Alfons Bruning
Different Humans and Different Rights? The Concept of Human Dignity in Western and Eastern Orthodox Perspectives
Alfons Bruning - Faculty Member of the Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands). a.bruening@ivoc.ru.nl
Focusing on the concept of human dignity, the article compares the views of Eastern Orthodox theology and "western" approaches with further distinction between secular, generally neutral models, and Christian theology. Analysis of Eastern Orthodox theology, of the idea of theosis (deification) in particular, shows that theological foundations of "human dignity" in East and West are often closer to each other than it is usually assumed. Consequently, the actual borderline apparently runs not so much between East and West, but rather between secular and religious approaches. At the same time, the existing models of human dignity and human rights seem to have reached dead ends and need a new orientation in order to provide convincing responses to new challenges. The Eastern Orthodox teaching of theosis, as applied in the "Bases of the Russian Orthodox Church's Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Human Rights" can offer a number of new insights that can be combined with western perspectives for mutual enrichment.
Keywords: human dignity, human rights, Russian Orthodox Church, theosis, Christian anthropology.
The article is based on the text of a lecture written in Dutch and delivered at the Free University (Vrije Universiteit) and Protestantse Theologische Universiteit (Protestantse Theologische Universiteit) in Amsterdam on January 24, 2013, on the occasion of my assumption of office. The text has been updated and corrected.
page 166
Introduction
OVER the past decades, the term "human dignity" has had a brilliant, if controversial, career. It is popular, but its meaning is not always clear. Here is what is written in the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, one of the most important documents of the XX century:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and universal peace [...] 1.
Following this text, the concept of "human dignity" began to appear in the constitutions of States around the world. For example, in the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), dignity is written in the first sentence of the first article:
Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all State authorities to respect and protect it.2
Moreover, the notion of human dignity, traditionally considered a product of the West, also plays an important role in non-Western cultures.3
It is "dignity" that is the basis of any claim to rights. According to the above definitions, human dignity is inherent and uniform for each individual, as well as the entire set of rights derived from this concept.
Human dignity can be interpreted as inviolable and sacred, but this does not deprive it of some inconsistency. Therefore, other equally significant declarations
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_ conv/declarations/declhr. shtml, accessed on 07 - 02 - 2013].
2. Grundgesetz, art. 1, no. 1 [http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_l.html, accessed on 07 - 02 - 2013].
3. Examples of South Africa may be mentioned, among other things [http://www.info.gov.za/documen ts/constitution/1996/96consl.htm, accessed on 07 - 02 - 2013] or Chile [http://www.verfassungen.net/cl/verf05-i. htm, accessed on 07 - 02 - 2013]. For more information on the use of the concept of "dignity" in the texts of constitutions, as well as various international documents, see McCrudden, Ch. (2008) "Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights", European Journal of International Law 19: 664-675.
page 167
and texts, such as the Charter of the European Union on Human Rights or the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which recognize the fundamental importance of human rights for legislation, do not use the concept of human dignity. And, as we'll see later, there are good reasons for this. Disputes about the essence and content of the concept of dignity are as old as the declarations themselves and the texts that operate with them.
In this article, we will consider the theological and philosophical foundations of the concept of human dignity, and it is not directly related to political, legislative and social processes. But these foundations are very important for understanding the relationship of values, for example, the individual and the collective, freedom or order, and secular or religious models. In most modern societies, it is these opposites that come to the fore. Each trend is represented by a specific social group and finds expression in disputes and lobbying, ceasing to be a pure theory and finding itself in the center of social conflicts. The purpose of this article, among other things, is to try to get closer to understanding the above opposites.
Subjects of the polemic: West-East or secular-religious?
In August 2008, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Moscow adopted a document entitled "Fundamentals of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights"4. During the publication of this document, it was repeatedly emphasized that it was created to facilitate communication with representatives of human rights groups and non-governmental organizations inside and outside the sphere of influence of the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, at that time the question of the need to give a new impetus to such discussions was in the air, and not only among the clergy. At the time of publication of the document, relations between human rights defenders and representatives of the Orthodox Church were, to put it mildly, restrained.
4. Next - The Basics. Detailed information on the adoption of this document can be found in: Stoeckl, K. (2012) "The Human Rights Debate in the External Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church", Religion, State & Society 40 (2): 212 - 232.
page 168
A few phrases from the document itself directly explain the reasons for this situation. One of these problematic passages is still a fragment about the dignity of man. The Russian Orthodox Church recognizes that human dignity is the foundation of every right. But what do Orthodox bishops and theologians understand by dignity? The document we are discussing gives a very unconventional explanation at first glance:
If the image of God in Orthodoxy is ascribed to the inherent, ontological dignity of every human person, its highest value, then a life befitting dignity is correlated with the concept of God's likeness, which, by Divine grace, is achieved through overcoming sin, acquiring moral purity and virtues.
[ ... ] According to the Orthodox tradition, a person's preservation of God-given dignity and growth in it is conditioned by living in accordance with moral norms, because these norms express the primordial, and therefore true nature of a person, not overshadowed by sin.
And then:
[ ... ] A morally unworthy life does not ontologically destroy the God-given dignity, but it obscures it so much that it becomes indistinguishable. 5
Some of the thoughts in these paragraphs will seem familiar to Western theologians. Others, however, will be surprised. It seems that from the point of view of the document, human dignity ceases to be an absolute and inherent quality, it becomes something relative, something that can be lost if you lead an "unworthy" life. Therefore, people are not equal in their dignity, but can differ from each other according to their spiritual level and moral state, depending on the way of life and behavior in accordance with" God's commandments", as well as the judgments of the Church. In other words, human dignity is tied to the will and censorship of religious authorities. It is important to understand the following: from a "classical" point of view
5. Fundamentals. I. 2, I. 5, I. 4.
page 169
These rights are granted to people on the basis of the basic premise of individual, universal, and equal human dignity for all. The Russian Church in its document distinguishes between the fundamental" God-given " dignity and its concrete implementation in life. "Dignity", therefore, turns out to be two-sided. The first aspect can be left untouched, but the second, which is narrowly related to morality, is a possible potential source of rights. It turns out that the non-political authorities set boundaries in the field of politics, arguing that legislation should be based not on the individual and egalitarian ideal of human dignity, but on the model of a "decent life".
Such an interpretation could not fail to arouse strong objections. The Russian media began to write about the "ecclesiastical version of human rights", and many came to the conclusion that in the new-found perspective, only Orthodox believers or even only the most faithful of them could have rights. It is obvious that journalists were alarmed by the fact that the church, linking human rights to one's religious affiliation, refused to consider them as an absolute value, and also made an attempt to impose its own system of values on society.6 In this regard, it is worth mentioning the following: according to surveys, since at least 2000, the overwhelming majority (up to 80%) of Russians consider themselves Orthodox, while a significantly smaller number of people (about 5%) constantly go to church and attend services. If the analysis made by Alexander Aghajanyan is correct, and the ROC, using the rules of the game of a modern pluralistic society, seeks to find its niche in it7, then we are talking about the value system of a certain minority.
The Orthodox concept caused a wave of criticism and suspicion in the West. In particular, the connection between dignity and morality drawn in the Fundamentals raised objections from Protestants. In the official response to the appearance of the document
6. Here are just two of the many examples: Egorov S. Human rights in the episcopal style. The Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church challenges internationally recognized human rights / / Ciuitas. September 4, 2008 [http://www.civitas.ru/article.php? pop=o&code=932&year=2008, accessed 15.08.2014]; Klin B. The Church explained to a person his rights // Izvestia. No. 115-August 8, 2008 See also: http://www.pravmir.ru/cerkov-rastolkovala-cheloveku-ego-prava/.
