In society

It turns out, it turns out, the protodiacon

December 21, 2009 Daily Journal

On December 16, the second meeting of the Expert Council was held at the department of religious education and catechesis of the Russian Orthodox Church, which considered the preparation of educational materials for teaching the module “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” as part of a federal experiment to conduct the course “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics”. Once again, the Council recommended for teaching a textbook edited by the protodiacon Andrei Kuraev. On December 28, the choice should be made completely, and the situation is incomprehensible. Firstly, chapters appeared on the network from the textbook edited by Fr. Andrei , which indicate that the manual far from the course declared by the Ministry of Cultural Academy of Sciences. Secondly, from an interview with the coordinator of a group of developers created within the framework of the Ministry of Education, it suddenly turns out that the official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church in the group was Lyudmila Shevchenko, whose allowance was the church expert council. And the textbook edited by the Protodeacon Kuraev arose more or less unexpectedly for almost all participants in the process. To understand the situation, the “daily magazine” spoke with a member of the developer group, Art. n. With. Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and responsible secretary of the editorial board of the Christian East magazine Alexei Muravyov .

- Alexey Vladimirovich, until recently, of all materials in the press, not very, however, numerous, it was not clear what, in fact, was happening with textbooks on Orthodox culture. When the message of the catechization of the patriarchate appeared, which of the two textbooks, L. Shevchenko and Fr. A. Kuraeva, chosen a Kuraev textbook, it seems that both author worked as part of the editorial council of the Patriarchate and now the Council made a choice. There was also a complete confidence that the church redsopter coordinates its actions with the ministry, since the cooperation agreement has been reached. But everything is not at all the way it now becomes clear. How?

- Let's start in order. At the end of July, President Dmitry Medvedev approved the idea of ​​teaching spiritual and moral objects at the school, work began in August, and by the fall it was already announced to launch the experiment or testing of the course “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics” (Orksa). For this, an interdepartmental council was created with a wide interfaith participation under the chairmanship of the Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko. It was the Council that formed a group of developers and put forward its coordinator, professor Marianne Shakhnovich from St. Petersburg University. The Russian Orthodox Orthodox Old Believer Church was also invited to the group of developers, the representative of which turned to me as a professional historian and his co -religionist with a proposal to work on behalf of the Old Believers on the first module of the textbook - a secular presentation of the foundations of the culture of Eastern Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy). The ministry announced to me that it would be necessary to work in tandem with the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, which I certainly agreed with, expressing full readiness. No more about the ROC, all the more about the fact that it was the Russian Orthodox Church that is “engaged in” this module, we were not informed.

Further, the situation developed quite strangely: officially a member of the Group of Developers from the Russian Orthodox Church was Lyudmila Shevchenko, and I was constantly looking for cooperation with her, but she dodged direct cooperation. She was the first and informed us that there is a parallel “ROC editorial board”. Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, I have long known and immediately tried to call him to find out the meaning of what was happening. Alas, he dodged contact. Maybe the fact is that Andrei Vyacheslavovich was not a member of our group, he was not included in the official list approved by the authorities. Since it was not possible to coordinate actions, the ministry and members of the Interdepartmental Council gave me the team to prepare the module course on their own, which was executed by me. Now everything is already known about the editorial council of the Patriarchate, but I work on the instructions of the President under the editorial board, approved by state power, and humbly expects that either Ms. Shevchenko or Fr. Andrei will begin cooperation, which there was an agreement.

- Why was it decided to prepare all manuals on a single methodological basis?

“It is that the task of making such a manual is very complicated.” How not to introduce divisions into the environment of children? Moreover, they are only 10-11 years old! Therefore, at a meeting of the working group, such a decision was made, and teachers, psychologists, and methodologists, and representatives of Rosobronuska voted for it. The parallelism of the material is also needed because the last 5 lessons will be common to all students - for all modules.

- Textbooks were supposed to undergo a pedagogical examination. Were the criteria for this examination and by whom?

- You see, the methodological guide is carried out by the Academy of Advanced training of teachers, its specialists and the publishing house "Education" carry out the editorial office and examination of the text. So far, we are not prescribed by the Ministry and the Council, we work in this format. All the examinations that I saw were made “amateurously”, that is, in unofficial form. So, for example, the representative of the ROC MP Bishop Mercury introduced the members of the Interdepartmental Council with a negative feedback on the textbook of Andrei Kuraev, but since the protodeacon is not a member of the group of developers, how can we respond to this review? I heard that the deacon himself asked his friends to renounce his course, but officially no one introduced either the Council or the group with these reviews.

And the criteria are complex: the course should be, on the one hand, really cultural, that is, to set as its goal not indocation, but to familiarize children with the foundations of Orthodox culture, on the other hand, it should be understood by students of grades 4-5. Another important detail is that ordinary teachers will teach the subject whose knowledge of Orthodoxy can be very different. Someone has a base, someone does not have it, and we must take this into account in our work. Combining all these parameters, frankly, is very difficult, and I have serious fears about this. But since we were told to work, we work.

