Christian monarchy

[Owen Jones]

Any interest in starting a new thread on Christianity/Scripture and monarchy? I'm assuming some people here have studied Christian monarchy and can lend some interesting thoughts.

[Chad Duskin]

Sounds interesting Owen. I would be interested.

Chad

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Great idea, Owen. We could perhaps start with the innately sacral character of the Byzantine Imperium? Or the assumed monarchical powers of the papacy, certainly until the time of Pius IX (some would say Pius XII)? And there are the implied message in the title of Defensor Fidei for the British monarchy and the very titles of the (former) Holy Roman Emperor and Most Christian King (of France) to consider. Did you have in mind some historical comparisons re depth of meaning, which is my forte, or are you (and others) interested only or mainly in scriptural links? As theology is not really my area of study I would have less to contribute there.


MJ-R

[Owen Jones]

Good show!

I'm interested in the question of meaning, also historical exemplars. Pros and cons of Christian monarchy from both a historical perspective as well as theoretical.

It's more or less the IDEA of Christian monarchy that interests me as a means of better understanding the Faith, since today it's more theory than fact. Also, the problem of secularism, and the imbedded anti-Christian aspects of post-monarchical politics, which most Christians, especially most Christian Americans would never stop to consider. They think of Christianity in terms of being freed from those terrible kings.

Also, one thing that has struck me in what little I have studied modern Christian monarchy is how much it has been influenced by, if not in the vanguard of what we might call "modernity." The Hanoverians were obviously into occult neo-paganism back in the 18th Century. The current problems with the Windsors can almost entirely be attributed to the lack of any Christian core and their dabbling in the occult.

By the way, I think I'm a Jacobite.

[Stephen Keeler]

I would enjoy a mixture of the historical with the theological vis a vis Christian monarchy. Did not the Russian Czar, after defeating Napolean, have a Te Deum sung for Louis XVI as soon as he the Czar arrived in Paris?

And why was the Christian Roman Emperor in New Rome allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries with the clergy, but not in Milan where St. Ambrose dismissed him from the altar, instructing him to receive with the rest of the laity?

[Monachos.net]

I have moved the emerging 'Christian Monarchy' discussion to its own new thread, now found in the Ecclesiology topic area. If you are reading this post via email click here for a direct link (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/7077.html?1036092316).

[Stephen Keeler]

Ouch, what did I do, kill this thread?

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps we need Margaret to get us going. How about the concept of legitimacy? How does a Christian monarchy obtain legitimacy? We know the origins of the Christian imperium -- the conversion of Constantine. But what about other Christian monarchs. Were they all pagan monarchs who converted to start a new lineage? Do you know who the first Christian monarch was in Britain?

Also, I notice there are a few Christian monarch sites. Is there a bona fide Christian political economy that is associated with monarchy?

oaj

[John Wehling]

>>And why was the Christian Roman Emperor in New Rome allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries with the clergy, but not in Milan where St. Ambrose dismissed him from the altar, instructing him to receive with the rest of the laity?<<

I read somewhere in the past two days (but I can't recall where!) that in the West not only the emperor but also princes, governors, etc. often communed in the sanctuary and even had their own seats therein. I will see if I can locate the reference.

John

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

The short(ish) answer to the question about St Ambrose vis a vis the Eastern Roman Emperor lies in the relative distribution of power. In early Christian times in Milan St Ambrose exercised a clerical quasi-diktat for want of a secure parallel secular authority; his word was certainly law in matters of faith and practice so he was able to determine precedence in all things pertaining to public worship. By contrast, the Byzantine Emperor combined all forms of authority in his own person; the eastern imperial office was both secular and sacerdotal in character (see the writings of Ostrogorsky and Vassiliev, as major authorities on the latter) whereas in the West there was a constant tussle for predominance between pope and emperor, culminating in the ignominy (for the emperor)of Canossa and a subsequent agreement to divide up authority between the sacerdotal and secular spheres of governance. The problem then became how to define and defend the boundaries between the two; many excommunications and interdicts were to follow, with the papacy eventually becoming in the 14th century an instrument of political/national rivalry (French and Italian). But we are talking about 1000 years of historical development here!

