from the orthodox perspective

5 Christian morality and political morality from the orthodox perspective

Thoma Çomëni

As. Lecturer of Christian Ethics, Department of Theology & Culture, University College Logos, Tirana

Corespondence:

e-mail: thomacomeni@hotmail.com

Abstract

The paper deals with an analysis of the relationship between ecclesiastical and political morality from the orthodox Christian perspective. The analysis begins based on the notion, perception and thought that the Church and Politics have about man. This point is important because from the concept of man defines both the political systems and their morality, and the attitude to the salvation of man and the morality that accompanies it. The second element has to do with freedom. Freedom is important for Christian morality, but at the same time it is trumpeted loudly by politics. If for Christian, the morality of true freedom is formed by the transition from heteronomy to autonomy with the faith, hope, and grace of God, for politics freedom is based on human ability and becomes reality through the political system.

Keywords:

Morality, politics, church, person, freedom. Citation:

Çomëni T. Christian morality and political morality from the orthodox perspective. Theology & Culture. 2021; 2: 81-94. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10579.71204

Church and politics are two essential elements of social reality. This importance is related to the role, mission and objectives they have within society. It is difficult to define these two terms, as each definition creates gaps, which means that each definition limits the content, dimension and reality of each term or phenomenon. If we refer to the term Church it becomes even more difficult to define, because its existence and function is found within the two worlds, the visible and the invisible, between the divine and the cosmic.

For the memorable Prof. Matsouka, Church is a divine institution on earth, having its origin by Jesus Christ and the apostles, who transmit power to the bishops (Matsoukas, 2001, p. 351). The church in this society is a divine institution, but an institution that returns and embraces man with the exclusive purpose of his salvation, connecting him mysteriously with the grace of the Holy Spirit (Yioultsis, 1999, p. 329). According to Aristotle, politics is the whole effort of society and community in the pursuit of a good life (Aristotle, 1252a 2-7) thus we see that the purpose of political organization is the common utility (Υioultsis, 1999, p.174).

These two definitions show us the content, the mission and the purpose of these two institutions for society and the event. Both of these institutions have at their center of action man (along with man and all creation). As they have other commonalities with each other, the exercise of their mission is in the world, but these commonalities have particular characteristics. The Church is from God, has been founded by the will and initiative of God and is an institution in history, but at the same time out of history. While politics, which is represented by state power, is an institution that has its existence at the initiative of the human race. The State was created with violence in the world of sin and exists only with the tolerance of God (Berdyaev, 2002, p. 96). These differences that exist between these institutions also determine their mode of operation within society, as they determine their attitude towards man and consequently their moral content. To understand their moral content or their morality we must analyze the anthropological thinking of these institutions.

From the definitions we understand that the Church and politics have differences in the view and the role of man in society. On the occasion of what we have said above, we must say that the morality of the church and politics is closely related to the thought they have about man. For the Church man is a creation “in the image and the likeness” of God” (Gen. 1:26). God is not only the Creator of creation, but also the Father of all human beings. People do not have the same origin, but the same destination (Anastasios, 2000, p. 79-82). While for politics and power in different times and situations the perspective for man changes, or rather man is often identified with the needs of the world. Its attitude towards man is often based on secular contexts and is called prosperity, which has taken on different dimensions in relation to the goal of ideology. Politics move in an unstable and dangerous space between idea and reality, vision and realism, and lives by the illegal relationship between the feasible act and the unattainable ideal of utopia (Bugas, 1990, p. 2007).

In Hegel the energies of man and society are connected in a dialectic between nothing and some (Stumpf, p.321), in Marx this idea is transformed into dialectical materialism. This dialectical materialism is a conflict between oppressors and the oppressed. That is, a conflict within the human race, a conflict that takes the social, legal and political form. While for the hegemony the state or the tribe is as sovereign, Marxism accepts the ruling class, which will be replaced during the legislative process by an orderly society. Within this spirit of Hegelianism and Marxism see the progress of the world in dialectic, a conflict of the people of society, a class conflict. It is these abstract ideas that in the form of myth can subvert history, but also radically subvert society (Berdyaev, 2002, p. 160). The Church does not base its mission on myth, but on the truth that is discovered in history.

To understand the catastrophic consequences of the myth, we will refer to the myth of the Aryan race, which became a destructive instrument for the world. It is a myth that politics created and became an ideology, from which it gave birth to fanaticism, as is the case with ideologies based on faith (Millon-Delsol, 2000, p.94). This theory of ethno-socialism in Germany is inspired by Darwin’s theory of the origin of man. This is an element that shows us the importance of a view of the human race. Here we have the view of the person. While for the Church the person is a unity of psycho-spiritual elements, which are above any natural or biological necessity (Υioultsis, 1999, p.15).

One of the words we hear in everyday life has to do with freedom. Many thoughts, attitudes and discussions are associated with this word. In fact, debates are present in our daily lives, where the freedom of thought, of life, of the economy, of the profession, of the woman of property has a bearing on the constitutions of most peoples. These people’s conversations about freedom also express the quality of freedom that is found in the world. This means that the problem of freedom is an internal problem that is felt externally and for man qualitative freedom is the freedom of conscience. This has two dimensions; the denial by man of the caesarean authority, which has to do with the external authority, and the denial of the inner authority of the passions, which with the conscious or unconscious actions of man becomes sinful energies. This is where the difference between Christian and political morality begins. While for the church freedom is related to the freedom of conscience and is a freedom of the person, while the freedom claimed by man, within the secular context, is the freedom of individual or individual rights (Mantzaridis, 2002, p. 165). For the Orthodox faith, morality is not an objective measure for the evaluation of character and behavior, but is a dynamic response to personal freedom, to the existing truth and authenticity of man (Yannaras 2002, p. 26). In political ideologies we have a difference in relation to freedom. It is the freedom that exists in democratic countries and the freedom that exists in countries where dictatorship fruits. In democracies, an effort is made for the liberation of man, in general in all strata of society and more in strata that have been pressured. But again man is trapped in the effects of economic, political and social interests. It is the pressure of unemployment, the insecurity of the members, the market, the advertising, the political invitations, and the pressure of ideology. In this situation man lives at the same time a paradoxical feeling with freedom, so-called politics, social freedom and the oppression of social reality. In this sense we understand that the state while challenging some oppression at the same time creates some other oppression, which at first glance are non-existent, but in the depths of society and people living in it are real.

All these political efforts for the liberation of the people, although they have some positive element, if we make a comparison with the situations of the past centuries, cannot liberate the people. This is because absolute freedom cannot exist as a human achievement. But it exists as a share in divine freedom (Man-

tzaridis, 2002, p.167). The difference between Christianity and liberalism is profound. For liberalism, freedom is formal and indifferent to the truth and the true content of existence. But Christianity wants freedom as the content of Christian truth and of course the content of human life (Berdyaev, 2002, p. 65).

On the other hand, we have the attitude of dictatorial regimes, the attitude they have towards freedom. Nazism, fascism and communism are some of these dictatorial regimes. All three have their peculiarities, but at the same time they have in common, the relationship with freedom.

For Marxism, the idea of human freedom has to do with the enthusiasm that comes from the messianic idea. Marx, the inspirer of communist ideology, defined all human life on the basis of economics. This economy was a bad thing for the past, but in the future man will secure control of the economy, subdue it and become free (Berdyaev, 2002, p. 162) Thus freedom and human actions in the ideology of communism are linked to the economy. Here we see a big difference between communism and the Christian faith. Marx gave rise to this process of liberation from a moral problem, the exploitation of man by man. But the way to fight this moral evil cannot be done with secular elements and weapons, otherwise called class struggle. The opposite happens with the Christian faith and morality. First for Christianity, evil is non-existent in itself; it acquires existence in self-governing beings who abandon good. The second has to do with the fight against evil. The fight against evil in the Christian faith cannot be done by immediate confrontation but by devotion to the love of Christ (Mantzaridis 2003, p. 65).

The concept of freedom, the way it is considered and acquired, shows the great difference between Christian and political morality. This is because for Christianity freedom is found within man. An element of the “image” is human freedom. This will mean that the demand for human freedom is also directed to another degree, the pursuit of inner freedom, which is a preliminary condition for the general evolution of the human personality (Anastasios, 2000, 79-82). This freedom is a heteronymous freedom. That is, the absolute freedom of man does not come from within him, but has its origin in God in cooperation with man. This relationship gives us the opportunity to make a reference to freedom in relation to authority. While for Christianity authority is God for politics and the world in general, authority is a secular factor. For Christianity it has nothing to do with freedom of thought, politics, property, expression, but absolute freedom is real when man puts aside external coer-

cion and external authority (Mantzaridis 2002, p.165).

3. The concept of the person of Christianity and politics

Freedom is a term related to the condition of the person. The latter term is a term related to the term individual. For Christianity the person is the being of human essence or nature, it sums up in its existence the universal human nature and at the same time it transcends it, because the way of its existence is freedom and otherness (Yannaras, 2002, p.31). For Christianity, person is a central theme of the spiritual life. The person is related to the value of the person, with all his activity, meetings, events, communication and action. These actions for the Christian faith have the external, and more the internal dimension of man. This will say that these human actions cannot be limited to the biological, ideological dimension, that the person is identified with existence, biology with consciousness. This attitude of Christianity towards the person is very different from the attitude of politics. This difference is based on the relationship between politics and propaganda. The propaganda has its essential support in submission. That is, through symbols, images and ideas, it directs an invitation to the person to accept with pleasure what they offer him and to follow the path that they suggest to him. Propaganda is a dynamic tool for politics. It is a tool that with its effect on people creates what is called political slavery. Through propaganda man is in a state of bombardment of promises to complete his prospects. Through this process the political myth in man comes to the surface or is created. Propaganda intensifies the stimuli. In this way man degrades critical analysis, is indifferent to the rationality of things and gives hope for the realization of his purpose. These three elements allow man to merge with the crowd and experience the collective will. It eliminates personal data from itself and allows the collaborations of the unconscious (Botzonis, 1985, p. 61). Thus propaganda considers people as individuals and the political group as a sum of individuals and not a group of persons. Herein lies the difference between Christian and political morality.

The political morality influenced by the theory of modernity, which had begun in recent years, by the Industrial Revolution and followed by the Enlightenment, introduces a perception of the person, the person is the person, who can self-destruct (Thermos, 2008, p.57). From the political thought of Plato and Aristotle to the present day we have a big difference. We have a romantic thought, which does not include practice within it in the present age that emphasizes knowledge or logic or the senses, but all these theories project

the individual and not the person.

If we look carefully at the Marxist ideology for man, we will see that we are talking about the reconstruction of the “new man”. It is a theory that outwardly resembles the Christian theological thought of the “rebirth of man”, but they have nothing in common. They have nothing in common because in order for there to be a spiritual rebirth of theology and the reconstruction of the new man for communism, there must be a fall of man at the same time. While for theology the cause of the fall is original sin, for communism it is “assignment”, which is a consequence of the application of an unjust economic system. It is an unjust economic system based on individual persecution (Manastireanu, 2009, p.17). In this way communism sees the human problem only from a social point of view, simple as a social problem and not a spiritual one. So, the solution that communism gives, is revolution. That is, one social class to oppose another social class, which is very different from the Christian faith. For the Christian faith, the rebirth of man takes place in the true society that exists only in Christ. It is the Church, as a god-human society, which includes communion with God and between them (Mantzaridi, 1996, p. 92). This is the society of persons, a society in which individuals experience the value and dimension of themselves and their fellow human beings. Thus man and his morality are related to the anthropological dimension they give to him. In the present age man has lost the true dimension of the face and has become a person in an existential, biological dimension.

4. The Moral of man as a member of the State and the Church

In the discussion of the political and Christian morality it would be impossible not to analyze it in the relationship of the State with the Church, as two institutions that express these terms. Ethics is a term that expresses a recurring morality, which is a habit. Initially it expresses the space, where the existence of man is revealed and developed. It then indicates man’s relationship to his God, his inner character, or the permanent way he treats his fellow human beings (Nikolaidis, 1994, p.7). That is, since morality is related to all human animal activity and expresses all internal and external human beings, an analysis needs to be made of the relationship between state power and the Church. This analysis must be made because man is at the same time a member of the Church and the State.

Church and State. This reference is with Christ, who, answering a question from the Pharisees about their tax, says that they attribute to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God (Matt. 22:21). This answer of Christ focuses on the relationship between political power and the Church. This report is not intended to theoretically discuss this relationship, but to express the impact it has on the religious and social morality of man. This phenomenon of the Christian as a member of the Church and the State often comes to the surface. This is because first the Christian does not achieve his salvation by “escaping” from matter or by liberation from the body (Karavidopoulos, 1990, p.149), and second, the political system is undergoing many changes. This means that man cannot avoid his privacy as a member of the State as well as without discussion his privacy as a member of the Church if he desires his salvation. To understand how this relationship affects the morality of the Christian we will refer to the case of communist regimes.

The Christian in the first years of communism is in relation to the Christian faith, but at the same time to the influence of communist ideology. He is in the dual influence that contains references to man, equality, law, which are common themes for the Christian faith and communism, like any other political ideology. Ideological propaganda with the help of many times and the social reality becomes more accepted in the world through its promises. It is the form of practical atheism that has a change of theology from truth to an objective knowledge, which finds logical forms to be understood in human receptivity. Thus existential ethics is reproduced in types of social ethics. It is an ethic that focuses on external elements, an ethic of cultural magnitude and evolving into tendencies of individualism. In the former communist countries, the communist ideology that took the form of practical atheism had a dangerous effect on the faith and morals of the faithful. We have “true” believers who for various reasons act as atheists or indifferent to the faith, at the same time they are people who have lost their faith, but behave as “true” believers (Youltsis, 2004, p. 193). This is a reality of atheistic and dictatorial regimes that man operates in two different ways, internally and externally. It is the mode of operation that man “plays” with his existence, because in the same person there is a big difference in how he forms and how he acts. It is the way an intellectual in Albania describes it as a “schizophrenic doubling” (Misha, 2008, p.113). This characterization has a lot to do with people who have lost their faith but behave like “true believers”. This is an indication of how political power works in the lives and morals of the people.

In the theory of class struggle, which was common in communist countries, and in fact many times a dogma, it was given more importance to the origin of man and not to what he believed in. It is a way for a person to lose the quality of a person. It is a way of applying the theory of mass and not of persons. Communism is a religion, that is why it has fought and is fighting against religion, which as the mediator, liberator and savior of humanity is the proletariat (Berdyaev, p.23) Here is the difference between the Church and communist power, which also shows the difference between Christian morality.

Political movements and organizations gather around them a large number of people without identity. It is a common phenomenon in communist and dictatorial countries. It is a phenomenon based on the idea that the Creator and Sovereign of the world is not God, the Holy Trinity, but a secular element, the proletariat, the leader, the kingdom and everything else. It is a thought that is followed by another thought, of a personal communication of man not with God, but with the worldly elements, which is nothing but idolatry. It is idolatry because possession is considered not a means but an end. Communist morality pursues an “eschatological” expectation, which is identified with socialism, that is, an earthly paradise (Millon-Delsol, 2000, p.220).

Otherwise it happens with the Christian faith that the Christian with the faith in the Absolute is endowed with an inner certainty and is more easily detached from the grabs of necessity (Karagiannis, 1994, p.308). In the Christian faith the measure is not the man and everything else acquired, but the God man. The existence of the Trinity God, the otherness, the repetition and the possibility for man’s personal communion with God are some elements that show the fundamental difference between the Church and atheistic, communist and dictatorial regimes. It is the way of human existence, the personal otherness, which depicts God in man and makes man a shareholder of His Being (Yannaras, 2002, p.31). This dimension of the Christian faith abolishes any morality that glorifies the massification of people through political and secular ideas. The life and morality of the Church is concentrated around the Eucharistic worship of the Holy Trinity. In this worship the Church is interested in the world, but the central point of its life and morality is outside of them. It does not give priority to the management of political forces or masses, but to an existential attitude that aims to help each person free from passions and learn to open up to others with love (Karras, 2001, p. 230).

It is in these thoughts that we understand the importance of religious freedom and Christian worship for the Christian faith and Christian moral. And

how difficult and unacceptable it is when a political regime not only imposes its morality through propaganda, but does not allow you to be shaped by the morality of the faith, the Christian moral. While the moral that is formed by the Christian worship, by the divine communion, is a morality that has in it the thanksgiving, that the man transcends the individual limits, becomes a member of the “Body of Christ”, carries within him the whole of humanity. He reconciles and harmonizes with the world, with all creation. It is a morality that shocks man and returns to everyday life the hope for the realization of love, for a universal society (Anastasios, 2000, p.47-48).

The relationship of the Church with state power and the consequences on human morality is an issue that is not limited only to atheistic and dictatorial regimes, but also to societies where there is a freedom of religion. Here, as in any society, man has both qualities, a member of the Church and the state. In this situation, where man has the identity of the believer and the citizen, he often finds himself in a dilemma, whether he should have the morality of wisdom or the morality of responsibility. This dilemma has to do with the reason on the one hand how much one can have the morality of responsibility when there is no personal opinion and on the other hand how much one can have the morality of the mind when alienated from political responsibility (Mantzaridis, 1994, p. 125). A politicization of their man takes them away from the truth and makes the man a machine. It is the process by which the machine dehumanizes life and man no longer wants to be an image and likeness of God, but an image and likeness of the machine. While at the same time we must emphasize that the elements of world and human life go beyond the framework of politics.

Man is thus in the call of faith, as well as in the pressure of politics. This process or situation in which the believer lives also creates confusion within him. It is a confusion which spiritually affects the faithful and the world in general. The political leadership in the world with the recognition of the rights of the people have made a great effort for the recognition of the rights of women, children, etc. These political actions are inspired by the Christian spirit. But there are policy initiatives that profoundly affect the lives of believers. One case is the resumption of same-sex marriage through the laws of each country. It is this initiative that upsets and affects the morality of the faithful. With this initiative, politics inspired by the spirit of liberalism tries to include as much as possible in this institution called marriage and family. But at the same time with this movement the institution loses its nature and consequently loses its

sanctity. This attitude goes against the Christian morality based on the Bible, which God created man “male and female” (Gen. 5:2). As in the same spirit are other verses of Genesis (Gen. 2: 23 and 24). But over time, this initiative turns into pressure for religious faith, that is, to be legislated by religious faith. The concept of human rights plays a big role in this initiative of the political leadership. But this initiative also has a support from the vine that exists among the faithful for marriage. The alienation of the sacrament of marriage from the Divine Liturgy, the recognition of civil marriage are two important reasons that “helped” in shaping this vine for marriage. It is secularization, the conventional expediencies of utilitarianism, that stripped the ecclesiastical marriage of its sacramental content. The sacrament has a ritual eulogy of the physical and social union of two heterosexual persons (Yannaras, 2002, p.237).

The other legislative initiatives of the political leadership are of the same nature. The ecological problem, the bioethical problem, the war in the name of freedom and human rights, the economic reforms to the detriment of the middle and lower classes, the education programs, the attitude towards unemployment, the property are some of the issues that of its initiatives and actions the political leadership influences the morality and Christian life of the people. She often creates through her propaganda a popularized form of hypnosis, as she creates the misconception that through her actions she expresses the most interesting feelings of individuals and social groups. Political power is based on passions and collective subconscious feelings (Berdyaev, 2002, p. 102-103). It is necessary to overcome this situation, which really creates the dilemma for the moral of the mind or the moral of responsibility. It is the charismatic moral of the cross mole (Mantzaridis, 1994, fq. 125) what gives us a solution to the dilemma. It is the morality that breaks down any conventional moral that appears before man. It is a morality that humility, love, hope, faith take their true dimensions from the communion of man with God. It is the morality created by cooperation with the grace of God and which leads to deification.

