The divine right of kings

[Dionysios DiGregorio]

I have a question.

I’ve been reading about monarchy. As an American the concept is foreign to me, but the concept of monarchy seems to be echoed in many of our Orthodox customs, like when a Bishop visits for example, we sang “Eis Polla, eti Despota”

So I began reading some history online, and then stumbled upon the subject of “The Divine Right of Kings”. Generally speaking, I'm not all that interested in the politics of the world, there are exceptions of course, but in general politics and social activism always seemed to be something the Western Churches concerned themselves with; not really the Orthodox so much, but then I remembered that someone once asked me what I thought about the Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and I had no idea what they were talking about. So I continued reading.

In the West, it appears to have contributed to the development of an absolute power culminating in the French Revolution (of 1789-1792) and the beheading of King Louis XVI. However in the East, there seems to be some development of this idea as well. I’m perplexed about this idea and am now curious if there is an "Orthodox position" on politics, or has there been any stated position on say the "separation of Church and state". This concept of the Divine Right of Kings and absolute monarchy seems to go against the fundamentally anti-political nature of early Christianity in my mind, and I'm curious as to how it developed in the East, and where the Church now stands on the subject.

I think Wikipedia is safe to quote, this is mostly paraphrased and abbreviated from two related articles, but just to give you a vague idea of some of the general treatment of the subject.




The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. It teaches that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, and not necessarily to the will of his subjects, the aristocracy or any other competing authority, implying that any attempt to depose him or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God.

The theory of absolute monarchy developed in the late Middle Ages from feudalism, during which a monarch was still very much the "first among equals" (primus inter pares) among the nobility. With the creation of centralized administrations and standing armies backed by expensive artillery, the power of the monarch gradually increased relative to that of the nobles (whose military power had declined with the effectiveness of heavy cavalry), and from this was created the theory of absolute monarchy.

Until 1905, the Tsars of Russia also governed as absolute monarchs. Peter the Great reduced the power of the nobility and strengthened the central power of the Tsar, establishing a bureaucracy and a police state. This tradition of absolutism was built on by Catherine the Great and other later Tsars. Although Alexander II made some reforms and established an independent judicial system, Russia did not have a representative assembly or a constitution until the 1905 Revolution.

Throughout much of history, the Divine Right of Kings was the theological justification for absolute monarchy. Many European kings, such as the Tsars of Russia, claimed that they held supreme autocratic power by divine right, and that their subjects had no right to limit their power. James I and Charles I of England tried to import this principle into England; fears that Charles I was attempting to establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of the English Civil War. By the 19th century, the Divine Right was regarded as an obsolete theory in most countries, except in Russia where it was still given credence as the official justification for the Tsar's power.



I guess to sum up my question I might put it like this; does anyone know about the development of the religious doctrine of "The Divine Right of Kings" in the Orthodox East, and can anyone tell me where I can read about the history of this from an Orthodox perspective? I've seen the doctrine of the "Two Swords" referenced but can't find anything about it online except to say that it existed and offered a 'balance' to power, does anyone out there know what this is? Was this a pre-schism Doctrine? If Kings and nobility enjoyed a "First among equals" type of relationship in the beginning I wonder what justified the development. Was this "Divine Right of Kings" decided at one of the Ecumenical councels? I guess at this point I have more questions than knowledge, so any input, opinion, advice, direction is appreciated - I'm not sure what to think about this subject and just can't seem to find it addressed.



Thanks



With love in Christ God,

Dionysios

[Andreas Moran]

This fascinating topic is of far more than just historical interest. Many Russians believe that part of the reason they suffered as they did in the last century was to atone for the crime of regicide. It is important to remember that revolutions such as those in America (not, of course, against absolute monarchy in that case), France and Russia were not provoked by oppressed masses reacting against monarchy and its supposed embodying of class inequality, but by 'enlightened' and 'progressive' political currents influenced by free-thinking, freemasonry, agnosticism, atheism, and the like.

In the NT, Christ attributes Pilate's power to God and Saint Paul tells Christians to honour the emperor and his civil authorities.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think that anyone in "power" will use whatever means is available to justify staying in power. God did not want a king for ancient Israel and only relented because the people cried out to Him for one. All that mythical malarky about Merovingians and "sang reale" I suspect comes from the claims of ancient pagan rulers of divinity for themselves. It can certainly be powerful PR, especially when you are not too popular at the time...if you can't support me because you love me, support me because God wants you to. God "allows" the overthrowal and even deaths of unjust/unfit rulers just as much as He "allows" them to rule in the first place, it seems. Remember King Saul, or King Ahaz?

I don't think there is any Divine preference for monarchy, but simply obedience to authority unless it conflicts with Divine authority.

[Andreas Moran]

I suppose there's a difference between the divine right of kings generally, and the sacramental enthroning of (a) an Orthodox monarch as was the case in Russia, and (b) that of a constitutional monarch as in the UK (and Canada, and Australia, etc.). True that, like baptism, the sacrament of enthroning isn't magic - Ivan the Terrible and Nicholas II were different, as were Henry VI and Henry VIII! In the case of Henry VI and Nicholas II, clearly God allows the overthrow of pious monarchs as well.

[Dionysios DiGregorio]

Thanks Andreas and Herman, it is an interesting subject; very interesting. ST JOHN of Shanghai and San Francisco the Miracle-worker speaks on The Sin Of Regicide.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/legacy/regicide.html

I'm just not sure what I think of it all. My American mind is full of odd biases and assumptions. On the one hand I wonder if nationalism and religion belong together, on the other hand this country is so far away from being an Orthodox or even a Christian government, Western prejudices are second nature, it might be part of what is wrong. If St. John of Shanghai says regicide is a sin then it surely is. I think that the only way I can really understand this is to somehow get past my 'American' prejudices as best I can. I grew up in a time and place when people didn't even know their ethnicity half the time, and independence is valued over obedience of any kind.

There are aspects of Orthodoxy that I want to understand better and this is one of them. While looking for a monastery here in the U.S. I noticed alot of willfullness. I noticed within myself that obedience could be difficult at times, and the sense of hierarchy sometimes difficult for my 'egalitarian' American mind to grasp. I think that Orthodoxy is, in some ways, very foreign and goes against the typical American mindset. One should make adjustments to become more Orthodox, we don't adjust Orthodoxy to fit us. It seems a shame that so many are quick to call a monastery a 'cult' or complain that the Church needs to adapt to the times when keeping the faith true to what the fathers and councils held is what makes it such a precious treasure.

I'm afraid I may just be rambling, perhaps I've made no sense at all; but thanks for considering my post and offering your thoughts.

Love in Christ,
Dionysios

[Anthony]

The Russians were also pretty unimpressed when the English killed Charles I; English merchants were banned from Russia for some years.

[Andrew]

The Orthodox concept of the monarch is different from any other civilization... especially in Russia. It it kenotic in it's nature. The monarch is given the grace by the Church to guide the people and protect them as a defender of the Church and the common wealth of the people, both temporal and spiritual. He bears the cross of the nation, and it is a terrible crucifixion. Saint Vladimir is probably my favorite example of a Christian ruler; ask any so called progressive nowadays about which "European" nation was the first to abolish the death penalty, torture, and give protective rights to women, and when it happened. The last one on their mind will be Russia.

A benefit of Orthodox monarchy is that you get people to rule who would never get elected in a democracy. In a democracy, you will rarely if ever get a truly God fearing man (or woman) who wishes to empty himself for the life of his people, and does not desire power. Democracy is built upon the desire for power... elected officials have a conscious desire to be elected and "change things." A monarch doesn't have this choice. They're born with it, they're stuck with it, and by God's grace they do their best (if they care about their own salvation). They are trying to hand over a stable, peaceful and loving nation to their heirs to guide. And they have the advantage of (in theory) being raised and educated with the best tutors, holy elders, and experienced government officials to help them be better guides to the nation.

Also, ask a progressive which system is more fair to women in regards to access to positions of power, democracy or monarchy. I think (I could be wrong) that there is a much higher ratio of female to male rulers in monarchies than in democracy. But this point doesn't matter a whole lot, but it is always interesting to look at.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Andrew,