7. Agadjanian, A. (2012) "The Russian Orthodox Teaching on Human Rights: Its Socio-Cultural Significance and its Social Theory Perspective", in A. Bruning, E. van der Zweerde (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 271 - 292. Leuven: Peeters.
page 170
Representatives of the joint organization of various Protestant denominations "Community of Protestant Churches in Europe", based in Vienna, once again stressed the inherent, individual and universal nature of human rights. The message of the organization states that the dignity of a person should under no circumstances depend on the opinion of any institution, religious or political. Consequently, neither religious or ideological affiliation, nor adherence to a particular way of life can affect dignity, because it was once and for all given by God to all people.8 Similar arguments were made during subsequent meetings between Protestant and Orthodox theologians in Germany and Finland9.
Does all this mean that we are dealing with at least two approaches to the issue of human dignity that are significantly different from each other? The confrontation between the religious and the secular and the East and the West, it seems, is still alive. Does the Russian Orthodox Church choose a different version of human rights from the "Western" version and the version of Western Christian churches? As a matter of fact, a simplified presentation of these perspectives will indeed result in a description of two opposing concepts. On the one hand, we will have an unchanging and static concept of dignity based on the principles of equality and human individuality, and on the other, a more dynamic model with collectivist and authoritarian overtones. To a certain extent, this leads to the opposition of the principle of freedom and the principle of order or harmony - and the question of which of the principles deserves more attention remains open.
This juxtaposition is also tempting because it is consistent with recent changes in politics and events in recent years. It explains well the widespread view of the Russian Orthodox Church as a "servant of the state", an "ideological accomplice of the Putin regime".
8. Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) (2008) "Human Rights and Morality. A Response of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) - Leuenberg Church Fellowship - to the Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights'".
9. Hurskainen, Heta. (2012) "Human Rights in the 2008 Bilateral Discussions of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Evangelical Church of Germany and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland", in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 155 - 168. Leuven: Peeters.
page 171
democracy" and the main opponent of human rights. Recall that this image is very popular among Russian non-governmental organizations and Western media. This ideological confrontation periodically leads to open clashes. A striking example is Pussy Riot's controversial "punk prayer" at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow in 2012. This action raised the question of the compatibility of freedom of expression with more authoritarian and communitarian concepts of public order and religious values.
However, everything is not so simple and unambiguous. If you dig deeper, the contradictions, despite their obviousness, will not be as sharp and irreconcilable as they are presented by the "trench warriors" from ideology. At the same time, it is worth noting that an ideological confrontation like "East versus West" is always very easy to ignite and very difficult to extinguish.
A more detailed examination of the debate on human dignity will, I hope, help to clarify that neither side has a clear and unambiguous understanding of this concept. Concepts are being developed, each of them has a venerable tradition, but each of them has its drawbacks.
Doubts and disputes about human dignity in the West
Within the framework of the modern Western discussion of human dignity and rights, the stereotypical view that dates back to the Enlightenment (individuality, inclusivity, equality and universality) has been questioned in recent years. The question of the content and use of the term is raised in such disciplines as legal philosophy, medical ethics and bioethics. The concept of "human dignity" has become ambiguous, and it is used in various, sometimes incomprehensible and contradictory contexts. So, for example, lawyers began to deny the unambiguity and legal functionality of this term, claiming that:
[ ... ] the use of the term "dignity", apart from its most minimal meaning, cannot serve as a legal basis for making decisions on human rights issues. Justice simply does not know the universal essential attributes of "dignity". Thus, the meaning of the concept of dignity depends on the context, it varies both in the judicial practice of different bodies and states.-
page 172
as well as within the same jurisdiction. Indeed, the concept of "dignity" does not help to make the right decision, but rather confuses, and also increases the degree of discrepancy between different jurisdictions [...] 10.
Such doubts are nothing new. Already in the 1960s, just ten or fifteen years after the UN Declaration on Human Rights was published, legal philosophers raised an important question: what is the essence and content of the term "human dignity" beyond its functioning as a reference for various faiths? In addition, bioethics and artificial insemination technologies offer a new set of questions. The objections are limited to the question: is dignity an inherent attribute of a person or is it given to him, is it supposed in an ethical act of good will, or does it follow from the recognition of objective reality and real qualities?11 Even recent attempts to reconstruct the emergence of the Western idea of dignity and to reconcile previous narratives of exclusively religious or secular origin of the term leave the impression that this idea is more the result of a consensus reached than the expression of a once-known reality. 12 To begin with, we have nothing but an assumption and empirical proof to the contrary. After all, at least in cases of insult, the idea of dignity immediately becomes a fact of our experience, and therefore an intelligible reality. But what can you know about the dignity of a person beyond that? Of course, there is something in every human being that can be damaged by violence, repression, torture, and discrimination; although this "something" is really hard to put into words. Therefore, despite all the "buts", the term "dignity" continues, for lack of a better option, to be used as an alternative.
10. So Christopher McCrudden (Christopher. (2008) "Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights", European Journal of International Law 19: 664-675) summarizes his conclusions, see: Ibid., p.655. However, Mccruden goes on to note that the concept of human dignity plays an important role in adjudicating human rights issues, not providing a unified understanding of them, but allowing for the development of methods for different interpretations and assessments (Ibid.).
11. Wed. Wils, Jean Pierre. (2002) s. v. "Wurde", in Handbuch Ethik, ss. 537 - 542. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
12. Cf.: Joas, Hans. (2013) The Sacredness of the Person. A New Genealogy of Human Rights. Georgetown: GUP.
page 173
a kind of crutch. In any case, this term, although not quite clear, is still better than nothing 13.
But there are also theorists who prefer to talk about the self-evidence of the term, based on the mentioned negative experience of humiliation of dignity. This experience is understood as independent of cultural or ideological contexts. Here is what the African-American philosopher K. Appiah writes::
There is no point in arguing that we are all created in the image of God, or that we have rights based on our very human nature. No one wants to be tortured by government officials, no one wants to lose their life, family or property. Everywhere, ordinary people have an understanding of what dignity is, although this concept may be hidden under different names and differ in some nuances. Yet everyone wants respect and the assurance that it comes with good deeds 14.
After such a statement, it seems that there is nothing more to argue about. But then we still turn a blind eye to the existing difficulties. We cannot ignore the concepts and definitions that already exist in cultures, within different value systems and religions , because they often conflict with each other. It is possible that there is potential for consensus, but it is difficult to express it. The current state of the debate on the "dignity of man" can be described in the famous words of St. Augustine:
If no one asks me, I know; if I wanted to explain, no, I don't know 15.
After all, what other foundation does the concept of "dignity"have in addition to the aforementioned self-evidence? Why is it possible to say that dignity is a universal category, and that human rights based on it are indeed equally valid in the context of human rights?-
13. Bielefeldt, Heiner. (2008) Menschenwilrde. Der Grund der Menschenrechte, esp. pp. 8 - 12. Berlin: Studien des Deutschen Institute fur Menschenrechte; Bielefeldt, Heiner. (2011) Auslaufmodell Menschenwilrde? Warum sie in Frage steht, und warum wir sie verteidigen milssen. Freiburg: Herder.
14. Appiah, K.A. (2001) "Grounding Human Rights", in Michael Ignatieff (eds) Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, p. 106. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15. Augustine Aurelius. The confession. Book Eleven, XIV.
page 174
belong to all and sundry? We come to the inescapable conclusion that the concept of human dignity is a hypothesis or normative concept derived from our attempts to describe the equally valuable and fragile foundation of human nature. It can be considered an anthropological term, but without universal recognition, "human dignity" will remain a hypothesis. On the other hand, the belief in the possibility of universal recognition inspires some optimism.