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

The answer to Owen's question about the first Christian king in Britain is, according to Bede's Ecclesiastical History, that this was Ethelbert of Kent (6th century) who was converted at the instigation of his wife,a Frankish princess. But Kent was one of a number of early kingdoms in a period known as the Heptarchy, and there was no real unification under a Christian king until after the time of King Alfred (late 8th-early 9th century AD)and the end of the Viking invasions.

I shall further ponder the issues around legitimacy that Owen has arised before venturing an opinion. More anon.

Margaret the seeker-historian.

[Stephen Keeler]

Thanks, Margaret and Owen, this is great. Don't forget St. Edmund, King and Martyr, who was a cousin to King Alfred and, along with Saint Audrey of Ely, the early patron of England. Edmund was king of one of the Heptarchy, and he and Audrey are really big with a Fr. Andrew there who has the relics in his Orthodox Church. He publishes Orthodox England.

Where and when St. George displaced him I don't know. I've heard it written that there was traffic between Constantinople and England to the point that, during the Viking invasions, many English sought refuge there, with a huge wave coming after 1066 and the Norman conquest. So maybe that's how St. George became popular.

How about this one - a popular biographer of Peter the Great wrote that, on Peter's visit to Rheims, he translated an old Slavonic text used in the coronation ceremony of French kings that no one in France knew at that time. Further, this text was there, according to the author Robert Massey I believe, because King Louis I married Anne who was of the royal family in Kiev, of the line that stemmed from Constantinople.

This is the only source I've seen that made reference to this interesting lineage. Any others anyone's ever heard of?

[Owen Jones]

How was Edmund martyred? Has there been a compilation of how many Christian monarchs have died as martyrs or confessors? How many have been canonized?

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Owen: According to the hagiography written by Abbo of Fleury, St Edmund, King of East Anglia (= another of the heptarchy kingdoms of early Saxon Britain), was martyred by the Danes in the later 9th century after refusing to take up arms to oppose them. He was saintly all right, but questionably a "good" king, in an age which put a premium on the persona of the king as war leader and booty-giver.

I think our debate will have to take account of how settled the times were, as a predominant influence on the practical exercise of Christian kingship. At least one Anglo-Saxon king (I have temporarily forgotten which) renounced the crown in order to enter a monastery, and had to be made forcibly to resume his royal duties when invasion was threatened. Then amongst other monarchs canonised by the Western church we should perhaps also consider the strange phenomenon that was St Edward the Confessor; also St Louis IX of France, arch-crusader against the Saracens. Perhaps you wouldn't count among the saints the Stuart king, Charles 1st, who is treated by some as the sole Anglican Martyr, has a Society in England dedicated to extolling his memory, and who is often referred to under the title of Charles the Martyr?

Margaret J-R

[Thomas Garland]

Actually, Margaret, whatever one may think of King Charles as Martyr (there is, I think, more than one Anglican church dedicated to him), it does reveal a certain approach to saintliness and monarchy.

Presumably, like Tsar St Nicholas II and his family, Charles was seen as a 'passion-bearer', given his dignified and courageous bearing during his 'trial' and execution. But he was also consciously defending what he saw as his divinely ordained right - and duty - to be king, whatever his faults.

The British Coronation service is a sort of semi-priestly ordination. The monarch is vested in different layers of robes, the lowest of which (over an alb) is the Supertunica or Dalmatic - the vestment of a deacon. I was reminded of this some time ago when reading Bp +BASIL Osborne's contribution to Walker & Carras, eds: 'Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World', in which he devotes a section to 'The Church's Calling as a Go-between: the Diaconate'. Bp +BASIL describes the diaconate as those who, like the servants at the wedding feast of Cana, go back and forth between the master of the feast and the people. This was surely the (theoretical) position of the monarch in Britain (Western Europe?) until modern times - the moanarch, like a deacon, was the 'go-between' between God and the people. He was not a master himself, but both represented God to the people and the people to God - a high responsibility, for which the monarch needed the grace of ordination.

