SUMMA THEOLOGIAE 2.0: INTELLECTUAL MASS MEDIA IN THE MODERN RUSSIAN REALITIES, OR HOW “THE ACADEMIC” BECAME “THE MEDIATIC”

Thee research 2a2er focuses on the s2ecificc features of the status of theology in the modern humanities in Russia. Studying the com2lexities and difficculties of the institutionalisation of theology and its localisation in the Russian university system and academic culture, the author foregrounds the 2ost-Soviet Euro2ean ex2erience of the Baltic countries and Ukraine, where theology acquired the status of a “normal” science earlier than in Russia. Within the framework of this study, the 2eculiarities of the controversial status of theology in the system of higher education as well as in the Russian 2ostgraduate and doctoral studies are considered in the contexts of the frontier of knowledge and the 2ost-Soviet stereoty2es. It is assumed that several factors, including the Soviet atheistic cultural heritage, the 2ost-Soviet system of secular degrees and the traditionally significcant role of re2resentatives of the natural sciences in the academic community, may significcantly contribute to slowing down the transformation of theology into a “normal” science. Thee 2a2er also deals with the issue of how theology is transforming from the church life of the Russian Christians and becoming more noticeable in the Russian educational cultures and academic s2aces. Thee arguments of the su22orters and o22onents of the officcial institutionalisation of theology in the higher education system are critically examined. Thee author 2ays s2ecial attpention to the 2ros2ects and 2ossibilities of using the Western ex2erience of “secularization” of theology and its integration into the secular canons of science.


THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ARTICLE
Modern Russian media are extremely heterogeneous, and their information agenda is extremely diverse. Intellectual mass media have a s2ecial and unique status, and their subject mattper corres2onds to their s2ecificcs. Theeology and the 2roblems of its scientificc character or unscientificc nature became the subject of the Russian intellectual media attpention afteer 2017, when Pavel Khondzinsky defended his ficrst dissertation in theology, receiving a "Candidate of Science" degree. In the last decades this defence and the return of theology to the mainstream science ignited a "holy war" among Russian intellectuals, who were extremely active in their attpem2ts to challenge the status of theology or to 2rove its right to be a normal science. Moreover, these discussions forced the intellectual media to turn theology into an information occasion and transformed it into the media to2ic that occu2ied its 2lace in the Russian information s2aces and 2roduced a variety of assessments and 2erce2tions of theology, which vary from timid attpem2ts to rehabilitate it to radical rejections. Formally, the academic issues became an information occasion with the aim of integrating theology in mass media discourse. Thee "misadventures" of theology in the Russian cultural and intellectual mass media actualised its controversial status and ins2ired intellectuals to form new agenda, s2littping or consolidating society.
Theerefore, the research aim is the analysis of the trajectories of 2erce2tion of theology as an information occasion that turned intellectuals into the combatants of the culture wars in the modern Russian mass media. To accom2lish the research aim, several objectives are to be achieved, including the analysis of the external stimuli and factors that turned theology into an information occasion, the reason for the consolidation and fragmentation of intellectual communities, as well as the main view2oints and arguments ex2ressed by them in the modern theological "holy wars".
Thee research aim and objectives determine the cor2us of the sources re2resented mainly by 2olemical texts and intellectual journalism. However, it is worth noting that the author does not base the analysis on the scientificc texts about the 2lace, role and status of theology in the contexts of the humanities (Bokov, 2013;Gaginsky, 2019;Malimonova, 2015;Snisarenko, 2020;Shmonin, 2019), 2resuming that they can become the basis for other studies with diff[erent goals and objectives. Institutional background or the factors that facilitated the transfer of theology from the academic fieeld into mass media discourse. Modern Russian science continues to use the 2rinci2les of organisation and institutionalisation inherited from the Soviet state system. Theerefore, Russian science institutionalized in the form of institutes in the structure of the Academy of Sciences or universities is 2redominantly secular and state-s2onsored. Com2aring the Soviet system of science in the context of the hierarchy and classificcation of humanitarian knowledge, it is evident that the 2ost-Soviet Russian science changed insignificcantly. New s2ecialities did not a22ear in the 2ass2orts of "scientificc s2ecialities", whereas 2olitical science became the only Russian 2ost-Soviet exce2tion of "new" science. Regional studies have not received officcial recognition as a scientificc s2eciality so far, although Regional Studies are actively develo2ing in the higher education system.
Theere are virtually no radical transformations in the system of candidate and doctoral degrees as well as essential changes in the defence of dissertations in the Russian 2ost-Soviet academic culture. In fact, the bachelor and master's degrees are 2redominantly educational qualificcations, and there is a ga2 between them and the candidate and doctoral degrees. Thee transformation trajectories of Russian higher education and science in this situation are develo2ing discretely. While some sciences in Russia have a formally correct re2utation, others have become information occasions and stimuli for discussions that are far from science and the norms of academic ethics, being an element of ideological debates.
Thee difficculties and contradictions in the develo2ment of theology in modern Russia generate the 2roblems and contradictions of higher education and the degree system on the whole. Theerefore, the 2roblematic status of theology as a frontier form of knowledge in the contem2orary situation highlights the contradictions of the Humanities and the defence of dissertations in modern Russia. Theeology is a frontier because theology is both 2art of the Church culture and humanities. Furthermore, it stimulates the fragmentation of the Russian academic community and 2romotes dis2utes between the su22orters of the secular model of the develo2ment of science and those intellectuals who believe that the situation of coexistence of secular and non-secular forms of knowledge is normal. Theus, the above-mentioned 2roblems are in the focus of the author's attpention.
From "scientifiec atheism" to religiovedenie: the post-soviet inertia or the humanities without theology.
Thee Soviet model of science develo2ed as a dichotomy being controlled and directed by the communist regime, which divided science into the formally correct and ideologically incorrect and dangerous. If the natural sciences and the humanities, afteer the radical ex2eriments of the 1920s, by the early 1930s, restored their scientificc status, theology became an exce2tion from the Soviet logic of science develo2ment. Thee Soviet government declared the se2aration of Church from the state formally but used the tactics of 2ersecution and re2ression for control of religious grou2s and communities. Religious education in the Soviet educational system was se2arated radically from the secular and considered to be something archaic.
