A Conference on Ecclesiology at SFI Considers Why Communion and Ministry According to the Gift of the Spirit and the Institutional Principle Coexist in the Church

In opening the conference, Alexander Kopirovsky, PhD Candidate in Pedogogy and Rector of St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI), said “today we are celebrating Fr Georgy Kochetkov's anniversary with spiritual labor — a gathering and conversation on the sobornost of the church. St. Philaret’s Institute, which Fr. Georgy founded, is also the fruit of the life of the Transfiguration Brotherhood, whose primary principle is to ecclesiality (церковность).  Ecclesiality is not simply a term; it is a very profound concept into which we can and must continually immerse ourselves, discovering new shades of its meaning while simultaneously strengthening our own ecclesiality and serving the Church, of which we are an inseparable part.”

The conference began with a paper by Igor Zaitsev, PhD Candidate and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies at the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities (RKhGA). The paper was entitled “Ecclesiology after Theodicy:  Sobornost as a Response to the Experience of Evil and Rebellion”.

One of the central themes discussed at the conference was the relationship between the charismatic and institutional principles in church life in the post-Constantinian era. The roundtable “Sobornost in the Post-Constantinian Era: An Anachronism or the Church’s Urgent Vocation Today?” was devoted to the distinctive features of the current historical period of the Church’s life — a period that some 20th-century Russian religious thought has described as post-Constantinian, considering how the Church's sobornost can be understood and embodied today. Participants included:

• Aleksey Kozyrev, PhD Candidate and Acting Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow State University;
• Fr Georgy Kochetkov, PhD Candidate in Theology and founder of St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI);
• Sofya Androsenko, a researcher at the Department of Humanities and Natural Sciences at SFI and postgraduate student at Moscow State University. 

The roundtable was moderated by Dmitry Gasak, First Vice-Rector of SFI.  

“This year marks the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. But after 1700 years certain meanings naturally sound different, thus we must seek new forms — if not of full ecclesial sobornost, then at least of communitarian unity. It seems to me that such searches are taking place today in many different spheres of our life,” noted Aleksey Kozyrev.

Sofya Androsenko added that “one of the tasks facing Christians today and which characterizes our era is the task of recognizing one another by the Spirit — including recognizing a kindred spirit beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. How are we to live so that those who, for whatever reason, do not identify themselves with the Church and yet stand at its walls might still be able to recognize something in us? Closely linked to this mutual recognition are both the revelation of the Church’s prophetic gift and the problem of discerning ‘elders’ (or spiritual seniors) in the secular or ecclesiastical sphere. Nikolai Berdyaev distinguished between the hierarchy of ranks and the hierarchy of gifts. There is a hierarchy of position, and it is not meaningless, but the hierarchy of gifts is primary. For that hierarchy to be revealed and for the personal and conciliar principles to manifest themselves in the Church, there must be some impulse that gives these spiritual gifts occasion to grow.”

At the roundtable, Fr. Georgy Kochetkov said: “Our time is the time of community and brotherhood ecclesiology. This conference does not speak purely about community and brotherhood ecclesiology; we are trying to find the principle of sobornost itself — in what ways the Church's sobornost is realized in its most diverse forms and in different eras. Sobornost as a discovery of the twentieth century, linked to so much suffering, rises to the existential and mystical level. We can no longer understand sobornost merely as a principle of being gathered or even as conciliar gatheredness at councils. Still less can we understand it as mere collectivity. That is why when we speak of sobornost we say that on the basis of new revelations within the Church, communities and brotherhoods must be born naturally and without any coercion. It is important that unity and freedom should primarily resound for us on the existential and mystical level and not on the canonical or even sacramental levels, those both these latter levels are important. When genuine, profound, integral unity and an equally genuine freedom appears, we come directly to God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Fr. Georgy Kochetkov’s paper was devoted to the community and brotherhood structure of the Church and traced how different types of church structure have co-existed and been expressed during different periods of church history, focussing on the place that community and brotherhood structure occupies among them.

“The inner need for a new understanding of church structure began to manifest itself as early as the mid- or second half of the 19th century. In Russia the Slavophile movement arose, represented by Alexei Khomyakov with his ideas of sobornost, unity, and freedom. At the same time, the Exaltation of the Cross Labour Brotherhood of Nikolai Neplyuev was born. Its influence rapidly grew both among the Russian elite and among common people. Out of Neplyuev’s brotherhood came a somewhat different brotherhood led by the catechist Bishop Makary (Opotsky). In the 20th century, monastic life also began to change; think, for example, of the Lesna Convent under Abbess Ekaterina (Efimovskaya). The election of bishops was revived, the movement toward the free convocation of a Local Council gained strength, etc. After the collapse of Russia in 1917, St. Patriarch Tikhon called upon all church workers to form church unions as early as 1 February 1918. Within the consciousness of the church, the concept of personhood (lichnostnostj) was strengthened as a new ecclesial quality alongside the ancient qualities enumerated in the Creed. Consequently, Christian ecclesial anthropology and philosophy itself began to change, ceasing to be merely ontological and becoming an existential philosophy,” noted Fr Georgy. 

