Report by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad at the ‘Orthodoxy on the Threshold of the Third Millennium’ Theological Conference

REPORT BY METROPOLITAN KIRILL OF SMOLENSK AND KALININGRAD AT THE ‘ORTHODOXY ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM’ THEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE

STANDARD OF FAITH AS NORM OF LIFE

The problem of the relationship between traditional and liberal values in individual and social choice by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate Nezavisimaia gazeta, 16-17 February 2000.

1. The fundamental contradiction of our epoch, and at the same time the main challenge to the human community in the twenty-first century, is the opposition of liberal, civilized standards, on one hand, and the values of national, cultural, and religious identity, on the other. An examination of the genesis and a search for possible ways to overcome the conflict between these two decisive factors of contemporary development must occupy, it seems, an important place in Orthodox theological studies. To the extent that the issue is a problem whose resolution to a great extent may determine the future character of human civilization, it is clear that the very posing of this problem and an attempt at a preliminary definition of it (“Circumstances of the Modern Era,” NG, 26 May 1999) has evoked not only sincere engagement but no less sincere anger. The anger arises in those who by virtue of certain ideological principles reject the very idea of posing such a problem, fearing a possible correction or even review in the future of liberal ideas on which is now based the attempt to mould the human community within the “smelting pot” of civilizations and cultures. Anger also arises in those zealots of religious and cultural fundamentalism who long ago resolved for themselves all problems and are deeply convinced that the only way to be saved is to lock the doors of their homes tightly. Nevertheless it is extremely gratifying that many both in Russia and abroad have displayed a lively interest in further discussion of the problems of the relationship of liberal and traditional ideas and values.

Methodologically as well as substantively it seems worthwhile to conduct this discussion not only within the sphere of a review of intergovernmental relations and the creation of a just world order, as was suggested in the above mentioned article, but also on the level of discussion of the problems of the individual and contemporary society as a whole. The resolution of this problem, which, as was said, is a fundamental problem, will facilitate the resolution of a multitude of practical issues, some of which pertain to the sphere of relations between church and society and among confessions and religions.

For the Orthodox person of the twenty-first century essential matters include the teachings of the church, personal experience of prayer, the ability to distinguish Orthodoxy from other confessions, rootedness in the history and spiritual culture of one’s country, and many other things that are associated with faith. However the chief and fundamental matter is the concept of the religious form of life, that is a way of life which is based upon religious motivation. By all means contemporary society accustoms the individual to think that religious faith is an exclusively inward, private, and very intimate matter of the human personality. Such claims now are resounding on all sides. The religious motivation of individual choice is viewed by liberal, secular society as justified and permitted only in such cases when it affects the personal, or at most the family, life of citizens. As regards other aspects of human existence, there is no place here for religious motivation and there cannot be.

Actually, personal morality constitutes the heart of Christian morality. Orientation to the individual and an appeal to the spiritual experience of the individual are the main elements of the Christian message, for it is addressed to every person and has as its goal of the transformation of the soul. However these saving changes of our internal world are accomplished not in isolation from the external environment nor in special laboratory conditions but in real and living contact with surrounding people, first the family, then the work place and society, and finally the state. It is impossible to remain Christian behind the doors of one’s own home and within the family circle or in the solitude of one’s room and to stop being one when one occupies the professor’s chair, sits in front of the television camera, votes in parliament, and even performs a scientific experiment. The Christian motivation must be present in everything that constitutes the sphere of vital interests of the believing person. For the believer cannot mechanically exclude professional and scientific interests from the spiritual and moral context of one’s life, to say nothing of the political, economic, and social activity, or work in the mass media, etc. The religious motivation for the believing person has a universal and comprehensive character. Thus, the religious manner of life is the means for existing in the world for a person whose choice is motivated and determined by principles of religious confession. The religious manner of life–and in this case we are talking about the Orthodox manner of life–is distinguished by its grounding in the tradition of the church. Tradition is for us the totality of the doctrinal and moral truths which the church has received through the testimony of the Holy Apostles and which it preserves and develops relative to the circumstances of its historical existence and challenges posed to the church by various eras. In a word, tradition is the living and gracious stream of faith and life within the bosom of the church. It is a normative phenomenon because tradition is nothing other than the standard of faith. This means that the concept of a standard operates as the most important characteristic of faith. For every departure from the tradition is understood by us in the first place as a violation of the standard of faith or, in short, as a heresy.