This statement, by the way, leads us to the roots and origins of the concept of human rights in its current form. Thus, the concept of human rights (for example, the wording from the UN Declaration) was deliberately exempted from explicit references to a particular religious or philosophical system from the very beginning. At the same time, there has always been an assumption that it will not contradict any of the widespread ideologies, any of the largest philosophical and religious teachings. One phrase of Jacques Maritain is not coincidentally similar to the recently quoted words of Augustine. As one of the authors of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Maritain wittily expressed the essence of the consensus reached: "Yes, we agree with this interpretation of rights, but do not ask why"16.
However, despite all attempts to make the concept as neutral as possible, dignity and human rights are considered Western concepts that apply to varying degrees in other contexts. Thus, if the existing theoretical basis and empirical essence of the concept of "dignity" is only an intermediate result, not yet sufficiently defined, then this gives us the opportunity to contrast it with another concept (here we will consider the point of view of Russian Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodox theology). Both approaches are rightly criticized, but they may contain resources for mutual enrichment beyond the superficial disputes over the right to be the best or least worst of the alternatives.
The concept of theosis (deification) in the Eastern Church
Like the Western Christian tradition, Eastern Orthodox theology derives the concept of human dignity from the Holy Scriptures, more precisely from the Book of Genesis: "And God created man
16.Cit. по: van der Ven, J. A. (2008) Human Rights or Religious Rules, p. 165f. Leiden: Brill.
page 175
in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1: 27). The fact that man was created in the image of God is the starting point for reasoning about the dignity of man17. However, the Orthodox tradition is more restrained, it does not discuss human nature as often as in the West. In Orthodox thought, we will not find the enthusiastic and laudatory speeches about the creative nature of man that are so characteristic of the Renaissance, 18 or statements about moral autonomy (the age of Enlightenment). Moreover, in the writings of the Fathers, on which Orthodox thought is based, the concept of "dignity" is practically not defined. Early Christian thinkers (like the Stoic philosophers) see "dignity" as a privilege that God grants to people. This means that "dignity" is a special quality that can be either part of a person's nature or an acquired trait. Therefore, for example, the Russian word "dignity" can be used in the plural and is close in meaning to the word "virtue".
Today, Orthodox teaching divides "human dignity" into two components. The first component, imago dei, the image of God, is the most important value of the human person, but it cannot yet be called "dignity". This image is something like a sketch, a sketch that requires its implementation in life. This is the potential to become a true human being. As soon as a person begins to realize this potential and his true nature, the second component of the concept of "dignity" is added: a person becomes not only truly human, but also godlike. In patristics, this process is known as theosis, or deification.19
What is important here is that even if a person becomes godlike, he does not become God in any way. In other words, the relationship between the original image and the image remains unchanged. These relationships are terminologically developed-
17. See also Fundamentals. I. 1.
18. The most famous work of this type is Pico della Mirandola's Speech on the Dignity of Man (1486).
19. Therefore, a person's life consists in " becoming like God in virtue, as far as it is possible for a person, "as St. John of Damascus notes ("An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith"). In the patristic tradition, this revelation of the image of God is called deification (Fundamentals, I. 3).
page 176
theology of icons 20. From the point of view of Eastern theology, it is very important that the relationship between the archetype and the created image is not distorted. Man as a creature is man in his relation to the divine Creator. Without understanding this concept, "deification" and" finding the true nature of man " turn into worship of the human person, idolatry. Many Orthodox thinkers see the mistake of the Western tradition in the following: the above-mentioned tradition of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which emphasizes dignity, freedom and moral autonomy, gave rise to the cult of man as such, divorced from his correlation with the Creator. This has led to the destruction of human solidarity, community, and human nature itself. In the same way, the concepts of dignity and human rights are criticized as one of the manifestations of pride.21
Without the grace of God, man can achieve nothing by his own strength and moral intentions alone. But grace is promised and bestowed through salvation. Even the early Christian fathers abandoned the elite stoic ideal of autonomous self-improvement. From their point of view, even imago dei could be corrupted and corrupted by sin. It is Adam's sin that makes self-improvement impossible, and only God's grace, that is, the incarnation of God in Jesus, the subsequent death and resurrection of Christ, restores human dignity.22 And this restoration is radical, it once again opens up for man the possibility and potential of "deification": "It [the Word of God] is in all things divine."-
20. Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (1967) "The Philosophy of Icons", in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Vol. 1, pp. 506 - 517. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. See, for example, Popovic, J. (1997) Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ. Belmont MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies; Yannaras, C. (2004) "Human Rights and the Orthodox Church", in Clapsis, E. (ed.) The Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World: An Ecumenical Conversation, pp. 83 - 89. Brookline, MA: WCC Publications. It is possible that the reduction presented in these works is not quite adequate. The Western discourse of "human dignity" is more multifaceted and complex. Thus, within the framework of Catholicism, there are many (including contemporary) works about "human insignificance", in comparison with which the Russian Orthodox tradition seems more optimistic. This point of view, in particular, is present in the work: Dmitriev, M. V. (2012) " Humanism and the Traditional Orthodox Culture of Eastern Europe: How Compatible were they in the 16th and 17th Centuries?", in Briining, A., van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 85 - 110. Leuven: Peeters.
22. Cf. introductory review: Soulen, K. R., Woodhead, L. (eds) (2006) God and Human Dignity, p. 2f. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
page 177
it was necessary that we should be deified... " 23-wrote Athanasius the Great. The point of dependence is essential here: in the end, it is God, first through creation and then through incarnation, who creates and saves human dignity. Here is what Father John Meyendorff writes::
[ ... ] Salvation is not only liberation from death and sin; it is also the restoration of the original human dignity of being "the image of God." 24
At the same time, within the Orthodox tradition, it is considered quite obvious that deification is possible only inside the Christian church, "a building built from our souls," as John of Damascus said. Saint Gregory Palamas, the great reformer of the hesychasm tradition, calls baptism the first resurrection of the human soul that had previously perished in sin.25
More specifically, it requires more than just formal membership in the institution of the Church or observance of rituals. The main goal of the Christian life is multipolar connectivity and communication. communio, Greek. with God, as well as with other people. Communion with God is realized through prayer, participation in the liturgy and the sacraments, and communion with people consists in active love for one's neighbor, which is based on an attitude to God. Ultimately, it is the divine archetype that connects all the images of God available to man. The famous phrase attributed to Dostoevsky expresses the essence of the Russian worldview and should be understood precisely in the context of the issues we are discussing: "To love is to see a person as God intended him"26. Does this not ultimately mean to pay tribute to the dignity given by God?
23. Athanasius the Great. The Word about the incarnation of God the Word and His Coming to us in the flesh. Spaso-Preobrazh. Valaam Mon., 1994. p. 260.
24. Meyendorff, J. (1989) "Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition", in Dupre, L., Saliers, Don E. (eds) Christian Spirituality. Post-Reformation and Modern, p. 472. N.Y.: Crossroad Publishing.
25. Jacobs, J. D. (2006) "An Eastern Orthodox Conception of Theosis and Human Nature", in Faith and Philosophy 26 (5): 621.
26. The phrase is usually attributed to Dostoevsky, but without specifying the source. Anthologies of Dostoevsky's quotations and aphorisms do not contain this phrase (Cf. Grishin M. (ed.) Thoughts, utterances and aphorisms of Dostoevsky. Paris: Five Continents, 1975). However, it can be found in other Russian authors, for example, in Marina Tsvetaeva, in a slightly modified form.
page 178
Differences that open up during comparison
Dostoevsky's aphorism sounds succinct and accurate. At the same time, it is clear that the view of Eastern Orthodoxy described above largely contradicts the secular concept of human rights. In this case, are those who criticize this view for being elitist, giving dignity only to Orthodox Christians, right?
