N. A. BERDYAEV (BERDIAEV)
Journal Put’, 1925, No. 1, p. 31-52.
Russian version
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
AND THE KINGDOM OF CAESAR1
(1925 - #303)
I.
"Render the things of
Caesar unto Caesar, and the things of God unto God". This eternal Gospel truth
ought to be understood dynamically, and not statically. The difference and the
delimitation of the two kingdoms remains eternal, but the relationships between
the two kingdoms within the history of Christianity do not remain inalterable,
they change at various stages of Christianity. Christianity does not know petrified
forms, which might define for always the Christian ordering of the kingdom of
Caesar. One only doth dwell unshakable. Christianity does not deny the kingdom
of Caesar whether it be mechanical or revolutionary, it recognises it as a particular
sphere of being, distinct from the kingdom of God, but necessary too for the
ends of the Kingdom of God. The Church of Christ has its own particular foundation,
independent of the elements of this world, it lives according to its own particular
law of spiritual being. But the Church of Christ at the moment of its appearance
was surrounded by the elements of this world and was compelled to live in a
pagan state, which fiercely persecuted Christians. The "kingdom of Caesar" does
not signify a monarchy, it is a figure designating the kingdom of this world,
the order of sinful nature. A democratic or socialistic republic in the same
degree is the kingdom of Caesar, just like a monarchy. And the question about
the relationship of the Kingdom of God to the kingdom of Caesar is at the same
time a question about the relationship both to the monarchic state and to revolution.
This is a question about the relationship of the Kingdom of God to the "world".
This theme is properly considered in an atmosphere detached and free from passions
and special interests. But in our day there has as it were finally gone extinct
the non-avaricious aristocratic attitude towards truth. Spiritual plebianism,
egoistic greed and utilitarianism distort not only the resolution, but even
the very setting of the theme. And in an especially less than healthy atmosphere
there occur considerations on principle of the attitude of Christianity towards
monarchy and towards revolution, towards the old "this world" and the new "this
world". But it is impossible to treat upon this theme for one, who is in the
grip of political passions and special interests, who finds oneself in a condition
of malice and hate. In this theme there is much that is problematic, and it
has not yet received a binding church-dogmatic resolution. Least of all proper
for the Christian is to maintain merely an outward attitude towards the important
and catastrophic events in life. When a man lives through some sort of misfortune,
a grievous illness, some trying situation, the death of someone close, then
the religious attitude towards these events excludes the possibility of merely
ascribing them to outward chance, the injustice of fate, blows received mechanically
from without. In life there is nothing by chance and completely external. Everything
has meaning, everything means something, i.e. is manifest as a sign from the
other world. Religiously to live through some sort of event means to live through
its inner meaning, to comprehend it from within, from the depths of spiritual
experience, to survive it as one’s own destiny, as something sent down by the
Providence of God. And if it be necessary thus to live through and survive the
events of personal life, then all the moreso is it necessary to live through
and survive the events of historical life. With Russia has happened a terrible
historical catastrophe. And all the world finds itself in an unprecedented crisis.
We live amidst splintered fragments of societies and states of the modern new
history. Everything has come to be in a condition of unstable and chaotic motions.
The societal order, which seemed not only firm, but also eternal, has broken
down and collapsed. The relationships of church and state have changed radically
and the interrelationships of the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar are
redefined completely anew. It is a new kingdom of Caesar that stands before
the eternal Church of Christ. And all the old categories in the resolving of
this theme have been rendered useless and outmoded. They are out of their minds,
wretched and helpless before the face of the world crisis, those with reactionary
thoughts of a restoration, those who hope on bringing back the old relationships
between church and the kingdom of Caesar, those who long for that kingdom of
Caesar, in which the Church of Christ was stifled and enslaved. A mindset, which
sees in the revolution, in the Russian and the world crisis, only an outward
scandal and an outward disorder, which continues to think, that nothing especial
has happened, is neither a Christian nor a religious mindset, it is instead
a mindset smothered by trite positivism.
Christianity cannot
only outwardly relate to historical crises, cataclysms and collapses, it cannot
look upon them as upon movements of dead matter merely, having no sort of relationship
to the life of spirit, to the movement of spirit. Christianity has an universal
spirit, it encompasses everything, and everything happening in the world is
connected with it and subject to it. The Revolution, the historical crisis ought
to demote something within the inward destiny of Christianity. All the outward
historical events possess a secondary, and not a primary nature as such, they
are determined by events that transpire within the inner spiritual world. For
the external, the religiously unenlightened view it would seem, that the Revolution
takes place only within the elements of the world, and the Church of Christ
only passively suffers the events coming from the outside and impacting upon
it. This is an aberration of the non-religious mindset. It presupposes, that
the Church is totally passive within the Russian Revolution, that within it
nothing transpires, that Christianity plays merely a role of sufferance. In
actuality, however, the crisis and revolution occurs within the spiritual world,
and in the historical world it only symbolically is reflected. The Revolution
is not an external event for each of us and for all the Christian world, rather
it is an inward event, a spiritual sickness in Christian mankind, in Christian
people. The Church is a living organism, a Divine-human organism, in which there
occurs an uninterrupted interaction of the Divinity and mankind. Just like with
every organism, the Church can undergo crisis, can become ill, and can revive
and develope. What is taken sick and undergoes crisis in the Church is not God,
is not the Divine truth of the Church, but rather mankind. We have ceased to
understand the churchly meaning of historical events, because we have lost the
internal, cosmic idea of the Church. The rationalistic and nominalistic consciousness
has transformed the Church into an institution, existing and differentiated
alongside everything else. Christianity, just like everything organic, is in
the highest degree dynamic, it has its own periods of growth, its own historical
fate. The original Christianity denotes an altogether different epoch of Christianity,
in contrast to that of the Christianity from the time of Constantine the Great.
