Davor Džalto, Public 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 Christians pray
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 freedom and 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-à-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.
Davor Džalto is Associate Professor and Program Director for Art History and Religious Studies at The American University of Rome President of the Institute for the Study of Culture and Christianity.The Orthodox Christian Studies Center’s signature event, the Annual Orthodoxy in America Lecture, will be presented Tuesday, September 27 by Vera Shevzov of Smith College. Find more information and register here.