Governmenal ideology and the Kingdom of Heaven

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

I was thinking about the various forms of major governmental systems and was wondering which most closely resembles the Kingdom of Heaven? (Of course, nothing close to the Kingdom of Heaven)

Do some, if not all, display heavenly characteristics in there ideology? And if so, how do they and why do they differ?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Rick H.]

Antonios, when I first read this question, to be honest I though to myself, 'what a stupid question.' But, then after giving it some thought, I think now, what an excellent question! Very provocative! I can see a couple different directions to go with this, but I wonder what others may make of this. Or, if there may not be many responses initially, I wonder if you may take a stab (being the good doctor that you are ;) at this and begin to develop/explore this a bit to get the ball rolling? I am wondering what you may have considered to this point.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Jonathan Michael]

A Monarchy.

[Rick H.]

Monarchialism it is !/?

--Yoda

[Rick H.]

But, then again there is communism to consider, and the preceding stage to this as some see it as being socialism.

[Owen Jones]

The ideal form of government in Scripture is to be ruled by wise men and women (judges) who are there essentially to settle disputes within the community, but otherwise people are to govern their own affairs. But the people demanded a king to rule over them, and God condescended to their sinful condition by granting them a king. What ensues is a complex rationale for kingship that carries over into Christianity, but only after the birth of a Christian imperium in the fourth century. Prior to that, Christianity, and certainly the New Testament, has no particularly political philosophy. This is because of the intense eschatalogical focus in early Christianity, which becomes obscured once you have an explicit Christian political philosophy. The ideal of Christian monarchy lasted approximately 1500 years. The revolutions which ended monarchy were explicitly designed to eliminate God as the sovereign over a people. For the first time, the idea that a society could exist apart from God became acceptable. In reaction to that, Christian monarchy is not necessarily the answer, although I would take a king anyday vs. what we've got. But the question of the best political system is essentially a pragmatic problem. Not that political theory isn't important. And I would love to see some serious work done by Christian thinkers on the subject. But it's problematic for Christians to hinge their fate on a political theory.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


What ensues is a complex rationale for kingship that carries over into Christianity, but only after the birth of a Christian imperium in the fourth century. Prior to that, Christianity, and certainly the New Testament, has no particularly political philosophy. This is because of the intense eschatalogical focus in early Christianity, which becomes obscured once you have an explicit Christian political philosophy.

It is interesting that monasticism arose precisely at this point in the 3rd- 4th century. Although monasticism was not against monarchy it has continued to keep its focus beyond political structures.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Hmm . . . moving beyond political structures . . . it just makes your mouth water thinking about it!

[Nina]

But, then again there is communism to consider, and the preceding stage to this as some see it as being socialism.

Communism/socialism is a pathetic and demonic attempt to replicate Christianity. Pathetic because after copying Christianity, they took out the soul of it which is Christ. Therefore as God said in the NT "who is not with us is against us". And I think Fathers refer to Communism as a monster, and Satan's work. Communisms does not work on theory ('Communist Manifesto' of Marx is a total failure because he plagiarized the Bible and extracted Christ), and it does not work in practice as we know from the ex-totalitarian countries. I would say communism resembles more with the system of antiChrist, since we see the cult of the dictator incarnated in such system.

[Peter S.]

Monarchialism it is !/?

--Yoda

Monarchy with a king on the top.. The Kingdom of Heaven is a theocraty I suppose, with God on top, but maybe that isnt fitting to say either. The Church is a theocraty.

Peter

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Thank you for the responses. I have been studying recently the American Revolution and the development of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and I have had some questions to which I was hoping some of you here might be able to help explain.

In light of the responses that the Kingdom of Heaven is structurally similar to a monarchy, how does individual liberty play a role in this? In human history, monarchies by definition have constrained on individual liberties. If freedom of will is God's greatest gift to mankind and true freedom is found in the Kingdom of Heaven, how does it fit into a monarchial structure? We live under God's authority and power (monarchy), we are commanded to live for the good of others (socialism) or for the good of the Kingdom (communism), and the incentive to this is true life and freedom (liberty). Its almost as if the Kingdom is bits and pieces of all of these!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Nina]

We know from OT that God gave prophets to His chosen people. The Prophet was the medium between God and His chosen people and also leaders. However they wanted a king. Therefore God gave them a king although that was not what He willed since He gave them prophets. What was interesting was that people like David became kings, therefore no earthly royal lineage was mandatory. The same happened in the Byzantine Empire which in my opinion is my favorite governing structure since it resembles so much the times of kings and prophets in Israel. In the Byzantine Empire most of the time state's decisions were based on Church's teachings and many emperors/empresses had spiritual fathers who counseled them for their public service and state affairs. Several emperors/empresses became even saints. It would have been a blessing to be led by a saint. However as Geronda Paisios says we are very blessed to live in our times and many Saints would have given so much to be able to live in our times and suffer for Christ.

[Andreas Moran]

The citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven struggled to be admitted there. An earthly kingdom includes a spectrum of opinions about the political system and so includes a number who prefer a different arrangement. Some may even work for the overthrow of the status quo. That happened only once in the Kingdom of Heaven, and the King of Heaven was not overthrown but rather the Adversary and his supporters were 'deported'. True freedom in God is the free subjection of the will to God. True freedom for man is slavery to God. The freedom in the Kingdom of Heaven is not the freedom of this world.


If freedom of will is God's greatest gift to mankind

Faith in Him is God's greatest gift to mankind. Free will is the necessary concomitant of love. The only freedom and liberty that matter are to love God and our neighbour as ourself. These cannot be taken away.


In human history, monarchies by definition have constrained on individual liberties.

Depends what liberties you mean. Some liberties involve the exploitation, or enslavement, or annihilation of others. Liberty is always promised by revolutionaries. But as George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (1633-1695) said, 'When the People contend for their Liberty, they seldom get anything by their Victory but new masters.'

[Antonios]

Faith in Him is God's greatest gift to mankind. Free will is the necessary concomitant of love. The only freedom and liberty that matter are to love God and our neighbour as ourself. These cannot be taken away.

Dear Andreas,

I don't know... while I agree that free will is the necessary concomitant of love, I would still argue this is (in some ways) the greatest give God bestowed upon man. We freely choose to love Him, but the love is by our own free will. Thus, without this first gift, there can be no true love. Giving us free will was the riskiest gift of all!

I agree that faith in God is also a gift. However, again, without the precursor of free will, this cannot be truth faith.



Depends what liberties you mean. Some liberties involve the exploitation, or enslavement, or annihilation of others. Liberty is always promised by revolutionaries. But as George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (1633-1695) said, 'When the People contend for their Liberty, they seldom get anything by their Victory but new masters.'Liberties in regards to the United States Constitution (which I believe is the oldest 'living constitution' and in which most of todays modern democracies have adopted in part) is referred to by these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Now, I am not trying to debate the importance of the US Constitution, but simply trying to put some things together.

It seems to me that liberty is the most important 'gift' a society can grant unto its citizens. Of course, not unto anarchy, but within a set of laws in which one has the above unalienable rights of liberty as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's similar rights.

Does the Kingdom of God limit freedom?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Jonathan Michael]

My original answer was very glib, and I realised that at the time. Of course, the goodness of a monarchy is entirely dependant upon the nature of the King or Queen, and this is why there have been a very great many terrible monarchies, and also a minority of good ones (there are a number of canonised saints who were earthly kings, queens, emporers and empresses). Having said that, I would be perectly happy to live under a monarchy, tilling the fields.



In light of the responses that the Kingdom of Heaven is structurally similar to a monarchy, how does individual liberty play a role in this? In human history, monarchies by definition have constrained on individual liberties. If freedom of will is God's greatest gift to mankind and true freedom is found in the Kingdom of Heaven, how does it fit into a monarchial structure?

Free-will and liberty includes the freedom to be obedient. I have read and listened to other people talk about liberty almost as though it should result in individualism, but why should that be the case? If we are truly free, it means we are free from deception too, and in such a case we would see more conformity and obedience, done out of love, because we can finally see the truth of things. Freedom from deception would also show us the Creator of all, and the possibility of having the same will as him, just as the Son had the same will as the Father. Christ had a completely free will, yet a will that was also completely obedient to the Father.
Monastics are more active in working with God to attain to this unity of will and achieving theosis. Ultimately, this is the true cause of a human's life, and is very much a personal process, divorced from the political climate we live in.

[Kornelius]

We live under God's authority and power (monarchy), we are commanded to live for the good of others (socialism) or for the good of the Kingdom (communism), and the incentive to this is true life and freedom (liberty). Its almost as if the Kingdom is bits and pieces of all of these!

Could you elaborate more on this, in particular "or for the good of the Kingdom (communism)." Are you identifying the Kingdom of Heaven with communist ideals?

[Nina]

I would be perectly happy to live under a monarchy, tilling the fields.


No, not me. I can't till fields. giggles...

[Paul Cowan]

I'll be greatful to God if he allows me enough room in Heaven to stand on my big toe in the very furthest corner of the edge of His kingdom. I don't need much room. Just a 2 inch by 2 inch corner square on the back 40 somewhere. I have a big toe. :)

Paul

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Thanks you everyone for your responses. They have helped me much. So many good points!


Could you elaborate more on this, in particular "or for the good of the Kingdom (communism)." Are you identifying the Kingdom of Heaven with communist ideals?

Kornelius, I probably went to far with this analogy. I guess I was thinking in terms of communal living, where everyone contributes in the maintaining of the society (similar to cenobitic monasteries).

Owen brought in some interesting points, and I can see how we mustn't place human forms of governing in direct comparison to divine economia. That being said, is it not our work to live in the Kingdom now, as much as we are able to? Did the Lord Himself not say we must take it by force? Are we not called to be the workers of the vineyard? How does one stand aside and watch the tyranny of others and the exploitation of the weak? Which of the political ideologies best translate the Lord's teachings and most closely resembles the Kingdom of Heaven?

Another question I still am unclear about is whether freedom is limited in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Nina]

Another question I still am unclear about is whether freedom is limited in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In Christ,
Antonios

From St. Mark the Ascetic (The Philokalia Vol. 1; Faber and Faber pg. 125):

"…the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for His faithful servants. A bond-servant does not demand his freedom as a reward; but he gives satisfaction as one who is in debt, and he receives freedom as a gift."


Not exactly what you ask about however we see that it will be a gift of grace.

[Yuri Zharikov]

I would say communism resembles more with the system of antiChrist, since we see the cult of the dictator incarnated in such system.

I would argue that any system of government that does not see and recognise Christ, Who is the Author of any earthly authority, above itself, whether it is socialism or a liberal DEMOcracy is anti-christian in essence; differences are only in appearance.

In Christ,
Yura

[Yuri Zharikov]

Are we not called to be the workers of the vineyard?

How does one stand aside and watch the tyranny of others and the exploitation of the weak?

I do not see a connection between these two questions... we work in the vineyard of our own soul regardless of the political makeup of the society because ultimately the Kingdom is not of this world (although some Church person, maybe even one of modern Russian saints said that the Autocracy is in Heaven and democracy is in hell). Tertilluan and St. Justin wrote apologies but they did not call for an overthrow of slavery or anything like that. In fact Apostle Paul calls upon slaves to remain as they are and show love and obedience towards their masters; as for masters, he tells them to treat their slaves as brethren in Christ.
If Christians treat each other as they ought to, then political system becomes irrelevant. If they do not, they will always be under some-body's tyrrany.

I read an article recently about American Loyalists at the time of the revolution and one of them said something along the lines: fools, instead of one tyrant sitting 5,000 miles away you are going to get a hundred sitting on your shoulders.

Yura

[Nina]

I would argue that any system of government that does not see and recognise Christ, Who is the Author of any earthly authority, above itself, whether it is socialism or a liberal DEMOcracy is anti-christian in essence; differences are only in appearance.

In Christ,
Yura

Yes you are right.

The only problem I have is with DEMO since that part means people in ancient Greek. :D

[Yuri Zharikov]

Yes you are right.

The only problem I have is with DEMO since that part means people in ancient Greek. :D

Yep, I understand... I intended this as a pun of sorts, maybe not a very good one. In Russia when priests speak from the ambo to their flock, some of them pronounce the word close to what in English would equate to demonocracy in reference to the awful decay of morals that came with it.

Yura

[M.C. Steenberg]

Communism is not atheistic. Soviet communism was, as have been many (most) forms of Marxist-influenced communist systems.

'Communism' proper is probably best defined in Acts 2-3.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I read an article recently about American Loyalists at the time of the revolution and one of them said something along the lines: fools, instead of one tyrant sitting 5,000 miles away you are going to get a hundred sitting on your shoulders.

Yura

. . . as George Savile thought.

[Owen Jones]

And it's interesting that the ideal of sharing the wealth was one of the first apostolic practices to be jettisoned by the Church. This does not necessarily mean that it was a bad thing, only that it is something so intense that only a very small minority of people could possibly follow that rule, and as the Church expanded there was no way this extreme ideal could be maintained. However, I would not call it communism, which is anachronistic. Communism is an attempt to force, through a campaign of terror, people to surrender their property, lives and souls to some mythical construct called the state, in order to obtain some kind of prelapserian state of existence on earth. But without Christianity it likely would never have existed, because it is an inversion of Christian perichoresis.

[Father David Moser]

Something to consider in looking at the nature of a "Godly" government is the source of authority to govern. Earlier someone made the remark about "Demo" being a problem as it means "people" I think that this is indeed a very important point. In monarchy or theocracy (as demonstrated by the period of "judges" in the OT) are forms of government that quite explicitly derive the authority to govern from God (the much misunderstood and maligned doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings is an expression of this) God appoints a ruler for the people, God gives that ruler the authority and responsibility to rule the people. God also gives the rule the grace to rule well. The ruler is responsible, not to himself or to the people, but to GOD for how well he fulfills this task. Authority to rule comes from God.

Democracy (at least modern American democracy), otoh, draws the authority to rule not from God, but from the people. It is, in essence, organized mob rule. In a democracy, the ruler is given the right to rule by the people whom he rules. He is responsible not to God, not to himself, but to "the people". This is like the shepherd being selected by the sheep depending on which way they wanted to wander that day. Democracy is, in a social sense, a government of "self will" (not the "self" of a single person, but the "self" of the body politic)

Any form of government can be "Godly" as long as the authority to rule comes from God and the ruler is responsible before God for the welfare of the people/nation/society that he rules.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Communism is not atheistic. Soviet communism was, as have been many (most) forms of Marxist-influenced communist systems.

'Communism' proper is probably best defined in Acts 2-3.


I think that this is a bit of a "red herring" in that "communism" as defined in Acts is not a form of government but rather a social/economic order. It is clear that the "rulers" of the society described in Acts were the Apostles (who were appointed by God). The Apostles received the goods, distributed to all equally, saw to the needs of the people, arbitrated disputes and passed judgment. The Apostles governed (and their successors still govern) the Church. We have to be careful here not to confuse a social/economic system with a form of government.

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

We have to be careful here not to confuse a social/economic system with a form of government.




That's a good point Father David. I have been considering how capitalism might play into the original question over the past day or so, but possibly it doesn't.

Antonios is dancing around a favorite area of mine as we consider the thinking and knowing behind those who rejected the monarchy which ruled them. Insurrection is a good word.

[Owen Jones]

I'm quite sure that the apostles did not see sharing the wealth as a social/political order or a form of governance or anything like that. It was an eschatological sign. It was a physical, historical expression of the end of history. When it became more clear that history was going to continue, then it became theologically acceptable to go on earning a living, investing for your childrens' education, that sort of thing.

As far as democracy is concerned, there are different versions of this. In democratic AThens, the governing council was chosen by lot. The Apostles selected a replacement for Judas by lottery. The idea of the Bishop as a shepherd of his flock is a type for Christ, who, as the good shepherd, gives His life for His flock. It is not exactly your typical command/obey situation. So the Bishop is someone who shows us how to deny himself. That is where his authority derives. The greatest problem in the Church is the false idea of authority stemming from the office.

What is being criticized above, what the American Founders criticized, was the idea of mass democracy, otherrwise called mob rule. They specifically set up a system in which only educated elites and property owners could vote. Yet there has always been a populist, democratic force in American politics, as noted as far back as Tocqueville. Today, of course, democracy is still a complicated thing, because we do not have anything like direct rule by the people. And what we really have is something called public opinion which governs the actions of politicians. And public opinion is largely media driven.

One of the serious challenges for Christians of our era is to formulate a response to modern politics that is not simply a romantic traditionalism, as if we could somehow go back to 5th Century Constantinople as our model, or 19th Russian tsardom. The idea of a Christian government is not self-evidently a solution, nor is the idea that any non-Christian or secular government is necessarily the embodiment of evil, but rather, what is the Christian response to modern politics, which is a politics of salvation that promises cheap, easy, immediate salvation. It's very compelling. As the Church has gotten out of the salvation business, politics has taken over.

A perfect example is the Obama presidential campaign. He is not running as the candidate of hope. He is running as Jesus Christ. He said publicly that he would not only save America but save the world!!! This of course is the Satanic temptation that Christ faced in the desert, when Satan thought he came very close to convincing Jesus that he ought to claim the mantle of an earthly King who could do so much good to alleviate human suffering. Which is what modern politics is all about. Modernity is based on the idea that all suffering is evil and can and must be alleviated, prevented. That this is possible by re-organizing societies. The implicit argument is that God, if there is a God, mismanaged the creation, and the Church was never really interested in actually making peoples' lives better, in fact all the Church cared about was oppressing people by making them subservient to tyrannical authorities that told them it was good to be poor and ignorant. This is combined with scientism which is the ideological that claims that the explosion in scientific knowledge makes it possible for mankind to take control of his natural environment and his historical destiny. Man is now in charge of his own destiny, and the only reason why we have not yet created a heaven on earth, cured cancer, eliminated crime and juvenile delinquincy, poverty, inequality and injustice, is greedy corporations and recidivist, reactionary elements who must be shouted down or eliminated. There is also, along with this, a general rejection of doctrine or dogma as being irrelevant. This in many ways is the Church's fault, for substituting the dogma for the experiences that led to them in the first place.

So there is much to be done in the Church to recover the experiences that led to the dogma in the first place, not to have a counter-dogma to modernist ideologies, but to live differently.

I think much of the concern expressed by Christians over the political/cultural landscape stems from the same kind of identity crisis that plagues the despisers of Christ. We should not be motivated by the desire to solve some kind of identity crisis. We should not be seeking Christ in order to solve an identity crisis, so that we can claim to be a member of the Christ party.

If there is a Christian politics, it is something that should be developed organically, based on Christians setting up parallel structures to the secular state, that do not at the same time expressly deny the authority of the secular state -- i.e. something that would condone lawlessness. We keep getting back to monasticism I think as the ideal. And if you look at the governing processes at Athos, we have a good model for the Church as a whole. It contains elements of monarchialism, i.e. through the bishops, but there is also the authority of the abbots, but the abbots are chosen, and there is also a lot of bottom up authority, and bishops do not have a direct governing authority over Athos. The idea that all problems will be solved just by doing what Bishops tell us to do is not, and never has been, as far as I can tell, the be all and end all of Christian authority and governance. But it offers a simplistic solution to people suffering from an identity crisis.

The major problem in parish governance in the U.S., as far as I can tell, is that most of the time bishops and priests are concerned with finances. In a society that does not fund the church through the political system, money for paying priests salaries, building churches, paying the light bills, etc., becomes the over-riding concern. And pastoral matters take back seat. So there is this tension between the priest supposedly being the absolute authority in all matters of church governance, vs his pastoral duties. And what you have is parishioners, as a result, who are financially aggressive, who want control of the money and make the money decisions, and who are passive and docile when it comes to spiritual matters.

So it strikes me that we have much to do internally before we even begin to address the problem of governance on the societal level.

[Owen Jones]

as a p.s. to the above, a good start would be to take a good hard look at how we chose our priests and bishops. This should be far more "democratic" a process. The people should decide who is worthy. But this presupposes that the people have the discernment. They probably do, in fact, have greater discernment as a body, than single bishops do, let alone seminary professors. Today, priesthood is really an entrepreneurial project on the part of individuals who "feel called." So by necessity there is much self-promotion and self-justification that must take place for a potential priest to go through the whole process, which is conducted with the faithful as bystanders.

I attend a large cathedral parish, and the faithful members ought to be actively engaged in "recruiting" people, if you will, from their own number, for the priesthood. There are no deacons in this large church, and only three priests. But then you have the problem of money, because Greek priests are paid pretty well, and you start looking at their salary base and housing stipends and so on, and the congregation is basically going to say, hey, we can't afford that!!! But individuals can afford to endow schools and hospital wings and max out their contributions to political candidates.

So my point, much belabored, as that Church governance, parish governance, is of primary concern for us, and there is much to look at there, with both pragmatic, pastoral and theological questions and problems to address. I'm not necessarily advocating a stance of complete rejection of politics on the civic level. Heaven forbid. However....

[Yuri Zharikov]

A fact relevant to this thread is that in her Social Concept Russian Orthodox Church, while accepting the form of government chosen by the people, states that democracy is merely a human form of government; it further defines theocracy (as OT judges) and autocracy as the only two God-given forms of government. If I get around to it I'll try to post the exact text later.

Yura

[Nina]

Communism is not atheistic. Soviet communism was, as have been many (most) forms of Marxist-influenced communist systems.

'Communism' proper is probably best defined in Acts 2-3.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Yes, of course. However why didn't the Apostles coined the expression communism? Why when we read about saints who distribute the wealth to the poor we do not read that they practiced communism? Or monasteries which are almost an embodiment of that theory are not called that way? We do have our beautiful expression: Christian, Church. The theory although benign can be abused because of the temptations that presents as we know. It is trickier than we think. Plus the Marxist ideology did not start immediately as malignant cancer. It started benign, and because of manipulation it metastasized.

As an aside, Geronda Paisios says in his book "With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man" that when someone has a car and gives it to a family with lots of children that might really need it (to go to monasteries etc.) no person tries to imitate the one that donates. However if the same person trades in his old car for a newer model, than all people around him will try to outdo him. I guess we are so far away from the people of the first Church.

[Father David Moser]

A fact relevant to this thread is that in her Social Concept Russian Orthodox Church,... If I get around to it I'll try to post the exact text later.


The Social Concept of The Russian Orthodox Church (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=90)

II. Church and nation (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=182)
III. Church and state (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=183)

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

"because of manipulation it metastasized."


This statement is historically inaccurate. Marx wrote of the need for "blood intoxication," in which the blood of the proletariate would have to be spilled en masse as a kind of sacrificial offering. Marxism, and the idea of Marxist revolution, is founded on revolutionary, violent terror, which is but one of many steps in a process, that begins with destroying a society's culture. This romanticized version of Marxism that exists in university faculty lounges is a total fiction, but impressionable young people eat it up like french fries and potato chips.

[Nina]

"because of manipulation it metastasized."


This statement is historically inaccurate. Marx wrote of the need for "blood intoxication," in which the blood of the proletariate would have to be spilled en masse as a kind of sacrificial offering. Marxism, and the idea of Marxist revolution, is founded on revolutionary, violent terror, which is but one of many steps in a process, that begins with destroying a society's culture. This romanticized version of Marxism that exists in university faculty lounges is a total fiction, but impressionable young people eat it up like french fries and potato chips.

Owen, you are right, if you take my words 'Marxist ideology' in terms of a philosophical system. However I did not mean it this way, since I despise with all my being that ideology. What I meant by it, is rather its implementation by many naive practitioners, who saw parts of that ideology as a struggle to implement a social gospel, if you will. But I agree with you in both levels that in theory and eventually in practice the system proves to be very antiChristian, as I have mentioned in my previous posts.

[Antonios]

The Social Concept of The Russian Orthodox Church (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=90)

II. Church and nation (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=182)
III. Church and state (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=183)

Fr David Moser

Dear Father David,

Thank you so much for this link!! I have read the first few chapters already and have received many of the answers I have been looking for!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Antonios]

. . . as George Savile thought.

Well, if George Savile thought that, than it must be true! :)

But all kidding aside, I definitely see your point. The United States of today is not the United States of old. Different balances of power and different forms of tyranny.

[Paul Cowan]

We have three political parties in the United States. Two of them are however subserviant to the third.

They are the

Republican Party whose mascot is an elephant
Democratic Party whose mascot is an *** (I mean donkey)
Liberal Media Party whoe mascot is the moral decline of civilization

[Owen Jones]

Is the Russian Church document available in English?

[Owen Jones]

Marxism begins of course with the idea of alienation. And people flock to it because it purports to solve the problem of alienation. Modern politics in general attempts to overcome the problem of alienation through political action. Changing the world. Which is impossible.

It's not simply the fact that it is anti-Christian that proves it wrong because anyone with common sense can tell that it's wrong. Of course, what is anti-Christian can simply be short-hand for something that is misguided and delusional in the classical sense of having the right order of things upside down.

[Father David Moser]

Is the Russian Church document available in English?

The links I posted are to the English version of the Basis of the Social Concept. It is also available on the Patriarchal site in Russian of course.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

Changing the world. Which is impossible.


I couldn't agree more.

[Antonios]

Is the Russian Church document available in English?

Dear Owen,

Click on the British Flag on the screen to translate it.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for the tip. This would seem to be the salient passage on our topic:

Any change in the form of government to that more religiously rooted, introduced without spiritualising society itself, will inevitably degenerate into falsehood and hypocrisy and make this form weak and valueless in the eyes of the people. However, one cannot altogether exclude the possibility of such a spiritual revival of society as to make natural a religiously higher form of government. But under slavery one should follow St. Paul advice: «if thou mayest be free, use it rather» (1 Cor. 7:21). At the same time, the Church should give more attention not to the system of the outer organisation of state, but to the inner condition of her members' hearts. Therefore, the Church does not believe it possible for her to become an initiator of any change in the form of government. Along the same line, the 1994 Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed the soundness of the attitude whereby «the Church does not give preference to any social system or any of the existing political doctrines».

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The following was jointly issued by the MP & ROCOR in its process of reconciliation. It along with the other joint document On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Towards Inter-Confessional Organizations (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_heterodox.html) form I think two of the most crucial documents in recent Orthodoxy.


On the Relationship Between the Church and State

In Orthodox tradition, a concept was developed of symphony between ecclesiastical and civil authority as the ideal form of the relationship between the Church and state. This symphony presumes conditions for the Church and the faithful to practice church life freely, which leads the faithful to eternal salvation, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Timothy 2:2).

Since, in the words of God, "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19), the ideal of such a symphony was never fully reached in reality. As a result of the Petrine reforms, the symphony was in effect replaced by a system of governmental ecclesiology, under which the state deprived the Church of full independence.

In the 20th century, after the Bolshevik revolution, unprecedented persecution of the Church in Russia began. During those years, through Divine Providence, the Russian Church produced a great host of Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Not everyone withstood during the years of persecution. Some clergymen and laypersons, trampling upon Divine truth, facilitated the persecutors in their actions directed towards the destruction of the Church. Such actions cannot under any circumstances be permitted and justified; they deserve all condemnation, to avoid their repetition in case the Lord allows persecutions to resume.

Various approaches to the understanding of the relationship between the Church and state arose under the conditions of persecution. Some people of the Church deemed it necessary to choose the path of compromise with a state hostile towards the Church for the sake of preserving ecclesiastical structures in order to openly serve the people of God.

Others rejected this path. In the end, both were subjected to brutal repressions. These two approaches were reflected in the sorrowful divisions in the Russian Church, which gradually faded away in the following decades.

Taking into account the bitter experience of the Church in the 20th century, and based on the witness of the New Martyrs, it is necessary to define what is permissible and what is impermissible in the relationship between the Church and state, especially a state which pursues the goal of the utter destruction of the Church and the faith of Christ. Orthodox Christians came to a clear understanding of the inadmissibility of the absolutization of government authority. It is unacceptable, in particular, to use the texts of Holy Scripture (for example, Romans 13:1-5) in a way which does not correspond with the interpretation and spirit of the Holy Fathers. Earthly and temporal powers of the state are recognized as imperative to the degree that they are used to support good and limit evil.

The relationship between the Church and state is extensively discussed in a document crucial for the self-understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the "Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops Abroad" of 1933:

"While the Church exists on earth, it remains closely bound to the fates of human society and cannot be viewed as being outside of space and time. It is impossible for it to refrain from all contact with a powerful social organization such as the government; otherwise it would have to leave the world. The attempt to delineate spheres of influence between the Church and the State—the soul of man belongs to the former, his body to the latter—will in principle, of course, never achieve its objective, because it is only possible to divide man into two separate parts in an abstract sense; in reality, they comprise a single, indivisible whole, and only death dissolves the tie that binds them together. Therefore, the principle of separating the Church from the State will also never be fully realized in real life."

The Jubilee Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000 also spoke out on this matter in its "Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church":

"In everything that concerns the exclusively earthly order of things, the Orthodox Christian is obliged to obey the law, regardless of how far it is imperfect and unfortunate. However, when compliance with legal requirements threatens his eternal salvation and involves an apostasy or commitment of another doubtless sin before God and his neighbour, the Christian is called to perform the feat of confession for the sake of God's truth and the salvation of his soul for eternal life. He must speak out lawfully against an indisputable violation committed by society or state against the statutes and commandments of God. If this lawful action is impossible or ineffective, he must take up the position of civil disobedience." (IV, 9) [ http://www.mospat.ru ]

"The Church remains loyal to the state, but God's commandment to fulfil the task of salvation in any situation and under any circumstances is above this loyalty... If the authority forces Orthodox believers to apostatise from Christ and His Church and to commit sinful and spiritually harmful actions, the Church should refuse to obey the state." (III, 5) [ http://www.mospat.ru ]

The Church is called upon to exert spiritual influence on the state and its citizens, to confess Christ, to defend the moral foundations of society. By interacting with the state for the good of the people, the Church, however, cannot assume civil functions for itself. The state must not interfere in the inner structure, administration or life of the Church. The Church must support all good initiatives of the state, but must resist evil, immorality and harmful social phenomena and always firmly confess the Truth, and when persecutions commence, to continue to openly witness the faith and be prepared to follow the path of confessors and martyrs for Christ.

[Yuri Zharikov]

The Social Concept of The Russian Orthodox Church (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=90)

II. Church and nation (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=182)
III. Church and state (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=183)

Fr David Moser

Otche, thank you!

[Peter S.]

I'm quite sure that the apostles did not see sharing the wealth as a social/political order or a form of governance or anything like that. It was an eschatological sign. It was a physical, historical expression of the end of history. When it became more clear that history was going to continue, then it became theologically acceptable to go on earning a living, investing for your childrens' education, that sort of thing.


I think at the same time people realized the history was going to continue, the monastic movement started, (after the Church governed by the martyrs. The apostles were the first martyrs,and after the martyrperiod a new idealistic alternative to live godly grew).

Peter

[Shaun Little]

If we mean the authoritative direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men,communities,societies and states, then, outside of ancient Israel, there has not existed one form of government which has been remotely good.

Ancient Israel itself was merely a base foretaste of The Kingdom Of The Heavens.

The Holy Bible pictures wold governments as"beasts" and says that they get their authority from the Dragon, Satan the Devil. God has permitted them to remain in limited scope and duration of rule in harmony with His purposes. Dan chaps 7 and 8; Rev chaps 13, 17: Dan 4:25,35; Joh 19:11; Acts 17:26;2 Cor 4:3,4.

Jesus and the early Christians did nothing to interfere with human governments.Joh 6:15; 17:16; 18:36; Jas 1:27; 4:4. They recognized some form of government was necessary for our society, and never fomented unrest. Rom13:1-7;Tit 3:1.Jesus set the guiding principle for His followers at Mt 22:21.This should enable us to maintain the right balance with relations to world rulership and The Kingdom Of The Heavens. Jesus showed this position while on Earth: Pilate himself recognized this.Joh 18:38; See Acts 4:19,20; 5:29; 24:16; 25:10,11,18,19,25;26:31,32.

It is from these scriptures that my belief as a conscientious objector and my refusal to vote comes from. I personally try to remain a member of God's Kingdom alone.

As to the best form of government or to be precise most natural form of government, i would have to say Absolute Monarchy. A monarch is born into the position and has the "job" thrust upon him/her. They are trained from birth and do not strive for the position of power as a prime minister does. I personally have love and respect for my own Sovereign Elizabeth.

Shaun.

[Nina]

As to the best form of government or to be precise most natural form of government, i would have to say Absolute Monarchy. A monarch is born into the position and has the "job" thrust upon him/her. They are trained from birth and do not strive for the position of power as a prime minister does. I personally have love and respect for my own Sovereign Elizabeth.

Shaun.

Since you mention Ancient Israel... King David was not "trained" from birth to be a king.

This gives me an idea. The question should be -given our framework: how does one "train" to be an ancestor of Christ? Since that is a mission accomplished (although we still can learn from the lives of the earthly ancestors of Christ) we must ask: how does one "train" to be an ancestor of a person who is Christ-like?

Maybe the word 'Absolute' is also a bit uncomfortable.

[Andreas Moran]

Monarchs are not always trained. When Tsar Alexander III died relatively young, his heir Nicholas said to his brother, 'Sasha, what am I going to do? I don't know how to rule; I don't know how to talk to ministers'.

[Shaun Little]

Since you mention Ancient Israel... King David was not "trained" from birth to be a king.

This gives me an idea. The question should be -given our framework: how does one "train" to be an ancestor of Christ? Since that is a mission accomplished (although we still can learn from the lives of the earthly ancestors of Christ) we must ask: how does one "train" to be an ancestor of a person who is Christ-like?

Maybe the word 'Absolute' is also a bit uncomfortable.

David was most certainly trained to be a King ,by none other than Yahweh , his God. The prerequisite quality was being agreeable to God's heart "who will do all the things i desire." 1 Sa 16:1-13; 13:14; Ac 13:22. God protected him in the wilds as a shepherd lad, where, he developed toughness and endurance, along with courage and most importantly faith in our God. He would learn to become a folksherd from caring for his sheep when he would catch the bear and lion by the beard and slay them.

David's love for his God raised his lyrics far above the common musician as he produced musical masterpieces dedicated to the worship of Yahweh.

I have no problem with "Absolute" as a description of good governance as kings are in place of God before the Fall; even though they are a poor replacement. I long for Christ's Kingdom to come into effect so that we may dwell in peace under the Absolute authority of God.

Thanks very much for your reply Nina.
Shaun.

[Owen Jones]

Surely the expectation of an earthly kingdom of God in which we all live in peace under the absolute sovereignty of God is the source of grave heresies since the beginning of the Church. It is the temptation Christ was confronted with in the wilderness. Christ repeatedly warns us against misinterpreting His message of peace in terms of an earthly paradise. In fact, he goes to great lengths, some might say to the point of extreme hyperbole, in the opposite direction.

[Nina]

David was most certainly trained to be a King ,by none other than Yahweh , his God. The prerequisite quality was being agreeable to God's heart "who will do all the things i desire." 1 Sa 16:1-13; 13:14; Ac 13:22. God protected him in the wilds as a shepherd lad, where, he developed toughness and endurance, along with courage and most importantly faith in our God. He would learn to become a folksherd from caring for his sheep when he would catch the bear and lion by the beard and slay them.

What I meant was that David and many others did not fit into this mold you described:


As to the best form of government or to be precise most natural form of government, i would have to say Absolute Monarchy. A monarch is born into the position and has the "job" thrust upon him/her. They are trained from birthTrained from birth - is the key phrase. David was not trained from birth to be king from humans as you imply for other monarchs.

Training from God is another story. We have many saints who were kings, queens, emperors and empresses who were blessed to open their heart to God and allow Him to train them, for the good of their soul and of their subjects.




I have no problem with "Absolute" as a description of good governance as kings are in place of God before the Fall; even though they are a poor replacement. I long for Christ's Kingdom to come into effect so that we may dwell in peace under the Absolute authority of God.
Shaun.Exactly. Only God is absolute.

Also about "good governance as kings are in place of God" that you say - if you see in the OT the moment when people asked for a king, God was not happy with it. Since His will was to give us Prophets. However He was so Good as to give people what they asked for.

[Owen Jones]

The great leap in Hebrew theology was the consciousness of a society that lived directly under God. The idea of God as absolute is problematic terminology I think, because that is not really the issue. The term absolute, as far as I know, does not come into the theological lexicon until German romantics in the late 18th early 19th century.

The "tenuous bond of faith," as one writer puts it, is so fragile that it was impossible for the Hebrews to live up to their own consciousness of God ruling directly over them, and they demanded an earthly king, someone whom they could see and obey. It is certainly this backdrop to Christ's teachings and emphasis on a re-definition of Kingship, that essentially turns the old kingship upside down, that is to say, divine kingship is something that the lowest levels of society can participate in directly. So Christ the King is one who is born in a manger, not in a king's palace. Christ's Kingship is therefore represented symbollically in the manner of His birth, tied to the chronology of His ancestry, for the benefit of those of us who think only in literal/historical categories.

The protestant argument is, of course, that they are more true to the ancient Hebraic model of being directly under God without any mediating authorities such as kings or bishops. That protestants are the only true apostolic church because of this principle.

It seems to me that the idea of an absolute monarch is at best debatable as a necessary corollary of Christian theology. The Orthodox understanding of Kingship is first and foremost a spiritual principle, not an institutional one. The essence of this spiritual principle is the spiritual authority of one who is simple and humble. Christ becomes the ruler of all mankind in the spiritual sense that no greater or higher truth can be found than in His person, in and through the power of the virtues that He exemplifies.

The search for a virtuous political ruler is, of course, at the core of much of Plato's writings, and at the time it was a great leap in understanding of the divine/human relationship or partnership if you will. And a case can certainly be made as a political theory that a strong, virtuous ruler is the ideal form of government. But we should also remember that all government is representative. It is representative in both symbolic and pragmatic ways. A monarchical government is representative of the spiritual understanding and aspirations of the people, and the monarch has to represent those things, otherwise he will be deposed and/or killed.

But the idea of a virtuous ruler today is really redefined in terms of someone who has messianic pretensions, a la Barak Obama, who is looking more and more like a classic gnostic cult leader.

The problem of how we understand and define virtue seems to be largely at the core of the problem. I think Orthodoxy understands virtue as the key to salvation, not because it earns us favor and rewards and heaven, but because with virtue is spiritual power. Or virtue is the evidence of divine power in man, and is part and parcel of salvation. In essence, living virtuously is salvation. Because it is freedom from the powers of the lower realm and is evidence of a real change in our nature wherein our desires and impulses are governed from above.

A virtuous ruler, i.e. one who can be both firm and compassionate at the same time, who loves his subjects, and will sacrifice his life for his subjects, represents symbolically God's way with man and man's way with God. But it is precisely that, a symbolic representation. It also has numerous pragmatic aspects to be sure, but without the proper theological underpinnings, the idea of monarchy is absurd, because it always has a theological basis to it. That's why, once the theological/spiritual power of the people dissipates, monarchy is dead.

Monarchy therefore does not rule out democratic decision-making on the pragmatic level. Because people still must have a role in deciding their own fate. So there has rarely if ever been one pure political system, prior to the advent of modern totalitarianism, when the head of state is a god, and the state not only wants your allegiance, it wants to possess everything that is in your head! Totalitarianism represents a pure, "absolute" inversion of Christian theology wherein you have a God who is not distant, who is involved, not only in all of our affairs, but also is in charge of what goes on in our minds, who has the power of life and death through his final judgement, and so on. While totalitarianism is thus, unfortunately it is difficult for absolute monarchs to restrain themselves from the same temptations of becoming God substitutes, rather than God representatives.

[Shaun Little]

The great leap in Hebrew theology was the consciousness of a society that lived directly under God. ...
BRILLIANT!