The paper by Yulia Antipina, a graduate of St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI) and postgraduate student at St. Petersburg Theological Academy (SPbDA), focused on the problem of the relationship between the charismatic and canonical principles in the ordering of church life as reflected in 20th-century theological thought.

Yulia Antipina noted that “in the Constantinian period, the Church developed primarily as a sacramental-hierarchical institution. The gradual canonical consolidation of the rights of teaching and governance in the hands of the hierarchy led to the perception of the church hierarchy as the sole organizing principle of the Church. As a result, the administrative-canonical principle of church order eclipsed the charismatic principle, which, in the opinion of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, constituted a distortion of the authentic ecclesial norm.  This view was widespread among the thinkers of the Russian emigration; it was expressed, for example, by Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky), who believed that bureaucratic tendencies extinguished the burning of the spirit. The desire to restore the charismatic principle of church order in the post-Constantinian period found embodiment in the emergence of informal spiritual movements whose foundation was the fulfilment of particular ministry according to the gift of the Spirit.” 

“The task of restoring the normative status of the charismatic principle is extremely urgent for contemporary church life, because it makes it possible to revive the understanding of the Church as ministry and communion in love and freedom,” concluded Antipina. 

Fr. Georgy Kochetkov emphasized that “when we speak of the charismatic and institutional principles, we must remember that we cannot avoid the tension between them; it is impossible to establish fully harmonious relations here. The institutional principle is largely worldly, while the charismatic principle – assuming the charism is genuine and not false – is a spiritual principle from God and based in grace; it does not fit within the laws, concepts, or even actions of this world.”

Further conference papers included:

• Nikita Syundyukov, a lecturer at the RANEPA North-West Institute of Management, presented on “The Relationship Between the Concepts of Hierarchy and Authority in the Theological Legacy of Fr Sergius Bulgakov”;
• Sofya Androsenko presented on “The Significance of Acquiring Faith in the Church and the Discovery of the Principle of Knowing the Church ‘from Within rather than Without’ in the Thought and Life of Nikolai Berdyaev”.

Two papers devoted to the prominent 20th-century ecclesiological thinker Fr Nikolai Afanasiev were also given:

• Olga Kuznetsova, Head of the Theological College at St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI) presented on “The Eucharistic Assembly in the Ecclesiology of Fr Nikolai Afanasiev: From ‘Gathering as One’ to Sobornal Unity”;
• Viktor Alexandrov, PhD, author of the book Nikolai Afanasiev and His Eucharistic Ecclesiology, presented a paper entitled “Fr Nikolai Afanasiev and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas): Differences in Method and ‘Fundamental Intuitions’”.

Papers devoted to the ecclesiological work of 19th-century thinkers included:

• Marina Naumova, Vice-Rector for Development at St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI): “‘Living Interaction’ as a Principle of Church Order in the Works of Alexei Stepanovich Pavlov”;
• Elena Nepoklonova, PhD Candidate in Philology and Associate Professor at the Russian State Hydrometeorological University (RGGMU): “The Concepts of ‘Pride’ and ‘Humility’ in the Writings of Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov Devoted to the Problem of Christian Unity”. 

The experience of the 20th c. martyrs and confessors – and in particular the witness of those who built fraternal life within the Church – holds special importance for understanding the principle of sobornost in the post-Constantinian times. This experience was addressed in the following papers:

• Vyacheslav Yachmenik, PhD Candidate in Theology, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Systematic Theology and Patrology at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University (PSTGU) and researcher at the Laboratory for the Study of Church Institutions, presented a paper entitled; “Models of the Church in the Letters of Hieromartyr Sergiy Mechev Written to His Community from Exile”;
• Yulia Shtonda, PhD Candidate in Philology and Senior Lecturer at SFI, presented on “The Personal and Common Ministry of Community Members in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer”;
• Zoya Dashevskaya, a member of the Society for Eastern Liturgy and Senior Lecturer at SFI, presented on “The People of God as Co-Celebrants in the Conciliar Worship of the Church: 20th-Century Experience”. 

Embodiment of the principle of sobornost in 20th c. Orthodox spiritual movements was the subject of the following papers:

• Ulyana Gutner, PhD Candidate in Biology and a lecturer at St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI): “The Realization of the Principle of Sobornost in the Russian Christian Student Movement (RSCM): Examples from General and Regional Congresses, 1923–1939”;
• Fr Vasile Mihoc, a PhD (Theology) from Lucian Blaga University in Romania: “The Principle of Sobornost in the Governance of the ‘Lord’s Army’ Brotherhood: History and Present Day”. 

A paper given by Dmitry Gasak, Chairman of the Transfiguration Brotherhood and First Vice-Rector of St. Philaret’s Institute (SFI), focused on the principle of sobornost in the governance of the Transfiguration Brotherhood. Gasak spoke about how the Brotherhood’s experience combines sobornal, democratic, collegial, and hierarchical (единоначалие) elements of church governance — all aimed at gathering the brothers and sisters together in striving for fullness of church life and ministry.

