Harry,

You rail against Iran, the Gulags, Maoist China, pagan Rome and the Vatican.

I never wrote a word in support of any of the above.

You tell me that repeating the fact that all modern democracies have descended into secular liberal anti-Christian societies does not make it so.

As if it wasn’t apparent.

Harry, you haven’t paid any attention to a thing I’ve written. All you want to do is set up straw dummies signifying what you want me to have said. Then you proceed to knock those down.

I have to conclude that you don’t have anything else to offer that actually addresses the subject.

Scott wrote: ‘Harry misses my point again. What I have advocated is an authoritarian government tied to the Church and its morality.’

For example, except for the faith aspect, Iran? They’ve got their Mullahs controlling the civil government. So there’s an example of an authoritarian disaster. Were it an actual democracy the people wouldn’t need to sacrifice themselves in bloody demonstrations to change the government in order to avoid risk of nuclear confrontation with one of its neighbors.

‘Of course there are no guarantees in life that such a government would remain good. What is guaranteed however is that a democracy will become bad.’

Repeating this without further support doesn’t make it more true. Unlike authoritarian ones, democracies won’t need to stay bad. A policy change is only one election day away. A policy change is only 50%+1 change-of-heart days away. On the other hand, once authoritarians get it wrong they stay in power and kill to keep it. They also fancy ‘bloodlines’ as a highly dubious path to a future.

Regarding the number of people killed under democracies — the authoritarian governments of the past killed more per capita in a week than we do in a year. Look at all the Roman stories of baby death by ‘exposure’ and so forth. And naturally the horror of the Gulags, the massive death during ‘the great leap forward’, etc. etc.

Anyhow the authority of the Christian teaching is available to any who wish it, and if the majority do not then at least in a democracy those who do can live in that way.

Ultimately, while I think it is within the realm of Christian teaching to bring the force of government against those who do activities that bring direct (not merely indirect) harm to others… and perhaps it is within the realm of Orthodox teaching to provide encouragement but not coercion to those who behave in ways only third parties deem self-harmful or indirectly harmful.

Scott sees the high highs of a stable beneficial authority advising the government. I see the low lows of such a governement not being able to shed itself of a ‘stable beneficial authority’ gone wrong.

Democracy is the best available, this is proven and reproven when we see even the largest organizations and human endevors getting major things wrong. For example the Pope recently (1950s?) becoming ‘Universal Ordinary’ and being able to speak ‘of himself for the church’ while occupying is own civil authority in the Vatican. Authoritarianism leading to despotism there too. A loss of ‘Sobornost’ or ‘Conciliarity’.

Harry misses my point again. What I have advocated is an authoritarian government tied to the Church and its morality.

Of course there are no guarantees in life that such a government would remain good. What is guaranteed however is that a democracy will become bad.

It’s also not about my “preferred morality” as opposed to Harry’s. That’s democratic thinking. Orthodox Christian morality is, in its broad strokes, fixed and immutable. I don’t want my morality put into force of law unless it reflects that of the Church as it has historically been taught.

“. . . the authority he supports doesn’t exist, anywhere, ever. What happens when ‘the authority’ gets it wrong?”

Harry’s beef here is with the Fathers, not me. In supporting the imperial system they gave approval to a real form of government that existed in time (whether Harry likes that fact or not).

“While democracies can and do get it wrong, the depth of the low point is much less that the horrors history has taught authoritarians lead to.”

If anyone out there knows of an authoritarian Christian civilization (such as the Byzantine Empire or Tsarist Russia) that managed to exterminate over 50,000,000 of its unborn children, I’d be interested to know about it.

Scott wrote in part “My point is that the people are incompetent to be trusted with the decision of what morality to legislate.”

Neither is it any more possible for an authoritarian or any hierarch to be ‘capable’ (in the technical sense you mean) of being bound to any promise or contract. If there is a force than can cause ‘an authority’ to keep to its committments, that lends stabiliy to what ‘is’ means, that can remove a misdoing authority, then perhaps there is some common ground.

That democracy is to be preferred to authoritarians Scott demonstrates — complain about Caligula or any ‘authoritarian’ leader and you get yourself jailed or worse, and ‘the wieght’ of the state lands upon you. Complain ‘for redress of grievance’ in a democracy and get commended for ‘joining the debate’.

Certainly in a democracy there will be some number, even a majority who will be free to do other than Scott’s or my own preferred authority would have them do. But in a democracy any who choose to do the right thing will not be prevented, either.

The main flaw in Scott’s argument is not that he fails to notice how good good could be with ‘an authoritarian leader’ who gets all or most of it right. It’s that not enough credit is given to human weakness in that the authoritarians become despots, that the authority he supports doesn’t exist, anywhere, ever. What happens when ‘the authority’ gets it wrong?

While democracies can and do get it wrong, the depth of the low point is much less that the horrors history has taught authoritarians lead to. This at the same time democracy does not bar as high a high point as a nearly totally correct authoritarian might acheive.

I’m sure I live in ways others around me would prefer that I change. Perhaps others think their noble and high use for some or all of the money I’ve earned is on balance more important than whatever my plans for it might be — whether or not they take the time to consider my view on the subject.

George,

My point is that the people are incompetent to be trusted with the decision of what morality to legislate. I agree that the divinely revealed nature of morality certainly does not “negate human culpability”. But the law, as far as it addresses morality, should not be allowed to “arise from a well-spring of conscience that is inchoate in every human being.”

Assuming that each person does have a moral conscience, there is no reason to believe, based on the experience of the electorate in democracies, that this conscience will a) accurately reflect God’s moral law and b) be transmuted into the legal code. Therefore, the government should be bound to a Christian moral code irrespective of the popular will. This can’t be done where moral legislation is left to the people. That is one reason why democracy doesn’t work from a Christian perspective.

Eventually, as has happened in all or practically all democracies, not only will the people gravitate toward anti-Christian morality, but Christianity will come to be seen as a threat to the moral sovereignty of the people (secularism). It will then (as has already begun) begin to come under siege in an attempt to banish it from the public realm. That and/or, as is also happening, there will be an attempt to emasculate it and turn it into a shell of its former self which is much more amicable to the winds of the popular culture (such as the Episcopal Church).

The truth is that democracy, much like communism and Naziism, is a false religion. It substitutes the popular will for Christian morality. It holds that all religions are equally true/false and equally irrelevant. It is a jealous god that cannot stand for any other religion to compete with it for the public’s allegiance. It zealously guards its hold on the public conscience even corrupting those who profess other religions like Christianity.

But Christianity in its classical form never contemplated representative democracy as the proper form of government. It was assumed by the post-Nicene Fathers that there would be an Empire and this Empire would remain tied to Christianity. Earlier in Christian history, the Church was constantly at odds with the government as being an entity ruled by evil men.

What allegiance to democracy as a form of governance accomplishes is that it legitimizes a moral authority at odds with the Church’s morality. It is the equivalent of a mad and evil emperor such as Caligula. You would not suggest that Caligula was a moral authority worthy of respect. I tell you neither are the people.

In a democracy, the only way to obtain good government is for the Church to convert and convince the majority of the people of the truth of Christian morality and to maintain that conviction within the population indefinitely.

That’s a very tall order. In a democratic society, I have known this to occur nowhere on earth – – ever. In short, allegiance to democracy is – – wittingly or unwittingly – – an allegiance to perpetual, progressively anti-Christian morality being the law of the land.

Scott, of course you are right that all morality (and life and creation, etc) come from God. That still does not negate human culpability. Paul said that the “law…was written on the hearts” of the gentiles. They too had a conscience and as such were not free to act as animals.

In my life I’ve seen the degradation of morality and civic virtue take place and at every step of the way, people voluntarily acceeded to it. Why? possibly because they felt it was in their interests to do so (I myself have been part of this devolution). We knew better, but we always found justifications for it.

That does not mean that we “can’t legilsate morality.” The laws of society arise from a well-spring of conscience that is inchoate in every human being.

Scott, we are not far apart. Properly exercised authority is wonderful. A big part of the discontent within the Church is due to the bishops abandoning their responsibility to be authoritative on the Gospel and the actual life of the Church. They reach for their staff only on things that don’t really matter like personal power, perogatives and the cronies.

Instead of having a functioning, well-ordered Church, albeit full of sin, we have a situation of graft, corruption, concupisence and lust of power. As with parents who don’t parent the children suffer.

We ‘rebel’ in an attempt to get the attention of our elders, wanting to have rules and discpline that are in acord with what we know and have learned.

You do seem to have a more linear approach than I do. Personally, I think the poetic language conveys the reality much better than empirical or utilitarian language because it conveys the mystical dimension that exists even in rocks.

Genuine authority does not create separation between people, it binds us together. That authority is inherent in the office of the bishop. Authority from which most of them seem to run as fast as they can.

How this transfers to government outside the Church is an open question. All human government ultimately self-destructs in tryanny and we have to start all over again. Each great civilisation starts high and ends low with a few upticks in between. Our sinfulness guarantees that. As Christians, we do more for our government, our culture and our Church by working to practice virtue in humility and repentance than we do in another fashion.

Michael,

There is a difference between poetic language aimed at instilling humility and a blueprint for actual governance. A priest (convert from the EOC) I once knew tried to convince me of the same thing as your post points to in the context of actual authority within the Church.

Of course, my reply went something along the lines of asking what the meaning of the word “episkopos” is. What “despota” means. What “vladika” means. Whether we owe our bishop obedience. Whether a bishop has a right to rule in his own diocese. Who has the responsibility/right to excommunicate or impose penance. To whom was given the power to bind and loose. Etc., etc., etc.

I do not doubt that a monarch has a responsibility to serve God and his people. I just think that this has absolutely nothing to do with who wears the pants.

But again, I’m not sure we fundamentally disagree on anything besides semantics.

“The people not only rejected the authoritarians they either chucked the church entirely (Russia). . . ”

Harry, that’s simply a lie. I’ve called you on it before but you seem to be impervious to the facts. The Church was ruthlessly suppressed in Russia by a small group of revolutionaries who never managed to attract more than about 5% of the population to their movement, not “the people”. The communist authorities closed tens of thousands of churches leaving about 7,000 (in 1985) where there had been over 50,000 (pre-Revolution). In 1939, before Stalin relaxed restrictions a bit in order to keep his people loyal, the number of churches was estimated to be 500. They imprisoned and executed bishops and priests and laymen. They created a climate politically hostile to religion and even forbad parents from teaching Orthodoxy to their children in their homes. They tortured and forced the remaining clergy to cooperate and sometimes collaborate with their militant atheistic rulers.

The people did not reject the Church. Get your facts straight and maybe your political opinions will benefit from the insight gained. Your comment is a grave insult to the millions of believers who suffered martyrdom and repression under the Soviet Communists. They refused to reject the Church to the very end.

“While there are abortions and all manner of mistakes in Democracies you must reconcile that with the quality essential to Christianity– it isn’t authentic if imposed.”

Maybe not, but that’s beside the point. It is certainly wise to impose Christian morality. One need not, however, insist that anyone be baptized and chrismated or go to church. We’re talking about two different things. We legislate morality everyday with respect to laws against murder, rape, extortion, etc.

“You smile upon capitalism but that really goes hand-in-hand with a diminishment of authoritarianism. The ability to collect and allocate capital broadly among the population is to diminish the authority of government and recast it as a servant-partner.”

I have no problem with a government, preferably an authoritarian one, being a “servant-partner” with business. What that has to do with democracy I don’t know.

You haven’t actually paid attention to what I’ve written here. Regarding forced abortions, I assume you are talking about China, but again I’ve told you that I do not support atheistic, totalitarian regimes in any way. You seem incapable of making these distinctions and your reasoning suffers for it.

I don’t see that further dialogue on this issue between us would be productive since you repeatedly take swipes at straw dummies that I never proposed in the first place.

“Scott, I don’t disagree. It’s just that morality must come from the people. We wouldn’t have all the problems in government today if our people were righteous.”

George,

Morality does not come from the people, it comes from God. The people, on the whole, are incapable of moral discernment or restraint. Our political system is a testament to that fact. You lament the fact that the people are not righteous and that, therefore, the government has “all these problems”. If people are free to choose evil (with respect to political morality) they will do so for the reasons I stated above.

Morality dependent on the will of the people is not Christian morality. The voice of the people is not the voice of God, it is nothing more than an amalgamation of the passions of the masses. Christian morality is a constant to which people are called to reconcile themselves. It is totally independent of the popular will.

Scott, I don’t disagree. It’s just that morality must come from the people. We wouldn’t have all the problems in government today if our people were righteous. We are not, therefore we need Leviathan state to provide for us. We gave this up on our own accord because of envy: we wanted more and weren’t satisfied with our lot in life.

Scott,

You can’t pick and choose your history. Notice that both in Greece and in Russia the church sided with authoritarians (almost making an idol out of Tsar Nicholas and his family, and supporting the authoriarian Colonels in Greece). The people not only rejected the authoritarians they either chucked the church entirely (Russia) or reduced it in prestige to a slightly more active antiquity than the Acropolis.

While there are abortions and all manner of mistakes in Democracies you must reconcile that with the quality essential to Christianity– it isn’t authentic if imposed.

You smile upon capitalism but that really goes hand-in-hand with a diminishment of authoritarianism. The ability to collect and allocate capital broadly among the population is to diminish the authority of government and recast it as a servant-partner.

Never overlook forced abortions and similar in authoritarian countries. There is a humility essential to Christianity that is incomapatible with the coercion implicit in authoritarianism.

Scott, the following more eloquently expresses my opposition to authoritarianism as it is normally understood,i.e, a top down imposition of one will over another. I don’t think that’s the Church (although we often think it is)

Fr. Sophrony [Sakharov], in his book on St. Silouan, presents this theory of the “inverted pyramid.” He says that the empirical cosmic being is like a pyramid: at the top sit the powerful of the earth, who exercise dominion over the nations (cf. Matt. 20:25), and at the bottom stand the masses. But the spirit of man, by nature [unfallen nature as given by God], demands equality, justice and freedom of spirit, and therefore is not satisfied with this “pyramid of being.” So, what did the Lord do? He took this pyramid and inverted it, and put Himself at the bottom, becoming its Head. He took upon Himself the weight of sin, the weight of the infirmity of the whole world, and so from that moment on, who can enter into judgment with Him? His justice is above the human mind. So, He revealed His Way to us, and in so doing showed us that no one can be justified but by this way, and so all those who are His must go downwards to be united with Him, the Head of the inverted pyramid, because it is there that the “fragrance” of the Holy Spirit is found; there is the power of divine life. Christ alone holds the pyramid, but His fellows, His Apostles and His saints, come and share this weight with Him. However, even if there were no one else, He could hold the pyramid by Himself, because He is infinitely strong; but He likes to share everything with His fellows. Mindful of this, then, it is essential for man to find the way of going down, the way of humility, which is the Way of the Lord, and to become a fellow of Christ, who is the Author of this path.

Archimandrite Zacharias in The Enlargement of the Heart

Just as this does not describe an authoritarian approach, neither does it describe a democratic one.