Strictly speaking, we must answer in the affirmative. However, everything can be explained by the claim of Orthodoxy to serve as an expression of the absolute, which is natural for religion and which stipulated the initial rejection of human rights, including by Western Christianity. But judging by the example of Western Christian churches, possible problems-in the field of anthropology and beyond-are relatively easy to resolve. As we have already understood, Orthodox Christianity shares with Western Christians the idea that human dignity is rooted in the creation of man in the image of God (imago dei). On the other hand, the conclusions drawn by Orthodoxy from this statement differ from those drawn by the West in its time.
However, it should be remembered that many theoretical contradictions between the secular concept of human rights (including the understanding of human dignity) and Christian theology are based not on the East - West opposition, but on the discrepancy between the positions of secularism (the secular state) and religious institutions (for example, Christian churches). Simply put, religious institutions that have always considered themselves carriers of an absolute system of values and truths cannot dismiss the previously mentioned question: "On what basis (does dignity exist)?". They rely on these "foundations" and can only accept concepts such as dignity and human rights from the outside through the prism of their own faith. If the teaching requires it, the churches are ready to change the essence of the borrowed concepts. The content of new concepts must be consistent with the previous tradition, otherwise they will be rejected. Western Christian denominations have gone through this process and still have doubts and concerns about certain secular interpretations of human dignity and rights.27
27. Более подробно см. Bruning, A. "'Freedom' vs. 'Morality' - on Orthodox Anti-Westernism and Human Rights", in Bruning, A., van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 125 - 152.
page 179
For example, in Western theology, the question is raised that the concept of human rights risks leading to the worship of the idol of individualism and selfishness. This is one of the evidences proving the inadequacy of radical Orthodox anti-Western criticism (in the spirit of Popovich and Yiannaras). Here is one example out of many: Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch Protestant theologian and one of the founders of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, often points out in his writings that the concept of human rights should be rooted in God (and not in man himself). However, Kuyper and his associates do not conclude that it is necessary to completely deny human rights, but present some alternative understanding of the ideal order, which is unattainable by human efforts alone. Such an ideal (given Luther's "two kingdoms" teaching) It is not established only by political power, but it has a chance to be realized thanks to divine grace and Christian virtue. A deeper look at this problem shows that Kuiper and his associates ' interpretations of the concepts of grace, salvation, and mercy do not differ much from the view of Orthodox theology.28 It is no coincidence that modern trends in Protestant theology show an increased interest in the Eastern concept of theosis, including because of its similarity to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. 29 None of these arguments leads to a denial of human rights, but it is part of the process of adaptation and partial adjustment of this concept.
The same is true for Roman Catholicism: The publication of the pontifical encyclical on the" dignity of man " (Dignitatis humanae, 1965) was an important event against the background of decades of skeptical criticism of human rights .-
28. См.: van Egmond, A. (1995) "Calvinist Thought and Human Rights", in An-Na'im, A. A., Gort, J. D., Jansen, H., Vroom, H.M. (eds) Human Rights and Religious Values. An Uneasy Relationship? pp. 192 - 202. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
29. See, for example, Saarinen, R. "Theosis", in Theologische Realenzyklopadie. Vol. 33, pp. 389-393. All of this can be summarized in the question: what is sin and how to overcome it? [See below] The Protestant principle of" justification by grace alone " (sola gratia) implies almost less human involvement than the concept of theosis. This question provoked an interesting turn in the ecumenical dialogue. Ср. Oeldemann, J. (2002) "Rechtfertigung und Theosis im Kontext des okumenischen Dialogs mit der Orthodoxie", Catholica 3: 173 - 192.
page 180
silence and open rejection of human rights: in this document, they were finally recognized 30.
In general, we can already talk about the process in which various branches of Western Christianity slowly but surely turned from opponents of the concept of human rights into its allies, although they retain some restraint. There is reason to believe that a similar situation occurs within Eastern Christianity, although the historical and theological background certainly differs.
Continuing the comparison: sin, conciliarity, democracy
Considerable difficulties on this path are created by such an important concept as"sin". For theologians, this "term" includes a whole complex of relations between God and man: anthropological aspects of human nature as incomplete or fallen, issues of individual responsibility, the meaning of the sacraments of confession and atonement. In any case, "sin" is absent from secular theories and concepts and therefore becomes a potential source of controversy. These differences can be summed up as follows: can a person claim rights when his being is clouded by sin? Let us recall that it is precisely this issue that has caused Western churches to be skeptical of human dignity and rights in the past31. We can see that such distrust is characteristic of the Orthodox Church today from the speeches and documents concerning the issue of human rights. Here is an excerpt from the "Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church"published in 2000:
In the system of modern secular humanistic understanding of civil rights, a person is treated not as an image of God, but as a self-sufficient and self-sufficient subject. However, outside of God, there is only a fallen man, who is very far from the ideal of perfection that Christians expect, revealed in Christ ("Lo, Man!").32.
30. For more details, see Huber, W., Todt, H. E. (1989) Menschenrechte. Perspektiven einer menschlichen Welt, ss. 39 - 45. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser.
31. Cm. Huber, W. s. v. "Menschenrechte, Menschenwurde", in Theologische Realenzyklopadie, vol. 22, p. 578f.
32. Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. IV. 7.
page 181
However, the problem does not seem so difficult if we take a closer look at the Eastern churches. For example, Orthodox theology does not know or at least does not attach much importance to Augustine's teaching on original sin, which has played an important role in Western theology. The Orthodox view of the meaning of sin and salvation, unlike the Western one, is free from"legalism". God is not a strict judge, but a healing healer; sin, from the point of view of Patristic literature, is not a stigma of personal guilt, but rather a sign of disorientation and spiritual illness. The fall of Adam is not so much disobedience and violation of the law, but rather a selfish falling away from God. Man retains his nature, but breaks away from his roots, and therefore he is condemned to despair. Even with good intentions, he is now on his own, hopelessly trapped in the snare of passion and desire. Help must come from outside and show the way out of the earth maze. And it is here, according to Orthodox teaching, that Christ's work of salvation begins. This also means thatimago dei is not completely destroyed by sin, and Orthodox anthropology is in this sense more optimistic than the anthropology of most Western churches.
On the other hand, we are still talking about the fundamental value, not the dignity of man, and therefore the main thing here is the work done by Christ, and not the nature of man. The question remains: can human rights and dignity be established outside the Church? Or are we dealing here with strict exclusivism? A careful analysis of the situation shows that in modern Orthodoxy - its various forms and branches-there is no final and unified answer. It can also be added that the belief in belonging to a Christian community as an "ark of salvation" does not exempt Orthodox theologians from the need to describe the ideal of this community. On the one hand, the concept of the ideal structure of the Church itself is proposed, and on the other, the emphasis is placed on communion between all members, and even with those who do not directly belong to the community.
As for the first question, thinking about the ideal structure of the Church, both from a spiritual and constitutional point of view, revolves around its organic, communal structure, which implies the equality and value of each individual member. This ideal does not contradict the fact that some functionaries, such as bishops, can deal with certain issues.
page 182
They should be given more power, while the most important issues should be decided by universal consensus. This ideal is reflected in the term conciliarity. It is known that the concept was developed by the Russian theologian Alexey Khomyakov (although the term itself does not belong to him)33. Initially, in the context of Khomyakov's "spiritual ecclesiology", this term (derived from the Greek concept of "Catholicos", that is, "universal", "one") described the above-mentioned spiritual communio. Russian. communion), but then it was destined to play an important role in modern Orthodox ecclesiology and the reform of the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. The historically important Council that took place in Moscow in 1917-1918 and set out to modernize the church and the structure of the Patriarchate was largely based on the ideal of conciliationism.34 Even today, Orthodox supporters of ecumenism, in discussions with representatives of Roman Catholicism, emphasize the "conciliar" structure of the Church as the most important ecclesiological difference from the Roman papacy.35 Using these ideas, some political scientists talk about the predisposition of Orthodox Christians to democratic forms of statehood and society.36
These approaches are connected with attempts to formulate an adequate Orthodox anthropology, which at the same time could meet the requirements of modernity. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russian theologians who emigrated after the revolution developed a new understanding of man as a person. Based on the understanding of the Church as a spiritual community of people, such theologians as Georgy Florovsky, Nikolai Berdyaev, and Sergey Bulgakov, pyta-
33.Khomyakov did not use the concept of conciliarity. He used the adjective "cathedral" to describe the ideal image of the Church. cf. Schader, Hedwig. (1967) "Sobornost' in den Schriften von A. Chomjakov", Kyrios 7: 3-4; for further analysis, see Plank, Peter, (1960) Katholizitat und Sobornost', vol. 14. Wurzburg: Das ostliche Christentum, N. F.
34. Oeldemann, Johannes. (1992) "Die Auswirkungen der Sobornost' - Lehre auf das Landeskonzil 1917/18 der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche", Ostkirchliche Studien 41: 273 - 300.
35. Hilarion (Alfeyev). (2009) "Primaute et conciliarite dans la tradition orthodoxe", Istina 54: 29 - 36.
36. Cm. Marsh, C. (2005) "Russian Orthodox Christians and Their Orientation toward Church and State", Journal of Church and State 47 (3): 545 - 561. However, there were also opponents of this point of view. Ср. Marsh, С. and Payne, D. (2012) "Religiosity, Tolerance and the Respect for Human Rights in the Orthodox World", in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 201 - 203.
page 183
Each of them tried to develop a different understanding of the human being, which would differ from the main Western concepts, but would be based on the same problems. Orthodox theology deliberately contrasts the concept of "personality"with the Western concept of "individuality", thus trying to make its own contribution to modern reasoning about human nature. 37 Common here is the idea of a spiritual community, within which a person is able to take place as a person. Relatively recently, the Greek Metropolitan and theologian John Zizioulas formulated not only the idea of the "communal" ideal of the church, but also an anthropology according to which everyone becomes a true person only through participation in church communion (communio)38.
Signs of this way of thinking are already reflected in social theory, as it is expressed in the 2000 document - " Fundamentals of the social Concept...39. Although the process of developing a social theory has only just begun, the steps taken already allow us to capture the overtones of communitarianism, which significantly separates itself from Western liberalism and individualism and emphasizes "tradition" and "traditional values". (Of course, there are parallels with the Western theories of communitarianism developed by Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre, and others.) In Orthodox teaching, the emphasis on" freedom", which is characteristic of the generally accepted interpretation of human rights, is contrasted with the emphasis on" morality", which must be returned to a"post-secular society". To a certain extent, these tendencies echo the aforementioned theological ideas of the thinkers of the Russian emigration. On the other hand, it can be noted that such continuity is always very selective.40
37. See for example: Berdiaev, N. (1945) The Destiny of Man. London: Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press; Zwahlen, R. (2012) "Different Concepts of Personality: Nikolai Berdiaev and Sergei Bulgakov", in Studies in East European Thought 64 (3 - 4): 183 - 204; Valliere, P. (1997) "Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights", in Bloom, I., Martin, J. P., Proudfoot, W. L. (eds) Religious Diversity and Human Rights, pp. 278 - 312, esp. 280 - 282. New York: Columbia University Press.
38. Zizioulas, I. (1985) Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. See Russian translation: mitr. John Zizioulas. Being as Communication, Moscow, 2006.
39. Compare the English translation: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/
40. Ср. Stoeckl, K. (2008) "Community after the Subject. The Orthodox Intellectual Tradition and the Philosophical Discourse of Political Modernity", Sofia. Philosophical Review 2 (2): 117 - 138.
page 184
This is especially true of the East-West opposition that so often figures in today's statements. A number of anti-Western slogans, rooted in emigrant thought, are repeated, but Russian emigrants were well aware of all that they were distancing themselves from, and were not strangers to a certain ecumenical openness; now the most frequent objections are to" unlimited freedoms "resulting from the adoption of the concept of human rights, as well as reproaches to the West for the lack of "unlimited freedom".moralities " increasingly resemble old-fashioned moralizing. At the same time, the roots of this kind of reasoning, which are found in the ecclesiastical ideal of conciliarity, which in our time means peaceful and harmonious coexistence in society, escape Western understanding. The associated virtues and values go beyond tolerance or the protection of human rights. They imply the rejection of all forms of extremism and violence, and emphasize human morality and responsibilities that balance human rights. 41 It is obviously based on the concepts of theosis and conciliarity. Unambiguous political conclusions from this are not yet possible. In terms of the political system, conciliarity for some implies democracy, and for others - authoritarianism. Thus, inspired by the ideal of conciliarity, the Russian priest and theologian Veniamin Novik wrote that democracy is undoubtedly the best political system, since it implies the virtue of self-restraint, in addition, thanks to the system of checks, the democratic system protects against the temptation of power.42 However, this is only a private opinion, opposed to the opinion of the more conservative majority. However, the search for complete concepts - including anthropological ones-is far from over, and in the current situation, very different and sometimes contradictory opinions can be integrated into it.43 Everyone agrees that the political system needs not only a secular but also a spiritual foundation, but the nuances are still the subject of passionate discussions.
41. Cf. (Hegumen) Philaret Bulekov. (2007) "Evolution of Moral Principles and Human Rights in a Multicultural Society", Religion in Eastern Europe 1: 35 - 40.
42. Novik, V. (1997) "Democracy- A Question of Self-Limitation", Religion, State & Society 25 (2): 189 - 198.
43. For a detailed analysis of the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in politics, from 1991 to 2008, see: Papkova, I. (2011) The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
page 185
Is mutual enrichment possible?
This situation of" incompleteness " opens up a whole range of prospects for the dialogue on dignity and human rights between Eastern and Western Christianity. Despite all the difficulties and even dead ends (caused by both sides), it seems possible to identify at least a few topics in Orthodox theology that can enrich the discussion of human dignity.
First, as we have seen, what is important for Orthodoxy is the fact that man was created by God and in the image of God. Such an approach, which is categorical in nature, is not easy to accept from the point of view of secularism, especially when it comes to moral imperatives and prohibitions within a secular state. Non-believers rightly fear that the line between religious teaching and a secular state will be blurred in this case.44 However, this issue is not so acute. This is the point of possible reconciliation: since man was created by God, and not by himself or another person, it means that no person can claim unlimited power over another person. This understanding of dignity is also characteristic of secular interpretations that link "dignity" with autonomy. None other than the enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted that a person as a bearer of humanity should be perceived as the owner of his own goal-setting and purpose, which means that a person cannot be an instrument for satisfying the needs of another. 45
Secondly, man is not just created by God, but also in the likeness of God. As we have already seen, this Orthodox understanding of imago dei does not imply a given, but rather a potential that can be realized in the future.-
44. Such skepticism can (and often does) relate to the Russian Orthodox Church's desire to establish its own norms within a secular state. Suspicion, whether justified or not, is aroused by passages similar to the passage from chapter III of the Fundamentals: "From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, the political and legal institution of human rights can serve the good purposes of protecting human dignity and promoting the spiritual and moral development of the individual. For this purpose, the realization of human rights should not conflict with God-established moral norms and traditional morality based on them."