I'm grateful to you for articulating things I'd had thought but hadn't been able to put into words. Queen Elizabeth II (who is queen of some 16 countries, large and small) is an anointed monarch and widely admired for her sense of duty and for taking seriously her Coronation oath. But she does not have power. Russians I know would welcome a return to rule by a pious Orthodox Tsar though don't seriously expect it (though Elder Lavrentii (+1950) prophecied it would happen). However, they would want a Tsar with power, not a constitutional monarchy. The kenotic idea of rule by the Tsar who sacrifices himself for his people is striking. Probably well known is the vision of Metropolitan Makarii in 1917 of Tsar Nicholas II being offered two cups by the Lord, one bitter for his people and one sweet for himself. The Tsar begged the Lord to give him the bitter cup for the salvation of his people. The Lord then drew from the bitter cup a glowing coal which He placed in the Tsar's hand, and the Tsar's whole body then became bright with light. In a Christ-like manner, he took upon himself the sin of the Russian people. Also in 1917, Elder Nektarii of Optina had a vision of the Tsar wearing a martyr's crown and standing before Christ. Holy Fool-for-Christ Maria Ivanonva of Diveyevo venerated the Tsar even before his death.

[Owen Jones]

According to Old Testament political theory, the best form of government was rule by wise judges (male and female) who have a limited role -- essentially conflict management. But the Hebrews, in their sinfulness, begged God for a king to rule over them and he condescended to their pitiful request. The idea of a Hebrew lineage of Kingship is the theoretical basis of later Christian monarchy in Europe, but especially the kings of Scotland. Absolutism is a different concept, essentially developed in Britain by Henry VIII, who hired the most prominent historian of the day to re-write English history to claim that Henry's lineage goes back into a mythical age, instead of the middle class usurper that he was. I think Henry was the first to use the phrase "divine right." So it is more of a modern than an ancient concept. It's important to realize that Henry took upon himself both the secular and divine aspects of kingship, by claiming that he was head of the English Church, and not the Pope.

Regicide is the way in which modern man has dethroned God as sovereign. You do so by beheading the king. I would say that Orthodoxy, at its best, has a symbolic view of kingship, at its worst, a fundamentalist view of kingship.

[Kris]

According to Old Testament political theory, the best form of government was rule by wise judges (male and female) who have a limited role -- essentially conflict management.

I think caution is wise when attempting to compare the political structure of modern nations with that of the Old Testament. Ancient Israel was a theocracy in the most literal sense of the word, where God conversed face-to-face with it's leaders.

God should certainly be considered the ultimate Sovreign, and it is true that He continues to speak through holy men and women today. Indeed, our encounter with Him in the Eucharist makes Him infinitely closer to us today than to the Jews of old, but I don't believe we should be attempting to use the Old Testament as a model for the world we live in as Christians.

[James Aubuchon]

All political systems (including the one in America) are capable of being corrupted and twisted. We live in a sinful world. Some systems may seem more enlightened than others, but one wonders if they really are. I would seriously hate to have seen the last two presidents actually be monarchs with some sort of absolute power.

It's interesting to note, however, that Plato put forth the idea of the Philosopher King, and I wonder how much this idea influenced the concept of divine right. It's an interesting concept, but the problem is that Marcus Aurelius was quite a philosopher who allowed the persecution of the Church. He is portrayed in the movie Gladiator as being an enlightened ruler.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/marcaur.htm
Although Marcus was a devoted thinker and philosopher, he was deeply religious, at least outwardly. The state cult received full honor, and he recognized the validity of other people's beliefs, so that the variety of religions in the vast extent of the empire caused no difficulties for inhabitants or government, with one significant exception. The Christians were not hampered by any official policy; indeed the impact of the church spread enormously in the second century. Yet their availability as scapegoats for local crises made them subject to abuse or worse. There was violence against them in 167, and perhaps the worst stain on Marcus' principate stemmed from the pogrom of Christians in Lugdunum in southern France in 177. He did not cause it, nor, on the other hand, did he or his officials move to stop it.

His son Commodus, so villified by history and the movie Gladiator, actually ended the persecution.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/commod.htm
If Eusebius of Caesarea [[29]] is to be believed, the reign of Commodus inaugurated a period of numerous conversions to Christianity. Commodus did not pursue his father's prohibitions against the Christians, although he did not actually change their legal position. Rather, he relaxed persecutions, after minor efforts early in his reign.[[30]] Tradition credits Commodus's policy to the influence of his concubine Marcia; she was probably his favorite,[[31]] but it is not clear that she was a Christian.[[32]] More likely, Commodus preferred to neglect the sect, so that persecutions would not detract from his claims to be leading the Empire through a "Golden Age."[[33]]

So as can be seen, the philosopher king idea has problems.

Jim

[Andreas Moran]

In our time, it would also be a problem for many if an Orthodox autocrat ruled and favoured the Orthodox Church. How would we, as Orthodox Christians but with, I presume, modern liberal ideas, balance acceptance of an Orthodox autocrat with ideas of religious freedom?

I'm sure the idea of the divine right of kings goes much further back than Henry VIII. I'd have thought it went back at least to the midle ages, and even before then. Why else were kings anointed? The theory no doubt was supported by reference to St Paul - see Romans 13:1-5. That seems hard to square with Hitler and Stalin but God permitted even their rule.

I thought the republican idea of the 18th century was based on the Enlightenment and freemasonry and thus Godless.

[Dionysios DiGregorio]

According to what I read the concept seems to go way back, not just middle ages, but even in pagan times they saw the King as a sort of god.

I guess the difference in how monarchy is seen must have it's roots in Byzantium.

Excellent posts, it's all making sense to me now.

[Andreas Moran]

The reference to Byzantium is apt because the English Coronation service was devised by St Dunstan in the mid-tenth century, modelling it on that of the Byzantine emperors.

[Owen Jones]

I fear the terminology here has become hopelessly confused. The term "divine right of kings" refers to a specific English political doctrine that was devised by the Stuarts which tried to institutionalize and rationalize what had already taken place: the overthrow of papal control over the English monarchy. It argued that the King was not subservient to the Pope, the Church, or any court, either secular or ecclesiastical. This is quite different than the idea of autocracy, wherein, either in the Eastern Catholic Empire or Russia, or in Roman Catholic Europe, the monarch was, at least in theory, subservient in some sense to the Church. It was the Church that enthroned the King, and in theory, the Church could dethrone the king, by at the very least condemning him as a heretic or excommunicating him. The difference between political theory and practice is a thorny one, but I see no problem with the theory that rule by wise men (or a philosopher king) is, in theory, the best rule. The practical problems with kingship begin with the theoretical objections to divine sovereignty that arise in the 16th Century in Western Europe, which coincides with the development of a large and influential merchant class.

[Dionysios DiGregorio]

According to Old Testament political theory, the best form of government was rule by wise judges (male and female) who have a limited role -- essentially conflict management. But the Hebrews, in their sinfulness, begged God for a king to rule over them and he condescended to their pitiful request. The idea of a Hebrew lineage of Kingship is the theoretical basis of later Christian monarchy in Europe, but especially the kings of Scotland. Absolutism is a different concept, essentially developed in Britain by Henry VIII, who hired the most prominent historian of the day to re-write English history to claim that Henry's lineage goes back into a mythical age, instead of the middle class usurper that he was. I think Henry was the first to use the phrase "divine right." So it is more of a modern than an ancient concept. It's important to realize that Henry took upon himself both the secular and divine aspects of kingship, by claiming that he was head of the English Church, and not the Pope.

Regicide is the way in which modern man has dethroned God as sovereign. You do so by beheading the king. I would say that Orthodoxy, at its best, has a symbolic view of kingship, at its worst, a fundamentalist view of kingship.



I love this answer, it clears it up for me - thanks Owen.

[Dionysios DiGregorio]

I fear the terminology here has become hopelessly confused. The term "divine right of kings" refers to a specific English political doctrine that was devised by the Stuarts which tried to institutionalize and rationalize what had already taken place: the overthrow of papal control over the English monarchy. It argued that the King was not subservient to the Pope, the Church, or any court, either secular or ecclesiastical. This is quite different than the idea of autocracy, wherein, either in the Eastern Catholic Empire or Russia, or in Roman Catholic Europe, the monarch was, at least in theory, subservient in some sense to the Church. It was the Church that enthroned the King, and in theory, the Church could dethrone the king, by at the very least condemning him as a heretic or excommunicating him. The difference between political theory and practice is a thorny one, but I see no problem with the theory that rule by wise men (or a philosopher king) is, in theory, the best rule. The practical problems with kingship begin with the theoretical objections to divine sovereignty that arise in the 16th Century in Western Europe, which coincides with the development of a large and influential merchant class.

I understand, this term really refers to the religious doctrine of political absolutism that existed in the 16th Century - it may have roots that go beyond that which is where the confusion was; as far as "The Divine Right Of Kings" go that refers specifically to the English doctrine. Thanks for clearing that up.