The Christianity from the period of the martyrs is quite distinct from the Christianity
of the Oecumenical Councils. The medieval Christianity is altogether a different
epoch within Christianity, than the Christianity of modern times. The very style
of Christianity becomes quite changed, and this relates not to the ontology
of Christianity, but to its psychology and its history. Here and now Christianity
enters upon a period of crisis, it suffers a growth of sickness. There ends
not only the Christianity of recent history, but perhaps also the whole historical
period of Christianity from the time of Constantine the Great. And this inner
crisis of Christianity defines all the external historical catastrophes. There
are determined anew the relationships between the Church and the elements of
this world. And radically changed is the relationship of the kingdom of Caesar,
in which stormy processes have occurred, towards the eternal ends of the Kingdom
of God. These relationships are determined in he spiritual world, and in the
historical world they are but projected and reflected. The recovery of health
from sickness, the surmounting of the spiritual crisis can signify a new period
within Christianity, the emergence of a new style within Christianity, a change
in the Christian manner of life, which never ought to be considered identical
with a particular lifestyle. But does this indeed mean, that Christianity can
get itself bound up with revolution, as earlier it was bound up with the monarchy,
does this mean, that there will be formed a kingdom of Caesar, which Christianity
can acknowledge its own? Great temptation consists in the identification of
Christianity with whatever the sort of the kingdom of Caesar, i.e. in the enslavement
of the infinite to the finite.
II
Christianity is not revolutionary in the
outward sense of the word. It has entered into the world not as a revolutionary
social force, calling for a violent altering of the order of life. It is impossible
even to call Christianity a force of social reform. The nature of Christianity
is altogether inexpressible in the social categories of this world. Christianity
has come into the world, as the good news about salvation and about the Kingdom
of God, which is not of this world. "Seek ye first of all the Kingdom of God
and His righteousness, and all this wilt be added unto ye". "Be ye perfect,
even as your Heavenly Father is perfect". "What doth it profit a man, if he
gain all the entire world, but harm therein his soul". "For the Kingdom of God
cometh not in perceived form, wherefore say not: lo, here be it, or lo, there
be it. For the Kingdom of God is within ye". "My Kingdom is not of this world".
A social revolution is all contrary to the words of Christ. Social revolution
seeks first of all that which is "to be added unto ye", and not the Kingdom
of God; the makers of social revolution do not seek a perfection, like to the
perfection of the Heavenly Father; they want to gain all the entire world and
by this corrupt therein their soul; the social revolution seeks for an order
of life, which will come in perceptible form, about which can be said, that
lo here it is, or lo there it is; the kingdom, to which the social revolution
strives, is of this world. The same also can be said about the spirit opposite
the revolution, about imperialism. Imperialism possesses a pagan nature. Christianity
was the greatest spiritual turnabout in the history of mankind, the greatest
inward revolution, experienced by mankind. With the appearance of Christ begins
not only a new historical epoch, but also a new cosmic epoch, which altered
the inner composition of the world. And together with this, Christianity does
not believe, that it is possible to change the world for the better via an external
and violent pathway, it regards merely outward revolution as the basis for a
false spiritual frame of reference. At the basis of all mere outward revolutions
lies a spiritual frame of reference directly opposite the Christian. Such external
revolutions are motivated by envy, malice, hatred, by revenge and not by love,
by the instinct for destruction and not creativity, and they bear with them
death, and not resurrection. A genuinely new, more perfect and better life comes
from within, and not from without, it comes from a spiritual rebirth, and not
from a mere change of social conditions, of social means. The annihilation of
slavery in the world was a spiritual deed of Christianity. The pre-Christian
world, even among the greatest of its thinkers, could not conceive of the surmounting
of slavery. But Christianity never called for slaves to revolt against their
masters. Only imperceptibly was there discovered the fruition of the Christian
idea of the brotherhood of people. Christianity no wise denies the processes,
operative in the natural world, the processes of natural developement in the
world. But it is not upon these processes that it relies for the attainment
of the Kingdom of God, for the utmost perfection of life. Christianity relates
towards revolution such as it does to every outward event in life, to every
external structure of life, i.e. in a non-revolutionary manner. Every outward
event in life, every external ordering of life is not accidentally by chance,
it signifies something for the inner life of man, for his spiritual experience.
Nothing can be viewed exclusively as by external force, there is nothing not
connected with my inward fate. Whether upon some stable order of governance,
upon monarchy or upon revolution, Christianity all the same looks at it inwardly,
from the depths. The Kingdom of God cometh unperceived, its comes neither through
monarchy nor through revolution. But both an outwardly stable order of life
and an outward upheaval of life always denote events of the inner spiritual
world, they are not situated outside my own particular destiny, as merely something
begotten of the lower material world. Christianity is not dualistic, or more
precisely: Christianity acknowledges a religio-ethical dualism, but not at all
an ontological dualism.
Christianity does not deny the state
and the rule of authority. From the lips of the Apostle Paul, the Christian
Church has recognised, that the rule of authority issues from God and that rulers
bear not the sword in vain. The rule of authority has an ontological source,
it possesses a positive mission within the sinful world, it averts the chaotic
disintegration of the world, and prevents the ultimate triumph of anarchy within
it. The ontological principle of the rule of authority plays within society
the same role, that conformity to law plays within nature, -- it upholds the
cosmic order within the sinful chaos. The words of the Apostle Paul were spoken
not about a Christian rule of authority. There was back then no Christian state.
The state was pagan and it persecuted Christians. These words were spoken about
every rule of authority, about the principle of power in general, they relate
to the pagan authority, and to the modern democratic republic, and even to the
Soviet Communist power, through which, despite its anti-Christian character,
there partially operates the eternal ontological principle of authority. Human
society has to be subject to a condition, preventing its ultimate chaotic and
anarchic dissolution. Thus also are the laws of nature, which are given us,
as an inexorable necessity, and they uphold the elementary cosmic order of the
world, through them is reflected the eternal Divine cosmos within the sinful
element of the world. Such is the truth of power, the truth of the state. This
is a truth of law, Old Testament like, and not a New Testament truth. The state
possesses a pre-Christian, Old Testament, pagan nature. The state power of authority
is something that carried over by force from the pagan world into the Christian
world. The power of authority of the emperor, which in Byzantium assumed a Christian
and sacred character, is the old pagan might of Rome and the great Eastern empires,
-- Egypt, Persia, Assyria and Babylon. The might of authority of emperor and
tsar does not possess any sort of uniquely Christian, nor New Testament an origin,
it was received as an inheritance from the ancient world, and was merely adopted
and blessed by Christianity, since Christianity is non-anarchic and recognises
the mission of the power of authority amongst sinful mankind. Such an attitude
towards the might of authority and the state does not signify within Christianity
any sort of unique, purely Christian ideal of society, any sort of ideal of
the Christian state, which in the original Christianity did not exist. A. S.
Khomyakov says: "The imperium was, evidently, unable to encompass all the trappings
of the ancient Roman idea of a legitimate governance for the new Christian era:
it did not contain within itself the principle of something self-sacred, which
Christian thought demanded; the west therefore did not yet understand the impossibility
of mixing up together the concept of Christianity and the concept of the state,
i.e. of the embodiment of Christianity in a state form".2 But that which Khomyakov imputes to the West, ought also
to be imputed to the East. Already with the spilling of the first drop of blood
of the Christian martyrs, there was forever set a limit to the absolutism and
autocracy of the state, and imperialism censured.
The original Christianity
was of an eschatological mindset. It awaited the impending end of the world
and the Second Coming of Christ. They had before them no perspective of a lengthy
historical process, in which the Church of Christ would come to be a wielder
of power. The first Christians did not revolt against the pagan rule of authority,
they did not call for a social upheaval, and totally unnecessary to them was
their own Christian state. Within the early Christian consciousness, theocracy
co-incided completely with the Gospel Kingdom of God. The first Christians consented
to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's, but the state was for them of "the
world", of the kingdom of this world. The kingdom of Caesar, the kingdom of
this world, could not be the Christian, the sacred kingdom. If by a Christian
theocracy there be understood a sacred and Christian kingdom of Caesar, then
the theocratic idea would be completely foreign to the original Christianity.
It lived exclusively by the idea of the Kingdom of God, which in essence and
on principle is distinct from the kingdom of Caesar. The first Christians did
not strive for, and as regards the condition of their mindset, they could not
strive towards the creation of a Christian state. The state is the "world",
"paganism". 3 The Christian Church stands opposite the "world",
opposite paganism, the pagan state. The first Christians lived by charisms,
by spiritual gifts, which defined all the order of their life, all the organisation
of the Christian Church and Christian society. It would be impossible to live
thus for any long period of historical life. And when in the Christian consciousness
it as discerned, that there stood ahead still a long historical path, everything
began to change. The charismatic gifts weakened. The Kingdom of God receded
into a transcendent remoteness, to the far end of history. Christianity had
to act and live within history. Christianity lost all semblance of being a Jewish
apocalyptic sect. It conceived of itself as a worldwide historical power. The
falsehood of Montanism consisted in this, in that Montanism wanted to hold on
to that stage of the original Christianity, it wanted to live by direct and
unmediated charisms, and when the charisms began to desiccate away, they opposed
the world historical role of Christianity. And upon this same basis there formed
all sorts of religio-sectarian movements, which usually possessed a reactionary
nature. In its first centuries, Christianity lived amongst the hostile pagan
elements of this world. It acted within them not as an outwardly destructive
power, but as a power inwardly transfigurative. The Christian Church possesses
an ability to survive surrounded by whatever the chance hostile power. In the
catacombs it was endowed with the greatest of inner strength, and from the catacombs
the Church conquered the world. But Christianity was fated to enter into a new
historical period, into a second period of the relationship between church and
state, between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar. This period began
with Constantine the Great.