45. See Kant, Immanuel. (2005) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, in Kant, Immanuel. Werke in 6 Banden (ed. W. Weischedel). Vol. 4, p. 591. 6th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. See translation into Russian: Kant and. Osnovy metafiziki moralnosti [Fundamentals of Moral Metaphysics]. Moscow, Mysl', 1965.
page 186
This project has yet to be implemented. Such a perspective can influence complex questions about the limits of human life, raised in particular by bioethics and medicine (abortion, artificial insemination, coma and brain death). The discussion of these issues is outside the scope of our topic, but the perspective offered here may well help to get to the heart of these problems.
If we talk about "deification" as the realization of the divine potential in a person, then we should answer an important question: how can an unbeliever claim it? Within the framework of Christian theology - both in the East and in the West-a person is considered unable to fully and independently understand and appreciate what it means to be a human being. Man as a whole (homo totus) is inaccessible to man himself. At the same time, the desire for such integrity is quite conceivable: the attempts to create a "new person" made by various political ideologies of our time immediately come to mind. The Christian point of view, which denies man the ability to fully understand his nature, automatically denies political ideology, "political religions" and utopias with their desire to create a "new man". On the other hand, we should avoid a certain fatalism of creation, as if we were to say that man has no possibility of participating in the realization of his nature. Then theories and statements about the possibility of crime or guilt in the philosophical secular sense, or about sin in its theological terminology, would not make sense. Further, along with the topic of individual morality, the question of community and the ideal state is also raised, regardless of what perspective is taken: secular or theological. But theology always adds that personality is created as the relation of a created person to his creator. By the way, it is worth mentioning once again that up to this point, Western and Eastern theology are in solidarity, and they differ in very few, albeit important nuances.46
46. For an analysis of the Protestant point of view, see Brinkman, M. E. (2000) Het drama van de menselijke urijheid. De ambiualente rol van het christelijke urijheidsbegrip in de westerse cultuur [Drama of Human freedom. The ambivalent role of the Christian concept of freedom in Western culture], esp. pp. 63-81. Zoetermeer: Meinema; the problem of" man as a whole " (totus homo): Ibid., p. 73.
page 187
What about the churches themselves? Is it possible to prevent them from becoming politicized institutions, like ideological parties with their dream of a "new man"? Or, in other words, what is the answer to the above criticism, which claims that the Orthodox view of human rights is designed only for faithful believers who observe all rites and are guided by the church's ideas of morality? From the point of view of Orthodoxy, the answer - purely theoretically-can be this: since no one person can rule over another, then he has no right to encroach on the potential of another person necessary for deification (theosis). You can give advice and sympathize, but any power should be limited. And this is nothing more than a consistent continuation of the Orthodox teaching about God. According to Orthodox, apophatic theology, God is inaccessible and incomprehensible in his nature, in his essence. If man was created in the image of God and must eventually become like God, then it turns out that every particular manifestation of imago dei is incomprehensible, and how it should be realized. On the basis of such arguments, attempts have been made to create an "apophatic anthropology"47 that deserves further analysis. According to Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware): "We are a mystery to ourselves and to others." It also means that there are natural limits to the exercise of power (dominion) by some people over others.48
Thus, it can be argued that on such a theological basis, the fragmentation of the concept of "dignity", which is characteristic of the" Foundations of the Doctrine of Dignity and Human Rights", makes sense. As we have already seen, there is a difference between the fundamental, irreducible value of a human being and actual empirical "dignity", which is often difficult to discern. It is this relativization of dignity that has led to disagreements between Eastern and Western theologians. However, relativization concerns only secondary aspects, not the fundamental value - not the potential itself, but possible ways to implement it.
47. Ср. Woodhead, L. (2006) "Apophatic Anthropology", in Soulen, R.K., Woodhead, L. (eds) God and Human Dignity, pp. 233 - 246. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
48. Cp. Kallistos (Ware). (2012) Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 19 - 33. Geneva: WCC Publications.
page 188
Disputes about the dignity of a person are reduced to the question of the relationship between a community of people and a single individual. On the one hand, we can say that a certain individual core of a person is an integrity independent of a given social context, but, on the other hand, it is in a specific social environment, political, religious or ideological context that "dignity" becomes a visible reality. It is the community of people that ultimately guarantees the rights that arise from the universal recognition of dignity - without this, any reasoning will remain just a theory.
Partly on these grounds, some Orthodox theologians and theorists propose to place a greater emphasis on community and collective rights, and thus complement the usual set of individual human rights by emphasizing the rights of communities such as the family, nation, or religious group. 49 Moreover, the famous Greek philosopher Christos Yiannaras argues that the realization of rights should be rooted in a "community based on truth", following the example of the Greek poleis and the Byzantine ecclesiastical model 50.
A few years after the Second World War, thinking about the fate of the vast number of emigrants, refugees and homeless people, Hannah Arendt said that there is only one right - the right to have rights, meaning by this the right of a person to be accepted and integrated into the community that actually transforms his rights and, in a sense, even his rights. human existence into something real 51.
It is in society that the potential of the concept of dignity ceases to be a theoretical abstraction and is actualized. This means that we are touching on the aspect of "dignity", whether it is" a decent life "in terms of moral norms or" human conditions " created for a decent life, which must be implemented in practice.
49. In addition to the relevant excerpts from the Fundamentals (III. 4), the joint declaration of the European Orthodox Churches on human rights and the draft European Constitution, issued in Heraklion in 2003, can also be considered as an example [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Inter-Orthodox_Consultation_on_ the_Draft_Constitutional_Treaty_of_the_European_Union, accessed 15.08.2014].
50. Yannaras, Christos. "Human Rights and the Orthodox Church".
51. Arendt, H. (1949) "Es gibt nur ein einziges Menschenrecht", in Dolf Sternberger (ed.) Die Wandlung 4: 754 - 770.
page 189
The tendency to relate dignity to social community began as early as the late 1960s, during the so-called second-and third-generation rights, also known as social and cultural rights. It is enough to recall that this set of rights (including adequate food supply, access to water, health services, as well as freedom to choose a profession, freedom from any kind of exploitation, the right to education, cultural expression, participation in public and cultural life) is generally associated with the individual's involvement in economic, social and cultural life. cultural life of a particular community 52.
The understanding of theosis, which is characteristic of Russian Orthodoxy, does not pay attention to the conditions of a decent life and prefers the topic of self-improvement. One can, of course, see in this an opposition to Western thought in the spirit of contrasting "freedom" and " morality." The impression of old-fashioned moralizing that Western commentators sometimes speak of is also the fruit of this simplistic division into black and white, as if freedom is always immoral and morality is the eternal enemy of freedom. It is quite easy to get rid of such simplifications at the theoretical level. However, the misunderstanding generated by them is not so easy to eliminate. A closer analysis suggests that the discussion initiated by the "Fundamentals of the Russian Orthodox Church's Teaching on Human Dignity and Rights" can eliminate the East - West dichotomy, revealing its artificiality. One can recall the theological controversies (mainly in Germany and Switzerland) that resulted from the criticism of some of the theses of the "Foundations". In response to criticism from the "Community of Evangelical Churches in Europe", a group of theologians from Germany and Switzerland commented that there is another view in the Western tradition, according to which morality is an important component of individual dignity.53
52. These rights are clearly linked to the concept of dignity. See Article 13, Part 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education should aim at the full development of the human person and sense of dignity and should strengthen respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms [ ... ] " [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR. aspx, accessed 15.08.2014].
