Orthodoxy and politics

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

This is an ongoing question for me: what political system or ideology is most appropriate for Orthodox Christians? I can come up with the following obvious points, namely that a political system which is appropriate for Orthodox Christians, is (a) promoting, or at the very least not hostile to the aims and social functioning of Eastern Orthodoxy as a 'religion' (i.e. to the operation of the Church in society), and (b) promoting, or at the very least not in any way opposed to or undermining of the moral teachings and theological doctrines of the Church.

However, I am wondering which of the ideological 'options' most 'developed' societies present us with are then the best to go ahead and support: obviously communism and fascism, totalitarian systems which abolish man, are unchristian. But here in Cyprus some 'communists' go to Church, and I'm even told (the mind boggles) some Churchmen are supporters of the now-ruling communist party! On the other hand, rampant consumerist capitalism and globalisation don't seem like Christian systems either. And is liberalism, with its laissez-faire approach to letting everyone believe whatever they want and - worse - rendering all these beliefs equal to one another, a better option? To those who've studied politics, is it correct to think of liberalism as the parent of both socialism and capitalism (cause that's an overall impression I'm getting these days)?

So, help good monachos folks - what sort of political parties should I at least be able to take my hat off to (if I wore one), and which sort of political company am I looking to avoid?

By the way, I'm not personally and in principle against the idea of 'theocracy' (as its opponents like to label it) or good old-fashioned monarchy, either. But are these compatible with a contemporary (I don't want to say 'modern') Eastern Orthodox phronema? Or am I looking to credit the Church with powers it doesn't want or need?

Please don't just answer to 'render unto Ceasar', my question here is what precisely is, and what isn't, Ceasar's? (-:

In Christ
Byron

[Olga]

Byron, the short answer to your question, from my perspective, is that there is no ideal political/legislative system which will satisfy all Orthodox criteria. I have read a lot of history in my time, and I am yet to be convinced that there was ever a "golden age" where matters of Church and state were in harmony, even during the Byzantine period. Temporal power rarely is hand in glove with the will of the Church and the doctrines of the Faith.

This may dismay many, but the Australian Constitution, which came into effect on January 1, 1901, on the federation of the various British colonies of the Australian mainland, enshrined separation of church and state, and, moreover, did not establish any religious belief or denomination as the official religion of the Australian Commonwealth. Yet, apart from sectarian hiccups (mainly between Anglo-Irish Roman Catholics and Protestants, which eventually fizzled out by the 1960s, largely due to the diluting influence of large-scale post-Second World War immigration, which rendered the Anglo-Irish bickering irrelevant), I can vouch for the general political and religious stability (amid considerable ethnic and religious diversity) of this nation over the century since Federation.

To whit: the not very large suburb in which is located the Orthodox church I attend is host to no less than seven places of worship: including an Anglican church, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran (Latvian), a Ukrainian Catholic, and at least two other protestant places of worship. Nobody bats an eyelid. By contrast, where there has been any semblance of "theocracy", it all goes sour. It gives any "system" of faith a bad name, and it hampers the capacity of the State to legislate for all, not just a select few who have the most influence.

As for communists attending church, to me this seems that they are either hypocrites, simply trying to curry favour with Orthodox believers for political gain (errrrk!!), or, despite their "communist" affiliation, their conscience hasn't been completely obliterated. After all, Raisa Gorbachev, the late wife of the last General Secretary of the Soviet Union, was given a full Orthodox funeral, and buried at the Novodyevichi Monastery near Moscow, though she was very much a Soviet apparatchik; Boris Yeltsin's mother was also given an Orthodox burial, as was Yeltsin himself. Orthodoxy has a habit of persisting in people's hearts, in defiance of ideology.

[Anthony]

I heard a story (it may be only that) that one meeting of the Comintern had to be postponed because the Greek delegates wouldn't attend on Good Friday.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It seems, at least to this bear of very little brain, that what is most important is for an Orthodox Christian to be an Orthodox Christian, regardless of the political situation he (or she) may find himself in.

I think it notable that our Lord confounded the people of Israel in that He specifically did NOT set up a theocracy. His Kingdom is NOT of this world. Theocracies scare me, quite frankly, because anything associated with human beings can and will become corrupted.

While G. K. Chesterton may boast that a monarchy is the ultimate democracy since it proves that any person can rule, even if selected randomly by accident of birth. A simple and even cursory review of history shows otherwise. The unfit generally get replaced, often quite violently. Perhaps he was merely being sardonic?

If an Orthodox becomes a monarch, I pray that person has the strength to be an Orthodox monarch. If an Orthodox becomes a president, or prime minister, or grand visier, may that person carry that office conscious of his or her responsibility to God as well as to the people he or she serves.

We, as Orthodox Christians, carry the responsibility to pray for whoever rules over us, that they do so in a manner that allows us to serve God as best we can. If we live in a society that votes, we should vote for the person who comes closest to making the above possible, regardless of political affiliation, to the best of our ability to make a determination.

We are to obey the law of the land and participate in the maintaining of a peaceable society in as much as we can without sinning. Of course, if things keep going the way they seem to be, we may all get to test that, if the government comes after the Church. And in that case, we do just as the early Church did when it was fiercely persecuted by the local government. We persevere in prayer.

Herman, an avowed member of the Pooh Party

Pooh Party Platform The Pooh Party supports Life, Liberty, Frequent Naps, and the Purfuit of Hunny.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear all,

This is an ongoing question for me: what political system or ideology is most appropriate for Orthodox Christians? I can come up with the following obvious points, namely that a political system which is appropriate for Orthodox Christians, is (a) promoting, or at the very least not hostile to the aims and social functioning of Eastern Orthodoxy as a 'religion' (i.e. to the operation of the Church in society), and (b) promoting, or at the very least not in any way opposed to or undermining of the moral teachings and theological doctrines of the Church.

However, I am wondering which of the ideological 'options' most 'developed' societies present us with are then the best to go ahead and support: obviously communism and fascism, totalitarian systems which abolish man, are unchristian. But here in Cyprus some 'communists' go to Church, and I'm even told (the mind boggles) some Churchmen are supporters of the now-ruling communist party! On the other hand, rampant consumerist capitalism and globalisation don't seem like Christian systems either. And is liberalism, with its laissez-faire approach to letting everyone believe whatever they want and - worse - rendering all these beliefs equal to one another, a better option? To those who've studied politics, is it correct to think of liberalism as the parent of both socialism and capitalism (cause that's an overall impression I'm getting these days)?

So, help good monachos folks - what sort of political parties should I at least be able to take my hat off to (if I wore one), and which sort of political company am I looking to avoid?

By the way, I'm not personally and in principle against the idea of 'theocracy' (as its opponents like to label it) or good old-fashioned monarchy, either. But are these compatible with a contemporary (I don't want to say 'modern') Eastern Orthodox phronema? Or am I looking to credit the Church with powers it doesn't want or need?

Please don't just answer to 'render unto Ceasar', my question here is what precisely is, and what isn't, Ceasar's? (-:

In Christ
Byron

Elder Paisios, said that we should be very careful with our vote. This is not something that is easy because politicians are masters of deception. We need to investigate, as far as we are able, the man we are voting for. Is he a Christian? What laws has he voted for? The way he votes in Parliament is an indication of what kind of man he is.

Elder Paisios has also warned that politicians will use religion to deceive us.

We use the brains God gave us and examine the track record of those who want our vote.

[Fabio Lins]

It flabbergasts me when I see people equating communism and socialism with classic liberalism and capitalism in terms of antichristianism. Honest. True.

People there is absolutely no comparison. Not-at-all!

It is like saying that a psycho who kills fashion models is on the same moral level of a master baker who makes them obese just because both "destroy models".

The very first step of a genuine spiriutal life is self-honesty when thinking. I am struggling with it still so I mention this as a fellow learner not on presumptious arrogance. Said that, let's just try to picture these two images. What is less Christian? Actual mass murder or malicious marketing? Because there are many anti-christian aspects in capitalist societies for sure. Temptation is on every corner and it becomes harder to fight it everyday. But do you really, really think that having pornography freely available on the internet is equatable with torture and persecution? That having a big company producing dangerous products that might be harmful is equatable to a goverment that is lethaly harmful both physically and spiritually?
Imagine these two situations in your real life: a guy with a gun tries to shoot you; and a guy with a porn magazine tries to sell his material to you. Would react the same way? Would you say both are morally equivalents Of course not! The first may well be shot back, while shooting the second would make you crazy and justifiably sent to prison!

Capitalism is like a knife. It is a powerful tool and, yes, it migh be used for evil ends. But is the one who holds it that makes the difference, not the tool. Communism, on the other hand, is death in its pure form. There is no good use out of it. Marx in his very first works already had said that for the implementation of the ideal communist society entire peoples and nations should be destroyed. When they commite mass murder, this is not a mistake of misguided followers. It is the very orthodoxy of communism.

The revolutionary mentality is the very political manifestation of the energies of the Antichrist - it doesn't matter if it appears in its right-wing forms (fascism) or left-wing (communism).

Having that in mind, and that St. Paul said that we should respect even the pagan emperor, it is obvious that the tempting capitalist, democractic system is far better than the persecuting totalitarianisms.

I'm sorry people, but a bad president in a constitunitional democracy can never do half the damage of a totalitarian bad ruler.

[Fabio Lins]

Just to complement,

I know the fathers have lots of laudatory writings about the emperor, that Russian orthodoxy is very monarchic, but, to me, it is impossible to forget and find concordance between this attitude and the fact that Israel was first advised by God to avoid having kings, and that electing a king is ungodly.

The political system that God fashioned for His people was that of Judges, with no central power and a confederation of tribes that could get together ad hoc to solve problems. Not surprisingly, this is precisely the organization of the New Israel,the Church, just changing tribe for "local church" and the assembly for Council.

Not surprisingly to me either, is that the secular powers that do better are the ones that are closer to this model. The less the central power is the better the country does. Being a monarchy or a republic seems to affect other aspects than material welfare.

It is enough to give a look at the Index of Economic Freedom to see that, overrall, the countries that are better of are the ones which have implemented economic classic liberalism. http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm

New Zealand, Ireland, the Asian Tigers are case in point that show countries that have implemented different measures of market liberalization. True, not all implemented all the liberal agenda, but truth is that even a small measure of liberalism made the difference when comparing with their neighbours which have not implemented even bits of liberalism.

Some countries offer even scientific models:
South Korea and North Korea
Central American countries which were "colonies" of the "Evil Capitalist Empire" such as Puerto Rico, Costa Rica are way better off than Cuba which avoided "colonization";
Hong Kong, the capitalist cities of China and the rest of the country;

Also, I recommend that everybody who feels "capitalism is antichristian" watch this documentary broadcasted in the UK:
Globalisation is Good (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680&ei=IhvQSIX1JqP0qAKx4NizAg&q=globalization+is+good&hl=en)

[Ryan]

Anyone who studies the French Revolution can easily see the intimate connection between classical liberalism and socialist / communist ideology. They aren't the same thing, but have a common wellspring. Naturally, today's liberals tend not to feel very comfortable being grouped together with the likes of Robespierre and Babeuf, but the connection is there.

Capitalism is anti-Christian. Comparing the body counts between capitalist and "socialist" societies is not really relevant. The mass graves still being found in places like Columbia and Chile attest to the fact that capitalism engenders atrocities of its own on a pretty regular basis, not to mention the many unintentional disasters engendered by an unrestrained thirst for profits (eg, Bhopal).

[Olga]

I heard a story (it may be only that) that one meeting of the Comintern had to be postponed because the Greek delegates wouldn't attend on Good Friday.

... probably because they would have had to face the consequences of not going to church from their mothers or yiayies. :))

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

The replies so far, if nothing else, at least suggest to me that I'm not alone in feeling discontent with pretty much any political arrangement that seems to be on offer. In my limited knowledge of history, I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - that the 'left' and 'right' wing were born during the French Revolution, so it is very interesting to hear from Fabio that
The revolutionary mentality is the very political manifestation of the energies of the Antichrist - it doesn't matter if it appears in its right-wing forms (fascism) or left-wing (communism). This is a general sentiment with which I agree. It seems to me that Christians must do their best to live the faith under any regime, and only involve themselves in taking up arms (revolution) when no other option remains, if they are being forced to choose between being oppressors or fighting on the side of the oppressed.

On the other hand, statements like
It is enough to give a look at the Index of Economic Freedom to see that, overrall, the countries that are better of are the ones which have implemented economic classic liberalism. http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm seem to me to be in need of quite a bit of qualification. What do we mean by "better off?" - financially, in terms of quality of life, overall happiness...what?

Herman says theocracies scare him because of what humans are capable of. This seems to me to be also true, but of course humans are no less capable of the same in pretty much any other political system - does that make theocracy wrong? Sometimes liberal democracy is presented as the best option due to the checks it offers on power; ironically perhaps, I think there is Hobbesian wisdom in that. Some people just want to live peacefully with others, but something has to be done about the power-hungry ones who are perhaps inevitably a part of any society. However, I'm not so naive as to think that there is any system which cannot be abused by a suitable individual. It follows too, that the fact that some kings and queens were cruel or incompetent, doesn't mean monarchy is wrong in principle - any more than current democratically elected presidents vouch for the safety and well-being of the people who voted for them.

Alas, it seems to me that I have to hold on to a basically non-political attitude, which politically-minded people really resent. They say it is impossible to be apolitical. Well, that may be correct, but it is perfectly possible to be thoroughly disenchanted. Fortunately our religion is one of hope.

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Effie,


Elder Paisios, said that we should be very careful with our vote. This is not something that is easy because politicians are masters of deception. We need to investigate, as far as we are able, the man we are voting for. Is he a Christian? What laws has he voted for? The way he votes in Parliament is an indication of what kind of man he is.

Elder Paisios has also warned that politicians will use religion to deceive us.

We use the brains God gave us and examine the track record of those who want our vote.
Elder Paisios was of course entirely correct. I think this 'goes without saying' in a way. My only comment would be that I'm wondering if we should even live in systems that use voting. I really wonder whether monarchy, for example, is any worse than democracy. Considering the way the majority of people vote here in Cyprus, there seems little value in 'voting' in the first place.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron wrote:


This is an ongoing question for me: what political system or ideology is most appropriate for Orthodox Christians? I can come up with the following obvious points, namely that a political system which is appropriate for Orthodox Christians, is (a) promoting, or at the very least not hostile to the aims and social functioning of Eastern Orthodoxy as a 'religion' (i.e. to the operation of the Church in society), and (b) promoting, or at the very least not in any way opposed to or undermining of the moral teachings and theological doctrines of the Church.

The Church quite clearly prays for the governing authorities. This is attested to even from the time of St Paul's epistles and clearly can be documented in Patristic writings from the apostolic period onwards.

In general terms what I think this prayer of the Church refers to is the welfare of the government. This very early testimony of the Church is important for it indicates the acknowledgement of society itself tied together as a community. For us this reality of society seems so natural that it seems remarkable it would even need pointing out. However the very concept and then reality of society is actually something which was a legacy of the Roman-Hellenic world in which the Church first found itself. Apart from the question of the influence of this Roman-Hellenic world on the Church, which is actually quite complex, the main point here is that the Church in its prayer acknowledged that such a social reality was/is real & that the Church, although its truth is full and catholic, acknowledges & allows in a positive way that all is not yet the Church. St Augustine especially in The City of God explores this relationship of Church to society.

From this ecclesiological view of society it is only natural that the Church prays for those who govern, ie maintain it. Here the Fathers- eg St Maximus the Confessor- refer to the justice sought between men and which is an inherent aspect of our nature. Governance then naturally involves justice as well as all other aspects of the common welfare such as peace & charity. It is for this which the Church prays in terms of society. Very closely connected to this from the time of the apologists is the understanding that allowing the Church to exist in freedom in turn contributes to the welfare of society and its governing authorities. Here not only a moral influence on society is referred to but also the influence of prayer itself. Again then is implicit the sense that the Church although seeing itself as having the fullness of truth still acknowledges in a positive way that other social reality even though it is as yet incomplete.

This brings us finally to the point that the prayer of the Church for society and the governing authorities also has inherent to itself a strong aspect of expectation. That is: even though it acknowledges society and the governing authority in a positive sense it also recognizes that these are incomplete as of yet. The prayer of the Church then is both for a temporal manner of becoming more complete (ie being more just, etc) & towards a more final manner of completion when all will be tied together as the Church in Christ.

It is between all of these realities I think that we pray for and live as Christians. We must share in the full prayer of the Church for society- otherwise a distortion will arise within our spiritual life. However we must understand that this prayer also involves us in a society not only incomplete but at times terribly broken. Therefore the balance between acknowledgement of society and expectation in its regard continually is being adjusted which in itself is a statement about the reality of society in terms of the Church.

If I could make though one last comment about political/social involvement in terms of the above (both the US & Canada are suffering through election campaigns right now). I think that as Christians we get far too much sucked in by political definitions of involvement. Whether we actually get involved in the political process is not something I want to discuss here. But we often do accept that involvement necessitates an involvement in the political process or else that we are not involved at all. I would suggest however that 'involvement' for Christians does not always necessitate involvement in the political process as it thinks of itself but also in involvement as the Church considers this- which is through prayer and common concern for that social reality we immediately are part of. Since all things touch this too is involvement. Related to responsibly this is not at all negative or retreating from society but rather the most real relationship possible with society.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fabio Lins]

Byron,

One of the big differences, I think, is that some people, from both right and left, think that everything is political but this is more pervarsive in the left as liberals continuously prove. Other people, think that not only there are many aspects in life that are not political, but that the political should be kept at a minimum, thus, minimum state, minimum laws, etc. And the oppositors to this idea think that the way you speak is political and should be politically controlled, the way you work, the way you live, the way you worship and so on.

---

Ryan thinks that "bodycount" doesn't matter. Of course, under this criteria a serial killer and a teen who accidently kills his friend are no different at all. They are both murderers, since intention and number of bodies do not matter.

This is the one big difference between liberal-capitalism and socio-communism, both children of the modern era. While liberal-capitalism is a bunch of common people who say "just let me do commerce" who sometimes get nasty, socio-communism, as is *written* by its ideological founder Marx, preaches the mass genocide of entire nations.

I do not for a minute think that liberal-capitalism has any saving power in the spiritual sense. But it was asked what I meant by "better off". I mean precisely material well-being. People usually try or fall prey to psychological blackmail of the kind "Oh, capitalism and liberalism *just* take people out of poverty, but destroys then spiritually".

But, as Mother Theresa said once, people who are starving have no time or strength even to pray. Starvation and misery lead *certainly* to despair the vast majority of people. It makes them believe there is no God looking for them. Poverty is sanctifying *only* when voluntary and it strikes me as deeply cruel and insensitive to say that the solution for poverty should be convincing all the starving people in the world to "open their nous" or "accept that it is God's salvific way" for them. *All* missionary work knows that the you have to help people out of misery. Poverty as a spiritual way is not for everybody and in fact it is for a very small minority and this is Scriptural. God does not force upon people burdens they cannot take. But other people do by fighting systems that would allow them to get out.

I recommended a video. I insist people watch it before replying. Before saying that multinationals are creating misery around the world, watch in the video the opinion of people employed by them. Misery has always been the natural state of the world. And even a poor person in most Western capitalist countries are better off than medieval kings in terms of material quality of life. And that *is* important. That is why we give food, and clothes, and help the destituted and not only pray for them. And if there is an economical, political system that takes them out of that pitiful state, and allows them to get for themselves a home, food, a job, health, even if they misuse this freedom later, by God, of course it is more Christian than another one that goes the other way making them all 'equal' in misery and persecutes the Christians who are helping them out of this misery. It is like comparing a train that sometimes runs over a cow with a beef grinding machine and saying that "both kill cows". :P

---

This is a true doubt that I have. I understand that unlike Islam, Christianism is not associated with a specific kind of governmental or social organization. There can be monarchies and republics that are Christian or anti-Christian.

But how can I conciliate that with


And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. {displeased: Heb. was evil in the eyes of}
And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

1 Samuel 8:5-7

In which we see the Hebrews demanding to put down the system of government created by God:


Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. {words: or, matters}
That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. {That which...: Heb. Justice, justice}

Deuteronomy 16:18-20

That is, exchanging a loose conciliar government for a strong central government.

It is so evident that the "loose conciliar government" is God's intended way of government (because the only real strong central power is God Himself: "they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them") that this is precisely how the Church is governed since the First Council of Jerusalem up to the more modern Pan-Orthodox Councils. Even when there was an Emperor in the ecumenical councils neither he nor the "Primus inter paris" had not the last word pn their own account. It is how Mount Athos is organized. And, among the secular powers, the more secular governments resemble this divine model, more the effects in secular life are analogous to the effects of that model in spiritual life, i.e., spiritual health in the first case and "material health" in the second.

All centralized governments - righ or left winged - have done poorly at best or have become explicitily antichristian and dangerous *as God had warned*:


11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint {them} for himself, for his chariots, and {to be} his horsemen; and {some} shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and {will set them} to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters {to be} confectionaries, and {to be} cooks, and {to be} bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, {even} the best {of them}, and give {them} to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. {officers: Heb. eunuchs}
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put {them} to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us

1 Samuel

It is clear that God blesses kings not as His primary will, which is "loose counciliar government" but out of His Mercy and love for His people in His "secondary" will. Suffice to say that King David and King Solomon, the greatest models in the Holy Scriptures for kings, are shown to - despite their greatness - have committed great mistakes that - despite all the goods - have caused great pains for God's people. It is like St. Paul himself said:


For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but {how} to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

*I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.*

Romans 7

If this is true of St. Paul, how much more is it not of any men in the core of any centralized form of government? Again, the very virtuous Kings David and Solomon are proof of that: that when progressists, revolutionaries and all lovers of central control advocate that a "virtuous" control would do only good to the people they are but deceiving themselves. Virtuous people are also flawed, fallen and "the good that they would do, they will do not; but the evil they would not, that the virtuous leaders will do" for this is "a law, that, when they would do good, evil is present with them". Not even King David, who acted "according to God's heart" and Solomon, who asked for and received God's wisdom, themselves could do good as head of a centralized form of government. Why would anyother?

And thus, in terms of secular governments, a democratic, federalized, democratic, constitutional government (and then a monarchy would even work) is by far the best political form, and its economical equivalent liberal-capitalism is its natural complement. The more a country has of it, the better off it is. As St. Paul said: men's flawness is a law. Boosting it putting flawed men (even if virtuous) in controlling central governments will *never* work.

[Owen Jones]

There is political theory, and then there are the practical problems. From a purely practical standpoint, I am going to support a secular person in office who better represents my principles than a Christian who doesn't -- given our current political system that is.

On the level of theory it is quite a different matter. "Modern" political theory is not only secular in that it is distinct from the religious or sacred, but it is secular in a different sense. It is based on the fantasy that politics has nothing to do with God or theology or the last things. It is based on the fantasy that God is not in control of the political realm. He is not sovereign over the political realm. And yet all politicians run and govern on theological claims that are dressed up (or down, perhaps we should say) in secularized terminologies. You simply cannot get away from it. Modern politics is theology by other means. All Politics are eschatalogical by nature. And you can also tell a person's theology by his political agenda.

This historical trend is rooted in several problems, including the violent competition between religious factions in Western Europe for several hundred years, and the failure of theology in the late medieval period which led to the Protestant revolt, which in turn personalized salvation. Or you can go back further and place it all squarely on the shoulders of the Normans, as Fr. John Romanides as done.

This will not change unless society's elites experience a widespread spiritual awakening, but what form that might take is problematic, since Orthodoxy is in no position to guide people at large or have any real societal influences of significance. Other than in a few places like Russia or Greece that are historically Orthodox. I can't imagine America embracing classical, i.e. Orthodox Christianity short of some apocalyptic, cataclysmic event or events.

With that said, there is a crying need for Orthodox theologians to develop a political theory or a political vision, one might say, that is not so much dependent on a top down system, but on some theory of localism. This was happening in Russia but the nihilists would have nothing of it. And then there was the war. The Red Wheel documents this quite well and dramatically. Such a political theory could not be sectarian, but would and could address the whole question of the role of man in society. Most attempts at this are programmatic and talk about trivial stuff. It's a cliched term, but paradigm shift is what I have in mind. And we are nowhere near there.

[Paul Cowan]

Well since we have what we have and there is no possibility of changing it, let's just all live here (http://thewizardofoz.info/) and be done with it. We can't do worse, well we could, and we certaintly can't do better, well we could still; but in the end it is he with the bigger wallet that wins the day.

So whether I live here or there, I am called by God to live His way and pray for my neighbors. Orthodoxy and politics? not in this country.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Please keep in mind that this is not a political forum, and discussion of current heads of state or potential heads of state goes well beyond the purpose of this particular forum which is Doctrine and Theology. I hope we can continue to discuss the various aspects of governance without diving into partisanship by dragging in politics, both secular and Church, which takes up energy, creates emnity, and shift the focus away from what I think we are here to discuss.

Let us not get sidetracked by the cacophany of this silly season, but strive to hear the small quiet voice that is God, like St. Peter walking on the water, let us not sink into the tempests of political diatribes, but keep our sights firmly on Christ, at least here in this place.

O Bother!

Herman the Pooh
Pooh Party Platform: We support Life, Liberty, Frequent Naps, and the Purfuit of Hunny

[Fabio Lins]

Owen,


With that said, there is a crying need for Orthodox theologians to develop a political theory or a political vision, one might say, that is not so much dependent on a top down system, but on some theory of localism.

very true. You also mention


This was happening in Russia but the nihilists would have nothing of it.The Red Wheel documents this quite well and dramatically.

Is there material about this available anywhere? What are these Red Wheels documents?


Most attempts at this are programmatic and talk about trivial stuff. It's a cliched term, but paradigm shift is what I have in mind. And we are nowhere near there.



You cannot have a truly Christian president in the way that Saint Constantine was a Christian ruler, or St. Vladimir, or many of the royal saints down the ages.


In the Brazilian monarchist group (http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=14827194) I advocate a variation of the idea that was first defended by the Victorian Brazilian pundit Joaquim Nabuco: a Federalist Monarchy. Of course he thought it under that polemic four-fold division of powers of imperial Brazil: Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and the Moderator power. The Moderator power is exercised by the king/emperor and a council as yet another check against the politicization of the State by parties and the government. Also the other powers had their own checks and balances over the king and the council.

The point is that is creates another form of descentralization by making the separation of State and Government clearer and stronger. It is a non-political force that not only is independent from the political game, but whose power depends on the State not being taken over by the Government, a force of stability and continuity that is prevented from being crystalized by the normal democratical changes of a parliamentary democratic system.

In this context, we can even think of an Orthodox king or emperor who would protect the state and the nation against the excesses of government through the Moderator Council and a Constitutional Democratic Government, still with autonomous executive, legislative and judiciary powers that would prevent this monarch from becoming an authoritarian regent.

I labeled it a "Tetrapartite Federalist Constitutional Parliamentary Democratic Monarchy".

I would like also to introduce to you the work of the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/) who created the term "revolutionary mentality" I mentioned up there. In his seminal article "The Revolutionary Mentality (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/070813dc_en.html)" (I would appreciate the participants of this thread reading it) he finds its beginning in the Modern Era.

From works such as that of Fr. Romanides and other byzantologists I would trace it back straight down to the rise of the Caroligean Empire. In fact I found, so far, no less than 09 traits of the "revolutionary mentality" in that period which I led me to refer to it as the "Caroligean Revolution" in my own studies. This material, unfortunately, is in only Portuguese so far.

Just as important for the subject, I recommend reading this article as well: Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/texts/structure_revolutionary_mind.html) by Donald Hank.

[Fabio Lins]

Just as more food for thought, I am bringing some links to some material by the Orthodox author Clark Carlton:

An Open Letter to Orthodox Christians, on Behalf of Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/carlton1.html)

Ethnicity, Nationhood, and Immigration (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fap_2008-08-05.mp3)

Pride of PlaceApril 06, 2008

In this episode, Clark comments on administrative unity from a perspective that you may not have heard before.
(10:00) (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fap040place_pc.mp3)

What is a Bishop?March 22, 2008

Dr. Carlton identifies three characteristics that should define a bishop.

(10:04) (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fap039whatisabishop_pc.mp3)

Why Do the Pro-Abortionists So Furiously Rage Together? (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fandpweek29_pc.mp3)

Where The Religious Right Went WrongOctober 07, 2007

How do we as Orthodox Christians view the strategies of the so called "religious right"? Clark explores an alternative approach rooted in our eucharistic Tradition. (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/P21/)

The Politics Of Anti-ChristOctober 13, 2007

Clark continues his discussion of right vs. left and helps us understand the nature of the left as measured by the proper definition of Anti-Christ. (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fandpweek23.mp3)

God and CountryJuly 05, 2007

America just celebrated it's independence with parades, fireworks and picnics. So, what attitudes should the Orthodox Christian have toward patriotism? (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/carlton/fandpweek13_pc.mp3)

[Paul C.]

Dear all,

This is an ongoing question for me: what political system or ideology is most appropriate for Orthodox Christians? I can come up with the following obvious points, namely that a political system which is appropriate for Orthodox Christians, is (a) promoting, or at the very least not hostile to the aims and social functioning of Eastern Orthodoxy as a 'religion' (i.e. to the operation of the Church in society), and (b) promoting, or at the very least not in any way opposed to or undermining of the moral teachings and theological doctrines of the Church.

However, I am wondering which of the ideological 'options' most 'developed' societies present us with are then the best to go ahead and support: obviously communism and fascism, totalitarian systems which abolish man, are unchristian. But here in Cyprus some 'communists' go to Church, and I'm even told (the mind boggles) some Churchmen are supporters of the now-ruling communist party! On the other hand, rampant consumerist capitalism and globalisation don't seem like Christian systems either. And is liberalism, with its laissez-faire approach to letting everyone believe whatever they want and - worse - rendering all these beliefs equal to one another, a better option? To those who've studied politics, is it correct to think of liberalism as the parent of both socialism and capitalism (cause that's an overall impression I'm getting these days)?

So, help good monachos folks - what sort of political parties should I at least be able to take my hat off to (if I wore one), and which sort of political company am I looking to avoid?

By the way, I'm not personally and in principle against the idea of 'theocracy' (as its opponents like to label it) or good old-fashioned monarchy, either. But are these compatible with a contemporary (I don't want to say 'modern') Eastern Orthodox phronema? Or am I looking to credit the Church with powers it doesn't want or need?

Please don't just answer to 'render unto Ceasar', my question here is what precisely is, and what isn't, Ceasar's? (-:

In Christ
Byroni had once read that a not well known fact is that Russia actually had a theocracy (government under God) when St Tzar Nicholas II ruled there. I read that he never made a major decision without consulting an Orthodox elder who lived in some monastery I guess (or maybe a hermit monk?).

Just when it looked like a large part of the world was ruled by a theocracy, an atheistic government came into being through revolution. It seems that a large part of the citizens blew it when they did not know how good they had it.

I think maybe those big desert cities of monasteries in the past were theocracies of a kind, and perhaps Mt Athos was once upon a time.

I sure wish we had one now in USA, or in the whole world! Wouldn't that be something?

Just stumbling through the jungle,
Paul

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Paul writes
Just stumbling through the jungle and this is what the subject of politics feels like to me too, at times. In the jungle one may meet with wild, carnivorous animals and dangerous snakes, but also (I'm told) discover medicinal plants and new, unknown species. The problem is, you just don't know what will heal you or kill you, which is why politics makes us nervous I guess, and like religion is a taboo topic at cocktail parties!

Fabio, it looks like you have a whole philosophy behind your way of thinking, and I agree with you that, unless someone takes the time to study what you are saying, carefully, they would not do your thinking justice. Unfortunately, I haven't got the luxury of time right now, but I'll get back to you when I can, it certainly looks interesting.

Owen's posts are usually brief and informative as well as informed, so when he writes
there is a crying need for Orthodox theologians to develop a political theory or a political vision I take it this is a well-studied opinion. My initial instinct, even from my student days, was to stay away from politics. Politics seemed to me to be the realm of power, but for me the only realm worth living in is the realm of love. Hence when Fr Raphael writes
I would suggest however that 'involvement' for Christians does not always necessitate involvement in the political process as it thinks of itself but also in involvement as the Church considers this- which is through prayer and common concern for that social reality we immediately are part of. Since all things touch this too is involvement. Related to responsibly this is not at all negative or retreating from society but rather the most real relationship possible with society. This confirms my initial instincts, which needed to be further informed however by what Fr Raphael describes as 'relating responsibly' to what is right in front of me. This takes courage I think, and sometimes a readiness to remain firm on a certain matter, even when others are trying to pull you into their particular political camp. In this understanding justice is justice, and love is love, and neither are left or right wing, monarchist or liberal, and - dare I say it at this critical time for our brothers and sisters in the U.S.A.? - democrat or republican.

In Christ,
Byron

[Ryan]

Ryan thinks that "bodycount" doesn't matter. Of course, under this criteria a serial killer and a teen who accidently kills his friend are no different at all. They are both murderers, since intention and number of bodies do not matter.

Sorry to break it to you, but Pinochet intentionally murdered the enemies of his government, so your analogy is invalid. The death squads murdering union organizers aren't making mistakes either. Also, when we look at "accidents" like Bhopal, the perpetrators didn't intend to harm people, but they also didn't care to take precautions against it either.


who sometimes get nasty, socio-communism, as is *written* by its ideological founder Marx, preaches the mass genocide of entire nations.

I'm no Marxist, but I'm very curious if you can provide any quotations from Marx to this effect.

[Herman Blaydoe]

One more time, this is a forum to discuss Christianity, particularly Orthodoxy through patristic, monastic and liturgical study. It is not a place to discuss the merits or shortcomings of any particular political system or any secular leader. Karl Marx is not a recognized authority in the Orthodox Church.

In our responses to one another, please let us be mindful of the forum guidelines, particularly: Is my post on topic? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_ontopic) and the terms of use, not to mention common civility amongst brothers and sisters in Christ.

Pray or each other and for our civil leaders (regardless of your opinion of them) and remember to take frequent naps.

Herman the Pooh
Pooh Party Platform The Pooh Party supports Life, Liberty, Frequent Naps, and the Purfuit of Hunny

[Owen Jones]

Strictly speaking a theocracy is rule by God. As a practical matter, it means rule by religious or spiritual authorities. So Athos would be a theocracy. But a kingdom would be a monarchy. A Christian King acknowledges not only God's sovereignty over his realm, but also the Church's sovereignty. But today there is no such thing as THE CHURCH. There are only sectarian factions claiming to be the Church.

Given the eschatalogical and apocalyptic expectations of the New Testament, there was no need for a political theory. But two thousand years later there is. How is God's will expressed politically? How is God's presence expressed politically? How is the believer to live politically? These are relevant questions. Plato is, of course, the master at sorting all of this out, but we do not live in a polis today, and a lot has happened since.

Then there is the question, are there degrees of being a Christian? Is there a level of Christianity that is lived in civil society? And is there a level of Christianity that is lived outside of civil society? This is an ongoing question and tension.

Athos lives both outside of but also within civil society, because they are taking tax payer money from the EU in order to rebuild ancient monasteries. The Greek government is in charge of their foreign affairs so to speak and we will see that the EU will want to exert more influence over Athos. These are pragmatic questions. On the level of theory, the contemplative life is superior to the active life. But these two realms are not conveniently separate. So a theory of political and spiritual realms needs to be articulated by Orthodox theologians.

[Owen Jones]

The Red Wheel is a cycle of novels by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, retelling and exploring the passing of Imperial Russia and the birth-pangs of the Soviet Union. Though Solzhenitsyn says he conceived the idea in 1938 and gathered notes for Part 1, August 1914 (which is about the disastrous opening of World War I from a Russian perspective) in the weeks when he led a Red Army unit into Eastern Prussia, the location of much of that part, in 1945, it was only in early 1969 that he actually sat down to write this historical novel. August 1914 was finished in late 1970, submitted for publication to Soviet printing houses, but turned down. Instead, it appeared abroad, at YMCA Press in Paris, without Solzhenitsyn's knowledge (though he gave his approval as soon as the news reached him).

When Solzhenitsyn was banished and stripped of his citizenship in 1974, his wife and other associates brought his manuscripts and archive out of the Soviet Union to the West, and he continued working on the novel in exile. A few chapters were published by the Russian exile church journal Vestnik in Paris in 1978-79, but it wasn't until 1984 that the work began to appear again in bookshops. In this year a revised and expanded edition of August 1914 was published, again by YMCA Press, also including powerful sections on the revolution of 1905 and the assassination of the Czar's minister Pyotr Stolypin in 1911. The cycle currently has appeared as

* August 1914, 1971 (expanded form in 1984)
* November 1916, 2 volumes, 1985
* March 1917, 2 volumes, 1989
* April 1917, ca 1991 (not translated into English so far)

The plan in 1970 was to continue up until the mid-twenties, at least 1922, the point when the Soviet Union formally came into being and when Lenin had to give up his grip on power due to illness. The progress of the work beyond 1917 was no doubt also intended to make it complement the research into the roots of the Soviet labour camp system carried out in The Gulag Archipelago, and it's reasonably clear that Solzhenitsyn also would have brought up other instances of the repression during the civil war, for example a peasants revolt at Tambov in 1921; this is indicated by a list of locations on which the author asked for help with historical settings, pictures and so on (given in the expanded edition of August 1914 in 1984).

[Herman Blaydoe]

A discussion of "politics", per-se, is not off-topic, but a denigration of one particular governance system over another is, as is the criticism or praise of any particular political leader. There are plenty of other places to discuss such things.

Some examples of "appropriate" topics might be: how a particular form of government fits into the experience of the Church; or continued discussion of the comments or example of the fathers on how one relates to the government in which you live.

I certainly would like to see more discussions of Owen's point about developing an overall "Christian" approach to the body politic. Owen makes an effective argument (at least to this bear of little brain) that it is not as cut and dried as some may think. There may be more to it than "capitalism is unChristian" or "{insert name or political party here} is evil" which seems a bit broadbrush and not sufficiently thought out or at least not backed up as of yet by the patristic record.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion with decorum and without getting overly emotional, or resorting to recrimination or name-calling, even though it is obviously a very touchy subject.

Herman the Pooh

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman, all

In light of the above I would like to clarify also, that my initial question which began this thread ran as follows:
what political system or ideology is most appropriate for Orthodox Christians? I can come up with the following obvious points, namely that a political system which is appropriate for Orthodox Christians, is (a) promoting, or at the very least not hostile to the aims and social functioning of Eastern Orthodoxy as a 'religion' (i.e. to the operation of the Church in society), and (b) promoting, or at the very least not in any way opposed to or undermining of the moral teachings and theological doctrines of the Church.

However, I am wondering which of the ideological 'options' most 'developed' societies present us with are then the best to go ahead and support: obviously communism and fascism, totalitarian systems which abolish man, are unchristian. [...] On the other hand, rampant consumerist capitalism and globalisation don't seem like Christian systems either. Is there any disagreement with the general statements I made here (in bold)? Notice I didn't just say 'capitalism is unChristian'. I am also not looking for 'broadbrush' statements or characterisations. Owen's suggestion that Orthodoxy today needs to formulate some political statement, or at least a set of guidelines for Christians living in current society, who want to be able to identify more effectively what there is 'of God' in both civil society and its detractors, and what, as it were, actually goes against the principles of the Church and the energies of the Holy Spirit, is commendable and practical; it is also I feel, an affirmation and a 'positive' reformulation of the premises of my initial question, which I purposely phrased in the manner which seems to me appropriate to start a thread going, one seeking the ideas and opinions of others.

I personally have no illusions that any political 'handbook' written from an Orthodox perspective could be anything other than just a general aid to spiritual discernment. It is of course, our communion with our Creator which will have the last say, and no political manifesto can, or should, get between us and Him. So yes, I agree and still think discussion of political systems, ideologies, theories, and even the realpolitik of current events etc., all in the light of Orthodox teaching, is pertinent to this thread, but I fully agree it should be done with decorum and where possible 'backed up by the patristic record'. If a person expresses a sincere and mature personal opinion in an appropriate and qualified manner, however, without put-downs or loss of decorum, I don't see how that can be deemed out of place in what is, after all, a discussion forum and not an academic monograph.

Owen, to return to our topic, one comment you made does worry me a little:
today there is no such thing as THE CHURCH. There are only sectarian factions claiming to be the Church. This seems a very broad ('broadbrush'?!) statement, and I'd like to hear what you mean by it. I personally see the Orthodox Church as one, and for me it is 'the Church'.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

From a political and societal perspective, there isn't one Church, there are many churches. Our Orthodox theology still stands, but from a political/social perspective, it is just one of many competing opinions. Therefore, we cannot hope or expect that Orthodoxy is going to have any significance to speak of politically and socially, especially in historically non-Orthodox countries, unless there is some kind of dramatic spiritual awakening in which many, many people seek out the classical texts of Christianity for answers. And even then, there is little practical consequence since it is doubtful that people will throng to Orthodox parishes.

As for an Orthodox political theology, I did not have in mind a handbook approach. Orthodoxy is not a handbook religion.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Expecting the Orthodox Church to concern itself only with church matters is naive. What are "church matters"? Only what happens inside a church? Of course not.

We are members of the Orthodox Church and as Orthodox our church is part of our daily lives.

When we live in a society that crushes us more and more each year, we expect our Church to take a stand. The Church cannot be part of any government but it can, and it should, have the right to express its opinion in the context of religious instruction.

At the moment, here in Greece, we are going through a crisis because of the greediness of one of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain. This is just another nail in the coffin of the image of the Church. Lots of people are very disillusioned with the Church itself, but not with the Orthodox religion.

In spite of the above we expect the honest members of the clergy to stand up and speak out against injustice.

We do not forget our past, nor do we forget the role our priests played during the Ottoman Occupation. We were able to preserve our language and our traditions and customs with their help. The Church definitely has a political role to play in today's world.

The Orthodox statement at the Evanston Assembly of 1954 states, it is to "the faith of the ancient, united and indivisible Church of the seven ecumenical councils, namely, to the pure and unchanged and common heritage of the forefathers of all divided Christians" that we bear witness.

"There isn't one Church, there are many churches."

I read a reply to this but it must apparently have been deleted.

What we need here is another Father Averky.

The link below is to an article titled "The word and role of Orthodoxy in the European Union". If you substitute America or other countries for "European Union" I believe that we might find it relevant to our discussion.

http://www.ecclesia.gr/english/EnArchbishop/EnSpeeches/role_of_orthodoxy.html


Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

"The life of Byzantium formed a unified whole, and there was no rigid line of separation between the religious and the secular, between Church and State: the two were seen as parts of a single organism. Hence it was inevitable that the Emperor played an active part in the affairs of the Church. Yet at the same time it is not just to accuse Byzantium of Caesaro-Papism, of subordinating the Church to the State. Although Church and State formed a single organism, yet within this one organism there vvere two distinct elements, the priesthood (sacerdotium) and the imperial power (imperium); and while working in close co-opcration, each of these elements had its own proper sphere in which it was autonomous. Between the two there was a 'symphony' or 'harmony', but neither element exercised absolute control over the other.

This is the doctrine expounded in the great code of Byzantine law drawn up under Justinian (see the sixth Novel) and repeated in many of the; Byzantine texts. Take for example the words of Emperor John Tzimisces: 'I recognize two authorities, priesthood and empire; the Creator of the world entrusted to the first the care of souls and to the second the control of men's bodies. Let neither authority be attacked, that the world may enjoy prosperity." Thus it was the Emperor's task to summon councils and to carry their decrees into effect, but it lay beyond his powers to dictate the content of those decrees: it was for the bishops gathered in council to decide what the true faith was. Bishops were appointed by God to teach the faith, whereas the Emperor was the protector of Orthodoxy, but not its exponent. Such was the theory, and such in great part was the practice also. Admittedly there were many occasions on which the Emperor interfered unwarrantably in ecclesiastical matters; but when a serious question of principle arose, the authorities of the Church quickly showed that they had a will of their own. Iconoclasm, for example, was vigorously championed by a whole series of Emperors, yet for all that it was successfully rejected by the Church. In Byzantine history Church and State were closely interdependent, but neither was subordinate to the other.

There are many today, not only outside but within the Orthodox Church, who sharply criticize the Byzantine Empire and the idea of a Christian society for which it stands. Yet were the Byzantines entirely wrong? They believed that Christ, who lived on earth as a man, has redeemed every aspect of human existence, and they held that it was therefore possible to baptize not human individuals only but the whole spirit and organization of society. So they strove to create a polity entirely Christian in its principles of government and in its daily life. Byzantium in fact was nothing less than an attempt to accept and to apply the full implications of the Incarnation. Certainly the attempt had its dangers: in particular the Byzantines often fell into the error of identifying the earthly kingdom of Byzantium with the Kingdom of God, the Greek people - or rather, the 'Roman' people, to use the term by which they themselves described their own identity - with God's people. Certainly Byzantium fell far short of the high ideal which it set itself, and its failure was often lamentable and disastrous. The tales of Byzantium duplicity, violence, and cruelty are too well known to call for repetition here. They are true - but they are only a part of the truth. For behind all the shortcomings of Byzantium can always be discerned the great vision by which the Byzantines were inspired: to establish here on earth a living image of God's government in heaven. The authority of the patriarch of Constantinople was motivated in a formal fashion by the fact that he was the bishop of the "New Rome," where the emperor and the senate also resided (canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, 451). He held the title of "ecumenical patriarch," which pointed to his political role in the empire. Technically, he occupied the second rank—after the bishop of Rome—in a hierarchy of five major primates, which included also the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In practice, however, the latter three were deprived of all authority by the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the 7th century, and only the emerging Slavic churches attempted to challenge, at times, the position of Constantinople as the unique centre of Eastern Christendom.

The relations between state and church in Byzantium are often described in the West by the term caesaropapism, which implies that the emperor was acting as the head of the church. The official texts, however, describe the emperor and the patriarch as a dyarchy (government with dual authority) and compare their functions to that of the soul and the body in a single organism."

The above is from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/history3.aspx#Relations%20between%20church%20and%2 0state

[Effie Ganatsios]

In a previous message I wrote :"What are "church matters"? Only what happens inside a church? Of course not.

We are members of the Orthodox Church and as Orthodox our church is part of our daily lives."


I have just read an article by Fr. Seraphim Rose and he says :

"There exists a false opinion, which unfortunately is all too widespread today, that it is enough to have an Orthodoxy that is limited to the church building and formal "Orthodox" activities, such as praying at certain times or making the sign of the Cross; in everything else, so this opinion goes, one can be like anyone else, participating in the life and culture of our times without any problem, as long as we don't commit sin.

Anyone who has come to realize how deep Orthodoxy is, and how full is the commitment which is required of the serious Orthodox Christian, and likewise what totalitarian demands the contemporary world makes on us, will easily see how wrong this opinion is. One is Orthodox all the time every day, in every situation of life, or one is not really Orthodox at all. Our Orthodoxy is revealed not just in our strictly religious views, but in everything we do and say. Most of us are very unaware of the Christian, religious responsibility we have for the seemingly secular part of our lives. The person with a truly Orthodox world-view lives every part of his life as Orthodox."

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_wv.aspx

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Effie wrote,
What are "church matters"? Only what happens inside a church? Of course not. We are members of the Orthodox Church and as Orthodox our church is part of our daily lives. I think this expresses the motivation behind the question of Orthodoxy and politics. If we make a sharp distinction between 'the secular' and 'the sacred', restricting the Church to a liturgical function as one compartment of our lives, this basically surely negates what the Church is all about. Therefore it seems necessary for Church intelligentsia, bishops, theologians etc. to fomulate some sort of statement on Christian political life. Especially since our Church has directly experienced the painful consequences of just about every political 'dogma' the last century was capable of producing. And you're right Owen, it seems certain from the outset that thinking about politics - or anything - from an Orthodox perspective this cannot be subject to a 'handbook' approach. We need to place as much emphasis on what we believe and do, as on how we believe and do it, I think!

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear all,

Effie wrote, I think this expresses the motivation behind the question of Orthodoxy and politics. If we make a sharp distinction between 'the secular' and 'the sacred', restricting the Church to a liturgical function as one compartment of our lives, this basically surely negates what the Church is all about. Therefore it seems necessary for Church intelligentsia, bishops, theologians etc. to fomulate some sort of statement on Christian political life. Especially since our Church has directly experienced the painful consequences of just about every political 'dogma' the last century was capable of producing. And you're right Owen, it seems certain from the outset that thinking about politics - or anything - from an Orthodox perspective this cannot be subject to a 'handbook' approach. We need to place as much emphasis on what we believe and do, as on how we believe and do it, I think!

In Christ
Byron

I doubt that statement, whatever form it might take, will not be so "pat" an answer as to say who specifically to vote for in a given election, or what political party to belong to (or not belong to). As rational sheep, there is some thinking and homework to be done on our own as we muddle through all this, and two honest and sincere people may come up with totally different answers or approaches.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

It's not just a question of what we believe and do as Christians. What is the relationship between God's power and political power? What is political reality? Does it inherently have a spiritual/eschatalogical dimension? How do we discern when the political realm is surreptitiously co-opting and deforming Christian theology/eschatology to pursue its own ends of power? There are numerous questions like this that are speculative and theoretical in nature, quite apart from parties and party politics. We do not have a Christian imperium. Nor did we in the first 300 years of the Church. We can look at these issues historically, but I am not sure it will give us much guidance, because the state in pre-imperial times was not predicated on a deformation of Christian eschatology as it is today. So I think the first task is to address certain questions such as, what is Christian eschatology? What do we mean and what should we mean as a Church when we speak of progress? The context is modern politics, not ancient politics, in which Christian eschatology and the Christian idea of progress have been immanentized by the political realm, so that salvation now means freedom from worldly cares brought about by political power and political action. Then we might begin to speculate on the Church's pragmatic relationship with political power in the world we live in. Then we might speculate further on some new vision of politics that is post-enlightenment/secular without romanticising the problem by simply saying that we need a Christian emperor to solve all of our problems.

[Paul C.]

This is a very strong and lively thread. Here's my little bit.

In (John 19:11) we learn what Christ Himself said of the relationship between God and political power.

That is all folks.
Paul

[M.C. Steenberg]

In (John 19:11) we learn what Christ Himself said of the relationship between God and political power.

Dear Paul,

I'm not at all sure how you're meaning that passage to inform a discussion of political interaction.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I assume that what Paul is saying is that all political power is at God's sufferance. That wouldn't be a bad starting point for looking at the question of Orthodoxy and politics. However, there are a lot of remaining questions left open.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


We do not have a Christian imperium. Nor did we in the first 300 years of the Church. We can look at these issues historically, but I am not sure it will give us much guidance, because the state in pre-imperial times was not predicated on a deformation of Christian eschatology as it is today.


I think it is very important to begin from this point. For I notice that we in the west have the tendency as Orthodox Christians (and Christians in general also do this) to identify very closely political issues and the Church. This is so especially during election periods.

Not that the two can be completely separated as if our Orthodox Christian sense does not inform how we see the political as well as the rest of what is in the world. But in past times, and even in contemporary Orthodox countries, the attempt to identify politics and the Church is not so pronounced as we see it here in the west.

Here I think that Owen is correct that a major cause of this is lack of recognition about the modern nation state especially in the way in which it is predicated on the monopolization of all truth. That is whereas Byzantium or the pre modern west was predicated on a truth which stood above government, modern government as embodied in the nation/state legally & morally relegates to itself the summation of all that is true.

This leads us to the ironic situation in the west that the more 'religious' we try to be in regards to secular government the more we tend to try to identify ourselves with it. Whereas in the premodern Christian world the more Orthodox we tried to be the more we saw government as another reality from the Church. Of course we are not saying that the Church is completely separate from government even now. But the way in which we try to get the two realities to overlap is very interesting.

Anyway, a question connected to this I would like to bring up is about the electoral process itself. We have been taught that as citizens our responsibility is defined in terms of our participation in this process. However, what is the actual relationship of government (something which seems good & necessary) to the electoral process?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Very popular in Russia has been the film called, 'Fall of an empire - the lesson of Byzantium'. It was made by Archimandrite Tikhon, superior of Sretensky monastery, central Moscow. On one level it describes the reasons for the fall of the Byzantine empire. But clear parallels are drawn between the causes of that fall and the current economic and political situation in Russia. The implication is that Russia should learn lessons and avoid the causes of fall which affected the Byzantine empire. The film is available on this site with an English translation: www.vizantia.info/docs/73.htm
The signficance of Archimandrite Tikhon's thoughts is that he is the spiritual father of Vladimir Putin.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Very popular in Russia has been the film called, 'Fall of an empire - the lesson of Byzantium'. It was made by Archimandrite Tikhon, superior of Sretensky monastery, central Moscow. On one level it describes the reasons for the fall of the Byzantine empire. But clear parallels are drawn between the causes of that fall and the current economic and political situation in Russia. The implication is that Russia should learn lessons and avoid the causes of fall which affected the Byzantine empire. The film is available on this site with an English translation: www.vizantia.info/docs/73.htm
The signficance of Archimandrite Tikhon's thoughts is that he is the spiritual father of Vladimir Putin.

I just finished reading a book on the governing elite of old Russia by Dominic Lieven. Very striking is the political sophistication of these people who for the most part were faithful Orthodox & also supporters of the old order. Far from this meaning all were conservatives of one stripe however we have those like Peter Durnovo on one end of the political spectrum (very conservative but with a strong bureaucratic leaning which in sense pulled power away from the old aristocracy) and the Obolenskys on the other (liberal supporters of the old order who felt constitutional responsability of the monarchy was necessary). What is particularly striking here is the wide variety of thought within this old world.

Also strongly implicit if not openly stated is that they did not absolutely identify their acute concern with good government with their Orthodox belief. Some like Durnovo thought the Church important as a cultural support (somewhat like the present Russian government does). But this did not mean they saw the government as trying to exactly follow the order of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Like everything else, the Christian's perspective, and the Church's perspective on politics is paradoxical in nature. On the one hand, the Church needs to practice discernment, so that it does not become captivated by political promises to change the world, and political demogogues. This was a major problem in Germany and Austria viz Hitler. They had an opportunity to oppose Hitler early on, and they would have done him in. He knew that he had to get the churches on his side, and he played to their patriotism, and he used God frequently even though he was virulently anti-Christian himself. The Catholic Church rejoiced when he entered Vienna and all the Church bells rang, and the Bishops commanded a pastoral letter be read in Church that required all Catholics to support Hitler, saying it was a Biblical requirement!

And then there are the stupid little things that the Church says that are not necessarily so harmful, like encouraging politicians to spend more money on welfare, which is extremely destructive to people, but still in the vast scheme of things, not so harmful as supporting people like Hitler.

On the other hand, Christians need to live with an other-worldly attitude and shun political activism and stay away from worrying about the state of the world. This is pathologically unspiritual. So I think the Church has to state clearly this paradoxical situation to its flock. Life a responsible life politically. Do not put your spiritual hopes and dreams onto politics or politicians. Avoid demogogues. On the other hand, develop your inner life in Christ. Focus on the heavenly paradise and do not waste a single moment of thought on the idea of an earthly one.

This is terribly politically incorrect, because every politician, right and left, promises earthly progress leading toward the elimination of sin, suffering and death. They are all posing as petty christ figures.

[Paul C.]

Dear Paul,

I'm not at all sure how you're meaning that passage to inform a discussion of political interaction.

INXC, Dcn MatthewForgive me for not being clear. I try to be too short in comments.
Pontius Pilate represented the empirical government and had just told Jesus Christ, "Do you not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?" Jesus answered, "you could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10, 11)

PP was the political power and "from above" was God's power. We are taught to respect authority on earth because all authority over us is placed there by the will of God. I'm sure that some people may interpret from above to mean Caesar but they must remember who uttered the words. It was the Son of God Himself who knows where absolute power and authority comes from.

Sorry for leaving out too much. I was rushing.
Paul

[Antonios]

Forgive me for not being clear. I try to be too short in comments.
Pontius Pilate represented the empirical government and had just told Jesus Christ, "Do you not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?" Jesus answered, "you could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10, 11)

PP was the political power and "from above" was God's power. We are taught to respect authority on earth because all authority over us is placed there by the will of God. I'm sure that some people may interpret from above to mean Caesar but they must remember who uttered the words. It was the Son of God Himself who knows where absolute power and authority comes from.

Sorry for leaving out too much. I was rushing.
Paul

Dear Paul,

I see this a little differently and I may need correction. As I know you will agree, there is no man on earth that has power over the Word of God and Pontius Pilate is an example of this. The Lord said to him "you could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above" and then goes on to say "therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." This may be interpreted as relating exclusively to Jesus Himself, the one who is taken in consideration in this scene. This may not necessarily correlate with how we should view earthly authority in general. Nor more importantly, to use this notion as a justification towards blind submission and acceptance of the whims of men or women simply because they are in a position of political power. Yes, God allowed them to be. God allows many things and it is up to us to draw life from it.

Submission to tyrants may be lead to life and may not lead to life. If done with a loving and forgiving heart, and an unshakable faith in the Power of God, then yes. If done out of fear and anguish and hopelessness, then no.

Likewise, resistance to tyrants may also lead to life or not lead to life. If done with courage, integrity, and out of love for the common man, then yes. If done from malice, greed or one's own personal benefit at the expense of others, then no.

In the end, it is what is in the heart which matters most in all aspects of human endeavor, be it political, artistic, or experimental. God has given us the freedom to choose what it will be, whether for His Glory or not. Everything us is irrelevant, finite and ultimately dying. There are many way to live if one always remembers where true life comes from.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Paul C.]

Dear Paul,

I see this a little differently and I may need correction. As I know you will agree, there is no man on earth that has power over the Word of God and Pontius Pilate is an example of this. The Lord said to him "you could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above" and then goes on to say "therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." This may be interpreted as relating exclusively to Jesus Himself, the one who is taken in consideration in this scene. This may not necessarily correlate with how we should view earthly authority in general. Nor more importantly, to use this notion as a justification towards blind submission and acceptance of the whims of men or women simply because they are in a position of political power. Yes, God allowed them to be. God allows many things and it is up to us to draw life from it.

Submission to tyrants may be lead to life and may not lead to life. If done with a loving and forgiving heart, and an unshakable faith in the Power of God, then yes. If done out of fear and anguish and hopelessness, then no.

Likewise, resistance to tyrants may also lead to life or not lead to life. If done with courage, integrity, and out of love for the common man, then yes. If done from malice, greed or one's own personal benefit at the expense of others, then no.

In the end, it is what is in the heart which matters most in all aspects of human endeavor, be it political, artistic, or experimental. God has given us the freedom to choose what it will be, whether for His Glory or not. Everything us is irrelevant, finite and ultimately dying. There are many way to live if one always remembers where true life comes from.

In Christ,
AntoniosDear Antonios
Please forgive me for bringing this biblical quote to your attention. I think we may be both correct but thinking in different directions. Please see (1 Peter 2:13-17)

Just Paul trying to climb out of the ditch he fell into many times

[Antonios]

Dear Paul,

You are quite appropriate in bringing up this quote from Scripture as it bears much weight to your post above and there is only reason to thank you.


Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.(1 Peter 2:13-17)
And if they punish not evildoers but rather the innocent? And if they do not do good, but rather evil? If their ordinance is to kill your neighbor, than should we submit?

This is where I have my greatest difficulty and confusion and need help in understanding. I have had a tough time understanding why it is that we should fight for truth and justice and the good yet submit to deceit, injustice and evil because someone in political power says so. I have a difficult time accepting this verse from St. Peter and I know it is because of my own weakness and ignorance.

[Paul C.]

Dear Paul,

You are quite appropriate in bringing up this quote from Scripture as it bears much weight to your post above and there is only reason to thank you.

And if they punish not evildoers but rather the innocent? And if they do not do good, but rather evil? If their ordinance is to kill your neighbor, than should we submit?

This is where I have my greatest difficulty and confusion and need help in understanding. I have had a tough time understanding why it is that we should fight for truth and justice and the good yet submit to deceit, injustice and evil because someone in political power says so. I have a difficult time accepting this verse from St. Peter and I know it is because of my own weakness and ignorance.Dear Antonios.
Now I understand where you are coming from and I knew a man of high education who was coming from the same direction.

Maybe the following quote will help. (Matthew 5:38-48) 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23267a)] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23272b)] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23273c)] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23276d)] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23276e)] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

The above words are from Jesus Christ Himself and from them we can see that He was guiding us towards perfection. He told us that we will be as gods (if we make it to heaven). He gave His own suffering as an example for us to follow. One of the beatitudes is for those who suffer unjustly for Christ's sake - great is their reward in heaven.

Suffering undeservedly cleanses us of our sins and teaches us patience. "In patience possess ye your souls". It's all about cleansing and perfection.

"Woe to the world because of offences! For offences must come, but woe to that man by whom the offence comes! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire." These quoted words from the Lord Himself in (Matthew 18:7-8)

Now when Jesus walked the earth He caused a fig tree to wither and die by His word alone. He did not do this to punish the tree which had no sense of pain or guilt. He did it to show His disciples and through the scriptures, to show us also, that He had the power to take life away from any living creature at will.

Yet when shortly after, He was taken by armed men and underwent false witnesses and false accusations, physical abuse and finally the unjust death like a criminal on the cross, He showed us to follow His example and submit (resist not the evil) to the unjust offences that could be committed against us. But fear not; only those who can bear it willingly, will be given the honor of a martyr's death and crown.

