I enjoyed your essay. I think most people, regardless of who they vote for, would say they’re choosing the lesser of two evils, so the question becomes how to define evil. I would argue that we should not try to define it by the personal qualities of the individual candidate, but by the administration’s promotion or rejection of the punishment of evil doers and protection of those who do good. I think you quoted St Tikhon as saying that a government that essentially stops the spread of evil is from God, and I think this is correct. I also like how you referenced Ivan Ilyin, one of my favorite essayist of the 20th century. He writes about the virtue of loving one’s homeland, but some of his words can be hard to stomach for those of us with weaker stomachs in the 21st century (which is most people).
Can I ask where the quote from Elder Ephraim to a group of pilgrims came from?
I would agree in terms of judging the regime, and that's what I was trying to draw out from St. Tikhon's writings. If we define good government as one who provides justice for its citizens and does what it can to restrain injustice and wickedness, then we have our answer. I don't think we can completely write off the personal character of a ruler, but it is a lesser consideration.
Ivan Ilyin is really helpful, being that he was a political philosopher in a firmly established Orthodox political tradition. I will be quoting him quite a bit in a future essay on Christian attitudes towards war and the role of citizens in the restraining of evil.
My plan right now is to do an article on just war and the christians duty in a time of war; another on when civil disobedience is justified and the theological justifications for such actions; another on the Orthodox Republican tradition and the question of separation of Church and State; and lastly, one on the history of lay political action and a roadmap for Orthodox political action in America today.
The qoute from Elder Ephraim was provided by Fr. John Whiteford. He has an article quoting it, he got the quote from the pilgrims whom Elder Ephraim had spoken to.
Very helpful. I guess the question is, how does the ideal match with reality? Because it seems that in one hand we have a duty to be obedient, but also to criticize when doing so is justified. When does criticism of the state become a duty?
I also wonder how the Orthodox conception of Symphonia works when the state is heterodox, like the Muslims, or even Catholic (such as in your article on the history of Ukraine). How does all of this play out in reality is what I'm really getting at.
I'm not sure where you base your conviction that an orthodox christian has an obligation towards his country? Or that monarchy befits a Christian? Christ is beyond nations, and He reversed the cosmic hierarchichal order, putting the last first, and despite the zealots expecting a Messiah to free their nation, the Lord made it clear He wants to save everyone, there is no elect ethnicity.. Patriotism can be understood, love of one's country is human, but nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, are passions, sins. Orthodoxy does not abide with political action. Orthodox dogma is about hesychia, refraining from political power and authority, practicing asceticism. Protestants and Catholics, who do not follow the hesychastic tradition per se, focus on action, blending political authority with fake theology. Am sceptical about your understanding of orthodoxy....
Based on your comment I'm *skeptical* about whether you even read the article before commenting. Actually, skeptical would be too charitable - clearly you didn't read it. Instead of taking the time to read it and come up with a well thought out response (which I would welcome) You're just childishly making things up to be mad about out of a misplaced self-righteousness.
If you want to know where I get the idea that we have an obligation to our people, you can start with Scripture. Start with the Pentateuch and go straight through Nehemiah. Maybe brush up on Maccabees, Ruth if you missed it. If that doesn't convince you, try the New Testament. Contrary to your misunderstanding, Christ is explicit that the nations will be converted, and that the apostles are to convert the nations.... Notice He doesn't say "abolish the nations." Instead He says to render to Caesar what is Caesars (hence why we have saints who were soldiers in the Roman Army - hate to tell ya, but they didn't have a draft... they volunteered). Paul speaks of wishing he could give up his own salvation to save his nation; to pray for our rulers and to be obedient to them, because *all earthly authorities are ordained by God.* Guess what? That means that Christ ordains earthly rulers, according to Scripture - you'd know that had you read the article. But I digress...
When you're done with Scripture, you can check out *the entire history of the Church* for more details on the relationship between church and state, the duties of a Christian towards their earthly ruler and government, etc... the lives of the saints are full of examples of service to one's people, even monks taking up arms to defend their nation or suffering for it in another way. Sts. Alexander Peresvyet, Andre Oslyabya, Ilya the Righteous, Ekvtime (Kereselidze) the Confessor, David the Builder, the Royal Martyr King Ashot Kyropalates, Gabriel (Kikodze) of Imerti, Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Amvrosi the Confessor (Patriarch-Catholicos of Georgia), tsar Nicholas and the other Royal Passion-Bearers, Royal Martyrs Archik and Luarsab of Georgia, Edward the Confessor, Prince-Martyr Albert, Hieromartyr Kirion II (Carholicos of Georgia), Holy Queen Dinar, among many, many others.
So no, it's not me who fails to grasp Orthodoxy, it is you. Maybe, if you quit taking as gospel every word of the many charlatans you're reposting, and instead immerse yourself in the lives of the saints, the history and life of the Church, you will begin to acquire the mind of the church.
Ok wow, thank you for showing who you truly are for all to see and appreciate, so arrogant and rude! I did not call you names, my dear! And of course I read the article before commenting, as my arguments show, to which you do not essentially answer, you just reference a bunch of uncanonical Russian folklore, parroting the heresy of the Putin regime - but I understand your rage at being uncovered. See how the mask you wear fell, with the slightest provocation. Read "Letter to nun Xeni" from St Gregory Palamas, to understand the mask, the prosopoion, you have constructed and are worshipping, instead of our meek and humble of heart, Lord Jesus Christ. You have constructed a conqueror militaristic Jesus to fit your passions. Sorry, your dreams of "empire" and "just war" are heretic, unchatechised, schismatic, uncanonical. May you find the Truth and be at peace. God bless!