Incidentally, while trying to check some facts about the Coronation, I came across an American RC priest's interpretation of the rite {http://pirate.shu.edu/~wisterro/coronation.htm} that makes him see the coronation as a quasi-episcopal consecration. Which is another view!

If anyone wants to study the British Coronation service to find more hieratic allusions, you can visit {www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.htm (http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.htm)}.

with love,

Thomas

[Thomas Garland]

I was so tied up with my remarks about the Coronation service that I forgot to put in a word for the child martyr St Kenelm, Prince of Mercia, who was murdered at the behest of his sister to prevent his succession to the throne.

Though Mercia was a kingdom of the English Midlands, St Kenelm's body was brought to Winchcombe, in Gloucestershire (near where I live!), and many miracles were reported at his tomb, so that Winchcombe Abbey became a major pilgrimage site, until destoyed in the Reformation.

Back to a more Charles-like king-martyr. One of the reasons why Gloucester Cathedral is so big and ornate is that the remains of Edward II were interred here after his murder at the nearby Berkeley Castle in 1327. For some reason, ordinary folk were very devoted to him and tried to start a cult - the resulting pilgrimages brought a lot of money to Gloucester.

with love,

Thomas

[Owen Jones]

Thomas,

Regarding your very interesting comments, you may wish to take a look at the posts concerning the classical Orthodox understanding of the in-between or metaxy reality, sometimes translated into English as the intermediate (in the philokalia for instance). I forget under which topic heading it resides. The modern sin, as it were, is to think only in terms of matter or spirit and completely dispense with any reality in between. Modernity is basically gnosticism in new form. That is why I think a monarchism thread is interesting because it speaks directly to a Christian understanding of how divine reality permeates the world at all levels of the hierarchy. It's not just an authority issue. It's a philosophical/theological issue.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The posts to which Owen referred in his last post, regarding the concept of metaxy in Orthodox thought, can be found in the 'God' of Reason (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/100.html) thread. (The discussion actually begins in the archives of that thread, which is where you might want to begin.)

INXC, Matthew

[Thomas Garland]

Many thanks to both - I vaguely remember the thread, but didn't have time when it was active to do more than glance throught the posts. Will study in more detail!

with love,

Thomas

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Some initial comments, as promised, in response to Owen's question about how a Christian monarch obtains legitimacy. The sociologist, Max Weber, identified 3 types of legitimacy in relation to what makes people obey rulers:
-charismatic authority (personality, individual virtues, appeals to common emotional ties such as race): many monastic founders would qualify under this heading
-traditional authority (heredity, long practice, the way that things have always been done): this would include European kings and Chinese Emperors
-rational legal authority (upholding and enforcing laws and public rules): all public office-holders would qualify, notably judges.

I would go further and sub-divide the second category in respect of the legitimacy of kings as conferred respectively by:
-function: de facto
-legal process: de iure
-popular acclaim: de natura
-higher authority: ex cathedra or de deo.

As Thomas has already pointed out, the coronation ceremony encapsulates the liturgical significance of kingly - or queenly - office. The unction with holy oil or chrism in particular bestowed, as its derivation from the anointing of Jewish kings by Old Testament prophets would indicate, evidence of divine will; the king was conceived of as the Lord's Anointed, and transformed by divine grace into a powerful link between his people and God but "constituted" to rule over the people. Charlemagne, crowned Western Emperor on Christmas Day 800, was indeed spoken of at the time as a new King David, a concept of leadership newly arisen from biblical times.

Hence, in abstract theory, Frankish era and later medieval kings ruled in the West by divine grace, exercising absolute, unfettered, power and considered to be above the law. St Louis IX, King of France, formally declared that because the king had plenitude of power his governance was not constrained in any way by human laws or agencies. The last thrash of that particular dragon's tail was experienced in the constitutional crises that arose in 17th century England under James I and Charles I, where the doctrine that "no writ runs against the king" and "the king can do no wrong" was finally overturned and a constitutional monarchy was finally established in 1660.

In practice, however, the episcopal authorities in the West interposed themselves between king and deity as the rightful mediators of divine will, and legal authorities such as the jurist Henry Bracton successfully established the principle of a partnership between the community of the realm and the king, the two in tandem becoming the mystical entity later called The Crown,in the English polity.

The conclusion I would draw is that regal legitimacy is ultimately contractual, based on a formal covenant of understanding between a ruler and the ruled and enshrined both in ceremony and in law. This covenant is derived from biblical and subsequent Christian practices and is expressed in a kind of mystical marriage between the two parties at coronation and thereafter. The Christian element, as regards the present set-up in the UK, is profound but may be subject to change when the Prince of Wales, who is on record as saying that he intends to defend all faiths, eventually succeeds his mother. Perhaps we shall see the establishment of a republic in the UK before that.

I hope this is both useful and stimulating to the continuance of the debate. Does anybody have a view to contribute from the Byzantine world perspective?

mj-r

[Mark Flory]

I am afraid that I know much less about the historical and legal aspects of monarchy than many hereabouts, however I would like to interject one theological point that I think is important. I will make my point indirectly, however, by way of what I think Orthodoxy is NOT upholding. I just began a book called The Predicament of Postmodern Theology, by Gavin Hyman. Gavin cites Don Cupitt as saying that the ancient Christian vision of the universe was one of a "descending power-hierarchy." (p. 46). In this same passage, Cupitt also uses the term "energies" as equivalent for "power," and he uses both in the pejorative sense (it seems to me) of juridical or temporal power. Is there not an important distinction to be made between this kind of power, and the "power" - or better, "energies" - of God which descend (and thereby raise up) through the hierarchy, namely grace? What implications does this have for the notion of Christian monarchy? My own understanding is that the divine hierarchy is an order, not of power in the temporal sense, but of love, which like the good shepherd, always seeks out the one lost sheep. The question for me then becomes, how is such an hierarchy to be reconciled with the demands of worldly governance?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mark,

I think the classical view of hierarchy, pagan and Christian, was more the distinction between perfection and imperfection, mortality and immortality, lasting and passing away. I do not think Christianity ever reduced the idea of hierarchy to love. Christianity inverts conventional hierarchy in that the lowest of the poor becomes King over all. This allowed the common person of faith to participate in divine Kingship. Very powerful.

Without this hierarchical view of things, Christianity becomes incomprehensible.

[Thomas Garland]

Christ is Born!

Metropolitan Antony (Bloom) of Sourozh is fond of saying that he sees the Church hierarchy as a pyramid - with the point at the bottom.

Perhaps the same could apply to Christian monarchy, and to the Christian view of society in general - democracy as we now know it is not particularly Christian, being a product of the Enlightenment.

Thomas

[Owen Jones]

Not to quibble too much, Thomas, but democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks. It was a pure form of democracy in which public officials were elected by drawing lots. Plato noted that the democratic form of government tends to quickly degenerate into tyranny.

Modern democracy is really a massive corporate/managerial structure.

The Enlightenment, of course, was a specifically anti-Christian movement for the most part. It created the myth of a Dark Age of history that we had progressed beyond. It was the first time in history in which skepticism was seriously entertained on the societal level, that secular government was seen as legitimate. Many saw secularism as an antidote to sectarian warfare, but the so-called wars of religion had very little to do with religion. And of course the worst sectarian conflicts occurred in the 20th century.

But how do you put the genie back in the bottle? Christians need to develop and promote a new political/cultural paradigm.

[Owen Jones]

Margaret,

I guess what I am really interested in is any comments you might have on non-imperial Christian monarchy, historically as well as its self-conception. The Celtic monarchs presided over specific regions and cultures that were anything but empires. And there have been independent states and duchys. They probably all had some democratic elements, such as a council of nobles and priests, etc. Any thoughts?

What I want to do is find a place somewhere that we can get about 1,000 Christian monarchs together and declare ourselves an Orthodox Principality.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Greetings, Owen.

Certainly the early Anglo-Saxon kings in Britain had a council, the Witenagemot or Witan, that comprised the thanes (or nobles) and perhaps some of the clergy. This council, summoned at will by the king, proffered advice and may have acted as a restraining influence but I wouldn't describe it as in any way democratic, in our modern interpretation of this word.

A major problem with the idea of a Christian monarchy seems to me to be that whilst in principle there is no necessary contradiction between positing a theoretical right to rule on legitimation by reference to a divinely sanctioned mandate, rooted in biblical authority, and a democratic form of government, in practice the notion of a sovereign deity as supreme lord is put into place by mortal men who disagree as to interpretation, and this can lead to abuse. An example is the conflation of divine right with nationalism. The result has often been a theocracy, where a priestly caste has attempted to rule, usually with dire results; ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, modern day Iran, and of course the Taliban all spring to mind. And one is mindful of Christ's reference to the separate spheres of influence - "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" etc.

It seems to me that problems can all too easily arise when the community of the faithful is taken to be synonymous with the community over which governance is asserted. This is plainly not the case with much of present day society, leaving aside such bodies as the Amish and Mennonites.

Maybe the answer does lie in a degree of historical determinism, ie going with the flow of the times. This would indicate a balanced polity, based on partnership, synergy, or whatever term you select, to meet contemporary needs. I think your vision of an Orthodox Principality is just that: a dream world. So is mine of a Buddhist Shangri-La where people are perfectible. If only!

the seeker

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Owen:

"Christians need to develop and promote a new political/cultural paradigm".

I have already sent a response but it has not yet appeared, so here is a second attempt to get through the ether.

Early Anglo-Saxon kings in Britain had a council, the Witenagemot or Witan, that comprised the thanes (nobles) and probably some of the clergy as well. This body, which was summoned at will by the king, acted in an advisory and probably a restraining capacity, but was not democratic according to the modern interpretation of that term. The king was the law-giver, war leader, and dispenser of favours. All medieval kings had a council of some sort, but until the development of parliaments and formal legal systems there were no real constraints on their power, other than any influence that could be brought to bear by charismatic individuals; an example here is St Hugh of Lincoln and Henry II Plantagenet.

It seems to me that Christian monarchy can be interpreted in either of two ways. If one considers that all authority is rooted in biblical tradition, then the king is seen as the Lord's Anointed and cannot be challenged insofar as he properly fulfils the role of representing a sovereign deity. But, of course, this vision is articulated and expressed by mortal men, who tend to disagree as to what sovereignty means in practice. We have recently seen (Afghanistan, Iran, Tibet) what happens when a theocracy is put in place and authority is wielded by a priestly caste that tends to conflate nationalism with religion.

Whilst there are no obvious parallels from Christendom the moral is clear, and has been well expressed thus: "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Problems arise when the community of the faithful is taken to be synonymous with that of the community to be governed, and for that reason Western polities have normally evolved separate but overlapping spheres for church and state. A good example of attempted clerical domination occurred when the city of Geneva in the 16th century embraced the Protestant Reformation with a vengeance and was then disrupted by tensions between John Calvin, the leading pastor, and the city council, which wanted to retain absolute authority in matters both secular and religious. The outcome was that Calvin and a fellow pastor were exiled to Strasbourg. Though he later returned to Geneva he was then denied the right to vote or stand for public office; a separation of powers was enforced.

The 16th and 17th centuries are interesting, both historically and theologically, as there was a clear division in much of Europe, notably the German-speaking lands (comprising well over 300 duchies, prince bishoprics - eg Mainz, Trier, Cologne - margravates, self-governing cities, and little kingdoms) into Catholic and Protestant allegiances. And from that followed the wars of religion.

Apropos a new dispensation, it seems that historical cycles require some acceptance of prevailing norms, which would nowadays mean partnerships and synergy. That would indicate a move towards the kind of balance that democracy aims for, based on compromises that are essential to achieve political effectiveness.

As to achieving an Orthodox principality, that does, I have to say, make me think of the Amish and Mennonites, who bravely resist all calls of modernity in order to remain true to their traditions. But at what cost! They have become a tourist attraction, their young people are leaving, and their simple farming methods are being overtaken by factory-style land management.

But it is well to dream, as I do of a Shangri-La where all people are perfectible. If only!