It happened otherwise, than what
the first Christians expected. The pagan state yielded before the spiritual
power of Christianity. This was a tremendous turnabout not only within the "world",
in the state, but also within Christianity, in the Church. Christianity ceased
to be eschatological, Christians no longer awaited a quite immanent end of the
world and Second Coming of Christ. Christianity became historical, reorganising
itself, and preparing itself for an active role in world history. Christianity
then enters into "the world", into history, having adapted itself for activity
in "the world", for its conquests within history. This victory had been bought
at a dear price. The early Christianity with its charismatic and eschatological
aspects remains in the history of Christianity as a distant past, like a lost
paradise. Christianity had to dirty itself in the dust and grime of earthly
history. It lowered itself into the base life of "the world", and it worked
out for itself new organs for suchlike a life. It lost much, but it also gained
much. We cannot, like those rationalist and Protestant historians, look upon
this new period of Christianity, as being the downfall of Christianity, as a
great misfortune in the history of Christianity. This view is not at all an
Orthodox Christian view. The period of early Christianity had to end. The Kingdom
of God could not ensue as a result of its brief history. The deed of Constantine
the Great was a providential deed and it possessed a positive significance both
in the history of Christianity and in the history of the world. The rise of
a "Christian state", the creation of Christian theocracies was not an unfortunate
accident in the history of Christianity and the world, it had an inwardly inevitable
moment in the destiny of Christianity. But thus arose, however, the inadmissible
view which for a long time prevailed within the churchly consciousness, that
the kingdom of Caesar had become a genuinely holy, Christian state, that a theocratic
state had indeed been created and should govern until the end of time. The second
period in the relationships between the Church and the state, between the Kingdom
of God and the kingdom of Caesar, is not an ultimate and eternal period. In
the history of Christianity there had to ensue, and has already ensued, another,
a third period. And the onset of the third period likewise is not an unfortunate
matter of chance, just as he onset of the second period was not. The Church
consciousness does not know any sort of dogma about a sacred kingdom of Caesar,
nor does it know any sort of sacramental mystery of a sacred imperial power.
The Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar have been jumbled and intertwined
within history. The Kingdom of God has been accorded features akin to the kingdom
of Caesar, just as the kingdom of Caesar has appropriated to itself features
of the Kingdom of God.
From the times of Constantine the
Great the Church was wont to consecrate the power of authority, not so that
it should justify the pagan power, it consecrates it as a Christian power. The
world became a Christian world, the peoples became Christian peoples, there
was formed an universum or oecumene, which received the name chretiente.
The Christian peoples lived by a single faith and a single truth. To this oneness
in faith and truth there corresponded also an oneness, an integral wholeness
in the structure of state and society, in the character of culture. Monarchies
most adequately express this integrality and this oneness. And they are sacred
for as long as peoples believe in their sacredness. The composition of the state
and society is entirely determined by the religious beliefs of the people. Forms
of state authority collapse, when the beliefs of the people collapse, when there
is no longer the sanctioning of the power within the religious consciousness
of the people. The sovereignty of the people in this sense remains an eternal
truth, and it existed even in ancient Egypt. No state power can continue to
exist by naked force. It is always sustained by the faith of the people in the
sacredness of this power. When they cease to believe in the sacred significance
of a monarchy, it is transformed into a tyranny and begins to decay. The oneness
and integral wholeness cannot be compulsory. The outward structuring of life,
the historical flesh of the state merely but symbolises the inner spiritual
life of the people. And when in the inner spiritual life of the people there
occur substantial changes, then the old symbolism falls and necessitates a new
symbolism. The kingdom of Caesar is always a sphere of conditional and relative
symbolism, and not of unconditional and unalterable realities. That fatal process
of modern history, termed secularisation, is merely a correct outward expression
of that which has occurred within the inner life of Christian mankind. Secularisation
has all kinds of different names. If the state, the law, economy, science, art,
morality, all be not Christian in the deepest, most real sense of this word,
then it does not follow to call them Christian. The kingdom of Caesar ought
not to be called a sacred and Christian state, a theocracy, if in actuality
it is worldly, pagan, non-Christian and even anti-Christian in its nature. Christians
cannot strive towards secularisation, Christians ought to strive with all their
being towards this, that everything should become Christian and sacred, to strive
for the transfiguration and enlightenment of all the whole of life, but still
they can recognise the truth in secularisation, since they ought not to desire
the conditional lie, the acknowledgement by force of something as Christian,
which is not Christian. The tragedy of the second, the Constantine period in
the history of Christianity is in this, that it inevitably ends with secularisation,
as demanded by truth and freedom, as the expression of the failure of every
theocracy.
III
It is impossible to realise the Kingdom
of God by force. Not only man, but even God would say, that one cannot force
grace. The freedom of man enters into the design of God for the Kingdom of God.
In the historical Christian theocracies, Eastern and Western, imperial and papist,
there was not yet to a sufficient degree expressed the consent of the freedom
of man to the realisation of the Kingdom of God, i.e. there was not a sufficiently
real transformation of life. The theocracies possessed a conditional and symbolic
character. In the flesh of history, in the kingdom of Caesar there obtained
signs and symbols and impressions of the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of
God itself was not attained, a real enlightenment and transfiguration did not
occur. The Church only symbolically consecrates the imperial power of authority,
it sets a Christian seal upon the state and upon everything so as to be rendered
Christian in this world. The sacred kingdom of Caesar, the Christian state,
remained something in nature, a natural kingdom of this world, neither enlightened
nor transfigured, not having conquered the sin, being Old Testament and pagan
like, but as it were besprinkled with holy water, in the intent of submission
to a religious end, full of signs of another world, of symbolic archetypes of
the Kingdom of God. Historical theocracies decayed and perished because they
were not real theocracies, they did not realise the authentic Kingdom of God.
There has ensued a time, when the will for realism has won out over the symbolic
theocracy. In the post-Constantine period with the falling apart into two halves
of the Christian world there was worked out two types of theocracy, -- in the
East the imperial, and in the West the papal. These -- were two forms of the
uniting of the Kingdom of God with the kingdom of Caesar, two forms of designation
of the Kingdom of God within the kingdom of Caesar. The kingdom of Caesar therein
becomes a sacred and theocratic kingdom either through its recognition as emperor,
as an imperial authority delegated by God, anointed by the Church to reign,
for the realisation of a sacred and churchly service, or else through its recognition
as pope, as Roman high-priest, imbued with a kingly and imperial power of authority
in the world and the source of all rule of power upon the earth. The exceptional
state significance of the pope in the West and the exceptional churchly significance
of the emperor in the East was determined by the unique aspects of the historical
paths of the West and the East. 4 But it was one and the same idea of a Roman compulsory
universalism, of a pagan imperialism, that lay at the basis of both the Western
and Eastern theocracy. In Byzantium, theocracy sustained in itself a tradition
not only of Roman imperialism, but also of the Eastern imperialism. Theocracy
conceptually is always universal, a national theocracy is inwardly a contradiction.
The emperor, imbued with a sacred power, is the same as is the pope. The Middle
Ages recognised this and created the idea of a worldwide Holy Roman empire.
But modern times created national states and by this destroyed the theocratic
idea. The sacred Byzantine realm and the sacred Russian realm contained within
them the potential for universality. The tsar emperor, as a churchly rank, endowed
with a churchly power of authority, cannot be merely a national tsar emperor.
Constantine the Great was also an universal tsar emperor. And if the power of
authority of the Russian tsar had an exceptional significance for the Orthodox
Church, then in its potentiality it might be thought of as an universal power
of authority. Without this universality, the Orthodox tsar would have had no
greater a significance, than the English king in the Anglican Church. Theocracy
is an universalist utopia, the same as is Communism.
Theocracy strives towards
the discovery and the affirmation of the sacred historical flesh in the kingdom
of Caesar, towards an holy corporeality. It thus desires to contain the infinite
spirit within finite flesh, it desires to enslave the infinite to the finite.
The Kingdom of God is rendered into a semblance of the kingdom of this world.
And it is difficult to reconcile historical theocracies with the Gospel saying:
"The princes of the peoples lord it over them, and dignitaries hold power over
them; but amidst ye let it be thus: whosoever amidst ye would be greatest,,
let him be to ye the servant". By this is affirmed the radical inconsistency
and non-affinity between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar. In theocracy
however there is essentially an assertion of such a consistency and affinity,
reaching almost the point of identity. There are two temptations in the history
of Christianity connected with the theocratic state, two variations and splits
-- Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism. In an ultimate and pure form these two temptations
have never triumphed in the Christian world -- both Catholicism and Orthodoxy
were always immeasurably deeper and broader than these two tendencies. But all
the same, the principles of Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism were deeply rooted
in the historical flesh of Catholicism and the historical flesh of Orthodoxy.
A greater advantage of Orthodoxy was in this, that Caesaropapism was never an
object of churchly dogmatics, at a time when Papocaesarism was an object of
such great dogmatisation within Catholicism. But in the Eastern, the Orthodox,
the Byzantine and Russian theocracies, the tendency towards Caesaropapism in
fact did play a great role in the life of the Church. And therefore the Russian
Revolution appears an enormous, and as yet not fully gauged in all its depths,
ultimate catastrophe in the Orthodox Church, inwardly, and not only externally
an upheaval. Khomyakov with indignation spurned the accusation of Caesaropapism
in the Russian Church. In an absolute and final sense he was correct. But he
understated the importance and the unsettling aspect of this question. It is
not by chance that during the reign of Paul I there was sneaked into our basic
laws the title of the tsar as head of the Church. 5 Such a consciousness could not be dogmatically justified
and could not be regarded in accord with the nature of the Orthodox Church,
but it is a natural result of historical theocracies. The Orthodox Church does
not know a visible head, as its sole head it acknowledges only Christ. But when
the kingdom of Caesar is considered an holy kingdom, when there is seen in it
a reflection of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, then the striving for oneness
and integral wholeness in the life of the Church is nudged onto the path of
acknowledging a single visible head. Caesaropapism is the final boundary of
the Constantine period in Christianity. In it the historical mindset of Christianity
ultimately overshadows its eschatological mindset. The Kingdom of God is not
something still yet sought for, it is not attained for real, but rather becomes
a matter of signs and symbols within the kingdom of Caesar. This is the historical
process of a replacement of apocalyptic prophecies about the Kingdom of God,
-- in it the kingdom of Caesar is substituted for the Kingdom of God. In the
Catholic mindset the Kingdom of God ultimately becomes identified with the historical
life of the Church, and through this there is extinguished the eschatological
searching for the Kingdom of God. Bu even a most radical rejection of Caesaropapism
and Papocaesarism, as religious temptations, does not mean a denial of the positive
significance of monarchy and the significance of the papacy in the history of
Christian peoples. Monarchy in the past played a positive, creative, and often
progressive, even at times a revolutionary role in Russian history. We admit
even, that monarchy, in its modern form, may still be called to play a positive
role in the renewal of Russia. But this does not at all resolve the religious
question about a theocratic monarchy. The old, the sacred Russian monarchy cannot
be reborn. Monarchy is a natural historical fact in the developement of peoples
and in this capacity it ought to be considered, it belongs totally to this world,
to the kingdom of Caesar and its features are not transferable to the Kingdom
of God. Khomyakov and the Slavophils based the autocratic monarchy upon national-historical,
not religio-mystical grounds, and essentially foreign to them was the Judaic
theocratic idea. Monarchic states for them were distinct from democratic states,
since in their fundamentals customarily there lay principles, oriented towards
the other world, and not to earthly eudaemonism. Therefore monarchy was more religious than democracy. 6
The exceptions consist only of the Calvinist democracies. But this does not
mean, that such religiously justified monarchies were in actuality theocracies.
And indeed, is theocracy actually possible in the Christian world, a New Testament
theocracy? The theocratic idea is an Old Testament idea, an ancient Hebrew idea.
From the Christian point of view, is there applicable to God the category of
the rule of might, lacking credibility here when approached by way of negative
theology? Christian theocracy is but a signification and symbolisation of the
Kingdom of God, whereas in reality the Kingdom of God is a transfiguration of
the world. Christian theocracy knows only one Tsar -- Christ. And this means,
that the theocracies in Christianity represent a false transferal of Jewish
Old Testament categories into Christian life. And the result of this is but
the justification of a pagan natural kingdom. 7
IV
The question about the relationship
between Christianity and monarchy is an historical question, and it mustneeds
be posited dynamically. And that which is unique to a certain historical epoch
within Christianity, cannot be considered dogmatically a truth. Monarchies decay
and fall, just like everything earthly and of nature. The Church however will
exist invincible to the very end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it. The kingdom of Caesar appertains to time. The Kingdom of God appertains
to eternity. Christianity can exist in the most diverse historical conditions.
And it is impossible to consider that which is transitory and mutable as essentially
belonging to the nature of the Church. Extreme advocates of an inseparable connection
between Orthodoxy and autocracy, for whom the power of the autocrat is sacred
and churchly, are prepared to admit the anointing of the tsar to rule, -- as
an eighth sacrament. 8 And it mustneeds be said, that the rite of
crowning as tsar provides grounds for such an opinion. Amidst the myrh-chrism
anointing of the tsar are pronounced the words: -- "the seal of the gift of
the Holy Spirit". 9 One is tempted to think, that the tsar receives
a special sort of charism, a special sort of grace to reign, that reigning is
a churchly service analogous to the priesthood. 10 The anointing of the tsar installs the kingdom
of Caesar into the Kingdom of God. The pagan Caesar, in all his origins derivative
of the pagan world, receives anointing and is rendered an Orthodox tsar. In
the Orthodox tsar they see a theophany, a manifestation of God. And how might
this transpire? The Church leaves nothing in life unconsecrated, it consecrates
the whole of human life from birth to death, the whole of human existence, and
it consecrates also the governing power. But in the life of the Church, chiefly
the Orthodox Church (in the West it was otherwise), there occurred a moment,
when it was no longer still limited to an acknowledging of the religious meaning
of the power of authority with a symbolic consecration of the state, when it
beheld the Orthodox tsar as it were a sacred flesh, an expression of the Kingdom
of God upon earth. This already was a great historical temptation for churchly
mankind, a mixing up of the Kingdom of God with the kingdom of Caesar. The fatal
fact of the separation of the Churches, which was the greatest failing of Christianity
in history, enabled the strengthening of the two tendencies and temptations,
in the East of Caesaropapism, and in the West of Papocaesarism. The presupposition
can even be made, that if the separation of Churches had not happened, then
there would never have reached such proportions of the imperial theocracy in
the East and the papal theocracy in the West. But these theocracies were not
judged to be of an eternal historical existence. The pope has remained and has
even proclaimed in the XIX Century his infallibility in matters of faith, but
the pope has lost his might over the world, over the secular states, he has
ceased to be a monarch. Papal theocracy no longer exists. The Western world
has become secularised and the Catholic Church exists on the outside, as but
one organisation alongside other organisations in the Western states. At best
the Church recourses to concordances, at worst it is barely tolerated or is
even persecuted by atheistic governments. The Byzantine theocratic imperium
fell long ago. The Greek Church over the course of centuries existed under the
Turks. There has likewise finally collapsed the greatest of the theocracies
of the East -- the sacred Russian tsardom. And it fell not only from outward
blows, but also from an inward disintegration. Its decline in aesthetic style
was symptomatic of its decay. The theocracies ceased to symbolise the spiritual
condition of the various peoples, they ceased to reflect the religious beliefs
of the peoples. The unity and integral wholeness of the beliefs of the peoples
ended, and there ensued times of division. It was impossible to hold on to the
old principles by force. The old symbolism ceased to be sacred, just as in Europe,
so also in Russia. Revolution also is a change of symbolism in the inner life
of peoples. Monarchies in the West either ceased to exist or they lost all their
real significance (England, Italy). Towards such political forms the interest
has all more and more waned. In Russia the monarchy from the time of Peter the
Great became humanistic and was secularised all the more and more. The subordination
of church to state, the forming of the Church-synodal structure reflected a
process of the secularisation of the Russian state and its coming nigh to the
type of the Western enlightenment absolutism. 11 The Slavophils had long since already declared,
that in the Peterburg period of Russian history there was not existent then
an autocracy in Russia, there existed but absolutism with a bureaucracy developed
to the extreme. Absolutism however per the Slavophil understanding is not a
Russian and Orthodox form of state power, but rather is the developement of
the pagan Roman imperialistic idea. Autocracy is likewise contrasted to absolutism
by L. Tikhomirov in his book, "Monarkhicheskaya Gosudarstvennost'" ("The Monarchic
State"), which unjustly is little known and which mustneeds be acknowledged
as the best formulation of grounds for an autocratic monarchy. 12
In what, however, is the essence
of the religious idea of autocracy and by what is it distinct from absolutism?
According to the ideology of autocracy, the tsar's might of rule is delegated
not by the people, but by God. There does not exist the right to power, there
exists but the obligation of power. The power of the tsar is altogether not
an absolute, unlimited might of power. It is autocratic since that it does not
derive from the will of the people and is not limited by the people. But it
is limited by the Church and by Christian truth, spiritually it is subordinated
to the Church, it is a service not in accord with its own will, but rather the
will of God. The tsar ought not to seek his own will, he ought to serve the
will of God. The tsar and the people have a common bond between them with one
and the same faith, with one and the same submission to the Church and God's
righteous truth. Autocracy presupposes a broad basis of the people's social
support, but living its life independently, meaning that it is not bestown by
the life of the people. Autocracy is justified in only this instance, if the
people have evident a faith, sanctioning the power of the tsar. It cannot be
an external coercion by force over the people. Peter the Great was insufficiently
Orthodox, and his inclinations towards Protestantism rendered him an absolute,
and not autocratic, monarch. Absolute monarchy is a by-product of humanism.
In absolutism, in imperialism, the tsar is a delegate of the people, supreme
power does not belong to the tsar, although there does belong to him an absolute
and unlimited power of governance. But the people can also take away the power
of the tsar. Suchlike is the idea of the absolute monarchy, as worked out in
the West. 13 In absolutism the tsar is not manifestly a servant
of the Church. The subordination of church to state is a characteristic mark
of the absolute monarchy. And thus also it was with the Catholic Church under
Louis XIV. Absolutism likewise always developes a bureaucracy and chokes the
social life of the people. L. Tikhomirov has thus expressed for us in purest
form the idea of the religious grounds of autocracy. But Khomyakov and the Slavophils
viewed it otherwise. For them the supreme power belonged to the people, but
the people refused power, in order to devote themselves to spiritual life, and
they imposed upon the tsar the burden of ruling as tsar, having left themselves
only the Duma, only an advisory opinion. But has here existed at some time in
history the religious autocracy in its pure, its idealistic form? L. Tikhomirov
himself is compelled to acknowledge, that there was not. In Byzantium the religious
idea of autocracy was always distorted by the pagan Roman absolutism and in
it the imperial power did not possess a popular social basis. All the Peterburg
period of Russian history is the triumph of absolutism and bureaucratism, the
stifling of the independence of the Church and the independence of the life
of the people. The closest to the religious idea of autocracy was in pre-Petrine
Rus'. But even there it is impossible to find those features, which are sketched
out in the religious idea of autocracy. Ivan the Terrible was of a very prominent
and consistent expression of the Russian idea of autocracy, but this at once
evokes also distress and doubts. In the West ultimately there was nothing similar
to autocracy, nor indeed could it be begotten upon a Catholic soil. Instead,
a struggle between the spiritual and secular powers transpired there. It is
clear, that the religious and Orthodox idea of autocracy, of a sacred monarchy,
is purely an utopia of a perfect and ideal civil and social order, the same
sort of utopia, as is a papal theocracy, as is any perfect ideal socialist order.