Des2ite the 2olicy of state atheism, the Soviet regime recognised the right of the Orthodox and Catholic churches to have their educational institutions, but they remained under the 2olitical and ideological control of the authorities. As for the degree system, the Church awarded the degrees of the Candidate of Theeology (kandidat bogosloviia) and the Doctor of Theeology (doktor bogosloviia), but in fact, the atheist state which controlled church life sanctioned the 2ossibility of defence of dissertations in theology. Thee Moscow Theeological Academy and the Leningrad Theeological Academy, as two leading Orthodox educational institutions in the USSR, received the right in 1946 to confer the degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Theeology, but these degrees had an intra-church status and recognition because the Soviet state did not include these academic degrees into the state system. Thee Soviet state did not extend ficnancial surcharges to the Candidates and Doctors of Theeology, which could be received by scientists who received any secular degree. Theerefore, in the informal hierarchy, the Candidate of Theeology in the Soviet "table of ranks" had a less 2restigious status than, for exam2le, the Candidate of Historical or Philoso2hical Sciences. Theis situation of inequality stimulated some 2riests to obtain secular degrees, although some of them became candidates of science before becoming 2riests. Some 2riests such as Archbisho2 Luka or Valentin Felixovich Voyno-Yasenetsky (1877 -1961) who was both a Doctor of Medical Science and a Doctor of Theeology and even a winner of the Stalin Prize of the ficrst degree) were famous scientists during the Soviet 2eriod but such situations were unique and exce2tional.
Thee colla2se of the Soviet Union did not stimulate the automatic equalisation of secular and ecclesiastical academic degrees, visualising the frontier status of the Candidates and Doctors of Theeology. Thee end of the 2olicy of forced atheisation stimulated trends of clericalisation of the 2ost-Soviet society, but theology in the 1990s did not become a recognised academic disci2line because the 2ost-Soviet universities chose imaginary religious studies or religiovedenie as a com2romise between the Soviet scientificc atheism and Western theology. Russian religious studies retained continuity with the Soviet scientificc atheism. Theus, the intellectuals who defended their dissertations during the Soviet 2eriod, became automatically s2ecialists in the 2roblems of history, 2hiloso2hy and sociology of religion in the 1990s.
If before 1991 the Soviet intellectuals wrote about the crisis of religion and its decline in a ca2italist society, then in the 1990s the same authors, with the enthusiasm of neo2hytes, began to 2o2ularise the ideas they had criticised several years earlier. Thee churches in the 2ost-Soviet situation continued to award their Candidate and Doctoral degrees when the secular state integrated the religious to2ics in dissertations into the historical, 2hilological, 2hiloso2hical, 2olitical, and sociological sciences. Theerefore, there was no 2lace for theology in this academic degree system in the 1990s and 2000s.
Theeology as a "normal" science: the post-soviet experience.
In the new states that emerged on the 2olitical ma2 of Euro2e afteer the colla2se of the USSR the situation with theology develo2ed diff[erently.
On the one hand, in some 2ost-Soviet countries, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the academic communities recognised theology as a normal scientificc disci2line and 2referred to ma2 it among other humanities. Theerefore, the Latvian University, for exam2le, restored in its structure the Faculty of Theeology (Teoloģijas fakultāte), which the communist regime had closed during the Sovietisation in 1940. Thee Faculty of Theeology emerged as a result of a change in the status of the seminary, organized in 1969. Estonian and Latvian universities also began to im2lement theological educational 2rograms in the 1990s, when churches develo2ed their own universities simultaneously. Thee Faculty of Theeology was re-established at the University of Tartu but unlike the same structure in Latvian University, its name (School of Theeology and Religious Studies) is more neutral.
As for the academic degrees in theology, the societies of the Baltic countries 2erceived their a22earance neutrally or 2ositively, realising that it was nothing more than a return to those educational and academic 2ractices that had already existed during the 2eriod of inde2endence between the two world wars. Doctoral 2rograms in theology at the Latvian University develo2ed in 2arallel with the formally secular 2rograms in other humanities.
On the other hand, some 2ost-Soviet countries did not develo2 the traditions of theological education. In fact, there was no continuity between the 2re-Soviet and 2ost-Soviet ex2eriences. Ukraine and Belarus were among such countries, but national education systems were able to integrate theology into educational 2rograms faster than Russia did the same in its education. Belarus became the ficrst 2ost-Soviet country where 2olitical elites recog-nised theology as an academic s2eciality, determining it as one of the 2ossible educational trends among humanities. Moreover, the Ministry of Education a22roved the state educational standard in theology.
Thee rectorate of Belarus State University in coo2eration with the Orthodox Church established the Saints Cyril and Methodius Institute of Theeology in 2004. Thee state and secular status of the university did not become an obstacle to the emergence of a de facto theological faculty in its structure. Thee s2ecificc 2olitical culture of Belarus and the 2eculiarities of the regime excluded 2ublic discussions about the intervention of theology into the system of secular higher education. Ministry of Education of Belarus did not include theology as an academic s2eciality in the degree system in Belarus, although the educational institutions of the Orthodox Church mono2olised the right to award the academic degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Theeology. Thee Belarus case in this situation is dual in its nature: on the one hand, theology was recognised as a s2eciality in the state system of higher education, whereas, on the other hand, the state does not control the 2rocess how the Church awards academic degrees in theology, 2resuming that the degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Theeology awarded by the Church's educational institutions are sufficcient for the Church's needs in the academic attpestation.
As for Ukraine, this 2ost-Soviet country ex2erienced a revival of religious education in the 1990s. Educational institutions of Orthodox churches, Catholic and Protestant universities awarded their academic degrees actively. Until the middle of 2000s, a com2romise situation 2ersisted in Ukraine, when theology was develo2ed as the 2art of the "Philoso2hy" which is a secular s2ecialty. In 2011, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine deficned theology as a se2arate area of "Humanities". Thee Orthodox Church and other religious educational institutions in Ukraine confer their academic theological degrees, although some of them (for exam2le, the Kiev Orthodox Theeological Academy) award the degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Philoso2hy with a s2ecialisation in Theeology.
