Abstract: This article is dedicated to the problems and prospects of the expected/commenced social and value shift, which was stimulated and legitimized by the COVID-19 pandemic. For a long time and on different levels (universalism/particularism), the modern world has been seeking the new system of “individual – society – state”, as well as the corresponding value basis. Being simultaneously a global and individual challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic allows launching and testing the available “projects of the Reformation”, as well as laying the foundation for the future projects. This is the sort of “shimmering in the near distance”, version of the “disciplinary revolution”, which allows officially speaking of the “new world”. However, in order the “motivation” for the new social reality is “for conscience, rather than fear”, it requires the value revolution (“revolution in theology”), which would formulate and offer the new normative attitudes. In this regard, the use of the conceptual framework of the “Reformation” and its patterns leads towards the comprehension of importance of the value foundation of the expected / commenced social transformation. Even of greater importance is the understanding who forms this value foundation. The article does not provide specific answers to the questions which new system of “individual – society – state”, new ethos or “new religion” entails the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences of such “revolutions” manifest later on and are rarely predictable. This article aims to be the “optics” that allows seeing the inner and the outer the context of the COVID-2019.

Abstract: Religious art is one of the most complex and controversial phenomena in the history of art. The attempts to conceptualize this phenomenon are relatively recent, and are carried out mostly in the context of the existence of confessional, ecclesiastical/nonecclesiastical, cult/atheistic art. Therefore, religious art within the Russian humanities traditionally receives ambivalent interpretation. In a narrow sense, religious art implies a combination of artworks with dogmatic, doctrinal, and liturgical meaning. In a broad sense, religious art represents a set artworks that reveal religious themes from ideological and figurative perspectives, reflect religious worldview, faith and experience, but do not carry sacred statues, nor intended for reverence, worship, liturgical practices.  The author concludes that neither definition describes the distinctness and novelty of the religious art. The appropriate interpretation describes religious art as d both, ecclesiastical/non-ecclesiastical and cult / atheistic art. This leads to a terminological confusion, and doubts the need for introducing the concept of “religious art” and the phenomenon itself. The key towards understanding this phenomenon and a new definition of the concept of “religious art” can be their context – the European and Russian secularization. It is not coincidental that the first was addressed, and the second was deliberately formulated at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries. Religious art mainstreams during the historical periods when the boundaries of secularization/religion become flexible, initiating struggle for them.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to one of the most complicated and paramount questions discussed at the 1917–18 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in terms of the political freedom, secularism and non-confessionalism of the state. Over the recent decade, this topic has repeatedly become a subject of attention of the national historians and theologians, but unfortunately never exceeded the scope of the empirically real side of the church, as a social institution, passing over its conceptual-mystical core – theocentricism, sociality and totality. The goal of this work is to demonstrate whether the Council had its own political and religious discourse based on the traditional social doctrine of the church that it “already” belongs to the Kingdom of God, developed the “middle way” in the church-state relationship and returned onto the “historical paths”. The analysis of the actions and decisions of the 1917–18 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church allows concluding that despite the enticement of the “free theocracy” the Council still was under the thumb of the political moment and targeted the religious policy of the new state. Thus, the derived from the Council final document – “On the Legal Status of the Russian Orthodox Church” was based on the idea of mutual compromise and mutual restrictions, which the church addressed to the state. This was an attempt of the “militant church” to embark upon the path of mediation, correlativity of the mystical and rational, which in the Russian Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodox Church is one of the unique experiences of similar type.

Abstract: The article deals with the problem of Orthodox fundamentalism. Despite the importance of this topic, it was not given due consideration within Russian sociology. That brings to life numerous myths, stereotypes and media clichés. For this reason the article is primarily focused on the issues of theory and methods. It raises the issue of defining and modifying of religious fundamentalism discusses the relation between religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy, the correlation between religious fundamentalism and religious renovation, shows the sources and ideological basis of the Orthodox pseudo-fundamentalism.In order to meet these challenges it was necessary to address modern scientific concepts of fundamentalism and the spiritual heritage of Russian religious and philosophical thought of the 20th century. Work was conducted in parallel with this on the conceptualization of religious fundamentalism as an ambivalent phenomenon that does not exclude religious modernism and other opposite religious ideologies and world-views. On the basis of this the following conclusions were made:1) Orthodox fundamentalism is a complex multilevel and multifaceted phenomenon. Its phenomenology, structural and functional features and manifestations depend not only on the specific character of Orthodoxy as an original trend in Christianity but also on the social and cultural context in which fundamentalism appeared, on the nature of values and aims which are characteristic for the given period. 2) The domination of social and political agenda in the Orthodox fundamentalism in combination with under-development or ignoring of theological issues gave rise to the emergence of such a phenomenon as Orthodox pseudo-fundamentalism which makes religion an instrument of social and political activity with unchristian aims and means. 3) Orthodox fundamentalism is ambivalent and oriented not only towards archaization and conservation but also to a creative renovation of religion and society. It looks to the future, offers new guidelines, social and political models, which will have an objective impact on searching further ways of development.

