C
CelticRebel
Guest
What are the views on church-state union or separation within Orthodoxy?
I am heartily in favor of separation for the protection of the Church.
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.
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.
Seperation of church and state is why the Copts have become a persecuted minority in their homeland.
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 said: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/
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.
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.
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.
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?Shieldmaiden4Christ said: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.