Growing up in a standard Soviet family, never attending church in childhood and youth, coming to Moscow to enroll in a capital university as a convinced atheist - this is how you can tell in one sentence about the life of Sergei Khudiev before believing in God. Did he come to Christianity by chance, become a guide of the Faith, an Orthodox publicist? Well-known on the Internet, in the print media, lecturer and radio presenter - is Sergei Lvovich now engaged in campaigning for Christianity, and what is his attitude towards atheists? Khudiev’s literary works, articles, and speeches are known to a wide circle of his admirers, but the facts of the biography of this amazing man are also interesting.
Childhood, youth
An ordinary Soviet family, far from Christianity - this is the environment in which Sergei Khudiev spent his childhood. At school, as people of the older generation remember, at that time religion was not particularly held in high esteem; even more so: teachers convinced children according to accepted canons that atheists are knowledgeable, smart people, and only stupid and narrow-minded individuals believe in God. But even then the boy subconsciously showed a craving for God, and he himself later admitted this, saying: “My grandmother went abroad and brought a postcard: winter, church, people come to church. I suddenly felt an unprecedented surge of joy when I picked up the postcard, as if I had seen heaven.”
Another example, in his words: “I heard Lasta on the radio as a child, “The Lonely Shepherd.” For others it was just a pleasant melody, but in my soul it evoked the feeling that there was an incredibly beautiful paradise.” But the boy still firmly believed that either old women who no longer needed anything in life, or foolish losers, went to churches. Also from the words of Sergei Lvovich, what he was like before arriving in Moscow: “Gloomy, withdrawn, arrogant, immersed only in himself.” This is how Sergei Khudiev was when he came to Moscow State University after school.
The path to God, social activities, popularity
A meeting at Moscow State University with journalist Mark Makarov, a gift from him (Clive Lewis’s book “Pain”) - this became the first step for Sergei Khudiev on the path to God. His feelings after reading the book: “I was amazed that a person who is undoubtedly smarter than me is a believer!” The second person who influenced Sergei Lvovich’s worldview is the “gloomy German genius Nietzsche.” It’s a paradox, but Nietzsche’s violent atheism had a great influence on Khudiev in the opposite direction! In 1992, he was baptized in the Church of Cosmas and Damian (Uspensky Vrazhek): “He finally came to the Church, but of course, it took many more years to reach the current result,” according to Khudiev about the third stage of the path to Orthodoxy.
A personal attitude towards the Lord, and not just a set of formal beliefs - this is the conclusion reached by the former atheist, and now a popularizer of the faith, an Orthodox publicist, and the author of very interesting books. In his works, Sergei Khudiev tells how to organically let God into your soul, how to believe sincerely, and not because it is fashionable. Calm and polite to his opponents, he is a frequent guest on programs where debates about religion are held. In early November, such a meeting took place with Alexander Panchin, where the atheist biologist and the Orthodox publicist discussed issues of attitude towards faith. On social media A series of videos by Sergei Khudiev “Finding Faith” and “A Minute Question” are very popular on networks.
Sergey Lvovich Khudiev
I will conditionally designate them as “high” and “low” universalism. “High” universalism does not seek to ignore the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin and its consequences. Eternal destruction is seen as a very real threat; hell exists, but ultimately Christ, who made His atoning sacrifice for all people (1 John 2:2; Rom. 5:18, etc.), will achieve the salvation of all (John 6:37), even if many will have to be taken out of hell itself (1 Pet. 3:19-20). Many faithful Christians hold such views and hold them largely because they take eternal destruction so seriously that they cannot bear the thought of it actually befalling one of their neighbors. Of course, such views can be challenged - Scripture contains very clear warnings about eternal damnation
(Matt. 25:41; Rev. 14:11), but here I would like to talk about what fruits the preaching of universalist views brings when it penetrates among ordinary parishioners, “parishioners” and people simply interested in Christianity.
As universalism spreads, it takes on the form that I have tentatively called “low” universalism: everyone will go to heaven, there is no hell, God’s wrath against sin, judgment and damnation are medieval superstitions. Of course, this is a gross distortion of the views of the “high” universalists; but I am afraid that such a distortion is completely inevitable. As more and more people accept universalistic ideas, the “broken phone” effect kicks in and people tend to hear only what they want to hear. I don't think this can be avoided.
The most noticeable fruit that “low” universalism brings is the loss of a sense of responsibility for oneself and one’s neighbors. If resisting God cannot lead to any irreversibly dire consequences, then there is no point in being obedient to Him. I will give an example from my personal experience. I once talked with a man who, considering himself a Christian, insisted on his right to lead a clearly immoral lifestyle. To a careful reminder that “those who do this will not inherit the Kingdom of God,” he indignantly replied that God cannot be considered some kind of inquisitor, Who plunges people into unquenchable fire because they do not fit into the narrow framework of church morality . God is love, there is no hell, everyone will be saved.
This is a striking, but, alas, not the only example of how universalist views turn into a reason for sin. Of course, the proponents of “high” universalism by no means want this, but I am afraid, whether they want it or not, exactly what they do not want is happening. The preaching of universal salvation is inevitably perceived as a preaching of salvation without repentance and faith. The prophets, apostles and the Lord Jesus himself made every effort to destroy the false sense of security of people who persist in unbelief and impenitence (Luke 13:3); universalism, on the contrary, is capable of lulling an alarmed conscience.
In “low” universalism the idea of the moral holiness of God is also lost. Sin does not have terrible consequences, which means it is not terrible. God does not require purity and fidelity; at any rate, He does not pursue impurity and unfaithfulness. I recently read an article in a Christian magazine about a woman who was interested in the occult and Eastern mysticism. “Having believed in Christ, she did not indiscriminately reject the acquired knowledge,” the author of the article regrets that her approach does not find understanding among Orthodox priests.
Neither the Bible nor the history of the church knows such a faith in Christ that does not imply a break with the occult (Acts 19:19). Of course, it will be painful for a person accustomed to finding support, comfort and self-worth in the occult and Eastern mysticism to break away from all this in order to find everything he needs in Christ, but the word of God clearly requires this (Deut. 18:9-13; 1 Cor. 10:20). Repentance and breaking with sin can be very painful; it may be no easier than cutting off your own hand (Matthew 5:30); however, the Lord does not offer any other way to enter life.
Where did this kind of Christianity come from, which does not at all imply obedience to the commandments of God? Of course, Christians have always sinned, but it is difficult to remember that they ever claimed that they had the right to sin. I am afraid that there is a connection between this state of affairs and the preaching of universal salvation.
Universalist ideas lead a person to the idea that there is no Gehenna, and there is absolutely no need for him to cause himself any inconvenience by making a decisive break with sin. Of course, adherents of “high” universalism in no way want to encourage people to sin; I'm sure most of them are sincerely saddened by cases like the ones I described above. However, I am also sure that these cases and, moreover, the general trend that stands behind them, prompt us to consider whether it would not be better to adhere to the Word of God and the tradition of the Universal Church - to console and encourage those who repent and believe, and, at the same time, , warn those who persist in unbelief and disobedience to God?
Of course, I may be told that a Christian should obey and serve God out of love, gratitude and personal devotion, and not out of fear of Gehenna. I completely agree with this, and this is exactly what I understand Scripture to teach (John 14:15). However, I have had conversations with people who sincerely did not understand how their occult interests or adultery interfered with the love of God. For a person who does not know (and does not want to know) what sin threatens him with and at what price his salvation was acquired, “love of God” is a sweet dreaminess that does not in any way affect his behavior.
"High" universalism treats the atoning sacrifice of Christ with due reverence; he is inspired, in particular, by the fact that Christ’s death for all people cannot be in vain. In "low" universalism, consciousness of the holiness of God, the seriousness of sin and its consequences is lost - and, as a result, there is a misunderstanding of the person and ministry of Christ. The “low” universalist is not in danger of destruction - therefore he does not need a Savior, does not experience horror of sin and gratitude for redemption. Personal commitment to Christ becomes so weak in this case that perhaps one should not be surprised at the indecent haste with which some Christians are ready to abandon the fundamental truths of the Christian faith for fear of appearing insufficiently ecumenical and open to dialogue. Perhaps a certain perception of ecumenism is connected with this - not as the desire of all the faithful for unity in Christ, but as spiritual omnivorousness, the desire to try “spiritual delicacies” from all religious tables.
I am quite sure that "high" universalists are committed Christians who in no way want to lead people to sin or apostasy. I do not enter into a strictly theological polemic with them. I would simply like to encourage people to think about the practical consequences of preaching such a doctrine.
Sergey KHUDIEV,
director of the Christian Library
literature, Moscow
Sergey Khudiev - about a picture in a bar where a man breaks a woman’s face, and an advertising video about the stern Santa Claus, using violence to save the relationship between a mother and daughter
Two episodes that caused outrage online are still being actively discussed. The first is a picture in some bar where a woman asks a man to buy her “cherry scream” (this is a type of beer), and he smashes her face into blood. In response to the outrage of some netizens, representatives of the bar said that they would not listen to “feminists and people without a sense of humor.” The second is an advertising video in which a rich but always busy mother does not want to devote proper time to communicating with her daughter, she asks Santa Claus to “bring back mom,” after which Santa Claus kidnaps her and drags her, reluctant, through the valleys and over the hills on a rope until he returns it to his daughter.
Why wouldn't anyone find it an interesting plot if the ever-absent father was dragged into the family by a rope? Despite the fact that this is much more common in reality. In which bar will we see a funny joke about the bloody face of a man who ordered a red drink?
Why do some people find mistreating women interesting or funny?
Personal life
The year from which Sergei Lvovich has been officially married - this is the only information that can be found about his personal life. Surely Khudiev has a wonderful wife and wonderful children, but this topic is not covered either in materials about him or in interviews. Sergei Khudiev got married and was baptized on the same day: he talked about this in an interview for the project “Faith. Light radio." Probably, the meeting with his future wife also had a great influence on his path to Orthodoxy, since these two events coincided in time.
Interesting Facts
- A deeply religious man, he (seems to be a paradox) has great respect for atheists. “An atheist is already a half-awakened person, since he says that there is no God: it means that this topic is interesting to him, and he is ready to discuss it,” in his words about atheists.
- Sergei Khudiev’s social networks contain the most photographs of temples and... cats. The cats are clearly domestic and stray, living on the territory of churches, of different colors and breeds: he probably has more than half of all photos of these images on VK, Instagram and Facebook.
- The Christian journalist does not claim that faith is a panacea for all absolutely human ills: “There are cases when a person has not just despondency, but endogenous depression - here the help of doctors is needed, of course. But personally, communication with the Church and prayers helped me, when I was even close to suicide.”
Sergey Khudiev. Biography, nationality, personal life, what is VKon famous for?
What psychological mechanism is at work here? This is the joy of liberated shamelessness - a person who, first carefully, then boldly, does something shameful that would destroy him in the eyes of others - and in his own eyes - experiences a feeling of liberation from the burden placed on him by his parents and teachers. The burden of being a man and a civilized person.
A man is someone with whom a woman is safe. Physically, emotionally, in every way. From whom she may find herself in a dependent position - and not be afraid of it. Someone who will not take out her bad mood on her, who will meekly endure her shortcomings.
This is its purpose - to be a source of security. This means being a man. This security can be threatened not only (and, in our time, not so much) by external enemies, but by the behavior of the man himself. Laziness, impatience, aggression, unreasonably inflated claims. Alas, statistically women are in the greatest danger from their husbands and partners. This is only if we talk about physical violence. Emotional abuse can also be a very serious problem. And this is a problem, first of all, of a lack of masculinity in men.
The second problem, related to the first, is the problem of shamelessness. In early childhood, we boys were taught that beating girls - and generally the weakest ones in general - was shameful. This is shameful. This covers a person with dishonor and removes him from the circle of people with any respect. “Never insult a person who can’t punch you in the face” is something I heard from my father, and I think we’ve all heard something similar.
This is not yet Christian ethics, but it is the ethics of male honor. This is the idea that a man should be different from a scumbag. And this difference is that a scumbag is restrained from violence by the fear of getting hit in the face, a man, on the contrary, by the fact that he will not get hit in the face, and to hit without risking getting hit in return is dishonor. This is a shameful act that will have to be carefully hidden, like a secret vice.
When I read men’s excuses that a woman can “eat brains” and generally drive each other to a white heat, I don’t dispute that she can—we, people, are generally good at driving each other. I simply advise that until you reach emotional maturity, you should not have anything to do with women at all. A person with the endurance and emotional maturity of a spoiled ten-year-old should not enter into relationships intended for adults - even if he is physically mature enough for them.
But what strikes me most about these justifications is the shamelessness. “I might hit a woman if she bothers me” is like “I might parade in a thong and pink feathers,” only much worse. A man who dresses up in feathers may be completely harmless, but a man who openly talks about the fact that he might hit a woman openly admits that he is a scumbag from whom he should stay away - and does not understand that since he is a scumbag, he should hide.
When he considers it possible not to hide this, this is no longer a problem of individuals, it is a problem of damage to the environment. Messages that “breaking a woman's face is funny” or “dragging a woman with a rope is okay” destroy the moral environment. They undermine the general consensus that such things are shameful, and whoever is involved in them incurs the contempt of others - and the punishment of the law. People who find violence against women funny or attractive must face enough disapproval to know that it is something to be ashamed of, something to hide. Because those around you won't tolerate it.
And above all, a man should not tolerate this in himself. Because it destroys him as a man.
Source
[ad01]
