Democracy

[Andreas Moran]

Dear All,

Just a little snippet which probably gets no one anywhere. My wife and I were talking about democracy the other day. Your average Russian is not entirely persuaded that in the form we know it in England, at any rate, it is exactly what they need there, at least for now. Then she said, 'democracy killed Christ.' Hmmm.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Peter Farrington]

Did it? Surely it was a mob shouting for his crucifixion at the palace gates not a representative assembly of all the people of Judaea?

I am always rather aware of the limitations of democracy, indeed I am reading John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' at the moment. But I am not so sure it is much worse than any other possibility.

One of the problems with 'introducing' democracy is that it took centuries to develop here in England and cannot easily be introduced anywhere unless the people themselves will it and are willing to struggle to achieve some measure of it. Otherwise it tends just to become a form of dictatorship with a veneer of legitimacy or a 'bread and circuses' type of democracy keeping the plebs happy.

But I am not sure that any other option is better.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Democracy as we know it first arises from the time of the Enlightenment & gets its intellectual basis from this also. What makes this ambiguous for us as Orthodox is the way in which we cannot entirely share the Enlightenment view of man. At points we even strongly disagree with it. On the other hand there is something in the way in which democracy implies the inherent dignity of man which we can partly relate to. There is also an idealism not completely contradictory to our sense of things.

From political experience though in the 19thc British, American and Canadian democrats, both liberal and conservative, came to recognize that rights alone without a moral foundation within the society would lead to social disaster. (Largely this came from the experience of the French Revolution). They even recognized that the underlying social moral code was what made democracy work in the first place since without this 'rights' is a license for destruction. That is why even when such democrats were personally lukewarm Christians they recognized the critical need for Christianity within society. (For those interested the books by Gertrude Himmelfarb are very interesting).

This balance it seems is what has been almost entirely lost. Indeed democracy cannot work or survive long term without a moral foundation in charitable selflessness. For without this it loses its anchor in a self-restraint that precisely is what is the only guarantee of a human rather than an abusive society.

In other words democracy ultimately depends not only on free will but also of the good will of all involved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

This balance it seems is what has been almost entirely lost. Indeed democracy cannot work or survive long term without a moral foundation in charitable selflessness. For without this it loses its anchor in a self-restraint that precisely is what is the only guarantee of a human rather than an abusive society.

In other words democracy ultimately depends not only on free will but also of the good will of all involved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr. Raphael/Andreas/Peter,

Churchill's famous statement that 'democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others' catches both the Enlightenment thinking, but also something of the balance Fr. Raphael describes; as a good English Conservative he was sceptical of the idea that government could do much good, but thought that on balance it could prevent some bad things.

It is not just the Orthodox who have problems with the Enlightenment project, Christians of all shades have struggled with it and its homocentric view of the world.

Nineteenth century moralists such as George Eliot saw that Christianity had had a useful social function, but they looked towards to it being replaced by education; this was because they believed that mankind was intrinsically good, and if one removed all restraints on it one would unleash the inner 'goodness'. The history of the last century provides a commentary on such hubris.

What such moralists failed to see was that Christianity was not just a useful tool of social control in primitive societies, it is a world-view in itself - as well as an otherworld-view. Remove it from the lives of mankind and it is not some inner goodness that is unleashed - quite the opposite.

Our democracy speaks much about the 'rights of man', and since the American constitution is based on Enlightenment thought its assumptions seem to be shot through American political and social thought. But we seem to have a defective conception of such 'rights', if they provide no protection for the unborn, and if they can be used as a tool to impose certain ways of being in the world on others.

It is unclear to me that democracy and Christianity are really reconcilable. When the Incarnate Lord asks the disciples 'But who do you say that I am?', He isn't asking them to vote, and the answer comes from one man who gets it correct: 'Peter answered and said to Him, You are the Christ.' [Matthew 8:29] The Lord does not talk about our rights, but about the Cross that we must take up when we follow Him; we are not offered a veto on His Will, but to submit to it with obedience, even unto death, as the Incarnate Lord did Himself at Calvary.

These things seem unlike the mindset of a democracy. That is not to say that Christianity is irreconcilable with democracy, just that we should not assume the opposite to be the case. The eagerness with which secular authorities seize upon the idea of 'rights' to suppress the symbols of our salvation warn us of where the idea of majority rule can lead.

Majority voting is not how we find the Truth delivered once for all; indeed, even in the secular realm, it is only the way we get the least worst option - sometimes.

Not, as Churchill reminded us, that other forms of government are any better. Those who look back to a golden age of Byzantium often do so by reference to an idealisation that history knows nothing of. All forms of government of men by men are vitiated by our propensity to self-will and sin; but because democracy thinks it is consecrated by 'the will of the people', it often arrogates to itself an air of sanctimoniousness which it mistakes for sanctity. It may be the least worst form of government, but it is not the Way, the Truth or the Life.

In Christ,

John

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

And, of course, our democracy takes us into wars not many of us want. Democracy these days seems to be about finding ways to generate ever-greater consumerism and moral licence. (I shocked some students a while ago when I said that what people call freedom in moral terms was nothing more than licence to behave like stray dogs in the park. I can say that now that my misspent youth is so far in the past.) 'Democracy' and 'freedom' are terms used cynically and hypocritically to denounce any country which isn't like the USA or UK - but not those odious countries which, however, let us have bases and which co-operate in providing us with want we want. But anyway, I'd rather live in England than Sudan, Burma or Somalia. Churchill was right.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Andreas

But does our democracy take us into wars we don't want? Or is it the deficiencies in our present democracy? If there were greater parliamentary democracy and less power held by the government - as was the case in the not so distant past - then we might not have taken part in so many recent adventures.

For myself, it is the lack of democracy which has caused these present problems, not democracy. But I do not think that even a better exercise of democracy would preclude them.

Nevertheless I am sure that the people of England did not enjoy the 100 Years War, or the civil war during the time of Stephen, and so a lack of democracy does not guarantee anything better.

At least there is now the possibility for good men to make a stand for the good. Maybe the Church needs to encourage their voice a little more, without entering into the murky world of party politics. If the people can be inspired to some good end then there is the prospect of something good being done - sometimes. That is a benefit of representative democracy. But are we trying to inspire people?

I agree very much that the life of the Church is not subject to plans and programmes, but at the interface with the world these things ARE needed. When there are hungry and needy people in the widest sense then it is not enough to ring our hands, not even enough just to pray, but we need to participate in the society in which God has placed us, getting our hands dirty even while we keep our hearts clean.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

I was referring to 'democracy' in a somewhat ironic sense. The problem with the UK parliamentary system is that when we have a government with a large majority in the House of Commons, it can do pretty much as it likes. And prime ministers are not limited to two terms (unlike G. W. Bush and V. V. Putin) but can go on and on, as did Thatcher, to our ruination until she was ousted in a very undemocratic way.

As to actions, wouldn't it be good if Orthodoxy could be visibly getting stuck into problems without losing its essence as a Eucharistic community? 'Christianity with its sleeves rolled up' as the Salvation Army puts it. As St Theophan the Recluse said, 'the Christian must do good not only for its own sake; not only because it is demanded by his moral dignity as a man, but because it is a sacrifice pleasing to God. The Lord gave man moral freedom, and this was so that man might return this gift to God as the supreme sacrifice.' Go into any C of E church in England and you see a map showing where in the world the contributions of the parish are doing good: water supplies in a village somewhere in Africa, orphanages in S. America, or whatever. Go into a Greek Orthodox church in England and all you find is a load of leaflets asking why the Cyprus problem is still unsolved.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[John Charmley]

.

Go into any C of E church in England and you see a map showing where in the world the contributions of the parish are doing good: water supplies in a village somewhere in Africa, orphanages in S. America, or whatever. Go into a Greek Orthodox church in England and all you find is a load of leaflets asking why the Cyprus problem is still unsolved.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Food for thought indeed in your post. As St. James tells us

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

We know from Eusebius, for example, that one of the things which marked out the early Christians from the culture of which they were part was the great care they took of each other, and their works of charity to their poor. When we speak about the traditions of the Church, we bear these things in mind.

This is not, as some have thought at times and in places, a call to political action, it is a command to take care of each other, as Our Heavenly Father takes care of us.

The poor and the oppressed on Cyprus as elsewhere are our concern; the political fate of Cyprus is just that - and we are told to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. In a democracy such as this one, that allows us to vote for whomsoever we would wish - for all the good it often does.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

In the US at least it seems that people are trained from youth to hold “democracy” to be the best form of government, the source of all justice, and the only moral way to organize a society. Its very hard to get people to look at the issue from a detached and logical point of view.