Evangelical Theeological University (Kyiv) off[ers an academic 2rogram of the Doctor of Practical Theeology or the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.), which in fact became an attpem2t to trans2lant the characteristics of academic degrees for Protestant education in the United States. In general, theology was excluded from the system of academic degrees as an inde2endent s2eciality in some 2ost-Soviet countries, which actualises its frontier status as an inter-disci2linary form of knowledge for the su22orters of theology and nonscience in the eyes of its critics and o22onents simultaneously, forcing 2otential doctors of theology to obtain academic degrees in the Euro2ean or American universities. Theeology as a "church" science: secular and clerical parallel systems of academic degrees. By the moment of the colla2se of the Soviet Union, the Church in Russia was se2arated from the state, which in the 2ost-Soviet 2eriod did not interfere with the develo2ment of religious education. Theerefore, 2ractically all religious educational institutions in Russia emerged and develo2ed as non-state, being 2art of the educational systems of various Churches and religious communities. Thee educational institutions of the Orthodox Church, as in the Soviet 2eriod, awarded its degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Theeology. Thee Moscow Theeological Academy, the Saint Petersburg Theeological Academy, Saints Cyril and Methodius Institute for Postgraduate Studies, St. Tikhon Orthodox University for the Humanities, Tsaritsyn Orthodox University of St. Sergius of Radonezh and Novosibirsk St Macarius Orthodox Theeological Institute are among the largest Russian educational institutions that off[er 2rograms in theology.
Thee system of degrees of the Candidate and Doctor of Theeology in 2ost-Soviet Russia re2roduced the system that had existed before 1917. Theerefore, educational institutions of the Orthodox Church conferred the degrees of the the Candidate (Doctor) of Theeology, Candidate (Doctor) of Church History, Candidate (Doctor) of Church Law. However, the secular state recognises these degrees but does not include them formally into the system of academic degrees. Theerefore, re2resentatives of the Russian Orthodox Church 2resume that such situation is unfair (Kosovan, 2017). Educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church have the right to organise their Dissertation Councils, which actualise the frontier status of theology in Russia and the ga2 in academic traditions because council members and o22onents in the defence of candidate and doctoral dissertations are ofteen Church hierarchs or scholars who have secular academic degrees, including degrees of the Candidate (or Doctor) of Historical, Philological or Philoso2hical Sciences.
Expansion or return of theology: the difficculties of overcoming frontiers in secular education. Thee attpem2ts to start teaching theology, "science in a s2ecial sense" (Tyurenkov, 2016), at Russian universities coincided with the ficrst wave of reforms in the 2ost-Soviet higher education. Thee Ministry of Education of Russia in 1992 recognised "Theeology" as a direction of higher education, including it in the classificer of educational s2ecialities. Thee ministry also a22roved an educational standard, which, on the one hand, had much in common with the standard for "Religious Studies", but, on the other hand, it made 2ossible to receive state di2lomas of "Bachelor of Theeology".
Thee secular state Ministry of Education reintroduced theology in the university curricula but ignored the o2inion of the Orthodox Church. In 1992 St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theeological Seminary, Omsk State University, Thee ex2erience of these Russian universities became an exce2tion to the general logic of the develo2ment of the Russian higher education because, on the one hand, it has a secular character, while, on the other hand, the academic community ex2ressed extremely diff[erent view2oints when the Church 2ro2osed to integrate theology in the educational system. In this intellectual atmos2here, the o2inions of Russian scientists involved in the natural sciences range from the moderately negative to actively hostile. The communities of Russian scientists in the 1990s 2referred to ignore the develo2ment of theological bachelor's and master's educational 2rogrammes rather than the intensificcation of the educational activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and attpem2ts to obtain 2ermission to award academic degrees in "Theeology" at state universities with the actual recognition of theological degrees as equal to the degrees in humanities and natural sciences.
Thee attpem2ts to integrate theology into the Russian educational system contributed to the discussions and debates about its unscientificc nature and 2ointed out the 2roblems of the frontier of theological knowledge and its boundaries. Ekaterina Elbakyan, Russian sociologist and historian of religion, commenting on the 2eculiarities of the 2ost-Soviet situation with theology in the ficeld of education, believes that "s2eaking about Christian theology we remember the division of Christianity into Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Oriental Orthodox churches, each of which is s2lit into many more directions" which of these confessional theologies are we talking about? Afteer all, 'theology in general' does not exist. Theere are only several s2ecificc ideas of certain confessions about God, namely, the doctrine of God, develo2ed in one or another Christian confession. Confessionalism im2lies a certain ideological choice, a certain unshakable 2osition, limited by the framework of a se2arate confessional worldview" (Elbakyan, 2015). It became inevitable because the emergence of theology into the educational bachelor and master's 2rogrammes and later into the number of academic degrees visualised the 2roblems of the 2resence or absence in the educational 2rocess of those intellectuals who re2resented confessional theological traditions. Theerefore, theology in Russian academic discourse turned out to be doomed to stay on the frontier between faith and science, on the one hand, and between various Christian Churches and their theological traditions, on the other hand.
By the middle of 2010s theology had retained its controversial and, as a result, a de facto frontier status stayed on a movable border between various imagined categories which included knowledge and religion, natural and human sciences. On the other hand, by the middle of 2000s intellectuals had assumed the confrontational character of the relationshi2 between theology and its o22onents. Thee attpem2t to create a collective 2etition for the recognition of theology as 2seudoscience became the culmination of the contradictions between the 2ro2onents of theology and their secular o22onents. In 2015 secular intellectuals initiated a 2ublic cam2aign to sign a 2etition recognising theology as 2seudoscience. Thee authors of the 2etition 2referred to use an aggressive discourse that formed and 2romoted the images of Otherness. Theerefore, they argued categorically that theology is not a science, consistently and em2hatically insisting that "theology is a 2seudoscience, it undermines the authority of science" Theeologists with their 'dissertations' dishonour the scientificc community, discredit science and 2hiloso2hy. Tax2ayers in a secular state should not contain obscurantists within the walls of state institutions. Thee 2lace of theology and other faiths is in theological seminaries, se2arated from the state. In Euro2ean countries, theology has long been an atavism and a relic of the wild Middle Ages" Thee 2hiloso2hy of religion is a critical analysis of religion as a social 2henomenon" Religious studies is a science" Religious 2hiloso2hy is a 2seudo-2hiloso2hy and a set of myths and dogmas" Religious 2hiloso2hy is a church 2roject, an attpem2t to mix religion with 2hiloso2hy" theology is one of the ecclesiastical conce2ts, which has no evidence" it is an em2ty conce2t from the view2oint of critical reason. Theeology can be deficned literally as idle talk" Theeology is a set of myths and dogmas imagined by 2riests as science, but it is not science. Theeology is a 2seudoscience, a church 2roject, an attpem2t to mix religion with science" (Mudriy, 2017).