I enjoyed your essay. I think most people, regardless of who they vote for, would say they’re choosing the lesser of two evils, so the question becomes how to define evil. I would argue that we should not try to define it by the personal qualities of the individual candidate, but by the administration’s promotion or rejection of the punishment of evil doers and protection of those who do good. I think you quoted St Tikhon as saying that a government that essentially stops the spread of evil is from God, and I think this is correct. I also like how you referenced Ivan Ilyin, one of my favorite essayist of the 20th century. He writes about the virtue of loving one’s homeland, but some of his words can be hard to stomach for those of us with weaker stomachs in the 21st century (which is most people).
Can I ask where the quote from Elder Ephraim to a group of pilgrims came from?
I would agree in terms of judging the regime, and that's what I was trying to draw out from St. Tikhon's writings. If we define good government as one who provides justice for its citizens and does what it can to restrain injustice and wickedness, then we have our answer. I don't think we can completely write off the personal character of a ruler, but it is a lesser consideration.
Ivan Ilyin is really helpful, being that he was a political philosopher in a firmly established Orthodox political tradition. I will be quoting him quite a bit in a future essay on Christian attitudes towards war and the role of citizens in the restraining of evil.
My plan right now is to do an article on just war and the christians duty in a time of war; another on when civil disobedience is justified and the theological justifications for such actions; another on the Orthodox Republican tradition and the question of separation of Church and State; and lastly, one on the history of lay political action and a roadmap for Orthodox political action in America today.
The qoute from Elder Ephraim was provided by Fr. John Whiteford. He has an article quoting it, he got the quote from the pilgrims whom Elder Ephraim had spoken to.
Very helpful. I guess the question is, how does the ideal match with reality? Because it seems that in one hand we have a duty to be obedient, but also to criticize when doing so is justified. When does criticism of the state become a duty?
I also wonder how the Orthodox conception of Symphonia works when the state is heterodox, like the Muslims, or even Catholic (such as in your article on the history of Ukraine). How does all of this play out in reality is what I'm really getting at.
I'll be covering all those topics in the next article, with plenty of examples from the Lives of the Saints.
Thank you for this post, Grace🔥 and Peace⛲ to you Amigo. Footnote refs are ALWAYS appreciated ✍🏼☦️⛪
I'm not sure where you base your conviction that an orthodox christian has an obligation towards his country? Or that monarchy befits a Christian? Christ is beyond nations, and He reversed the cosmic hierarchichal order, putting the last first, and despite the zealots expecting a Messiah to free their nation, the Lord made it clear He wants to save everyone, there is no elect ethnicity.. Patriotism can be understood, love of one's country is human, but nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, are passions, sins. Orthodoxy does not abide with political action. Orthodox dogma is about hesychia, refraining from political power and authority, practicing asceticism. Protestants and Catholics, who do not follow the hesychastic tradition per se, focus on action, blending political authority with fake theology. Am sceptical about your understanding of orthodoxy....
Based on your comment I'm *skeptical* about whether you even read the article before commenting. Actually, skeptical would be too charitable - clearly you didn't read it. Instead of taking the time to read it and come up with a well thought out response (which I would welcome) You're just childishly making things up to be mad about out of a misplaced self-righteousness.
If you want to know where I get the idea that we have an obligation to our people, you can start with Scripture. Start with the Pentateuch and go straight through Nehemiah. Maybe brush up on Maccabees, Ruth if you missed it. If that doesn't convince you, try the New Testament. Contrary to your misunderstanding, Christ is explicit that the nations will be converted, and that the apostles are to convert the nations.... Notice He doesn't say "abolish the nations." Instead He says to render to Caesar what is Caesars (hence why we have saints who were soldiers in the Roman Army - hate to tell ya, but they didn't have a draft... they volunteered). Paul speaks of wishing he could give up his own salvation to save his nation; to pray for our rulers and to be obedient to them, because *all earthly authorities are ordained by God.* Guess what? That means that Christ ordains earthly rulers, according to Scripture - you'd know that had you read the article. But I digress...
When you're done with Scripture, you can check out *the entire history of the Church* for more details on the relationship between church and state, the duties of a Christian towards their earthly ruler and government, etc... the lives of the saints are full of examples of service to one's people, even monks taking up arms to defend their nation or suffering for it in another way. Sts. Alexander Peresvyet, Andre Oslyabya, Ilya the Righteous, Ekvtime (Kereselidze) the Confessor, David the Builder, the Royal Martyr King Ashot Kyropalates, Gabriel (Kikodze) of Imerti, Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Amvrosi the Confessor (Patriarch-Catholicos of Georgia), tsar Nicholas and the other Royal Passion-Bearers, Royal Martyrs Archik and Luarsab of Georgia, Edward the Confessor, Prince-Martyr Albert, Hieromartyr Kirion II (Carholicos of Georgia), Holy Queen Dinar, among many, many others.
So no, it's not me who fails to grasp Orthodoxy, it is you. Maybe, if you quit taking as gospel every word of the many charlatans you're reposting, and instead immerse yourself in the lives of the saints, the history and life of the Church, you will begin to acquire the mind of the church.
Ok wow, thank you for showing who you truly are for all to see and appreciate, so arrogant and rude! I did not call you names, my dear! And of course I read the article before commenting, as my arguments show, to which you do not essentially answer, you just reference a bunch of uncanonical Russian folklore, parroting the heresy of the Putin regime - but I understand your rage at being uncovered. See how the mask you wear fell, with the slightest provocation. Read "Letter to nun Xeni" from St Gregory Palamas, to understand the mask, the prosopoion, you have constructed and are worshipping, instead of our meek and humble of heart, Lord Jesus Christ. You have constructed a conqueror militaristic Jesus to fit your passions. Sorry, your dreams of "empire" and "just war" are heretic, unchatechised, schismatic, uncanonical. May you find the Truth and be at peace. God bless!