“The realization of sobornost in the Church is most often associated with the conciliar procedure for resolving the most important issues in church life. Of course the two are directly connected, but I would like to emphasize that there is some distinction between a church conciliar procedure and the principle of sobornost. As a form, a council may not fully express the principle of sobornost. This is something that was repeatedly pointed out in 20th-century theology. It is no coincidence that the question of the composition of church councils remains acute and open to this day. In other words, it is an open question as to who should take certain decisions and how these should be taken, such that they be considered authentic and might possess persuasiveness according to the principle of sobornost.”

A paper by catechist and Senior SFI Lecturer Vladimir Yakuntsev was devoted to how this dimension of sobornost — the very foundation of the Church’s future life — is built and nurtured in a Christian during the process of churching (votserkovlenie), not only through the deepening of faith and knowledge, but also through the gradual transformation of the very foundations of the person's life.

In another paper focusing on catechesis, Senior SFI Lecturer Olga-Olesya Sidorova explored the main aspects of the concept of the Church’s catholicity (kafolichnostj) in patristic catechetical preaching from the 2nd–5th centuries.

PhD Candidate in Cultural Studies Lidia Kroshkina, who is an Associate Professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities (RGGU) and Senior Lecturer at SFI, presented a paper in homiletics entitled “'That Your Faith May Be Strengthened': Preaching as the Fortification of the Church Assembly." She illustrated her presentation with her own eyewitness examples from the history of the Transfiguration Brotherhood.

As is traditional at SFI conferences on Ecclesiology, the focus was not only on the experience of the Orthodox Church.  The conference also featured  Pastor Martin Höger (Switzerland) with ecclesiological reflections on Ephesians 2:13–16, and Monk Adalberto (Mainardi) from the Bose Monastery (Italy) with a paper on “Pope Francis and the Conciliar Church: Inspiration from Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue”.

The following papers were also presented at the conference:

• Fr Konstantin Markovich, PhD Candidate in Theology and Lecturer at St. Petersburg Theological Academy: “The Main Principles of the Ecclesiology of Blessed Augustine as a Theological Foundation for Practical Work in Building Church Unity and Forming a Communal Atmosphere in Parishes”;
• Yulia Balakshina, PhD in Philology, Professor at SFI and at the Herzen State Pedagogical University: “Church Public Life and Church Communality in the Experience of the Russian Church at the Beginning of the 20th Century”;
• Tatyana Pronina, PhD, Lecturer at Pushkin Leningrad State University: “The Evolution of the Orthodox Parish in the 20th Century: Community of the Faithful or Church Institution?”;
• Ekaterina Alekseeva, Senior Lecturer at SFI: “Laity and Episcopate: The Experience of Old Believer Councils and Congresses at the Beginning of the 20th Century”;
• Natalia Ignatovich, Secretary of the Chair of Church and Social History at SFI: “The Problem of Realizing Sobornost’ in the Church: The Example of the Brotherhood of the Moscow Hierarchs’ Participation in the Controversy Surrounding Bishop Germogen (Dolganyov)”. 

A lecture by Alexander Kopirovsky, Rector of St. Philaret’s Institute, entitled “The Image of the Church in Christian Iconography” was an unexpected intellectual gift for conference participants at the close of the second day.

The meaning of the symposium’s outcomes were summarized by the following participants in roundtable discussion, entitled “From Ecclesiology to Ecclesiodicy: The Problem of Witnessing to the Church in the 21st Century”:

• Fr Georgy Kochetkov, PhD Candidate in Theology and Founder of St. Philaret’s Institute;
• Igor Zaitsev, PhD Candidate and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies at the Russian Christian Humanities Academy;
• Viktor Granovsky, PhD Candidate and Associate Professor at St. Philaret’s Institute;
• Marina Naumova, Vice-Rector for Development at St. Philaret’s Institute;
• Fr Georgy Ashkov, ThM, who is Chairman of the Theological Working Group of the Vicariate of St. Mary of Paris and St. Alexis of Uzhgorod of the Constantinople Patriarchate Metropolis in France.

The discussion was moderated by Yulia Balakshina, PhD, who is a Professor at St. Philaret’s Institute and A.I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University. Participants reflected on how the question of justifying the Church might be directed inward, toward its own existential centre.

The conference featured 25 presentations. Over the course of three days, it brought together 111 participants from 20 secular and church educational institutions, including:

• Yekaterinburg Orthodox Theological Seminary,
• Lomonosov Moscow State University,
• Moscow Pedagogical State University,
• Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
• Ss. Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Postgraduate Studies (of the Russian Orthodox Church),
• St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University,
• Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration,
• Russian State University for the Humanities,
• A.I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University (RSPU),
• Dostoevsky Russian Christian Humanities Academy,
• Saint Petersburg Theological Academy,
• Tashkent Orthodox Theological Seminary.