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for your thoughts, Margaret. There must be a political paradigm in between secularism and the Taliban, and between the mass "democratic" managerial state and extreme anti-modern traditionalism that would have us all riding bicycles and eating bean sprouts. And a Christian paradigm in between nondescript Sunday morning parish life and the Amish. And there must be a paradigm in between the political and religious.

totalitarianism was a new paradigm that had never existed before the 20th Century. Why not another new paradigm?

(of course, there are theories, like anarcho-capitalism -- i.e. no government.)

By the way, historians I respect say that the wars of religion were not really about religion.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Thanks to you, Owen.

The new paradigm will come when the Christian community of all the faithful can satisfactorily redefine what their faith means in terms of living a worthy life above subsistence level and set that before the world as a model witness to what they believe.

It's the idea of closed, exclusive, religious communities, self-defined as not being like the rest of humanity, that frightens me. Examples such as the Raelians, Moonies, Scientologists, or the various Waco-style suicide cults, spring to mind. But inclusivity brings its own difficulties (potential loss of identity being but one), just as does exclusivity.

Do you really think that Orthodox Principalities hold the answer to this human dilemma? And where does that leave those of us not (yet) called to conversion?

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

Cultism has always been around, Margaret. Cultism today is an expression of what Eric Voegelin called the New Tribalism. When you destroy any vestige of classical reason and Christian faith, then the feelings of alienation become too burdensome and people need to join or create some tribal society to join in order to find their identity. Whether its the drug and rock culture, UFO's, or ideological activism, it's the same. It might be as banal as joining a church or some charitable organization -- or the chamber of commerce. But there is a loss of identity, meaning and purpose that seeks some cheap substitute, that typically involves domination and control. Voegelin defined the modern sin as the libido dominandi.

I don't seriously think the alternative is an Orthodox principality because you cannot start with the externals. On the other hand, I sense a widespread inchoate yearning on the part of a lot of people. This is what makes them so susceptible to demogoguery, but if some Christians had a cultural vision that included the political sphere, who knows. But you would have to have articulate, convincing exemplars.

The real paradigm it seems to me that we have to get back to is that of the solitary contemplative. Civilization was not built on activism. Before there was Greece and Rome, with great wealth, and great engineering feats, and an impressive political structure, there was a man put to death after being accused of impiety and corrupting the faith of the youth.

The Church has to produce people like that who can have a long term impact on the culture. That usually requires someone who can spend a great deal of effort away from the culture first, to escape its influences. Of course, what we have today is no culture at all but a massive scale of deculturation. It's impossible to have an intelligent, meaningful, substantive discussion about almost anything because people only know how to resort to sloganeering. So we wouldn't know a wise man if we saw him. And we would probably have to kill him because he would make us uncomfortable.

[Owen Jones]

To sum up my previous, Margaret, the answer is a new type of educational institution that is serious about recovering classical reason in conjunction with classical Christian faith.

A kind of Christian Platonic academy. There are perhaps less than 20 people on the planet who would be capable of teaching in such an institution. Maybe less than that even. And there is no one to fund it. But there are many potential students and out of that student body you would be producing T.S. Eliots and Solzhenitsyns and a new Christian Aristotle who would be both a simplifier and a synthesizer. He would know astro-and sub-atomic physics. He would have an expansive grasp of history and literature. Would think both philosophically and theologically, and would live a life of intense prayer. He would not create an ideological movement but would simply be an exemplar who would prove that there is nothing inevitable about history.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

All that you say is true, Owen, but to my mind it then begs the wider question of whether Christians are called to save themselves alone and let the world go hang itself as they retreat to the desert, metaphorically or not; or to save both in parallel. If the latter, then do they rely solely on the power of prayer, as most contemplatives do, or seek to engage more actively in secular life? A Christian monarchy, whether construed as an actual ruler or as a paradigm for the individual soul, would surely be useless if it did not involve some element of the last? Although I am mindful of the poet Michael Drayton's lines, (written, I think, in prison), "My mind to me a kingdom is", I do not see any direct salvational link there between the individual stance and the needs of the wider world for enlightenment. Unless, of course, we all thought the same way, and I see no signs of that (Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, are you listening?).

the seeker

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

If only we could clone Socrates, Owen, but I fear that his DNA is gone beyond recall.