53. Hallensleben, B., Wyrwoll, N. and Vergauwen, G. (2009) "Zur Ambivalenz der Menschenrechte. Missverstandnisse der 'Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in
page 190
Further discussion raised the issue of the difference between secular human rights and the sacred "Law of God", which should not be confused: human rights are not sacred and should not be treated in this way. On this issue, some theologians agreed with the Orthodox point of view expressed in the documents we are considering, while others felt the need for the Orthodox position to be clarified and correlated with the topics of Western discussions.54 Controversy persisted over the question of whether dignity and human rights are individual or communitarian. Sometimes, as it seemed, disputes on this topic resulted in a polemic between Protestants and Catholics around the ROC document 55. A more conciliatory position was eventually expressed by the Swiss theologian Stefan Tobler, who works at the Faculty of Protestant Theology at the University of Sibiu, Romania. First, Tobler clarified the interpretation contained in Kant's works, pointing out that for the philosopher, morality was a part of human potential, and not a prerequisite for development. Thus, dignity in Kant's understanding stems from the very ability to act morally, and not from an empirically realized morality.56 Perhaps most important of all was Tobler's suggestion - in accordance with his understanding of Kant's work - to divide "dignity" into two elements: the fundamental value of every human being and the empirical manifestation of dignity (the same was suggested by the Russian Orthodox Church). Thus, the emphasis remains on the essential value, the unchanging aspect of dignity, on which every demand is based.-
Europa'", Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung 177 (29/30): 497_502 (esp.499); Hallensleben, B. (2009) "Russische Beitrage zur Menschenrechtsdebatte", G2W 27 (10): 25 - 27
54. Heller, D. (2010) "Menschenrechte, Menschenwгrde und sittliche Verantwortung im kirchlichen Dialog zwischen Ost und West", Okumenische Rundschau 59: 308 - 329; Wasmuth, J. (2010) "Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche und die Menschenrechte", G2W 38 (5): 12 - 14; Zwahlen, R. M. (2010) "Gedankenzur christlichen Menschenrechtsdebatte", G2W38 (5): 15 - 17; Gabriel, I. (2010) "Menschenrechte in der okumenischen Debatte", G2W38 (5): 18 - 19.
55. Cm. Mathwig, F. (2009) "Weniger ist mehr. Zur Kritik an der GEKE-Antwort auf die Menschenrechtsgrundsatze der russischen orthodoxen Kirche", Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung 177: 563 - 566; Mathwig, Frank. (2009) "Menschenrechte und Okumene", G2W37 (10): 22 - 24.
56. Cp. Tobler, S. (2010) "Menschenrechte als kirchentrennender Faktor? Die Debatte um das russisch-orthodoxe Positionspapier von 2008", Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 107: 325 - 347, esp. 339 - 343.
page 191
respect for human rights and dignity, even when such respect threatens the interests of society and contradicts traditional morality. Tobler is convinced that dignity and human rights should remain a common secular basis and compromise, and should not be subject to moral assessments and artificially "Christianized". For him, the question of rights is not sacred; the sacred lies in a different sphere.57
The theological debate is still far from over, but today it has become less heated and has moved into the academic environment. What is the potential for further development of the discussion? The position of Russian Orthodoxy, formulated in the "Fundamentals of Teaching..." of 2008 and based on the concept of theosis, can certainly enrich the current understanding of the concept of human rights. First, dignity is understood as part of human potential, and second, it focuses on the communal aspects of human dignity.
It would seem that the dilemma remains: an emphasis on one's own spiritual and moral self-improvement or on charity and providing favorable conditions for the development of others? The artificiality of this formulation of the question was demonstrated by our analysis. We have shown that ideas related to the concept of theosis, the concept of community and its ideal model are present both in the East and in the West. Basic concepts such as imago dei, the difference and correlation between Creator and creation, the development of human potential in accordance with the image of God, and the role of the community of people, especially the church, fully overlap in Christian theology of the East and West. Perhaps the same is true for some areas of the secular philosophy of dignity and human rights. In this context, too much emphasis on the opposition between East and West seems inappropriate. Although we are not talking about ignoring the existing differences.
It seems to me that the further intersection of points of view depends on the recognition of the fundamental significance of the category of relation or correlation, both in relation to God and to [another] person. More or less important differences can be identified when trying to understand the nature and tasks of the sub-category-
57. Ibid., pp. 343 - 347.
page 192
affected by this correlation 58. Nevertheless, the dignity of the individual in all these approaches is the dignity of the other as a potential and as a responsibility beyond the power of political institutions. Recognizing this is essential for understanding the concept of human rights.
Translated from English by Valentin Frolov
Bibliography/References
Grishin M. (ed.) Thoughts, utterances and aphorisms of Dostoevsky. Paris: Five Continents, 1975.
Yegorov S. Human rights in the episcopal style. ROC-MP challenges internationally recognized human rights // Ciuitas.ru September 5, 2008 [http://www.civitas.ru/article.php?pop=o&code=932&year=2008, accessed from 15.08.2014].
Klin B. Tserkva rasstolkovala cheloveka ego prava [The Church has explained to man his rights]. August 8, 2008. N 115.
Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2000 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/141422, accessed from 15.08.2014].
Fundamentals of the Russian Orthodox Church's teaching on human dignity, freedom and rights. 2008 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428 616.html, accessed from 15.08.2014].
Appiah, K. Anthony. (2001) "Grounding Human Rights", in Michael Ignatieff (eds) Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Arendt, Hannah. (1949) "Es gibt nur ein einziges Menschenrecht", in Dolf Sternberger (ed.) Die Wandlung 4: 754 - 770.
Berdiaev, Nikolai. (1945) The Destiny of Man. Londen: Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press.
Bielefeldt, Heiner. (2008) Menschenwurde. Der Grund der Menschenrechte. Berlin: Studien des Deutschen Institute fur Menschenrechte.
Bielefeldt, Heiner. (2011) Auslaufmodell Menschenwilrde? Warum sie in Frage steht, und warum wir sie verteidigen milssen. Freiburg: Herder.
Brinkman, Martien E. (2000) Het drama van de menselijke vrijheid. De ambivalente rol van het christelijke vrijheidsbegrip in de westerse cultuur [The drama of human freedom. The ambivalent role of the Christian notion of freedom in Western culture]. Zoetermeer: Meinema.
Bruning, Alfons. (2012) "'Freedom' vs. 'Morality'- on Orthodox Anti-Westernism and Human Rights", in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 125 - 152. Leuven: Peeters.
58. The category of relatedness to God, in connection with the topos imago dei, is very widely discussed in Protestant theology, see Brinkman, Martien E. Het drama van de menselijke vrijheid. For the Orthodox viewpoint, see: Zwahlen, R. (2012)" Sergey N. Bulgakov's Concept of Human Dignity", in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 169 - 186.
page 193
Bruning, Evert van der Zweerde (2012) (eds.), Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights. Leuven: Peeters.
Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) (2008) "Human Rights and Morality. A Response of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) - Leuenberg Church Fellowship - to the Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church on 'Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights'" [http://www.leuenberg.eu/sites/de-fault/files/Human_rights_and_morality%20 (final).pdf, accessed on 15.08.2014].