Conclusion

The church and political power not only have their presence in the world, but they also have their missions. The church deals with man and his salvation, while political power takes and aims at the management of society. Thus the Church is interested in the person, while politics sees him as an individual. The Church focuses on Divine Thanksgiving and its morality is Eucharistic

and saving, while politics focuses on ideologies, which change whenever the representative political group changes and its morality is based on the power of power and not on the power of divine grace. Even politics, having its power in its hands, has repeatedly tried to impose itself on the moral Church, which often contradicts the principles of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. It is these cases that have often influenced the confusion in the identity of people who are both members of the Church and citizens of the state. The morality of both representations, the Church and Politics, depends on the principles on which they are based. Where that ecclesiastical is based on the revelation of God and has divine origins, while the political one is based either on human thought and sometimes on the divine, but is either secularized or has an extreme form being identified as politico-religious morality. Religious morality does not exclude political power, but it cannot be equated with ecclesiastical morality.

The Church is not afraid of politics and its morals, but tries to offer an alternative within the world through the presence and message of salvation, especially in today when ignorance of church morality has indifference to know it and sometimes a negative feedback. The Christian morality offered by the Church is not based on utopian sources, nor is it utopian, while political morality is not utopian. Christian morality initially offers acceptance to find and experience its morality and this search to find it is accomplished with effort. The opposite happens with political morality. It relies on propaganda, where from the beginning it creates the idea of paradise, but that constantly people find despair, torment, disappointment and negativity. Christian morality is not interested in the massification of people and their consideration as a number, but as persons who belong to the divine society. It has the same attitude towards people outside the Church, as it considers them to be images of God. This is because the characterization of the Church in the world is service, while for politics it is power. In this view we understand that service has humility, while politics has power. Despite this attitude of politics or society, Christian morality is formed and expresses internal freedom, because no external power can bind and neutralize it (Archbishop Anastasios, 2000).

Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania).(2000), Pagkosmiotita kai Orthodhoxia, N. Smirni, Akritas. Berdyaev Nikolai (1980), To Pepromeno tou Anthropou sto Sychrono Kosmo (translate Ευτηχίας Β. Γιούλτση), Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Berdyaev Nikolai (2002), Basileio tou Pneumatos kai Basileio tou Kaisara (translate B. Youltsis), Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Berdyaev Nikolai, O Christianismos kai to Provlima tou Kommounismou, I. Sideris.

Bozoni, A. G. (1985). Dokimio Koinoniologias, Athens. Buga Tasos (1990), Politik, Mithos, Logos, Ideologia – I Politiki dhe Politikos, Athens, K. Boulouris. Giddens Anthony (1997), Sociologjia (translate T. Starova και K.Myftiu), Tiranë, Çabej. Karavidopoulos D. Ioannis (1990), Meletes Erminias kai Theologias tis Kainis Diathikis, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Karagiannis Stef. Georgios (1994), Dokimia Filosofias, Larisa. Karras Kostas (2001), Agia Triada, Ekklisia kai Politiki – Zontani Orthodoxia ston Synchrono Kosmo, Athens. Estia. Manastireanu Danut (2009), Nga Skllavëria në Shkretëtira, Tiranë, Word Vision Albania.

Mantzaridis I. Georgios (2002), Christianiki Ithiki I’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis I. Georgios (2003, Christianiki Ithiki II’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis Georgios (1994). I Empeiriki Theologia stin Oikologia kai Politiki, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis I. Georgos (1996), Orthodoxi Theologia kai Koinoniki Zoi, Thessaloniki, P. Pornara. Matsoukas A. N. (2001), Dogmatiki kai Simboliki Theologia B’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara.

Millon-Delsol Chantal ( 2002), Idetë Politike në shekullin e XX-të (translate Esmeralda Selita), Tiranë, Onufri.

Misha Piro (2008), Arratisja nga Burgjet e Historisë, Tiranë, Toena. Nikolaidis B. Ap. (1994). Themata Christianikis Zois A’, Athens. Stumpf Enoch Samuel, Filozofia – Historia dhe Problemet, Tirana, Toena. Thermou Basileio (father) (2008), Na vro tin psychi mou, Athens, Armos. Yiannaras Hristos (2002), I Eleftheria tou Ithous, Athens, Ikaros. Youltsis T. Basilios (1999), Pneumatikotita kai Koinoniki Zoi, Thessaloniki, P. Pornara.

Youltsis T. Basileios (2004), Koinoniologia tis Thriskeias, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara.

Yioultsis. B. (2005), I Alli Theasi tou Koinonikou, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara.