According to the article, the challenges facing contemporary education highlight the necessity of turning to traditional Christian axiology. The dominance of pragmatism and secular humanism as guiding principles of modern civilization has led to the “loss of meaningfulness” in human nature and existence. At the same time, the sphere of new technologies has, for many, become a kind of new religion, replacing the earlier “quasi-faith” in progress. As a result of the industrialization and mechanization of life and of the educational system, the volitional dimension of the human being is in decline, giving way to a pursuit of comfort and power—trends that foster depersonalization, dementia, and contribute to the rise of totalitarian and castelike structures. This raises the question: can we respond to these challenges not with money or some ideology, but with spiritual principles of life?

The article stresses the importance of distinguishing between Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian responses to the problems of development and the pathways of education. Orthodox axiology is characterized by Christocentrism, hierarchical order, and the priority of personhood (hypostasis). The Godman Christ is understood as the organizer of the hierarchy of a renewed humanity. The uncreated divine energies are present within the hierarchy of the human being, and participation in them is possible only through personhood (hypostasis). The concept of “knowledge” is also important in this framework of shaping the educational system. It is not merely natural but is understood as both personal (hypostasis based) and natural.

In articulating the Christian axiology of the Eastern tradition, it is important to show the integration of theory with practice. Hence the formative role of historical heroes and saints, both past and present, in education. By drawing on the concrete examples of their lives and good morals, we can reveal the deep connection between modern life and spirituality and faith.

Eastern Christian pedagogy expands the horizons of contemporary education by preventing the self-enclosure of cognitive processes in the hyper-informational age. It elevates the human person above the quasi-utilitarian goals of modern educational systems and provides a basis for structuring education around a personalist and value-based hierarchical approach. This is supported by patristic anthropology and the broader system of Christian spiritual and moral values on which it rests.

The article examines the methodological, civilizational and anthropological foundations for shaping a sovereign model of Russian education. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of rejecting borrowed Western educational approaches that are incompatible with Russia’s spiritual and cultural tradition. As an alternative, the author proposes a return to traditional spiritual and moral values and to a national pedagogical model grounded in the principles of Orthodox anthropology, the idea of personal transformation, and collective education.

The central idea is that education should be understood as a mechanism of civilizational reproduction, inseparable from the transmission of identity and values. Particular attention is devoted to the concepts of good and evil as formative categories within the framework of educational practice. It is emphasized that a sovereign educational system is not merely a technological institution, but an axiologically protected structure capable of ensuring the historical and spiritual continuity of civilization.

This article analyzes the concept of “traditional values” and their practical embodiment in contemporary social and political life. In Russia’s current political governance framework, active efforts are being made to develop various institutions aimed at implementing Presidential Decree No. 809 and at specifying the meanings of the notions of “traditional values” articulated in it. The author interprets the concept of traditional values through the ideas of Orthodox Christianity, arguing that other attempts to define values represent a departure from the context of Russia’s historical development and from Orthodox ethics as its foundation. The article identifies the idea of human dignity as the key concept of Orthodox ideological thought that should be reflected in the system of public administration. Through an analysis of Russian legislation, the study highlights tensions between liberal conceptions of life and the human person and the Orthodox understanding of human existence, expressed in the opposition between the notions of rights and dignity. Recognizing Orthodoxy as the value basis of Russia’s tradition and of its “society of the future” is thus interpreted as a genuine departure from the ideological framework of Western liberalism. The author concludes that the development of Russian society within the framework of traditional values is possible only through a shift away from the liberal concept of “rights” toward the Christian concept of “dignity”, which, as the foundation of human existence, should serve as the prism through which the entire system of public administration is viewed. The article further emphasizes that building a Russian society unified by a coherent system of traditional values, grounded in Orthodox thought, is the mission of the younger generation. However, the author argues that this mission can be realized only if the traditional Orthodox understanding of the human being as created in the image and likeness of God, embodied in the notion of human dignity, is accepted by this generation as the natural and sole foundation of social and state life. The current Russian educational system excludes the very concept of Truth, presenting all aspects of life as relative. Therefore, the reintroduction of Truth must be placed at the center of contemporary Russian education, serving as the principal guiding aim of current domestic policy decisions.

The authors of this article examine the conceptual and methodological legacy of Konstantin Dmitrievich Ushinsky and its significance for shaping the socio-humanistic foundations of contemporary Russian education. The discussion is framed within the ongoing reform of higher education in Russia, which seeks to move beyond the limitations of the Bologna system and develop a nationally grounded model. The importance of this study is highlighted by the strategic character of the reform (initiated by Presidential Decrees No. 809 of November 9, 2022, and No. 343 of May 12, 2023, as well as the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly in 2023), which requires a methodological basis for integrating the best practices of the Soviet period, current socioeconomic demands, and enduring cultural and moral values.

The analysis draws on regulatory and legal documents and official public addresses, situating them alongside Konstantin Ushinsky’s central ideas: the principle of narodnost’ (national character), the anthropological approach, and the role of family. The article also provides a theological and pedagogical examination of the ontological and axiological dimensions of Ushinsky’s system, including its theological underpinnings; and, through contextual analysis, demonstrates the continuity of Ushinsky’s thought within contemporary educational policy and cultural discourse.

