Church and State

[CelticRebel]

What are the views on church-state union or separation within Orthodoxy?

 

[gzt]

I am heartily in favor of separation for the protection of the Church.

 

[CelticRebel]

I am heartily in favor of separation for the protection of the Church.

And for the protection of the individual, too. Past history provides a lesson in that regard.

 

[gzt]

The State kills people, that's just what it does, I'm agnostic about whether roping the Church in did more to hurt individuals than if it left the Church out of it, but I do know that it left the Church worse off. Certain specific individuals were worse off, we can agree on that, but perhaps the partnership just shuffled the deck.

 

[buzuxi02]

Depends, which church and which state?

 

[rusmeister]

Orthodxy has no "view" (as if Orthodox teaching were only "a view") on such matters. The ordering of the temporal state is not part of the mission of the Church.

Essentially, if Christians find themselves in temporal power, be it in a state or even as a head of a household, they are to do what they can for the good order of society because we are commanded to love our neighbor, and the ruler is neighbor to those under him. So that rule should reflect and support truth, love and honor of God and one's neighbor. Whether that be in an ostensible democracy or a benevolent despotism, it should strive to fulfill the law of Christ. The modern paradigm of "church vs state" seeks to separate truth and moral teaching from the rule and ordering of society, to suggest that what the Church teaches has nothing to do with how we should live our lives on earth, a manifest falsehood to the Christian.

 

[Cappadocious]

Roman Symphonia appeared as a concept for a while, then vanished. I think we're better off as oppressed than oppressors, shades of grey notwithstanding.

 

[rusmeister]

Roman Symphonia appeared as a concept for a while, then vanished. I think we're better off as oppressed than oppressors, shades of grey notwithstanding.

No doubt. But it is better to try to be a wise and good head of a household, or head of a kingdom, or are given actual power as a senator or voter in a democracy, than to abdicate all responsibility for others that are actually committed to our care in the name of personal piety. (Not saying you're suggesting that; just trying to warn against it.)

 

[buzuxi02]

The Orthodox ideal is symphonia as the double headed eagle which is adorned by churches signifies. The role of the state is to create an environment conducive to working out ones salvation.
Seperation of Church from state will eventually lead to as what Rus says abdication of responsibility, to conformity of the christian with secularism or whatever government ideology it decides to replace church with, to eventual extinction of christian culture( a dhimmi-millet remnant will remain.) Seperation of church and state is why the Copts have become a persecuted minority in their homeland. The 100th anniversary of the armenian genocide is because 'state' finally wanted them gone after initially giving them Millet status (freedom of religion ). Communism arose from those that wanted seperation of the government from that church which was the real representatives of the people.

 

[rusmeister]

The Orthodox ideal is symphonia as the double headed eagle which is adorned by churches signifies. The role of the state is to create an environment conducive to working out ones salvation.
Seperation of Church from state will eventually lead to as what Rus says abdication of responsibility, to conformity of the christian with secularism or whatever government ideology it decides to replace church with, to eventual extinction of christian culture( a dhimmi-millet remnant will remain.) Seperation of church and state is why the Copts have become a persecuted minority in their homeland. The 100th anniversary of the armenian genocide is because 'state' finally wanted them gone after initially giving them Millet status (freedom of religion ). Communism arose from those that wanted seperation of the government from that church which was the real representatives of the people.

I think there can be some misunderstanding, though. I don't think that the necessity of Christian rulers establishing Christian morality means that faith can thereby be forced - and state Churches sometimes try to do pretty much that. But at all times, the Christian ruler ought to be setting an example, and making his decisions in light of the moral teaching of the Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Seperation of church and state is why the Copts have become a persecuted minority in their homeland.

Not entirely sure I agree with this. The Copts became a persecuted minority because the Muslim Arabs came and made them one in line with the Islamic view of how "church" and state should relate to one another. And before the Arabs came they were still also a persecuted majority because of the Chalcedonian/Byzantine idea of Church and State relations. And before the rupture at Chalcedon, they were persecuted under the pagan emperors who nonetheless had various ideas of how the State ought to deal with the Church, which is certainly not symphonia but still falls under the general heading of "church and state relations". If you read the desert fathers and mothers, it is clear from some of their sayings (e.g., some of those of Amma Syncletica) that they were inherently distrustful of the idea that Christianity can be fully lived while wedded to earthly powers. I think the history of the Copts down to the present day has essentially proved them right, though it is certainly not an unmitigated disaster. Things have been better and things have been worse.

Anyway, I do not think the Copts are necessarily a good example of the danger of the separation of church and state. If anything, there has been too much involvement of the state in the Church, whether in the form of the original restrictions imposed by the early caliphs, the further degradation of the Coptic people under the Ottomans, the drafting of the 1957 election bylaws, the insanity of the Muslim Brotherhood interlude in the government, or the current push-back against the Church and Christians in general by the MB's disaffected supporters who imagine Church and state collusion as the source of their disenfranchisement.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

This isn't necessarily an Orthodox view of the Church-state relations, but I think that an intermingling of religion and state in a secular state corrupts the purpose of both the Church and that of the state. It's dangerous to the integrity of both organizations.

 

[rusmeister]

This isn't necessarily an Orthodox view of the Church-state relations, but I think that an intermingling of religion and state in a secular state corrupts the purpose of both the Church and that of the state. It's dangerous to the integrity of both organizations.

You're absolutely right as regards the Church actually making the decisions that are the province of the state, or vice-versa. But the modern push is not only to prevent such abuses, but to flat out prevent rulers from making decisions by state rulers based on Christian morality.

In Russia, right now, I see both. I see laws being passed based properly on Christian morality AND state and Church reps establishing cozy relations that seem to cause some of the Church leaders in particular to forget their real mission.

In America and Europe, I see just one - the exclusion of Christian morality from the public square.

So it's not enough to cry out "Separation of Church and state!" You have to ask what exactly is being proposed to be separated from exactly what, and under what circumstances. Slogans are all too often used as substitutes for thought/

 

[All4Christ]

You're absolutely right as regards the Church actually making the decisions that are the province of the state, or vice-versa. But the modern push is not only to prevent such abuses, but to flat out prevent rulers from making decisions by state rulers based on Christian morality. In Russia, right now, I see both. I see laws being passed based properly on Christian morality AND state and Church reps establishing cozy relations that seem to cause some of the Church leaders in particular to forget their real mission. In America and Europe, I see just one - the exclusion of Christian morality from the public square. So it's not enough to cry out "Separation of Church and state!" You have to ask what exactly is being proposed to be separated from exactly what, and under what circumstances. Slogans are all too often used as substitutes for thought/

America doesn't exactly have separation of church and state anymore. Separation of church and state implies that the state will not attempt to influence the religious atmosphere of the country (as far as I understand). While America doesn't attempt to push Christianity, it does seem to attempt to influence the religious atmosphere of the country - mainly in contradiction to Christian morality and beliefs. Doesn't that violate the upholding of separation of church and state?

This is just an observation - I am very grateful for many aspects of our country, but I don't think we are successful in separation of church and state.

 

[buzuxi02]

Not entirely sure I agree with this. The Copts became a persecuted minority because the Muslim Arabs came and made them one in line with the Islamic view of how "church" and state should relate to one another. And before the Arabs came they were still also a persecuted majority because of the Chalcedonian/Byzantine idea of Church and State relations. And before the rupture at Chalcedon, they were persecuted under the pagan emperors who nonetheless had various ideas of how the State ought to deal with the Church, which is certainly not symphonia but still falls under the general heading of "church and state relations". If you read the desert fathers and mothers, it is clear from some of their sayings (e.g., some of those of Amma Syncletica) that they were inherently distrustful of the idea that Christianity can be fully lived while wedded to earthly powers. I think the history of the Copts down to the present day has essentially proved them right, though it is certainly not an unmitigated disaster. Things have been better and things have been worse.

Anyway, I do not think the Copts are necessarily a good example of the danger of the separation of church and state. If anything, there has been too much involvement of the state in the Church, whether in the form of the original restrictions imposed by the early caliphs, the further degradation of the Coptic people under the Ottomans, the drafting of the 1957 election bylaws, the insanity of the Muslim Brotherhood interlude in the government, or the current push-back against the Church and Christians in general by the MB's disaffected supporters who imagine Church and state collusion as the source of their disenfranchisement.

