Executive Summary

Why it matters

Romans is the theological backbone of the New Testament, and Russian carries a fundamentally different risk profile than languages translating into a non-Christian cultural substrate: Russian Orthodoxy already shares the Nicene Christological core (incarnation, Trinity, deity of Christ, bodily resurrection) with this curriculum, so those terms are comparatively low-risk. The real risk cluster sits at the Reformation fault line — grace, justification, salvation, and sanctification — where Orthodox synergism and theosis (obozhenie) diverge from the forensic, faith-alone categories Romans is built on, plus a post-Soviet secular layer that has worn some vocabulary (sin, grace, holiness) smooth of felt meaning.

Key findings

• The registry tracks 40 doctrines across Romans 1-16; 17 require mandatory human theologian review (4 Critical, 13 High) — notably fewer Critical-tier doctrines than in languages facing syncretism with a non-Christian religion, because Trinity/incarnation/resurrection terminology is already settled and shared with Russian Orthodoxy.
• Grace, Salvation, Sanctification, and Assurance of Salvation are Critical specifically because they collide with a live, named East-West theological divergence (forensic justification vs. theosis/synergism), not because an obviously wrong native word exists.
• Universal Scope of the Gospel and Unity of Jews and Gentiles are High-risk for social and historical reasons: the first challenges ethno-religious identification of the gospel with Russian Orthodox national identity (“Third Rome”), the second must be handled with care given the historical weight of antisemitism in the region.
• Only 3 of 40 doctrines (Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship) are Low-risk and clear for automated review alone.

Risks

• East-West doctrinal collision: благодать (grace), спасение (salvation), and освящение (sanctification) each risk being silently absorbed into an Orthodox sacramental/theosis framework unless the curriculum explicitly states its forensic, “apart from works” argument rather than assuming the vocabulary alone carries it.
• Secularization flattening: seventy years of state atheism have worn грех (sin) and similar terms into folk-moral or joking register for many secular and culturally-but-not-practicing-Orthodox readers; weight must be restored explicitly, not assumed.
• Legal and political sensitivity: evangelism and mission language must account for real legal restrictions on missionary activity outside registered religious premises, and “kingdom” language carries political resonance given Russia’s imperial and Soviet history.

Opportunities

• Romans’ Christological core (incarnation, resurrection, deity and sonship of Christ) requires comparatively little defensive framing in Russian — icon theology and the Paschal (Easter) tradition already give these doctrines strong cultural rooting to build on rather than fight against.
• Established Synodal Bible vocabulary (Бог, Иисус, Господь, Святой Дух, завет) removes ambiguity for the shared doctrinal core, letting the curriculum concentrate its careful framing on the genuinely contested Reformation-era terms.

Recommended actions

• Route every Critical and High risk segment (17 of 40 doctrines) through human theologian review before publication, with particular attention to grace, salvation, sanctification, and assurance of salvation.
• Brief native-speaker reviewers specifically on secularization-flattening and legal/political sensitivity categories, which automated glossary enforcement alone cannot catch.
• State the curriculum’s forensic-declaration reading of justification and salvation explicitly rather than assuming it is uncontested common ground with Orthodox readers.