Wow, Nick, I never knew that Jesus was a libertarian.

What Jesus taught was submission to Him, in love, and submission to one another because of that love. That is not possible in a world of sin. Neither is it possible as a goal outside of Christ and His Church. God has consistently called us to community which necessarily involves fettering our free will as long as we have sin and are not moving from glory to glory.

St. Paul articulated the logical out come: the state is necessary to restrain, even punish sin. For Paul, such authority does come from God. It is the authority of the state to restrain sinful behavior, not our rights that come from God. We have fettered our free will by our choice to sin. Death is the ultimate fetter.

Any theory of government or polity that posits that we can exercise our freedom without fetters is delusional. The belief that the polity itself will provide appropriate fetters by selecting the good over the not-so-good without conscious decisions by authority, is also delusional.

Fr. Seraphim Rose quite astutely pointed out that the philosophy reflected in your post was that of nihlism, not of freedom.

Nick,

Eliot did a nice job of replying before I had the opportunity.

“Given that fact, any human authority that tries to contrain the unfettered exercise of that free will is acting contrary to and destructive of the image that He gave us. And that, my friend is the State in all its manifestations. The only contraint on the unfettered exercise of our free will is that we not affect another’s exercise of their unfettered free will. In other words, my unfettered exercise of my free will ends where your nose, so to speak, begins.”

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. No man is an island and all of our actions and omissions affect our neighbors.

Scott:

The Lord never taught that the State was an “agent of God or that its authority came from God”.

There is this cursed sect that has appeared, which is very dangerous to the country and the Church, called “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. These are the staunchest opponents of government and Church. Run away from them like from the devils, like from Satan! Not only that these folks aren’t Christian, but they are worse than all pagans – because they neither recognise the Church, nor the government, and they do not believe in Christ.

Watch out for every sect, remain sons of the Church of Christ, just as your parents and your grandparents and your ancestors have been from times immemorial.Elder Cleopa

The Apostles taught so:

Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love Fulfills the Law
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

“Our rights come from God, not from the state.”

To the extent Christianity teaches that we have “rights”, I’m sure that this is correct. However, classical Christianity also taught that the state is an agent of God, and that its authority came from God. It most certainly did not teach that the state’s authority came from the consent of the governed. Now, a state can abuse this prerogative, to be sure.

Scott:

I’m not sure to what you refer. It is true that the Church, once it married the State, in the time of and post-Constantine, did suggest that the Emperor’s authority came from God. But that was because the Church enjoyed a special priviledge from the State (at least when apostate Emperors were not on the throne). But, that was pure, cold-blooded politics on the part of those leading the Church at that time. I would hardly characterize it as part of our dogma.

The Lord only once directly spoke of the State when He said that we should render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Before doing that, He asked for a coin and asked whose picture was on the coin. What can we discern: the coin is his, his picture is on it, give it back to him so he can engage in self-adulation, but we are not permitted to keep it and give him adulation. It seems to me that what the Lord was saying was that no due respect was due to the State except to give them back what they try to force upon us — in that case, the Emperor’s currency.

The Lord never taught that the State was an “agent of God or that its authority came from God”. In fact, his whole ministry was totally and unequovically opposed to the Empire, its injustice and its oppression.

Do rights come from God? That depends on what right you are talking about. We were made “in the image of God”. Has anyone ever pondered what that means? Do we look like him? No. Our physical being is not like his ineffable subtance. What does it mean?

The one thing that we can all say as a certainty about God is that He does what he pleases. In other words, He has total, unfettered free will. When He made us in His image, the image that He passed on to us was unfettered free will. That is what we share with God. That is what the Church ultimately teaches. Given that we have unfettered free will, we have the absolute, unfettered right to exercise that free will. Given that fact, any human authority that tries to contrain the unfettered exercise of that free will is acting contrary to and destructive of the image that He gave us. And that, my friend is the State in all its manifestations. The only contraint on the unfettered exercise of our free will is that we not affect another’s exercise of their unfettered free will. In other words, my unfettered exercise of my free will ends where your nose, so to speak, begins.

That is the utlimate concept behind “Classical liberalism”, behind the American system as devised by the founding fathers, by Adam Smith, by unfettered free markets.

“There is a tinge of paternalism in your discussion.”

If you mean paternalism toward you, that was not my intention. If you mean paternalism as to government, there’s more than a tinge in my thought. I am not a democrat. I do not believe that democracy, whatever its form, is the best form of government.

I admit that this country’s Constitution, as it was understood at the time of its inception, is not a bad document. If the states had continued with state establishment, it might have worked. I do not believe, however, that a state can govern well unless it is somehow tied to Christian morality in such a way that the popular will could not pull it away except with monumental difficulty. Establishment of Religion in an empire or other authoritarian type state serves that purpose.

This does not mean that those who run the state will necessarily govern wisely. It simply means that the voice of the people is not the voice of God.

“But, I for one cannot cloak myself in judgment to speak FOR God and conclude that he will be merciful upon me because I believe myself to be Orthodox, that government must be “Orthodox,” and will (or should) damn the preacher on State and Main because he is not.”

Someone’s version of morality will be imposed by law. Some aggregate of the popular will and the will of nine justices is the morality that is imposed by law at the present moment. I would prefer it to be Orthodox morality. The alternative is . . . unorthodox morality. It really is zero sum and we lose sight of that when we engage in Western relativism.

I am not interested in forcing anyone to be baptized and chrismated into Orthodoxy. But freedom of religion is a bit broader than that. In Russia after the fall of communism, for example, the Russian Federation essentially approved any religion that had been recognized for the last 10 or fifteen years and restricted all others at the discretion of the government. That allowed Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism to operate with state approval. Everybody else needed permission. Effectively, this allowed a traditionally Orthodox country to regain its Orthodox heritage in spite of the fact that Protestant missionaries tried their darndest to do there what they’ve done in Latin America.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a government saying that Christianity in general or Orthodoxy in particular should have a favored status. The Founders, in general (with the exception of Jefferson and some of the Deists), apparently did not have a problem with the establisment of religion at the state level. They most certainly allowed it.

Viewpoint neutrality as it is practiced here in the USA is myopic and self defeating. It is a replacement of an imposition of Christian morality with the imposition of a progressive liberal (im)morality – – nothing more. The fact that the public allows this is more evidence that their is no longer a “moral majority” in the US. Thus, good representative government is not even theoretically possible here at this time.

They could vote consistently for conservative morality at the presidential level and in the Senate. This would have the effect of putting originalists firmly in charge of the high court. They could rise up and amend the constitution to reflect Christian morality. They refuse to do either of those things.

If you want to continue the “experiment”, by all means proceed. You will get similar results as have obtained in the recent past – – or worse. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I am done with it. Orthodox thinkers really should devote some brainpower to what comes next instead of desperately defending a failed system that is on moral “life support”, vitals fading.

Scott,

Your discussion seems circular to me.

I’ve never been sure what “Christendom” was, when “it” was, who was in charge of “it,” who decided “it” was a good idea, and am not clear whether you assert that that “Christendom” whatever and whenever it was, happened to be a model of “Orthodox government.”

I’m not trying to be snarky here, but exactly what is — theoretcially or historically — a “model of Orthodox” (or “Christian”) government? (Neither Byzantium nor Czarist Russia can be fairly described as “model Orthodox” governments!) I largely believe that the Church Fathers do not speak affirmatively of “government” because government is irrelevant to their understanding of Orthodoxy as a way of living and theosis. Put overly simply, who needs government if everyone lived according to the Lord’s Prayer and the Golden Rule? But, even more so, Christ himself told us to render to Caeser what is Caesar’s.

Vladimir’s edict proves my point. It, like any other effort to massively convert people, did nothing to “Christianize” Russia beyond giving it some historical designation. Forcible conversion is useless to the salvation of the “converted” and a sin by the converter, Vladimir included.

“Doctrinal chaos of the Reformation?” There are 1500 years of doctrinal chaos before we ever get to the Reformation! And don’t sell Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the others quite so short. Their fear of state mandated religion was not limited to protestant fragmentation.

God given freedom is not equated with touchy feely political freedom — and I do not intend to suggest that it is. But, God given freedom may physically exist with the blessings of political freedom, as understood and defined in the West. Absent political freedom, exercising God given freedom fast manifests itself as martyrdom. Indeed, that’s largely Christianity’s “political” history of the first 300 some odd years.

And, I’m not suggesting that the brilliant American Experiment on religious liberty is perfect in its application. Its role — at least in theory –is not to be “hospitable” to Christianity, Orthodoxy, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or witchcraft. Its role is to permit practice without proscription and prescription and not persecute it. As a political authority it guarantees no “winners.” Now, for a trillion and one reasons, the body politic — including putatively Orthodox Christians — have strayed and distorted the structure and intent of the Republic – from abortion to the dozens of other tolerated horrors.

We have to admit a cold, hard reality. We are losing — if we have not already lost — the contemporary discourse because we do not properly and effectively witness. PERIOD. And yes, American democracy allows and to use your words, encourages, Islam. Why? Because the state does not force faith. To be sure, the political and cultural institution that is Islam (like communism) will hoist, if it can, Western democracies on their own petards. That’s the modus operendi. Our political correctness secrets this fact and may well be its ultimate demise.

There is a tinge of paternalism in your discussion. I firmly BELIEVE that Orthodoxy shines in the right and proper path to my salvation. But, I for one cannot cloak myself in judgment to speak FOR God and conclude that he will be merciful upon me because I believe myself to be Orthodox, that government must be “Orthodox,” and will (or should) damn the preacher on State and Main because he is not.

That’s not relativism — that’s Orthodoxy.

Indeed, I think part of what the Archbishop is suggesting is that the foundation of the experiment have become twisted and ignored in political discourse. And that we need to reengage on that level.

Alexander,

“We Orthodox pride ourselves on contending that we force no one to accept Christ — as others may do.”

The largest Orthodox country on earth was christianized initially by an edict of Prince Vladimir which stated that anyone who didn’t present themselves for baptism would become an enemy of the state. As I have explained (in vain) to Fr. Johannes many times, the fact that God gives us the freedom to choose to accept or reject Him is a totally different matter than that of whether the state allows us to practice any religion we choose or follow any moral code that pleases us. If God were infatuated with religious tolerance, He would be a different God than is presented in both Testaments of the Bible.

“I think that if you want to eradicate or emasculate Christianity, reject the brilliant American Experiment on religious liberty. Because what you get is Spanish Inquisitions, Czarist Russia, the whole of Papal political history, and walk into the nuclear powered buzz saws that are communism, fascism, and Islam.”

You will notice that once there was a thing called “Christendom”. It is not a coincidence that its extinction has occured over the same period as the adoption of Western democracy. Sounds like an eradication and emasculation of Christianity to me. And it’s quite obvious.

I do emphatically reject the “brilliant American experiment” which has led to the destruction of the family as an instution and the murder of over 50 million unborn children (more murders than Hitler or Pol Pot ever committed). It is not true that you will necessarily get communism, fascism or Islam if you reject the American experiment. Communism and Fascism were totalitarian philosophies fundamentally incompatible with Christianity because they, in effect, deified the state. Czarist Russia and the Byzantine Empire (from which much of the writings of the Fathers emanated and which they seem, broadly speaking, to have endorsed) were authoritarian/autocratic but not totalitarian. Islam is a different matter altogether. My earlier post makes it clear how the democratic values of the West encourage the spread of Islam rather than inhibit it.

Protestants somehow delude themselves into believing that true Christianity was only discovered, or rediscovered, in the 16th century. We should not delude ourselves that a truly Christian form of government was not discovered until the 18th. If you have an argument based on Orthodox Tradition, that is, quoting the Fathers and using examples of Orthodox government from the past, I’d love to hear it. Either that or you are left with a Church that seems to have never seriously considered liberal government until very recently.

Constantine was not baptized until he was on his deathbed and he flirted with paganism for quite a while. Your example is instructive though. Our own country’s attitude toward religious pluralism originates from the doctrinal chaos of the Reformation. Different states had different established religions. The Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion at the federal level so that no one state’s religion would be imposed on the rest. This has been twisted into “separation of church and state”, a phrase used by communists as well. To them, it meant the eradication of religion. For us in America, it means the eradication of Christianity in the public realm – – the result of our “brilliant experiment”.

My point is that Enlightenment Liberalism has resulted in an evil society which twists human nature, kills its unborn, destroys the institution of the family and results in great disharmony, suffering and disgrace. We have not created a society hospitable to Christianity. We have created a society which only tolerates a watered down version of Christianity for the moment and whose dominant social and political culture holds Christianity in contempt. Human freedom to choose Whom to worship is not the same thing as political freedom to embrace any moral paradigm we might choose. The law necessarily has a moral dimension.

Scott,

Accepting Christ is a choice, permitted to us by the omni-benevolent God with the exercise of the gift of free will. We Orthodox pride ourselves on contending that we force no one to accept Christ — as others may do. It is a door that we open to others through our witness. The prospective believer is to willingly step across the threshold, or not at all.

True, the Fathers do not speak in terms of “the rights of man,” and “religious liberty.” But they do talk about an individual coming to God willingly, with an open heart, and without coercion. (And certainly not because yia-yia and papu or baba and deda told them this is the way it is or else.)

I’m not sure what you mean by “classic Christianity.” But, we are coming up on the 1700th Anniversary of the Edict of Milan (312) proclaimed by that first Christian Emperor, Constantine. That Edict was all about a free choice. It guaranteed Christians, along with others, “freedom to follow whatever religion one wished,” “a public and free liberty to practice their religion or cult” and recognizing the rights of Christian groups to property and places of worship. For one, the Belgrade Patriarchate is preparing a celebration of this historic event because Constantine is widely believed to have been born in Nish, which these days is a part of Republic of Serbia and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Serbian Chuch.

But, our Orthodox triumphalism, along with its selective memory, gets us into trouble. A short 68 years later, the religion or “cult” of Christianity would become the state faith. So, in addition to trying to resolve raging theological questions and heresies, Gratian, Valentianan II and Theodosious II indeed proclaim the state faith on 27 February 380. But they do so much more than that …

“There is one Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in an equal Majesty and Holy Trinity. We order that those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians, but others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of heretical teaching, nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches. They are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures.”

Not so sure anyone is going to be celebrating much of what comes after, “but …” but one thing is for sure, “Classic Christianity’s” hands are not exactly clean in the centuries that follow Gratian and pre-date the Great Schism when it comes to “punish[ment] … by our own measures.” (And, just plain forget about what happens post-1054.)

America’s founders — the grossly imperfect, slave-owning, rationalists, nominally “protestant,” humanists they were — recognized the pernicious perils a state religion that purported to be God’s agent presented and its threat to that very freedom of choice given to us by God. Hundreds of historical examples — Christian West, Christian East, Judasim, among the “Mohammetans,” “Hindoos,” or otherwise — made them fear the wholel “state as God’s agent” schtick.

Whether the Founders truly believed that God permitted humanity the choice to accept or reject Him, or whether the idea is born of a logical and rhetorical necessity to trump the claims of the Divine Right, English throne as Head of the Anglican Church as God’s agent, is of no moment. They created for us (perhaps accidently as it relates to Orthodox) an unprecedented forum, a political place, where we and others can exercise that free will — as understood by the Orthodox Fathers — to of our own hearts, minds and souls accept Christ and live in accord with His precepts. That others use that same forum as a place to reject Christ, bastardize his teachings, or persecute those who believe is of no moment.

America gets itself into great trouble when it seeks to export its “democracy,” or “republicanism,” without question. And the UN Declaration on Human Rights is a decidedly Western, “rationalist,” and “statist” construct that in the end may do much to harm the right to willingly accept or reject Christ. But, this much is certain, there is absolutely no historical instance other than America where the state came into its existence with the intent to allow its citizens to exercise that choice, without coercion.

In my view, among the beauty of the Archbishop’s piece — despite all the heresy he himself willingly embraces — is that he contextualizes “Christianity’s” place and role in the formulation of this great Republic in a manner purposefully overlookedm or flatly rejected, in much of contemporary discussion. He demonstrates, in my view, in spades the challenge we — as Americans — confront with those who reject our Free Will and seek to annihilate our existence.

I think that if you want to eradicate or emasculate Christianity, reject the brilliant American Experiment on religious liberty. Because what you get is Spanish Inquisitions, Czarist Russia, the whole of Papal political history, and walk into the nuclear powered buzz saws that are communism, fascism, and Islam.

(PS Your discussion of Marxism may be better left for later.)

The strange “Christian” spirit of the “charismatic revival” is clearly identified in the Holy Scriptures and the Orthodox patristic tradition. According to these sources, world history will culminate in an almost superhuman “Christian” figure, the false messiah or antichrist. He will be “Christian” in the sense that his whole function and his very being will center on Christ, Whom he will imitate in every respect possible, and he will be not merely the greatest enemy of Christ, but in order to deceive Christians will appear to be Christ, come to earth for a second time and ruling from the restored Temple in Jerusalem.

Let no one deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come except there come a falling away (apostasy) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God… even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all lying wonders, and with all deceivableness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:3-4, 9-12).

The Orthodox teaching concerning antichrist is a large subject in itself and cannot be presented here. But if, as the followers of the “charismatic revival” believe, the last days are indeed at hand, it is of crucial importance for the Orthodox Christian to be informed of this teaching concerning one who, as the Saviour Himself has told us, together with the “false prophets” of that time, shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). And the “elect” are certainly not those multitudes of people who are coming to accept the gross and most unscriptural delusion that “the world is on the threshold of a great spiritual awakening,” but rather the “little flock” to which alone our Saviour has promised: It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom (Luke 12:32). Even the true “elect” will be sorely tempted by the “great signs and wonders” of antichrist; but most “Christians” will accept him without any question, for his “New Christianity” is precisely what they seek.

Karen,

I did not mean to sound uniformly negative regarding the article. The author does make some good points, including your observation about engaging American culture. I also think that Orthodox Triumphalism, to the extent it means gloating or any other arrogant attitude, is a bad idea. We should confess the Truth that has been entrusted to us in all humility. We do make an exclusive truth claim though. All “traditional” forms of Christianity do as well. To step away from that would be to step away from Orthodoxy. That is my concern with ecumenism as well as with Chambesy.

I would be interested to read a commentary on the religious liberty enjoyed under the Byzantine or Russian Empires as well as on what the Fathers’ thoughts were on the separation of religious and “secular” authority. I recall that the decisions of EC’s were immediately written into imperial law.

“Here’s my first point: The American model of religious liberty is rooted in the thought-world and idea-architecture of the Christian humanist tradition. We cannot understand the framework of American institutions — or the values that these institutions are meant to promote and defend — if we don’t acknowledge that they grow out of a predominantly Christian worldview.”

Perhaps, but so did Marxism. If you look at the trajectory that Marx projects upon history, it is a story of primal innocence (primitive communism), a “fall” into sin (early versions of empire and private property), further descent (capitalism) and redemption through socialism and eventually an eschaton of true communism where the state largely disappears.

No doubt Enlightenment Liberal thinking came out of a Christian world view. It just did not remain there.

“Our rights come from God, not from the state.”

To the extent Christianity teaches that we have “rights”, I’m sure that this is correct. However, classical Christianity also taught that the state is an agent of God, and that its authority came from God. It most certainly did not teach that the state’s authority came from the consent of the governed. Now, a state can abuse this prerogative, to be sure.

“That is why religious freedom is humanity’s first and most important freedom.”

Actually, this idea may destroy us. It presupposes the inherent value of all religious expression. It is implicitly contradictory to the following quote that the author relates:

“John Adams’ famous words to the Massachusetts militia in 1789 were typical: ‘Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'”

The problem is that there is no uniform morality or belief system that characterizes “religion”. Europe is coming to this realization as we speak.

“And I think we may awake one day to see that as a tragedy for ourselves, and too many others to count.”

Christians will indeed see the present state of America as a tragedy, but for a different reason. If all of this really were compatible with Christianity, it would have been set out by the Apostles and practiced, sometimes more perfectly than at other times, in the government of Christian peoples from the time that Christianity first emerged from persecution. It did not. I do not recall any extensive passages from the Fathers regarding the “rights of man” or religious liberty. I do recall passages, for example St. John Chrysostom’s advice regarding slavery, that directly and emphatically contradict the above. (I am not advocating slavery, btw, just stating that this article presupposes a mindset which is foreign to traditional Orthodoxy. There is nothing in Orthodoxy that requires slavery either.)

There is an attempt, because of the perceived value of American democracy, to try to read Christianity into it and to read Christian values as emanating from it. It is wishful thinking. It also pollutes Christianity. And it is a prescription for losing the cultural struggle with Islam and with liberal secularism. Accepting the American paradigm regarding rights and liberty has led to the de-Christianization of the United States and has led Europe to become colonized by Muslim immigrants who have little intention of accepting their new societies’ premises. It has led us to wars of conquest to spread the “disease of liberty”, as Kennedy described it. Too often, “liberating” countries also destabilizes them and causes them, in the end, to become less “liberal” and a greater threat to the interests of the United States. Moreover, when we are successful at spreading liberalism, the moral effect on the society we “convert” should give serious pause to any Christian witnessing the process. Feminism, including abortion rights, becomes part of the set of “rights” to be implemented. With some considerable justification, many traditional Muslims use this as a rallying cry to inspire opposition to our efforts. It’s actually ironic and tragic.

If you want to further emasculate and eradicate Christianity, this is a prescription for doing so.

Alexander: I do not know what your past experiences are but you sound so bitter!
“My soul will boast about the LORD” and I boast about the Saints, no matter what their ethnicity, because “God is wonderful in His Saints”. Jesus was very angry at what he had seen taking place in the house of God. He overthrew the tables of the money changers and He said that “My house shall be called the house of prayer”. The first thing we must do is to seek to become better Orthodox and to dramatically improve the quality and depth of our faith. St. John Chrysostom knew too well that the corruption is inherent in men who want power. It is true that in our time some bishops have nothing profoundly Christian or religious in them. What they have is political life only.

Further, our Orthodox triumphalism is a sin and festering disease that in it’s most primitive form is revealed in the xenophibic ethnocentrism in our parish and diocesan lives.

Once you set aside the chasm of ecclesiological differences, we have to admit that many Roman Catholic clergy – from priests to Ratzinger – are more Orthodox in their perspective and writing than putatively Orthodox bishops.