Such ideas, 2romoted by the radical 2art of the Russian secular academic community actively, had various consequences. On the one hand, they actualised and visualised the frontier status of theology in the Russian academic community, the uncertainty of its status and the blurred boundaries of the object and subject of theology. On the other hand, the negative 2erce2tion of theology by re2resentatives of the natural sciences actualised that some of them 2referred to reject the 2erce2tion of science as conventional. Thee tendency to mono2olise the academic discourse, to minimise it and reduce it to the natural sciences also belonged to the number of 2ractices Russian natural scientists used for rejection of theology. Theis situation actual-ised the confliict between two forms of sacredness that coexisted simultaneously in the Russian academic community. Thee Russian su22orters of the natural sciences and a2ologists of theology 2referred to 2erceive their forms of knowledge sacredly, idealising and mythologizing them. Theerefore, the rejection of theology in the Russian academic community became a confliict between two diff[erent versions of sacredness, ins2ired by the fears of su22orters of the sacredness of the natural sciences that it would be challenged by theologists, in 2articular, and other humanitarians in general.
If the recognition of humanitarian degrees was relatively acce2table for Russian 2hysicists, biologists, mathematicians and 2hysicists, then the desire and attpem2ts of the Church to achieve equality between theological and, for exam2le, biological academic degrees faced organized o22osition, which had been consolidated by 2017 when Arch2riest Pavel Khondzinsky, the Dean of the Theeological faculty of the Orthodox St.Tikhon University for the Humanities, defended the ficrst candidate (PhD) thesis in Russia in theology s2ecialisation, which stimulated a new wave of discussions and debates between su22orters and o22onents of the officcial status of theology as a scientificc disci2line.

SOMETIMES THEY RETURN ... OR HOW THEOLOGY TURNED SCIENTISTS INTO COMBATANTS OF "HOLY WARS" AND THE MASS MEDIA BECAME A BATTLEFIELD
In Russia, where, as some intellectuals believe, "the develo2ment of theological education is at the beginning of its way" (Kulikova, 2020) but "theology is conficdently entering the educational s2ace" (Tyurenkov, 2018), Pavel Khondzinsky, who defended his dissertations for a PhD in Theeology some years earlier, on June 1, 2017, defended his PhD dissertation titled "Solving the 2roblems of Russian theology of the 18th century in the synthesis of St.Philaret, Metro2olitan of Moscow", and this successful defence allowed him to obtain academic degree conficrmed by a state di2loma.
Even though Vladimir Fili22ov, the head of the Higher Attpestation Commission in October 2015 recognised the significcant historical role of theology in the Western system of university education (Kotlyar, 2015), he was com2elled to declare that "in the coming years, there will be no Candidates or Doctors of Theeological Sciences in Russia" (Makeyeva, Korobov, Labutina, 2016). Thee defence of Pavel Khondzinsky could have caused a social and cultural resonance. Theis defence would have been an ordinary event if it had not been the ficrst defence of a theological dissertation recognised by the state and if Russian biologists had not writtpen and sent six negative reviews.
Des2ite the attpem2ts of the Church hierarchs to form a 2ositive image of theology and denial of accusations that they use secular universities for missionary activity, the anti-theological lobby in the Russian academic community is quite stable and active, and Hilarion's statement that "the de2artments of theology in secular universities are not the same as the chair of the 2reacher at the church 2ul2it" (Hilarion, 2019a) became just another reason for accusations of clericalisation and 2romotion of unscientificc theology. Criticising the 2osition of the Church, secular intellectuals 2refer to ignore Hilarion's idea ex2ressed by him in 2011 that "theology is called u2on to assimilate critically the knowledge accumulated by secular sciencesnatural, humanitarian and social" (Hilarion, 2011a;Hilarion, 2011b), integrating their achievements into the discourse of church education.
Thee activity of Russian scholars and their numerous attpem2ts to 2rove that theology is not a science, 2receded the criticism of the ficrst theological dissertation. Theerefore, some Russian intellectuals were active in their attpem2ts to actualise the frontier status of theology, imagining it as a nonscience which is located at the frontier between various humanitarian disci2lines. In the ficrst half of the 2000s, Russian intellectuals 2erceived theology as a frontier ficeld of knowledge, 2resuming that "the faith of the Church and the ex2eriences of its ex2ression doesn't belong to science in the modern sense of the word and do not claim this status" a scientificc s2eciality for theology is 2ossible and necessary for studies of the faith in its systematic, 2ractical and historical as2ects" (Antonov, 2012), but such 2erce2tion of theology is a recognition of its an interdisci2linary status. As for marginality of theology in com2arison with natural sciences, it mutates into frontierness in Russia. Theis frontier nature forced theology to stay between faith and science, namely, between religion and religious studies. In this situation, some intellectuals 2ro2ose a com2romising a22roach 2resuming that theology is an internal form of refliection when religious studies are its external refliection.
Some Russian authors 2referred to 2erceive theology as something nonacademic, localising between ignorance and delusion. Alexey Golubev deficned such sentiments as "double-headed 2ositivism" (Golubev, Sergeyev, Drozdova, 2017). Theis state of theology emerged as the consequence of its marginalisation during the Soviet 2eriod, although until 1917 it had a recognised status com2arable to its 2ositions in the Western university hierarchy, with the diff[erence that in Russia theology was studied in church educational institutions, having its system of academic degrees and titles. Alexey Muravyov, for exam2le, stated in the early 2010s that "our theological science is in the most de2lorable state and it is sim2ly inca2able and not ready to turn to face ordinary 2eo2le" We have no serious researches com2arable with the global theological trends" (Muravyov, 2011).
If humanitarian critics of theology a22ealed to the 2roblems of academic ethics, then biologists, who criticised theology most zealously and actively, 2referred to construct its 2seudoscientificc image. Thee humanitarian and biological criticism of theology in the Russian intellectual situation in the second half of the 2000s had diametrically diff[erent theoretical and methodological foundations and backgrounds that actualised its multi2le states and forms, the frontier nature in the academic community as well as difficculties in the 2rocesses of its institutionalisation and consolidation. Russian Old Believers or moderate religious intellectuals acce2ted the emergence of theology in the university system sce2tically and insisted on the im2ortance of their own historical and cultural ex2eriences. Theis alternative 2erce2tion of theology includes the history of non-Orthodox theological traditions 2resented by Catholic  and Protestant  trends in the develo2ment in the West. As for the anti-theological lobby, its su22orters are unfamiliar with the main results of 2rogress that theology was able to achieve in Euro2e and America. Constructing and imagining the image of theology as an archaic and traditional form of knowledge, some Russian biologists ignored the history of national schools in the Western Catholic  and Protestant  theologies, factors of its heterogeneity , significcant 2rogress  and transformation ) of 20th-century Western theology.