[John Charmley]

In the US at least it seems that people are trained from youth to hold “democracy” to be the best form of government, the source of all justice, and the only moral way to organize a society. Its very hard to get people to look at the issue from a detached and logical point of view.

Dear Scott,

Indeed, and there is probably nothing wrong in some of that. Democracy has proved to be what Churchill described it as - the least worst form of government. Lenin got one thing right when he described politics as being the answer to the question 'Who, whom?' - who rules whom. The ability to change one's leaders is good for them. How we organise ourselves in this world is always going to be difficult; it is a consequence of the Fall, if you like.

The Church, however, is not a democracy, any more than God is a democrat. We do have a choice - we can choose to hear and obey the Word, or continue in our disobedience and sin. God's justice and our own are not, it seems, the same, and His morality is not what passes for that quality in this world - although in both areas we get better results when we aspire to align our ways with His commands; but they are commands, not requests or propositions which we can put to the town meeting.

Yesterday the British Prime Minister made a speech in which, inter alia, he talked about the need to put the values of this society ahead of any religious 'views' - and he is a practising Christian. I suspect that, as an Anglican, he probably identifies the views of this society with those of the Church, since Anglicanism tends in that rather fuzzy and vague direction.

But there is a sting in the tail of democracy. It does have within itself totalitarian instincts - Rousseau wrote about forcing people to be free. It does, indeed, assume that it is the measure of morality and justice. It can respond well to reminders that pluralism in the private sphere is important, but how good it is going to prove at coexisting with a Christianity that insists on its values, we shall see.

Until recently, as Mr. Blair's speech suggests he thinks still is the case, Christianity has been able to assume that democracy would treat it benignly because of the place of the Church, or Churches, within our society. As this society has become more atheistic, it remains to be seen whether such cosy assumptions are correct.


In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear John,

As to your post of 12.34am [will you tell me how to do quotes?] I know Cyprus very well - I haven't see any poor or oppressed there! They have a higher standard of living than most English. I remember reading that St Theophan the Recluse said, don't sit at dinner tables fretting about the poor of the world - help the person right in front of you. The trouble is, how does someone like me help the poor and oppressed? I don't know or meet poor people! And if I did, could I go up to them and say, you look poor - here's a fiver?! So should I give to charities and make a donation to some disaster appeal? But then I wonder where that money is going. Yet in whatever circumstances God has placed us, there must be something we can do. In my experience, God plants little opportunities for doing some good - some kindness or other. Also, I think we can take a sacramental approach to all we do. We can all pray about our work and do it for God, not for the monthly salary. (I owe my job to St Nicholas - I can tell the story.) For those like me who teach, I offer this. Before I go to a lecture or tutorial, I pray, 'Lord bless the work that I do, that it may be pleasing to Thee and beneficial to my students.' Something of the kind can be said in any job. Someone on another post quoted St Seraphim of Sarov: acquire grace and thousands about you will be saved. Well, I can't say about my acquiring grace, but in all sorts of ways, we can try to put into practice these words.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Scott Pierson]

Personally I think religion and culture play a greater role in determining the quality of life in a nation than the form of government the nation may have. For that reason some monarchy's are better then some democracy's and some democracy's are better then some monarchy's, etc ... Overall I think the best form of government has proven itself to be monarchy however. Its extreme longevity alone is something to think about. Its the form of government the majority of humanity that raised itself above the level of tribalism has lived under for majority of history. Its the form of government advocated by the greatest philosophers, religious leaders, and saints throughout history.

What did the Orthodox saints of the time say about the rise of democracy and the destruction of the traditional monarchy's? Its something worth looking into. Which form of government best conforms to the image of the heavenly governance.. the hierarchy of angels under the monarchy of God ? We pray “on earth as it is in heaven” , heaven is our guide on how the earth is to be governed. Certainly the fallen nature of the world would prohibit an exact image but that doesn't mean you don't try to accomplish it in so far as you can. I forgot the father who said this but there is a saying that monarchy is connected to monotheism, aristocracy with polytheism and democracy with atheism. I'll find out who said that.

Modern democracy came about as a revolt against authority and tradition. If you look at the people who fomented the rebellions you will find a disproportionate number of Freemasons ( like George Washington), Deists (Jefferson), atheists (Tom Paine), hell fire club members (Franklin), etc.. I don't think it was a coincidence that the theory of democracy rose to predominance at the same time that what was left of traditional Christianity in the west was being left behind, enlightenment rationalism and materialism were on the increase and such.. Democratic revolutions from the French to the American plunged the world into warfare and at least in France lead to a reign of terror and beheadings. Democracy (especially when coupled with capitalism and central banks) has also made the world easy pickings for exploitation and political control by (through buying elections and control of media) international bankers, plutocrats, and corporate bosses. Democracy inevitable leads to demagoguery, division and rule by money. It has traditionally been considered the worst form of government. It also has a tendency to evolve into totalitarianism which is simple the flip side of the democratic coin.

[Owen Jones]

I think a general topic heading of Christ and politics might be useful. The challenge is that there is often much opining on the subject without any recourse to the foundational documents. We would not opine on theology without at least some reference to Scripture and the Fathers would we? Words have meaning. They also have origins. You can go back and find who was the first to use a word and find out what he meant by it. In the case of politics, it goes back to Plato. He defined the polis as the soul written large. That dictum holds true today, despite the attempt to evade it. The political order is based on more than just formal structures. The political order, whatever its formal structure, is a representational one, on the level of transcendence. It represents more than just individual or group interests. It represents a society, which means that it serves a transcendent function. And a society can only understand itself symbolically through some transcendent goal, aspiration, dream, etc.

It does that symbolically, through the myth, whatever the myth is for that society, that typically involves a mythic founding that is pure and true, and a mythic beyond, that is also pure and true, and the present struggle in between to either recapture a lost innocent past, or find it anew beyond some transcendent horizon, if only we had the power and the will to come together, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the basic structure in Scripture applies to the defining myth of any political society as well, as much as it might be corrupted.

As Plato pointed out, therefore, the polis is a represntation of the state of health, or of disorder, of the souls of the people in that society, or, more accurately, of the paradigmatic souls of that particular society. So in the case of an Athens dominated by sophists, the sophistic disorder became paradigmatic for the society as a whole. There is a kind of divine comedy to all of this, because, of course, the person who represents spiritual order stands over and against the polis as a judgment against it, and is usually put to death, or made an outcast. When the truly spiritual man comes along, he becomes the new paradigm, and for the survival of the society it becomes necessary to push him aside.

This tension is best represented in Christianity on the personal level. It is the tension between a transcendent heavenly reality and a fallen world that operates in every Christian soul. We cannot bring transcendent, heavenly reality into our own bodies in any more than just a fleeting sense, nor do we simply condemn a fallen world as worthless, meaningless, having no redeeming value. Both are gnostic inversions of reality: condeming the world (or our bodies) as evil on the one hand, or trying to create heaven on earth on the other hand. Each Christian lives in a realm in between the two, which is the nature of the spiritual struggle. This is usually played out in the political world with compromise and moderation and what we would usually refer to as moral capitulation, punctuated by episodes of extreme violence.

Because the nature of politics has been obscured by people like John Locke, who do not see it in Platonic terms, but only in terms of formalistic structures, it was deemed necessary to purge Christianity of its symbolic, spiritual "accretions" and return it to its supposedly "pure" form of a moral system with a trinitarian god at the top of things, but not having a whole lot to do with us otherwise. This was supposed to elminate social violence and intolerance. And to some extent, the liberal experiment has done that, even though the liberal would flatly deny that there is anything transcendent about this enterprise.

The best rule, of course, is rule by wise men and women, raised up by God for that purpose, as in the Old Testament judges, or, in the parallel case, by the philosopher king. But people clamored for a king. So, if we were to search for a kind of pragmatic taxonomy, I think we would have to say that rule by the wise comes first, followed by kingship, followed by the benign dictator, followed by democracy (or rule by popular opinion), followed by tyranny. Modern societies are ruled by popular opinion, not so much by the formalistic structures of democracy, and popular opinion is largely molded, not by politicians but by the media. And the media get their opinions from the predominant opinions in the academy, and from cocktail parties.

Democracy is a fact of life largely because it reflects the new econonomic realities: the economic dominance of the middle class, or what we sometimes call the nouveau riche, which is largely governed by the precepts of conventionalism and utilitarianism and contractarianism -- all of which are outgrowths of the protestant revolt and the political theorists like John Locke who enshrined these principles in their work.

But they have adopted the even earlier mythology of Petrarch, that man has progressed to a point in history in which the darkness of the past can now be overcome and we can remake history, and human nature through the power of science and the new philosophy. This progressivist bias to history is at the core of all political movements and societies. That some new age is just around the corner. It is a constant myth in history. Christianity is the only thing that ever debunked it, because the new man and the new age awaits the final judgment of a transcendent God. In the here and now all we have are approximations, and they are fleeting.

Monarchy per se provides no assurances against this gnoticism, because many of the monarchs of Europe were the first to adopt this new age of man paradigm, going back at least to Elizabeth I of England. Prince Charles and all his babble about global warming, etc., is following a fine tradition in that sense. But on the theoretical level, monarchy symbolizes divine sovereignty over man, nature, society, history, with the monarch serving a representative function in both directions -- as a secular parallel to the bishop. The monarch, intrinsically, can take the long view of things, because of his relative wealth, leisure, and the fact that he has an inherited sovereignty that is passed down (if he or his siblings are not killed by a rival royal faction).

But to argue in favor of monarchy today puts the cart before the horse. We must first find the monarch in our own souls before any legitimacy can be ascribed to a political monarch. And today we all think and act like autonomous man -- the epitomy of the new age -- despite our Orthodox patina.

[Alex Haig]

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people" (Oscar Wilde).

Democracy is a mechanism for the people to give responsibility for running a country to a chosen few. In he UK, we have the strange situation that it is not the people who really have the authority to give this power, since all power, theoretically, resides with the Sovereign.

How much should we, as Christians, get involved in politics? Christ said: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Is this not an example of how we should lead our lives? Lord Acton states: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," if this is true, surely we should stay as far from power as possible?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Scott Pierson]

I think a general topic heading of Christ and politics might be useful. The challenge is that there is often much opining on the subject without any recourse to the foundational documents. We would not opine on theology without at least some reference to Scripture and the Fathers would we? Thats a very good point.



But on the theoretical level, monarchy symbolizes divine sovereignty over man, nature, society, history, with the monarch serving a representative function in both directions -- as a secular parallel to the bishop. The monarch, intrinsically, can take the long view of things, because of his relative wealth, leisure, and the fact that he has an inherited sovereignty that is passed down (if he or his siblings are not killed by a rival royal faction). Yes and the monarch is often more able to resist special interests and money powers. In a democracy its takes a lot of money to get elected and then the politicians owe favors to those who financed them. Though a certain level of popularity must be maintained in all governments at least in a monarchy the king is not as beholden to the fickle will of the masses and public opinion. "The majority" is no more fit to run a state then they are to perform surgery, or work as rocket scientists. It's like running a football team by the majority vote of the fans rather than by a trained and knowledgeable coach. A monarch is trained from youth to rule and in a good Orthodox nation they would also be raised to have a firm grasp of philosophy, morality and Orthodox theology. Certainly no form of government is foolproof and the monarch can turn out to be a tyrant that ignores the dignity of man and such but overall I think its a better way.



But to argue in favor of monarchy today puts the cart before the horse. We must first find the monarch in our own souls before any legitimacy can be ascribed to a political monarch. And today we all think and act like autonomous man -- the epitomy of the new age -- despite our Orthodox patina.
Thats a good point. To try impose a monarchy in the US for example at this time would be a waste of effort. Good government can never be imposed anyway it needs to arise in an organic fashion from the religion, culture and traditions of the people. We will have an Orthodox monarchy when we are worthy of an Orthodox monarchy. Many of the modern saints of Russia did in fact claim that the Russian monarchy was lost because the people were no longer worthy of it.

[Brian B.]

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people" (Oscar Wilde).

Democracy is a mechanism for the people to give responsibility for running a country to a chosen few. In he UK, we have the strange situation that it is not the people who really have the authority to give this power, since all power, theoretically, resides with the Sovereign.

How much should we, as Christians, get involved in politics? Christ said: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Is this not an example of how we should lead our lives? Lord Acton states: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," if this is true, surely we should stay as far from power as possible?

With love in Christ

Alex

The actual quotation by Lord Acton is:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In Christ,
Brian

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers (and sisters) in Christ,

Mr. Jones rightly directs us towards Plato - and I would add Aristotle, although his approach is somewhat different. The profound truths in Mr. Jones' comment that:

This tension is best represented in Christianity on the personal level. It is the tension between a transcendent heavenly reality and a fallen world that operates in every Christian soul. We cannot bring transcendent, heavenly reality into our own bodies in any more than just a fleeting sense, nor do we simply condemn a fallen world as worthless, meaningless, having no redeeming value. Both are gnostic inversions of reality: condeming the world (or our bodies) as evil on the one hand, or trying to create heaven on earth on the other hand. Each Christian lives in a realm in between the two, which is the nature of the spiritual struggle. This is usually played out in the political world with compromise and moderation and what we would usually refer to as moral capitulation, punctuated by episodes of extreme violence.

speaks directly to Mr. Haig's comments. I think Acton's actual comment was more like 'all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'; the difference may seem small, but is crucial.

Acton was a liberal Catholic, one of those who opposed the introduction of Papal Infallibility, and his thought was permeated with his faith. He knew that in a fallen world those who hold power will indeed be tempted to abuse their trust; that is what happens in this world. However, that did not make him turn from politics. He was a good friend of Mr. Gladstone, and with him believed that the Christian had a duty to bring himself and his Faith into the political sphere. Both men were students of Plato, and they would have agreed with what Mr. Jones writes about the polis representing the spiritual health of a society. As Burke put it so well: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ Can we then really do nothing?

I am reminded of Yeats' prophetic words in 'The Second Coming':


Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand

The 'worst' are, as always, full of passionate intensity; but so too are those who follow the Incarnate and Risen Lord. That is why Mr. Jones is correct to divine the tension between the transcendant reality and the mundane reality.

Andreas' words strike a chord with me. What can I do Lord? But the Lord always provides an answer if we open ourselves to it; like Andreas, I try to dedicate my work to the Lord. To be charged with the education of anyone is a great and a sacred charge, and my job is to do it selflessly and to the highest possible standard; there are times I want to take the short cut, fob the exigent student off with a few books rather than a conversation about her work - at those moments I remember in whose name I work, and don't do what my selfish will wants. A small enough thing, but a good reminder to me.

Democratic politics provides, for the reasons Mr. Jones so eloquently argues, little enough chance for politicians to listen to the still small voices - the clamant voices of the Market drive us towards a materialist and functionalist view of man. It will not hold, because it cannot; it is based upon false premises, and like every house built on sand, will fail.

But in the meantime, most of us live with it, and thus far it has not been antipathetic to Christianity - although there are signs that this might not be the case over the longer term. Revolutionary movements acting in the name of the 'people' in France, Germany and Russia have not shown much tolerance for Christianity, after all, and in our western world we are about to get the first generation of politicians for whom religion has not been a formative influence.

There is, of course, no best form of government, partly because context is all. One of the greatest follies of that fatal and flawed Enlightenment project was the belief that there was a 'best' form of government - and that it could be exported. Experience tends to suggest this is another example of the hubris of modern man.

The question of how we, as Christians, relate to politics is, as Mr. Jones suggests, a worthy thread in itself. But I have long been haunted by the words of Burke and Yeats which I quote above.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

In discussion with my wife and her family, it appears (if they are at all representative of the feelings of Russians) that Russians feel that the monarchy they had was very much bound up with the idea of the tsar being God's instrument on earth but he could only be so if he had autocratic power. They are not interested in any restoration of the monarchy which would be 'constitutional' on the British model. Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning.

It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[John Charmley]

Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning.

It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

An interesting thought. The problem with the advice was, of course, that Romanov Russia was, in many senses, a vehicle for war. Whilst little in the way of what we would consider civil society existed, Russia proved over the centuries extremely good at war; I think Alexander III was one of the few Romanovs who heeded his own advice. The prestige which the dynasty gained from taking Russia to the height of Empire was crucial to its popularity, and, of course, had Nicholas II had the same success as, say, Alexander I or Catherine II, then the regime would have received a great boost.

Monarchies tend to rest on the support of aristocracies, and the aristocratic code is one in which war is a matter of honour; indeed, most aristocracies originally rested upon the warlike skills of their ancestors, and expertise in war was always one of the great justifications of aristocracy - all of which is to suggest that monarchies on the traditional model tended towards regarding war as politics by other means. One might, however, note that such wars tended to be less destructive and on a lesser scale than modern wars; exceptions were wars of religion, such as the Thirty Years' War.

Do you think that the Russian feelings you mention are evidence of the influence of the Byzantine model? There is, I suspect, something primal in the idea of a God-King, and early Christianity was able to take over, and sacralise, such pagan notions. Perhaps sadly, I can't see us going for that one now - although the late John Paul II gave us a glimpse of what might be possible.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

I think the Russians often had no choice but to go to war. Sorrounded by often times violent enemies and would be conquerers to the west (Napoleon , Hitler, etc.) as well as the mongols and the Japanese, etc. That coupled with its lack of warm water ports, and large stretches of land that were far from ideal for farming added up to a big potential for war.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Scott and John,

I'm no expert on Russian history, but how many wars did Russia actually start? I think, Scott, you're right that most wars in which Russia was involved were defensive.

John, I'll have to ask what they think is the basis for their belief that a tsar only makes sense if he is an autocrat. I'm sure they think that Nicholas II was betrayed by the aristocracy who were too much influenced by western ideas of enlightenment, progress and constitutional democracy, not to mention freemasonry. Nicholas did write that he had been betrayed by everyone. But they also accept that what happened was God's will and was (jolly severe!) chastisement for their sins, which they look set to repeat.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Scott Pierson]

The relation of the Tsar to the aristocracy in Russia is a very interesting subject. That relation seemed to be fairly distinct from most western monarchys. The Tsar often had a closer relation with and more support among the peasents and common people then among the aristocrates. At times there were real power struggles between the tsar and the aristocracy. The Tsars often made heavy demands on the land owners and aristocrats and worked to protect the peaseants and increase the power of the local peasent communes. I think the Russian monarchy had a strong populist streak. The amount of local and direct rule of the day to day activitys of life at the commune level (as well as the collective power and thus protection it gave to the peasent) are really amazing and often overlooked. When many of the peasents left rural life for the big citys to work they actually lost a lot of the protection (and the saftey net the commune provided for the wounded , old and infirm as well as the protection from excessive taxation (the commune as a whole was taxed rather then the individual so the tax burden could be distributed according to the ability of each to pay) they previously had. Every person had a voice in the running of the community in the commune. Certainly I'm not claiming it was paradise or that the people were not often poor but that was due more to the unique circumstances in Russia then the form of government.

[John Charmley]

Dear Scott and John,

I'm no expert on Russian history, but how many wars did Russia actually start? I think, Scott, you're right that most wars in which Russia was involved were defensive.


Dear Andreas,

I have that sense one develops as an historian when one begins to tread on other peoples' myths, and don't really want to do so.

A short answer to your question would be that Russia was no better and no worse than anyone else - but the partition of Poland at the end of the eighteenth century was undoubtedly instigated by the Russians, as were the subsequent repressions of Polish attempts to become free. Of course the Russians claimed it was in self-defence, but in all my years studying history I have yet to come across a country admitting it is engaged in naked aggression, so I take that with a pinch of salt.

The many central Asian Khanates Russia 'protected' between 1812 and the 1860s might also have a motive to query the idea of Russia engaging in defensive wars. The Ottomans after 1768 would also have a few questions on that score.

I do apologise if this disturbs anyone's idyllic picture of Russia, but take comfort in the reflection that those who wish to think this is wrong, will be so convinced of it, that it won't matter.

The relationship between the Russian Tsars and their aristocracy is a complex and rather interesting one, and certainly from the reign of Catherine through to Nicholas I made the more so by the dominance of the so-called Baltic barons - families such as the Lievens and the Benckendorffs, whose ancestral homes had become part of Russia thanks to Peter the Great's 'defensive' measures against Sweden.

Russian history is particularly fascinating, and historians too often leave out the Orthodox Church, or portray it in a false light, so I can understand there being sensitivities on this, but we do no one any favours by accepting a version of Russian history that serves a party line - even if it is our party, so to speak.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Scott and John,

I was talking to my wife earlier this evening, and I asked her what Russians believed was the basis of their view that the tsar must be an autocrat. She said it was nothing to do with the Byzantine model. Rather, it was based on the Old Testament. I had to look this up, but it's in 1 Samuel 8 where the elders of Israel told Samuel that it looked as though there were no more prophets and so they wanted a king. They were warned by Samuel that there would be bad kings as well as good. They got Saul. But then they got David and Solomon. Then Ahab. It is tempting to see Nicholas II as a kind of Josiah: see 2 Kings 23, and God, in His wrath, brings in the Babylonians/Bolsheviks despite the fact that there was no king so faithful to God before or after Josiah: see 2 Kings 23:25. (Remember that Blessed Pasha of Sarov said, just before her repose in 1915, that Nicholas II would be highest of all the tsars.) Jerusalem and the Temple are, of course, destroyed, and the Israelites suffer the Babylonian captivity for 70 years - astonishingly like the 70 years from 1917 to 1987.

In short, the tsar is God's annointed and should represent God's power on earth. And the kingdom of God isn't a democracy!

In Christ,

Andreas.

PS You may be aware that very soon after the abdication of the Tsar, the icon of the Mother of God as Ruler miraculously cleaned itself and is venerated by Russians because the Mother of God herself assumed the spiritual rule of Russia until 'a later time'.

[Father David Moser]

I'm no expert on Russian history, but how many wars did Russia actually start? I think, Scott, you're right that most wars in which Russia was involved were defensive.


The Tsar Martyr Nicholas II, at the instigation of his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm, "started" the Russo-Japanese war. Left to his own devices, he probably would not have engaged in the conflict, but the German Kaiser was much more ambitous and saw a chance to further his own agenda (weakening his large neighbor, the Russian empire so that she would not effectively interfere with his own plans) without actually expending any of his own military might. But the fact remains that Tsar Nicholas did indeed "start" that particular conflict.

OTOH, if we look at Tsar Nicholas' own actions, we see that he was (one of) the principal initiators and supporters of the International Court at the Hague which was originally envisioned as a vehicle to avoid international conflict.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

Please thank your wife for this information, which is new to me, and all the more precious for coming from this source.

It does take us back to this theme of democracy. Of course, the traditional defence of Christian monarchy is that it is modelled like unto the kingdom of Heaven, which, as you rightly point out, isn't a democracy. Alas, however, Christian monarchs haven't been terribly good at convincing their people to hold fast to this method: Charles I had his head chopped off, and his son James was forced into exiled by his own daughter and son-in-law, whilst we know what happened in France, Germany and Holy Russia.

Nonetheless, this thread is a useful corrective to the Whiggish historical view so common in the west that history was moving towards democracy, which is, therefore, the right and the best form of government. It wasn't and it isn't. Democracy is a convenience which has been found useful in some places, where there will always be arguments over how 'democratic' it really is. Given what 'the people' can be persuaded to demand ('Barabbas' for example) it is healthier to keep a certain scepticism about it, whilst accepting that in some places it is the least worst option available.

The question of how Christians relate to their Government was, in one sense, answered by the Incarnate Lord, when we were told to 'render unto Caesar' those things that were his; however, what those things might be is where the debate lies.

If I might interject a personal and contemporary note, I found Prime Minister Blair's speech the other day telling us all that nothing is more important than our duty to our country more than a little worrying. I am afraid that there is something far more important to me than the UK. It does illustrate the possibility raised earlier, that although thus far, mainly for contingent reasons, democracy and Christianity have coexisted in reasonable harmony, there is no intrinsic reason why this should be so. As Mr. Blair's speech implied, democracy has its own totalitarianism.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Well, wasn't it Dr Johnson who said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel?

[Andreas Moran]

Dear John,

The order of posts confused me a little, and I just read your earlier post. The presence in St Petersburg of barons of German origin is of interest. My wife's great-grandfather on her mother's side was Baron von Humboldt, of the St Petersburg branch of the well-known German family (well-known to anyone interested in the scientific work of Alexander von Humboldt). All she has of what was once a sizeable art collection in his mansion on Alexander Nevsky Prospekt are three small paintings preserved by her grandfather.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Scott Pierson]

A short answer to your question would be that Russia was no better and no worse than anyone else

In terms of aggression and war Russia certainly had its problems just as any other nation. Western historians often seem to blow "Russian warmongering" all out of proportion though. It often seems that western historians try to paint everything in pre revolutionary Russia as barbaric, oppressive, backwards and such... Just like the communists did but unlike the communists they use their biased history to support the idea of the superiority of liberal democracy rather than communism.

[Ian Leyda]

A monarch is trained from youth to rule and in a good Orthodox nation they would also be raised to have a firm grasp of philosophy, morality and Orthodox theology. Certainly no form of government is foolproof and the monarch can turn out to be a tyrant that ignores the dignity of man and such but overall I think its a better way.


I have been following this argument about democracy and find it fascinating. I agree that the two major Western democracies have lost their way because some have figured out how to galvanize power within the system. But a monarchy is no good.

Actually, the troubles in the U.S. democracy have all come out of the lack of real checks and balances which have created a presidency that resembles the power of monarchy. The more power President Bush has had, the worse his presidency has gotten.

The problem of monarchy is the way centralized power corrupts. As Scott says above, that a monarch is more educated and moral and even religious is great. But those do not save him from from the corruption of power. Thus, in democracy, power is distributed by the system of checks and balances and ideally, the populace educated so as to vote wisely.

Our democracy is not merely governance by the popular vote of a bunch of idiots so as to centralize the will of the people. Voting functions alongside a constitutional government.

Scripture is ambivalent on monarchy.

Remember in the beginning, it was sinful for the people Israel to ask for a king. Both Samuel and God warned them not to but reluctantly granted it to them. (1Samuel 4-23).

-Asking for a king was seen as rejecting God as king and they are warned they will regret it (1Samuel 8:4-8).
-A king will rule over them, form an army, take their daughters and land, take their money and goods, and make slaves of them. Solomon will do this. (1Samuel 8:10-18).

--But the people refused to listen to Samuel's warnings and were determined to have a king over them. The Lord relents and gives them one (1Samuel 8:22).

First, they get Saul who is rejected by God.

Second, they get David. David is first a great king, but he falls victim to his power. As he looks over and relishes his kingdom, he abuses his power by taking Bathsheeba and committing murder. On his deathbead, David solidifies the power of the throne for his son Solomon, his choice as heir, by ordering a Godfather-like massacre of all his political adversaries (1Kings 2:1-10). David was no gentle king.

Third, they get Solomon who fully realizes the warning of Samuel. In building the Temple and his larger palace, Solomon taxes and makes slaves of his own people. He becomes drunk with power and wealth.

Fourth, they get the wicked kings that divide and bring down the nation of Israel and lead to the Exile, beginning with Solomon's sons.

Fifth, Kings in the NT are not portrayed as desirable. They are the enemies of God and do all they can to oppose him in order to maintain their power (Herod, Caesars). Jesus comes announcing the Kingdom of God, over and against the kingdoms of men.

There is ambivalence regarding monarchy, perhaps best seen in the portrayal of the two archetypal kings, David and Solomon. They are both great and terrible. But they look forward to the ideal king who will be led by the Spirit and govern in righteousness (Isaiah 11).

Balancing the negative image that ultimately is drawn of monarchy in the Historical books is the positive image of the king in Psalms. Though not without some of the negatives, Psalms depicts monarchy positively in looking toward the future messianic king. But this is an ideal king.

I think democracy is by far the best until the King of Kings comes. Be careful what you wish for.

Peace,
Ian

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Ian,

What form of government is preferable is indeed a difficult question. For every Edward the Confessor and Alexander III, there is a Henry VIII and Ivan the Terrible. Democracy as we have it in UK and USA isn't democracy at all, it seems to me. Our governments will do what they want regardless. I'm sure President Bush doesn't really have such power as you suggest - but the people who tell him what to do have. What the liberal western democracies do have is some regard for the worth and dignity of the individual. On balance, Tunbridge Wells has got to be better than Mogadishu!

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Ian Leyda]

Democracy as we have it in UK and USA isn't democracy at all, it seems to me. Our governments will do what they want regardless. I'm sure President Bush doesn't really have such power as you suggest - but the people who tell him what to do have. What the liberal western democracies do have is some regard for the worth and dignity of the individual.

Dear Andreas,

I probably have as many beefs with our government as you do, my friend.

One thing I will say about our U.S. Democracy: George W. Bush may very well be the worst U.S. President of the 20th Century. And though he was elected for a second term, he has been effectively neutered by the last mid-term Congressional election. His party has been booted from power. Democracy spoke and said NO MORE! Ultimately, the voters have more power than we might think, which is a good thing in this case.

Mr. Bush has indeed "done what he has wanted" for awhile, it seems. But the voters have put the kabosh on him. Only 6 years of foolishness instead of 20, like you get with a bad monarch. That's not too bad, if you look at the big picture.

Now, it will only take 25 years to "undo" all the damage Mr. Bush has done.

Peace,
Ian

[Scott Pierson]

Often when people compare "democracy" with monarchy with the intent of showing democracy to be superior they end up comparing the IDEAL of democracy vs real world monarchies. Its common to hear "well that mistake happened because of a lack of /missuses of democracy". The idea that those problems are inherent to democracy never really enters peoples mind. I tend to think that oligarchy is an inherent result of democracy (in the real world as opposed to democratic utopia land) and when coupled with capitalism (or as we have seen even with socialism or communism) lead to a rule of the money powers and central banks.

I feel that monarchy is the most natural form of government for humankind patterned on the heavenly government. A form of government better able to fight lawless and insure justice. Read what the various saints and fathers of the Church have said on this topic.

[John Charmley]

Ian.Andreas/Scott,

An interesting and enjoyable discussion. During the nineteenth century the British grappled with the problem of representation, and there was a strong line of thought that parliament should represent 'interests' rather than mere numbers, but the logic of the reform acts of 1832 and 1867 was that it was impossible not to count numbers. It is by no means clear that this was correct, and indeed the franchise after 1867 included extra votes for owners of property, university graduates and others who were thought to carry more 'weight'; that, however, runs so counter to the spirit of our times, I cannot see it happening.

Democracy does, of course, mark a break with any idea of a connection between the sacred and the secular. Monarchy has tended to sacralise power - sometimes, as Ian points out, to bad effect.

In responding to another thread here on the Council of Florence, I was struck by the divide between the clerics at Constantinople, who wished, on the whole, to reject the articles of union with Rome, and Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, who very much wanted to expedite the project - for entirely secular reasons; that was a particularly sharp example of the way in which the views of the Church can differ from those of the State.

What is clear is that the modern idea that democracy is the only good form of government and can (and should), therefore, be exported, is a fine piece of hubris which has, in Iraq and Afghanistan, met with the usual reward reserved for that quality.

I like Ian's optimistic spirit - only a quarter of a century to repair the damage - that's the American spirit at its best!

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

I feel that monarchy is the most natural form of government for humankind patterned on the heavenly government. A form of government better able to fight lawless and insure justice. Read what the various saints and fathers of the Church have said on this topic.

Of course I am not sure what model the Fathers could have compared the monarchy they existed under to? Indeed if they had spoken against the Imperial power they may well have found themselves being tortured to death in a variety of interesting ways.

Much of English history after the Norman conquest, and I always bow to John's opinion and much greater knowledge in these matters, seems to me to be a struggle to contain the untempered power of the monarchy, which was not always or often a force for law, but was usually engaged in a struggle for greater and more absolute power, and more widespread authority.

I am glad not to have lived in those times, even though I am naturally a monarchist, but a constitutional one. There are only a handful of monarchs between William the B*&"^£&rd and our own beloved Elizabeth, whom I have much respect for. Most were mad, bad and/or dangerous to know. Perhaps Henry VII and George VI.

Most of the rest were very far from being God's regent on earth. For myself, I am increasingly libertarian and find that most human government becomes self-seeking and should therefore be limited in scope. Unfortunately the present political parties in the UK ALL want to extend their power in ways that even absolute monarchs could only dream of.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Much of English history after the Norman conquest, and I always bow to John's opinion and much greater knowledge in these matters, seems to me to be a struggle to contain the untempered power of the monarchy, which was not always or often a force for law, but was usually engaged in a struggle for greater and more absolute power, and more widespread authority.

Peter

Dear Peter/Scott,

Peter makes an excellent point, and his comments back up those of Ian, whose excursus on the OT and its monarchs was an equally salutary tale of the tendency of absolute power to corrupt absolutely. It sometimes seems as though Adam and Eve bartered what they had in Eden for a form of absolute power - the knowledge of good and evil would make them equal with God - and look what happened to them; mankind makes little progress here.

But that is not the same as no progress. Because all power has a tendency to corrupt, it is a wise form of government that provides a system of checks and balances; much of English history between 1204 and 1688 hinges around how those checks and balances were to operate, and one can have some sympathy with those who felt that the balanced constitution of the eighteenth century was a pretty good form of government, with the king being held in check by parliament, but with the Lords and the Commons tending to balance each other if the king threw his hand in with one or the other. The American constitution, which was, after all, an adaptation of that system, with the President replacing the king, seems to serve a similar function. That doesn't mean all will always be well, but Ian is correct to see that it does, over time, provide a corrective to an over-powerful executive.

Man being what he is in this world, no system he runs is going to be other than, at its best, the least worst option, and for all its faults, the American system does well, as does the British one. I can think of few other systems I would volunteer to live under.

The difficulty for us as Christians is how, and whether, we can take our faith into politics - Mr. Gladstone provides a fascinating example of a devout Christian struggling with this problem through a long and complex life; he provides no answers - but the example is instructive in many ways.


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear John

I have thought about this over the years, and I am not convinced that our faith should enter the political sphere in the sense of party politics. It seems to me that less government is better in many regards since what goes around comes around.

I am concerned, for instance, with the banning of smoking in the UK, and I know many Christians who think this wonderful. But if smoking is banned on health grounds then why not the use of incense?

We have seen Islamic teachers being banned in the UK, and some Christians have applauded this also, but we have also already seen it proving difficult for some Orthodox clergy to enter the country.

It seems to me that in a democracy we must participate in a dialogue with our fellows. If we wish to see changes in some aspect of our society then we must show others that there is value in what we propose, and generally speaking there IS value in the Christian way of life - even apart from the sense of divine commandment. Marriage, for instance, CAN be shown to have value, and we should describe this value - as members of the national community. But I would not be able to support the imposition of marriage should 'Christians' gain power. Indeed as soon as we say it in that way - 'gain power' - then we can see that there is something very un-Christian in that way of thinking.

So I am very happy for Christians to participate in the democratic conversation, seeking to share the natural good in our way of life, but I draw back from imposing our way of life. I think that I do draw very much the distinction between private morals and public policy. I sense that if we seek to legislate for private lives then we cannot be surprised to find that others want to legislate for OUR private lives.

Peter

[John Charmley]

So I am very happy for Christians to participate in the democratic conversation, seeking to share the natural good in our way of life, but I draw back from imposing our way of life. I think that I do draw very much the distinction between private morals and public policy. I sense that if we seek to legislate for private lives then we cannot be surprised to find that others want to legislate for OUR private lives.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Indeed. I wonder whether others would agree with this, as I most emphatically do. The history of the involvement of the Churches with politics is not a happy one, and it has rarely been edifying; indeed one is reminded of the effects of touching pitch, so to speak.

Party politics is a snare and a delusion, and the Marquis of Halifax had it right when he called it a conspiracy against the public good. The notion that any political party has all the answers is so patently silly that it needs a good deal of 'spin' and packaging to sell it to anyone.

On the other hand, if we absent ourselves from the political sphere, we may well (and have) find that politicians enact legislation which so goes against our faith that we cannot 'render unto Caesar' something that is not his - but His.

I don't see any easy answers, or the need for them - we put our faith in our Lord and Master - and for the things that are of this world, well, we engage as we need to, mindful always of whose name it is we act in.

In Christ,

John

[Ian Leyda]

So I am very happy for Christians to participate in the democratic conversation, seeking to share the natural good in our way of life, but I draw back from imposing our way of life. I think that I do draw very much the distinction between private morals and public policy. I sense that if we seek to legislate for private lives then we cannot be surprised to find that others want to legislate for OUR private lives.

Peter

Peter says this quite well. Jesus came and established a Kingdom, yet he offererd no new legislation.

Morality is spread by Christians in another way:

There is truly no greater statement than for a Christian to have a joyful life. There is no more powerful witness than for a Christian to have a good marriage or order in your relationships. This is not to say that Christians don't struggle in life or in their marriages but that we live according to a different way.

It is human nature for people to want what other people have. Often we see this when a person envies another's new car or some cool material posession. But people do desire joy and peace in their lives, and they are facinated by it when they witness it in this world.

For example, St. Paul was in prison, but he was full of Joy and faith and peace in God. His keepers were so astonished and thought, "why would a man sing hymns and praise God who is in prison?" Paul was joyful because of his faith in Christ Jesus, his assurance of God's love for him, and his hope in everlasting life.

And so the guards envied the prisoner and wanted what he had. They wanted his joy and peace and love, and Paul shared it with them through the Gospel. Paul did not advance the Kingdom of God through legislation or conquest. Paul witnessed to the Kindgom through his joyful proclamation.

Peace,

Ian

[Scott Pierson]

For myself, I am increasingly libertarian and find that most human government becomes self-seeking and should therefore be limited in scope.



Has democracy really brought about less government? Its hard to imagine states as large , bloated , and involved in nearly every aspect of public life as the modern democracy's. In the past what constituted the political was much smaller and more specific. now the political has grown to include nearly everything. This is one of the reasons democracy's so often evolve into totalitarianism. Monarchism didn't bring about the welfare state, income tax, etc.. Certainly in some ways democratic forms of government (such in the US) have made it more inconvenient for tyrants to openly and publicly deprive people of certain rights (they are a little more circumspect in how they do it now) . In general however I think life is even more regimented , controlled, and politicized in democracy then it is was under the monarchy's. Look at the hold that those who control the media, entertainment and educational establishment have over the direction of the country and the behavior of the average "free" democratic citizen. Democracy in practice brings about a total lack of accountability for the simple reason that the people who rule do so behind the scenes and are rarely known to the people. It also polarizes a nation and destroys national unity. Everything becomes political and a battle. In the past the majority left politics up to the king and the nobles and kept their own hands clean of the easily compromising pursuit.

[Scott Pierson]

I sense that if we seek to legislate for private lives then we cannot be surprised to find that others want to legislate for OUR private lives.


To some extent I do agree with the concept of not using the government to regulate "private lives" but, unfortunatly that phrase is often use to protect the so called right to abortion or gay so called marriage. Certainly the first involves killing another person so it is public and not private (it also involves a doctor and father) . The second also has far reaching public effects.

At times the line between public and private can be hard to discern. I think the idea of outlawing smoking is silly and definatly crosses that line though.

[Ian Leyda]

Monarchism didn't bring about the welfare state, income tax, etc.. Certainly in some ways democratic forms of government (such in the US) have made it more inconvenient for tyrants to openly and publicly deprive people of certain rights (they are a little more circumspect in how they do it now) . In general however I think life is even more regimented , controlled, and politicized in democracy then it is was under the monarchy's. Look at the hold that those who control the media, entertainment and educational establishment have over the direction of the country and the behavior of the average "free" democratic citizen.

Dear Scott,

Jeez, I don't know which monarchy you are talking about. In the old days, the nobles weren't just governors. They owned all the land. Back then, people weren't called citizens but peasants. And that aristocracy was the definition of welfare/taxation, only it was worse. You can't say that the U.S. democracy is an oligarchy in comparison to the old days. Back then, it was pure oligarchy. How many U.S. citizens own their own property? It just doesn't even compare.

90% of the people once lived on property somebody else owned, and they worked on it for the profit of the landowner. Then, they would send 90% of the food and wealth they produced on to the "nobles." It was more of a flat tax in those days.

And you are right that a developed democracy can deprive its people of more rights and freedoms than can a monarchy. That is because in a monarchy as it was, the people had no rights and freedoms at all. They lived at the good pleasure of the king/noble.

Knowing the history of monarchy, at least in the West, I just don't know how you can say they were better off. I am amazed that you say that.

Peace,
Ian

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Ian, I think that I must agree with you on this one and would ask Scott to pinpoint which monarchies he thinks were especially beneficial - and I am myself a monarchist so I do not despair entirely of monarchism.

But Scott, you have misunderstood my reference to libertarianism. Modern democracies are not libertarian at all. They intervene and interfere in almost every aspect of life, even down to whether there is wheelchair access for a disabled priest at the altar. So the more willing we are for the state to interfere on OUR behalf, we must also watch out that it doesn't interfere AGAINST us on behalf of others.

Peter

[Ian Leyda]

But Scott, you have misunderstood my reference to libertarianism. Modern democracies are not libertarian at all. They intervene and interfere in almost every aspect of life, even down to whether there is wheelchair access for a disabled priest at the altar. So the more willing we are for the state to interfere on OUR behalf, we must also watch out that it doesn't interfere AGAINST us on behalf of others.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Democracies do like to be about the business of new legislation all the time, yes. But I think a monarchy has a history of intervening and interfering on a grand scale, with things that are significant. A democracy tends to be more trivial in its interferances. Civil rights are at least mostly protected, but your parking space is always in jeopardy.

A monarch puts people in wheelchairs while a democracy legislates for wheelchair access. How about that? A monarch interferes on his OWN behalf, thinking it is also good for the people. A good democracy, though, interferes more for the sake of being busy.

Peace,

Ian

[John Charmley]

Dear Ian/Peter/Scott,

The kingdom of God is a monarchy like unto no other, and part of our sinful pride was to think we could replicate that kingdom in this world - so yes, I think divine monarchy is the best form of government and I look to its coming, as we all do - in the meantime what?

It seems unlikely that the old monarchical system can reinvent itself in these more democratic times, and in constitutional monarchies, there is no need for it so to do.

Democracies do have a rather nasty totalitarian streak to them - if one really believes that the will of the majority must prevail, it can be pretty scary being in the minority. A culture with a rhetoric of tolerance can be a help to minorities, as can a rule of law which protects a diversity of opinion. A system of checks and balances is probably the best we can do in this world - where that can operate.

A democracy thinks it has the right to order its citizens into wars where they might end up in wheelchairs, and justifies this in the name of the wider public good; a monarchy thinks it has the right to order its subjects into wars where they might end up in wheelchairs, and justifies this in the name of the dynasty. Same result for the poor saps who end up in wheelchairs - the difference is that the monarch will bestow a Dukedom on the successful commander, whilst the democracy will provide a pension for the guy in the wheelchair.

Fortunately, we know that the kingdom of God is already established!


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

About government.

I would recommend reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

It is not Christian but I don't find it anti-Christian, indeed a Christian should be able to read most things and gain some benefit from them.

His thesis is thought-provoking. It is that in all matters of private business the state has no right to intervene or interfere. As has been said in this thread, the state believes in fact that it has the right to interfere in every private aspect of a person's life. I read yesterday that the Chancellor has instituted a new guideline, target or form of legislation for every day of his ministry. There is even a target to set more targets!!!!

Mill also describes the tyranny of the majority which we have mentioned here. Of course Christians may well celebrate when they are in the majority and can impose their will on others, but even Christians disagree about things, and a dangerous precedent is set when Christians wish to gain power over others. It has never worked out well in the past and merely allows the most un-Christian spirit free reign as if it were the spirit of Christ.

I would rather have no power at all over the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious around me, nor over the private business of my neighbours, as I would not wish them to seek to regulate the use of incense in my Church, or the provision of homosexual women priestesses, or that the Liturgy books be made available at our cost in the 37 different languages that might be represented in town.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

A democracy thinks it has the right to order its citizens into wars where they might end up in wheelchairs, and justifies this in the name of the wider public good; a monarchy thinks it has the right to order its subjects into wars where they might end up in wheelchairs, and justifies this in the name of the dynasty. Same result for the poor saps who end up in wheelchairs - the difference is that the monarch will bestow a Dukedom on the successful commander, whilst the democracy will provide a pension for the guy in the wheelchair.

Thats a good point and often the case.

[Scott Pierson]

But Scott, you have misunderstood my reference to libertarianism. Modern democracies are not libertarian at all. They intervene and interfere in almost every aspect of life, even down to whether there is wheelchair access for a disabled priest at the altar. So the more willing we are for the state to interfere on OUR behalf, we must also watch out that it doesn't interfere AGAINST us on behalf of others.

I understood the point- that modern democracys are not libertarian enough for your liking. I was pointing out the fact that democracy has tended in general to increase the size and scope of government and not limit it. Because of that people of libertarian persuasion have no more reason to support democracy than monarchy. I in fact knew some Anarcho-monarchists* once. I'm not one myself but they have some good points.

* In some ways they are not absolute anarchists but they generaly consider the role of the monarch to be more spiritual / cultural (and as a focus for national unity) than legislative .

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

Yes, that is why I am a constitutional monarchist. The Monarch has a quasi-spiritual role as the locus of nationhood, but the Monarch does not rule for his or her own benefit.

Indeed rather than in most pre-modern Monarchies where the position of Monarch was for personal gain, in modern Monarchies the role of Monarch is a sacrificial vocation when properly entered into. Our Queen, and her father are good examples.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Hi Scott

Yes, that is why I am a constitutional monarchist. The Monarch has a quasi-spiritual role as the locus of nationhood, but the Monarch does not rule for his or her own benefit.

Indeed rather than in most pre-modern Monarchies where the position of Monarch was for personal gain, in modern Monarchies the role of Monarch is a sacrificial vocation when properly entered into. Our Queen, and her father are good examples.

Peter

Dear Peter,

A very good, and from the point of view of this forum, very important point.

There can be little doubt that Queen Elizabeth II sees herself as the steward of a holy trust, and that she carries on with her heavy round of daily duties into her ninth decade because it is her duty so to do. It is hard to think of a politician who would serve so selflessly. She takes her Coronation oath and her anointing at the Coronation as seriously as a devout Christian should take such matters. She is, indeed, a wonderful example of Christian service, and the nation that has such a one is indeed blessed.

Alas, such examples are not widespread - but perhaps as we work through the future of constitutional monarchy, this will become something of which we shall see more?


In Christ,

John

[Alex Haig]

It is under dictatorships, not democracies, that the Church has produced the most martyrs. Democracy is attractive to many, the concept of complete freedom is attractive, but this is not necessarily the best way to our salvation.

The history of the Church is one of persecution, now her people are being seduced by apparent power and wealth. While this is not new (for example the fashionable periods to be a Christian after the Edict of Milan) we will have to see if we are corrupted by it.


"For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

We are privileged in the West, but surely that means the Lord expects much more of us?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Alex

For a long time I have believed that we will be called to our own martyrdom under the persecution of men in grey suits who only have our best interests at heart. Maybe there will not be deaths (I don't know) but I can easily imagine prisons filled with believers, I can imagine children being taken from their parents, the faithful losing their jobs because they are not open to equal ideas about gender and sexuality, churches being forced to close because they will not employ women priests and homosexual clergy.

I don't think we should doubt that these things could very easily happen. The tyranny of the passive majority and the misguided idealism of the political class could cause active Christians to be persecuted very easily indeed.

And as you say, even while that has not happened yet we do find that democracy produces a different and insiduous context in which Christians have to live. What will we do with the freedom God has given us? If we will not work with all our heart and soul to see lost people brought into a saving and life-giving relationship with Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, then we should be aware that those lost souls might well turn upon us.

It is in our own interests, for the sake of the Church and our children, that we evangelise our nation. When all faithful Christians are persecuted then the Calendar that folk use is entirely immaterial, the preservation of the language of the Mother Church is immaterial, the right practice of the Fasts is immaterial.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

Indeed rather than in most pre-modern Monarchies where the position of Monarch was for personal gain, in modern Monarchies the role of Monarch is a sacrificial vocation when properly entered into. Our Queen, and her father are good examples.

Thats a good point. Its a great blessing to have people in authority who are willing to act in a selfless way and put others before themselves. We can pray and hope but I guess we should refrain from being too shocked when the ideal isnt lived up to because if history is any indicator it will rarly ever be met regardless of the form of government we have.

[Andrew]

Most of the rest were very far from being God's regent on earth. For myself, I am increasingly libertarian and find that most human government becomes self-seeking and should therefore be limited in scope. Unfortunately the present political parties in the UK ALL want to extend their power in ways that even absolute monarchs could only dream of.

Peter

I think, from a libertarian angle, the greatest advantage of a monarchy is that people who don't necessarily want power are forced into office for their entire life. They can be totally ineffective and do nothing, which is a lot better than government intervention in every aspect of life, or they can rule to the betterment of their people. I think the history of Orthodox Christian rulers is filled with a lot of people who would never have been able to be elected by a democracy, who led their country according to the blessed guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of them are saints :) And there have also been a lot of bad rulers Orthodox in name only.

When I think of great Orthodox kings, I think of Saint Stephen the Great. He saved the Romanian lands from Turkish domination, founded scores of monasteries, was a disciple of countless hesychast saints, and his children followed him in virtue and right rule. When reading the Romanian Patericon, I marvel at how this man was able to do so much in his pilgrimage through this life, and how his fruitful life still blesses the Kingdom. I'm sure our own Father Seraphim Black could agree.

[John Charmley]

I think, from a libertarian angle, the greatest advantage of a monarchy is that people who don't necessarily want power are forced into office for their entire life. They can be totally ineffective and do nothing, which is a lot better than government intervention in every aspect of life, or they can rule to the betterment of their people.

Dear Andrew,

What an interesting perspective you bring. This sacrificial aspect of kingship is one we miss now. We in England have two kings recognised as Saints by the Church - St. Edmund and St. Edward the Confessor.

St. Edmund was martyred in 870 at Hoxne in Suffolk, which is just down the road from where I live. Captured by the invading Danes he was promised his life if he renounced Christ; despite cruel tortures, he refused, and he continually called upon Christ's holy name, until his captors shot arrows at him and decapitated him. He was originally buried in Hoxne, but later removed to to the Abbey in the town that still bears his name, Bury St. Edmunds.

St. Edward the Confessor is better known, because he was the last king of the old Anglo-Saxon line, whose death in 1066 precipitated the struggle for the succession that led to the Norman invasion.

That old Anglo-Saxon line was indeed blessed. St. Edward's half brother, Edmund Ironside's son, Edward the exile, had a daughter, Margaret who married King Malcolm III of Scotland. Her personal sanctity and conduct were such that after her death the Catholic Church recognised her as a Saint - something the Anglicans continue to do. Because of her dates (c.1045-1093) I suspect she falls outside the Orthodox lists.

Still, three saints seems a good example of what Andrew is saying. Of course, the long absence of any since (although there were those who wanted Henry III canonised) may tell its own story about the attitude of the English after the Reformation. The Orthodox Church has been more discerning and mindful of the example of the saints.


In Christ


John

[Father David Moser]

Democracies do have a rather nasty totalitarian streak to them - if one really believes that the will of the majority must prevail, it can be pretty scary being in the minority.


This is very true. I live in a part of the US that is dominated by one political party (remember here it is pretty much a two party system). That one political party does what it wants when it wants because it can. The stance of that political party is generally "conservative" in the US and here it is even more so. We talk about the need to care for those who are ill but can't afford treatment and so we have the Medicaid and Medicare programs. But in this state, those programs are cut to the bone and then some because people have a responsibility to take care of themselves and if they can't they are just lazy and we have more important things to spend the money on like prisons (and more prisons). Why waste money on healthcare when you can arrest the guy for doing something and throw him in jail instead. But this is a "democracy" and the majority will is that our local society focus on jails instead of hospitals, that we should punish rather than heal, and so those of us who believe in compassion and helping others and taking care of the homeless and the sick and the poor are not helped by the state, but rather hampered in our efforts to do so.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

I've been thinking through the day about some of the other godly Kings of England. I thought of:

St Aethelberht of Kent, a saint who ruled the kingdom where I live.

St Oswald of Northumbria

St Edwin of Northumbria

St Edward the Martyr

There were other wise and devout Kings. Alfred is one, a great example. There is no need to make saints anachronistically out of every good King, and indeed it is the case that not all the saints even in my short list above were considered saints in their own time, and others had their cult promoted for wider reasons.

But the list is not huge. In the period of the Saxon invasions many British 'Christian' kings fought against other Christians with pagan Saxon armies. We know that St Patrick had to condemn 'Christian' kings who were selling Christians into slavery among the pagan Irish.

After the Normans came I'm not sure which ones could be considered worthy of emulation. England seems to have spent much of the hundreds of years after the conquest either in civil war or fighting over in France for royal interests. Crecy and Agincourt, names of places which are seared into the English sub-consciousness. Ask an English child why we stick two fingers up and any with a proper education will know its origin. But we were only fighting for royal power and influence.

I wonder if the real meaning of the monarchy is only coming to light as the institition finds itself under threat again from republicanism - God preserve us in England from republicanism. Maybe outstanding Kings, like outstanding bishops, priests and layfolk, are a witness to the more mediocre of us - myself included. Not a model that will always be followed, but a sign of what is possible for us.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Some years ago, a hieromonk from Vladimir was visiting the Monastery here in Essex. We went for walk one day and chatted about all sorts of things. But in the course of conversation, he said, 'you do not know what a blessing you have in your monarchy. Not Orthodox, it's true, but the historical continuity it gives you is of great value, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is such a model of personal life sacrificed to duty. You have in the monarchy a stability and a measure of grace which supports you.' I wonder if our Canadian and Australian members (for whom The Queen is also head of state) have a view about this?

Andreas.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Some years ago, a hieromonk from Vladimir was visiting the Monastery here in Essex. We went for walk one day and chatted about all sorts of things. But in the course of conversation, he said, 'you do not know what a blessing you have in your monarchy. Not Orthodox, it's true, but the historical continuity it gives you is of great value, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is such a model of personal life sacrificed to duty. You have in the monarchy a stability and a measure of grace which supports you.' I wonder if our Canadian and Australian members (for whom The Queen is also head of state) have a view about this?

Andreas.

Canada is one of those countries of the former British Commonwealth that still has a real love for the present monarch Queen Elizabeth. I'm not sure this will carry through beyond her however to her son or even grandsons. The difference in behaviour is just too great.

I agree that there is something about the British form of constitutional monarchy which is of great value. But I think this has as much or more to do with the individual characteristics of monarchs than anything else.

The Queen and her parents were remarkable examples of family stability & selfless service. But even the Queen's sister lacked this stability and also her father's predecessor. So I think the queen and her parents were exceptional. The norm may well be more like what we find in the rest of Europe & that's what will happen in Britain also.

As someone Orthodox I value the monarchy we have. It's gradual disappearance I think marks a tragic loss of a much better world than ours.

But also I think we sometimes romanticize too much about monarchical obedience overlooking the fact that in Byzantium quite a few of the Emperors were thrown out by the people for their despotism. In Russia the Tsars' rule was not absolute either. We even have St Philip metropolitan of Moscow who was martyred for his criticism of the Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

My deepest unease has always been over the romanticization of the noble class & culture which occurred especially here in the diaspora. Maybe the unease is because I had personal contact with the last generation of noble emigres or because my own family came from that same country but was definitely not of that background (my grandfather's birth certificate says of his family- meschanin- tradesman; they came from the topsy-turvy world of Odessa to Canada before the revolution).

There was a time in the Russian diaspora when the highest currency was found among those who came from & moved in this culture.

Somehow it is still largely forgotten that the foundation and bedrock of pious culture, in Russia at least, was the peasantry not the nobility. It took the purposeful genocide of Stalin to finally really wipe this out.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

As someone Orthodox I value the monarchy we have. It's gradual disappearance I think marks a tragic loss of a much better world than ours.

But also I think we sometimes romanticize too much about monarchical obedience overlooking the fact that in Byzantium quite a few of the Emperors were thrown out by the people for their despotism. In Russia the Tsars' rule was not absolute either. We even have St Philip metropolitan of Moscow who was martyred for his criticism of the Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

My deepest unease has always been over the romanticization of the noble class & culture which occurred especially here in the diaspora. Maybe the unease is because I had personal contact with the last generation of noble emigres or because my own family came from that same country but was definitely not of that background (my grandfather's birth certificate says of his family- meschanin- tradesman; they came from the topsy-turvy world of Odessa to Canada before the revolution).

. In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael,

There is much wisdom in what you say, but I suspect we must also beware the modern tendency to over-romanticise the peasantry. One of the saddest effects of the Marxist way of describing society is that it tends to dissolve communities into classes, when, in practice, certainly in rural societies, there was a rich network of interconnections which we, in our very often urban setting tend to miss.

Among the more pernicious effects of the English Reformation was the dissolution of the monasteries with the consequent loss of an irreplaceable part of an organic and Godly connection between His Church and the people.

I can remember, some years ago when some Spanish friends visited Norfolk and we showed them round a museum of one of the old workhouses, and they were (rightly) horrified at the notion that this was where old people went when they were unfit to work. As one of them said, sadly, 'In my country these people would have gone to the Monks if there was no other family to care for them.' It brought home to me the great loss we had suffered. Of course, I'm sure that not all monasteries were as they should have been - but it was better than the privatisation of the land that followed their dissolution.

What you say about Canada and the monarchy is sobering, and I can only hope and pray that the example set by the Queen will be followed by her successors; the Coronation is a sacred ceremony, and who can tell what its effects will be on the new monarch?


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I suspect we must also beware the modern tendency to over-romanticise the peasantry. One of the saddest effects of the Marxist way of describing society is that it tends to dissolve communities into classes, when, in practice, certainly in rural societies, there was a rich network of interconnections which we, in our very often urban setting tend to miss.


Since no Vereshack ever got much beyond that state I suspect romanticization is too much rubbed in for us to change now.

Even at the bottom of the barrel each of us has our own history :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Since no Vereshack ever got much beyond that state I suspect romanticization is too much rubbed in for us to change now.

Even at the bottom of the barrel each of us has our own history :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Indeed, and coming from a long line of barnacles on the underside of the barrel, sometimes an interesting one. Fortunately for us all, we are all one in Him!;)

In Christ,

John