Konstantin Antonov, Chair and Professor of the leading Orthodox university in Russia, answers the questions about the status of theology as an academic discipline. In particular, he discusses issues of the subject of theology, relations between theology and the study of religion, the nature of free theological investigation and the place of confessional loyalty in academic life. In the end, the question is raised about the possibility of installing confessional disciplines in non-confessional institutes of higher education.

Keywords: theology, Russian Orthodox Church, science and religion, study of religion.

What you you can to answer that, who approves, what theology - this the science about God? If this not the science about God and about in the world in the light Of god, that in than consists of special object and object theology?

Konstantin Antonov: First of all, I must say that the definition of theology as the science of God a is historical in the sense that it does not take into account changes in our ideas about the nature and possibilities of scientific knowledge. This change, which has the character of self-limitation, captures all the sciences, which as a result refine their subject. For example, psychology is the science of consciousness, behavior, and the psyche, but not of the "soul" in the Aristotelian or medieval sense. Similarly, the subject matter of theology should be clarified. It seems to me that the best way is to-

To Antonov "Theology is the science of the church as a certain factual reality..." (interview) / / State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2016. N 3. pp. 200-204.

Antonov, Konstantin (2016) "Theology is a discipline that studies Church as a certain factual reality...", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 34(3): 200-204.

page 200
A possible argument would be to define it as the science of the church's faith, or simply as a matter of fact about the church.

How you relate to to to your opinion religious scholars, which consider, what theology invades in their space? In than specificity actually theological education approach?

The space of theology is defined by the categories of concrete and due, the space of religious studies-by the categories of general and essential. Theologians try to understand what members of a particular Church should believe, and religious scholars try to understand what people really believe (believed), no matter what religion they belong to. As for the "invasion", all sciences to some extent invade each other's territory, their areas of research overlap. Historians of philosophy, historians of theology, religious scholars, and psychologists can study Augustine... It is important that the basic difference in the structure of cognitive interest of each science is preserved, and then the "invasion" will turn into "cooperation in interdisciplinary projects".

Let's take example dissertations by religious studies on subject line "Anthropology the apostle Paul", in which one author tries value-neutral reconstruct views Paul about a person. What to the author had to would to change, to imagine your your dissertation in advice by theology?

First, there is a difference in context: a religious studies dissertation would consider the anthropology of the Apostle Paul in the context of the history of religious ideas in the Mediterranean, while a theological dissertation would consider it in the context of the formation of ecclesiastical anthropology. The religious scholar is in principle free with regard to the tradition of interpretation, he can try to look at Paul's anthropology as such; the theologian cannot ignore the tradition of interpretation, which will also be built up in different ways depending on his particular confessional view. This does not negate the possibility of interaction between theologians and religious scholars, taking into account each other's results. In addition, the theologian sees Paul's anthropology as a moment in the making-

page 201
In the context of the church tradition, religious studies is simply considered as one of the possible religious anthropologies.

If theology - the science, that which the paradigm in within the framework of philosophies sciences she does it match? What are they criteria scientific interests theology? Can whether dilute it a scientific one and unscientific theology?

I would classify theology as a humanitarian field. Within the framework of the system of theological sciences, scientific/non-scientific differ in the same way as they differ in the framework of history, philology, and so on. If a person knows how to work with text, then he is a scientist, if he does not know how, then he is not. As in any science, theology has a certain set of traditionally established presumptions, the denial of which takes the author beyond the bounds of scientific knowledge. An interesting case is the canonization of an author who demonstrates incompetence or poor ability to work with texts (for example, Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev1 with his methodologically inadequate criticism of O. S. Bulgakov).

How defined by confessional status in theology? Through self-identification? Or there is objective data criteria?

It seems to me that this is largely a question of belonging to a historically established tradition-by analogy with national schools in many sciences, including exact ones.

What such orthodoxy applied to to theology? How generally possible orthodoxy in science?

It seems to me that orthodoxy refers to theology as thinking. In the special theological sciences, it does not matter - simply because of the nature of the questions that they pose and solve.

1. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) He was canonized by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 3, 2016.

page 202
If theological education research dedicated to to the issue, by which one in this one religious groups no agreed upon positions or generally none at all positions, that what is it will be status suggested services as a researcher solutions in appropriate confessions?

По-моему, роль научно-богословской экспертизы в решении тех или иных догматических или канонических вопросов сводится к историческому и логическому анализу фактов, проблем, точек зрения, а также к предупреждению о последствиях принятия того или иного решения. То есть речь не идет о самом решении как таковом. Следуя Веберу, необходимо разделять уровни исследования и политики, насколько это возможно.

What is regulatory framework theological issues judgments? Admit, what theologian put it forward and justified it a certain one theological school the concept (for example, gettings autocephaly), which become legitimate in scientific and theological center space. What this will be mean for churches how a specific one religious content communities?

Rather, it is possible to use the results of such a study to develop the procedure for obtaining autocephaly by churches, and only then - the receipt itself, after the relevant decisions are made by those who are authorized to make them. The theologian can act here as a consultant, but not as a decision-maker and responsible for the consequences.

Possible whether in within the framework of university card theology develop ideas, which were rejected how unacceptable? For example, it can whether protect yourself Human, which will be develop sophiology program the line - in accordance with all of them using the following criteria: scientific knowledge?

Sophiology refers to the level of theological thinking, but a person who, in accordance with the standard procedures of the scientific method, will show that the criticism of sophiology was weak,

page 203
did not meet the necessary criteria, had a political background, etc., should be able to defend itself.

Not will be whether theology, which gravitating to individualization, to destroy hierarchical Build, throwing challenge to your opinion or actions ecclesiastical superiors? What more important: voice hierarchies or result theological school reflections by about togo or other a question?

This will undoubtedly happen and is already happening. The theologian will gain an authority that is somewhat in conflict with the authority of the hierarchy. But this is the price to pay for legalizing theology. For example, S. S. Averintsev is for many a doctrinal authority almost more than hierarchs, and certainly more than poorly educated hierarchies (and such, alas, there are). The difference in the level of education between the hierarchy and the laity has long been erased and even turned upside down in some ways, since many laity are more educated than the clergy, have a higher general culture and even deeper spiritual experience. This is a real problem of the modern church, and perhaps the legalization of theology will be one of the ways to solve this problem rationally.

If theology can to be only confessional, that how explain her existence in non-denominational university? Must whether in university present only non-denominational theology?

It seems to me that this is not a fundamental problem. It is solved technically, for example, by creating confessional departments, and in large universities - faculties (if the denominations have the appropriate resources). I would say that a non-denominational university should have a multi-denominational theology rather than a non-denominational one.

page 204

Permanent link to this publication: