Topic: Is there an Orthodox view of government?

[Papist]

Just wondering

[podkarpatska]

This should be interesting. put on your seat belts and settle in for the ride...

[dzheremi]

I was just listening to this very interesting EO podcast on faith informing politics that might be helpful in answering this question. As far as I can tell, the answer is no if you're talking about a particular type of government that would necessarily be in line with Orthodoxy (though this is one area where I would expect OOs and EOs to differ at least to some degree, given our different experiences of Eastern Roman/Byzantine governance and history), but there is of course a wide variety of views on how Orthodox should engage in politics. To my way of thinking, one of the strengths of Orthodoxy (and this is mentioned in the podcast by the 'progressive' party of the discussion, who otherwise I find myself disagreeing with a lot) is that it does not really pattern onto "conservative" or "liberal" political paradigms, or at least not how we think of those terms most often in the USA.

[podkarpatska]

I was just listening to this very interesting EO podcast on faith informing politics that might be helpful in answering this question. As far as I can tell, the answer is no if you're talking about a particular type of government that would necessarily be in line with Orthodoxy (though this is one area where I would expect OOs and EOs to differ at least to some degree, given our different experiences of Eastern Roman/Byzantine governance and history), but there is of course a wide variety of views on how Orthodox should engage in politics. To my way of thinking, one of the strengths of Orthodoxy (and this is mentioned in the podcast by the 'progressive' party of the discussion, who otherwise I find myself disagreeing with a lot) is that it does not really pattern onto "conservative" or "liberal" political paradigms, or at least not how we think of those terms most often in the USA.

Indeed, many converts in particular equate political conservatism with the conservatism of Orthodoxy. Such an equation is simplistic and leads to problems as neither paradigm of modern American politics really fits.

[Nephi]

one of the strengths of Orthodoxy (and this is mentioned in the podcast by the 'progressive' party of the discussion, who otherwise I find myself disagreeing with a lot) is that it does not really pattern onto "conservative" or "liberal" political paradigms, or at least not how we think of those terms most often in the USA.

This is very true.

[OrthoNoob]

*Cracks knuckles*

I could probably talk about this all night, but I think we ought to define our terms first, yes?

I define the Right as the party of tradition; that is to say, the Right seeks to preserve the wisdom that has been handed down to us. The Right is not, properly speaking, the party of stagnation, nor of opposition to change per se; the Right, for instance, does not object to faster video cards. But the Right tends to err on the side of preserving the things that have been shown to work over the centuries, and heeding the advice passed down to us by our ancestors.We may do new things, but we ought not to disregard or reject what has come before.

The Right's philosophy, then, comes down to viewing societies as being much like persons, in that they grow wiser over time. Our ancestors may not have been any smarter than we are, but collectively, they were far more experienced than we are, and thus, according to the Right, we should choose to build on their experience rather than tearing down the structure they have built and starting from the beginning because "we know better."

I define the Left as the party of innovation; the central idea of the progressive Left is that man is continually becoming wiser and more moral, that modernity is superior to history, and that if things go the way they're supposed to, the future will be better yet. The Left, then, believes that we are better or smarter or wiser than our ancestors, and so can safely disregard their collective wisdom, at least on certain issues. The Left is also strongly committed to the belief in human equality, whether this be (historically) the equality of all white men, or, more recently, the equality of people of different races or of men and women.

The Left, then, is the party of "out with the old, in with the new." It is the party of revolutionary, ideological change rather than gradual, organic growth, of tearing down the house and starting afresh rather than building ever more additions.

Is this a fair start? Rightists? Leftists? Care to comment?

[Alpo]

Should we view various historical Orthodox states as somehow Tradition of Orthodox politics?

[akimori makoto]

Should we view various historical Orthodox states as somehow Tradition of Orthodox politics?

Please, no.

[OrthoNoob]

Should we view various historical Orthodox states as somehow Tradition of Orthodox politics?

Maybe. What did the Fathers have to say about these states?

[Alpo]

Should we view various historical Orthodox states as somehow Tradition of Orthodox politics?

Please, no.

That's my initial reaction too but I'm not exactly sure whether my gut feeling is based on theology or Western prejudices.

[JamesR]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

[dzheremi]

Except for the whole 'religion is the opium of the masses' thing and the part where churches are shut down or kept only as showpieces...

[akimori makoto]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

You don't even know what Marxism is. You think it means getting free money for being Mexican. That is not what it is.

[Αριστοκλής]

Just wondering

No.

(That is a "negative" in order to comply with forum rules on post minimum length).

[Fabio Leite]

I recommend this book:
http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P03011

The Mystical as Political
Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy
Aristotle Papanikolaou

Theosis, or the principle of divine-human communion, sparks the theological imagination of Orthodox Christians and has been historically important to questions of political theology. In The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy, Aristotle Papanikolaou argues that a political theology grounded in the principle of divine-human communion must be one that unequivocally endorses a political community that is democratic in a way that structures itself around the modern liberal principles of freedom of religion, the protection of human rights, and church-state separation.

Papanikolaou hopes to forge a non-radical Orthodox political theology that extends beyond a reflexive opposition to the West and a nostalgic return to a Byzantine-like unified political-religious culture. His exploration is prompted by two trends: the fall of communism in traditionally Orthodox countries has revealed an unpreparedness on the part of Orthodox Christianity to address the question of political theology in a way that is consistent with its core axiom of theosis; and recent Christian political theology, some of it evoking the notion of “deification,” has been critical of liberal democracy, implying a mutual incompatibility between a Christian worldview and that of modern liberal democracy.

The first comprehensive treatment from an Orthodox theological perspective of the issue of the compatibility between Orthodoxy and liberal democracy, Papanikolaou’s is an affirmation that Orthodox support for liberal forms of democracy is justified within the framework of Orthodox understandings of God and the human person. His overtly theological approach shows that the basic principles of liberal democracy are not tied exclusively to the language and categories of Enlightenment philosophy and, so, are not inherently secular.

Aristotle Papanikolaou is professor of theology at Fordham University

[Αριστοκλής]

Funny, I read that ^ yesterday thinking it a typically revisionist piece. Well, it is Fordham...

[primuspilus]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political ideology that I am aware of

No offense James ( I mean that in all sincerity), but you're not aware of too much.

PP

[vamrat]

"Trust ye not in princes, in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation" is the motto of the Orthodox Libertarian Party.

[podkarpatska]

*Cracks knuckles*

I could probably talk about this all night, but I think we ought to define our terms first, yes?

I define the Right as the party of tradition; that is to say, the Right seeks to preserve the wisdom that has been handed down to us. The Right is not, properly speaking, the party of stagnation, nor of opposition to change per se; the Right, for instance, does not object to faster video cards. But the Right tends to err on the side of preserving the things that have been shown to work over the centuries, and heeding the advice passed down to us by our ancestors.We may do new things, but we ought not to disregard or reject what has come before.

The Right's philosophy, then, comes down to viewing societies as being much like persons, in that they grow wiser over time. Our ancestors may not have been any smarter than we are, but collectively, they were far more experienced than we are, and thus, according to the Right, we should choose to build on their experience rather than tearing down the structure they have built and starting from the beginning because "we know better."

I define the Left as the party of innovation; the central idea of the progressive Left is that man is continually becoming wiser and more moral, that modernity is superior to history, and that if things go the way they're supposed to, the future will be better yet. The Left, then, believes that we are better or smarter or wiser than our ancestors, and so can safely disregard their collective wisdom, at least on certain issues. The Left is also strongly committed to the belief in human equality, whether this be (historically) the equality of all white men, or, more recently, the equality of people of different races or of men and women.

The Left, then, is the party of "out with the old, in with the new." It is the party of revolutionary, ideological change rather than gradual, organic growth, of tearing down the house and starting afresh rather than building ever more additions.

Is this a fair start? Rightists? Leftists? Care to comment?

No it is not a fair start.

I offer this link to a lengthy essay by a good friend, an Orthodox priest from an evangelical background from his eclectic blog, Second Terrace: "Jesus does not care about judging and dividing out of statist structures. He is too transcendent for any historicist taste. He will not endorse any revolution: in fact, He told His disciples, at a crucial moment, to put away their swords (and, it appears, the Church should have taken that for a normative command). The state (and all other pseudo-state organizing structures, like large corporations), cannot be turned into apostolates or vice-royalities: “Put not your trust in mortal princes,” someone once said somewhere." http://janotec.typepad.com/terrace/2012/02/judge-and-divide-left-and-right.html The entire piece is lengthy and, as is Father's typical take, he skewers both the left and the right and a fair amount of contemporary, conventional thinking in the process. As one of the earlier posters correctly observed in my opinion, the conventional left/right paradigm is inapplicable to understanding Orthodoxy and secular governance/politics (terms which are neither mutually inclusive nor, for that matter, exclusive!)

[Fabio Leite]

Funny, I read that ^ yesterday thinking it a typically revisionist piece. Well, it is Fordham...

There is a thread about it in the Reviews forum. You could expand on that there. I am still reading it and it does not seem revisionist since the author does not seek to revise history. It seems experimental, in that he proposes a way to harmonize Orthodoxy and Western Democracy. Also, he has thorough knowledge of all the sides that have been discussing the issue since the first millenium, so it still a must read in my opinion.

[podkarpatska]

Funny, I read that ^ yesterday thinking it a typically revisionist piece. Well, it is Fordham...

Actually there is a degree of confluence between that POV and the points of Fr. J in his essay.

[celticfan1888]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

Are we really going to have to go there again?

[celticfan1888]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

You don't even know what Marxism is. You think it means getting free money for being Mexican. That is not what it is.

[Iconodule]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

You seemed to have missed the memo on that whole "materialism" thing.

[Iconodule]

I define the Right as the party of tradition;

In the United States, the Right consists of liberals in the classic sense- they advocate republican government, capitalism, and other values drawn from the "Enlightenment." What they consider to be "traditional" or "conservative" is really a modern ideology. So your entire definition immediately falls apart.

[celticfan1888]

I define the Right as the party of tradition;

In the United States, the Right consists of liberals in the classic sense- they advocate republican government, capitalism, and other values drawn from the "Enlightenment." What they consider to be "traditional" or "conservative" is really a modern ideology. So your entire definition immediately falls apart.

Capitalism is NOT Capitalism. Must I spell it out?

[Fabio Leite]

Marxism leads necessarily and unequivocally, with scientific precision to genocide at worst or to misery at best.

Besides any opinion, any expectation, that is just plain historical fact. Marxists appeal to the "no true scottsman" fallacy every time this is pointed out to them. If you compare with any other ideology, Christianity as a social phenomena for example, you clearly see different results humane governmnets, cruel ones, competent, incompetent, just about every variation of it. Same goes for democracies, monarchies and so on.

With marxism every single time it was explicitily used as the only source for statecraft it led to destruction. If any doubt remains we do have scientific controls over that: East Germany. West Germany; North Korea, South Korea; Hong Kong and Singapore, China; all cases where more or less the same people, same culture, same history, where marxism was applied in one half and some other system was applied in another half, marxism consistently killed and created misery and you had people trying to escape the marxist side to the non-marxist side. Another interesting case is Puerto Rico and Cuba. A common accusation from marxists is that the US is an imperialistic force that wants to neo-colonize other countries. Cuba is a beacon of this "resistence" while Puerto Rico is for, all purposes, effectively a colony. Who is better off? One can clearly see that American imperialism is not imperialism in the classic sense. It's just commercial hegemony which is far better then actual imperialism. I always find it beautiful how some radicals think that McDonnald's creating jobs locally is an offense that demands paramilitary armed reaction or protests from spoiled children who used to go there when younger and now think that Ronald is the new Hitler. Yet, when we see an actual collony of the US, collony in the classic sense, you find out it is a far better place then Cuba, the marxists Island of Fantasy. When Brazil got independent in the 19th century, two African countries actually asked to be our collonies (the emperor refused). I bet that a c ouple of them would ask the same if they saw how "evil" the US is to its real collonies.

That is the empirical facts. Now a bit of theory that shows why Marxism necessarily leads to mass destruction. Marxism basically defends that the radicalization of Capitalism should naturally lead to Socialism. That’s why since the 19th century Marxists have been writing “Crisis of Capitalism” books which keep coming out of the press with the same obstinate steadiness that millennial predictions of the Second Coming are produced. And the sect goes on even after their predictions fail. True believers of Marxism are always waiting for the “Great Coming” of the Socialist society to arise from the ruins of capitalism. When it doesn’t happen some decide to take into their own hands the process in several forms of social engineering which include the control over the oppressors of society – the culprits who prevent the emergence of the socialist society. Now, there are real oppressors in society, in politics, in economy, in religion and so on. These are powerful people who would do anything for power, money and prestige. They are powerful and dangerous, real predators.  The Left then decides that it will not simply take reaction against them under due process. They decide they have to destroy oppression in all its forms and expressions, even in a preventive way. To do that they must, whether they are aware of it or not at the beginning, become stronger, richer and have more prestige then all the oppressors put together. Thus, the typical centralization of power that the left has produced. Now when a group of men has such monopoly of sheer secular power in any society or country, the consequences can’t be but lethally devastating.  I am not saying that being a leftist is the only thing that leads some groups to such centralization of power. But surely, leftists cannot achieve what they want without it. That’s why they must fight every other source of authority in society that is not themselves: wealth, family authority, tradition, religion, everything, after all they are up against all oppressors in all areas everywhere and they have to be stronger then they all together. There can be no authority but their enlightened dreams.  With such power always comes genocide and misery, which has already been demonstrated.  Communism, Marxism, Socialism, should all be right there with Nazism as the collective social diseases they are and in the trash bin of History.

[Opus118]

*Cracks knuckles*

I could probably talk about this all night, but I think we ought to define our terms first, yes?

I define the Right as the party of tradition; that is to say, the Right seeks to preserve the wisdom that has been handed down to us. The Right is not, properly speaking, the party of stagnation, nor of opposition to change per se; the Right, for instance, does not object to faster video cards. But the Right tends to err on the side of preserving the things that have been shown to work over the centuries, and heeding the advice passed down to us by our ancestors.We may do new things, but we ought not to disregard or reject what has come before.

The Right's philosophy, then, comes down to viewing societies as being much like persons, in that they grow wiser over time. Our ancestors may not have been any smarter than we are, but collectively, they were far more experienced than we are, and thus, according to the Right, we should choose to build on their experience rather than tearing down the structure they have built and starting from the beginning because "we know better."

I define the Left as the party of innovation; the central idea of the progressive Left is that man is continually becoming wiser and more moral, that modernity is superior to history, and that if things go the way they're supposed to, the future will be better yet. The Left, then, believes that we are better or smarter or wiser than our ancestors, and so can safely disregard their collective wisdom, at least on certain issues. The Left is also strongly committed to the belief in human equality, whether this be (historically) the equality of all white men, or, more recently, the equality of people of different races or of men and women.

The Left, then, is the party of "out with the old, in with the new." It is the party of revolutionary, ideological change rather than gradual, organic growth, of tearing down the house and starting afresh rather than building ever more additions.

Is this a fair start? Rightists? Leftists? Care to comment?

Yes. This is more or less 1-bit video output. Most liberals feel boxed in with 8-bit video, since there is not enough room to be truly wishy-washy.

If I am a Fabian, should I consider myself a centrist?

[Agabus]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political ideology that I am aware of

No offense James ( I mean that in all sincerity), but you're not aware of too much.

PP

James, I appreciate your zeal for the poor, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand Marx and Engels, both in dialectic and application. Marx is useful in understanding history, but it is not a perfect system and certainly not crafted on Christian ethics. So please, expand on what you are saying here. I am open to the possibility that I have misunderstood [/i]you[/i].

Religion has been used in the name of exploitation in the past, and denouncing such uses is just, but here is what Marx had to say about the social ethics of Christianity:

The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, dejection, in a word all the qualities of the canaille; and the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as canaille, needs its courage, its self-reliance, its pride and its sense of independence more than its bread.

The social principles of Christianity are sneakish and the proletariat is revolutionary.

So much for the social principles of Christianity. (Source.)

[OrthoNoob]

I define the Right as the party of tradition;

In the United States, the Right consists of liberals in the classic sense- they advocate republican government, capitalism, and other values drawn from the "Enlightenment." What they consider to be "traditional" or "conservative" is really a modern ideology. So your entire definition immediately falls apart.

The fact that other people use words incorrectly does not cause my definition to fall apart. That "Right" you describe is in fact a form of semi-moderate Leftism, by my definition.

In fact, in view of the fact that we're talking about the Orthodox view of government as such, and not the Orthodox view of modern American politics per se, my definitions should be judged in view of the broad sweep of history, not in view of the situation right now in a relatively new nation.

[OrthoNoob]

*Cracks knuckles*

I could probably talk about this all night, but I think we ought to define our terms first, yes?

I define the Right as the party of tradition; that is to say, the Right seeks to preserve the wisdom that has been handed down to us. The Right is not, properly speaking, the party of stagnation, nor of opposition to change per se; the Right, for instance, does not object to faster video cards. But the Right tends to err on the side of preserving the things that have been shown to work over the centuries, and heeding the advice passed down to us by our ancestors.We may do new things, but we ought not to disregard or reject what has come before.

The Right's philosophy, then, comes down to viewing societies as being much like persons, in that they grow wiser over time. Our ancestors may not have been any smarter than we are, but collectively, they were far more experienced than we are, and thus, according to the Right, we should choose to build on their experience rather than tearing down the structure they have built and starting from the beginning because "we know better."

I define the Left as the party of innovation; the central idea of the progressive Left is that man is continually becoming wiser and more moral, that modernity is superior to history, and that if things go the way they're supposed to, the future will be better yet. The Left, then, believes that we are better or smarter or wiser than our ancestors, and so can safely disregard their collective wisdom, at least on certain issues. The Left is also strongly committed to the belief in human equality, whether this be (historically) the equality of all white men, or, more recently, the equality of people of different races or of men and women.

The Left, then, is the party of "out with the old, in with the new." It is the party of revolutionary, ideological change rather than gradual, organic growth, of tearing down the house and starting afresh rather than building ever more additions.

Is this a fair start? Rightists? Leftists? Care to comment?

Yes.

Yes, it's a fair start?

This is more or less 1-bit video output. Most liberals feel boxed in with 8-bit video, since there is not enough room to be truly wishy-washy.

LOL.

If I am a Fabian, should I consider myself a centrist?

I'm not intimately familiar with the principles of the Fabian Society, but going by Wikipedia, no, Fabians are not centrists. They are Leftists, under my paradigm. Not as radically Leftist as Leninists, for instance, but they are still socialists and democrats, among other leftish ideas. Mere gradualism does not get you out of the Left.

A true centrist would be one who is about even split between preserving traditions and doing away with them. Maybe an Orleanist or a Legitimist who favored the Charter of 1814 rather than an absolute monarchy would qualify in 19th-century France.

