Search results

Хитрук Е. Б. «Да будет воля Твоя и на земле как на небе..!»: христианство и социальная надежда в учении Вальтера Раушенбуша // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2020. Вып. 91. С. 109-125. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202091.109-125
The article attempts to provide the most complete presentation of the views of Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), the most prominent representative of the “Social Gospel” movement in American Protestantism, in Russian-language scientifi c literature. Particular attention is paid to the revision of the history of Christianity in the works of W. Rauschenbusch and, above all, his position as to the negative impact of the ascetic ideal on understanding the mission of the church in Medieval Christianity. The article also examines the idea of a “social hope” for approaching the “kingdom of heaven” on earth as the main conceptual element of the doctrine of the “Social Gospel”. It is shown that “social hope”, contrary to popular belief, is not utopian, but based on a restrained view of the real possibilities of man. Calling for an active transformation of society, W. Rauschenbusch himself does not experience any illusion about the “ease” of this task or the “sinlessness” of human nature. At the same time, the introduction of specific social reforms (accompanied by a constant humble prayerful appearance before God) is, from the point of view of W. Rauschenbusch, a direct duty of the Christian, aimed at alleviating the situation of the affl icted and oppressed groups of the population. The article also describes the main lines of critical refl ection on the ideas of Walter Rauschenbusch in the doctrines of Reinhold Niebuhr and Richard Rorty. It shows the influence of the concept of “social Gospel” on the movement in defense of the rights of African-Americans in the second half of the 20th century. The conclusion is made about the relevance of the ideas of Walter Rauschenbusch at the beginning of the 21st century in connection with the formation of the trend of “post-metaphysical thinking” in the modern philosophical and religious-philosophical tradition, as well as in connection with the need for a careful and thoughtful rethinking of Christian history.
Walter Rauschenbusch, Social Gospel, Christian asceticism, social hope, history of Christianity, church, Christianity
  1. Brackney W. H. (2017) “Walter Rauschenbusch: Then and Now”. Baptist Quarterly, 48/1, p. 23‒46.
  2. Cook V. (2016) “Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Long Social Gospel Movement”. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, 26 (1), p. 74‒100.
  3. Dzhokhadze I. D. (2019) “Meshaet li religiia publichnomu dialogu?” [Does religion hinder public dialogue?]. Voprosy teologii, 1 (1), p. 81–96 (in Russian).
  4. Guth K. V. (2020) “Laying Claim to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Legacy”. Journal of Religious Ethics, 48 (1), p. 26–44.
  5. Handy R. T (1964) “Walter Rauschenbusch in Historical Perspective”. Baptist Quarterly, 20/7, p. 313‒321.
  6. Khristos i kul’tura. Izbrannye trudy Richarda Nibura i Rainhol’da Nibura (1996) [Christ and culture. Selected works of Richard Niebuhr and Reinhold Niebuhr]. Moscow: Iurist (in Russian).
  7. Mitrokhin L. N. (1997) Baptizm: istoriia i sovremennost’ (fi losofsko-sociologicheskie ocherki) [Baptism: history and modernity (philosophical and sociological essays)]. St. Petersburg: RHGI (in Russian).
  8. Nelson J. R. (2009) “Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel: A Hopeful Theology for the Twenty-First Century Economy”. CrossCurrents, 59 (4), p. 442–456.
  9. Niebuhr R. (1968) “Walter Rauschenbusch in Historical Perspective”. Faith and Politics. New York: George Braziller, p. 33‒45.
  10. Rauschenbusch W. (1910) For God and the People. Prayers of the social awakening. Boston; New York; Chicago: The pilgrim press.
  11. Rauschenbusch W. (2008) Christianity and The Social Crisis in the 21st century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church. New York: HarperOne.
  12. Rorti R. (2008) “Anti-clericalism and atheism” Logos, no. 4(67), p. 111–119 (Russian translation).
  13. Sukhovskii A. V. (2010) “Martin Liuter King: teologiia osvobozhdeniia v kontekste pravozashchitnoi deiatel’nosti” [Martin Luther King: Theology of liberation in the context of human rights activism], in Social’no-gumanitarnye problemy pravosudiia. Sbornik statei po materialam mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Social-humanitarian issues of justice. Conference papers]. St Petersburg: Petropolis, р. 80‒83 (in Russian).
  14. The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr.: Advocate of the Social Gospel. September 1948 – March 1963. Vol. 6 (2007). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  15. Zelenova O. V. (2015) “Vozmozhen li sotsial’nyi ideal: U. Raushenbush i R. Nibur” [Is the social ideal possible: W. Rauschenbusch and R. Niebuhr]. Problemnyi analiz i gosudarstvenno-upravlencheskoe proektirovanie, 4, p. 32‒35 (in Russian).
Khitruk Ekaterina
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Tomsk State University; 36 Lenin Ave., Tomsk 634050, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2522-3070;
Email: lubomudreg@gmail.com. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.
Хитрук Е. Б. Осмысление человека в контексте меметической теории религии: от «образа и подобия» к «транспортному средству» // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2022. Вып. 101. С. 118-135. DOI: 10.15382/sturI2022101.118-135
The article is devoted to the study of the idea of a human in the context of the modern memetic theory of religion. The work consistently reveals the main provisions of the memetic concept in the works of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. Richard Dawkins is regarded as the founder of the replicator-centric interpretation of the evolutionary process, which contributed to the formation of the idea of the meme as a unit of cultural information. Memes compete with each other in the process of cultural evolution, pursuing their own benefits, regardless of the possible benefits of host organisms. To such "selfish" memes, R. Dawkins, first of all, refers to religious ideas. R. Dawkins' concept has a popular scientific character and its author, considering a person to be a bearer of memes, does not clarify the ways of interaction between specific memes and the human mind. This philosophical aspect of the memetic concept is developed in the theory of Daniel Dennett, who, distracting from the scientific (biological) context, builds a naturalistic metanarrative based on the concept of memes. D. Dennett argues that the human mind is not only an effective means of transportation for memes, but also literally an artifact created in the process of memetic evolution and acquired, thanks to it, a tendency to select and prefer certain (evolutionarily successful) types of memes ... Such an interpretation of man is consolidated in the psychological theory of S. Blackmore, who asserts that the theory of memes finally and convincingly debunks both the religious ideas about the free and autonomous personality of God, who is responsible for the existence of the world, and the traditional ideas about the free and autonomous personality of man, who is responsible both for his own existence in general, and, in particular, for the morally significant decisions of their lives. S. Blackmore proposes to consolidate the new concept of a person as a vehicle with appropriate psychological techniques that get rid of the "false" feelings of their own autonomy and freedom. The author of this article considers the memetic concept of religion, culture and man as a non-trivial version of classical naturalism and suggests the possible productivity of criticism of this concept based on the unique Christian interpretation of personality as irreducibility to nature.
evolution, meme, memetics, atheism, Christianity, human philosophy, philosophy of religion, Christian anthropology
  1. Blackmore S. (1999) The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press.
  2. Blackmore S. (2000) “The Power of Memes”. Scientific American, vol. 283, no. 4, pp. 64–73.
  3. Blackmore S. (2009) “The third replicator is among us”. New Scientist, vol. 203, pp. 36–39.
  4. Borisov E. (2009) Osnovnye cherty postmetafi zicheskoi ontologii [The main features of postmetaphysical ontology]. Tomsk: Izdatel′stvo Tomskogo universiteta (in Russian).
  5. Dawkins R. (1989) The Selfish Gene. Moscow: Corpus AST (Russian translation).
  6. Dawkins R. (2008) The God Delusion. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo KoLibri (Russian translation).
  7. Dekart R. (1989) Sochineniya v 2 tomakh [Works in 2 vols]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Mysl′ (Russian translation).
  8. Dennet D.C. (2006) Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Viking.
  9. Dennett D. (1995) Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Moscow: NLO (Russian translation).
  10. Dennett D. (2008) “Toward a Buyer’s Guide to Religions”. Logos, vol. 4 (67), рр. 3–27 (Russian translation).
  11. Geertz A.W. (2013) “New atheistic approaches in the cognitive science of religion: on Daniel Dennett Breaking the spell (2006) and Richard Dawkins the God delusion (2006)”. Gosudarstvo, religiia, Tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 3 (31), pp. 77–109 (Russian translation).
  12. Lossky V. (2003) Bogovidenie [The vision of God]. Moscow: AST (in Russian).
  13. McGrath A. (2013) Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meanings of Live. Wiley-Blackwell.
  14. Plantinga A. (2007) The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum’, available at https://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html (24.05.2022).
  15. Plantinga A. (2012) “Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins”. ABC Religion & Ethics, available at https://www.abc.net.au/religion/science-or-naturalism-the-contradictions-of-richard-dawkins/10100636 (24.05.2022).
  16. Polyakov E. (2010) “Memetika: nauka ili paradigma?” [Memetics: science or paradigm?]. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Philosophy, vol. 2, pp. 160–165 (in Russian).
  17. Rassel B. (1987) Why I Am Not a Christian. Moscow: Politizdat (Russian translation).
  18. Schmemann A. (2003) Za zhizn′ mira [For the life of the world]. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo khrama sviatoi muchenitsy Tatiany (in Russian).
  19. Shokhin V. (2016) “V chem vse-taki novizna ¯novogo ateizma″?” [After all, what is the novelty of the new atheism?]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 3 (65), pp. 149–157 (in Russian).
  20. Vattimo G. (2007) After Christianity. Moscow: Tri kvadrata (Russian translation).
Khitruk Ekaterina
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Tomsk State University; Tomsk, Russia;
Post: Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2522-3070;
Email: lubomudreg@gmail.com. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.