Explore the vast range of titles available.

Orthodoxy has a long experience of cohabitation with other religions and Christian denominations. However, this experience has not always been a peaceful and easy one, especially when molded by the rise of nationalism during the second half of the 19th century and global geopolitical forces throughout the 20th century. A series of historical events, from Russia to the Middle East, from the Balkans to Central Europe, have shaped the Orthodox relationship to religious pluralism, redefining the religious landscape through movement of populations and migrations. These many conflicts and historical events have proved the multifaceted reality of Orthodoxy, from its role as a state religion, such as in Greece, and a majority religion, such as in Russia, to a minority religion with limited rights, such as in Turkey, or, more generally speaking, in the Middle East. It is in this very complex context that interfaith relations unfold, too often in a very violent and traumatic way.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents potential mental health challenges, and the American Orthodox Jewish population has been particularly affected by the virus. The current study assessed the impact of the pandemic and explored the relation ships between exposure, religiosity, and distress in a sample of n=419 American Orthodox Jews. Results indicated high levels of exposure, concern, and compliance with medical guidelines; however stress was generally low and we found evidence for positive impact. Direct exposure correlated with higher religiosity. Positive religious coping, intrinsic religiosity and trust in God strongly correlated with less stress and more positive impact, while negative religious coping and mistrust in God correlated with the inverse. While the study is limited by its design, findings highlight that for some, faith may promote resilience especially during crisis.

After the fall of the USSR, there was a real explosion of religious construction in Ukraine. The review article presents fourteen out of nearly a thousand churches built in Ukraine in the thirty years from regaining independence until the Russian aggression (1991–2022). The selection criterion is the category of representativeness, both in terms of quality, formal, regional and denominational aspects (Uniate and Orthodox temples of the Ukrainian Church and the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate). Despite all their diversity, they have in common a certain canonicity in their approach to architectural matter. It is essentially based on the Byzantine model of a cross-dome temple, adopted in Kievan Rus. The selected examples reflect wide spectrum of forms between traditionalism and modernism, ukrainism and ru- sophilism, regionalism and universalism. Behind each choice there is a specific historical and cultural, but also political, message. Contemporary Ukrainian Orthodox churches are a new incarnation, even a manifestation, of architecture parlante.

[...]in most cases any constructive critique of the LCA can only be inferred by attending to the powerful drawcards that have led these people to place their allegiance elsewhere. [...]writers would catalogue the distinctive marks of Lutheranism: its firm foundations in the bible and the Confessions, its liturgical worship, its sacramental teaching and practice, its welfare agencies, and its catechesis and nurture of the young. [...]they write that the church-not necessarily the denomination-where they have found a home stood out for displaying some, if not all, of the following characteristics: it practises hospitality, worships joyfully, proclaims the gospel clearly, teaches the bible intentionally, reflects deeply on matters of social justice, and engages in ongoing gospel outreach and targeted community care projects.

For any group-religious or otherwise-to be successful, four basic requirements must be met: visionary leadership; a firmly-held belief in the veracity of their claims and/or positions; a unique approach to communal religious life that is not offered elsewhere in the immediate geographic region; and subsequently a critical mass of dedicated followers and resources. A series of more minor disputes during the 1868 and 1871 General Conventions over ecumenism and eucharistic theology led to George D. Cummins (1822-1876), assistant bishop of Kentucky, leading a group of likeminded evangelical Episcopalians to a new denomination called the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1874. [...]Upfold plainly stated in his 1864 episcopal address to the diocesan convention that he would refuse to officiate at any church in the diocese with altar flowers.2 This was during a period of increased Roman Catholic immigration to the United States, threatening the continued Protestant alignment of the Episcopal Church, particularly as Roman Catholic schools filled the void left by a lack of both public and Protestant educational options.3 Upfold experienced feeble health, requiring the diocese to call Joseph C. Talbot (1816-1883) as bishop coadjutor in 1865. Speaking to the 1874 diocesan convention, Talbot stated that the act was \"the more remarkable\" event in the history of the Episcopal Church, with the \"unhappy and misguided\" Cummins publicly deserting his vows and fellow bishops, and wounding both the Church of God and his soul.

The advent of canonized texts in the post-Constantinian church led to the widespread assumption that specifically approved literature reflected general Christian orthodoxy. The danger that non-canonical literature posed to this process was to provide an avenue by which quasi-acceptable views could enter ecclesiastical theology via courses such as catechetical instruction and teaching from episcopal leaders. The Apostolic Fathers reflect this very process. Those who study these writings today are warned not simply to presume specific locations or dates for their use in antiquity since many such writings came to influence the growth of ecclesiastical power and ideas within contexts that have been lost to our knowledge. This paper counsels researchers not to take such literature lightly nor to presume the influence it may have had within the early patristic sphere.

In the decade since Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's passing in 2015, I, and so many others, have found ourselves bereft of his presence and guidance. What strikes me now, from the perspective of years, is how desperately our community needs his model of leadership and how sorely it is missed. While no collection can mimic the experience of learning at his feet or allow us to encounter his visceral example of authentic Avodat Hashem, it does nevertheless allow us and our children and children's children to study his teachings and try to actualize the values he demonstrated: honesty, moral courage, and deep commitment to Torah and to truth.

According to Kerber's Lessing, both sides of the debate were in error because neither had so much as considered the true issues at stake in the Christian notion of revelation. In his initial remarks on the content of the fragments, Lessing notoriously claimed that his age had seen neither a true defender nor a true critic of Christianity-not even the anonymous author of the fragments-and that he had decided to publish the fragments with the aim of provoking such individuals to step into the public ring. [...]it transparently presents both Lessing's diagnosis of the religious polemics of his day as well as his authorial goal during this period: not to take a position on the truth of Christianity, but to restore the full force of its religious claims within the public religious debate.