But all true Christians suffer for Christ, even if it is only observing the fasts when our occupational colleagues enjoy barbequed meats right under our noses.

We all suffer for Christ to some extent and hopefully approaching the limit of our respective stengths. The more we can suffer down here, the more we can rejoice up there.

So even when we are under corrupt and unjust bearers of authority in this world, we must still submit. God's will prevails whether He commands or allows whatever befalls us.

Even in the earliest years of the Church, Christians suffered unjustly under corrupt governments. At one time the Roman authority entertained non Christians by using various means to put Christians to death in the Arena.

Many of them bravely confessed their faith in Christ with the full knowledge that such a confession brought them suffering and death. Glorious martyrs glorified by the command of the Lord!

We should obey our governments unless commanded to deny Christ in any way. If we do not abandon the Lord, He will not abandon us.

Now I'm afraid it is very late (though I am on vacation at the moment) and I typed much more than I am accustomed to type. So goodnight from Paul.

[Antonios]

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your post. I thank you for the explanation as it was very helpful. Still, I have my concerns... When you say


We should obey our governments unless commanded to deny Christ in any way. If we do not abandon the Lord, He will not abandon us.

Is not submitting to evil in fact denying Christ? By following the evil ordinances of evil people in power, do we not abandon the Lord?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Paul C.]

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your post. I thank you for the explanation as it was very helpful. Still, I have my concerns... When you say



1. Is not submitting to evil in fact denying Christ?

2. By following the evil ordinances of evil people in power, do we not abandon the Lord?

In Christ,
AntoniosDear Antonios

1. No, not submitting to evil is OBEYING Christ.

2. Yes, by following the evil ordinances of evil people in power, we DO abandon the Lord, because we cannot serve two masters (Luke 16:13).

So the statements, "We should obey our governments unless commanded to deny Christ IN ANY WAY. If we do not abandon the Lord, He will not abandon us" say that submitting to evil, by following evil ordinances of evil people in power IS denying Christ and abandoning the Lord. You are absolutely right in my opinion but see why I used the words IN ANY WAY when describing how we should only submit to the will of the governments unless we are commanded IN ANY WAY to deny Christ.

If we are soldiers called to defend our nation in war, we are not denying Christ when we go into battle and even take life, provided we do so in obedience to our government and without any feeling of malice towards the enemy. There are Orthodox canonized saints who fought in wars and had to take lives in the line of duty.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was inaccurately translated from the Greek. It should have read, "Thou shalt not murder." Or in more contemporary English, "You will not commit murder." When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do (Luke 3:14) he did not command them to disobey their officers or government and refuse to kill enemies in battle. He told them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

If a our government orders us to execute our neighbor who stole from us personally, we would be disobeying Christ in order to submit to that command. So in that case, we refuse even if refusal brings upon us the punishment of death. Christ said, "If any man will sue you at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Matthew 5:40)

Not submitting to persecutors including the government when they oppose God's will is what Christ Himself showed us, among other things, with His own death. If He obeyed the authorities who forbade Him to heal on the sabbath day, if He prevented Himself from casting out money changers and sacrificial animal dealers from the Holy temple, and allowed the will of the three important Hebrew men which, was to have the woman caught in the act of adultry to be stoned to death; if He did not call the Pharisees and scribes hypocrites and did not put the saducees in their place regarding resurrection; He may well have not been crucified and we would not have a path to salvation shown to us.

But Christ also showed us that we must submit to governments in the paying of taxes (tribute money) in more than one incident recorded by Holy Scripture - Peter was told to cast a line in the water and take a coin out of the mouth of the first fish that comes up to pay tax for them both; and - Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.... And Jesus also submitted to the unjust punishment of the law handled corruptly by the authorities because that submission was the will of God for the sake of our salvation. It was foretold by Holy Scripture which, is written according to God's will.

God's law always takes precedent over man's law when there is conflict. Now when we are persecuted by man's law, God's law is quite clear, turn the other cheek also. Do not take an eye for an eye which was an Old Testament law established for a primitive almost lawless people before they matured enough to receive the New Testament laws of the Lord, especially in His two great commandments which encompased all the law and the prophets.

Besides, the "eye for an eye" law was not for personal acts of revenge but for the chosen authorities of the Israelites to execute after a court of law proved guilt. It was to teach people to think of others as themselves in that if you cause your neighbor a loss then you too will lose the same as you caused him to lose. It made people think twice about committing wrongs against others.

But when Christ was persectuted, He did not use His infinite power to exact revenge nor did He use it to save His own life, nor to punish, but He submitted to the corrupt authority which could not corrupt Him, in order for the scriptures' prophecies to be fulfilled for the sake of making a path to salvation for His greatest creation, mankind.

So when evil authority tells you to commit evil acts against the will of God, you do not submit but, when evil authority tells you to go to jail for disobeying its command, then you submit and glorify God that you were deemed worthy to suffer for Christ's sake as in (Acts 5:41).

I hope I haven't caused you or anyone else even more confusion by the way I rambled on.

Paul

[Antonios]

I hope I haven't caused you or anyone else even more confusion by the way I rambled on.

Paul

No Paul, you have not. You explained it perfectly to me and I thank you for this.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


Is not submitting to evil in fact denying Christ? By following the evil ordinances of evil people in power, do we not abandon the Lord?

Paul has already answered this very adequately. I'd just like to add that the issue of discernment seems to me important here. Clearly we must resist evil, whether we are instructed to commit it by someone in authority or not. We must resist it even at our own peril. Now, there are many things the Bible tells us flat out are evil, and we shouldn't do them under any circumstances (e.g. in the 10 commandments). But most things in life are not that clear-cut; each must act according to their own conscience, and that moral organ may be less discerning in some of us than in others. Even if we are blessed with having a spiritual father, he can't be there all the time to give us his opinion. So we are, in a way, 'condemned to freedom' as Sartre said (little as I like to quote him) - we must choose at every instant of our lives, and choose to our best ability. This means that we may be choosing evil, when we think we are choosing good. Only God knows if what we've chosen is actually good or evil. I think this is why the inside of a person is more important than the outside, because as long as we are genuinely choosing with the best intentions and to the best of our (limited) understanding, then God - I hope - will forgive us even if what we've chosen is ultimately bad. This applies I think a great deal to politics, where people may imagine that the laws etc. they are voting for are helping society, but in fact they may be doing the opposite. God will surely not punish those people for voting for a leader or a law they could not at the time discern to be evil. He may even reward them (?) for acting according to their best conscience, even if they were wrong in objective terms. Incidentally, I think this also implies that a Christian always should bear in mind in whatever they choose, that we may be wrong, however right it feels.

Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on personal conscience here. I know we have Scripture, the Church, Spiritual Parents, dogma and doctrines to help us to make the right choices, and provided we are following these closely and really living the Christian life to the maximum of our capacity, the number of times we are deceived will probably be much less than if we weren't trying at all. But it still won't be perfect. How many good Christians have made wrong estimations and choices in recent history, through simple lack of clarity and understanding? What matters, it seems to me, is whether they were truly trying to be good, not whether their choices ultimately served evil.

In Christ
Byron

[Andreas Moran]

I have read the recent posts here with great interest. There is a marked legal aspect to this issue which is very topical. It's not my field though a colleague of mine is an internationally-acknowledged expert in that branch of international law dealing with such matters. Mention has been made of the extent to which a person should obey government. It is worth bearing in mind that since 1945 obeying orders does not exonerate a person from culpability for acts which are proscribed by internationally recognised standards. A person has to bear in mind his accountability to international law and not only to national government. All quite apart from the Christian's accountability to God.

[Owen Jones]

Christ commands us NOT to resist evil. Look, there is a question of realms here. There is a sacred realm and a secular. These are distinctions but not absolute ones. But they are distinct. So, what, I'm not supposed to pay my taxes because of the evil that my government does? What is an act of resistance? I must resist evil temptations within me. That is what I must do. I cannot change the evil intent of others. I cannot assume the mantle of the resistor of evil on behalf of others. Besides, am I any less evil than the people who run my government? Since when?

The problem is that there is simply much too much focus on politics by Christians. The politicization of consciousness is one of the great evils of "modern" man. The politicization of relationships, of ideas, of actions, of society and culture, of theology. Christians should resist being tempted by the thought that politics can actually change the world for the better. When we complain about politics, it is because we have already bought into the myth that through politics we can and should change the world. That is Satan speaking.

Let's compare to another topic: money and business. Christians should not get caught up in business. The pursuit of business goals, while not in itself evil (nor is politics in and of itself evil) crowds out spiritual consciousness. The Fathers probably preach against businessmen more than politicians. Christ, while using business and market economics as analogies for His parables, essentially warns us against the pursuit of happiness through money. The same issue applies to politics. It does not buy happiness.

I say this as someone very familiar with the obsessive temptations of both business and politics.

We could also mention...SEX!

[Father David Moser]

On the topic of "those in power over us" it must be pointed out that "power" and "authority" in a democracy rests with the people. We are the government, we are the ones who rule - those whom we elect are simply our agents, carrying out the will of the people. If we elect "evil rulers" does this not reveal to us the evil in our own selves? If we continue to vote "for someone who has a chance to win" (as is often in the case in the US) rather than use our vote to express our conscience, then we have squandered our "authority" and "power". We have, in a sense, buried the talent which we have been given.

When the Holy Apostle Paul wrote his epistles, when our Lord spoke about government, the government was not "elected by the people" power did not rest with them - but at best power rested with a very small aristocracy (the Roman senate). Monarchy has always been understood in terms of the ideal of "the divine right of kings" which is not that the king can do whatever he wants and get away with it because God is on his side, but rather that the king is given the responsibility to rule by God and is responsible to God for how he uses the power which he has been given on behalf of the people of God. Power to rule comes from God - and in the modern world, we have taken that power as our own, we have, in a political sense, repeated the "original sin" of usurping God's authority as though it were our own and pretending to replace (or at least rise to an equality with) God. Democracy could easily be viewed as the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which we have eaten - fruit, skin, core, seeds and all.

Now that we have taken the "power to rule" as our own, we, the people, also bear the responsibility before God that the king once bore in his own person and we, the people, are responsible before God for how we use the authority to rule for the benefit of the people of God. If it sounds twisted and strange - I believe that's because it is. Democracy is only and extension of the original sin into the political arena. But having taken the authority, now we, especially we who are Christians and who have inherited the situation from our fathers and forefathers, have an extremely heavy burden. What we do with our power (whether we vote or not, who we give our power to, how we are or are not active in the political realm, etc) is something that we will have to answer for before God.

To resist those who are in authority over us who might be evil in a democratic society is no different than resisting the evil that plagues us and tempts us to sin in our hearts. We have taken the power to ourselves and so now we must resist the evil that is in us and the evil that we have placed in political power.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:



The politicization of consciousness is one of the great evils of "modern" man. The politicization of relationships, of ideas, of actions, of society and culture, of theology.

This actually is behind what I posted the other day rather than the question of Christian conscience as it is often thought of.

To speak of it another way. I see in both of our present electoral campaigns behaviour and statements from the main candidates that if they came from our parishioners we would probably bar them from communion until they first went to confession; ie psychological manipulation, appealing to the most crass aspect of people, etc. Which of course leads to rank duplicity and avoidance of crucial issues.

Thus my question in my last post about an Orthodox view of elections rather than of government itself.

One danger here I feel is that certainly we have bought into the political view as if it was our view. It's the only way for the most part we understand participation in the governing of society.

Instead I would suggest that we already have a basic understanding of political parties and what they represent. An election didn't really clear this up or illumine this issue. It rather muddied it by striving first and above everything else to win our support. Which of course is how modern governments legitimize themselves. But on the other hand it frequently overlooks or puts far down the line the more crucial issue of the legitimacy of what a particular government in itself represents. So although modern government identifies the legitimacy of a government and our support for this government these two are not really exactly the same. Indeed the danger if we continue along this route is that unwittingly what we actually are supporting is the maintenance of political power. Which again can be far removed from whether policy of a government is legitimate or not.

What I think of then for Orthodox Christians is not a separation from the political process but rather freedom of mind in its regard so that our choices are not made according to its agenda.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andrew]

What I think of then for Orthodox Christians is not a separation from the political process but rather freedom of mind in its regard so that our choices are not made according to its agenda.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This reminds me of the Orthodox who lived through the lowest points of life in the USSR... living like free, spiritual men, despite the evils around them that tried to turn them into something else. We live in an equally destructive climate and political context, but it takes a different form. I will not go into details, because when I do my posts get deleted. "What they could not achieve in Russia, they have succeeded in America." But, in spite of the darkness of the powers that govern, we can always live fully Orthodox lives as free men made in God's image, illumined through baptism and holy communion. We are not liberals, conservatives, socialists, what have you... we are Orthodox Christians! We cannot let our minds get trapped in false political paradigms.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This reminds me of the Orthodox who lived through the lowest points of life in the USSR... living like free, spiritual men, despite the evils around them that tried to turn them into something else. We live in an equally destructive climate and political context, but it takes a different form. I will not go into details, because when I do my posts get deleted. "What they could not achieve in Russia, they have succeeded in America." But, in spite of the darkness of the powers that govern, we can always live fully Orthodox lives as free men made in God's image, illumined through baptism and holy communion. We are not liberals, conservatives, socialists, what have you... we are Orthodox Christians! We cannot let our minds get trapped in false political paradigms.

This reminds me of a book I referred to here a few months ago called Everything Was the Same Until It Was No More by Alexei Yurchak.

Basically this is a description of how those in Russia turned the Soviet system inside out by transforming its intended meaning.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jonathan Michael]

On the topic of "those in power over us" it must be pointed out that "power" and "authority" in a democracy rests with the people. We are the government, we are the ones who rule - those whom we elect are simply our agents, carrying out the will of the people. If we elect "evil rulers" does this not reveal to us the evil in our own selves? If we continue to vote "for someone who has a chance to win" (as is often in the case in the US) rather than use our vote to express our conscience, then we have squandered our "authority" and "power". We have, in a sense, buried the talent which we have been given.

When the Holy Apostle Paul wrote his epistles, when our Lord spoke about government, the government was not "elected by the people" power did not rest with them - but at best power rested with a very small aristocracy (the Roman senate). Monarchy has always been understood in terms of the ideal of "the divine right of kings" which is not that the king can do whatever he wants and get away with it because God is on his side, but rather that the king is given the responsibility to rule by God and is responsible to God for how he uses the power which he has been given on behalf of the people of God. Power to rule comes from God - and in the modern world, we have taken that power as our own, we have, in a political sense, repeated the "original sin" of usurping God's authority as though it were our own and pretending to replace (or at least rise to an equality with) God. Democracy could easily be viewed as the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which we have eaten - fruit, skin, core, seeds and all.

Now that we have taken the "power to rule" as our own, we, the people, also bear the responsibility before God that the king once bore in his own person and we, the people, are responsible before God for how we use the authority to rule for the benefit of the people of God. If it sounds twisted and strange - I believe that's because it is. Democracy is only and extension of the original sin into the political arena. But having taken the authority, now we, especially we who are Christians and who have inherited the situation from our fathers and forefathers, have an extremely heavy burden. What we do with our power (whether we vote or not, who we give our power to, how we are or are not active in the political realm, etc) is something that we will have to answer for before God.

To resist those who are in authority over us who might be evil in a democratic society is no different than resisting the evil that plagues us and tempts us to sin in our hearts. We have taken the power to ourselves and so now we must resist the evil that is in us and the evil that we have placed in political power.

Fr David Moser

This is an excellent post; I was going to write something similar, but Fr. David has put many of my ideas in a more eloquent form, so I'm glad I put off posting. The connection between the democtratic process being in some ways an extension of the original sin isn't something I'd thought of. I would go further and say that Democracy is the way in which God allows us to punish ourselves; in other words, the result of Democracy is always going to bring strife to us.

As Fr. David said, monarchies and totalatarian regimes are clearly part of God's providence. The line of succession, the accidents that might befall an heir, all this is definitely beyond human control and is part of God's will within the world. And yet because of a single mis-shod horse shoe an entire battle can turn the other way, so even wars of succession and coup d'etats are not beyond God's will. That's not to say that God approves of all the dictatorships and rulers that have ever existed, but merely that because of God's will that all might be saved, He gives power to all who have authority over us. It is on this basis that St. Paul and Christ said what they said with regards to our attitude to earthly powers.

Of course, that we (that is, all of you who live in North America or Europe) now live under a Democracy is also down to God's will. But God does not interfere with our own free-will, so the leaders we elect are purely down to our own power, will and authority, and not God's. This should not be cause for celebration, but fear!

An expert is someone who has knowledge above and beyond the majority of other people. Therefore, by definition, the majority of people are expert at precisely nothing, including the governing of a nation. This is the fatal flaw in Democracy, as I see it. We can only be expected to vote according to our own narrow, personal, experiences. Indeed, this is what happens in reality: despite our ideals and hopes, people tend to vote for those who will make their life, the life of their family, and their local community, better. There is nothing shameful in these desires, but it is a problem when our parochial desires are given power on a national level. Within even a small country like the United Kingdom, the wants and needs of the people are dispirate and often contradictory. In a multi-cultural society these differences are even greater. Therefore, a politician who seeks election by "the people" must be a servant of two or more masters. If a career politician wants his majority, he is almost forced to be many-faced, duplicitous, capracious, and false in so many ways. And so we have in modern democracies the choice between career politician A and career politician B.

Can we really expect the majority of Christians, let alone the majority of people, to be able to discern what is best for the majority of people? As Christians we should know how much we struggle with our sinful desires, and that we cannot rely on ourselves to be the salvation of others. Where in history can we point and say that the majority of people were honest, selfless, servants to others? If we cannot, how can we be expected to elect such a person, especially if - as I already said - the whole system is set up so that only self-serving career politicians can be elected.

With a monarchy we must expect from time to time a selfish, capricious, weak-willed ruler. With a democracy I believe we are guaranteed such a ruler every single time.

I don't know how this translates into practical advice on how we must live in a democracy (not that I do personally live in a democratic nation). All I can say is that I myself am a monarchist, and have never felt even the slightest inclination to vote for anyone in British General Elections.

As always, sorry for the length.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


The connection between the democtratic process being in some ways an extension of the original sin isn't something I'd thought of.

The last few posts have been quite encouraging for me. I've always felt that democracy is rule by the mob. Take a great piece of classical music, and a vulgar pop song; are they of the same quality? The answer is no. Take Orthodox iconography and posters of football players; are they of the same quality? The answer is no. Since we live in a world where some things are obviously better than others, I could never understand how the vote of one man is considered as good as that of another. Please don't misuderstand me, I'm not suggesting my vote is the better one, or my taste or my preferences. Moreover, sometimes a rock song is better than a piece of classical music that was only the light entertainment of it's own era. But this doesn't change the fact that quality is quality, and yes, some choices are better than others, so no, not every vote counts as the same. And no, the will of the whole people and the Will of God will also not be equivalent. God is omniscient and peaceful, for one thing. God may allow the will of the people to pour hot coals over our heads much as He could allow a bad sovereign in hereditary monarchy to do so in the past, but I'd hardly call this 'freedom'. So I just want to thank those on this thread who are brave enough to call a spade a spade, and who are pointing a way out of democratic misery for us who are looking for a better way of living than democracy - or indeed any worldly political system - can offer. If I'm totally honest, though, I can't see any political arrangement as being satisfactory. The world is a mess, and humans are the biggest cause of it. I don't see any way out, other than the possibility of spiritual redemption. I ask for your prayers, that I may be helped not to overly contribute to this mess of a world through my own sin.

In Christ
Byron

[Andreas Moran]

All I can say is that I myself am a monarchist, and have never felt even the slightest inclination to vote for anyone in British General Elections.

At least the Russians recently had a presidential election (albeit in reality a one-horse race) and the Americans are about to have one (but what a choice!). We in 'democratic' Britain have a leader for whom we have not had any opportunity to vote and cannot vote out for some time to come. If Putin had handed power over to Medvedev in the same way Blair handed it to Brown, the western media would have screamed about the lack of democracy in Russia. And anyway, the Russians don't want democracy.

[Antonios]

It's been said that democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

[Andreas Moran]

Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government there is - apart from all the others.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Byron,

The world is a mess and human beings are the ONLY cause of it!

Classically, in political philosophy, democracy always leads to tyranny.

However, there is no viable alternative to democracy, given the general cultural ambiance. Unless and until someone invents some new political paradigm. Not likely any time soon.

Byron's general argument, on the other hand, is a classic aesthetic argument. It is the basis of our faith. The is no alternative to a theological aesthetic. God saves us, not by applying His mercy to us, but by applying His beauty to us. The best way to start an argument with almost anyone today is to make an assertion based on aesthetics.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron wrote:



Since we live in a world where some things are obviously better than others, I could never understand how the vote of one man is considered as good as that of another. Please don't misuderstand me, I'm not suggesting my vote is the better one, or my taste or my preferences. Moreover, sometimes a rock song is better than a piece of classical music that was only the light entertainment of it's own era. But this doesn't change the fact that quality is quality, and yes, some choices are better than others, so no, not every vote counts as the same. And no, the will of the whole people and the Will of God will also not be equivalent.


Now that the discussion has gone this far- and I'm referring to the other posters also- I am wondering if we could look at what it means to vote.

As you mention, and also I think Fr David makes some very good points, voting itself is an activity that needs examination in terms of Orthodox understanding and conscience. As I tried to point out yesterday I think we make a serious mistake when we connect so closely voting and government as if they are identical. This in fact is what political parties do since voting is the one of the chief means of legitimizing themselves. But in fact the two are distinct since voting is like a doorway to be opened while government is what goes on in the room. Of course though the question is what is the reality of the doorway and what should be our options in terms of it.

As some have expressed here I also share doubt in voting as the chief sign of participation in government. There was a time up until not too long ago when voting was seen as a civic responsibility. This goes back to the origins of voting which are actually quite modern in which through voting one's public responsibility as a citizen was expressed. This involved not only conscience for a particular candidate but chiefly affirmation of one's being part of the larger civic community. Which is why early on one was legally protected to vote for any available candidate or even to spoil one's ballot. In other words the act of voting was just as or even more important than who one voted for.

Now however the spectrum has pulled more towards who one votes for rather than voting as a sign of being part of the larger committed community. Inevitably this has pulled apart some of the major threads that used to make voting part of a larger context of the moral reality which the community as a whole represented. Instead as political parties position themselves more as competing views of society voting in some ways means us affirming at the end of the day a very fractured social reality. And since political parties now compete for our vote almost exactly as food companies for us to buy their products the result is that our participation is made somehow more petty.

I would say then that the challenge for us as Orthodox Christians lies in what voting itself has become. Not that the past was all ideal- rather as others have pointed out the origin of voting itself is problematic since it meant not only public participation in the larger community but also the means of expressing ones will. Which in Orthodox terms we know is problematic unless tied firmly to a larger moral/spiritual reality.

As long as the world then we were part of expressed this larger reality then voting also in some dim way could also reflect this at least in the way it conveyed being responsible for each other. However as this larger moral reality has faded away then voting & political parties in turn have also reflected this.

To turn our back on this however I do not think is proper in an Orthodox perspective. We share in Orthodoxy a very rich heritage of the importance of good government that goes back to Roman/Hellenic times. Even practically it is very difficult to understand how we could live- have clean water, roads to drive on, be protected by laws, etc- without good government. However I think that what we could re-think as Orthodox Christians is the best way to participate in this social reality. This doesn't necessarily have to be participation of the same exact kind that society itself expects of us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

People generally end up with the government they deserve.
generally attributed to H.L. Mencken

Herman

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


The best way to start an argument with almost anyone today is to make an assertion based on aesthetics. De gustibus non disputandum est! I agree with Owen about the importance of beauty to salvation. I might add that I see no obstacle to thinking of God's mercy and beauty as mutually enhancing and interdependent, if 'dependence' is a word that may be used at all, in the context of God; perhaps theologians on this thread might let us know if it is dogmatically correct to philosophize about divine qualities (are these the same as 'energies' in a Palamite sense?) and the relationship between them. Also Owen, what do you think of the matter of taste? What is an Orthodox way to apply criteria of 'objective' beauty? And what makes taste 'subjective', as opposed to accurate perception of objective beauty (I think we're returning to the cockroach theme!)?

Many have expressed the view, pace Churchill, that democracy is not the best system, but the best we've got. If this is the best we've got, then get out of politics today, and let them get on with it (though I agree with Fr Raphael, this would not be a mature Orthodox response to the needs of a society that has - literally - lost its head). I think Fr Raphael is on a very interesting track in examining the history of voting. Voting has become such a given in modern society, that to even suggest there could be other ways to participate in government is to be perceived either as malicious or simply mad.
However I think that what we could re-think as Orthodox Christians is the best way to participate in this social reality. This doesn't necessarily have to be participation of the same exact kind that society itself expects of us. I'd like to hear more on this alternative possibility for participating, since in this society as it is I feel just like that sheep with the two wolves.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

Voting is the sacrament of secularists. It is how you participate in the divine nature -- the divinizing nature -- of politics. So by expanding the franchise to anyone and everyone you are expanding the divinizing power of politics. You are deified by voting.

As for aesthetics, it does not have the qualities of subjective and objective knowledge. Once we reduce aesthetics to an argument about subjective and objective, we have caved to modernist political ideology. Something is aesthetically true because it triggers the right response in the soul. A beautiful soul is something that radiates goodness and light, both literally and figuratively. But a soul is not an object. It is not something to be objectified. Otherwise, a good pathologist would be able to find it when he performs an autopsy. It is a complex reality. It is not self-contained in the body. There is a God/body/soul complex.

Modern politics objectifies the soul by attributing it to the body politic. The soul of a people is divinized through political action. It is a form of gnostic mysticism. At the same time, there is always the pragmatic side of politics -- performing the administrative functions of government effectively. But government is not a management problem exclusively. To the extent it is, modernist management theory is gnostic as well.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Owen wrote:


Voting is the sacrament of secularists. It is how you participate in the divine nature -- the divinizing nature -- of politics. So by expanding the franchise to anyone and everyone you are expanding the divinizing power of politics. You are deified by voting.

I like this comment very much. We should keep firmly in mind that the popular franchise is a quite recent thing. Even a liberal like Anatoly Kulomzin in early 20th century Russia could feel that it was dangerous to the social fabric of his country to extend the vote to the uneducated (eg peasants & working classes). This indeed was inherent to the idea of voting until recent times and it still is connected to the reason why for example children are not legally (not yet anyway!) allowed to vote. In other words tied to the idea of voting was a sense of social responsibility which it was assumed not everyone inherently has.

Voting however became part of a popular franchise as the idea spread that everyone has the right to equally express their will. Of course the fact that educational standards spread across society helped ease concerns about the popular franchise (thus the old image of the public school student who grows up to be a voter). But political parties soon learned to use this change to their advantage recognizing that what was now involved was the expression of self will and self interest and appealing to this. As time has gone on this appeal has become more sophisticated and psychological creating a great tension with the sense of voting as a method of responsible participation which has not entirely disappeared.

About Byron's statement then that :


I'd like to hear more on this alternative possibility for participating, since in this society as it is I feel just like that sheep with the two wolves.

I am not too sure what to do except to begin by asking the questions.

What I do sense however with confidence is that we accomplish much that is positive by praying for our civil authorities at the services. We also need to discover what faith is as an answer especially during these troubled times. Then of course there is our own spiritual life within the Church (and the life of the Church itself) which touches the whole world even if we have a difficult time seeing this.

In any case turning our backs cynically or in resignation from society is not at all what I have in mind. I don't even think it is proper for us as Orthodox Christians. However to see how our Orthodox lives already profoundly touches the society we are part of- that I think is something that bears more thought on our part.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

The Church hierarchy needs to make the case to the Faithful that our lives and our "identities" are in the body of Christ. This does not mean that we do not have obligations: to family, to neighborhood, community, and as members of a society, many of whom do not share our beliefs, etc. But it means that the source of our lives is the Church, not just defined institutionally but as the earthly reality of God's presence. Why do you think that Christ says that you must hate your parents!!!! My parents are only the source of my life on a very narrow level. The true source is from above. I must reject the illusion that my life is somehow dependent on earthly things. This experience is at the core of our very existence and determines everything else that we do, and think and are. As a result, our responses to outside actions and events will be a natural response. Not an intellectualized one. It's not something that we will be confused about. The problem of course for most of us is that Church is an activity that we engage, even a commitment to be sure, but competing on the same terms with all of our other commitments and activities. It is too "mainstream" so to speak.

There is this classic skit by Jack Benny where he is accosted by a mugger with a gun pointed at him who says, "your money or your life!" There is a long pause, wherein the mugger shouts it out again. And Benny says, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!"

[Andreas Moran]

In all this we should not be too ready to assume that governments, elected or otherwise, control events. All too often - and how topical this is! - they react to events whose causes are another matter altogether.

[Owen Jones]

This is the most important insight, because all modern politics is about control. It's not that ancient politics wasn't about control, but rulers knew that there was a kind of divine penalty for assuming that you were in absolute control.

But there is no such penalty today. And so through political action it is believed that humans can control their destiny. This is, of course, a great lie that is initiated by Satan and his minions. The illusion of control is the death of God in our minds and hearts.

[Paul C.]

Hinduism and Buddhism have karma but we Orthodox do not. We can control the future both individually and collectively by making choices. Adam and Eve made a wrong choice to disobey God but after many decades of repentance and a spell in Hades, they still became inhabitants of heaven. As long as there is breath in our nostrils, we can control our eternal future and our hope is that we will learn from the Lord and that we are strong enough to make the right choices and stick to them.

Still struggling through the jungle,
Paul

[Andreas Moran]

It's not that ancient politics wasn't about control, but rulers knew that there was a kind of divine penalty for assuming that you were in absolute control.

But there is no such penalty today. And so through political action it is believed that humans can control their destiny. This is, of course, a great lie that is initiated by Satan and his minions.

I wonder if people - the electorate - do believe this? Governments here are elected by a minority of those entitled to vote partly because many people do not vote since they are so cynical about politicians that they shrink from the whole process. In an interview this week, George Soros (who is doing very well out of the current financial crisis) was asked if he himself had actually brought about the crisis. 'Not entirely', he replied.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


Hinduism and Buddhism have karma but we Orthodox do not. We can control the future both individually and collectively by making choices. I think I understand what Paul may be trying to say here. It's true that as Orthodox we cannot subscribe to a view of fate as kismet, or indeed 'karma' in the sense of 'cause and effect' in a process of reincarnation. Yet I feel that it is important to make a distinction between the good faith, determination and intent with which we should pursue our goals, especially in spiritual life, and the background awareness that ultimately, none of our works can bear fruit unless God wants them to. I think someone said "work, as though everything depends on you, and pray, as though everything depends on God". We are not helpless before the necessity of fate; but at the same time we are not to believe that the control is entirely in our hands - even if we're George Soros!

Just putting the thought out there for your comments...far be it from me to have 'solved' this one.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

The only thing we control is our inner disposition, and even that is only due to God's power. This idea that we are in control of our destiny, that we could control our destiny, even our eternal destiny, is prelest. This mindset, that somehow we are somehow less dignified as humans unless we are in control, is at the root of all of our problems.

[Paul C.]

That is now the second post that talks about destiny. Destiny is not an Orthodox word. It is a Hindu and Buddhist word.

Eternal future refers to where a soul will spend eternity, in heaven or hell. We Orthodox do not talk about eternal destiny. The words destiny and future are not synonymous and destiny should not be used to replace future when commenting against someone else's point of view. Destiny is the inevitable future which the Buddhists and Hindus believe is 'written' and unchangeable, it is their karma. What was Saul's karma? What was Mary Magdalene's karma (destiny)?

We Orthodox believe in free will given us by God. Those virtuous people who lived a past with similar circumstances to those who end up in hell will be the measure shown to the latter as a witness against them. One man in hell will say, "I could not help becoming a thief because I came from a poor family"; and a saint will say, "Thanks to my family's poverty, I was able to set my eyes on treasures in heaven and because of that I set about acquiring Christian virtues early on in my life."

The whole point of being created in God's image and having bestowed upon us free will is for us to willfully choose to spend eternity with God. With our free will we control much more than our "inner" disposition. We control also what we say and write thus influencing others younger in understanding either rightly or wrongly. We control our actual actions towards others. We are able to follow Christ's example if we choose or we can do the opposite. Their is no destiny regarding individuals. The only inevitabilities concerning us Orthodox Christians are what was prophesied in Holy Scripture for the world and human kind as a whole.

Prelest IS an Orthodox word but to use it in describing something a person would call eternal destiny is mixing Orthodoxy with non-Christian religions. Prelest is spiritual delusion while controlling the future outcome of our lives as Orthodox Christians is exercising our God given free wills.

The two concepts of prelest and destiny have nothing to do with each other from an Orthodox standpoint but if anyone is an expert on Hiduism or Budhism they may elaborate the concept of destiny and karma without intermixing it with free will and prelest, which somehow slipped into this discussion uncalled for.

Sorry for being blunt in the defense of my faith.
Paul

[Owen Jones]

I have obviously failed to make my point. My point is not to defend the idea that we have a destiny but to critique it. And along with it the idea that we can control it. The context is modern politics, and in modern politics we are told that we all have an historical destiny that we must grab and take control of. This is a secular, gnostic heresy.

At the same time, call it what you will, we have no control over our eternal life either, in that it is entirely in God's hands. We have the free will, here and now, to follow God's will, to seek Him in all things, to be joyful and repentant, to want to serve him as a great privilege and gift, and not as some burden, to choose to be grateful for all things that come our way rather than be cynical or resentful, to see life as a blessing not as a curse. None of this is a money-back guaranteed ticket to heaven. We don't control that. Even so, our free will is circumscribed by many events and situations beyond our control, and by constant assaults by the Evil One. So that God is infinitely compassionate toward those who, by circumstance, do not have the advantage, for example, of growing up in a pious Orthodox family. Always remember the good thief on the cross. There are many other examples of "outsiders" one might say, who share paradise with our Master. And I dare say many of us Orthodox who are smugly self-righteous who will be in for some chastisement when the time comes. There is no formula for salvation that we can control.

Our young priest teaching a Bible study says, if I understand him correctly, that Baptism is the only requirement for salvation, but it is not a guarantee. And further we cannot say whom God will save and not save. So it comes down to the myth of control. We are not in control. Free will should not be confused with control. I think this is the one distinquishing factor between classical Christianity and today. We have absorbed this notion that we either are or should be in control of our lives and our eternal...whatever you want to call it.

[Rick H.]

I will allow room for the possibility that I am missing the point Owen; however, as I read post #75 I cannot see any difference between the position you present and a classic Calvinistic position void of any mention of cooperation as it relates to our eternal destiny. Possibly the concept of cooperation is what is lacking in this part of the discussion of modern politics and destiny as it relates to the paddling of one's own canoe or not?

What you have presented is exactly what some of my Calvinist friends who would be Orthodox would love to read. Because, it is the very doctrine of cooperation as presented by some (viz. Cassian) that seems to create a great stumbling block for some of them. So as you say, there is no formula, but possibly you see what I mean.

I appreciate the distinction that you have drawn between freewill and control. Possibly what has been presented speaks to the elasticity of Orthodoxy.

[Owen Jones]

Read what I wrote again.

[Michael Stickles]

Ah, the joys of language.

First, I'm amazed that "destiny" has been causing trouble. In normal American usage, "destiny" is not the same as the Hindu/Buddhist inevitable and unchangeable future (if it was, to speak of "controlling" it would be an oxymoron).

There are two common American ideas of "destiny." In the political/social sense, it is that potential future which is out there, ours by right, and ours in fact if we just have the courage and strength to take hold of it; if we wimp out, we miss out. In the religious sense - "eternal destiny" - it is (except for the Calvinist) an unchanging but not foreordained future; we freely choose our "destiny", consciously or by default, and when it arrives we live it forever, no substitutions, exchanges, or refunds.

Given these definitions, I don't think the term "prelest" is at all out of place.

As for post #75 and the classical Calvinist position - I think the difference is in what Owen left out of his description - namely, any mention of predestination. His point was that our "eternal destiny" is not a matter completely within our control; he was not trying to spell out what part is God and what part is us, or when our "destiny" is determined. To go from "we are not in control" to "therefore we have no part" is to fall into the modern binary mindset - either we are in command in the driver's seat, or we are a helpless passenger driven by fate. The dichotomy is a false one.

In Christ,
Michael

[Owen Jones]

Thank you Mike for saying it better than I could. But carrying things a bit further, the problem is with "modern" Christianity which has bought into this idea that human dignity comes from not being controlled by others. God is firmly in control of His world. If we were to examine everything through His eyes, we would see this. In order to be able to glimpse the world through His eyes, we must first give up all control to Him, our lives, our will, our sins and passions, our intellect, our property, everything. Only then are we free and only then can we begin to notice things as they really are -- firmly in His grasp.

Which means that we no longer fret and worry about everything. And what this does is free us to be compassionate and capable of love. We are no longer looking at everything with a cold, calculating eye. It also means that we acquire true courage because nothing in this world can really hurt us. We have already given everything to God, so the world cannot take anything away from us.

Modern politics is just the opposite. It is predicated on the idea of human control of events. The result is mass paranoia. Because we are not in fact in control of anything really, when things go bad, when things don't go our way, the only conclusion is that there is a massive conspiracy against us.

[Paul C.]

I guess this thread has had its fair share of personal opinions including my own, and dissagreements between opposing views, including my own and agreements with like minded people, so I'll try to get back to patristics. Here is a quote from St Anthony the Great which I am not using in argument with anyone here but simply to get a saint's views on man's free will and his place in relation to both God and the natural world.

125. Being good and ungrudging (bountiful), God gave man freedom in relation to good and evil, by endowing him with reason, in order that man should see the world and all things in it and, through this, apprehend Him, Who has created every kind of thing for man. But an unrighteous man may desire and yet not understand this; to his misfortune he may not believe and may think contrary to truth. Such is man’s freedom in relation to good and evil!

126. God decreed that as the body grows the soul should be filled with mind, so that man should choose out of good and evil what is pleasing to mind. A soul which does not choose good has no mind. So, although all bodies have souls, one cannot say that every soul has mind. A God-loving mind is found among the chaste, the just, the righteous, the good and pure, the merciful and devout. The presence of mind is the support of man in his relationship with God.

127. Only one thing is impossible for man—to avoid death. To have communion with God is possible for him, if he under stands how it is possible. For if he so wishes and understands (how it is to be done), through faith and love, testified by a good life, a man can commune with God.

128. The eye sees the visible, mind apprehends the invisible. A God-loving mind is the light of the soul. He whose mind loves God is enlightened in heart and sees God with his mind.

131. As body without soul is dead, so soul without mind is inactive (barren) and cannot inherit God.

132. Only to man does God listen; to man alone does God reveal Himself; for God loves men, and wherever man may be, there too is God. Man alone is worthy to worship God; for man’s sake God transforms Himself.

134. Good is invisible, as things in heaven are invisible. But evil is visible, as things on earth are visible. Good is outside comparison; and man, possessed of mind, chooses the best. Man alone is capable of apprehending God and His creatures.

135. In the soul it is mind that acts, but in the body --- nature. Mind makes the soul divine, whilst nature decomposes the body.
Struggling student of Orthodoxy,
Paul

PS- I did not remove numbers 129 & 130 from the text. It was removed from the book I used to obtain the quote.

[Rick H.]

Yes, thanks Mike for playing your part. I think I have a fuller picture now of what was being presented and after reading Owen's follow up it occurs to me that we might find a common ground here in the thinking behind an 'absolute surrender to the sovereignty of God' as it relates to both one's participation in Orthodoxy and/or modern politics, or one's lack of it. And, possibly as it relates to this lack, herein lies a potential conclusion of sorts. Whereby we are doomed to spend our lives as a kind of chronic commentator or an obsessive observer of sensational subjects when there is only evaluation void of participation as it relates to our topic. Hmmm . . . "An Orthodox Voyeurism?"

[Owen Jones]

In reference to St. Anthony, I would only wish to suggest that freedom and control are not the same thing. Modern politics equates the two. If I am in control of my life and my destiny, or, as the collectivist agenda asserts (following Rousseau) if the state is in control, then I will be free. Classically understood, the Christian's freedom is not a matter of control but rather a matter of choosing what master to serve. Paul says I am either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ.

So when St. Anthony speaks of freedom, he is not talking about being in control. He think he would find such a notion unthinkable.

[Paul C.]

So when St. Anthony speaks of freedom, he is not talking about being in control. He think he would find such a notion unthinkable.
Here is a quote from St Anthony the Great which I am not using in argument with anyone here but simply to get a saint's views on man's free will and his place in relation to both God and the natural world.This is what St Anthony said about what man can control-
127. Only one thing is impossible for man—to avoid death.Does this statement not mean that there is only one thing man cannot have control over, avoidance of death?

Just trying to contribute,
Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is what St Anthony said about what man can control- Does this statement not mean that there is only one thing man cannot have control over, avoidance of death?

Just trying to contribute,
Paul

I have to agree with Owen here, I don't think that St. Anthony is talking about "control" at all.

Herman

[Paul C.]

What is St Anthony talking about in that statement?

Would the team of friends who believe man has no control over his future please remember to utilize patristic and biblical quotes? Otherwise, all they are doing is agreeing with a friend instead of the saints of the Church.

I will gladly accept my error if proven wrong by the words of saints. Would one of you three please open an Orthodox book and find proof that the Church agrees with you, and man has no control over his future?

I think that once that is done I will be able to start searching for the opposite and we will have a lively patristic debate that will bring much fruit. But group opinion verses the teachings of the Holy fathers is not very fruitful, is it?

Wondering what is going on,
Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

We don't have control. We have choices. How those choices ultimately work out is not within our "control".

How hard is that to figure out?

[Paul C.]

This is from the Introduction to the book "Blessed Paisius Valichkovsky" Optina Version.

It is these very same sources --- the Divine Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers --- which are the foundation of all Orthodoxy in our times. The observer of the Orthodox world today can see easily enough what "Orthodoxy" becomes when these sources are not made the foundation of life and thought.

Hope this is making sense,
Paul

[Paul C.]

We don't have control. We have choices. How those choices ultimately work out is not within our "control".

How hard is that to figure out?So you choose not to rob a bank but you cannot control yourself and you go ahead and do the deed. I'm afraid this style of thinking is much too hard for my little brain to figure out. It is exactly opposite to how I understand free will given to me by God.

[Herman Blaydoe]

So you choose not to rob a bank but you cannot control yourself and you go ahead and do the deed. I'm afraid this style of thinking is much too hard for my little brain to figure out. It is exactly opposite to how I understand free will given to me by God.

That is exactly and precisely not what I meant at all.

Herman

[Owen Jones]

I think Herman says it well. Of course, Self-control is a virtue. But what is self control other than putting your life in God's hands? God becomes the governor of our wills, not ourselves. We are not self-governing. We are not in control of our own wills. But the modern political ideal is that we are either self-governing on the one hand, or we choose to surrender our sovereignty to the state so that it can organize our lives for us. Without reference to God in either case. It is the idea that a society can live apart from God. It can take control and manage our destinies.

I think St. Paul says it well. I am either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. I do not do the things that I know are right. There is a war within me.

Each person is a battle ground wherein the higher and lower powers compete. The lower powers use guile and deceit to promise all kinds of good things in this life, the higher powers promise only hardship and suffering. And we are constantly torn.

True freedom results when we give up all control. Getting more control is always an illusion. It is the opposite of true freedom. The person with much power and wealth, or political power and control over others is not free. He is dominated by fears and obsessions.

[Paul C.]

Free will is the power of a deiform soul to direct itself by deliberate choice towards whatever it decides. Let us make sure that our soul directs itself deliberately only towards what is good, so that we always consume our remembrance of evil with good thoughts. St Diadochos of Photiki


... The demons attack the intellect, but they do so by trying through lascivious temptations to entice the flesh down the slope of sensual pleasure. It is for good purpose that the demons are allowed to dwell within the body even of those who are struggling vigorously against sin; for in this way man's free will is constantly put to the test. If a man, while still alive, can undergo death through his labours, then such a man, before he has died, has already risen from the dead, as was the case with the blessed Apostle Paul and all those who have struggled and are struggling to the utmost against sin. St Diodochos of Photiki

[Paul C.]

... Nevertheless, at times God allows the demons to attack even one who has reached this measure of perfection, and leaves his intellect without light, so that his free will shall not be completely constrained by the bonds of grace. The purpose of this is not only to lead us to overcome sin through ascetic effort but also to help us advance still further in spiritual experience.... So you see, St Diadochos tells us that God allows demons to attack us so that we will learn to exercise our free will and not leave everything up to the grace of God. For as we Orthodox Christians know, God's grace is given without our earning it through our own efforts but reward is available for those who do make efforts to earn God's favor.

[Paul C.]

Examine and test your inward character; and always keep in mind that human authorities have power over the body alone and not over the soul. Therefore, should they command you to commit murders or other foul, unjust and soul-corrupting acts, you must not obey them, even if they torture your body. For God created the soul free and endowed with the power to choose between good and evil.This is what Saint Anthony the Great has to say to those who claim that we have no control over our futures because of worldly authority and its power over us. We must resist unto death! What is wrong with martyrdom? Nothing.

[Paul C.]

... Now it is characteristic of an obtuse man to lay the blame for his sins on the conditions of his birth or on something else, while in fact his words and actions are evil through his own free choice. Here, St Anthony the Great is dissagreeing with those who said our future is not dependent on our own free will but dependent on our destiny and therefore out of our control.

Please, to those two people who argued that the American meaning of destiny has nothing to do with predetermination or inevitability but is synonomous with "future" read the following taken from the "American Heritage Dictionary" .


Destiny 1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is determined; lot. 2. The predermined or inevitable course of events considered as something beyond the power and control of man. 3. The power or agency thought to predetermne events; fate.

Future 1. The time yet to come. 2. Something that will happen in time to come. - "American Heritage Dictionary".There is a big difference in meanings between destiny and future. We Orthodox Christians do not believe in destiny applied to individuals as ourselves. We can alter our future through our free will and actions and do not need to leave it all up to fate or astrology.

Apostle Paul changed from the Christian-persecuting Saul to Saint Paul. Mary Magdalene, changed from a terrible sinner to a saint equal to the apostles. St Mary of Egypt - what a transformation! There are many others who's lives attest to the power of God that changes for the better those who of their own free will, follow the will of God.


Paul

[Paul C.]

Yes, thanks Mike for playing your part. I think I have a fuller picture now of what was being presented and after reading Owen's follow up it occurs to me that we might find a common ground here in the thinking behind an 'absolute surrender to the sovereignty of God' as it relates to both one's participation in Orthodoxy and/or modern politics, or one's lack of it. And, possibly as it relates to this lack, herein lies a potential conclusion of sorts. Whereby we are doomed to spend our lives as a kind of chronic commentator or an obsessive observer of sensational subjects when there is only evaluation void of participation as it relates to our topic. Hmmm . . . "An Orthodox Voyeurism?"
Dear Rick

Thank you for showing that one person understands free will.

Exasperated Paul

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Paul,

I don't think anyone here is arguing against man having free will and choice. The distinction I hear being made, is the one between these human characteristics and the more extreme notion of 'control'. I don't think they are the same, since it is perfectly possible, even from a secular perspective, to freely choose in a perfectly rational and conscious way to do something, and then discover that the result of your choice bears no relation to the aim of your actions. For example, we can freely choose to drive a car to destination X; whether we will get to destination X is, however, beyond our control. In this sense, I do see a place for the word 'destiny'.

You also write
So you choose not to rob a bank but you cannot control yourself and you go ahead and do the deed. This is a problem as old as Plato, who argued that it is not possible for a man, knowing what is good, to then do what is wrong. While I think there is a certain truth in this, I think anyone who's ever been on a diet knows what a struggle is involved in choosing the good. Even St Paul felt that what he wanted to do and what he ended up doing were discrepant.

So I guess on both an external level (circumstances, conditions, events) and an internal level (inner conflict, division, prelest) there are various factors limiting our 'control' over our lives. This does not mean we lack free-will and the capacity to choose.

Actually, maybe we're saying the same things, but just using the word 'control' in different ways...

In Christ
Byron

[Andreas Moran]

I have often wondered how free we really are in terms of choosing to do good when we are inhibited by our fallen state, nurture, nature and so forth. But those who know Christ are all free to make the most important choice of all which is to recognise their failures - judge themselves - and accept His freely-given forgiveness.

[Paul C.]

Dear all of you

I'm afraid that I have to quote another saint for those 4 men who quote each other and seem to believe that no matter what we will to do, we cannot do as we will to because we only have choice but not control and we are in prelest while living our destinies.

Saint John Chrysostom speaks to the four of you -
For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is only the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alternatives, and now prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil.

The suffering then depends on ourselves, and not on any other. For if we will stand "steadfast and unmovable", we shall not be shaken.

What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. 'If then it depends on God', (one says), 'Why does He blame us?' On this account I said, so that our free-will is not hindered.' It depends then on us, and on Him. For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.'Please use patristics if you want to debate these words of St John Chrysostom or attempt to interpret them to back up your opinions. We need the Holy Fathers to light our path in their direction or we will get lost and only hold each other's hands like children in the dark.

I've also read from an Orthodox book that when a man acts in opposition to God's will; It is as though all creation places obstacles in his path, and when a man acts according to God's will; It is as though all creation bends down to assist him on his way. So God GIVES US CONTROL of our own lives and assists us when we make the right choice. We are not totally helpless "candles in the wind".

Pulling out all his hair,
Paul

PS- I agree with Andreas Moran

[Herman Blaydoe]

Yes we have the freedom to make choices, but we do not control the outcome of that choice, God does. We make many choices in every moment. I choose to go to the store, but I don't get there if I have a car accident on the way. If I choose to drive carefully, that doesn't control the truck that falls off the overpass onto my car. Someone may choose to live a healthy life then the doctor tells him he has cancer. Where is the "control"?

I choose to work hard but I don't choose to get laid off. I don't control the tornado that destroys my house. If I expect God to keep bad things from happening because I choose to follow Him, then I am presupposing that I am "in control", and this would be a form of prelest.

I don't think anyone here is espousing support of the idea of predestiny, but God is the only one "in control". We don't have control, but we make choices and keep making choices. Choices and persistence could be termed some sort of "control" depending how you choose to define it, but you cannot control how others use it.

Frustration is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. Relax, take a nap. It will help, honest.

Herman the Pooh

[Paul C.]

Thank you for your patristic reply full of quotes from the Holy Fathers. lol.

Well let me see. Where to start and yet be brief.

There was an Orthodox convent in South America that survived an horrific earthquake. The strange thing was that all of the surrounding land and buildings were destroyed and cars in the roads sank into crevices that then closed up around them.

After the quake was over, the convent sat on top of a huge pillar of ground while all around it the earth had sunk down many yards but there was a solitary path leading up to the entrance and on this path the weeping peasants walked up to receive charitable assistance from the Orthodox nuns. The convent could be seen from a distance with a pillar of light by night and a pillar of cloud by day. Sound OT familiar?

Now what if instead of nuns worshipping God in a convent there were sinful people plying their criminal trade on top of the hill (before the surrounding ground collapsed from the quake)? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the choice to be nuns and pray to God may have actually had an influence on the future survival of the convent or do you think that Zeus or some other pagan god chooses fate on the toss of a coin?

Did anyone read the words of Saint John Chrysostom pasted a couple of posts up from this one? We do not control the outcome but our choices influence Christ favorably to give a good outcome. It is not all left up to chance or God alone and why is everyone stuck on this control issue anyway? Why imply that our God-given free will is worthless in regards to our futures? That would mean their is no more hope for Christians than for atheists. Where did Orthodoxy go in this thread?

People under prelest stop reading the Fathers and the Bible because they are deluded into believing they no longer need to read them as they are now saints who can teach from their own minds alone. They don't need to quote the Fathers because they are Holy Fathers in their own opinion themselves.

There are many Orthodox stories of disobedient monks who fell under prelest and believed that the apparent clairvoyance they displayed was from God (but actually from demons) and an "ANGEL OF LIGHT" appeared and told them that they no longer needed to pray or read Holy Scripture because their new work was too important and a smaller angel appeared in the corner of their cave/cell to pray ceaselessly and read the Bible on their behalf (silently of course).

Paul the fool.

[Owen Jones]

Nobody has remotely suggested here, least of all me, that our God-given free will has no effect on our future (destiny). Transformation, transfiguration, deification, is at the core of our faith. I play a decisive role in that due to my God-given free will. Not the only role, however, because God is firmly in control, not me. A key part of Christian teaching, if not the fundamental aspect of it, is to willingly surrender to God and to give up my possessive control of everything and everybody -- my body, my will, my material possessions. Give it all to God. Place it all in God's hands to manage. Christ surrendered on the Cross.

Modern politics, however, is just the opposite. It says that I can and should be in control of my life. That I will only be happy when I am in control (empowerment is the hip terminology). To have this control, it must be part of a collective that is managed by the State. Then, somewhere just off the historical horizon, there will be a perfect world with no sin, suffering, disease, poverty, injustice or death. The reason this nirvana has not yet been achieved is due to a cabal of reactionaries and religionists who are all standing in the way of historical progress. The idea of having a cross to bear is totally anathema to the modern political mindset and agenda. Any suffering is due to a mass conspiracy, or lack of knowledge and power. But some day we can look forward to the empowering of the masses and suffering will be a thing of the past.

As America is poised to elect a neo-Marxist, it is helpful to understand these things.

[Rick H.]

Well good. I was beginning to think open theism had spread to Eastern Orthodoxy!

[Rick H.]

Sometimes words really do just get in the way especially as we attempt to consider such as self-control, control and not least of all control freakery.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

There seems to be a terrific amount of mischaracterisation of other people's remarks and views going on in the series of posts above, some less than entirely charitable. Please do allow others to speak for themselves. It is sometimes a struggle to understand another's position, or even simply how they are expressing themselves, if we might express our views quite differently. But it is generally a good experience.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

Paul,

The reason, I think, that no one is countering your quotes from the Fathers with other Fathers is that the quotes you are providing do not contradict their views, and so do not need countered. Example:




... Now it is characteristic of an obtuse man to lay the blame for his sins on the conditions of his birth or on something else, while in fact his words and actions are evil through his own free choice.

Here, St Anthony the Great is dissagreeing with those who said our future is not dependent on our own free will but dependent on our destiny and therefore out of our control.

St. Anthony is not doing any such thing. He is disagreeing with those who say their actions, and thus their sins, are not dependent on their own free will. He is saying nothing about our future, but our actions.

To say that our future is determined by our own free will, or to say that it is determined by a foreordained destiny completely out of our control, are both incorrect. We influence our future, but we do not control it; what control we do have is simply over ourselves, right now. Nothing in the Patristic quotes you have provided contradicts that. If that seems wrong to you, then I would have to agree with Byron that we must be using the same word(s) in different ways, and need to spend more time agreeing upon definitions before any progress can be made in understanding.

An aside on destiny:


Please, to those two people who argued that the American meaning of destiny has nothing to do with predetermination or inevitability but is synonomous with "future" read the following taken from the "American Heritage Dictionary" .



Destiny 1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is determined; lot. 2. The predermined or inevitable course of events considered as something beyond the power and control of man. 3. The power or agency thought to predetermne events; fate.

Future 1. The time yet to come. 2. Something that will happen in time to come. - "American Heritage Dictionary".



First, I did not say "destiny" was synonymous with future. Reread my post. I said it is used in the sense of a specific potential future "out there", waiting for us to claim it. In fact, it agrees with definition #3 above if a person or group is considered to be the "power or agency" who can predetermine his/her/their own future course of events.

In usage, despite the wording of the above definitions, "destiny" and "fate" are not always interchangeable. Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/destiny) has these notes on the differences between "fate" and "destiny" in modern usage:

Although the words are used interchangeably in many cases, fate and destiny can be distinguished. Modern usage defines fate as a power or agency that predetermines and orders the course of events. Fate defines events as ordered or "meant to be". Fate is used in regard to the finality of events as they have worked themselves out, and that same finality is projected into the future to become the inevitability of events as they will work themselves out. ... Fate is an outcome determined by an outside agency acting upon a person or entity; but with destiny the entity is participating in achieving an outcome that is directly related to itself. Participation happens wilfully.

That usage is what I was talking about. The only thing I mentioned that Answers.com doesn't have is an explicit statement that the outcome is not foreordained to occur regardless of the entity's actions.

Back to "control" - as I understand Owen's usage, to say that "we are not in control of our destiny" is merely to say that we cannot, by dint of our own will, intellect, and effort, guarantee that through these alone our future circumstances will be those which we are striving to achieve.

Specific example - I am not in control of my retirement financial situation. I influence it, and strongly, by my choices (percent of income saved, choice of investments, spending habits, etc.), but the outcome is not controlled merely by these. I could make wonderful choices and be wiped out by a stock market crash. I could make horrible choices and be rescued by an inheritance from a forgotten relative or acquaintance.

I control my choices, and hence my actions (which is what the Patristic quotes referred to); I do not control the outcome.

In Christ,
Michael

[Owen Jones]

And I would go so far to say that my control over my choices is marginal. Although it is sometimes on the margins that my "fate" is decided. One small act of compassion by the good thief saved his soul after a life of deceit and ungodliness. And the ascetic is absolutely appalled by his receptiveness to these subtle demonic temptations and becomes even more repentant.

When I look at my daily choices, how much do I really remember God? No, my choices are constantly being pulled toward self-centered, narcissistic obsession with getting what I want. As much as I try harder to focus on God, the more I get tugged in opposite directions.

One of the most important messages I get from the ascetics is that the more you strive for holiness, the more attacks from the demons you suffer. Tiny little things throw you off. Subtle ones.

But the modern politician sees nothing of this, and the modern citizen of the over-politicized society. It is all about big cosmic issues, as if we somehow have control over these things. So when things go bad, it is due to a massive conspiracy against us -- not by Satan who corrupts all of us, but by certain recidivist elements in the society who won't get on board the agenda.

[Antonios]

To say that our future is determined by our own free will, or to say that it is determined by a foreordained destiny completely out of our control, are both incorrect. We influence our future, but we do not control it; what control we do have is simply over ourselves, right now.

I control my choices, and hence my actions (which is what the Patristic quotes referred to); I do not control the outcome.

Dear friends,

I very much like the way Michael has contributed this to the discussion. I would like to add that to some of the important points made about 'modern' politics. I do not believe that being a Christian should preclude one from being an active member of society and contributing to political affairs. In fact, many consider it a civic duty and a virtue. While all the control in the end is in God's Almighty hands, this does not mean we should just allow others to dictate what the laws of the land should be and then to blindly submit to them. Using the example of the United States, the traditional role of government as laid down by the Constitution has been primarily to protect the liberties of each individual. This, I would say, is a very noble and honorable system of governing. The Declaration of Independence says it well:


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.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I do not wish to debate the merits of one form of government versus another since opinions on this vary and there is no single perfect form of governing this side of the Kingdom, but my point is that when politics and those involved in politics contribute in order for 'control', than they are misled and wanting, and in its extreme end, in prelest. If, on the other hand, politics and those involved in politics aim to influence the welfare of their neighbors by preserving their personal liberties, than this is a very Christian and loving approach, and in fact, puts all faith and trust in God. Fear is the greatest reason why people attempt to curtail and limit the liberties of others (and even their very own). A truly faithful person, who believes in the power and providence of God, should never fear another person's liberty.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Paul C.]

First, I did not say "destiny" was synonymous with future. Reread my post. In Christ,
MichaelDear Mike

I did not say that you said destiny was synonymous with future. Another person replied to one of my earlier posts and substituted the word "destiny" for my use of the word "future" when he was quoting me inaccurately in his reply and when he and his friends continued to defend the word "destiny" as an appropriate substitute for future and also introduced the word "prelest" without even going first to the word "fancy" which occurs in less spiritually deluded people before suffering from "prelest".

Prelest involves hallucinations while fancy has more to do with trusting in one's own opinion on spiritual matters without seeking confirmation from more acceptable sources, including the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy. We need the Fathers more now than in preceding centuries as miracle working saints with a direct line to God are in very short supply these days.

It is those people under prelest or fancy who cease relying on the Bible and the Fathers in their spiritual discussions and not the ones who do. I'm afraid that your Fatherless interpretations of my interpretations of the Fathers' words are misinterpretations leading to wrong conclusions. Assumptions of my intentions are wrong.

Why not open an Orthodox patristic book and add something fresh to the thread from the Fathers that supports your views of our having no control over our futures but only over our choices and inner selves instead of picking away at my comments and interpretations of the Fathers' words? I really want some patristic input from the opposing side in this debate or I will gracefully stop flogging a dead horse and leave this thread alone out of a sense of fruitlessness.

I asked people to get patrisitic and they just continued arguing from their own personal opinions whithout patristic references apart from criticizing my explanations of my patristic refs while also ganging up on my posts. Please, someone, submit patristic proofs to back up yourselves instead of simply backing up each others personal opinions.

Mike, you are a resourceful man who does much online research to assist other forum members in finding answers. Could you not utilize your research skills in a patristic way from books you have or from other Church-accepted Orthodox sources? This could be beneficial to many readers whereas personal opinions and interpretations lead to argument instead of informed, organised debate.

The use of patristics educates most readers, including us.

Fruitless Paul

[Lourens]

"...utilize your research skills in a patristic way ..."

(*smile*)

I was wondering if I would ever be able to write a post "in a patristic way," and if entertaining any such a thought by a fool such as I would not constitute mere fancy?

Is it possible, though, to have an informed opinion, "in a patristic way," of course, that is, with some sense of authority ---- based on one's (God-given) personal accumulated knowledge, experience, insight, and wisdom ---- without having to "add something fresh...from the Fathers that support (my) views?"


We need the Fathers more now than in preceding centuries as miracle working saints with a direct line to God are in very short supply these days.

It seems, however, that "miracle working saints with a direct line to God" might easily be overlooked if recognition of them may be measured only by the quality of their "patristic way," that is, their dependence on reinforcements of "patristic input" when discussing matters that concerns us "these days."

I read somewhere that God is a God of the living, (also)...(*smile*)

Respectfully,

Learner

[Olga]

We need the Fathers more now than in preceding centuries as miracle working saints with a direct line to God are in very short supply these days.



(grumpy old woman moment:) Ah, the lack of historical perspective! As Benjamin Franklin so wisely said: The golden age never was the present age.

[Lourens]

As Benjamin Franklin so wisely said...

You mean, in a fatherly way....?

(*smile*)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As I noted earlier, the recent discussion in this thread has suffered from some back-and-forth that hasn't been entirely helpful. Please do let me just remind here, that ad hominem characterisations of others, of assigning 'camps of friends' and the like, is entirely unacceptable. I would invite others simply to ignore this where it has occured thus far, and to remind everyone that it shouldn't occur in future.

As to the real thrust of the conversation, there is some interesting material that threatens to be lost under the recent exchanges. In order for me to get my own head around what was really being explored, and how, I needed to go back through several pages of posts to find the chain of discussion and its key parts. This was helpful for me, and I thought it might be helpful (and interesting) to others. This post is, then, my 'recapitulation' of the relevant parts of the recent discussion. Down at the end, I offer a few thoughts of my own.

The recent 'sub-theme' really begins back at post #69 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69504&postcount=69), as part of a discussion on various political systems and ideologies found in the world today. There Owen wrote:



This is the most important insight, because all modern politics is about control. It's not that ancient politics wasn't about control, but rulers knew that there was a kind of divine penalty for assuming that you were in absolute control.

But there is no such penalty today. And so through political action it is believed that humans can control their destiny. This is, of course, a great lie that is initiated by Satan and his minions. The illusion of control is the death of God in our minds and hearts.


It was this key word, 'control', that sparked interest - and particularly the questions as to whether 'humans can control their destiny'. Owen's assertion had been that this was in fact part of 'a great lie ... initiated by Satan'. But to this, Paul C. took exception. He replied (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69532&postcount=70):


Hinduism and Buddhism have karma but we Orthodox do not. We can control the future both individually and collectively by making choices. Adam and Eve made a wrong choice to disobey God but after many decades of repentance and a spell in Hades, they still became inhabitants of heaven. As long as there is breath in our nostrils, we can control our eternal future and our hope is that we will learn from the Lord and that we are strong enough to make the right choices and stick to them.

Here, Paul equated a lack of 'control' to the Hindu and Buddhist notions of karma - essentially suggesting that a lack of 'control' equated to a set-in-stone immovability of the future. Rather, he suggested, human persons 'can control the future', which is done 'by making choices'. So a dichotomy was evident in his reading: either 'we can control our eternal future', or we are stuck in a karma-like pre-defined course of history.

But others quickly suggested that this dichotomy might not be entirely accurate. Byron added some reflection (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69571&postcount=72):


It's true that as Orthodox we cannot subscribe to a view of fate as kismet, or indeed 'karma' in the sense of 'cause and effect' in a process of reincarnation. Yet I feel that it is important to make a distinction between the good faith, determination and intent with which we should pursue our goals, especially in spiritual life, and the background awareness that ultimately, none of our works can bear fruit unless God wants them to. […] We are not helpless before the necessity of fate; but at the same time we are not to believe that the control is entirely in our hands - even if we're George Soros!

Here Byron noted that a lack of 'control' does not equate to being 'helpless before the necessity of fate'; rather, the freedom of human choices is set in the context of man's position before God. There is a dynamic relationship, this suggested, between the exercise of freedom and the recognition that the only being who truly has 'control' over creation is God.

Owen then gave a rather direct response to the question (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69572&postcount=73):


The only thing we control is our inner disposition, and even that is only due to God's power. This idea that we are in control of our destiny, that we could control our destiny, even our eternal destiny, is prelest. This mindset, that somehow we are somehow less dignified as humans unless we are in control, is at the root of all of our problems.

This seemed further to refine Byron's point. What the human person can 'control' is himself, i.e. his will and determinations - and even here, these are touched by sin, and so it is the ever-present grace of God that enables this freedom to be exercised truly. Owen's point was that a human cannot 'control' his future: that is, he has no determining control over what shall befall him, the various ways external things may affect him; but he has freedom to control his disposition: his reponses, his determinations, his willing.

In this post, Owen used the term 'destiny' in reference to the way it is often used in political discussions: that there is some semblence of an intended future that humans must take stock of and control; but he notes that this very concept is essentially an attitude of prelest: of spiritual delusion built on the principle that 'I am in control', rather than God. Both of these terms evoked responses from Paul C. He made a longer posting (#74 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69583&postcount=74)) that discussed the term ‘destiny’, and whether it had any place in Orthodoxy, particularly as relates to the word ‘future’. Here, he provided his own interpretation of what ‘destiny’ means, limiting it to ‘the inevitable future which the Buddhists and Hindus believe’. While Michael later noted (in post #78 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69614&postcount=78)) that forcing the term into only this narrow usage is somewhat forced and false, since it has quite a different meaning in much colloquial talk in English, this distinction nonetheless opened up for Paul C. what he seems to consider the base problem: a comparison of his definition of ‘destiny’ (an ‘inevitable future’) with the freedom of the will. In this he reacted to some of Owen’s above comments. Again from his post #74:

The whole point of being created in God's image and having bestowed upon us free will is for us to willfully choose to spend eternity with God. With our free will we control much more than our "inner" disposition. We control also what we say and write thus influencing others younger in understanding either rightly or wrongly. We control our actual actions towards others. We are able to follow Christ's example if we choose or we can do the opposite. Their is no destiny regarding individuals. The only inevitabilities concerning us Orthodox Christians are what was prophesied in Holy Scripture for the world and human kind as a whole.

This is the first occasion where Paul specifically equates 'freedom' and 'control', suggesting unequivocally that free will = control over one's future. While he criticises use of the term 'destiny' (which for him is intrinsically Hindu/Buddhist), he does so by insisting on a radical opposite. Rather than man having no 'control' over his future, man being free seems to mean he has complete control over his future -- or at the very least, substantial control. This point, while quite controversial (my own interpretation would be that it is essentially a form of radical Pelagianism), suffered somewhat from not engaging with the use of the term 'destiny' as Owen had actually raised it, which was precisely to offer a critique of the way it's considered, rather than to suggest any standard views on it were correct.

Paul C. then went on to talk about the term ‘prelest’, in reaction to Owen’s comments in post #73. There Owen had said (as quoted above): ‘This idea that we are in control of our destiny, that we could control our destiny, even our eternal destiny, is prelest.’ To this, Paul C. responded:

Prelest IS an Orthodox word but to use it in describing something a person would call eternal destiny is mixing Orthodoxy with non-Christian religions. Prelest is spiritual delusion while controlling the future outcome of our lives as Orthodox Christians is exercising our God given free wills.
The problem with this response is that it completely misrepresents how Owen had brought up the word. He had not used the term ‘prelest’ to ‘describe something a person would call eternal destiny’: rather, he had said that for a human person to believe he is in control of his future, is prelest. It is not the future, but the belief one can control it, that amounts to spiritual pride and delusion – so went the point made.

Sensing that confusion was growing, Owen restated things in his post #75. From that post, a few key remarks (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69592&postcount=75):



I have obviously failed to make my point. My point is not to defend the idea that we have a destiny but to critique it. And along with it the idea that we can control it. The context is modern politics, and in modern politics we are told that we all have an historical destiny that we must grab and take control of. This is a secular, gnostic heresy.

At the same time, call it what you will, we have no control over our eternal life either, in that it is entirely in God's hands. We have the free will, here and now, to follow God's will, to seek Him in all things, to be joyful and repentant, to want to serve him as a great privilege and gift, and not as some burden, to choose to be grateful for all things that come our way rather than be cynical or resentful, to see life as a blessing not as a curse. None of this is a money-back guaranteed ticket to heaven. We don't control that.


Re-reading that whole post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69592&postcount=75) seems a good idea; there is a lot to chew on within. In the second paragraph I've quoted above, Owen responds fairly directly to Paul's claim that freedom = control, noting that freedom 'controls' neither events nor the future, but rather one's will and actions in this present moment. Obviously, those choices and determinations affect the future, but they far from 'control' it. Owen's point, which he had already made in an earlier post, was that human freedom is over the disposition of the heart, which affects our actions and their consequences - but does not amount to 'control' over future events.

His remarks, particularly in fleshing out the nuance between not being in 'control' and the false opposite of having no involvement whatsoever, were expanded on by Michael (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69614&postcount=78):


To go from "we are not in control" to "therefore we have no part" is to fall into the modern binary mindset - either we are in command in the driver's seat, or we are a helpless passenger driven by fate. The dichotomy is a false one.

By this stage, the basic contours of the discussion were set. One view (Paul C.'s), was that the [only] alternative to a 'karma-like' notion of predestination and lack of any freedom, was a definition of freedom that equated to control; and another view (shared by most others participating in the conversation) was that this was a false dichotomy, and true freedom was not equivalent to 'control'.

In post #80 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69616&postcount=80), Paul C. provided a selection of sayings from St Anthony of Egypt, which had as their general theme the reality of human freedom. This focus was apparently provided again to suggest that any denial of ‘control’ of one’s future amounted to a denial of the freedom of the will - and yet none of the quotations actually suggested this. The quotations only had relevance to the discussion for Paul because, in the understanding he had articulated in his posts, 'freedom' and 'control' are essentially synonyms, therefore when St Anthony speaks about freedom, he must be speaking about control. But on this matter, Owen replied (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69623&postcount=82):


In reference to St. Anthony, I would only wish to suggest that freedom and control are not the same thing. Modern politics equates the two. If I am in control of my life and my destiny, or, as the collectivist agenda asserts (following Rousseau) if the state is in control, then I will be free. Classically understood, the Christian's freedom is not a matter of control but rather a matter of choosing what master to serve. Paul says I am either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ.

So when St. Anthony speaks of freedom, he is not talking about being in control. He think he would find such a notion unthinkable.

A few brief posts addressed the quotations from St Anthony, indicating similarly that they did not in fact speak of ‘control’ (see #83 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69638&postcount=83), #84 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69641&postcount=84)). Unfortunately, this is where some rather unwarranted personal comments begin to be made, and a series of posts in the thread can really be skipped (#85 and a few following).

Things were brought back into focus in post #90, when Owen recapitulated part of the discussion and added a few new thoughts (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69647&postcount=90):


Of course, Self-control is a virtue. But what is self control other than putting your life in God's hands? God becomes the governor of our wills, not ourselves. We are not self-governing. […] I think St. Paul says it well. I am either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. I do not do the things that I know are right. There is a war within me. […] Each person is a battle ground wherein the higher and lower powers compete. The lower powers use guile and deceit to promise all kinds of good things in this life, the higher powers promise only hardship and suffering. And we are constantly torn. […] True freedom results when we give up all control. Getting more control is always an illusion. It is the opposite of true freedom. The person with much power and wealth, or political power and control over others is not free. He is dominated by fears and obsessions.

Here there is a refinement of a point that many had made. Many had noted that 'freedom' and 'control' are not the same thing; but here Owen suggested that in fact they are at battle with one another -- that true freedom is in fact an abandonment of control and a submission to the yoke of Christ.

In posts #91-94, Paul C. reacted by offering a string of excerpted quotations from various Fathers, all of which deal with free will. This served (in my mind as reader, at least) to confirm that the distinction between ‘freedom’ and ‘control’ that was being articulated by many other posters in the thread, was either not being understood, or fundamentally being ignored/rejected by Paul – since denying freedom was emphatically not what those others were discussing, and on multiple occasions, various contributors had clarified this expressly. The point was reiterated by Byron (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69656&postcount=96):


I don't think anyone here is arguing against man having free will and choice. The distinction I hear being made, is the one between these human characteristics and the more extreme notion of 'control'. I don't think they are the same, since it is perfectly possible, even from a secular perspective, to freely choose in a perfectly rational and conscious way to do something, and then discover that the result of your choice bears no relation to the aim of your actions. For example, we can freely choose to drive a car to destination X; whether we will get to destination X is, however, beyond our control.

In what is an unfortunate ad hominem polemical personalisation of the discussion, Paul C. only re-characterised his view of others’ positions thus (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69659&postcount=98):


I'm afraid that I have to quote another saint for those 4 men who quote each other and seem to believe that no matter what we will to do, we cannot do as we will to because we only have choice but not control and we are in prelest while living our destinies. Saint John Chrysostom speaks to the four of you – […]

There follows this a quotation from St John Chrysostom, which is again on the matter of freedom of the will. This post's contribution was unfortunate, as it fairly radically misrepresented what others were saying, in rather negative ad hominem terms, while again refusing to engage with what so many had offered: that 'freedom' and 'control' are not identical, and so simply providing patristic references that discuss freedom does not contribute to what is being discussed. (Interestingly, while justifications from the writings of the Fathers started now to be demanded more staunchly, this post includes a negative characterisation of the view that 'we cannot do as we will to do', presumably in reference to Owen's remarks in post #90, without seeming to realise that the phrase is essentially a quotation of St Paul's words in his epistle to the Romans.)

Herman followed this with a post (#99 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69660&postcount=99)) that attempted to demonstrate the difference between ‘freedom’ and ‘control’ that is at the heart of this back-and-forth. Practical examples were given to try to set out the distinction. This was then given a redaction by Owen (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69665&postcount=101), who wrote:


Nobody has remotely suggested here, least of all me, that our God-given free will has no effect on our future (destiny). Transformation, transfiguration, deification, is at the core of our faith. I play a decisive role in that due to my God-given free will. Not the only role, however, because God is firmly in control, not me. A key part of Christian teaching, if not the fundamental aspect of it, is to willingly surrender to God and to give up my possessive control of everything and everybody -- my body, my will, my material possessions. Give it all to God. Place it all in God's hands to manage. Christ surrendered on the Cross.

Michael attempted to give some clarity to the flow of the thread in post #105 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69671&postcount=105), particularly with respect to the various quotations that had been offered by Paul C. He noted that the charge to respond to / refute / counter the provided quotations was not being heeded, because the quotations didn’t actually address the question of control. They were quotations on freedom – and only Paul was arguing the line that freedom = control, and thus that quotations about freedom are quotations about control. Michael reponded directly to what he saw as a mis-reading of one of St Anthony’s quotations in this regard, and then noted:

To say that our future is determined by our own free will, or to say that it is determined by a foreordained destiny completely out of our control, are both incorrect. We influence our future, but we do not control it; what control we do have is simply over ourselves, right now. Nothing in the Patristic quotes you have provided contradicts that. If that seems wrong to you, then I would have to agree with Byron that we must be using the same word(s) in different ways, and need to spend more time agreeing upon definitions before any progress can be made in understanding.

Later in the post he added:

Back to "control" - as I understand Owen's usage, to say that "we are not in control of our destiny" is merely to say that we cannot, by dint of our own will, intellect, and effort, guarantee that through these alone our future circumstances will be those which we are striving to achieve.

Which brings us essentially to the current position in the thread.

Reading over all this, it seems that the fundamental question being asked is, 'what is the relationship of human freedom to the future course of events?' We must remember that this is a thread on Orthodoxy and politics, and all this emerged out of a discussion of political systems in which 'through political action it is believed that humans can control their destiny'. So the question becomes, does genuine human freedom (which absolutely no one in the conversation has denied or diminished in any way) amount to a definitive control over future [or perhaps even current] events, or not? And here the key word is 'control', which implies the ability to securely determine how things will go, what their outcomes will be. This raises the interior theological question: is the human person in control of his or her own future? It is important to recognise that this is not the same thing ask asking 'is the human person free?' The question has to do with precisely how authentic freedom, truly exercised, relates to 'control' and God's authority.

With great respect to the calls for patristic orientation, simply proof-texting passages from the Fathers won't do. But when the writings of the Fathers are called on in this context, they must be called into dialogue with what is actually being discussed.

It would seem here that the onus is really on those who would equate freedom and control. This strikes me as a substantially non- and even anti-patristic concept, in terms of the teaching on human freedom that the fathers proclaim. Given that this viewpoint seems to equate in large part to a form of Pelagianism -- a heresy which the Church and many Fathers spent decades combatting, and which it formally condemned -- it strikes me that it is not really right to ask for individuals here to demonstrate from the fathers that a non-Pelagian position is correct. This the Church has done. Claiming that participants in a discussion aren't being 'patristic' if they won't use the fathers to support a false characterisation of their view, is not fair or Orthodox; but neither is providing patristic quotations that don't actually support one's view. The thing that needs some proper substantiation, if it is to be maintained, is the equation of freedom and control. Quotes on freedom simply won't do; this position can only be maintained in a patristic context if the Fathers can be shown to suggest that the two are one and the same. And I've yet to see a patristic reference that would suggest this.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

Thank you for that summary, Fr Dn Matthew. That does help to keep the threads of this discussion from getting overly tangled in my recollection.

In thinking back over Paul C.'s posts, I believe he does deserve an answer to his request for Patristic documentation of the Orthodox view of freedom and control, rather than simply getting commentary on the quotes he provided. The most clear I've run across is from St. Jerome in his Letter to Ctesiphon (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXXIII.html?highlight=control#highlight ):


For if God’s grace is limited to this that He has formed us with wills of our own, and if we are to rest content with free will, not seeking the divine aid lest this should be impaired, we should cease to pray; for we cannot entreat God’s mercy to give us daily what is already in our hands having been given to us once for all. Those who think thus make prayer impossible and boast that free will makes them not merely controllers of themselves but as powerful as God. For they need no external help. Away with fasting, away with every form of self-restraint! For why need I strive to win by toil what has once for all been placed within my reach? The argument that I am using is not mine; it is that put forward by a disciple of Pelagius, or rather one who is the teacher and commander of his whole army. This man ... theorizes thus: "If I do nothing without the help of God and if all that I do is His act, I cease to labour and the crown that I shall win will belong not to me but to the grace of God. It is idle for Him to have given me the power of choice if I cannot use it without His constant help. For will that requires external support ceases to be will. God has given me freedom of choice, but what becomes of this if I cannot do as I wish?" Accordingly he propounds the following dilemma: "Either once for all I use the power which is given to me, and so preserve the freedom of my will; or I need the help of another, in which case the freedom of my will is wholly abrogated."

Surely the man who says this is no ordinary blasphemer; the poison of his heresy is no common poison. Since our wills are free, they argue, we are no longer dependent upon God; and they forget the Apostle’s words "what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" A nice return, truly, does a man make to God when to assert the freedom of his will he rebels against Him! For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift. As the apostle says, "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." To will and to run are mine, but they will cease to be mine unless God brings me His continual aid.

A much shorter explanation is found in this quote from St. Basil the Great, but I don't know which of his writings it comes from, as I only found it mentioned in a footnote (#869) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.ix.html?highlight=control#highlight) to another of his writings:


On Is. vi. 8, "Here am I; send me," St. Basil writes, "He did not add 'I will go;' for the acceptance of the message is within our control (eph' hemin), but to be made capable of going is of Him that gives the grace, of the enabling God."

These views from the Fathers accord quite nicely with what Owen has been saying all along.

In Christ,
Michael

[Lourens]

So the question becomes, does genuine human freedom [..] amount to a definitive control over future [or perhaps even current] events, or not?
And here the key word is 'control', which implies the ability to securely determine how things will go, what their outcomes will be.
This raises the interior theological question: is the human person in control of his or her own future? It is important to recognise that this is not the same thing ask asking 'is the human person free?'
The question has to do with precisely how authentic freedom, truly exercised, relates to 'control' and God's authority.

I humbly salute Father Deacon Matthew’s sound moderation and think his summary of the run of this thread to be excellent.

If the life course of a thread may be used in an analogy to the run of a human life, posters may readily know that in terms of the “key word..’control’, …the ability to securely determine how things will go, (and) what their outcome will be,” does not quite describe the reality of the natural flow of life (or of a thread -- just ask Rick Henry :-)).

Now, two other words jump up, and perhaps they should be considered.

They are “participation” and “contribution.”

Whereas “control” is defined as “to exercise restraining or directing influence over; to regulate; or to have power over, or rule,” to contribute is “to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result,” and “to take part in or share in something” is to participate.

It is significant that the latter two indicate an involvement along with others, such as charity demands, while "control" invariably indicates rule over others; a calling of the shots. There is room for “control” (political, social), though, when the neighbor is served in love through godly governance and stewardship.

Anyway, my little post is a small contribution, because I may freely participate (within limits set by the Monachos “authority”), and I have thus (in a negligible way) affected the life and outcome of the thread. This morning I did not know I would, nor did anybody else anticipate that I would. So much for control: ’tis an illusion.

Especially considering that (by faith) I live and move and have my being in God, who really rules in the finest particulars of all circumstances in all our lives.

Respectfully,

Learner

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Yes, thank you Fr Dcn Matthew for taking the time and energy to summarize this interesting development in our politics discussion. I also feel the confusion here is really over terms: fate and destiny, freedom and control. I don't know if there is any rational way to explain these apparent paradoxes, but I trust that (to use another term) the Fathers knew what they were saying when speaking of synergy between man and God.

Paul, you must be feeling quite 'cornerered' now, but if you are I just want to say it's human to make a mistake, and I believe you don't need 4 or 40 educated friends to pounce on it in order to know you were mistaken. Not that anyone was 'pouncing', although it might have felt a bit like that sometimes when comments got a bit 'smarty-pants', at least I think it would feel like that for me.

Anyway, the point is that control is not in our hands, but in the Lord's. What we do have is free choice, "man proposes, God disposes".

I noticed earlier on Paul, you also wrote
I've also read from an Orthodox book that when a man acts in opposition to God's will; It is as though all creation places obstacles in his path, and when a man acts according to God's will; It is as though all creation bends down to assist him on his way. So God GIVES US CONTROL of our own lives and assists us when we make the right choice. I don't know if I can agree with this, either. I'm sure God notices all our thoughts and deeds, but I'm not sure that we ever have a 'monopoly' on his divine will, as if some magical formula for success could ever be found through religion. If this was the case, then one might conclude that people who have got what they wanted in this world, did so because they acted in harmony with God's will. I think some Protestants actually believed that at some point, or Weber seemed to think so.

Recently there's been a trend towards believing that "If you rreally desire something, the whole universe conspires to help you achieve it", to paraphrase The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, himself once an occultist. In my own sad experience, it ain't like that, folks. You may want something really bad, and you may even want it not for yourself, but for the love of God; but it's still God who will decide whether or not you should have it, in His infinite and mysterious wisdom.

So Paul, please don't think this is another attack or collusive move from me. I do honestly appreciate the debate your posts opened up, keep 'em coming. But I'll also keep saying what's true so far in my very limited experience, all the time assuming too, that whatever I say won't hold a candle to our Church Fathers.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Also it's good to keep in mind that on balance St John Cassian is another Father we would reach for to guide us between two extreme views of God's will and our will.

How though does this relate to politics? At least as I understood it Owen's point was about the roots of modern politics as it relates to our desire for control. I'm not sure if this was meant as a historical or straight on commentary. But if understanding what it is that we are meant to be participating in is kept in mind then such things as control are surely important. Especially if what is occurring is the manipulation of our desire for control with actually something quite different being the result.

Here again I think some history is in order. All government concerns a level of control & and all government depends on a measure of legimitation from the society it governs. However before modern democratic societies this legitimation came from a higher truth which law and the sovereign represented. That is why far from blind obedience, kings were overthrown with such great frequency (for the best living examples of the complexity and outlines of this question see the correspondence between Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Prince Andrei Kurbsky. Briefly the former argued for absolute obedience to the ruler while the latter argued that the ruler's authority depended on his adherence to a moral standard). Choice actually was involved in who was chosen as ruler and how one obeyed him/her. The way in which this operated however was in a very personal and un structured way.

However in the modern nation state following Enlightenment principles of human nature legitimation of control was shifted to those within the whole population felt capable of rational choice. An essential aspect of this is the principle of the autonomy of human will & those enlightened enough to act in this way. Up until very recent times this is why voting was limited only to certain groups within the larger population. In this, voting is not only a particular method of legitimizing government; it also is the way in which our society legitimates its understanding of itself; ie defines freedom as 'rational control' by 'freely acting' members of society. Here control as a value in itself becomes more important than what or how one controls.

In terms of this discussion I think that in an ironic way the relationship of pre democratic society to the ruler was more free than it is today. Of course society was far more hierarchal than now. But the paradox of hierarchy is of a whole family of relationship tied together in an obedience freely given. Of course most history books and movies say that such a world was one of abject physical & intellectual slavishness. But if such had truly been the case it would have collapsed (or more to the point it could never have come into being) since at all points humans need continual and ongoing assurance of the legitimacy of what they are part of in order for that relationship to survive. In other words the legitimacy of the older hierarchal society is reflected in the way in which people freely accorded with its standards. Which is not at all the same thing as saying that society was not free because it did not desire to exert control in the same way we do.

The irony here is that in tilting the balance so much towards control in society we end up losing it. Legitimation is still as important as it ever was in human society. But by equating this so closely with control or the attempt to control we risk entering a world of delusion in which we are ripe for the manipulation by others of any personal passion. Although being highly 'legitimized' according to modern standards we also lose control of an Orthodox understanding of what it means to be human.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Recently there's been a trend towards believing that "If you rreally desire something, the whole universe conspires to help you achieve it", to paraphrase The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, himself once an occultist. In my own sad experience, it ain't like that, folks. You may want something really bad, and you may even want it not for yourself, but for the love of God; but it's still God who will decide whether or not you should have it, in His infinite and mysterious wisdom.


Along these same lines, we have to be careful about our own desires. If we have any desire other than to be with Christ and we allow that desire, no matter how spiritual or altruistic or philanthropic that desire may be to dominate our lives, then the evil one, seeing this as a weakness will conspire to give us our "heart's desire" in an effort to deceive us and pull us away from Christ and/or lead us into despair (when our desire turns out to be less than what we had anticipated...) This applies to the larger discussion of freedom and control in that our only "freedom" is to continually choose Christ (or not to choose Christ) every moment of every day. Whenever we deviate from that choice, we separate ourselves from Christ. Each of those choices - Christ or not Christ - has its consequences, so in our free choice, we "choose" also the consequences (known or unknown) that follow from it. We do have a destiny (that is a purpose for which we were created) and that destiny is to enter into the life of Christ and to participate in Him. Our "destiny" is to become like Christ and to actualize within our own selves the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity with which we were created. Whether or not we fulfill that destiny is up to us, we have the freedom to embrace that destiny or to pursue some other path. We have "control" over what we do - what we choose- but then that control only extends to choosing our path. Unlike those in the protestant confessions we do not see this as a single choice isolated in time but a continuous choice that is made again and again, over an over, at each moment and at each juncture in our lives. When we choose not Christ and separate ourselves from Him, then we have the opportunity to repent and to choose Christ. What happens to us is the sum of the consequences of all those choices.

As noted above, these choices are not made in a vacuum, but rather there is an enemy, the evil one, who is constantly seeking to deceive us and to woo us away from Christ, to influence our choice by playing to our weaknesses and flaws. But there is also Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Church who surround us and defend us and support us, encouraging and strengthening our choice to follow Christ.

Anyway, that's what I think (sorry no Patristic quotes, so perhaps I am deceived - God help me.)

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

Along these same lines, we have to be careful about our own desires. If we have any desire other than to be with Christ and we allow that desire, no matter how spiritual or altruistic or philanthropic that desire may be, to dominate our lives, then the evil one, seeing this as a weakness will conspire to give us our "heart's desire" in an effort to deceive us and pull us away from Christ and/or lead us into despair (when our desire turns out to be less than what we had anticipated...) ... We do have a destiny (that is a purpose for which we were created) and that destiny is to enter into the life of Christ and to participate in Him. Our "destiny" is to become like Christ and to actualize within our own selves the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity with which we were created. Whether or not we fulfill that destiny is up to us, we have the freedom to embrace that destiny or to pursue some other path.

That seems to sum up the dangers involved in political involvement for Christians quite nicely. I know from my experience of political activism in the 90's how easy it is to let a "noble cause" be that other path which distracts one from the "one thing" that's important.

In Christ,
Michael

[Fabio Lins]

I would like to share this article on Dr. Clark Carlton's endorsement of Ron Paul's candidacy. Despite de endorsement itself, Dr. Carlton puts forward some instigating thoughts on the relations between Orthodoxy and politics.

-----

Noted Orthodox Christian Author Clark Carlton Endorses Ron Paul for President
Written by Glen Chancy
Sunday, 27 January 2008

In late 2007, Dr. Clark Carlton, author of the well-known five-volume Faith Series of books on Orthodoxy, published an Open Letter to Orthodox Christians on behalf of Ron Paul. In his letter, published on LewRockwell.com, Dr. Carlton lays out his case for why Orthodox Christians should support Republican Ron Paul for president.

Dr. Carlton believes that our unique experiment in self-governance is at a cross-roads, and that only rediscovering Constitutional principles as espoused by Ron Paul can save our Republic.

I found a lot of what Dr. Carlton had to say in this article extremely worthwhile, and would invite every Orthodox Christian to read it. Below are some of my thoughts on the article, and what I found interesting both as a political scientist (which I was before I went into software) and as someone who still actively works in the political arena.

First of all, he noted in humility that, "I do not believe that there is one "Orthodox" answer to some of the questions that I will raise below. In other words, I will question neither the purity of your faith nor the sincerity of your commitment to Christ if you disagree with my thoughts."

That is a good point. One that more Orthodox Christians would do well to keep in mind. Many Orthodox Christians have come to the Faith from confessions where certain political ideas have achieved the level of dogma. Unfortunately, some new converts to the Faith carry those attitudes with them into Orthodoxy and that leads to profound problems.

The Trinity is dogma. Reject it, and you are not Orthodox. Your ideas on the proper level of taxation are, well, your ideas about the proper level of taxation. The first breaks our communion, the second we can discuss at coffee hour after having partaken together of the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior.

Dr. Carlton then moves into a discussion of the very real issue of politics and the Christian faith, particularly dealing with the concept of symphony as practiced in the Roman Empire:


Indeed, the actual history of Roman Orthodox symphonia is a decidedly mixed bag. Our calendar is full of saints who suffered exile and even torture at the hands of the "most pious Christian Emperors" (Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Maximus to name but three). The point is that Orthodox Christians throughout history have lived all over the world under quite diverse political circumstances. While Byzantine symphonia holds an honored place within the history of the Church, one cannot claim with any theological seriousness that this is the only Orthodox political philosophy.

Therein, for me of course, lies both a profound truth and a profound problem. Everything that Dr. Carlton said is true. But, then, are there any enduring, universal principles that could be considered part of a coherent Orthodox philosophy of governance?

Roman Catholic thinkers have been grappling with political questions for hundreds of years, and have produced distinct Catholic concepts such as subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity can be defined as a principle that holds:


government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I can give you examples of Roman Catholic ideals of governance. (I just did, actually.) I can give you examples of Roman Catholic ideals of economic organization. But I am at a loss to give you any examples of Orthodox teaching on either of those two topics, other than symphonia. It's almost as if all thinking on these principles stopped in the Orthodox world around the 5th or 6th Centuries.

Which is why I am thrilled to see Dr. Carlton actually take on the idea of symphonia point blank. Perhaps this will start a trend in critical thought towards God and government among Orthodox thinkers.

Not that we should be looking to develop a point-by-point platform like a political party might. That isn't what the Catholics did, and not what we should do either. But the Catholics have at least created some broad guidelines that can frame the debate over such things as individual rights and the role of government in a free society. On the Orthodox side, we don't have a whole lot to go on.

But lacking real guidelines, and understanding that Orthodox Christians live in a diversity of cultures with diverse historical experiences, Dr. Carlton then goes on to say:


This leads me to my second observation, which is that contemporary American culture is far removed from that which has developed within traditionally Orthodox lands. Therefore, I do not for one minute believe that the political principles that I shall advocate below are necessarily exportable to other cultures.

Russia is Russia. Greece is Greece. And the United States is the United States. All have different cultures, and what might be right for Russia won't necessarily work in the United States, nor vice versa.

To sum up, Orthodoxy is lacking in fundamental concepts of governance that can be considered universal principles. Orthodox Christians living in diverse lands with different cultures can be expected to approach political questions differently, and in ways that are largely culturally determined.

At this point, Dr. Carlton then dives into a discussion of the founding principles of the United States which are encapsulated in our Constitution:


According to Locke and his spiritual heirs such as Thomas Jefferson, the function of government is to secure the liberty of individual citizens. Thus, the American political philosophy begins with the individual. Of course, for the Orthodox, individualism is a very problematic notion, one that is intimately connected to our understanding of the Fall of Man. Yet, we must keep in mind that no secular political philosophy could possibly do justice to the Orthodox concept of persons-in-communion. Given the choice between secular individualism and secular collectivism, a good case can be made that individualism is preferable.

I think that hearkens back to the concept of humility addressed earlier. A classically liberal government is humble in its aims, seeking first and foremost to preserve the individual liberty of its citizens. This necessarily prevents a classically liberal government from embarking on grandiose schemes, because to do so would require the use of force against at least some of its own citizens.

Classically liberal regimes do not produce martyrs the way other methods of government do which try to get big things done .

As Dr. Carlton continues:


The American form of political liberalism is not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, and we must always be wary of granting America a sort of messianic status as some Evangelical Protestants have done. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that given our political, social, and cultural history, the kind of government envisioned by Jefferson is by far the best form of government for Orthodox Christians in America who wish to live their lives in pious obedience to the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church.

As someone who has been critical of Orthodox academia in the past, I was thrilled to read this Open Letter. Even if you don't agree with its endorsement or even many of the ideas expressed herein, the very fact of its existance is breathtaking.

Here is an Orthodox academic striving to deal with first principles in an Orthodox environment. While done in the form of an endorsement of a particular candidate, it was nevertheless a cogent argument for the compatibility of classical, Western liberalism with Orthodox Christianity.

And that is truly refreshing, since so much argument within Orthodox circles comes down to arguing for or against specific individuals in the mode of, "Hillary good, Bush bad!" or arguing over specific proposals, "Carbon emission standards good, Global Warming bad!"

What Dr. Carlton, however, invites us to do is go beyond that and start to really grapple with fundamental questions. This is hard for Orthodox Christians to do, especially since we love to look back at history for models to follow. As Dr. Carlton makes clear, there isn't any historical model for who we are as Orthodox Christians in the United States. Instead of looking to Russia or to Byzantium, we need to instead look at our own history as Americans. We need to analyze our founding precepts, our core beliefs, and begin to seriously consider what it means to be both American and Orthodox in terms of our relationship to governing authority.

American Orthodox Christians will always disagree over many individual policies and candidates. But at least by focusing on enduring prinicipals rather than transitory personalities or policy prescriptions, we can hopefully find some common ground on which we can all stand together.

In closing this blog, I applaud Dr. Carlton for issuing this letter for the personal risk it surely entails. Publicly backing any candidate is sure to cause ruffled feathers. When you make a living selling books on Orthodoxy, then getting potential buyers riled up can't be good for business. But, as Dr. Carlton says in his endorsement, he feels too strongly about the current cause not to speak out:


I have never contributed to a presidential campaign before. I have never put a political bumper sticker on my car before. And I have never written a letter like this before. I have done all three because for the first time in my life I truly believe that there is a chance to return this nation to the rule of law under the Constitution.

Glen Chancy is CIO for corfun.com and publisher of Orthodox Biz.
http://www.orthodoxbiz.com/blogs/noted-orthodox-christian-author-clark-carlton-endorses-ron-paul-for-president.html

[Father David Moser]

I would like to share this article on Dr. Clark Carlton's endorsement of Ron Paul's candidacy.

An interesting article, however, as you are not in the US you may not realize that Dr Paul is no longer an active candidate for president (he withdrew from the race quite a while ago - months before the Republican convention - and is focusing his energies on a grass roots movement to bring change to the Republican party. His ideas are very much in line with the Constitutionalist Party and the Libertarian Party (both of which are very minor splinter groups in the US).

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

First of all, Ron Paul is a liberal. He is a classical, Enlightenment liberal who believes in the theory of a pure free market as having an almost divine import. While I would like much, much less government for a host of pragmatic as well as philosophical and theological reasons, the alternative is not an alternative form of liberalism. I know plenty of well meaning people who believe that if we could just get back to the Constitution everything would be fine. Apparently they have never read the Federalist Papers which asserts that the Constitution is a "paper barricade" against the loss of our liberties without a virtuous people. Clark ought to know and appreciate that.

Second, there is a certain pragmatic element to all politics. You play the hand that you are dealt, so to speak. And libertarianism is just not in the cards. Better to stick with writing tracts, Clark. (BTW, I know Clark and consider him a friend, in case you were wondering). This case does indeed show some of the hazards of trying to make an Orthodox case for this or that candidate. But more importantly, constitutionalism and enlightenment liberalism are hardly in the category of timeless, enduring principles.

Fr. Raphael makes an extremely important point regarding legitimacy. What makes a polity and a political order legitimate? Voting for it? That can hardly be the criterion and historically, as he notes, a regime is legitimized in all kinds of ways. But the Enlightenment view is that monarchy is inherently illegitimate. The only legitimate political system is by consent of the government through a formalized, representative system. There are some very serious problems with this as any good classical political philosopher knows, and it is a topic to which Orthodox theologians could do well to examine as well.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr David,


Our "destiny" is to become like Christ and to actualize within our own selves the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity with which we were created. Whether or not we fulfill that destiny is up to us, we have the freedom to embrace that destiny or to pursue some other path. We have "control" over what we do - what we choose- but then that control only extends to choosing our path. Unlike those in the protestant confessions we do not see this as a single choice isolated in time but a continuous choice that is made again and again, over an over, at each moment and at each juncture in our lives. When we choose not Christ and separate ourselves from Him, then we have the opportunity to repent and to choose Christ. What happens to us is the sum of the consequences of all those choices. I feel I agree with what you've written here, except with the last sentence. It seems to me to affirm again that the future is within our control, that wealthy and successful people are where they are, because they've made the right choices - whereas poor and unsuccesful people are such for making all the wrong choices. I don't think what happens to us is the sum of the consequences of our choices, but the sum of our choices plus God's will for us. Hence we are capable of putting ourselves in a favourable or an unfavourable position before God through our choices, but the consequences of those choices are surely for God to decide, who knows us better than we know ourselves. As I say, I would agree with most of what you write, it's just the idea that there is a specific 'path' which, if we but follow it, will open all doors on a successful 'destiny' or destination, which I find difficult to believe. Having said that, I'm a sinner who's certainly never been on such a path, so maybe such a Yellowbrick Road does exist, I just haven't found it yet!

In Christ
Byron

[Antonios]

First of all, Ron Paul is a liberal.

I'm sorry, Owen, but this line made me laugh out loud. This is the first time I have ever heard of him being referred to as a liberal (and I am a precinct leader who campaigned for him while he was still running for president). Being a libertarian-minded conservative and being a liberal are two very different political ideologies.

I think that to parlay this into the current topic about Orthodoxy and politics, we should perhaps discuss the idea of freedom and liberty as it relates to Orthodoxy. Does the idea of a free society contradict or support Christian teachings?

[Andreas Moran]

What makes a polity and a political order legitimate? Voting for it?

The only legitimate political system is by consent of the government through a formalized, representative system.

Is there a difference between these two?

Hitler was voted into office. Gordon Brown was not.


But the Enlightenment view is that monarchy is inherently illegitimate.

The Enlightenment was essentially anti-religious. Catherine the Great said to the Metropolitan of Moscow, 'Diderot says there is no God.' The Metropolitan replied (with the first line of Psalm 14 in mind), 'it is well known, your majesty'.

[Owen Jones]

I think Ron Paul would be the first to say that he is not a conservative, that he is a "classical" liberal in the 18th/19th century sense of the term.

Concerning control, what we've been doing here is attempting to objectify the concept rather than examining the experience as the primary reality. When one actually surrenders all control to God something happens to you. (having experienced this momentarily and not as a permanent state of mind). You are changed. I am convinced that this is the experience and change God wants us to have, given the example of His Son. And many can testify to this.

[Owen Jones]

Anti-monarchical fervor is all about being anti-God. By getting rid of kings you are lopping off God as the head of the political order and the society. The king stands as a representative of God's sovereignty over society -- he is the secular representative of God's rule. This is originally a French idea, as the above post points out. And by literally lopping off the king's head, the French ymbollically dethroned God as the head of the society. In the American revolution, the same thing happened, only the king was 3,000 miles away so they couldn't get at his head. Of course, focusing on the king was a complete sham, a propaganda ploy. The king was not the problem. The king's sovereignty had already been limited by the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the Parliament was supreme. But by ranting against the King, the American revolutionaries knew what they were doing.

[Father David Moser]

it's just the idea that there is a specific 'path' which, if we but follow it, will open all doors on a successful 'destiny' or destination, which I find difficult to believe.

As I mentioned there is only one "destiny" for which we were created and that is to be like God. There is no other "destiny" for mankind. We either fulfill that destiny or we do not (we "miss the mark"). Wealth, poverty, worldly success, ease of life, etc are not part of that destiny, but are only stepping stones on the path. In themselves they are meaningless, but what does have meaning for us is how we respond to these things - do we use them to acquire the Holy Spirit. Those who consider these things a "destiny" or "destination" have erred in that they mistake a step in the path for the end of the path and so stop short of arriving at the goal.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fabio Lins wrote:



In late 2007, Dr. Clark Carlton, author of the well-known five-volume Faith Series of books on Orthodoxy, published an Open Letter to Orthodox Christians on behalf of Ron Paul. In his letter, published on LewRockwell.com, Dr. Carlton lays out his case for why Orthodox Christians should support Republican Ron Paul for president.

If I could then immediately jump to Dr Carlton's comments:


Indeed, the actual history of Roman Orthodox symphonia is a decidedly mixed bag. Our calendar is full of saints who suffered exile and even torture at the hands of the "most pious Christian Emperors" (Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Maximus to name but three). The point is that Orthodox Christians throughout history have lived all over the world under quite diverse political circumstances. While Byzantine symphonia holds an honored place within the history of the Church, one cannot claim with any theological seriousness that this is the only Orthodox political philosophy.


First of all I have to be thankful that Dr Clarkson offered his thoughts on this topic. Although he is not here to respond let me just offer the following though:

I am not sure that Dr Clarkson catches the full or actual meaning of symphonia. Symphonia does not necessarily refer to a type of government that the Church interacts with. What symphonia actually suggests is the principle of harmonious interaction between the Church and government without specifying the type of government. In other words (to quote Dr Clarkson) the fact that, "Orthodox Christians throughout history have lived all over the world under quite diverse political circumstances" (which is entirely true) and "Byzantine symphonia holds an honored place within the history of the Church," don't actually contradict each other. Indeed on the contrary, it could be said that, "Orthodox Christians throughout history have lived all over the world under quite diverse political circumstances," perhaps due to the very principle of symphonia.

Here I think we come to what is a very important first principle of Orthodox understanding of government. Which is that we are called to interact with government on some level. To say it another way, I do not believe Orthodoxy would agree with the theological principles behind the Anabaptist separation from government for example. Here the point about acting according to conscience would be entirely acceptable to us- but not that inherent to the Church is an entire separation from society. Thus interaction with government is extremely important as a first principle without absolutely connecting this to a specific type of government.

This principle has a further subtle proviso however. As an ideal we definitely do as Orthodox have the precedent of calling for just government. This is the great inheritance which the Church picked up from the ancient Roman/Hellenic world. This ideal should affect how we relate to government. However this ideal cannot and indeed must not be seen as identical to the principle of symphonia for indeed in that case it would imply that we are not to have interaction with unjust governments. Such, as the martyrs' lives demonstrate, has not been the precedent we are called to follow. So there is an important tension in our interaction with government caused by our Orthodox sense of ideals and also by our being foremost members of Christ's Church.

In any case, the above means that I do not really agree with Dr Clarkson when he states:


This leads me to my second observation, which is that contemporary American culture is far removed from that which has developed within traditionally Orthodox lands.

This other comment he makes however I think is very interesting:


The American form of political liberalism is not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, and we must always be wary of granting America a sort of messianic status as some Evangelical Protestants have done. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that given our political, social, and cultural history, the kind of government envisioned by Jefferson is by far the best form of government for Orthodox Christians in America who wish to live their lives in pious obedience to the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church.

This I think relates to how we are to relate to government. Each of us lives within distinct countries with a distinct culture and history. In a sense this is like each of us being called to relate to the distinct individuals that we do every day. To relate to them as if they were generic human all of one type would be a violation of what God created them as and the path they have so far followed. So instead we recognize them for the distinct person they each are and respond accordingly.

This I think also has to follow within the countries we live in. Yes, we have our ideals and Christian life. But this should also include responsible interaction with the distinct environment provided by the country we live in. So all of the history, institutions and quirks should be taken into account.

For example (and this is partly why I began thinking so much about this topic recently) in America and Canada which are having elections (or recently had in Canada), there are very distinct political cultures which in a very interesting way affect us as Orthodox. Briefly put in America there is a tendency for the Orthodox to identify with the political process (even when withdrawing from it) while in Canada it is almost the complete opposite (ie Canadians tend to see political choice as a much more 'other' sphere from the Church). This leads to voting choices in each of these two countries which in the other would seem morally questionable or wrong even to the Orthodox in these two countries.

Now these two ways of interacting actually seem a pretty faithful reproduction of the larger political/social culture that Orthodox Americans & Canadians are part of. Maybe we could say that this results from an unthnking acceptance on our part of social ideals rather than Orthodox ones. But I would suggest that it more reflects the way in which the Orthodox have always interacted with the environment that they are part of and that as usual we arrive at praxis before we come to a fuller understanding of why.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

As we have singled out the word "freedom" in this discussion, I was stuck when logging on to the forum by this saying that popped up:

"Freedom is good when the person can use it appropriately. Otherwise it is a disaster. "
- Elder Paisios of Mount Athos


Fr David Moser

[Antonios]

As we have singled out the word "freedom" in this discussion, I was stuck when logging on to the forum by this saying that popped up:

"Freedom is good when the person can use it appropriately. Otherwise it is a disaster. "
- Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Dear friends,

Father Paisios said it very well, and Adam and Eve proved this to be the case. With freedom comes tremendous responsibility. Still, God gave us such freedom with such this responsibility because we could not truly love if our love is not offered freely.

From my understanding, the idea of freedom is very important in God's will for us. Our free will is what makes us in many ways in His image. Coincidentally, it is this very freedom and degree of personal liberty which most starkly contrasts one from of governing system compared to another.

Orthodox Christians have lived and still live in the most varying forms of government structure (including some of the very worst). Of course our struggle is day by day and within the circumstance we find ourselves in, whether living in the glorious days of Byzantium or in the tragic days of early 20th century Russia.

Still, should there not be a goal we should be struggling for and fighting for in terms of the type of government which governs us? Can being a good steward also include struggling to protect the God given rights of God's children, especially the most vulnerable in this harsh world? If God suffers so that we might be free, are we not also charged to do the same for our fellow neighbors?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Fabio Lins]

Hi all!

I know Ron Paul is no longer a candidate. :) My aim in posting the text was understood by Fr. Raphael. It is not about Ron Paul but about some of the instigating ideas Dr. Carlton puts forward there about the relation of Orthodoxy and politics.

I think that after so many views have been put forward, we could try to narrow down the discussion through a more strict definition of terms.

What do we mean by politics? What is politics?

Sometimes people seem to understand that "Orthodoxy and politics" equals "Orthodoxy and state". Sometimes that it would be "Orthodoxy and ideologies".

Politics, as I understand it, are the relations of social power. These can happen within the state, through culture, ideologies, various institutions (among which the family, companies etc), parties, groups gathered around any particular interest, military power, etc.

The agents of politics, on the other hand are always people. No state act on its own, nor companies. It is the people in them, who are pressed under various interests that make use of these means.

I think, than, that the question of the relations of Orthodoxy and politics is really how Orthodox people are to behave in the tensions of social power that we are innevitably involved. It is important to remember that the state is a reasonably recent invention on how to organize society. Before the rise of the national-states in Western Europe the prevailing concept of organization of society was always around the capacity of direct social control that a person or group of person had a certain area, thus the concepts of basileia, imperium and even kingdom. They all refer to "how far and how much" can be controlled. The state, on the other hand, is the idea that a complex, expanded and far more sophisticated kind of court is an intermediary between those in control and the controlled ones. The advantage is that a lot of conflict that could result in murder and in war in society is restricted to the state, since people need only to conquer "positions" in the state and not necessarily having to war over actual people. With no state, one must kill those loyal to the enemy. With state, everybody is loyal to the state, so one has to kill only those occupying the head of state to guarantee the loyalty of the people.

I am discussing this because most of what our references in Orthodoxy was written on the relations with the 'empire' and the 'king' was written in a pre-state kind of society. When loyalties were personal, of course a Christian can be loyal to a benevolent non-Christian leader, would rather be loyal to a Christian leader, were called to stand misguided leaders and even with a certain level of wickedness and had to refuse loyalty to any outright anti-Christian authority.

What to make then of the State? Specially a democratic one in which all these possibilities can co-exist in a Congress and in a Senate?

What to make of the other political powers? Society as whole? The media? The judiciary? NGOs and other institutions? Non-christian models of families? Morals?

It is my personal opinion that the issue is not so much on the "what" but on the "how". What I mean is that the relevant categories to discern all these issues are those that contribute, are irrelevant or haress our process of santification.

For example: forcing non-christians to live under christian morality helps or not our own growth in God? Can any form of force actually cause sincere conversion? At the same time, how are we to react to non-christians trying to force on us their affirmations and/or negations? These questions will help define our stand on liberties for and from in society, for example. Can or should a Christian state forbid the religious expression of non-Christians within itself? And a Christian society? And a Christian culture? And a Christian family? And Christians under a non-Christian government? Should they strive to occupy positions in it and in society in order to change that culture?

St. Paul calls for obeying the pagan emperor and attributes to him a role in maintaing order, something that is more important than "being right" for in order there is a possibility of becoming right whilst in chaos there is not. This relation to power is shown Jesus Christ Himself forbidding St. Peter from rebelling. So, even mistaken demon worshipping non-Christian authorities should be obeyed as long as they do not prevent us from worshipping Christ and do not want to force us into their ways. Still, is there any point where social rebellion would be acceptable for Christians? When oppression starts to be anti-Christian oppression specifically and not generic oppression only? Is there a "enough", for Christians? Do Christians have a right to rescue others in danger? Through which means? Militarily included? Can there be a "just war" from a Christian point of view?

And bringing the question to the American context. USA was born from Protestantism and Enlightment. From an Orthodox point of view this is a heretical context - I am speaking from Brazil which is mainly Papist and born in a Freemasoninc-Positivistic context so I know that applies to me as well :) . What is the role of the Orthodox Christian in such contexts as those of the New World where some sort of heresy mixed with plainly anti-Christian ideologies and yet we must admit that are, so far, generally, societies that oscilate between being benevolent to misguided but never actually anti-Christian? And although certain opinions on the level of taxation are not relevant from a Christian point of view, what should we do when we see a polarization of these ideas with clearly anti-Christian ideas as abortion, euthanasia, "normalization" of homossexual relations, defense of promiscuity and so on? Is it Christian to align with these ideas? Today, it happens to be the left and I can easily imagine the right defending them someday if it falls in their interest. After all conservative/liberal are relational concepts that depends on what you are trying to conservate and to be liberated from. What I am trying to say is that, despite a lot of political ideas being irrelevant from a Christian point of view, in realpolitik, groups adopt a group of ideas and proposals and put them together. Should not the Christian take this into consideration? For example, I am in favor of less taxation always. Should I support a candidate that I know that will do this *and* vote for abortion? I think that my love for Jesus should speak louder and I should choose another candidate. Of course, I am talking from within a democratic system. In authoritarian regimes things get even more complicated, since the leader *demands* applause and at least exterior acceptance of whatever he does. Should I supportan abortionist authoritarian leader, since my lack of support won't change a thing, or should I accept whatever punishment he imposes on me for speaking out against his crime?

[Fabio Lins]

I think Antonio has a point in defining what an anti-Christian form of power is. There are some characteristics in us that are the potential likeness of God. Free-will being one. Any form of power that not only ignores it, but tries to destroy it is anti-Christian by nature. Even whey they do it in the name of Christ.

[Owen Jones]

Politics is theology by other means. Always. It always expresses some theological vision. It could be a grossly deformed one. Nevertheless it is always representative of the theological vision of a people. One can usually tell one's theology by their politics and vice versa. But it is not just a matter of dogma. It's the vision thing. What is your vision of perfection? Of purity? Of Justice? These are all theological experiences, so to speak. So we cannot just speak of politics in terms of formal relationships or formalized processes of participation, any more than we can speak of the liturgy in terms of the formalized rituals.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Owen makes some cogent points. But it causes a thought to bounce around my little brain (always a dangerous thing, who knows what it might bump into!). If politics is theology by other means, what is "Church politics"? I think you know what I'm talking about.

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If politics is theology by other means, what is "Church politics"? I think you know what I'm talking about.

Herman the Pooh

Oh, that's easy to answer. If politics is theology by other means, then "Church politics" is:

PURE POLITICS.

Ha, ha.

[Paul Cowan]

Oh, that's easy to answer. If politics is theology by other means, then "Church politics" is:

PURE POLITICS.

Ha, ha.



pol·i·tic (pl-tk)
adj.
1. Using or marked by prudence, expedience, and shrewdness; artful.
2. Using, displaying, or proceeding from policy; judicious: a politic decision.
3. Crafty; cunning.

Or Orthopolitic? Right shrewd? Correct cunning? humm. Perhaps not Father. Well, we are to be wise as serpents. It does seem the definition of politic as many negative connotations to it. Perhaps "living into" this definition is what has given politicians a bad name.

[Rick H.]

At this point I wonder how this thread might have progressed if it was titled 'Orthodoxy and Realpolitik' or possibly better yet 'Orthodoxy and Noopolitik.' Or, maybe even better yet 'Orthodoxy and Vox populi.' Yes, "the voice of people" as it relates to Orthodoxy and Orthodox polity today! As Willem VanGemeren has written of Vox populi:




Vox populi is a form of Realpolitik. In search of freedom, prosperity, and happiness, humans in any society establish a sacred alliance of relative values that form the basis of laws, social interaction, politics, economics, cultic expressions, and traditions. Vox populi rewards all who support the common ideals but punishes anyone who challenges them. Vox populi shuns the absolute demands of revelation by softening the radical nature of faith in favor of popular expectations.



Especially in this last part of the quote dealing with revelation, and to go further with [t]his thinking . . . When does politics/polity of any kind render revelation into religion? This is very provocative to me as we might consider, for example, the false prophets of Israel, the Pharisees and the Sadducees as opposed to the true prophets of the Lord in the Old Testament as well as the Apostles. Because as we take even a quick look at this we see two opposing methodologies and it is very, very easy to discern between the true and the false.

The one group is manipulative and works at the expense of others and undermines the essential nature of revelation. But look at the other group and how they, the prophets and apostles, characteristically operated (especially when they had to face the antagonism of the others who characteristically operated by a human commitment to pragmatism, to popular views, and to traditions of their day.)

"Orthodoxy and Politics," initially I thought this thread was a big yawn; however, this has turned out to be a most illuminating thread.

[Andreas Moran]

Two thoughts occur. First, I recall that when the Bolsheviks (by then the de jure civil authority)arrived at Sarov monastery to take away the relics of St Seraphim and close the monastery, some of the monks locked themselves inside the church and swore to starve than give up the relics. On the third day, St Seraphim appeared to one of the brethren and told him the brethren must open the church and give up his relics to the Bolsheviks; 'it is God's will', said the saint. Secondly, the prophecies of the Russian elders about the ruling of Russia during the time of Antichrist refer to a powerful and pious tsar, not a president.

[Fabio Lins]

I would like to call everybody's attention to Fr. Tom Hopko ongoing series of podcasts in Ancient Faith Radio about the relations of Church and state:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko

Church And State - Part 1
September 25, 2008

What does it mean to be a Christian and to live in this world? To answer that question, Fr. Tom examines the ancient New Testament Church.

Church And State - Part 2
October 02, 2008

Fr. Tom looks at the Roman-Byzantine empire of the 4th century.

Church And State - Part 3
October 09, 2008

Fr. Tom examines the fifth through fifteenth centuries.

Church And State - Part 4
October 13, 2008

Fr. Thomas examines the four centuries of Muslim rule over Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Church And State - Part 5
October 16, 2008

Fr. Tom discusses how the Orthodox Church fared in Russia before the revolution.


Also, on a similar related topic, some podcasts by Dr. Clark Carlton:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton

Ethnicity, Nationhood, and Immigration
August 05, 2008

Thanks to everyone who sent in the many wonderful suggestions for topics. Clark is starting to tackle them with this commentary on a difficult and controversial subject.

Pride of Place
April 06, 2008

In this episode, Clark comments on administrative unity from a perspective that you may not have heard before.

What is a Bishop?
March 22, 2008

Dr. Carlton identifies three characteristics that should define a bishop.

Individual Delinquencies and Public Business
March 08, 2008

During the Great Lent, a time of reflection, let us be sure that our reflection is upon our own failings, and not those of our neighbors and family members.

Global Warming and Christian Stewardship
January 06, 2008

As Christians, how should we think about the issue of global warming? Dr. Carlton gives us insight into this issue, with lessons from the Divine Liturgy that show us the Orthodox view of the material world.

Why Do the Pro-Abortionists So Furiously Rage Together?
December 10, 2007

Dr. Carlton discusses the feminists' Satanic drive to transcend the limitations of nature by means of abortion, and God's Divine overcoming of the limitations of nature through the purity and faithfulness of the Theotokos.

The Politics Of Anti-Christ
October 13, 2007

Clark continues his discussion of right vs. left and helps us understand the nature of the left as measured by the proper definition of Anti-Christ.

Where The Religious Right Went Wrong
October 07, 2007

How do we as Orthodox Christians view the strategies of the so called "religious right"? Clark explores an alternative approach rooted in our eucharistic Tradition.

God and Country
July 05, 2007

America just celebrated it's independence with parades, fireworks and picnics. So, what attitudes should the Orthodox Christian have toward patriotism?

The Culture of Disbelief - part 2
May 10, 2007

Clark continues his thoughts on Orthodox Christians and their place in this world.

The Culture of Disbelief
May 04, 2007

How do Orthodox Christians view the world and their place in it?

[Paul C.]

To all.

I see that the posts are now acknowledging man's part in his future.

I particularly agree with a small cluster of posts, #s 129 through 132.

Students of history may recall that governments developed from extended families. The first governments were represented by heads of families in small communities such as villages and historically further back - tribes. If only we could go back to that system except with Orthodox family heads as government representatives, but that is a pipe dream today.

It would also have been good if Orthodox clergy could run governments but unfortunately, that is canononically forbidden. I assume it is so, due to the obvious danger of conflicting interests and also the need for clergy to give their primary attention to the Church. Running for and maintaining office would be an enormous distraction and hugely time consuming.

No quotes,
Paul

[Paul Cowan]

However, this has been done in the past where the head of the church was also the head of the local government. I've read too many lives of the saints to remember who, but I recall 2 different people.

[Paul C.]

However, this has been done in the past where the head of the church was also the head of the local government. I've read too many lives of the saints to remember who, but I recall 2 different people.I know this happened in the Church of England at it's very inception but I never knew this happened in the Orthodox Church. I also remember Reverend Ian Paisley (spelling?) of Ireland. I hope someone in the forum can site an example or two in the Orthodox Church for interest's sake.

Curious about exceptions to the rule, Paul (the other one)

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr David,


Wealth, poverty, worldly success, ease of life, etc are not part of that destiny, but are only stepping stones on the path. In themselves they are meaningless, but what does have meaning for us is how we respond to these things - do we use them to acquire the Holy Spirit. Once again, I basically agree with what you're writing, except that, if I may offer my own limited understanding with all respect, such things as wealth, poverty etc. may not only be "stepping stones", but also obstacles in the path. As you say, it all depends on how they're used. And what a challenge that is, whether one comes to it from the side of affluence, or of deprivation! I can never blame anyone for missing the mark, just pray that I personally will catch sight of the target and aim well!

In Christ,
Byron

[Andreas Moran]

Cyprus was once governed by Archbishop Makarios III.

[Anthony]

I know this happened in the Church of England at it's very inception but I never knew this happened in the Orthodox Church. I also remember Reverend Ian Paisley (spelling?) of Ireland. I hope someone in the forum can site an example or two in the Orthodox Church for interest's sake.

Curious about exceptions to the rule, Paul (the other one)

A few Patriarchs of Moscow have been regents, though this is only a temporary office. I believe Patriarch St Alexei was regent for a while, and instrumental in building up Russia's strength prior to the Battle of Kulikovo. Later Patriarch Filaret was regent for his son Michael, who he had a hand in installing as the first of the Romanov dynasty (thus ending the "Time of Troubles"). Unfortunately I have lent out the book I got this from, so can't check the details.

Under Ottoman rule it was normal for Patriarchs and other senior hierarchs to be regarded as the legal (as well as religious) head of their community (millet).

With regard to the Anglican case it was in a sense the other way round from these situations - the secular ruler (Henry VIII) assumed the power to govern the Church.

Anthony

[M.C. Steenberg]

I see that the posts are now acknowledging man's part in his future.

They always have been.

[Owen Jones]

Today our priest preached about, yes, the U.S. election. I missed it -- I was sitting in on a 10th Grade Sunday school class, but my wife and daughter conveyed it. He said he would not say whom to vote for, or whom he was voting for, but that we could not separate our Orthodox life from our political life and had an obligation to vote Orthodox. And he focused on abortion, believe it or not, and the problem with liberalism being intrinsically atheistic. So I guess you can guess where he was headed.

I find this doubly courageous since Greeks in America tend to vote liberal democratic overall, although probably less so among the faithful. I vote Republican because I are one, but it seems to me that the right to life in the womb, among the most dependent, the most innocent, and the most weak among is, is just so essential to everything else, if we get that wrong then everything else is wrong, then I really have no choice but to vote against those who are radically pro-abortion. And Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate for President in U.S. history. So my hat is off to a priest who is willing to tell it like it is from the pulpit and not concede this issue to catholic prelates and fundamentalist protestants.

[Anthony]

Just to correct my earlier post, St Alexei was of course not Patriarch but Metropolitan of Moscow. The Patriarchate was not instituted until later.

[Andreas Moran]

A commentator here has observed that Governor Palin is pro-life and totes a gun.

If being anti abortion is right because it is right to defend the dependent, innocent and weak, why is it wrong to defend them after they are born and grown up? Why is compassion and help for the poor, the disadvantaged, and the plain unlucky a Christian virtue in the individual but hateful socialism and Marxism if done in some measure by society collectively in the form of the state?

[Owen Jones]

I assume that Mr. Moran's question is steeped in sarcasm, but treat it as if it were sincere. There are many differences, foremost among them being the problem of compulsion. One cannot and should not be compelled and forced to be compassionate. Socialism and Marxism are also atheistic religions of man that promise salvation on earth, socialism being the "violence" of confiscation of property and the redistribution of wealth to others, and Marxism being the overtly violent form. So indeed it is quite different morally and theologically to have compassion on the weak as a matter of moral volition, and being compelled by force to give your life, your work, and your property to others in the service of an atheistic ideology. It goes without saying that the opposite extreme of a kind of atomistic individualism without God is not the logical alternative, but rather living a rational Christian life.

Since most modern politics is the substitution of the Church by some mystical entity known as the "State," there is a problematic aspect of all modern politics for the Christian, or at least there should be, but one does what one can I think, in voting or otherwise, to promote self-restraint and moderation wherever it might exist, and avoid ideology and to be constantly on guard in one's own mind against falling for political slogans.

[Fabio Lins]

There is yet another issue with socialism that goes beyond compulsion.

Most people focus on the issue that socialists try to pass taxes as "charity forced on the greedy". Besides being an outright falsehood, there is something intrinsically evil in socialism:

To cause the general equality the socialist elite claims to seek, they must force each and every other elite group to submission under its power. In fact, they must get stronger then all other elites put together to tame them all. It is, therefore, intrinsic to the socialist proposal that it cannot but produce the fiercest, most oppressive, aggressive elite of all. Always. Different from all other kinds of authoritarian regimes, socialist dictatorships are never a possibility that may or may not occur in the political struggle of a country. Socialist regimes *necessarily* lead to oppression otherwise they could not do what they set themselves to do. Authoritarianism is a necessary consequence of socialism. There is no way out of it. Sometimes the authoritarian institutions must operate covertly not to scandalize locals or foreign governments, but being open or covert is just a tactical choice for the final objective of having an entire society - and eventually the entire world - tamed by the socialist elite.

In the past they thought that creating a political or military oppression first could guarantee their status. What World War II, the defeat of URSS and the defeat of USA in Vietnan mainly through cultural war in-home taught them was that to take over control properly, cultural war should be waged *first* and only then oppression through a politial state was to be established.

Antonio Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party and an influential author in Latin-America preached that leftists should think of it as a kind of trench war against all kinds of conservatives (since a conservative in the UK is different from the conservative in the US and from any other country). They should "occupy spaces" first with focus on the culture producing places. Town councils, sunday schools, universities, churches, companies... they should not shun even joining the parties of the enemy and helping them in their own objectives as long as they could get to put at least a small part of their ideas into it. The advantage of this strategy is that it does not need that all people involved are aware they are participating in a revolution. For example, let's say that someone who read Gramsci (and some others who think like him, specially the Frankfurt School which has done much harm to Western universities) simply acquires a job as a university teacher. 90% of what he does is normal academic work but 10% is ideological doctrination that is passed as "neutral" because of the context. His students, developing his theories *will* develop the indoctrination fully believing they are doing academic work. His theory was that once the people heard all these small voices coming from so many different places, from people who *were* actually honest about not wanting to indoctrinate anyone into socialism and who honestly believe they are doing just "science", would sound "like the voice of God Himself, coming from everywhere and from nowhere".

The Frankfurt School I mentioned above did exactly that. They started as society for Marxist studies in Germany but soon noticed the name gave away too much and changed it to Social Studies. When Hitler came to power they ran away to the US initiating all the "social studies" we see today. They are *all* cultural marxism: anti-west, anti-christianism, anti-church, anti-US by nature. Yet very few of the people involved in it ever realises it as something planned against themselves. Although they were prior to Gramsci they are Gramsci's theory at its best. But that is where most of what we see today as scandalous: liberal theologies, particularly the infamous theology of liberation, "social" causes, defense of criminals, anti-life agendas, sexual liberation comes from.

[Andreas Moran]

I was a beneficiary of the socialist governments of Attlee and Wilson in that I was provided with cheap food, free health care and education. I contrast that with the system under which my mother, in the late 1920s, collapsed at school from malnutrition and spent two years recovering in a sanitorium. I was able to go to university, a thing undreamt of by my parents' generation. I see nothing evil in that. Some things did not work out, and it was clear that too much state control of industry does not work. But I find extraordinary the proposition that a state be prevented from providing a decent level of support for its vulnerable citizens because it is wrong to use the taxes paid by the affluent so to do. What I find evil is the attitude of the affluent that their taxes must not be used to help citizens whose needs are well beyond what private charity could ever provide.

[Fabio Lins]

I find extraordinary the proposition that a state be prevented from providing a decent level of support for its vulnerable citizens because it is wrong to use the taxes paid by the affluent so to do.

Here is the conundrum of the thing. Andreas, how can any group force the powerful to give away such wealth without this same group getting even more powerful than all the affluent put together?

Not being in the US I cannot judge that, but what we hear is a lot of complaint about a number of measures that allow the government to get even more control of peoples lives. Even if that is not entirely truth, it is very easy to see that along American history we find a growing centralization of power from its original very descentralized model.

Those measures that helped you, and many other people, as individuals, also formed the basis for the very concentration of power that allow the present elites to do what they do and we all reproach today. By receiving power to be able to take the wealth from the most powerful of that time, the groups that received that power became *more* powerful and more able to perform even deeper injustices.

All in all, socialism strives on cultivating people's individualism, promising and, in a first phase, sometimes giving them the satisfaction of their individual needs, always at the expense of giving a certain group more concetration of power. That is the evil of it.

[Paul Cowan]

But I find extraordinary the proposition that a state be prevented from providing a decent level of support for its vulnerable citizens because it is wrong to use the taxes paid by the affluent so to do. What I find evil is the attitude of the affluent that their taxes must not be used to help citizens whose needs are well beyond what private charity could ever provide.


I don't believe this to be the case here Andreas. The governemnet has so many policies to help the underpriveledged they can't keep up. There is no 'good' one or few ways to help, but too many to keep up with. The governemnt has helped people stay in the poverty line. I personally know several families that are taught by each previos generation how to "work the system" to get all your needs met by the governemnt so they do not have to work.

Where I think your position comes from is the people doing the working are having to pay for those working the system. And when they feel their system threatened they scream 'the rich are keeping us poor.' That's not the case at all. But when you put so much strain on a system that is already strained there is only so many Rich people going around to pay for the poverty folks.

There are jobs here and in abundance. "poor" people that are abusing the system just don't want to DO those kinds of work and belittle themslves when they can stay home in their government paid housing eating off food stamps and making the church donation rounds. We have immigrant Mexicans here doing all our "beneath us" work. If people really wanted to fix the system and actually earn their own way abnd get above the poverty line, I can name a dozen industries that are hiring right now.

Now how does the church fix this? We vote for those people who are running to affect the type of change to fix the situation and not to help frustrate the problem. Yes, I voted Republican. But I can say to you, there have already been people told if the Dems win to stay home for 2-3 days. ANd if the Reps win to stay home for a few days longer. You are about to see a modern day civil war in this country on November 5.

[Andreas Moran]

My nephew in Atlanta lost his $100,000 a year job recently. He has savings to last six months and currently gets some benefit. His church is paying him $50 a week to cut the grass. They now have no health insurance. He believes he gets no help from anywhere after six months. He has a wife and two young children. If he has no job early in 2009, the mortgagee will take his house. If there are ways to get help after six months please tell me what they are and I'll tell him about them.

[Andreas Moran]

how can any group force the powerful to give away such wealth without this same group getting even more powerful than all the affluent put together?

'Any group' is the government. Governments are not more powerful than those at the top of the wealth and power structure. And I'm not talking about confiscatory levels of taxation - far from it.


Not being in the US I cannot judge that, but what we hear is a lot of complaint about a number of measures that allow the government to get even more control of peoples lives.

A level of taxation which allows government to provide some 'safety net' for the people who need it is not intolerable control.


able to take the wealth from the most powerful

No western government can do this.


All in all, socialism strives on cultivating people's individualism

On the contrary, it is capitalism which cultivates individualism. The American version contended for here seems to say that the individual citizen should be free of any responsibility via his government for others in the wider society. 'If people are sinking, tough', seems to be the attitude.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the American version of capitalism is not to be found in the developed world outside of America, certainly not in western Europe. People I know who have some knowledge of America say they could never live there, commenting that the system is too harsh and uncaring.

[Paul Cowan]

For insurance, he can pay COBRA for I believe up to 6 months after his job loss.
He needs to file unempolyment and start the process of assistance from the government. Theywill also help him start looking for work. It may not be what he is accustomed to, and he may need to move, but there is plentyof work to go around.
Every city has a United Way. He needs to seek them out and utilize their agency supports to help with electric bills, child care, medical and various other services they offer. There are services that will help with mortgage payments.
SOme credit assist companies will also help write creditor letters asking for extensions to any credit lines.
Depending on his industry, Houston has job openings. If he is accustomed to making 6 figures, he may need to take a pay cut for awhile.

Like I said before, there are jobs out there. Many people do not want to work beneath themselves or their education level. I know several doctors from other countries working in restaurants here just to put food on the table since they are not "certified" to practise medicine in the US.

Here are a couple of hyperlinks for assistance (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/welfare). Have him google the system.

Paul

[Owen Jones]

If someone who is used to earning $100,000 a year loses his job, then chances are he has the intelligence and skills to get a new one at some point that pays reasonably well. Perhaps not what he is used to earning. But much more than $50/week! There are 25,000 high income earners from Wall Street out of work now, and plenty more to come. These are smart, tough people who need to bounce back without government help. And they will.

My neighbor was earning $150,000 a year as a contractor and now is broke and has taken a $25,000 job with another contractor. My wife's last boss was a contractor and he went broke. He has started over. But contracting is a notoriously cyclical job and many thousands of them go bankrupt every time there is a recession. They start over. And the reason is that there is opportunity in America. People move up and down the economic ladder all the time. The idea that this is somehow cruel and heartless beyond comparison is a fiction.

The U.S. government and states combined spend well over $1 trillion per year helping people with all kinds of government assistance. It's out of control. It creates a spirit of dependency and entitlement and is culturally a disaster. The government pays hundreds of billions a year in supporting single moms, which is undermining the family and social fabric. The woman gets pregnant and quickly figures out that she can get more money by not getting married and getting government support, or by kicking the man out.

The European press blatantly lies about American economic reality in order to take the focus away from their own economic systems. Anybody who believes what the European press says about America needs to take a much closer look.

What has this to do with Orthodoxy? Obviously this is an Orthodox forum. I would simply say that if the Church supported its own people in need more, there would be less of an argument for government intervention. But only about 25% of the American people are regular church-goers. It would be great, in my opinion, if our Church would simply state that no Orthodox church member would be in need of government assistance. It would be a great statement and a great commitment. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Owen Jones]

What is the definition of confiscatory taxation? 25% of income? 50%? More than that? Then there is the problem of the marginal tax rate. If my marginal tax rate is above 50%, that is a huge disincentive to work harder and earn more, or to expand a small business.

I personally believe that no person should have to pay more than 10% of his income in total taxes. Anything more than that is confiscatory. Our progressive tax system is right out of Karl Marx.

This idea moreover that America is some kind of super individualist, Darwinist, survival of the fittest economic system in which people are routinely crushed is a complete myth.

There is an interesting book by a recent college grad who decided to move to a new city right after graduation with $5 in his pocket, just as an experiment. His goal was to have rented an apartment and bought a car within one year. He surpassed that. He started out living in a Salvation Army shelter. What he did not do was take drugs and get a girl pregnant. Most of our economic problems are cultural problems, or the result of cultural problems. 70% of all black children in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. The economic consequences are catastrophic.

[Paul Cowan]

Owen Jones for President.

[Andreas Moran]

What has this to do with Orthodoxy? Obviously this is an Orthodox forum. I would simply say that if the Church supported its own people in need more, there would be less of an argument for government intervention. But only about 25% of the American people are regular church-goers. It would be great, in my opinion, if our Church would simply state that no Orthodox church member would be in need of government assistance. It would be a great statement and a great commitment. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

This an interesting and important point. Why are Christians so tardy at helping one another in the way Owen suggests?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Living in the UK, the idea of only paying 10% tax is fictionally amusing. Our standard income tax brackets here are 22% and 40% - and those are before road tax, council tax, etc.

Sorry - I don't wan't to get too much into the technicalities of taxation (which are surely well, well outside the scope of this forum); but it is interesting to see the different perspectives people have on matters, based on their location.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Location - 'where you're coming from' - is, as Fr Dcn Matthew points out, key to determining attitudes. There is certainly something appealing about the rustic republic of 19th century America and the culture of self-reliance. That culture was not possible in the 'dark satanic mills' of 19th century England, and has, a European might think, become almost impossible in America since it became the centre of global monopoly capitalism for which the people are both fodder and victims. Oliver Stone said in a recent interview that he was taken aback that the character in 'Wall Street' played by Michael Douglas became a hero and not the black anti-hero Stone intended. The roller-coaster way of life mentioned by our American friends is not part of European culture in which stability and steady progression were, until recently, considered the norm for one's working life. There is also, especially in Scandinavia and Britain, a culture of regarding the state as having responsibilities towards its citizens. This is, though, a recent phenomenon. The British government thought it none of its business when, in the 1840s, 3 million Irish died from starvation or disease or emigrated. Food stocks in warehouses in Dublin were not released because they could not be paid for. The turning point came at the time of the Boer war when there was mass recruitment into the army only for the state to find that its men were so ill-nourished that they were unift for basic military training. There is a strong Christian aspect to the struggle in Britain for a more humane treatment of the working classes; the origins of the labour movement lie not in revolutionary manifestos but in a Christian concern to take our Lord at His word and help the poor. This did not prevent Archbishop Cosmo Lang from spending a fortune on relaying the gardens at Lambeth palace whilst children not far away were malnourished and without shoes on their feet. Christ has plenty to say about our responsibilities to the poor; I can't recall in the Gospels that He congratulated the rich on having got rich. We read in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-37 how the early Christians held property in common, and we read in 5:1-11 what happened to Ananias and Sapphira who failed to give up all their property. We read this in 1 John 4:17: 'But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love God abide in him?' Does this saying apply to an unwillingness to have taxes spent on the needy? I am content that part of my taxes is used to help those less fortunate than I, though I know there will be cases where the system is played by the feckless. I'm less happy that part goes towards funding illegal foreign interventions and to the billions of pounds being spent on a new fleet of nuclear submarines (the Astute class - one launched, three more being made).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that as Orthodox Christians we need to take account of the distinct political culture in which we each live. No matter how one participates in one's society or perhaps in politics this understanding becomes part of a larger responsibility we have towards the world we live in. I think that is what we are grasping at here in this discussion.

One aspect of this difference in Canada is the strong tradition of what is called social democracy. Social democracy is strong in many countries of the former British Commonwealth. It is not marxism but rather a combination of the old social gospel movement, labour strivings of the 1930s & also rural efforts towards self help through common effort. Part of this is very unique to Canada during the last Depression (that's when our social democrat party was formed) but part is familiar enough to anyone say from the UK or Australia.

At times of high acrimony the word 'socialism' about these parties gets thrown around (although very rarely in Canada anymore). But for the most part it is understood that social democracy simply represents one point on a larger spectrum concerning government responsibility for the larger community and the degree to which this is proper.

So that in Canada every party including the Conservative believes in active involvement in the social sphere. The only difference between parties is of degree and method of this involvement.

I say this because as Orthodox Christians I think we need to be sensitive to the country in which we live, to its history & character.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I had wondered about the culture in Canada and I'm grateful to Fr Raphael for telling us. It seems we share this culture with Australia and I suppose New Zealand. It is useful to remember how different the society in America is from other English-speaking countries. It is tempting to assume that a common language means there's a common culture but clearly the culture in America is very distinct indeed.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Having lived there for a number of years I agree that among all of the countries having their origin from the British Isles, America is the most unique. But this also has a very positive side to it. In America when wearing a cassock and cross I encountered mostly courtesy and some sort of recognition. In Canada if you wear a cassock and cross in public most people will think you're part of a strange cult or straight off the moon. Although with the recent 'cultural changes' you seem to fit right in in certain cities in Canada!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Tax rates in the U.S. are approx. equiv. to those in Britain. I was making a philosophical point. Actually, many tens of millions of American families have been taken off of the income tax rolls entirely. This was done under the Reagan administration. The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of the total income taxes. And the top 10% pay 90% of the income taxes, because so many have been taken off of the income tax rolls altogether. We also have the second highest business tax rate in the world -- 35%. Where you are really hurt is if you are a single professional with a good job out of college, where you pay 25% with virtually no deductions.

A major problem is withholding, that is followed by a "refund." More and more people depend on their tax "refund."

The ideal tax system would be if everyone paid their tax in one lump sum two weeks before the election. You would see a dramatically different political climate!

As for exploitation of the working class, I think it is time that we put 100 year-old issues to bed. It's a bit like the ongoing protestant-catholic divide in places like Northern Ireland.

We had a long thread on "Is there a Christian economics" that debated many of these points, pro and con.

[Owen Jones]

The reason why Christians don't give more than they do (they give quite a lot more than non-Christians, btw, at least in the U.S.) is that for most of us we do not think of our Christian affiliation as literally a life or death choice. A life or death struggle. We see our economic life as something we struggle for, and our spiritual lives as something separate and apart.

As for Ananias and Saphira, they did not get struck dead for holding back, because what they gave was all voluntary in the first place, but because they lied, denied and shifted the blame. It is a typology for Adam and Eve.

[Andreas Moran]

As for exploitation of the working class, I think it is time that we put 100 year-old issues to bed.

I only thought that the historical perspective helped explain the cultural differences. In 19th century America you could rush off and claim a block of land and start your farm or whatever. You could never do that in England because all land belonged to someone. People in England are 'land poor'; it's a hangover from William I and the feudal system. In Russia, almost everyone has a second home, their country dacha. Greeks and Cypriots have their village house and their city apartment. That's only for the rich in England. In Greece and Cyprus, many ordinary people own bits of land here, there and everywhere. They can raise money by selling a bit, and the chances are their 'land bank' will be replenished by an inheritance from a relative. That goes a long way to explaining why Cypriots in general have a higher standard of living than equivalent people in England.

[Andreas Moran]

Tax rates in England 2008-2009.
The first £6035 is not taxed. £6036-£34800 is taxed at 20%. Income over 34800 is taxed at 40%, the top rate.

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

I think the distinction between the political system of America and other more socialized systems is a philosophical one. In the American form as expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the government is to have a very limited role. In fact, the Constitution does not regulate the people as much as it is to restrain the government. James Madison said "The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society."

George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The role of government is to protect the liberties of the citizens and little else. It was not developed to be the answer to all of life's problems. That was left to the individual. It instead, gave everyone an equal footing and a common starting point to do with their lives they way they seemed fit, with self-reliance being the main force. This system works very well, with the caveat being what John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The founding fathers realized that a movement towards a more centralized and powerful government is always at the expense of the liberties of its people. Therefore, it is imperative that the government should always be held in check in order to protect these rights and liberties. The government should fear the people, never the people fear their government. Such political philosophy is the reason why people came in droves to America, leaving repressive and oppressive homelands in order to pursue the 'American Dream'. These people who came did not come for social handouts or to live in a welfare state, but rather to keep the fruits of their labors and to have freedom to live their lives in freedom. George Washington said in his First Inaugrial address: The foundation of our natial policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality;... the porpitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." Thus what freedom God has gifted us should not be taken away by the will of other men.

The problems with America (which are many) stem directly from the fact that too much power has been given to the governing with the stripping away of liberties and voice to the people. Undeclared, unconstitutional pre-emptive wars and corporate take-overs of Washington are examples of how America has lost its way. Heading more towards a socialized system will only concentrate more power to the ruling elite and often the building blocks towards totalitarian and dictatorship regimes.

As for charity, forced charity is not charity at all. In fact, what it does is breed contempt rather than compassion. America is amongst the most, if not the most, charitable country in history. Even with enormous amounts of tax dollars going towards social programs and foreign aid, Amercians donate the most to private non-profit charitable organizations. Will this be the case when China becomes the world power? I guess time will tell...

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

And one of the reasons why people don't give and do more than they already do is because the government has taken the position that it will solve the problem of poverty, it will eliminate want, it will take care of everyone who has a disability, it will pay for everyone's education, etc. etc. etc. So why give if the government has told everyone, hey, it's not your responsibility?

[Antonios]

Some poignant quotes from the founding fathers of America:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson

[Antonios]

And one of the reasons why people don't give and do more than they already do is because the government has taken the position that it will solve the problem of poverty, it will eliminate want, it will take care of everyone who has a disability, it will pay for everyone's education, etc. etc. etc. So why give if the government has told everyone, hey, it's not your responsibility?

In A Christmas Carol, two gentlemen collecting charitable donations for the poor are rebuffed by Scrooge. He insists that the poor laws and workhouses are sufficient to care for the poor, and that "If they would rather die [than go there], they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population"

Unfortunately, this is the inevitable views taken by some when caring for the poor is left to the government.

[Andreas Moran]

I don't think it's true that people give up giving because governments take responsibility. There are many charities in Britain which receive great support from the public (e.g. Help the Aged, Shelter, Childline, and many others). The National Health Service in particular receives an enormous amount of money from the public even though it's a state-funded service free at the point of use. After the 'Boxing Day tsunami', the British government pledged £75m yet the British public gave £400m, an astonishing sum for a population of 60m people.

[Father David Moser]

What has this to do with Orthodoxy? Obviously this is an Orthodox forum.

I will (mis)use this query in Owen's recent post to suggest that perhaps we should return to a discussion politics within the framework of Orthodoxy as it is expressed in its patristic, liturgical and monastic expression. Much of what has been posted here recently has simply been a discussion of politics with little or no referent to Orthodoxy. Time to refocus.

Fr David Moser

[Lourens]

Much of what has been posted here recently has simply been a discussion of politics with little or no referent to Orthodoxy.

It is the Spirit of Orthodoxy in which such a discussion of politics was conducted that made it quite interesting and a worthwhile read (to me).

I humbly thank all,

Learner

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

This is an article that I read tonight. While I do not agree with Rev. Hierotheos' conclusion that it was free markets which caused the global economic crisis (in fact, it was government manipulation and intervention by the Federal Reserve which has caused this massive recession), I do think this is an interesting article to share and perhaps discuss.

In Christ,
Antonios

* * *



Capitalism’s ideology (http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/politika/ideologia_kapitalismou1.htm)


by the Rev. Hierotheos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlassios
Source: Newspaper “ΘEMA”, 19-10-2008 edition

Nowadays, two prominent ways of life prevail in mankind, which have been transformed into two ideologies respectively; that is, Western individualism and Eastern collectivism. In Western individualism, characterized by liberalism, an unbridled freedom of the individual prevails, along with competition which is a detrimental factor to society overall. In Eastern collectivism state dominance prevails, which undermines people’s freedom. In both instances, man is overlooked as a persona, just as human society is not regarded as a society of human personae.

These two systems of living and ideological models are both made manifest in societal reality. Liberalism prevails in the West and its “headquarters” are the United States of America – the “Mecca” of globalization, while collectivism appeared in countries of the former Soviet Union, but also in countries of the Far East generally.

In both cases capital has a prominent place, except it is differentiated in who possesses it and who manages it. In liberalism, capital ends up among the few and it moves, mostly unrestrained, along the principle of market self-adjustment. In collectivism-communism, capital is state-controlled. In both cases the average person is victimized, the difference being that he is victimized either by the oligarchy of a handful of wealthy tycoons or by an insatiable State. Capitalism thus has only a callous face to show.

The view has been expressed that capitalism is the creation of Western individualism and especially of Protestant morality, as indicated by Max Weber, and that it aspires to the accumulation of wealth by a few, while Marxism, which originated from Marx’s views, is only a reaction to capitalism and is concerned with the whole of society. Deep down however, both these systems are the offspring of the same, Western metaphysics - given that Marx was a German Jew raised in the West - however his theories, which were born in the Western “sphere”, were transfused to the East, because that was where the practice of Orthodox Christianity existed, with its principles of common ownership and communal use and could therefore be implemented.

In our day, we have become witnesses to the crumbling of both these two systems, but equally of their ideologies. In the period between 1989 and 1991, collectivism-Communism collapsed in the countries of the former Soviet Union where State power dominated over people’s social and financial lives, while in our day, we are witnessing the collapse of liberalism with its mentality of “free markets” and the market’s “self-adjustment”, which functions to the detriment of society overall. Of course it should be noted that the bankruptcy of Communism cannot be regarded as a vindication of Capitalism, just as the collapse of Capitalism cannot be ascribed to Communism. It is the failure of capital’s ideology, which is totally disrespectful of people’s poverty.

At any rate, both these systems are contrary to the Orthodox teaching in its perfect form, since neither liberalism nor Marxism – as ideologies and world theories – can be accepted by Orthodox Tradition, in which extensive mention is made to avoid the passion of avarice, but also about the experiencing of love towards fellow-man, especially those who are suffering. This combination of love and freedom solves the problem altogether, given that the freedom of the individual/persona without the element of love will lead to unbridled liberalism, and the love of the whole minus the freedom of the individual will result in unbridled collectivism.

To anticipate a possible objection to the above, I will admit that unfortunately, the ideology behind the capitalist system with its two forms – the individualist and the state-controlled – has In certain cases influenced and continues to influence the lives of certain Orthodox communities. This can be discerned in several contemporary monasteries also, which, instead of being examples of coenobitic living and the revival of the original community of Jerusalem, are nevertheless operating along the contemporary capitalist system’s model, in which case, we could aptly label this phenomenon “Orthodox Capitalism”.

Whereas monks proclaim and basically adhere to the virtue of non-possessing and communal possession, still, they continue to amass – for better or for worse – both lands and funds for the monasteries and take risks by playing with that property, utilizing every capitalistic-liberalistic means to increment it. In other words, monks are striving to live with indigence inside wealthy monasteries and they develop both social and political power.

This situation reminds me of certain Eastern European countries – Romania for example – where the people went hungry and were in fact non-possessors (albeit involuntarily) and yet its leaders amassed wealth and built majestic mansions-palaces (for example Nicolae Ceausescu). However, this mentality is not favoured by the teaching of the Church and Orthodox monasticism, which asks of the monk to lack any personal possessions and the monasteries to be places of philanthropy, love and multi-faceted healing. In the Orthodox Tradition, Sacred Monasteries are spiritual infirmaries.

We clergymen and monks need to understand that everything legal is not necessarily ethical, but also that everything ethical – according to the rules of social ethics – is not necessarily Orthodox, from the aspect that Orthodox, Gospel ethics differs from secular ethics and is in reality ascetic by nature. We should not only condemn the amassing of material wealth by specific individuals; we also need to condemn the amassing of material wealth by “ecclesiastic communities” for display, as well as stigmatize the participation of ecclesiastic personages and communities in the games of the capitalist system and the liberal or neo-liberal market.

We Christians, especially the clergy and monks, must display in practice that which we believe in and preach, otherwise we will be dishonest and hypocrites. We must fend off the temptation to be possessed by a particular, “Christian capitalist” ideology.

[Antonios]

Here is another excellent article! (from 1978)

* * *

A World Split Apart (http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/politika/split_apart1.htm)

by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,

Thursday, June 8, 1978.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today's graduates.

Harvard's motto is "Veritas." Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.

Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said...

The split in today's world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom -- in this case, our Earth -- divided against itself cannot stand.


Contemporary Worlds

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth's surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples' approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.


Convergence

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet's development is quite different.

Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side's defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, examining the overall pattern of the world's rifts I would have concentrated on the East's calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.


A Decline in Courage [. . .]

may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?


Well-Being

When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual's independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.


Legalistic Life

Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.


The Direction of Freedom

In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework).


The Direction of the Press

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers' memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: "everyone is entitled to know everything." But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.


A Fashion in Thinking

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people's minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

I have mentioned a few trends of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world. The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a review, to look into the influence of these Western characteristics on important aspects on [the] nation's life, such as elementary education, advanced education in [?...]


Socialism

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich's book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.


Not a Model

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life's complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?


Shortsightedness

Very well known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism's well planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.

In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is. There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed that Angola would become the Soviet Union's Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba. Kennan' s advice to his own country -- to begin unilateral disarmament -- belongs to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old Square1 officials laugh at your political wizards! As to Fidel Castro, he frankly scorns the United States, sending his troops to distant adventures from his country right next to yours.

However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?

I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question. In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet, as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the West -- a potential fifth column -- as the Soviet Union. At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.


Loss of Willpower

And yet -- no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?


Humanism and Its Consequences

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.


An Unexpected Kinship

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.


Before the Turn

I am not examining here the case of a world war disaster and the changes which it would produce in society. As long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we have to lead an everyday life. There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.

To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward.

[Owen Jones]

Just a few observations about the above.

Capitalism is a Marxist term. So it is ironic that a person would critique Marxism and the economics of free markets at the same time, only by resorting to Marxist terminology and Marxist theories. The idea that free market theory is based on a few people accumulating wealth is inaccurate. Any market economist would tell you that that description of economics is really the antithesis of free market theory. It is really mercantilism.

In fact, free markets, and the availability of capital borrowing throughout every income level has resulted in hundreds of millions of people throughout the globe being able to rise out of abject poverty. We are seeing this now in India and China in particular.

The problem of course for any thoughtful Orthodox Christian is an age-old one of putting one's material concerns above all else. This is nothing new. What is new is the idea that a society can exist apart from God, and that individuals and societies can merrily chart whatever course they choose for themselves apart from any consideration of God's will or God's judgment. I say new, but it is, of course, about 500 years old now, but an idea that came to fruition in the French Revolution 200 years ago.

We see the result of this everywhere, in the epidemic of addiction and suicide, of family breakdown, in AIDS, in the destruction of classical education which used to be primarily concerned with educating a human being to be a human being. In the pandering to the lowest common denominator in the arts, science, politics, education, religion, etc., the rejection of classical arete.

So I think Solzhenitsyn's approach has a lot more to offer. He was searching for some new "synthesis" if he would forgive me for using a Hegelian term. But of course his ideas were largely scorned and ignored. So we await some kind of broad-based but deep spiritual revival that is more than just another wave of religious enthusiasm that is not grounded in much of anything. Simply attacking 'capitalism" is a fairly weak approach and really misses the point, unless one wishes to become well informed and go back to some of the serious philosophical problems with 18th Century British liberalism that influenced Locke, Smith et al. The only serious philosopher who has done this that I am aware of is Eric Voegelin.

I have believed for a long time that opposing socialism and collectivism with capitalism is deeply flawed, except for the fact that "capitalism" works on the level at which it promises to work, which is to provide opportunity for the so-called "lower classes' (another Marxist term) to become wealthy. It does not, of course, promise or deliver spiritual well-being and in many ways undermines it because it is a magical phenomenon. It works like magic and is therefore extremely compelling. This is why approx. 1 million illegal immigrants cross America's borders every year. There are many hundreds of small towns in Mexico that have become comparatively wealthy due to the repatriation of wealth obtained through illegally obtained income in the U.S. And I dare say that there are probably several hundred people in the world who would come to America if they could.

What Fr. Heirotheos fails to understand is the nature of competition. He sees it as competition for a finite pie of wealth, and does not understand wealth creation. Also, what about the idea of competition, which presupposes that there are winners and losers, as applied to theology and salvation? Huh? Is he saying that how we live our lives and what we believe has nothing to do with our salvation? That there is no competitive advantage to being Orthodox? That there are no winners and losers theologically, Biblically? Huh? He needs to get real, and realize that there are winners and losers. This is reality, not some cold, heartless ideology. What makes Christianity so unique is that it often turns the conventional wisdom as to who the winners and losers are upside down. But there are still winners and losers.

[Owen Jones]

I would just like to add the fact that American tax and spending policies are not substantially different than those of Western Europe (or Japan). The major difference is that Western Europe and Japan have a protectionistic policy toward people who already have jobs, to the detriment of those who do not have jobs. There is much less job security in the U.S., but the result is that most anyone who wants a job can find one and we have much, much lower unemployment rates. It does not lock people out of finding jobs the way the European system does. But our tax system is collectivistic and based on the premise of wealth re-distribution, just as is the European system. Ironically, the former Marxist societies have largely gone to a flat tax.

[Fabio Lins]

More Dr. Clark Carlton,

Faith and Philosophy

Clark says an economic system that is built on debt and consumer spending is not only unworkable in the long run, it is fundamentally immoral. Find out why.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/liberty_and_property_part_1

[Antonios]

More Dr. Clark Carlton,

Faith and Philosophy

Clark says an economic system that is built on debt and consumer spending is not only unworkable in the long run, it is fundamentally immoral. Find out why.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/liberty_and_property_part_1


Dear Fabio,

Thank you very much for this link!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

The problem with this critique is that Clark owes it to himself and others to then say what the alternative is. If he is going to be an economic critic, then he has an obligation to lay out what the ideal is, what the alternative is. Unless and until he can do that, then he is simply playing the moralist with words. It's a bit like the two drunks on the bar stool complaining about the state of the world. In this case, he is not looking at the other side of the ledger. Relatively cheap, easy access to credit -- the democratization of credit if you will -- has permitted many millions of people to rise out of dire poverty. So what is the alternative?

[Andreas Moran]

Relatively cheap, easy access to credit -- the democratization of credit if you will -- has permitted many millions of people to rise out of dire poverty.

And has just as easily let them fall back into it. If a bank's lending policy is not checked by its risk management policy, then grossly imprudent lending follows with millions now suffering the results.


So what is the alternative?

A proper balance between lending and risk management, the balance being overseen by regulatory authority.

Probably not much to do with Orthodoxy, I grant you!

[Antonios]

The problem with this critique is that Clark owes it to himself and others to then say what the alternative is. If he is going to be an economic critic, then he has an obligation to lay out what the ideal is, what the alternative is. Unless and until he can do that, then he is simply playing the moralist with words. It's a bit like the two drunks on the bar stool complaining about the state of the world. In this case, he is not looking at the other side of the ledger. Relatively cheap, easy access to credit -- the democratization of credit if you will -- has permitted many millions of people to rise out of dire poverty. So what is the alternative?

The alternative, which he briefly mentioned, is to end fiat money and return to a gold standard- exactly what many economists (including Greenspan before he became chairman of the Federal Reserve) have argued for years. The next step after that would then be to end the Federal Reserve itself.

[Owen Jones]

To make the fractional reserve banking system a moral issue for Orthodox is quite ridiculous, IMHO. Of course, the reason why it was created in the first place was a series of huge bank failures leading to depressions. This idea that some single reform is going to solve all these problems is part of the modernist/progressive mindset, which is always seeking programmatic solutions to the problem of human sinfulness. It is also much too complicated for most people to grasp. Better to stick to the Gospel and the Ten Commandments. Not that some good Orthodox people can't go to Harvard and then serve on the Federal Reserve Board. But let's get serious. A libertarian is not going to be President of the U.S., and the world is not going to go back to a gold standard any time soon. What is more moral for Orthodox is to frankly vote for the person who is not willfully engaged in the further destruction of civilization, and, for example, can at least be expected to stand up for the unborn. Someone who is not ideologically fixated on changing the world in his own image. So, in the present case, a vote for the libertarian is, in its effect, a vote for the most radical, pro-Abortion, pro-infanticide presidential candidate in U.S. political history. THAT would indeed be immoral.

[Rick H.]

Last night someone said, "Barack Obama is a poet." This is exactly what I thought the first time I heard him speak for John Kerry at the democratic convention in '04. And, it makes perfect sense that the US is poised to elect a poet in the time that we find ourselves in at the present. Obama really does have a way of slowing down the pace for reflection and thought, he has a way of bringing one into the present moment just as a good poet does. The polls say Obama is the next president. I wonder how accurate the polls are this time. (nobody called me or my nieghbors).

Maybe when I have more time, in light of the above I will initiate a thread titled, "Orthodoxy and Poetry."

[Owen Jones]

Wendel Berry for President! He's a REAL poet. Not a fake one.

[Rick H.]

I'll vote for Berry as long as his fellow bluegrass state poet, Ralph Stanley, is his running mate.


186

Otherwise who determines/discerns true poetry or true music or true art from the counterfeit, from artificial recreations? Is it I, is it thou? Is it Newman?

187

[Antonios]

To make the fractional reserve banking system a moral issue for Orthodox is quite ridiculous, IMHO. Of course, the reason why it was created in the first place was a series of huge bank failures leading to depressions. This idea that some single reform is going to solve all these problems is part of the modernist/progressive mindset, which is always seeking programmatic solutions to the problem of human sinfulness. It is also much too complicated for most people to grasp. Better to stick to the Gospel and the Ten Commandments. Not that some good Orthodox people can't go to Harvard and then serve on the Federal Reserve Board. But let's get serious. A libertarian is not going to be President of the U.S., and the world is not going to go back to a gold standard any time soon. What is more moral for Orthodox is to frankly vote for the person who is not willfully engaged in the further destruction of civilization, and, for example, can at least be expected to stand up for the unborn. Someone who is not ideologically fixated on changing the world in his own image. So, in the present case, a vote for the libertarian is, in its effect, a vote for the most radical, pro-Abortion, pro-infanticide presidential candidate in U.S. political history. THAT would indeed be immoral.

Dear Owen,

The fact that arrogant and greedy people can make indentured servants out of the rest is an Orthodox topic, whether you think in your humble opinion this is ridiculous or not. I'm sure some very old Russians can attest to that. This is true whether done through political, military, or economic means (the latter being historically the less likely perceived by those it enslaves).

In addition, your mention of libertarians seems a bit odd in the context of banking.

And to remind you, the gold standard stopped in 1972, after always being so for the US dollar, and for most currencies in the world since as far back as history can record. So to say it won't go back is naive, IMHO.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Michael Stickles]

All I can say is, praise God that we are not dependent upon politics or government for our salvation. Jesus was Lord when Diocletian ruled, as much as when Constantine did; He's Lord now regardless of who sits in the oval office. The Church survived and even thrived through murderous emperors and the collapse of the Roman Empire; she will survive in America through whatever ups and downs are coming.

Of course, that doesn't mean I didn't have a preference ... a very strong one, actually ... but, oh well. We should have no worldly attachments, right? Time for some ascetical training, I guess.

In Christ,
Michael

[Andreas Moran]

It must be some indication of how much to the right general opinion in America is if Obama is thought to be a dangerous, un-American socialist. I suspect that it won't make so much difference to the overall governance of the country since the financiers and freemasons who have real power will continue their ways. But if you're so worried, revoke the declaration of independence and restore rule from London.

[Rick H.]

Good post Mike. All things considered, lest we are consumed by bitterness and frustration in our lives, I say let's give him a chance. For a moment or two in the past few months I actually entertained the idea of voting for a democratic candidate for the first time . . . but, yesterday there was no doubt who I was voting for when it was time to hit the button. When Clinton won I was not a happy camper at all; however, this morning I am not in the same place and I am hoping that Obama can put some meat on those bones that he has been throwing out for the past year, and we can see a level of substance which equates to his level of buzzwords.

[Owen Jones]

It strikes me as rather rude to suggest that if someone doesn't want to give Obama a chance, it means he must be bitter and frustrated. He will get his chance all right, regardless. But why should I want a cultural nihilist to have a chance? What I want is for some courageous people to stand up and resist what he wants to do. This is not likely to happen, of course, because Obama "transcends" politics. He is a "poet." Or, more precisely, he IS poetry. He is a seer, a visionary. He is "the One." He will "make us work." He will save us. He will save the whole world, and sea levels will go down. I could go on, but the pattern here is of a spiritually starved nation that has fallen for a spiritual charlatan. Another case of modern politics as a substitute for the Church, a substitute for perichoresis. That is what he is promising. Perichoresis.

[Rick H.]

This has been an election of passion, projecting, categorization, and extremes more than any that I have observed. Possibly that is why so many people participated in this election. In even a consideration of the two attitudes expressed in "let's give the guy a chance" and "he will get his chance alright," as well as "time for some ascetical training, I guess," we see clearly many opportunities/avenues to compare and contrast politics and Orthodoxy. But, it is not rude to speak of bitterness and frustration or even despair, it is clearly evident and I think a real factor in the election of Obama. To this I would add a feeling of alienation and isolation on the part of many of the voters (especially the unemployed and those who are in dire straits financially). I do not agree with the characterization of Obama as a "cultural nihilist" at all, but even here, especially here, as we consider the one(s) who seem to be overcome by the demon of despair or more specifically, a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence these are the very one's who I think lift up there chins from their chests when Obama speaks of hope. Again, I strongly disagree with the statement that Obama has transcended anything . . . he has stood up and looked America in the eye and spoken to people right where they are. Possibly, he is nothing more than a master politician and a very shrewd man gifted in the art of manipulation and persuasion like a naturally gifted salesman. But, I am suggesting that today we (those who didn't vote for him and those that did) do not either categorize/judge him and dismiss him or attempt to make a kind of Moses out of him, but instead let's give him a chance. For the good of the country, I honestly hope to find myself in a position of entertaining the notion of voting for him in 2012 for at least a moment or two once again.

[Eric Peterson]

I'm bitter, clinging to Orthodoxy--except that I don't own a gun--oh well.

I don't trust any politician. I don't get excited about any politician. When Antichrist comes, everyone will love him, there will be mass excitement, people will cry for joy and faint in the streets. I take that as a kind of warning for sobriety.

Politically, Obama and McCain both want bigger and bigger government. There will be no turning back from this. Besides this, a rising tide of internationalism greets Obama's election. There is talk of change, progress, a new era, restored dreams. I see no reason to get caught up in the euphoria. If it's not a preparation for the end, it's one last little fling before it.

Nevertheless, God is still in charge. With that, politics is nearly irrelevant.

[Owen Jones]

I don't believe that politics is irrelevant. One must live as if Christ will come tomorrow, but also as if life goes on. This is the paradox for the Christian. A monk has a somewhat different perspective, because he has no material obligations, he has no family to support, etc. and his whole life represents a rejection of worldliness. But for the average Christian with a family and a job this cannot be done. So one participates in the political life of the society as the best one can, for a combination of reasons, including self-interest, including the common good, applying sober reasoning and Christian principles as best one can.

To that end, it is important to be spiritually attuned to what politics promises so as not be fixated on politics as somehow salvific. At the same time, it is quite possible to become fixated on one's "religion." It's the fixation part that is troubling.

As for Obama in particular, his campaign and his message are out of "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a neo-Marxist in the sense that he did not threaten violent revolution, but rather a revolution within. His theory was that the middle class (a Marxist term -- the term bourgeois is the one they love) is miserable. So instead of attacking the middle class, and instilling fear in the middle class, you empathize with their petty, miserable lives and you offer them salvation. The goal is first to turn them against their own country, but having them believe that their misery is the result of a massive conspiracy against them by an unloving, uncaring, reactionary government that exploits them at every turn. This is classic Marxist dialectic.

[Michael Stickles]

What I want is for some courageous people to stand up and resist what he wants to do. This is not likely to happen, of course, because Obama "transcends" politics. He is a "poet." Or, more precisely, he IS poetry. He is a seer, a visionary. He is "the One." He will "make us work." He will save us. He will save the whole world, and sea levels will go down. I could go on, but the pattern here is of a spiritually starved nation that has fallen for a spiritual charlatan. Another case of modern politics as a substitute for the Church, a substitute for perichoresis.

I would say, not just poetry, but mythology - in the old sense of the word "myth". Obama was the new "man from Hope", bringing change, the one who could overcome racial and other divides to unite a country. McCain was the maverick patriot who stood up for his country in battle and in captivity, and who stands for what he believes in even against his own party.

That's really what candidates run on these days - not platforms or positions, but mythologies. I believe Obama won because his mythology captivated more people than McCain's did.

I also believe that's the level at which modern politics competes with the Church - as provider of an alternative mythology for us to use in orienting our lives. One of the problems with politics is that the mythologies represented by it in general are divorced from reality (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the particular mythology). Whereas in Orthodoxy, our mythology is rooted at the base not just in reality, but in the Source of reality.

In Christ,
Michael

[Andreas Moran]

Obama was elected by a clear majority of the American electorate. Do the views of Owen and those who share his views mean that they do not accept democracy? But then America was founded on the audacious pretensions of a cabal of merchant types, mostly freemasons, who wanted to do their own thing free of restraint. The idea that the terms of the declaration of independence are a noble guiding light to the best possible ordering of society is hypocritical hogwash.

[Michael Stickles]

Obama was elected by a clear majority of the American electorate. Do the views of Owen and those who share his views mean that they do not accept democracy?

I'm frankly not sure what you're referring to by that. American democracy was never intended to be simply "majority rule". It includes quite a bit more than just punching out chads and picking a new set of representatives every other year, then shutting up until the next election while they run around imposing new rules on you - or, at least, it should include quite a bit more than that. It involves being in contact between elections with those representatives to make one's views known, both for and against proposed legislation and the like.

I understood Owen's "What I want is for some courageous people to stand up and resist what he wants to do" as along those lines - trying to organize opposition to bad ideas and programs, convince people that they are bad ideas, and then scuttle them legislatively (or by other legal means) before they get implemented (or soon enough afterwards to minimize damage).

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

I understood Owen's "What I want is for some courageous people to stand up and resist what he wants to do" as along those lines - trying to organize opposition to bad ideas and programs, convince people that they are bad ideas, and then scuttle them legislatively (or by other legal means) before they get implemented (or soon enough afterwards to minimize damage).

In Christ,
Mike

That would be the democratic way but the fact remains that a majority has voted for his programme.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Obama was elected by a clear majority of the American electorate. Do the views of Owen and those who share his views mean that they do not accept democracy? But then America was founded on the audacious pretensions of a cabal of merchant types, mostly freemasons, who wanted to do their own thing free of restraint. The idea that the terms of the declaration of independence are a noble guiding light to the best possible ordering of society is hypocritical hogwash.

If democracy is defined as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, then to be against that is not hypocritical nor is it hogwash.

I suggest that the vitriolic rhetoric be toned down a notch or three.

Herman the moderator

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

This thread really is wandering. I do realise the event of the recent American election is fresh on minds; but please, let us use this thread to discuss Orthodoxy and Politics in its patristic context, rather than simply comment on current political affairs - which are outside our scope.

Many thanks.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Let me try this approach. The ante-Nicene model for the Church seems to me to be more and more relevant here. We exist in a kind of neo-pagan environment. There are constant assaults in the culture, or non-culture as it were, against the Church, and subtle and not-so-subtle persecutions. In a way, the subtle ones are the more significant, because it is like death by a thousand cuts. So it is an occasion for apostolic boldness in preaching and teaching, and an occasion for getting serious about our priorities, even though there is a cost involved having to do with ostracization and ridicule and even loss of income. For example, what are you going to do if you are an Orthodox Christian seeking a degree or advanced degree in the humanities? It's extremely difficult in most schools. What if you work for a company that puts on New Age management seminars, which are quite frequently done these days, that involve manipulative role playing and neo-pagan jargon? What if you work for a company in Silicon Valley that requires you to attend business conferences on Sunday morning? What if you have a child in grade school where they are teaching how to actually have homoerotic sex? What do you say? What do you do?

In politics, in particular, we are really approaching the model of the decadent phase of the Roman Empire, in which Caesar was a god. So while we are commanded to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, he is not entitled to our worship.

The list goes on and on. So these cultural/political trends are going to require more and more from Christians, some decisive moments, that the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church did not shy away from.

[Eric Peterson]

Andreas,

Not everyone who votes for a particular candidate does so because he or she agrees with the candidate's program, in whole or in part. Too often, candidates think that their victory is an endorsement for whatever they want to do. This is not the case, as we can see in historical examples.

[Nina]

But if you're so worried, revoke the declaration of independence and restore rule from London.

What do you mean by 'restore'? :) Here on monachos we are ruled from London (or better said Leeds?) hint ----> Father Matthew. :)

On a serious note now, did you know that when the British burned our Library here, Thomas Jefferson donated all his books which served as the foundation of the Library of Congress? And Jefferson wrote to Adams some time after: "Can't live without books!" Although I would like to say for Jefferson 'my kind of guy', I would choose better to reiterate what Michael said in his post above that thank God our salvation is not tied to earthly affairs, or materials. Christ said: "I am with you always." before He ascended to Heaven. And we must remember that we are all people -even the government- that need salvation, so we must pray for everyone (as we do in Liturgy) and have pity for all the souls that surround us because we are all in need of God's mercy and for His help towards salvation.

[Fabio Lins]

Maybe a way to stick to the thread while at the same time building a column to serve as reference for what to do in realpolitik while at the same time finding common ground between Orthodox theology and modern American-style democracy, we could do a rather common exercise of a fictional scenario.

Scenario 01 - The Salt of the Earth

Let´s say that America saw a significant increase of Orthodoxy to the point that even the other Christians would have elected an Orthodox president for the U.S. The economic and political scenario would be more or less the same. What his policies should be? How was he to deal with internal politics and international politics?

Scenario 02 - Holy America

Also we can work with a more radical scenario: if after a series of cultural changes such as those we have been witnessing since the 30's and 60's towards a more progressive society, we saw a similar process that lead the US Christian communities to become mostly Orthodox (over 50%). Monasteries and seminaries abound and many saints have been born in American soil.

What would change in politics, administration, economy, laws, organization of the state etc. etc. with a Congress, a Senate and a Judiciary with a significant number of Orthodox and with an Orthodox president?

[Father David Moser]

As for Obama in particular, ...


Obama was elected by a clear majority of the American electorate. ...

Just an early warning, we should steer clear of 'particular' or specific electoral persons or national situations. This discussion is/should be about how Orthodoxy and politics relate, not about the various elected officials (particularly those who are not Orthodox). Let's stay on topic.

Fr David Moser

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fabio, all,


Scenario 01 - The Salt of the Earth

Let´s say that America saw a significant increase of Orthodoxy to the point that even the other Christians would have elected an Orthodox president for the U.S. The economic and political scenario would be more or less the same. What his policies should be? How was he to deal with internal politics and international politics?

Scenario 02 - Holy America

Also we can work with a more radical scenario: if after a series of cultural changes such as those we have been witnessing since the 30's and 60's towards a more progressive society, we saw a similar process that lead the US Christian communities to become mostly Orthodox (over 50%). Monasteries and seminaries abound and many saints have been born in American soil.

What would change in politics, administration, economy, laws, organization of the state etc. etc. with a Congress, a Senate and a Judiciary with a significant number of Orthodox and with an Orthodox president?

These are truly 'dreams from our Fathers', if you'll pardon the pun! I'm not based in the U.S., so I can only respond by commenting that I'm living in a country which is nominally Orthodox (although our current president is a communist, who by strange coincidence toned down his views on God significantly just before being elected - so much so, that one could have almost mistaken him for a Christian at that point). Most Greek-Cypriots declare belief in God, and would even to a large majority describe themselves as Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, we are overrun by the same injustices and social problems that Americans seem to suffer from, judging from what I hear of life in the U.S.. Contrary to popular wisdom, it seems to me that the devil does not 'have all the best tunes'; his 'music' is in fact loud and monotonous, and pretty much the same all over the planet: the notes on his scale are greed, sefishness, insensitivity, hypocrisy, ambition, and the key in which they are played is always 'self-major'. This applies to Orthodox as much as to heterodox people and nations, Constantine or Diocletian as a fellow-poster cleverly remarked.

As far as the sub-theme of Obama's victory is concerned, I see only one really good thing at the moment: at last the whole world gets to see that a black man can be in power. The rest I can't comment on, it's far too early; but without being cynical I don't hold out much hope, either for the liberal left or the liberal 'conservative' right. In fact this thread has helped me a lot, because I no longer put any trust at all in human politics, and remind myself constantly when I get carried away like everyone else, to trust only in God's providence at all times.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

I'm usually not too fond of "visioning" but let me try to take Fabio's imaginings seriously for a minute. First, an Orthodox President. First, he would have to be Orthodox in something other than name only. We have a number of Greek politicians in the U.S. who are very Orthodox when they are campaigning. People see them in church for the first time in years. They are very happy to get Greek campaign money but they are aligned with secular causes to the hilt. I won't go through the list.

Second, he would have to deal with the issue of his faith in a way that does not repeat all of the liberal shibboleth's, e.g., my faith is personal and private and has nothing to do with my politics or your politics. So what does he say? It's time for us to get over the hatred and fear of the sacred. This is a legacy of European religious wars that took place hundreds of years ago. A people cannot long last without a respect for the sacred. There must be room allowed in our public life, our political lives, our social lives, to honor the sacred. And that is what I intend to do as President. To acknowledge the sacred. To acknowledge sacred ideals and sacred places. Not to impose it, but to acknowledge it forthrightly. The alternative is a world devoid of meaning and purpose.

If Orthodoxy were to actually pick up the pieces of a shattered culture, that's a good question to ponder. Maybe more later...

[Michael Stickles]

I just ran into a post at Father Stephen's blog Glory to God for All Things. It's called The Death of Religion (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-death-of-religion/), and touches on this area. An excerpt:



In August of 2007 I wrote an article on Christian Atheism (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/christian-atheism/). At the time I was seeking to describe the strange phenomenon of modern Christianity - one in which life as we live it and life as we say we believe it are two separate things. This is not a problem of hypocrisy but of shipping Christianity to an off-shore location in which all significant spiritual activity is accomplished somewhere other than where we live. ...

The result of this bifurcation of faith is an empty world in which we may speak of the “death of religion.” Modern Christians have a relationship to faith much the same as they have a relationship to a political point of view. Indeed, in many modern churches, the substance of the faith is itself the subject of political debate. ... We become a nation of red Church, blue Church, neither of which have any relation with The Church, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

This also makes the Church into a political instrument, or politics into a churchly instrument. Thus the victory of one party or the loss by another is seen as a victory of religious significance. ...

The death of religion, of the true Christian religion, occurs when the God who became flesh and dwelt among us, is seen as the God who has removed Himself (having accomplished His work here) and is found only in the distance of theological thought. It is little wonder that in the sterility of Christian atheism the vacuum of a true spiritual life should be filled with the vacuity of the political life.


In Christ,
Michael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I just ran into a post at Father Stephen's blog Glory to God for All Things. It's called The Death of Religion (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-death-of-religion/), and touches on this area. An excerpt:



In Christ,
Michael

The next paragraph in the blog- if it had been followed through a bit further in thought about its consequences- I thought the most interesting.

I am deeply convinced that our problem is that we have gotten into the habit of trying to put far too many of our eggs into the political world.

I am also convinced that our Orthodox forebearers did not do this to the extent that we tend to.

This even though they lived under monarchs whose legitimacy rested on an Orthodox coronation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

I am deeply convinced that our problem is that we have gotten into the habit of trying to put far too many of our eggs into the political world.

I am also convinced that our Orthodox forebearers did not do this to the extent that we tend to.

This even though they lived under monarchs whose legitimacy rested on an Orthodox coronation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Simply superb!

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Below are two articles I found today relevant to our current thread. Enjoy!

In Christ,
Antonios



The Ownership of Property (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Reardon-The-Ownership-Of-Property.php)
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Father Pat's Pastoral Ponderings
November 16, 2008
First Sunday of Advent

The principle of the ownership of property is complex.

First, as Christians we should insist that it is rooted in the biblical concepts of the person and the family. According to Christian teaching about the nature of human beings, they have a strict metaphysical right to the things that they work for or have inherited from their parents. Property has a metaphysical root; it is an extension of personality and a proper expression of family.

Ownership of property is not a concession of the government. Indeed, governments exist for the purpose of protecting the metaphysical, God-given rights of the citizens, and one of those rights is the right to the ownership of property. It is not the business of government to take away the rightful property of its citizens.

Taxation, for the purpose of maintaining the services of government---including the care of the poor---is not a violation of this principle. We render to Caesar what is his, however, precisely because Caesar is our servant, not a thief.

Consequently, robbery by the government---for the purpose of redistribution of wealth, for example---is just another form of theft. It is the playground bully stealing the lunch money of those who are smaller than he is and have no ability to stand up to him. The Lord does not like bullies. God looks on such theft the way He looks on all robbery: He does not like it, and He has very harsh things to say about it. If one is in doubt on in this point, let him go back and re-read the sermon of Samuel just before the election of Saul (1 Samuel 8) or the story of Naboth's vineyard (1 Kings 21).

This is not the whole story about ownership, however. The right of families to the ownership of their property is likewise subject to a prior claim---the claim of God, the Creator of all things. The very fact of death at the end of a human life testifies to God's prior claims over all His Creation.

Human ownership of property always has the sense of stewardship, which means that we human beings are really taking care of God's Creation. It is everywhere the teaching of Holy Scripture that the world and everything in it belongs to God, not to men. An impulse of human nature prompts men to regard their possessions as belonging to themselves. Left to its own lights, this is exactly what philosophy will declare.

Man, however, does not live by philosophy alone. Theology will insist that we also render to God what is His. According to Holy Scripture, men do not have absolute ownership of their possessions; they hold all such things in stewardship from God. The Lord planted Adam and Eve in the garden and commanded them to take care of it. He did not, in any absolute sense, give it to them. This is the proper theological principle on which Christian ecology is based.

Everything that God made belongs to Him. The earth and the elements are not given to men to exploit and abuse. Human beings are strictly answerable to God for how they treat His Creation. This is a long recognized truth of Christian theology: The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.

This is why the Bible enjoins tithing on all God's servants. We have a mandate to give back to God the first ten percent of everything that comes to us---all the fruit of our labor and investments---as a sign that all of it belongs to God. The tithing of our income, a fundamental principle of biblical economics, expresses our practical recognition that we hold everything as stewards.

This is why the Bible enjoins tithing on all God's servants. We serve a God who gives us everything and graciously blesses us to keep ninety percent of what comes to us. Therefore, our tithe is an act of thanksgiving as well as stewardship.

Indeed, the constant expression of thanksgiving and joy are the surest marks of good stewardship.


******************************************



The Election and Christ (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Buscemi-The-Elections-And-Christ.php)

John Buscemi

It is not difficult to see how many people in our country are currently in a state of anxiety as the 2008 presidential election season approaches its end. Americans have spent much time and energy fretting over who they will personally choose to solve their problems and secure their freedoms. As Orthodox Christians, we must never forget that Jesus Christ is the one who gives us the greatest freedom of all: the freedom of eternal life in His kingdom. We have a Savior that conquered sin, and no political “issue” or vote on a ballot is going to change that.

Whether or not to make an honest effort everyday to be like Jesus is a choice we have to make as Orthodox Christians. Americans have to make a decision as to whom they will trust to take actions that will influence their lives. We trust the president to use his power and authority to protect our nation, but it is imperative that we cannot forget that Christ is the ultimate protector of our lives and the only way to salvation. Just like a candidate is elected to office, we must more importantly personally elect Christ as the leader of our lives.

Although turning to God is the path we must take, our country still faces many difficulties that are easy to dwell on. We should pray that God will guide those whom are elected. When we begin to feel overwhelmed and those in office cannot ease our burdens, we should recall the Gospel from Matthew 6:33: “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” By placing God first in our lives as the real commander-in-chief, we assure ourselves that His Kingdom will prevail.

That is why it is sad to see so many Americans shed tears for the promises of the candidates. Unfortunately, they are going to be disappointed no matter what. They may be temporarily impressed or satisfied with a candidate’s accomplishments which are commendable, but Christ alone can bring the peace, love, mercy and inexpressible joy that their hearts yearn for.

Presidents and world leaders come and go. But in January 2009, when Orthodox across the nation turn on their TV’s to see the next president’s Inauguration Day, let it be a reminder that Christ is with us.

[Fabio Lins]

Dr. Clark Carlton about capitalism, socialism, the recent election and Orthodoxy.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/liberty_and_property_-_part_2