[podkarpatska]

I submit it is harmful to the body of Christ to attempt to pigeon hole the societal ethos of Orthodoxy into terms associated with modern or even classical Enlightenment political definitions. For better or worse, the term 'Right' in today's America means the Republican Party, while 'Left' means the Democrat Party  - yet in reality most Americans and most of American politics is decidedly centrist - both historically and practically. I see much of the mess the OCA finds itself enmeshed in derives from a misguided, albeit perhaps well-intentioned, attempt to align itself with the trends of daily politics in order to obtain a set of societal goals - goals which have to first be reflected in not just the rhetoric of the Church but in her very life. That is the heart of the modern dilemma for traditionalist Christians.

[Agabus]

I submit it is harmful to the body of Christ to attempt to pigeon hole the societal ethos of Orthodoxy into terms associated with modern or even classical Enlightenment political definitions. For better or worse, the term 'Right' in today's America means the Republican Party, while 'Left' means the Democrat Party  - yet in reality most Americans and most of American politics is decidedly centrist - both historically and practically. I see much of the mess the OCA finds itself enmeshed in derives from a misguided, albeit perhaps well-intentioned, attempt to align itself with the trends of daily politics in order to obtain a set of societal goals - goals which have to first be reflected in not just the rhetoric of the Church but in her very life. That is the heart of the modern dilemma for traditionalist Christians.

I agree with this.

[Papist]

From an Orthodox perspective, can it be said that the role of government is to promote the common good?

[Nephi]

From an Orthodox perspective, can it be said that the role of government is to promote the common good?

I would certainly think that to be part of its role.

[JorgenThorbjørnsen]

Render unto Caesar.

[OrthoNoob]

Render unto Caesar.

That's a duty of the citizen to the government, but it doesn't tell us what the government itself should do.

[Αριστοκλής]

From an Orthodox perspective, can it be said that the role of government is to promote the common good?

Promote, yes. Provide, no.

[Shanghaiski]

If we put religious ethics into politics then we would have a Marxist state, I'm just saying...Ironically for all of the evil committed in its name, Marxism is actually more in line with Christian ethics than any other political idealogy that I am aware of.

Hearing you say that, Stalin looks at you blankly. Is that a knowing smirk under that mustache? You go home thinking he agrees with you. Later, you are arrested in the middle of the night and sent to die in the gulag. You die in horrible circumstances, still loving Stalin and thinking this has all been a horrible mistake. Thanks for playing and smoking the opiate of the masses..

[Shanghaiski]

Just wondering

No.

(That is a "negative" in order to comply with forum rules on post minimum length).

"One God in heaven and one emperor on earth" was unavailable?

[Shanghaiski]

I define the Right as the party of tradition;

In the United States, the Right consists of liberals in the classic sense- they advocate republican government, capitalism, and other values drawn from the "Enlightenment." What they consider to be "traditional" or "conservative" is really a modern ideology. So your entire definition immediately falls apart.

Indeed.

[Shanghaiski]

I define the Right as the party of tradition;

In the United States, the Right consists of liberals in the classic sense- they advocate republican government, capitalism, and other values drawn from the "Enlightenment." What they consider to be "traditional" or "conservative" is really a modern ideology. So your entire definition immediately falls apart.

Capitalism is NOT Capitalism. Must I spell it out?

Not when it is a mix of facism and consumerism.

[podkarpatska]

Alas, how angry sound bites from all sides of the spectrum over the past twenty-five years have deadened most of us to any understanding of political philosophy and the wellsprings  from which it arose.  (Note: old guy lamenting all of the classes he had to endure when such stuff was still required at colleges of arts and sciences - including within the science and math majors requirements too.)

[JorgenThorbjørnsen]

Render unto Caesar.

That's a duty of the citizen to the government, but it doesn't tell us what the government itself should do.

It shouldn't DO anything. Unless someone commits murder, rapes, or steals.

[OrthoNoob]

Render unto Caesar.

That's a duty of the citizen to the government, but it doesn't tell us what the government itself should do.

It shouldn't DO anything. Unless someone commits murder, rapes, or steals.

Er...OK. I'll take that to mean you have a more or less libertarian view of government.