But a question for you; why do the Churches not produce these model individuals who could perhaps mould the rest of us? Whenever an outstanding person does raise his voice we do indeed "kill" him (or her, but there haven't been (m)any of the latter). A recent example of this from the UK was when the Chief Rabbi, who does not claim to represent all the Jewish traditions, stated that all religions have something of truth about them and that Judaism does not by itself have a monopoly on truth. He was predictably howled down - by his own people - for betraying a sacred shibboleth. No wonder Socrates drank the hemlock.

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

Early Christians who fled to the desert should be seen as a kind of shock troop in the war against the demons, fighting on our behalf. The idea of a solitary as concerned only with his own salvation is a modern myth, and the result of the corruption of Western monasticism. It's right up there with the myth of a Dark Ages which was deliberately cooked up by Enlightenment intellectuals to promote their anti-Christian, progressivist ideologies.

In the Orthodox vision, no one is damned alone and no one is saved alone. And there simply is no such thing as a Christian life without the desert being a part of it, which is a symbol for the contemplative life.

The only idea or definition we have of civilization that has any meaning is derived from individual contemplatives. They spent years in the desert and they re-entered society and by virtue of their life and teachings and the difficult questions they posed, they altered consciousness forever. You cannot go back to some kind of undifferentiated consciousness prior to Jeremiah, Socrates and Christ.

Every civlization that has lost its way has to go back to the formulations of the classical philosophers, but not just the formulations, but the experiences that engendered them. Christianity as a universal religion (as opposed to a tribal religion) was unthinkable and impossible apart from the foundation laid by classical philsophy and the Empire established by the Greeks. (Christ announces to his disciples that it is time for his glorification only once the Greeks arrive on the scene).

All education in the West was classically based until the ideological onslaught of the 18th and 19th century which turned education into an assembly line for the purpose of social engineering to create a new man without sin. Virtually every Christian in the world today is a product of this new, ideological educational system and therefore it is very difficult to find any Christians who have an education that does not intrinsically run counter to their own professed beliefs, yet they do not realize it. THey are double-minded in that sense and do not realize that they hold a set of cultural prejudices and live by a set of slogans that are antithetical to the world-view they profess. This leads to mass pathologies.

At the same time, the so-called traditionalist who lives in a modernist, progressivist, secular society, without the fruits that come from withdrawal, and stillness, becomes angry and crazy.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

So we are all mired in illusion unless - what? Where is the transformative mechanism, available to those of a contemplative bent but for whom a desert retreat is not a practicable proposition, that could brighten this dismal state of affairs?

I am not saying that I disagree with Owen, only looking for a way forward, since I don't think we can go back, even if there ever really was a Golden Age to which we could return. Otherwise we may run the risk of remaining benighted because of modernism, the Enlightenment (this term is not used in the Buddhist but in the societal/cultural sense), or what you will, and I would personally prefer to transcend that rather negative interpretation of human purposiveness.

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

It's not a question of cloning someone, margaret or going back to a golden age. The contemplative virtues are like mathematics. A lot like mathematics. There are certain formulas and you begin learning them young and they build on themselves and you make progress by working through the formulas until you start thinking like a mathematician and then you might actually start doing math, and if you are really, really special, make some contribution to the future of math. But if you don't, it doesn't matter, because you are doing math and, in a sense, keeping it alive. And mathematics is, quite simply, one of the necessary building blocks for absolutely everything else. But very very few people go beyond algebra in public school, and when you stop using it you lose it. You rely unconsciously, though, in your daily life, on mathematicians, without whom, you could not function. There would be no order or prosperity to the society. It would be impossible.

As for Buddhism, there was a modern movement to make buddhism enlightened. It occured by oriental intellectuals in the 19th century who wanted to make buddhism more acceptable to the West, so they removed the traditional piety, the rituals for casting out demons and propitiation of sins, and turned it into a meditation society.

[Joseph Suaiden]

I read a very cool article on the Net today: it was interesting. No, it's not an Orthodox monarchy of old but not a secular society either. It was a short article which I thought was relevant, and really cool.

2003.01.08 RFE/RL:

Belarusian President Says Communist Ideology Replaced By Orthodoxy

President Alyaksandr Lukashenka said at a solemn mass in Minsk to celebrate Orthodox Christmas on 7 January that the communist ideology in Belarus has
been fully replaced by an Orthodox Christian one, RFE/RL's Belarusian Service reported. Lukashenka said he decided to make Orthodox Christianity
Belarus's state ideology eight years ago when he became president.

The Belarusian leader praised Orthodox Christian hierarchs in Belarus for opposing "destructive forces," fruitfully cooperating with the
authorities, and contributing to political stability in the country. Lukashenka
added that the state will soon sign an accord with the Russian Orthodox Church in Belarus granting the latter "numerous benefits." AM

[Owen Jones]

"destructive forces" is obviously code language, probably for Jews. The achilles heal of Russian Orthodoxy.

[Joseph Suaiden]

Man, can anything Orthodox Christians do be a good thing??? Look, I know about the pogroms. I know Orthodox people have done some pretty rotten things. But they also changed cultures. They also transformed communities. They gave life to people at times where the world seemed bleak.

"Destructive forces" could also mean Americanization and secularisation. I'll need to see the speech rather than assume.

A sinner,
Joseph

[Adam]

Belarussian President
I find the words of Mr. Lukashenko really clever and deeply overthought. I myself live in Poland which is in neibourghood. In Poland was the comunism one and only ideology also. But after it the chaos in thinking has come and nobody knows how to prevent the crimes, especially those done by youth. In a place of comunism the total liberalism has come, the teenagers believe actually in nothing. I think, between comunism and democracy should be a transitional period. If not, people are getting truly mad and abuse their liberty.
Adam the sinner

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Well, Adam, one could ask what the Churches - all of them - are doing to arrest the decline?


the seeker

[Owen Jones]

Dear Joseph,

You are right, I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion.

[Adam]

Dear Margaret and all! I mean the churches make their best to stop this decline. But since the time the Poles no need to beg the Lord for liberty, they imagine that they don`t need God and religion at all. Now money is god and people are full of piety when they want something from c\hurches. I suppose the Roman Catholic Church is now in the trouble more than the others. Maybe this is the result of the mistakes done in past, but after the years of Soviet domination every institution learned to live from now. In my opinion a man is weak from his or her birthday and the morality needs to be comforted by the civil law.
Adam the sinner

[Dane E. Ryan]

It would be interesting to look at the analogy between priestly and kingly relations to that of the prophet Samuel and the monarchs of Israel. Samuel Anointed Saul and deposed Saul, and anointed another in his place David. Similar paterns can be observed in relationships between Bishops and Kings (Becet and Henry II for instance) and Popes and Emperors (Carlogean).
I'm not sure how many paralels there are in Byzantium, the Emperor seems generaly to be more powerful then the Patriarch, as Chrysotom's deposition demonstrates for instance.

Also one might consider the nature of a Christian State, the Church might be considered "in the state." In Apostolic and patristic times this was a vertual necessity and Peter and Paul both demonstrate submission to the Roman state in their letters and lives (though they would not compromise with it in the end). However if the Empire is Christian then it may be considered "in the Church," and the Emperor as a Christian has duties to listen to the Church when it comes to his moral conduct and the justice of his laws (as the case of Augastine and Theodosias demonstrates.) So these two principles must both be emphasised. It seems perhaps the west perhaps forgot a little about the first. Though the consideration that a certain independance is necessary for prophetic witness against the problems of society, they perhaps did become too political. Wheras in the east the fact that the emperor was within the Church not the natural head it did not come to the fore as much. Thogh for theocratic mentality Henry VIII kingdom was probably much worse than that of Justinian.

There might also be an interesting discusion in anointing as being both as giving the right to rule from God and also an obligation in justice to rule acording to his laws or to face His judgment. Thus it might be considered as declaring a Transcendental standard against which the state is to be judged like the Declartion of Indipendence's afirmation that men are "...endowed by their Creator with certain inalianable rights..."