SEMINAR ON METHODOLOGIES IN APPROACHING SOCIAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Morges, Switzerland
8 – 12 October 2003
Traditions
and Changes in the Orthodox Social Ethics
by Deacon Andrei Kurayev
A summary
The Orthodox Church has never been an independent subject of politics. It is well known that the state institutions in the East and the West of the Roman Empire have developed in different ways. The Roman Church had to take upon itself a considerable part of state functions. The Eastern Roman Empire outlasted its Western sister for one thousand years. Its state institutions survived crucial times. The Church lived by the principle of ‘symphony’, which supposed that the Church supports the state in its political initiatives, while the state supports the Church in the defending of Orthodoxy defined by the Church.
The Patriarch and the narrow circle of bishops participated in decision-making and in political struggle, but the Church did not teach its members how they should respond to social and political changes in their lives.
Social theme in the sermons was reduced to the calls to charity and rejection of luxury and overindulgence. There was no public criticism of the laws or decisions taken by the government with the exception of the cases when the government interfered in the ecclesiastical life. Nowhere the Church Tradition says that a Christian must fight for his personal political and economic freedom.
Then the reporter compares the Church Slavonic translation of 1 Cor 7:21 (‘If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity’- RSV) with the translation by Luther and the Greek source, which says neutrally ‘choose the best’, without explaining what is the best. Yet, St. John Chrysostom in his interpretation suggested to remain in slavery. The modern ecumenical French translation is also mentioned, but, in the reporter’s opinion, the point is in the benefit for the soul.
The Church did not consider the usurpation of the throne and even the regicide a necessary cause for protest, as it considered the victory of those who seized power to be a part of God’s plans and prayed for an Emperor as for a man on whom the destiny of people depended.
There were conflicts between the Church and the authorities in the history of Byzantium and Slavonic Orthodox states. Occasions: dogmatic issues and the Emperor’s breaking of the canons of marriage. Unfortunately, the Church did not protest against political decisions, which limited the rights and freedoms of people. For instance, we do not know any bishop who protested against serfdom in Russia in the 18th century – the time of the Renaissance. Even two years before the abolition of serfdom a renowned Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov defended this institute. When his disciples published an article in which they asserted civil and personal rights of peasants, it was considered ‘a new teaching unheard of in the Orthodox Church. Another example: a certain censor wanted to forbid the Holy Gospel, since it allegedly teaches socialism.
The problem of the loyalty of a Christian to the cruel Christian, non-Christian and anti-Christian rulers has always been a sore point in the history and life of the Orthodox Church.
It is amazing how many martyrs were among soldiers. The knew that they served a pagan Empire and obeyed their commanders who were gentiles, but were the best and most courageous soldiers. That was their civil loyalty, but they flatly refused to worship the gods of the Empire.
Byzantium considered the power of the Muslims as that of ‘antichrist’. Before the fall of Constantinople the Greeks preachers called Sultan Mohammed II the ‘forerunner of antichrist’, but when he came to the throne, Patriarch Gennadius II of Constantinople took his crozier and mantle from him. Centuries of martyrdom and loyal obedience followed. It was very painful to the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire to draw a line between their loyalty to the non-Orthodox power and the desires of their Christian hearts. (Examples from the life of Patriarch Gregory V (19th c.) with long quotations from the documents. He was canonized by the Greek Orthodox Church in 1871. His name was entered in the church calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II).
(Examples from the life of St. Nicholas of Japan).
The Church had not raise its voice in defence of civil freedoms in the last centuries, but it does not follow from this that it should not do it now. It may seem to us that nothing has changed in church life, but there is a turning point, namely, the radical change of the attitude of Christians to the authorities.
In the past Christian preachers thought that the firm state power was a barrier to chaos, with which the antichrist was associated. For centuries Christians were afraid of disintegration. At present the kingdom of antichrist is associated in the ecclesiastical consciousness with the tough totalitarian state system.
The 20th century taught us to see the life through the eyes of the persecuted rather than though those of the authorities. The Russian Orthodox Church has put itself in the place of the persecuted. On 7 March 2000 the Holy Synod brought its protest to the authorities against the introduction of the individual number of tax payers (The Letter of the Holy Synod is quoted).
The computerized account of the income and expenditures, electronic identification cards and travel documents will make the private life transparent. In case the state again decides that it knows how to live and believe, what kind of books and thoughts are correct, it will have at its disposal such information about people, which the secret police could not provide for the dictators of the past.
TV will make brainwashing, while the computers will monitor its results. It will be difficult to swim against the stream in this kind of a new society. Christians have grounds to believe that this stream will not be favorable to them. Suffice it to recall the lack of willingness on the part of the European authorities to mention Christianity in the Constitution of Europe as factor, which has determined the present countenance of Europe.
As to the European integration, the Russian Orthodox Church believes that it should be welcomed only if it guarantees the preservation of freedoms and identity to people. (Quotations from ‘The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church’ adopted by the Bishops’ Council in 2000).
The Council occupies a special place in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. The mentioned document is based on the principle of the freedom of conscience, i.e. the separation of the Church from the state. It was maybe for the first time in its thousand-year history that the Russian Orthodox Church could calmly and freely look at its inner life and the world. It said openly: we are ready for a dialogue for the sake of witnessing about our system of values.
There is a shift of accents in the theology of the Russian Orthodox Church, as loyalty is no longer considered an unconditional duty of Christians. Members of the Church are proposed a variety of responses to the events in society. The Church states honestly that a dialogue with the secular state and society is its right and duty.