💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › davor-dzalto-anarchism-and-orthodoxy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:01:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and Orthodoxy Author: Davor DĹľalto Date: September 21, 2016 Language: en Topics: Christianity, religion Source: https://publicorthodoxy.org/2016/09/21/anarchism-and-orthodoxy/
How can one be a Christian, meaning a citizen of the Kingdom of God,
and, at the same time, a loyal citizen of “earthly kingdoms” (states)?
Would this not be a divided loyalty, a submission to two incompatible
logics of life, since “no one can serve two masters.” (Mt 6:24)
These questions, and the general problem of how to articulate the
relationship between Christianity and the socio-political sphere, go
back to the earliest periods of Christianity, and continue to be
relevant today.
Historically, there were various attempts to articulate an approach that
would bridge the apparent gap between the Christian proclamation of the
Kingdom of God and the political reality of “this world.” Bridging this
gap meant, more often than not, giving the political sphere a religious
meaning, and thereby providing a religious justification for the
exercise of state power.
In the “Christian” Roman Empire, theologians, patriarchs and emperors
were trying to find a satisfactory solution offering different models
that are commonly referred to as the “Byzantine symphony.” It is
needless to say that there was not one “symphonic” model in the history
of the Eastern Roman Empire, but rather many different theologies of the
political, as there was little of those “symphonies” in practice.
However, it is true that there were many attempts to theoretically
articulate some kind of a theocratic form of government, without
contrasting, or even merely dividing, the political and the
Christian/ecclesial. The church was effectively integrated in the
political (imperial) domain, although, from time to time, claims for the
autonomy of the ecclesiastical sphere would be advanced.
In spite of the formal differences, the situation in Western Europe was,
structurally, not very different from that in the (Eastern) Roman
Empire. In the absence of a powerful empire and emperor, the popes
assumed imperial prerogatives, and became political leaders. The claims
of their superiority both in the “spiritual” and in the political sphere
were advanced during the Medieval period, and, following the logic of
the argumentum unitatis, the theological ideology of the papacy would
result in the aspiration to integrate the sphere of the political into
the one unified theocratic sphere, in which the papacy was the supreme
authority due to its “spiritual” prerogatives.
A “theocratic” (although, effectively, often “secular-theocratic”)
understanding of the socio-political sphere, that aspired to integrate
Christian eschatological concerns and the ethnic/national/political, can
be found in the post-Reformation world as well. The English parliament,
for instance, would promulgate religious doctrines, approved by the
monarch (e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion from 1563), which
resembled the typically ancient Roman practice wherein the Senate was
the supreme religious authority and not particular priestly colleges
(that acted primarily as advisory boards to the Senate and the consuls).
Great Britain remains, formally, a theocratic state, where the head of
state is the ex officio head of the church (although, as H. W. Schneider
remarks, “[an Englishman] knew that both the British state and the
Anglican Church were in fact secular in origin and aim”).
The puritans of New England, to take just one more example, also dreamed
of a perfect society, a version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. However,
as it usually happens with attempts to identify a particular political
group with the “chosen nation,” the prototype of this “God’s people”
becomes the Old Testament Israel not the eschatological (and
a-political) Kingdom of God. The confusion between the socio-political
reality, with its laws and ethics, and the religious-ecclesial (which
stands for a secularized eschatology), becomes thus unavoidable again.
The sacralization of the political sphere and, consequently, the
secularization of the ecclesial sphere, is not something that was
associated only with monarchies, or modern attempts to reconcile a
reformed Christianity with the socio-political realm. On the contrary,
these attempts can be seen in the contemporary context as well, in
formally secular states that (again, formally) have a democratic system
and political pluralism. The temptation to glorify “our” nations or
“our” States, and their exercise of power, seems to be so great that
most religious institutions and believers find it hard to resist. Thus,
in spite of the formal secularity, we hear of the “holy wars” that the
imperial powers fight nowadays. Many loyal and God-fearing citizens
often ask God to “bless our country,” and we often hear of the “chosen
nation” that has a special, God-blessed (political) mission in this
world. All of this is, of course, nothing but a useful political
ideology that can justify all sorts of violence and terror, that the
political elites launch on behalf of their states, and often with the
enthusiastic support of some segments of the population.
The question, then, is an obvious one: does this mean that the only
Christian approach to the sphere of the political is to seek some kind
of harmony (not to say symphony) between the sphere of the political and
the Christian eschatological orientation? Furthermore, should
Christianspray for their countries, the leaders of these countries, and
for, say, triumphant military campaigns that their countries may lead?
Is it not the duty of good Christians to contribute to the endurance and
well-being of their states? Or, should they, on the other hand, offer a
specific political program, to oppose with it secular ideologies and
polices? Should Christianity, on the contrary, limit itself to the
promotion of certain ethical principles, as its primary concern?
My claim is a simple one: to take any of the things listed above as the
primary concern of Christianity, is to miss the most profound (and only
really important) aspects of (Orthodox) Christianity. Authentic
Christianity is not an ethical system, it is not a particular ideology
or a political program (which, course, does not mean that it has not
often been used precisely for those purposes).
Orthodox Christianity (at least the way I understand it), is primarily a
proclamation of the Kingdom of God as a new existence, and making this
(future) mode of existence present already “here” and “now.” It is an
attempt to transform the historical existence into this new being, the
being that will fully be manifested at the end of history and time as we
know them. And this new, eschatological being (which is, for Christians,
the only “real reality”), is life based on freedomand love. It is life
freed from all necessities, including the necessity of one’s own being.
To identify one’s existence with freedom and love means to exist in a
God-like manner. Another word for this, common in the Orthodox
tradition, is theosis.
This is the reason why the sphere of the political – with its exercise
of power, and the necessity attached to it – is, from the eschatological
point of view, a priori illegitimate. Viewed this way, the logic of this
new being is, clearly, in a direct contradiction to the logic of “this
world.” One of the clearest manifestations of the necessity of “this
world” is found in institutions of power, such as states or
corporations, and their exercise of power over other human beings and
the rest of creation. The foundational logic of “this world” is not that
of freedom and love, but one of subordination to the (physical,
biological, ethical…) norms, domination, self-interests, and egotism.
Because of that, the Christian approach to the socio-political sphere
should be an approach of constant skepticism when it comes to all
systems of power and every exercise of power that goes against concrete
human beings, their lives and their well-being. All power structures,
ranging from patriarchal families, oppressive ethical norms, states with
their apparatus and laws, to multinational corporations or just local
gangs, are from a Christian perspective illegitimate, as they go against
the (eschatological) dignity of the human being, and the basic logic of
the new being, which Christianity, through liturgy, manifests already
“here” and “now”. This opposition to all systems of power and
oppression, from individual and local, to collective and global, is what
makes some kind of anarchism the only consequential Orthodox Christian
position vis-Ă -vis the socio-political realm.
Is there, then, a specific model of an ideal Christian society, or an
ideal form of political organization that Christians should champion? In
history, in “this world” – no. The only “ideal society” from a Christian
perspective is the Kingdom of God.
This means that Christians should be opposed to the necessity of “this
world” (including the political realm) with their logic of love, keeping
always in mind that their Kingdom is not of “this world” and that any
confusion between the Kingdom of God, as the eschatological reality, and
“earthly kingdoms” is the best way to betray Christianity. Those who
have their “kings” on earth do not have Christ as their king.
However, this also means that in each given historical period and each
given society one must find ways to change that reality to become more
meaningful and humane, based on the affirmation of human freedom and
dignity, mutual support, care and compassion. There are no (and should
not be any) universal prescriptions and abstract models that one could
simply apply to all contexts. The existence of such ready-made “ideal”
models is often the best way to end up with some form of
totalitarianism. The guiding principles for changing reality, including
the socio-political reality, remain for Christians freedom and love.
However, freedom and love can never fully become the foundation of the
historical reality, the reality that is based on the logic of necessity.
And this is the fundamental conflict between Christianity and the logic
of “this world,” the conflict that will be resolved only in the world to
come.