The study argues that the current model of Russian education, though oriented toward flexibility, stronger fundamental training, and the integration of economic needs with individual learning pathways, lacks a sufficiently articulated value and worldview framework. Ushinsky’s pedagogical system provides such a methodological framework, being based on the anthropological approach (“understanding the human being in every respect, in order to educate them in every respect”), the principle of narodnost’ (“the alignment of education with the historical and cultural character of a people”), and the recognition of the family as the axiological foundation of moral and intellectual development (“the first school of morality”). Ushinsky’s ideas organically incorporate the Orthodox worldview as a cultural code transmitted through living tradition rather than abstract instruction, which is particularly relevant for shaping the sociohumanistic core of contemporary education. His synthesis of pedagogy with the principles of Orthodox anthropology offers an alternative to technocratic approaches and supports cultural sovereignty, with the teacher’s moral integrity serving as a central imperative.

The findings have practical relevance for developing a universal socio-humanistic core of modern education. Theoretically, they demonstrate the necessity of integrating historical and pedagogical heritage (particularly Ushinsky’s ontologically holistic model) with traditional cultural and moral values in the methodology of contemporary Russian educational policy, thereby reinforcing its resilience against the challenges of value relativism. The study confirms that genuine education is the holistic formation of personality, requiring the teacher to serve as a “living bridge” between tradition and innovation.

The article is dedicated to the legacy of Saint Philaret (Drozdov). Based on statements taken from sermons, opinions, reviews and letters of Metropolitan Philaret, which touch upon the themes of the origins of statehood and the structure of public life in the country, the features of his views on the relationship between the Church and the state are revealed. The article analyzes the range of ideas associated with his teaching on the structure of the earthly state in the image of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is noted that the Metropolitan’s views on church-state relations are based on the idea of the state as part of God’s plan in human society. Despite the fact that the Church and the state have different natures and origins, and the forms of their relationship are continuously developing in a historical context, the saint defines their common goals, attaching great importance to the role of the earthly city in the preparation of citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Moscow Metropolitan points out a direct connection between the political stability of the state and the moral level of its citizens. The article focuses on the fact that in these conditions the Church acts as a bearer of spiritual and moral values. The legacy of the saint is of interest from the point of view of political axiology in terms of a deeper understanding of the provisions of the 809th Decree of the President of Russia, which specifies the concept of “traditional values”. Decree 809 includes moral guidelines passed down from generation to generation, which shape the worldview of Russian citizens and form the foundation of the all-Russian identity.

The article examines the role of Russia as the Restrainer (κατέχων) — the force that prevents the advent of the Antichrist and the establishment of a global anti-Christian order. It highlights the connection between the concept of the katechon (Restrainer) and the idea of the Third Rome as a “kingdom of truth”. The role of Russia in preserving global Orthodoxy is considered both from the military-state and the ecclesiastical perspective. A number of measures are proposed that would allow Russia to maintain its role as the Restrainer. Among these are timocracy (τιμοκρατία) — the rule of spiritual and moral values aimed at eliminating the financial oligarchy and promoting advancement based on moral character. Further, moral oversight of the state by society and moral oversight of society by the state are envisioned. In addition, the legality of power, the elimination of shadow structures, and the restoration of traditional statehood in its entirety are emphasized. Also proposed are: the nationwide right to the means of production, to land and natural resources; the inviolability of personal property; and the inadmissibility of private ownership of the means of production and of resources. Other measures include the dismantling of the destructive comprador oligarchy and the creation of an industrial stratum that would work for the benefit of Russia rather than international financial structures; the eradication of corruption and its causes; and the purification of national culture and mass media from destructive and immoral texts, concepts, images, and from the individuals who generate them. The article also emphasizes the primacy of the Ten Commandments in public consciousness; the preeminence of Orthodoxy, coupled with respect and tolerance for other traditional religions; and the primacy of upbringing over education — of raising a moral and conscientious person over training a professional, since morality also implies a conscientious attitude toward professional growth — thus minimizing the gap between morality and law. What, then, can and must we offer the world in order truly to be the Restrainer in all its force and fullness? First and foremost, law-enforcement practice. More broadly, the transition from orthodoxy (right belief) to orthopraxy (right action).

This article addresses the problem of developing a methodology for new textbooks in the humanities for Russian schools and universities, in light of the growing public interest in upbringing and the strengthening of traditional values. The aim of the study is to formulate a value and cultural model that makes it possible to create a textbook oriented toward fostering patriotism and the fundamental spiritual values of Russia. The relevance of the research stems from the traditionalist turn in Russia’s internal life and the search for ways out of late liberalism and secularism in educational policy. The novelty of the problem lies in highlighting the importance of methodology for new humanities textbooks in Russia, in contrast to the dominant discussions about modes of content delivery. The study analyzes the principles underlying the preparation of Russian textbooks in the post-Soviet 1990s, which employed approaches from Western social sciences. Their features and certain negative aspects are described, and their methodological model is schematically presented. In contrast, a value and cultural model is proposed, one oriented towards explaining all aspects of a people’s life through the role of values fundamental to that culture. The author argues that the prevailing approach in the humanities continues to subordinate values to social circumstances, which are themselves seen as products of social laws. As a result, good and evil are defined by those who acquire the financial and political power to shape social conditions—reproducing a secular and colonial version of the principle “they who have the power, establish the faith”. Within such a framework, traditional values cannot serve as a legitimate argument in determining the laws and objective reality of a people. The value and cultural model, by contrast, offers an alternative view of cultural history: its fundamental values in the life of peoples that precede and determine social institutions. This perspective opens the possibility of employing traditional values as arguments in shaping paths of socio-political development. The findings may help displace the methodological dependence of the humanities on Western value models within Russian education.