Thee Russian intellectuals who tend to see theology as another humanities and state that it is normal when theology is re2resented in universities where intellectuals defend theological dissertations argue with their o22onents and em2hasise the im2ortance of the external factor. Commenting on the features of ga2s and discre2ancies in the develo2ment of Russian theology, Dmitry Uzlaner states that "theology is develo2ing. We are lagging behind not only in terms of the develo2ment of natural sciences but also in theological develo2ment and theological 2erce2tion of the 2roblems of the 21st century" If we draw a 2arallel with com2uter technology, then such theology in the history of theological refliection roughly corres2onds to manual counting. It takes a long intellectual and s2iritual evolution to go from manual counting to the latest MacBooks" (Uzlaner, 2017с). Recognition of discreteness as lagging and lagging as discreteness visualises frontier changes in Russian theology, which in actual cultural and intellectual contexts exist in some dimensions including the 2eri2hery between the science of faith, the border between the humanities and the natural sciences. Theeology in this situation continue to occu2y the frontier of imagining landsca2es between the main international and interdisci2linary trends, on the one hand, and tendencies of national 2rovincialisation of theological refliection in academic discourse, on the other hand.
Russian biologists, who, afteer Pavel Khondzinsky's defence, challenged its fact (Uglanov, 2017), became the main critics of the theological dissertation. Yury Panchin, Doctor of Biological Sciences (Institute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute) of the Russian Academy of Sciences) deficned the defence of Pavel Khondzinsky's dissertation as a "legal nonsense" (Panchin, Kravetsky, Korolkov, 2017), stressing that theology, as he believes, "is not a science" (Glikman, 2017). Some Russian intellectuals have categorically claimed that theology is not a science because "the goal of science is to describe the 2henomena observed in the world. Theere is nothing that can be described by theology since there are no 2henomena in it that would need it" (Shevtsov, 2020). Thee dominant majority of critical o2inions on theology in the Russian intellectual community arose under the infliuence of the neo-Soviet inertia, collective secular faith in the myth of natural sciences as only sciences and ignorance of facts about what modern theology is. Secular critics of theology 2refer to ignore the view2oints of the Church hierarchs who insisted on the necessity of com2romise. For exam2le, Hilarion, Metro2olitan of Volokolamsk, em2hasises that "theology is also a 2art of humanities. Theeology is the scientificc foundation of a religious worldview, which exists in diff[erent forms and variants, in diff[erent countries, in diff[erent languages, in diff[erent cultural traditions" (Hilarion, 2017b). Some Russian intellectuals 2referred to deficne such arguments as unscientificc, trying to 2romote a negative image of theology, insisting that "theology is a form of religious scholarshi2, but certainly not a science in the modern sense of the word" theology and science are intellectual 2ractices, and their results are ex2ressed in the form of texts saturated with s2ecialised terminology and references" the goals of theology and science are 2ractically o22osite to each other" (Golubev, Sergeyev, Drozdova, 2017). Denying the scientificc status of theology and sending it to church reservations, secular intellectuals themselves actualised the frontier character of theology, stimulating their o22onents in their attpem2ts to integrate theology into secular education and 2roviding them with the arguments that theology is a normal science which can be integrated into the system of academic degrees.
For exam2le, Vitaly Levin, Doctor of Technical Sciences, illustrating the unscientificc nature of theology, argued that theology will study "how to 2ut a smart2hone in the cofficn of the deceased -turn on or turn off[" (Levin, 2017). If some authors 2ointed out the im2ortance and necessity of theology, em2hasising that "at the end of the 20th century, a theological turn took 2lace in the Western humanitarian" theology brings religion into the social and 2hiloso2hical s2ace, ex2ands the o2erational ca2abilities and the s2here of religious thinking" the business of theology is the rational foundation of the theistic worldview, the 2hiloso2hical reconstruction of religious tradition, the study of routine religiosity" (Shchi2kov, 2019), then others 2refer to criticise theology, believing that "the 2osition of God is even worse than that of homoeo2athy. Theere are not even bad works that would conficrm his existence" no one can formulate how the world in which there is God diff[ers from the world where he does not exist" Until scientificc evidence of the existence of God a22ears, statements about his deeds should also be 2erceived as unconficrmed statements of mediums, astrologers, fortune tellers and homoeo2aths" (Panchin, 2017a).
In this intellectual situation Alexander Panchin characterised by Pavel Khondzinsky as a "believing atheist" (Khondzinsky, 2017) denies a scientificc status of theology, even a frontier one, declaring categorically that theology is a religion that imitates science (Panchin, 2017b). Arguing against such arguments, the 2ro2onents of theology as a science 2resume that "the most common arguments against theology are overtly comic in nature" (Uzlaner, 2017c) because their su22orters belong to a meaningfully diff[erent methodological discourse. If Russian biologists denied the im2ortance and necessity of theology in university education and the Russian system of academic degrees, 2erceiving it as a 2seudoscience, then some Russian religious intellectuals, including Old Believers who stated that the a22earance of theology would lead to an exce2tional strengthening of the 2osition of the Orthodox Church. Theerefore, Alexey Muravyov em2hasises that he is not convinced that the restoration of theological 2ositions in university education and the system of academic degrees will lead to an exacerbation of the confliict between faith and science: "Christianity must face the secularisation challenge honestly. As an Orthodox Christian of the Old Believer tradition, I believe that the Old Believer's faith is a history that concerns only me 2ersonally. And relations with science are built on a 2ersonal basis. Thee scientificc worldview 2resu22oses research that is based on a scientificc 2aradigm, continuity, and the construction of a theory, or rather a hy2othesis and verificcation. Nothing I have mentioned contradicts a 2ersonal religious 2osition" (Muravyov, 2017).