- In the review of academicians with direct text, it is said that the textbook about. Andrei is creed in nature. What does the Ministry of Education think about this, which with the mouth of Minister Fursenko said a million times that the course will be secular and cultural?

- I have already said that this review is unofficial and it makes sense only inside the ROC MP, but not for members of the Council and a group of developers. What I saw from the materials of the textbook of Andrei Vyacheslavovich seems to me informal and frankly creed. But, I repeat, I did not see all his work, no one provided me. Will be provided - or about. Andrey, or the ministry, then I can speak. And what is published on the network, in particular in LiveJournal, seems to me just a provocation. I couldn’t, it seems to me, the deacon Andrei, whom I know as a reasonable person, write such a text. It does not even correspond to the plan approved by the ministry! You see, this course should be emphasized by detached and secular. And on the network lies the text, let’s say, a completely different orientation.

- The textbook of Lyudmila Shevchenko, who, unlike the chapters from the manual about. Andrei, posted on the sites, is completely inaccessible to the public, in which direction does it differ?

- Shevchenko’s textbook was never finally provided to the Council and the group. Those materials that I saw testify that Lyudmila Leonidovna is a highly professional teacher, but she is sometimes too absorbed in the “joyful world of Orthodox culture”, she lacks a distance. However, I think that both Shevchenko’s textbook and the text of Kuraev (if the protodiacon enters the group of developers) can be finalized to a reasonable look.

- Protodiacon Kuraev (in the photo) , even when everyone was actively discussing the textbook of Alla Borodina, he repeatedly stated that it was necessary to write a strictly culturological manual with an eye on Averintsev, Losev, etc. Why did he retreat from this position, what do you think? After all, it is difficult to assume that about. Andrei does not understand that his textbook did not lay close to any cultural studies? After all, he is much more interesting than the Borodina textbook, but in his missionary pathos, it seems, many times surpasses him.

- This is a mystery to me ... Maybe he changed his views. I don't know, to be honest. Maybe someone advises him, maybe something else ... here it is pointless to guess.

- It would seem to me that the Patriarchate should not lobby for this textbook, but to see its danger - after all, the course of Orks is introduced as part of the experiment, and here such dubious reasons. I am sure that many parents will push the orientation of the textbook.

- I agree that this is a very dangerous trend. It is no coincidence that many parents refuse religious modules in advance (in many regions, most parents choose secular ethics - approx. “Hedgehog”). Nobody wants to make their children victims of missionary experiments. I admit, I myself do not like missionaries, if I may say so, I am a Mission. Now such forms as a sermon in stadiums, “Orthodox” motorbikes with naked girls and half-naked priests with drums on rock concerts, from which my late teacher Sergey Sergeyevich Averintsev would be horrified. We talked a lot about such things, he usually called this vulgarity - for him it was the worst curse. And what Losev thought about the synodal missionaries and forms of this primitive “propaganda of church affiliation”, I will not tell, otherwise you will accuse me of non -wealth. Look at his “dialectics of myth” and “essays”.

-You obviously saw manuals on other religions, are they also creed or nevertheless culturological?

- What I saw is culturological, not missionary. And in addition, not a single denomination dared to expose as the author of the clergyman - Mullah, Imam, Lama ... This is very dangerous, because each clergyman - by definition, a recruiter, missionary.

- What is your impression of the manual on ethics and the history of religions?

- I am not familiar with the text on ethics. It is better to ask this question to the group to Professor Shakhnovich. As for the text on the history of religions, it is being prepared at our Institute of Universal History, where I have been working for many years, edited by such an excellent specialist as academician Alexander Chubaryan, I think you can not worry about the quality of the textbook.

- Why is the scientific community so weakly and slurred? Many are ready to abstractly talk about the clericalization of the school, but when it came to a specific case, almost no one speaks out.

- Now scientists, eating a rather miserable existence, do not have a strong voice. Prime Minister Putin is trying to give scientists more opportunities, but, alas, while these are only programs, plans. Many scientists have already waved their hand, do not believe that their voice will be heard. Many colleagues are outraged that Orthodoxy becomes a kind of notorious “social studies” or “foundations of Marxism”. I feel sorry for the Orthodox faith, but this is a synodal, and then Soviet transformation, the fruits of the terrible competing of the state and faiths, or rather, one of them. I see for us only one way - a secular state, rigidly separated from all churches and faiths. Otherwise, we are waiting for a dead end.

-Doesn't it seem dangerous to you that the course, which more recently was called “spiritual and moral culture”, if Kuraev’s textbook is adopted, we are essentially starting with forgery? Simple, we are frankly time for children - we give out catechism for cultural studies.

- Yes, there is such a danger. And what is the most unpleasant, I can be among those who will be indirectly to blame for this. I really do not want to allow it. But hope remains - working together, you can fix a lot, I have extensive experience of various cooperation - scientific, pedagogical, social, religious. All that is in my power, I will do, and there - as God will judge.

Talked Svetlana Solodovnik