IV
The Orthodox church has lived with monarchy from the day the Lord established her nearly two thousand years ago. The first monarchy was Roman, sacred and pagan. Of course, some have argued that the Church is "in the world and not of it" and, therefore, it makes little difference what the political structure under which the Church lives; in fact, she ought to have no association with the world whatsoever. God wished to refuse the Hebrew nation a king and the Orthodox is the New Israel. Finally, it would seem that "democracy" would suit Orthdoxy far better than any other form of government, because it is secular. The Church is free to act without the encumbrances of an imperial hierarchy.
First of all, it is important for Orthodoxy to live under a form of government which is not hostile to Her, even more one which would encourage Her spiritual and physical growth. The world belongs to Her, as it belongs to Her God. She must, therefore, associate Herself with it in order to sanctify it, to recover it from the devil. Thus, when the Lord commanded that all creatures be converted and baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. Xxviii, 18), we must assume that those nations would have governments and that these governments themselves must also become Christian. It is useless to argue that the Church is "in the world but not of it," because that nation converted to Christ is no longer "of it," no longer "from it." Consequently, if God hoped to deny the request of the ancient Israelites for a king, it was because He did not wish His People to imitate their neighbors. In any case, they had a government whose ruler was God Himself, directing them with a Law from Above through His appointed Judges - Joshua, Samson, etc.
And this leads us to the last point in question. It is difficult for me to conceive an Orthodox democracy, especially a modern democracy which is, as you know, pluralistic, individualistic and secular (6). IN the first place, no democracy complies with the words of the Lord's Prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." If God is King in heaven, he must like wise be King on earth. If all of heaven and earth belong to the Lord, then, similarly the Lord's viceroy is governor of the earth. This explains, in another way, why those not subject to the Orthodox emperors were also heretical and pagan.
Let us say, then, that no Orthodox worth his salt can live comfortably in a society where the Will of God is not accompkished. How, for example, can we be reconciled toa society in which self-interest is the first principle of all action and where confusion, heresy and skepticism are described as good and creative? How do we share in a government whose authority is human and sometimes deliberately anti-Christian? One cannot imagine a democracy in which the people humble themselves before the bishop. Worst of all, there is no secular society in which Christ, as a cultural fact, is recognized as God. Moreover, if the state must resemble Christ and the state is secular; then, Christ must be viewed as totally human.
In any case, the modern world does not allow for "sacred democracies" and the president is not anointed with "the oil of gladness." Thus, it would seemt o me that an Orthodox is faced with the dilemma of living in a society which is basically hostile and alien to him. Of course, we must honor the president, obey just laws and do no harm to any man. Yet we cannot allow ourselves to become an intrinsic part of secular society. The early Christians were accused of being "anti-social" because they would not become involved in the affairs of the pagan Roman Empire, so we must expect the same reproach. Furthermore, we must understand that nothing exists to protect us, no Tzar. We will be threatened even more with the appearance of the Anti-Christ. He will be the product of secular society. He will, almost ironically, establish a secular monarchy, an ecumenical or world kingship. In the end, of course, he will be overthrown by Christ whose kingdom will have no end.
* * *
Footnotes:
6. The so-called neo-Christian Russian intelligentsia (Bulgakov, Berdyaev, Kartashev, etc.) hailed the fall of the Russian monarchy as the beginning of the Church's freedom. The "end of the Constantinian age," they said, meant that the destiny of the Russian Church was now in the hands of the Russian people. They mentally, at least, tried to impose their democratic and socialist principles on the Church Herself. The attempt to unite their political views with the hierarchical system of Church government naturally failed. The history of the post-revolutionary Russian Church, in part, has been a conflict between neo-Christian laicism and traditional Episcopal authority. The intelligentsia and their followers always placed their "creativity" before any allegiance to the Church and obedience to their bishops. See the interesting discussion in Michel d'Herbigny et A. Beubner, "Eveques Russes En Exile," Orientalia Christiana XXI, 67 (1931), 256-271.
* * *
This essay, for the first time, was delivered to the attention of the Russian Youth Congress, held in Toronto, Ont., August 1979, by it's author Fr. Michael Azkoul.
--Sacred Monarchy and the Modern Secular State, Fr. Michael Azkoul
Posted by Clifton at December 9, 2004 06:30 AM | TrackBack