While Russian biologists, in their criticism of theology, a22ealed to the 2rinci2les of rationality, non-Orthodox religious activists in Russia feared that officcial recognition of theology will transform it into a 2art of state 2olicy. Thee activities of Russian biologists in their struggle against theology on the eve and afteer the defence of Pavel Khondzinsky were belated. Russian biologists who decided to become res2onsible for the marginalisation of theology ignored its history including consolidation in the West, where the activity of some theologians, Hans Küng Küng, Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2021. No 2 | ISSN: 2658-7734 New Media and Human Communication | Doi: http2s://doi.org/10.4653 39/gmd.v3i2.168 1994Küng, 2000) contributed to its mutation into normal conventional science. Hans Küng ins2ired the modernisation of Western theology, insisting that it should become truthful, free, critical, non-o22ortunist, non-conformist, non-authoritarian, and non-traditionalist. In fact, Hans Küng 2ro2osed a 2rogram for the renewal of theology because other humanities had already gone through their theoretical turns, renewing significcantly the 2aradigms and languages, they used, and, as a result, ex2anded its methodological foundations and backgrounds.
Theeological discourse in these journals is extremely heterogeneous, ranging from religious studies and 2hiloso2hy to theology, and the institutional afficliations of authors are also very diverse, ranging from academic afficliation to church ministry. Academic journals of the Russian Orthodox Church, including "Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi duhovnoi seminarii" ("Bulletin of the Yekaterinburg Theeological Seminary"), "Hristianskoe chtenie" ("Christian Reading"), "Bogoslovskii Vestnik" ("Theeological Herald"), "Vestnik Russkoi hristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii" ("Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy"), "Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta" ("Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University"), also make a significcant contribution to the develo2ment of theology. Com2aring the Church and formally secular academic magazines, it is obvious that they use diff[erent languages and modes of descri2tion and analysis, forming a heterogeneous and multi2le images and dimensions of theology in Russia, which actualise its frontier features in the discourse of modern humanities. Commenting on the wars between biologists and theologians, Hilarion, Metro2olitan of Volokolamsk, ex2lains their inertia as the ex2ression of "the o22osition of religion and science, stemming from the times of forcibly im2osed atheism when 2eo2le were taught that religion is incom2atible with science" (Bekshayev, 2018). Russian intellectual, Dmitry Uzlaner, a22eals to the authority of academic ethics, believing that the radical statements of biologists, on the one hand, "cast doubt on the adequacy of the s2eakers", and, on the other hand, "lead to nothing but new rounds of disci2linary wars and a s2lit in the academic community" (Uzlaner, 2017b), which actualises the frontierness and marginality of the humanities in the eyes of their critics and o22onents from natural science.
Thee dominance or significcant role of anti-theological statements in the modern Russian intellectual community o2ens u2 several dimensions of its functioning, including heterogeneity, ideological fragmentation, and 2olarisation. Theese features of the Russian academic communities ins2ired and made it 2ossible for the frontier status of some forms of humanities to be seen, including those which became victims of marginalisation during the Soviet 2eriod. In fact, the cultivation of atheistic forms of scientificc imagination and the dominance of the ideas of academic exclusivity only in natural sciences became the incentives that in the 2000s and 2010s ins2ired Russian scientists to criticise theology in general and the attpem2ts of the church to integrate it into the system of academic degrees, in 2articular.
Thee dominance of such sentiments 2redetermined the controversial status of theology, turning it into a hostage of the informal 2eculiarities that emerged as a result of its genesis and institutionalisation in 2ost-Soviet Russia. Theerefore, theology in Russian science turned into a frontier case because the church became its ins2irer. Humanitarian intellectuals make u2 the majority of scientists involved in theological studies when biologists, chemists, 2hysicists and other re2resentatives of natural sciences seek to mono2olise the status of the defenders of correct, "2ure" and true science. Theose Russian intellectuals who 2erceived theology as just another science with the theoretical ability to defend dissertations 2referred to insist that consistent critics of theology were unaware that modern Western theology is extremely heterogeneous (Uzlaner, 2017a).
Commenting on the reaction of o22onents, Pavel Khondzinsky himself stated that they tried "to return us to the days of the communist 2ast" it is a direct and still not obsolete legacy of the Soviet regime. Militant atheism turned the history of the church, its leaders and faith in general into a collection of cartoons" (Lyutykh, 2017). In this situation, it was noteworthy that critics of the theological dissertation were active in using hate s2eech to form and 2romote a negative image of their o22onents. It is also obvious that the arguments of moderate intellectuals were the same in nature, showing the incom2leteness of the academic landsca2e formation in Russia where the dividing lines turned into the frontiers.
Thee statements of some hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church also revealed the frontier nature of theology in the system of university education. For exam2le, Hilarion, Metro2olitan of Volokolamsk, ma22ed and localised theology between 2hiloso2hy and cultural studies (Hilarion, 2017), trying to integrate it into university education and the system of academic degrees. Theese moderate ideas of Hilarion led to the intensificcation of his criticism by secular scholars, who in 2017 2roclaimed him an anti-2rize laureate for the active 2romotion of theology into the education system which is deficned by some secular authors as the intervention of 2seudoscience. Russian intellectuals including re2resentatives of natural sciences and humanities acce2ted the return of theology diff[erently. Commenting on the active rejection of theology by some re2resentatives of the academic community and their attpem2ts to ridicule it, Anna Shmaina-Velikanova, Doctor of Cultural Studies (RSUH), argued: "the organisers of this award could take a dissertation of any bisho2, for exam2le, the dissertation about sermons and declare: 'Theere is low-im2ortance scientificc content in this dissertation, the culture is low, the biblio-gra2hy is only in Russian'. Instead, they chose Metro2olitan Hilarion. Could any of those who awarded this 2rise in 2seudoscience take Hilarion's doctoral dissertation and discuss ancient Syrian theology with him?" (Shmaina-Velikanova, Borisov, Demina, 2017). Such tactics and strategies of secular scientists, including biologists, restore the frontier status of theology with the diff[erence in other cases of academic frontierness. Thee o22onents of theology themselves turned 2ublic acts of denial and rejection into a show, actualising their migration outside the academic community.
Re2resentatives of the humanities, understanding the difficculties of returning theology to universities and the contradictions of its status, sym2athised the authors of the ficrst Russian theological dissertations. Commenting on the biological criticism of theology, Alexander Kravetsky, Candidate of Philology (V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute RAS) deficned it as "incom2etent" (Panchin, Kravetsky, Korolkov, 2017). Alexander Korolkov, Doctor of Philoso2hy (Institute of Human Philoso2hy of A. I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University) stated that the claims of re2resentatives of the natural sciences are ina22ro2riate and incom2rehensible (Panchin, Kravetsky, Korolkov, 2017).
