say, for example: “help, I just got out of prison, but there is no money” - but when leaving prison, the former prisoners are given a certain amount of money. I remember when His Holiness was once asked about this, he answered: still try to somehow support the person, console him, even if you cannot provide him with material assistance, or you understand that not everything he says , true. Our patriarch knows and feels the problems of the modern Orthodox Church very well, calling all of us to active missionary work and social work. How much his advice is perceived is another question. But for me, what His Holiness the Patriarch says and does is always the most powerful support.

Alexander Ilyich Borisov (October 13, 1939, Moscow) - Soviet biologist, publicist and public figure, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, until September 2010 he served as president of the Russian Bible Society.

From 1956 to 1958 he worked as a mechanic, earning the work experience then necessary to enter a university.

From 1958 to 1960 he studied at the Institute of National Economy. Plekhanov.

In 1960 he transferred to the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute. Lenin. He got married that same year. Has two twin daughters born in 1964.

In 1964, after graduating from the institute, he worked in the Laboratory of Radiation Genetics of the Institute of Biophysics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by Academician N.P. Dubinin. The laboratory was soon transformed into the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1969 he defended his dissertation on genetics and was awarded the academic degree of Candidate of Biological Sciences. He went to work at the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by Academician B. L. Astaurov. His opponent at the defense of his dissertation was the outstanding Russian geneticist Nikolai Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovsky.

In 1972, he left his scientific work and, with the blessing of his confessor, Father Alexander Men, entered the 4th grade of the Moscow Theological Seminary.

In 1973 he graduated from the seminary and was ordained to the rank of deacon, where he served until 1989 in the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God “The Sign” in Aksinin.

From 1973 to 1978 he studied at the Moscow Theological Academy, after graduating he defended his candidate's dissertation on the topic “Teaching about man from liturgical books.” Candidate of Theology.

In 1989 he was ordained a priest (previously such an ordination was impossible due to the negative position of the authorities).

In 1991, he was appointed rector of the Church of the Unmercenary Saints Cosmas and Damian in Shubin, which was returned by the state to the Orthodox Church. A significant part of the spiritual children of the deceased Archpriest Alexander Men moved to this parish.

In 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Bible Society.

From 1995 to 1997, he was a member of the public council of the Zamoskvorechye Technical University.

In 1994, at the theological conference “Unity of the Church,” organized by the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities, priests Alexander Borisov and Georgy Kochetkov were sharply criticized. Speakers at the conference accused them of renovationism, theological modernism and unauthorized innovations in the parishes entrusted to them. Father Alexander Borisov was particularly criticized for his book “White Fields. Reflections on the Russian Orthodox Church." In it, the author reflected on the ignorance of the clergy and the ritual faith of parishioners, on the low theological literacy of Orthodox Christians in Russia, and on the problems of spiritual education. The book was written in a polemical manner, but the most controversial question was the author’s understanding of ecumenism. It is known that Fr. Alexander Borisov, like his mentor Fr. Alexander Men is a convinced and practicing ecumenist. As president of the Russian Bible Society, he constantly participates in joint research projects, conferences and symposia with Catholics and Protestants.