We must not be afraid of a strong Islam and weak Christianity

the spread of islam in Europe can bring back the popularity of christianity; secularism became the new religion, and treats others with the aggression of a neophyte; the church doesn't know what to do with bioethics, but allowed to baptize surrogate babies. The forecast for the future of orthodoxy and christianity from legoida, the chairman of the synodal department for church and society and the media of the Moscow patriarchate what is the future for religion in 10-20 years? today in Europe, its social significance is markedly reduced. On the other hand, in third world countries a growing number of muslims, and in Africa and latin america – catholics. Get two poles.

What will eventually result in their proximity? trends, which you said really is. Only in Europe does not decrease the role of religion generally, and christianity, which for centuries was the traditional religion for these places. However, this situation differs markedly from country to country, so what to speak of general or single trend is difficult. One thing – Spain, Italy, Poland, and the other France, Germany or, say, Norway.

In parallel in Europe and the world, the influence of islam, and it is unclear what the global reaction will cause its extension. Cardinal kurt koch once said: "We must not be afraid of a strong islam and weak christianity. " if you look at this statement as the starting point in a certain program, you can assume that in the European territories, the strengthening of islam will turn companies in the direction of strong christianity. However, while this is not visible, but the story is very often developed not by the scenario which seems the most obvious to the majority. From the moment the bolsheviks began to aggressively preach atheism, repeatedly, promises were made to bury religion. To no avail. Religion will not go away from our lives, because that's what a person feels the need. Frankly, i get restless when i know that in Europe, the officials decide to destroy churches, schools prohibit wearing crosses, and within the university it becomes indecent to talk about faith.

What do you think will appear in the future map of Europe countries where religious activity will be outlawed or will be artificially reduced to zero? do not rule out that in some countries the level of public regulation to establish rules that significantly restrict the public manifestation of religiosity. I have said many times: if someone is a problem cross that is visible to others, where is the guarantee that tomorrow the same problem will not be a cross on the dome of the temple? we will have to close the temples some huge fences? with a negative reaction to the bells we already have. Moreover, in our country. I think that the opposition, too, has quasi-religious roots. Secularism, which claims to be the sole regulator of social life, ideology or quasi-religion.

Once in the history of the domination of one religion suggested mandatory restrictions for another. Now often occurs similar struggle aggressive secularism with christianity. From the point of view of sociology, the roc is a large public organization. Greenpeace, for example, also. If you asked the managers of greenpeace, what exactly they will do for the next 25 years, they will say that the main topics will be global warming and waste disposal, and the problem of oil production and nuclear power will become less important than before.

The roc has a similar clarity of vision for the future? the Russian church, not to mention in general about christianity, much older than greenpeace. Here, at least, a slightly different angle. Problems that a person decides in religion – the age of man. Modern apologetics says that people have an inborn religious need. But sociologists and anthropologists agree that man is not the need that is in principle unrealizable – that's what we do.

(i now it is about needs, not about the fantastic plans and dreams of pie). So our plans were not designed for 25 years, and for all time of existence of mankind. Oil deposits may change, but man, while he lives, will not go away from the eternal problems of life and death. I was recently shown an article that said that scientists change the gene aging and people will live on average to 120 years. But the “accursed questions” is not going anywhere.

Just longer they will suffer. All just go back to the old testament framework, where the patriarchs lived for hundreds of years? yes, all already described. However, like greenpeace, we are faced with modern challenges: ecological disaster, the discussion about the future of education, the care of young people in virtuality. There are problems that have no ready-made theological decisions. For example, some questions of bioethics, antropologicheskie possible implications of bioethics. There are issues that are being resolved.

Recently, the Russian church produced a separate document on the baptism of the surrogate babies. And that? baptize, of course. Strictly speaking, even the arguments against the surrogate motherhood has a greater moral than the purely theological. If the woman rents her body to rent for the money for carrying someone child, this, of course, is a moral issue. But this does not mean that the child should not be baptized. Does the church need to modernise the inner life and the principles of working with people? i try not to use the word "Modernization" because in some people it will immediately cause a predictable reaction of rejection, and my words will be immediately marked in a certain way – even to read without trying to understand the spoken. Does the church need to change? of course, we need.

The church is a living organism that is constantly changing. View, today, the metropolitans are present on vkontakte and Facebook. In parallel, there are metropolitans, who had never seen a Facebook or vkontakte. The priests who are less than 40 or 30 years — the people of his generation. They fell from the moon and grew in our time, with all its pluses and minuses.

Don't want to get into a debate about generations x, y, z and pepsi, but they are experiencing the same difficulties as their peers. When the apostle paul says, "For all i have become all things to save some" — isn't that an indication of the need to change and the ability of a christian to change for the sake of preaching the gospel? another thing, this does not mean that you need every 10 years to change the language of worship or to adjust it to the emerging slang. There is a very serious error of the missionary, the preacher seeks to win over the audience and begins to speak "We are just like you. " but christians are not the same as non-christians, as if today politically incorrect it may sound. This border can not move. "We call you wherever you will not come without the church, christ promised that you will never get it myself" – only this can be a real orthodox sermon. We communicate with muslims, jews and buddhists, believers and non-believers, and every man should respect the image of god, regardless of religious views of this man. But these views are christian checks one – the gospel.

We can not have the right to say that to be a christian or muslim – from the point of view of christianity the same way. No, not the same. In fact, it is the position of any world religion, the center of which stands the question of truth and salvation. The presence of the metropolitans in vkontakte and Facebook is certainly good. But now the main fight on the internet is style of presenting information to users.

The question is not where to start the account and how there to tell us about yourself. Here, i think the church has a serious problem, as 90% of bishops are speaking the language not even the ancient teachers, and the soviet officials, and prominent church expert language intellectuals of the early 20th century, which few today accept. I do not agree with this figure for two reasons: first, we recently significantly increased the number of bishops, as greatly increased the dioceses (200 dioceses in Russia alone). Most of the bishops who were ordained in recent years – people are young, they simply may not know the language of soviet bureaucracy. The second point: as far as the "Outdated" language is a serious problem? a friend of mine called today's youth "Generation design".

I agree with that. But this has its advantages for the rich church tradition of painting and architecture. In addition, modern society is very fragmented. Recently the singer cord in response to the words that he popular, said, "I am popular in certain social groups. " and it's true: among some people it is popular, and among others considered indecent just to mention his name. This is the feature of the modern world.

On the one hand, this complicates life, because it left little room for universal authority. On the other hand, i think religion refers to those eternal themes, which experiments with style can harm and which can unite a large number of people is its stylistic consistency. For example, the language problem exists, of course: it is necessary to speak so that the audience can understand. We have in youtube there is a father-experimenters. One, i think, in general, works in the style of max +100500, only of course without the swearing.

But by likes and dislikes and comments show that not everyone is willing to accept. But even with such modern interpretations, of course, those videos are not millions of hits. And never will be. As rightly pointed out the reasons for this, one of my friend, a professional versed in the subject: "No mat.

No boobs. No mimi. " it is difficult to argue. I watched some of the experiments, when the priest tried to move on with the audience not just on pontyano language, but, say, a subcultural one. Often the result was.