Thee attpem2ts by Russian intellectuals to justify the defence of a theological dissertation revealed the frontier status of theology in Russia, although some Orthodox 2riests themselves em2hasise the 2resence of theology between various sciences and forms of knowledge, insisting that the 2ersonal Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2021. No 2 | ISSN: 2658 ex2erience of some theologians "who began to study theology as believers but ficnished it as convinced atheists" (Barybina, 2020) indicates difficculties of localising theology among other sciences. For exam2le, Pavel Kostylyov (Moscow State University named afteer M.V. Lomonosov) assumed that "theology is the quintessence of humanitarian knowledge. Theus, the attpack of natural scientists on theology is not a new incident, but it is a com2letely natural continuation of cultivating hostility towards humanitarian knowledge" (Panchin, Kravetsky, Korolkov, 2017), 2ointed 2recisely to the unique 2lace, status and 2osition of theology, which is normal for intellectuals engaged in Humanities and something archaic for natural scientists.
Vladimir Fili22ov, Chairman of the Higher Attpestation Commission, tried to ficnd a com2romise in this situation su22osing that the state and the church can award their degrees, and the state should create conditions for recognition of religious academic degrees and their further equating to secular ones (Panchin, Kravetsky, Korolkov, 2017). Thee defence of Pavel Khondzinsky's dissertation on theology demonstrated numerous situations of frontierness in the Russian academic community, contradictions between re2resentatives of the humanities and natural sciences, as well as the incom2leteness of the 2rocess of forming ethical norms and systems of re2utation and status in science. Theerefore, Anna Danilova (Candidate of Philology, Moscow State University), commenting on the discussions about the ficrst theological dissertation, believed that "it doesn't mattper whether you are a believer or not, what method you use and what you are researchingif you study Church history, Church Slavonic texts or Patristics -you are deliberately obscurantist" A historian who wrote about the Church does not have the right to become a Education Minister, a 2hilologist, studying the textology of the New Testament is not eligible for an academic degree. Theis is a very un2leasant trend that refers to real discrimination" such claims are unthinkable in the Western academic system" (Panchin, Kravetsky & Korolkov, 2017).
Thee defence of Pavel Khondzinsky became a frontier case in the actual history of the modern Russian academic community because re2resentatives of the Church, secular scientists and government officcials from the Ministry of Education were involved into discussion. Olga Vasilyeva, Education Minister in 2017, commenting on the defence, em2hasised that theology is only one of the humanities, and, as a result, there is nothing re2rehensible in theological dissertations: "we will defend the dissertation in theology, and we will give a degree in Philoso2hy, History, Philology, Sociology?... what are you talking about? Theere is Sociology of Religion, but it is a com2letely diff[erent story" We are defending a thesis in theology, and we get a degree in these areas?... it should not be so because from the beginning it was not so" (Vasilyeva, 2017).  RUSSIAN MASS MEDIA (2017 "Do you see a go2her? No! And I don't see it. But here it is!". Theis 2hrase from the Russian comedy ficlm "DMB" became a meme on the Russian Internet. Thee 2hrase illustrating the 2resence or absence of something characterises the current state of theology in the discourse of modern Russian mass media. Thee defence of Pavel Khondzinsky's dissertation and the subsequent award of a degree recognized by the state stimulated discussions and debates, which were the frontier in their nature. Thee forced and voluntary 2artici2ants of these debates did not limit themselves in arguments, using both academic, general humanitarian, 2olitical and ideological motives to criticise their o22onents. Des2ite the attpem2ts by the moderate segment of the Russian intellectual community to warn radicals 2referring to deny theology in general and criticize its incor2oration into the education system and academic degrees, theology did not change its frontier status. If some Russian authors believed that theology could become a 2ositive factor theoretically in the develo2ment of education and 2revention of religious radicalisation, 2resuming that "theology is an out2ost of reason in religious traditions. If you throw theology out of Catholicism, you will never get the Second Vatican Council. If you throw theology out of Protestantism, then you will get blinkered literalist fanatics blowing u2 abortion clinics" let's kick theologians out of our society" What do we get? Peo2le may think that we will drive out theology, then we will enlighten everyone, religion will disa22ear, and there will be a society free from religion. Will not be!" (Uzlaner, 2017c), their o22onents continued to criticise theology, ignoring moderate view2oints.
In the 2eriod between 2017 and 2020 the Russian academic communities again addressed the 2roblems of theology 2eriodically, em2hasising its role and 2lace among sciences and status in the academic community. In 2019 the Russian Orthodox Church, in coo2eration with St. Petersburg State University, began 2ublishing the journal "Issues of Theeology". Commenting on the tasks of the new journal, Hilarion, Metro2olitan of Volokolamsk, 2ointed out the significcant interdisci2linary 2otential of theology and em2hasised that the further develo2ment of theology in higher education and the system of academic degrees can infliuence 2ositively the "interreligious world and sustainable develo2ment of the state" (Hilarion, 2019b).
Thee state, including the Ministry of Education and Science and the Higher Attpestation Commission, 2layed the role of a moderator in this confliict between re2resentatives of the Russian academic community, but government measures were not so successful, 2roviding incentives for new discussions. On the one hand, several more theological dissertations were defended, and their authors received state academic degrees, but Russian biologists 2referred to ignore these defences. On the other hand, "Theeology" su22lemented the number of academic s2ecialities in Russia. Thee Ministry of Education and Science a22roved the academic 2ass2ort of "Theeology", re2lacing the Pass2ort of 2015, which had much in common with the 2ass2ort of "Philoso2hy". Thee new academic 2ass2ort did not satisfy secular and religious intellectuals. If the Pass2ort of 2015 allowed defences of theological dissertations with the further award of the Candidate and Doctor academic degrees in History, Philology, Political Science, Art, Pedagogy or Philoso2hy, then the Pass2ort of 2019 endowed theology with greater inde2endence.
If the Pass2ort of 2015 was had inter-confessional nature, then the Pass-2ort of 2019 2rovided the se2aration of Orthodox, Islamic and Jewish theologies as academic s2ecialities. Thee texts of the Pass2orts of 2015 and 2019 had a lot in common because they originated genetically in the de2ths of the Russian state bureaucracy. Both Pass2orts of academic s2eciality em2hasised the 2reference to ignore historical Russian and foreign ex2erience. Thee deficnitions of the Pass2ort of 2015 are inertial, neo-Soviet and formal in nature because they reduce theology to the analysis of "the system and structure of theology and theological education", "religious a2ologetics", "theological analysis of sacred texts, doctrinal literature and monuments of religious writing", "theological teachings on the relationshi2 between religious faith and reason" or "theological anthro2ology".