Dmitriev, Mikhail V. (2012) "Humanism and the Traditional Orthodox Culture of Eastern Europe: How Compatible Were they in the 16th and 17th Centuries?" in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 85 - 110. Leuven: Peeters.
van Egmond, Ad. (1995) "Calvinist Thought and Human Rights", in A.A. An-Na'im, J. D. Gort, H.Jansen, H.M.Vroom (eds) Human Rights and Religious Values. An Uneasy Relationship? pp. 192 - 202. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
Egorov, Sergej. (2008) "Prava cheloveka po-archierejski. RPC-MP brosaet vysov mezhdunarodno priznannym pravam cheloveka" [Clerical Human Rights. ROC Moscow Patriarchate challenges internationally acknowledged human rights], Civitas. 4 September [http://www.civitas.ru/article.php?pop=o&code=932&year=20o8, accessed on 15.08.2014].
Gabriel, Ingeborg. (2010) "Menschenrechte in der okumenischen Debatte", G2W 38 (5): 18 - 19.
Grishin, M. (1975) (red.) Mysli, vyskazyvaniia i aforizmy Dostoevskogo [Thoughts, Sayings and Aphorisms of F. Dostoevsky]. Paris: Izd. Piat' Kontinentov
Hallensleben, B., Wyrwoll, N. and Vergauwen, G. (2009) "Zur Ambivalenz der Menschenrechte. Missverstandnisse der 'Gemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Europa'", Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung 177 (29/30): 497 - 502.
Hallensleben, Barbara. (2009) "Russische Beitrage zur Menschenrechtsdebatte", G2W 27 (10): 25 - 27.
Heller, Dagmar. (2010) "Menschenrechte, Menschenwurde und sittliche Verantwortung im kirchlichen Dialog zwischen Ost und West", Okumenische Rundschau 59: 308 - 329.
Hilarion (Alfeyev). (2009) "Primaute et conciliarite dans la tradition orthodoxe", Istina 54: 29 - 36.
Huber, Wolfgang and Todt, H. E. (1989) Menschenrechte. Perspektiven einer menschlichen Welt. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser.
Huber, Wolfgang. (1992) s. v. "Menschenrechte, Menschenwurde", in Theologische Realenzyklopadie, vol. 22. N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter.
Hurskainen, Heta. (2012) "Human Rights in the 2008 Bilateral Discussions of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Evangelical Church of Germany and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland", in Bruning, A., van der Zweerde, E. (eds) Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 155 - 168. Leuven: Peeters.
Joas, Hans. (2013) The Sacredness of the Person. A New Genealogy of Human Rights. Georgetown: GUP.
Jacobs, J. D. (2006) "An Eastern Orthodox Conception of Theosis and Human Nature", Faith and Philosophy 26 (5).
Kant, Immanuel. (2005) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, in Kant, Immanuel. Werke in 6 Banden (ed. W Weischedel), vol. 4. 6th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Soulen, Kendall R. and Woodhead, L. (eds) (2006) God and Human Dignity. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
page 194
Klin, Boris. (2008) "Tserkov rastolkovala cheloveka ego prava" [The Church Explained to Man his Rights], Izvestiia 115, August 8.
Marsh, C. (2005) "Russian Orthodox Christians and Their Orientation toward Church and State", Journal of Church and State 47 (3): 545 - 561.
Marsh, C. and Payne, D. (2012) "Religiosity, Tolerance and the Respect for Human Rights in the Orthodox World", in Bruning, A. and van der Zweerde, E. Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 201 - 203. Leuven: Peeters.
Mathwig, Frank. (2009) "Weniger ist mehr. Zur Kritik an der GEKE-Antwort auf die Menschenrechtsgrundsatze der russischen orthodoxen Kirche", Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung 177: 563 - 566.
Mathwig, Frank. (2009) "Menschenrechte und Okumene", G2W 37 (10): 22 - 24.
Meyendorff, John. (1989) "Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition", in Louis Dupre, DonE.Saliers (eds) Christian Spirituality. Post-Reformation and Modern. N.Y.: Crossroad Publishing.
McCrudden, Christopher. (2008) "Human Dignity and Juridicial Interpretation of Human Rights", European Journal of International Law 19: 664 - 675.
Novik, Veniamin. (1997) "Democracy- A Question of Self-limitation", Religion, State & Society 25 (2): 189 - 198.
Oeldemann, Johannes. (1992) "Die Auswirkungen der Sobornost' - Lehre auf das Landeskonzil 1917/18 der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche", Ostkirchliche Studien 41: 273 - 300.
Osnovy (2000) Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii russkoi pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [https: //mos-pat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/iv/, accessed on 15.08.2014].
Osnovy (2008) Osnovy ucheniia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi o svobode, dostoinstve i pravakh cheloveka [https: //mospat.ru/en/documents/dignity-freedom-rights/, accessed on 15.08.2014].
(Hegumen) Philaret (Bulekov). (2007) "Evolution of Moral Principles and Human Rights in a Multicultural Society", Religion in Eastern Europe 1: 35 - 40.
Papkova, Irina. (2011) The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics. Oxford, N. Y: Oxford University Press.
Plank, Peter. (1960) Katholizitat und Sobornost', vol. 14. Wurzburg: Das ostliche Christentum, N. F.
Popovic, Justin. (1997) Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ. Belmont MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies.
Saarinen, Risto. (2003) s. v. "Theosis", in Theologische Realenzyklopadie. Vol. 33, pp. 389 - 393. N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter. Schader, Hedwig. (1967) "Sobornost' in den Schriften von A. Chomjakov", Kyrios 7: 3 - 4.
Sheldon-Williams, I.P. (1967) "The Philosophy of Icons", in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Vol. 1, pp. 506 - 517. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Stoeckl, Kristina. (2008) "Community after the Subject. The Orthodox Intellectual Tradition and the Philosophical Discourse of Political Modernity", in Sofia. Philosophical Review 2 (2): 117 - 138.
Stoeckl, Kristina. (2012) "The Human Rights Debate in the External Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church", Religion, State & Society 40 (2): 212 - 232.
Tobler, Stefan. (2010) "Menschenrechte als kirchentrennender Faktor? Die Debatte um das russisch-orthodoxe Positionspapier von 2008", Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 107: 325 - 347.
page 195
Valliere, Paul. (1997) "Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights", in Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin, Wayne L. Proudfoot (eds) Religious Diversity and Human Rights, pp. 278 - 312. New York: Columbia University Press.
van der Ven, Johannes A. (2008) Human Rights or Religious Rules. Leiden: Brill.
Wasmuth, Jennifer. (2010) "Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche und die Menschenrechte", G2W38 (5): 12 - 14.
Wils, Jean Pierre. (2002) s. v. "Wurde", in Handbuch Ethik, ss. 537 - 542. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Woodhead, Linda. (2006) "Apophatic Anthropology", in R.Kendall Soulen, Linda Wood-head (eds) God and Human Dignity, pp. 233 - 246. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Yannaras, Christos. (2004) "Human Rights and the Orthodox Church", in Emmanuel Clap-sis (ed.) The Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World: An Ecumenical Conversation, pp. 83 - 89. Brookline, MA: WCC Publications.
Zwahlen, Regula. (2010) "Gedanken zur christlichen Menschenrechtsdebatte", G2PV38 (5): 15 - 17.
Zwahlen, Regula. (2012) "Different Concepts of Personality: Nikolai Berdiaev and Sergei Bulgakov", Studies in East European Thought 64 (3 - 4): 183 - 204.
Zwahlen, Regula. (2012) "Sergey N. Bulgakov's Concept of Human Dignity", in Bruining, A. and van der Zweerde, E. Orthodox Christianity and Human Rights, pp. 169 - 186. Leuven: Peeters.
Zizioulas, Ioannis. (1985) Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. N.Y.: St Vladimir's Seminary Press.
page 196
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2014-2025, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of the United States of America |