Abstract: In his research Golovushkin reveals the meaning and historical definition of the socio-political projects of the two brightest forms of Russian Orthodox reformation - the movement of Old Believers of the mid XVIIth century and Orthodox Renovationism of the early XXth century. Researchers traditionally view these phenomena as opposite vectors: Renovationism is usually associated with novations and modernization and Old Believers are associated with fundamentalism and commitment to doniconian Russian Orthodoxy. However, despite these beliefs, their historical path, religious projects and socio-political concepts have much in common which points to some important intersection points and regular patterns of the Russian church and socio-political history. Methodologically, the research is based on historical phenomenology of religion which considers history of religions (discriptive discipline) and phenomenology of religion (comparative and interpretative disciplien) as the two interdependent aspects of religious science combining the methods of empirical study and theoretical analysis of collected empirical data. This approach demonstrates that the movement of Old Believers in the mid XVIIth century and Orthodox Renovationism of the Early XXth century are the expression of not only a new type of religion, religious ethics and morals but also transformation of the political culture of the Russian society and crisis of the theocratic paternalist model of the Russian government. Developing the concept of the 'free theocracy' state where church, government and society are an entity and participate in creation of the Kingdom of God on earth, Old Believers and Renovationists tried to find both the civil way to legitimize the ruling power and the algorithm for building the 'true Orthodox civilization' in Russia. Double failure of that socio-political project had a significant impact on the following civilizational development of the Russian society. The result was the crucial church dissents and reinforcement of the vertical structure of the paternalist secular power, for church schisms do not only initiate changes but also bring traumatic experience, make people fear transformations and encourage political and religious conservatism and anti-dynamism attitudes. 

Abstract: Renovationism is one of the most complex and contradictory phenomena in the Russian Orthodoxy of the 1st half of the XX century which still remains not entirely comprehended and understood. Its organizational and ideological formation and development took place under various cultural and historical conditions and under the influence of various religious and philosophical ideas and concepts that naturally affected versatility of this phenomenon and diversity of its appraisal. A visible role here is also played by the fact that, being the intra-church opposition, the Renovationism in the 1920th was involved in the resolution of sharp ideological and intra-church conflicts, having been influenced by challenges and drawbacks of ideologization and mythologization. Their overcoming is substantially contributed to the contextual analysis. The image of the Renovationism and its leaders as it was depicted in the Russian literature of the 1920th allows to create their objective portrait. Addressing to the works of Ilya Ilf, Evgeny Petrov, Olga Forsh and Sergey Yesenin helps to understand the flavor of the historical era when the Renovationist movement of the 1920th developed as well as the Movement’s internal heterogeneity and inconsistency and the way the society perceived the Renovationism and the Renovationist Church.

Abstract: The article is devoted to Yu. V. Balakshin's book "The brotherhood of adherents of church renovation (group of "32" Petersburg priests, 1903–1907): Documentary history and cultural environment'. This book is devoted to history and activity of a so-called group of "32" St. Petersburg priests – a bright phenomenon of the Russian church and public life at the beginning of the XX century. The author of the article establishes the reasons of origin of renovationism as a movement at the beginning of the XX century, considers its organizational and ideological evolution till 1907. Correspondence of one of leaders of group of the 32 priests of K. M. Aggeev with professor of the Kiev spiritual academy P. P. Kudryavtsev which represents an important source for studying of the Russian religious social thought of the beginning of the XX century is for the first time published in the supplement to research. Unlike the predecessors addressing to this subject, Yu. V. Balakshina uses the contextual analysis which considers features and influence of the sociocultural environment in which renovationism was formed. At the same time she emphasizes importance of a combination of a descriptive method and theorizing which reflection has to be provided with reconsideration known and search of new historical sources. Thanks to such "integrated" approach of Yu. V. Balakshin it was succeeded to show that the renovation movement 1905 – 1907, this large phenomenon of religious and cultural life of Russia the beginnings of the XX century. It is one of the first attempts of overcoming of the split between the church and society caused by processes of the new European culture.