Thee text of the Pass2ort of 2019 is more extensive than the text of the Pass2ort of 2015, actualising the need for an academic analysis of "Christian faith, history and methodology of its studies, Orthodox Christianity in the aggregate of its conce2tual-theoretical, 2ractical and cultural-historical ex2ressions" the content of Christian doctrine, the 2ractice of religious life, history and socio-cultural as2ects of Orthodox Christianity as a traditional confession for Russia". On the one hand, these deficnitions stem from the Pass-2ort of 2015 genetically, although the division of 2ossible theological degrees in theology, church history and church law seems more a22ro2riate in the contexts of the restoration of its 2lace in the system of academic degrees. On the other hand, modern humanities are interdisci2linary and thematic vectors of dissertation researches are too diverse. Theerefore, the Western ex2erience of the system of theological degrees may be 2artly a22licable or relevant and interesting.
Western Thee American academic degree system in theology is extremely heterogeneous and radically diff[erent from the Russian system, which is rooted genetically in the Soviet secular academic degree system. If the heterogeneity of American degrees arose as a result of the develo2ment of the university system, the institution of re2utations and minimal government 2artici2ation and control, then the modern Russian attpem2t to recognise theological degrees officcially became an ex2ression of the inconsistency and indecision of the state, manoeuvring between the interests of secular academic grou2s and religious communities.
Thee lack of o22ortunities to obtain academic degrees in Protestant and Catholic theology in the new 2ass2ort for the academic s2eciality "Theeology" actualise the inconsistency of the secular authorities in regulating the status of theological academic degrees. Fears of Catholic and Protestant ex2ansion in this context seem overstated and exaggerated. Thee hy2othetical emergence of the 2ossibility of obtaining academic degrees in Catholic and Protestant theology cannot 2rovoke an ex2losive growth of dissertation defences. Thee status and number of the 2robable Candidates and Doctors of Catholic / Protestant theology would be com2arable, for exam2le, to the 2ositions of the Candidates / Doctors of historical sciences in World history, which numerically inferior to the s2ecialists with academic degrees in Russian history.

CONCLUSIONS
Thee status of theology in modern Russia continues to remain controversial des2ite the changes and transformations that have taken 2lace in religious culture, social structure and the system of higher education. Actually, the colla2se of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of the 2rocesses of religious revival. Thee tendencies of clericalisation changed the tendencies of secularisation that dominated during the Soviet 2eriod. In fact, in 2ost-Soviet Russia, two systems of higher education and, as a result, two diff[erent systems of academic degrees coexisted and continue to coexist and function simultaneously.
Thee secular system of higher education continues to dominate because modern Russia inherited the Soviet organisation of higher education and science, instigating minor changes only while retaining the Soviet systems of scientificc degrees and the mechanisms of re2roduction of the academic community. Thee colla2se of the USSR led to the restoration of the Church role in cultural and social life as well as in education. Thee Russian Orthodox Church, as well as Catholics and Protestants were allowed to develo2 their educational systems, including systems of academic degrees of candidate and doctor of theology.
In the 1990s and 2010s these two educational systems coexisted simultaneously and develo2ed as 2arallel but the growing role and rising 2olitical and economic infliuence of the Church stimulated the activity of hierarchs and religious intellectuals integration in the 2ost-Soviet system of secular higher education. Thee limited ex2ansion of the Church into secular state universities as well as successful develo2ment of church universities convinced religious intellectuals and consistently strengthened them in the idea that the emergence and develo2ment of theological de2artments in the secular system of higher education are not enough without integration theology into the secular system of organising science, including neo-Soviet "2ass2orts of s2ecialities of scientists" and mechanisms for the defence of dissertations.
Thee actual Russian ex2erience of defending theological dissertations with further awarding state academic degrees is not very significcant. Thee number of defended candidate and doctoral theological dissertations in Church universities is incom2arably greater than the same defences in the secular universities. Des2ite this negative tendency, the few 2recedents of successful defences stimulated internal contradictions in the academic community, ins2iring its fragmentation and growth of contradictions between the su22orters of secular science and those intellectuals interested in the integration of theology into the secular academic system. Thee few defences of theological dissertations in the state system em2hasised the negative tendencies, including ethical contradictions of the Russian academic community, the unwillingness of its secular segment to acce2t theology as one of the sciences as well as the consistency and determination of the su22orters of integrating theology into the existing hierarchy and structure of sciences.
Possible vectors and trajectories of theology develo2ment in the modern Russian academic system are still unclear but the author 2resumes that the ficrst 2recedents of theological defences, including defences in secular universities, will stimulate a change in theology's status from the knowledge of the frontier between faith and science into a science com2arable to history or 2hilology in criteria of formal re2resentativeness in Russian science.
Unfortunately, several factors com2licated this scenario of institutionalisation of theology, including the contradictions between Churches and secular intellectuals, neo-Soviet inertia, secularisation 2rocesses as well as the collective feelings of 2rejudice in the natural sciences and the 2ride of theologians as victims of social and cultural discrimination ins2ired by contradictions and uncom2leted secularisation and the economic fears of secular intellectuals, who 2erceive the emergence of the candidate and doctoral degrees in theology as a ste2 towards clericalisation of society in the country where church and state are formally se2arate.
Thee surge of Russian media interest in theology became one of the last intellectual attpem2ts to change the develo2ment vectors of the mass media but this attpem2t was unsuccessful because the Russian media lost interest in theological issues as they were sold 2oorly, em2hasising other subjects that diff[ered from boring and academic theology which is more commercial and successful. Thee ex2erience of theology in the Russian media and its misadventures in the intellectual mass media once again 2roved that society is able to consolidate and turn the media into a battpleficeld. Thee author 2resumes that it cannot be ruled out that other intellectual reasons may become new factors of irritation and activation for the Russian cultural mass media. Russian mass media are ambitious enough to 2lay the role of "masters of the thoughts" of Russian society. Theis eff[ect will be extremely frightening and its consequences will be insignificcant in com2arison with the same eff[ect of other media because they 2refer to 2romote and visualise other news, including scandals, wars and high life, which can be sold more successfully than theology.