Thus what will serve as a criterion for an Orthodox manner of life will be those means for existence which correspond to that which has been found to be rooted in the tradition of the church. Of course, the issue is not so much the external manifestations of adherence to tradition and even to its cultural and historical appropriation by the individual and society. Adherence to tradition is found first of all at the level of the values content of life. Only life in accordance with tradition as a standard of faith can be considered to be genuine Orthodox life. Today many of our countrymen face the problem of acquiring and maintaining faith, and even to a greater extent of acquiring and maintaining a manner of life that is determined by that faith. For the standard of faith to become for a person the standard of life it is necessary to have not only knowledge but the real experience of life in the church and to be a participant in its mysteries. Only then can this standard of faith become for a person a way of praising the Lord that is as natural as breathing. Only in that case will following the standard of faith not become an unbearable burden for a person, or what is worse, pharisaism that empties faith of its very spirit, but will, like a gracious protector, provide a covering for the entirety of life’s journey. Following this norm does not constrict or restrict and violate the freedom of the individual; at the same time it guards the person from harm like a mother’s womb guards from harm the developing life. Maintenance of this standard and its affirmation in contemporary society as the greatest ontological value is, in a broad sense, the task of every conscientious member of the church, but in the narrow and special sense it is the task of contemporary theology. This standard is as simple as it is fragile. In the life experience of the individual person and of whole communities of people it can be either harmed and even destroyed or it can be preserved and strengthened as a result of its contacts with other cultural and civilizational standards and with other norms of life. We deal with such an alternative way of life in those situations where, for example, we live side by side with people of different views and convictions. In all states of coexistence with those who carry different cultural and civilizational codes different from our own, we must deal with another manner of life.

And here we must pay attention to this. If these other manners of life are based on their own traditions, then more often than not they will not pose a threat for the values of the Orthodox way of life. Historically in Russia Orthodox persons have been neighbors with and have interacted with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and several Christian confessions. Throughout practically the entire history of our country such religious and cultural interactions have never had a destructive character. In the context of Russian civilization various norms, standards, and traditions of existence have more often than not never contradicted one another but have complemented one another. Thus Russian Orthodox people always lived in harmony with people of other nations and faiths. The exceptions were only those circumstances when an alien faith and alien standards of life were imposed on our people by force or by means of proselytism. Then the people rose up in defense of their own faith and that manner of life that they had embraced as a norm which was threatened with destruction. As a rule this was associated with foreign aggression. Thus all of our history was marked by a struggle not only for the maintenance of national and political independence, but also for the preservation of native traditions, standards of faith, and the manner of life associated with it. However in the absence of such attacks upon the religious and cultural identity of the Russians, their coexistence with the carriers of other civilizational standards went on in amazing harmony. Orthodox people related to people of other nations and faiths with interest, curiosity, and often with sincere respect, giving what was due, in particular, to their professional and military practices, often adopting foreign cultural content, habits, and employment. Possibly thanks to what F.M. Dostoevsky called the “universal sympathy” of the Russian person, our land was not watered with the blood of religious wars. Quite to the contrary, it is possible to speak of the development from distant antiquity of a model of peaceful coexistence in Russia of various religious and life standards, rooted in their own traditions and having definite systems of values that were well known to each other. In the ranks of the Russian army Orthodox and Muslims fought side by side, defending their common fatherland. In this there appeared a visible manifestation of mutual respect for the religious and cultural experience of each other that rejected imposing one’s own manner of life upon one’s neighbor. The stormy development of communications and mass media in modern times changed in a striking manner not only the face of the world but also the structure of interpersonal, international, and intergovernmental relations. In the contemporary world the boundaries which had divided national cultures have been practically destroyed. Nowadays people with unprecedented ease move all around the world, freely choosing for themselves a place of residence and work in any corner of the world. This has led to colossal cultural and ethnic displacement, the consequences of which we still have not been able to grasp completely. The era of monoethnic and monoconfessional states has slowly slipped into the past before our very eyes. The Muslim presence on the European continent has become a socio-cultural factor which cannot be ignored. The world has become open, diffuse, and transparent.

What should be the answer of the individual person and of human communities to this challenge of the time? As Russia’s historical experience testifies, the contact and mutual influence of religious and cultural traditions under certain conditions (avoidance of proselytism, aggression, and the like) can be not only harmless to the preservation of cultural and religious identity but even mutually enriching. The problem appears elsewhere: today there exists no wall that is able to secure the spiritual health of nations and their religious and historical autonomy against the expansion of alien and destructive socio-cultural forces or from a new manner of life that has arisen outside of all traditions and has been created under the influence of postindustrual reality. At the foundation of this manner of life lie liberal ideas which have united within themselves pagan anthropocentrism, which entered the European culture at the time of the renaissance, protestant theology and Jewish philosophical thought. These ideas came to a head in the era of the enlightenment in a certain complex of liberal principles. The French revolution was the culminating act of this spiritual and philosophical revolution, at the base of which lay the rejection of the normative significance of tradition. It was absolutely no accident that this revolution began with the reformation, for it was the reformation that rejected the normative significance of tradition in the sphere of Christian doctrine. Within protestantism, tradition ceased to be the criterion of truth; personal interpretation in the study of holy scripture and personal religious experience became the criteria of truth. Protestantism essentially is the liberal reading of Christianity.^*

And so the new postindustrial manner of life has been based on personal freedom of the individual from any conditions and restrictions except for those restrictions established by legislation. How should we regard this from a theological point of view?

The conception of liberalism takes refuge in the idea of the liberation of the human personality from everything that it understands as a restriction of freedom and rights. The liberal standard proceeds from the presumption of the freedom of the individual as an end and means of human existence, as well as from the affirmation of the absolute value of the individual. I note that this thesis is not disputed by theologians, including Orthodox theologians. Thus, in having acknowledged this point we have not violated the teaching of the church. For the Lord himself, who created us in his image and likeness, bestowed upon us the divine gift of free will. Thus freedom of the individual was predetermined by divine intent and its violation is sin. However with regard to the point that we have acknowledged there begins a region of subtle deception which is diabolical and destructive. After all, when the apostle Paul calls us to freedom, he speaks of the predestination of the individual to be free in Christ, that is, free from the ways of sin. Because true freedom is appropriated by the individual to the extent of liberation from sin and from the dark forces of powerful instinct and evil nature. The individual has been given freedom in order to be able to make a choice independently for conscious subordination of the will to the absolute and saving will of God. This is the way the individual has been for free unity with God through complete subordination to him and, thus, likeness to him in holiness. This is the meaning of the great gift of freedom. After all, nothing prevented the Trinity from originally bestowing upon its creation and redemption both the likeness of God and the happiness of pure realization of his presence in everything that is within and around us. Simply stated, the Trinity could have programmed us in infinite grace like an alarm clock. But since the Trinity was by nature the absolute good of freedom, the Trinity chose to communicate its essential freedom to human nature. And it is only such freedom that we understand as God-given.

The liberal idea does not call for a liberation from sin because the very concept of sin is absent in liberalism. Sinful manifestations by a person are permitted if they do not violate the law and do not infringe upon the freedom of another person. The liberal doctrine includes the idea of the unshackling of the sinful individual, and that means setting free the potential of the human personality for sin. The free person has the right to cast off everything that restricts the affirmation of the sinful “I.” All of this is an internal matter of the sovereign, autonomous personality that is independent from everything external to itself. In this particular the liberal idea is diametrically opposed to Christianity. In this respect it is no offense to the truth to say that it is anti-Christian.

The problem which we are reviewing is substantially complicated by the circumstance that the contemporary formulation of liberalism long ago left its swaddling clothes of a philosophical idea, dealing with the emancipation of the human personality, and has received its further continuation and development in application to all spheres of human life, whether economics, politics, law, religion, social relations, or social order. Thus from the liberal idea flows the generally accepted concepts of civil liberties, democratic institutions, market economy, free competition, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience, all of which constitute the understanding of “contemporary civilization.” In connection with this some people fall into a nearly mystical fright because they see in a critical review of the contents of liberal doctrines an attack upon the associated principles of rights and liberties. Thus, one opponent in a commentary on the above mentioned article in Nezavisimaia gazeta declared that its author was advocating a society built upon the formulas of the Ayatollah Khomenei, and intended to warm Russia with the bonfires of the inquisition. It is important for society to understand today that liberal ideas can be criticized from a position of different political and economic views and that it is completely natural to combine the most liberal doctrine with a system of values. This is normal, as normal for example as the existence of the liberal idea in the area of politics, economics, public life, etc. along with other conceptions and points of view that do not coincide with it. Therefore there are no reasons that criticism of liberalism cannot be made from theological positions. It is not the business of the church to determine what Russia should be like: monarchic, republican, capitalist, socialist, or anything else. The resolution of this question is the prerogative of the society as a whole and of each citizen in particular. But the church cannot but welcome a free and concerned discussion about the ways for construction of Russia and about the governmental, economic, and social principles on which our fatherland will be based. Such a discussion requires of us, inter alia, a critical examination of several pages of our history. On the other hand, civil rights and freedoms, including the possibility of the unrestricted existence for our church, which has been achieved in the last decade of the development of Russia, remains in our eyes an unconditional value and cannot be placed in doubt.

Returning to the question posed earlier about what kind of answer the individual, society, and finally theology should give to the basic challenge of the time that issues from the liberalization of the contemporary world, it is necessary to speak of the existence today of at least two widely disseminated points of view on this problem. These points of view depend on an assessment of the phenomenon perceived and pose their own models for conduct.

The first model is the isolationist. Its proponents propose entering through wide gates a narrow national and religious ghetto where it is possible to be closed off from an external enemy and nurse one’s own identity, and by all possible means to hedge it off from alien, pernicious influences of a changing world. This point of view exists both in some political circles and among certain parts of our church community. However the question arises: can isolation be effective and viable in the conditions of an open and mutually interpenetrated world which has embarked into the era of scientific, economic, informational, communication, and even political integration? It may be possible artificially to fence off from the external world an insignificant group of people somewhere in the desert or in the forest, although even the Old Believers in Siberia who have saved themselves from this world over the course of many decades have not managed to maintain their isolation or even their very life. But is it possible, so to speak, by one’s own hands to send into isolation and a defined cell a great church and great country? Would this not mean to choose to reject the mission to testify to the truth before the face of the whole world, which the Savior Christ himself entrusted to the church?

The other option given to us consists in taking the liberal civilization model in that form in which it has emerged at the present time in the West and mechanically transfer it onto Russian soil, implanting it if need be by force into the national life. In contrast with similar attempts in the past, now it is not necessary to use the force of the state and its institutions. It is quite sufficient to use the power of the mass media, the power of advertising, the possibilities of the system of education, etc. It seems that at the same time there is the prospect that the domestic cultural and historical tradition will smother itself and that only general human values have the right to exist and that the unification of the world is the indispensable condition of its integration. There is no doubt that Orthodox persons under such circumstances would wind up on a religious reservation. Only in the first scenario such an outcome is conceived as a voluntary choice while here the isolation becomes a punishment for refusing to swap one’s religious birthright for a bowl of pottage of postindustrual civilization. It is not difficult to predict that with such a development of events the adherents of other religious and cultural models will inevitably share the fate of the Orthodox people. Like in the first case, this position has its supporters both in society and in the political world and to a certain degree within the church yard, for this new standard of life, toward which now all of the diverse elements of the world are striving, is presented as a universal and generally accepted phenomenon operating “above borders,” and thus making obsolete, if not all, then many of the intermediate standards.

It is quite obvious that the two models outlined above are mutually exclusive. Another thing too is obvious: these two models have rather strong support both at the level of social consciousness and at the level of politics. The clash of these points of view and their numerous modifications to a great extent today condition the tension and confrontation within the life of society. This tension is even reflected in the life of the church.

Is it possible to resolve this problem in a peaceful manner, that is, without sinning against the truth, and to suggest a model of conduct and social construction which would be able to draw liberal and traditional ideas and values into mutual action? It is quite obvious that such a task is extremely complex and requires of both sides mutual understanding and coordinated actions. Here I see a broad field for mutual actions of the other traditional religions and all healthy forces of our society which live Russia and sincerely desire its good with the Russian Orthodox church, primarily with the theologians who are able to help contemporary individuals to understand the significance of tradition as a normative factor which determines the system of values, including cultural, religious, and moral orientation of the individual and society. Orthodox theology must expose the nerves of the problem under discussion, insisting that the existence of liberal institutions in economics, politics, social life and intergovernmental relations is acceptable, worthwhile, and morally justified only in such case as the principle of philosophical liberalism is not simultaneously extended to the personality and interpersonal relations. But if liberal ideology is used as a starting device for the dissemination and emancipation of destructive passions, if it ignites an explosion of carnal principles and places human egoism as the keystone, if liberal institutions serve as a legitimization of the right to sin, then society, deprived of a representation of the standard of life, inevitably will be doomed to spiritual degeneration, becoming the arena of an outbreak of dark passions. Besides this, under the force of liberated and victorious sin, society, adopting such a system of values, sooner or later will be doomed to destruction. If we do not want this, then we must view liberal values in politics, economic, and social life as permissible only under the condition of a decisive rejection of the affirmation of the principle of liberal axiology applied to the human personality.

The church openly calls sin by its name and devotes its efforts to the salvation of the individual. One of the most important instruments for achieving this higher goal must be the establishment in the consciousness of our people of the understanding of the Orthodox faith as the standard of life. I dare to suggest that for both those many people who are suffering, abased, and abandoned to the whim of fate in contemporary Russia and those who are relatively well-off the religious manner of life should be generally accepted as a natural and unconditional value. And if in our land the liberal idea is laid down now at the base of the governmental and social model for the development of the country, then in full accord with the liberal principle of checks and balances it must oppose a policy of the establishment of a system of values that are traditional for Russia in the sphere of training, education and the formation of interpersonal relations. And thus the question of what kind of legislation, education, culture, social relations and public morality is a question of whether our national civilization can be preserved in the coming century and will find its own place in the world community of nations and whether we will survive as an Orthodox people. I believe that this will be achieved by the prayers of all the saints who were resplendent in the Russian land. Russia’s experience in the twentieth century, which has been tragic and beyond the strength of any other country, as has often happened in our history, may serve to the benefit of the whole human race by showing it the dangers which it must avoid with all its might. The regeneration of Russia in the new century which we all await possibly will give another, positive, and saving lesson to the world by constructing the life of the individual and society in accordance with the principles in which dependence upon the moral law is harmoniously united with personal and civil liberties.

2. How is it possible practically to realize this common approach and this arrangement not in isolation but with the participation of the church and each Christian in the life of contemporary secularized society, with the indispensable condition of the maintenance of our Christian identity, our autonomy, our worldview that is determined by Orthodox tradition? Of course we theoretically understand that history cannot be turned back, that nostalgia for the golden (as it seems to us) age of Christianity is of no avail, and that the Lord has called us to live here and now. But when it comes down to business, to working out and achieving a correct and Orthodox church attitude toward the complex phenomena of the contemporary age we are sometimes seized by the sin of despair. This is understandable. Because life of today’s society, based on the principles of liberalism, is so constructed that religious convictions are continually “placed within parentheses.” The world tries to restrict religious motivation to the roadside of society’s life. To the extent that nobody especially persecutes us (for now) for our own religious views–go ahead and believe what you want; it’s not our business–we for the time being are ready to accept such rules and are ready to conduct ourselves rather comfortably along the roadside that has been allotted to us. In our land we have a large accumulated stock of spiritual values with which we can decorate the expectation of the apocalyptic catastrophe that is threatening humanity which is rushing past us on the road of “progress.”

But do we have the right to yield to the temptation to escape social, cultural, and political reality? We have been sent by Christ into this world for the sake of its salvation (Jn 17.18). The Lord commanded us not to escape from the world, not to hide from it, but to persuade the world with our faith (1 Jn 5.14), to go into all the world preaching the gospel (Mk 16.15), and to be the light of the world and salt of the earth (Mt 5. 13-16). Of course this is possible only in the case where we, remaining in the world, will be people who are “not of the world” (Jn 17.16), and will live not according to the godless “patterns of this world” (Eph 2.2), nor “according to the elements of the world” (Col 2.8), and will be “separated from the corruption that is reigning in the world through lust” (2 Pet 1.4). The local council of the Russian Orthodox church of 1917-1918, under the chairmanship of the blessed prelate Tikhon adopted the resolution “Concerning the relation of the church to the state.” Not everything in this document has equal value; much of it was conditioned by the circumstances of its time. However even then, at the border of a new era, the fathers of the council precisely defined their rejecting of the concept of faith as a “private matter,” which did not have public significance: “The church of Christ . . . is the new leaven, transforming the whole essence of human life, and there does not exist in it an element that is completely inaccessible to this leaven. . . . Thus those teachings which doom the Christian faith to ultimate powerlessness in life, . . . reducing its significance to personal preference as a matter of taste, in essence debase the faith of Christ and oppose its very essence. In no sense can our faith, which is the victory that overcomes the world, be separated from life or viewed as a private matter of the individual.”

The question, upon whose resolution depends to a great extent the future of the church, can be formulated thus: do we dare incarnate that vision of life which was begotten of faith in matters that are significant for society and in convincing answers to the problems of contemporary life. If not, then everything that we say about the necessary relationship between tradition and liberalism and about the vital force of our faith and our tradition remains only a declaration and only a bare construction, a lifeless skeleton, devoid of muscle. The most important theological task in connection with this is the development of the social doctrine of the Orthodox church which, being rooted in tradition and answering the questions that face contemporary society, would serve as direction for action for priests and laity and would give to outsiders a clear statement of the position of the church with regard to the most important problems of the contemporary world. It is understood that while the church in our country was not free, the formulation of such a doctrine to any complete extent was impossible. The process of its development in separate parts was begun already soon after the local council of 1988, when the church began to face such previously unthinkable questions as, for example, the attitude toward the possibility of the participation of bishops and priests in the work of state administrative bodies and in the activity of political and public organizations. A substantial contribution to the formulation of the social doctrine was made by several declarations of the most holy patriarch, decisions of the Holy Synod, and decisions of the bishops’ councils of the Russian Orthodox church of 1992, 1994, and 1997. However it became ever more clear that it is impossible to be confined to separate responses to topical problems; a sufficiently general doctrine is needed by which the church will be guided not for a year or two but over the course of a rather extended period of time, and not only in Russia but also in other countries that constitute its canonical territory. It is this task that was placed before the Synodal Working Group on Preparation of a Document, which was formed on the basis of the decision of the bishops’ council of 1994, which received the rather cumbersome name “Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox church on matters of church-state relations and problems of contemporary society as a whole.” By the summer of the present jubilee year the draft of the doctrine should be finally ready and presented to the bishops’ council.

Within the limits of a newspaper article it is impossible to give a representation of all the problems which are subject to review within the parameters of this work. But I would like to identify its basic themes and some of the most acute, controversial questions. Among the most important ones, undoubtedly, are the subject of the mutual relations of the church and state and the participation of the church and its members in political life. Back at the bishops’ council in 1992 it was declared that “the church does not associate itself either with any social or governmental structure or with any political force. It is above ‘right’ and ‘left.'” It is important, however, to disclose the theological basis, rooted in the tradition of the church, of such a position and to present a detailed comparative analysis of the origin, nature, function, and goals of the church and the state. Orthodox church tradition at certain times included even a quite special relationship to monarchy as a preferred form of state structure. Today some view such a relationship as virtually one of the dogmas of Orthodox faith, while others consider that it was completely conditioned by the transitory historic circumstances and in no way can it be transplanted into the soil of contemporary political reality. To what degree and in what form is it possible to relate the historic teaching about the symphonia of secular and sacred realms to the governmental structure of modern times? Perhaps this ancient political ideal still has at its base some principles of the Orthodox attitude toward authority and ministry and toward the limits of the jurisdiction of state power, principles which even today retain their currency. I want to emphasize that the issue does not in any case pertain to political possibilities of the “adjustment” of our heritage to the results of certain elections or the data of sociological surveys. We need something else: to discover how the standards of tradition apply to the concrete circumstances of contemporary life. The hierarchy of our church in recent years frequently has explained that the church plenitude does not participate in the political contest, does not call for voting for one or another party, and does not identify itself with party, that is partial, interests. This obviously follows from the very catholicity of the church. But if we restrict ourselves to the words, “the church is outside politics,” will this not in reality lead to the triumph of the ideas of liberalism? (Religion is a profoundly personal affair and religious organizations are outside of political life.)

Does the church really not have a position on political questions? Does it really have nothing to say to politicians? And is there nothing for Orthodox people to do in political life? Life persistently demands from us clear statements on what bases the participation of the Christian, as Christian, can be built in political processes and governmental administration. Political issues intersect with matters of right, for example, in such questions as the attitude of the church toward state laws and decisions which contradict its conception of the world and which restrict its mission (including the question of the limits of obedience to authority). It is important to disclose also the church’s attitude toward the principle of freedom of conscience (and generally toward the question of the rights of the individual). As you know, in this area we find in the church and even in theological circles diverse opinions and it is important for us to understand which of them are in line with church tradition and which reflect to a greater extent personal views and are influenced by external socio-cultural or secular philosophical ideas. The same also pertains to the complex question about the admissibility of capital punishment. Can we express in this case a general church position, proceeding in this not from the arguments of secular humanism but from the standards of holy tradition and the experience of the church?

Can the church make a constructive contribution to the general discussion of problems of economic, political, informational, and cultural globalization? I have already touched on this problem above. I am convinced of the extreme importance of a formulation of a general church position on this question. On this foundation could be built the mutual action of the church with international organizations (UNO, EU, and others).

Another complex topic is the church and the nation. Unfortunately, in this area an extremely one-sided position is being promoted as the position of the church. Some are trying to deny the very concept of Christian patriotism and the right of a Christian to national identity. Others actually reduce the Orthodox faith to the role of one of the attributes of traditional national self-consciousness. Thus it is necessary on the basis of the word of God and the tradition of the church to show how national and universal bases can coexist in harmony in the life of the Christian. Among other controversial matters are the following: is it possible to speak of an “Orthodox nation” and of a nation as a unique preserver of the faith? does the church recognize the teaching of the “collective sin of a nation” and “common repentance” for it? Economic problems also cannot remain without proper church assessment. What relationship does the church have to various kinds and forms of property, including ownership of land? Should the fruits of labor be distributed only according to the desserts of the laborer or should they in some manner belong to all members of society?

The church cannot remain indifferent to the problems of the ecological crisis which has become an ever greater fearsome threat to the very existence of human civilization. For us what is important is not simply to repeat the anxious views of secular experts and activists of the ecological movement but to introduce to the consideration of this urgent topic our own, more profound approach, which is rooted in a biblical understanding of the world and the role of human beings in it.

What is the answer of Orthodox to the challenge of contemporary feminism? Is it limited to a total denial of this movement of public thought, or can the church, appealing to its historical experience, give a positive evaluation to certain aspects of the idea of the political, social, and cultural equality of women? How does the church relate to the discussion of the “status of sexual minorities” and about the future of the family, which are projecting an evolution in the direction of the “diversity of forms of life together”? What can be a religious and moral assessment of “family planning”? Problems of bioethics are especially complex. After all, new biomedical technology now faces us with kinds of ethical and legal questions that at the time of the ecumenical councils could not even be imagined. What is the status of a human embryo; when does it become a person? When can it be recognized that a person has died? Can a person’s organs be used for transplantation? Is the diagnosis of illness before birth or the “genetic passport” of every infant good or bad? Why should people not be cloned? How evaluate from an Orthodox point of view reproductive technology and the possibility of overcoming infertility? Is it best to say that since we did not know anything about this yesterday it is all diabolical? And to remain in our own isolated circles, partitioned off from the world of vanity? It is much harder, but much more productive, to try to work out a theological, considered assessment, and if we say that it is “forbidden,” to explain why, and if we agree, to show what our agreement is based upon. Of course, in this work we need the cooperation of medical scientists, geneticists, and philosophers. We must take into account the experience of our Orthodox brethren of the West, who have dealt with such problems before us. It may be useful to study the position of other confessions. But what we must strive for is not an arithmetic mean among the extreme positions nor a summary of arguments appropriated from various sides, “here a little, there a little” (Is 28.10), but something that is an Orthodox, religiously based approach, whose development is a creative task of contemporary Orthodox theology.

The same can be said about the work on the social doctrine of the church as a whole. In concluding my argument I would like to express the goal of this work in the words of the noted Petersburg priest Fr Mikhail Cheltsov, whom the bolsheviks twice sentenced to death and who in the end was shot. Ten years before the October revolution he wrote about how he saw the task of the church in a changing society, where its influence could no longer be supported by measures of governmental action. The main thing, he stated, is for Christianity “to appear in life in all its essential force, to disclose the unity of faith and life, and to give a Christian politics, society, economic, culture, and science–in a word, to Christianize life in all of its aspects.”

And finally, I would like to say, in thinking about the tasks of theology in the area of the relations of the church and the world: the standard of faith inscribed in the apostolic tradition and preserved in the church will appear to us in its fullness, which means in the standard of human life, at the time when people themselves perform willfully what they have been taught. To the resolution of this task not only theology has been called but the entire plenitude of the church, informed by the power of the Holy Spirit. (tr. by PDS)
COMMENT

^* (The present crisis of ecumenism is primarily a methodological crisis. Because instead of beginning interconfessional dialogue by attempting to agree on what is most important, the understanding of holy tradition as the standard of faith and the criterion of theological truth, Christians began discussing isolated questions, however important they may have been. Actually clear success in the discussion of these questions has practically no great significance because only doctrinal agreement can have such significance when one of the sides, the protestants, does not recognize the very concept of the standard of faith. Any agreement in this regard can be replaced or reviewed upon the appearance of new ideas and new arguments which can introduce new divisive factors. Isn’t this really the case nowadays with regard to the problems of the female priesthood and recognition of homosexuality? Incidentally, the story of female priesthood and homosexuality is the best proof of the thesis of the liberal nature of protestantism. It is quite obvious that the introduction of the female priesthood and acknowledgment of homosexuality occurred under the influence of the liberal idea of the rights of the individual. In this case, these rights radically departed from holy tradition and protestantism resolved the problem in favor of individual rights, ignoring the clear standard of tradition.)

return to text