Критерии фундаментализма в Русском Православии
In the article, the author attempts to consider the church court through the prism of a theoretical analysis of some aporias of the church court and their implementation in practice. As a rule, aporias arise based on the fact that contradictions are inherent in the object itself or its perception. The author analyzes the aporia of the church court, fictitious, logically correct statements and judgments about the nature and activities of the church court, which cannot be put into practice without resolving the contradictions. The first aporia: the basis of the judicial activity of the church should be unchanged. The second aporia: the activity of the church court should be considered outside the state system of secular law. An appeal in the article to pre-revolutionary church and secular law will help to partially reveal the principles of church proceedings and structure, and to reveal contradictions in the understanding of modern church court. Depending on the relationship between the church and the state, their interaction, the model of the church court is transformed: the church court is part of the state judicial system or the church court is not part of the state judicial system. The author concludes that the indicated aporia of a church court are logically correct judgments. Aporias reveal contradictions in views on church court from the part of church and secular law. Many contradictions and intractable issues were identified during the state judicial reform by Emperor Alexander II, but they were not taken into account in modern times when creating a modern church court. The Statute of the Church Court contains legal categories of secular law. The Russian Orthodox Church is faced with the task of resolving the contradictions associated with the nature and activity of the church court. An explanation is provided why the considered aporia of the church court cannot yet be practically realized.
The article focuses on the reclaiming of militaristic ideas and the emergence of specific “militant piety” and “theology of war” in the Orthodox discourse of post-Soviet Russia. It scrutinizes the increasing prestige of soldiering in the Church and its convergence with the army. This convergence generates particular hybrid forms, in which Church rituals and symbols interact with military ones, leading to a “symbolic reception of war” in Orthodoxy. The authors show that militaristic ideas are getting influence not only in the post-Soviet but also in American Orthodoxy; they consider this parallel as evidence that the process is caused not only by the political context—the revival of neo-imperial ideas in Russia and the increasing role of power structures in public administration—but is conditioned by socio-cultural attitudes inherent in Orthodox tradition, forming a type of militant religiosity called “militant piety”. This piety is not a matter of fundamentalism only; it represents the essential layer of religious consciousness in Orthodoxy reflected in modern Church theology, rhetoric, and aesthetics. The authors analyze war rhetoric while applying approaches of Karen Armstrong, Mark Juergensmeyer, R. Scott Appleby, and other theoreticians of the relationship between religion and violence.