You are correct, so in reality it makes no difference, that whether seperate or not governments will persecute. And most examples of the past centuries are governments not involved with a religions internal affairs yet still passing laws regulating them. Greece is the only "christian" country on earth without seperation of church and state. In reality it is a highly secular democracy whose elected leaders many times are neither Orthodox nor christian. One benefit though is that it limits heretical sects from inundating the cities and its villages by powerful missionaries. It limits the ability of muslims to build saudi sponsored mosques. The church can and has been a thorn to the side of the nihilistic politicians limiting their insanity. A complete severence as in the west would only have 2 outcomes. One is an increasing irrelevance and obselecense of christianity the second persecution till extinction.

 

[CelticRebel]

Orthodxy has no "view" (as if Orthodox teaching were only "a view") on such matters. The ordering of the temporal state is not part of the mission of the Church.

Essentially, if Christians find themselves in temporal power, be it in a state or even as a head of a household, they are to do what they can for the good order of society because we are commanded to love our neighbor, and the ruler is neighbor to those under him. So that rule should reflect and support truth, love and honor of God and one's neighbor. Whether that be in an ostensible democracy or a benevolent despotism, it should strive to fulfill the law of Christ. The modern paradigm of "church vs state" seeks to separate truth and moral teaching from the rule and ordering of society, to suggest that what the Church teaches has nothing to do with how we should live our lives on earth, a manifest falsehood to the Christian.

I don't agree with that. To the Baptists, church-state separation and religious freedom were spiritual principles, but they didn't believe that involved separating religious influence from the secular society.

I believe it was a tragedy for both church and state when they became united, and also for the individuals who became the victims of state-church persecution.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

America doesn't exactly have separation of church and state anymore. Separation of church and state implies that the state will not attempt to influence the religious atmosphere of the country (as far as I understand). While America doesn't attempt to push Christianity, it does seem to attempt to influence the religious atmosphere of the country - mainly in contradiction to Christian morality and beliefs. Doesn't that violate the upholding of separation of church and state?

This is just an observation - I am very grateful for many aspects of our country, but I don't think we are successful in separation of church and state.

The separation of Church and state is actually about not having religious bodies meddling within the affairs of the state. Remember, in England at the time of the Revolutionary War, the English King was also the head of the Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The so-called "separation of Church and state" was actually meant to be the refusal of the government to officially establish a particular religion - read "denomination" as Christians were about the only religion involved at that time. At least if my sources and what I've read are correct, which it think they are, and if I am wrong, I'd like to know it.

But the documents around which the US was founded demonstrate a clear acknowledgement of God. There can NOT have been an intention to completely sever any mention of faith from government. I believe this has been completely misrepresented in common thought today.

What WAS my point? Lol ... well, what we have now doesn't seem to be a "good idea". Frankly, I think Greece is in better shape, from what I see. Although there are certainly drawbacks and strictures for the Church, and the potential of political contamination.

Simply, there will be no perfect government until Christ establishes His own. Until then, I guess we have to do the best we can within what we are given, pray for our government, and pray God uses any distress it inflicts upon us in a way that improves our spiritual state.


ETA: I just re-read the OP. I should be clear, this is just my opinion, and not meant to explain any "Orthodox view".

 

[~Anastasia~]

The separation of Church and state is actually about not having religious bodies meddling within the affairs of the state. Remember, in England at the time of the Revolutionary War, the English King was also the head of the Church.

Btw, I was typing as you were ... I'm not arguing against you in my post.

In a way, you are claiming the same thing as I am, but from the opposite "side of the fence" as it were.

 

[All4Christ]

The separation of Church and state is actually about not having religious bodies meddling within the affairs of the state. Remember, in England at the time of the Revolutionary War, the English King was also the head of the Church.

Thomas Jefferson and others used the expression separation of church and state as a way to explain the intent and function of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, in other countries the Constitution of America doesn't apply...but that clause is essentially interpreted as separation of church and state. Perhaps that isn't the meaning of it in what others here are referring to?

Also, I agree that what you said is separation of church and state as well