A beautiful utopia, perhaps the finest of utopias! But in fact autocracy always
transformed itself into absolutism, and was absolutism. Both Byzantium and Russia,
two great Orthodox monarchies, did not manifest themselves as types of a religious
autocracy. Imperialism triumphs in every great monarchy, it is the destiny of
the monarchy, which draws it both to greatness and to ruin. Of the pagan imperialistic
idea no monarchy lacks for, since monarchy by its very nature is of a pagan
origin. In but the short instant that monarchy becomes Orthodox, it then quickly
developes the pagan principle of a world ruler, of the earthly kingdom of Caesar.
We arrive at a conclusion, which
can seem paradoxical. They tend usually to defend autocracy and monarchy in
that human nature is sinful, and that a monarchic form of governance is more
capable to deal with sinful human nature, than is the democratic form. Democracy,
socialism et al. is defended by those, who do not believe in Original Sin. But
just as easily this position can be turned around the other way. Namely that
because human nature is sinful, it can the more fully realise the democratic
and socialist order, it can be the expression of this sinfulness. Democracy
least of all presupposes the perfection of human nature, it was created for
the imperfect and sinful condition. Autocratic monarchy however devolves into
the utopia of a perfect and sinless condition. A religious autocratic monarchy
as such is a very lofty idea, but totally utopian, presupposing such a condition
of peoples, scarcely to be attained in our sinful world. Autocracy now is being
dreamt about and will be dreamt about, as earlier socialism was dreamt about.
But there are no grounds to believe, that people will arrive at a spiritual
condition capable to beget a religious autocracy, which presupposes an exceptional
spiritual integrality and oneness of faith. Th world is going to pieces, and
it was foretold by Christian prophecies. Not only for the future, but also for
the past, the religious autocratic monarchy was an utopia, and in reality what
was possible was but an absolute monarchy, to a greater or lesser degree subject
to Orthodoxy. Autocracy there never was nor ever will be. This -- is an utopian,
dream-fantasy of an idea, based upon a jumbling together of the kingdom of Caesar
with the Kingdom of God. Some sort of an eighth sacrament of an anointing of
a tsar to his tsardom is unknown to the dogmatic consciousness of the Church,
it relates wholly to the historical, and not mystical side of the Church. And
indeed something that is nationally Russian and particular, rather than universal,
cannot be a sacramental-mystery of the Church. Every application of the categories
of the Kingdom of God to the naturo-historical kingdom of Caesar is an utopia
or romanticism. Within such sorts of constructs there is absent a religious
realism, the sober vision of reality. Religious autocracy is impossible, since
generally impossible is any perfect social order in the sinful world, since
within the relative is impossible the absolute. And in the very idea of religious
autocracy there is insufficient humility, there is pride, there is the transforming
of "Caesar" into "God", the earthly into the heavenly, the relative into the
absolute, the natural into the spiritual. This idea impedes the search for the
Kingdom of God, it obstructs the path of a real transfiguration of life. Theocratic
utopia is the wellspring of all the social utopias.
V.
Christianity does not possess a
requisite connection, in the dogmatic sense of a requisite connection, with
monarchy nor with any other sort of form of political order. A monarchy can
be Christian, and it can be anti-Christian in its spirit. A republic too can
be anti-Christian, but it can also be Christian in its spirit. Everything is
determined not by the formal signs, but by spiritual content. We can no longer
still believe in an absolute significance of juridical and political forms.
We are exiting an epoch of absolutised forms. But it is impossible to seek salvation
in mere forms, salvation is only in the spiritual content of life. And the crisis,
which is taking place both in Russia and in the world, is not the crisis of
some sort of political form, this is a crisis of every political form, with
democracy in the same measure as with monarchy. And the place, which Christianity
occupies within life, defines the spiritual content of life, rather than mere
political forms and the outward order of life. The collapse of delusions and
idols, the imperialistic as well as the socialistic, is a very favourable thing
for Christianity. Christianity, and especially Russian Christianity, has returned
to the state of affairs prior to Constantine the Great. In Russia, in Orthodoxy,
this crisis is catastrophic, in the West, in Catholicism, it is evolutionary
and gradual. We are present at the liquidation of all the post-Constantine period
of Christian history. Those relationships, which built up between the Church
and the state, between Christianity and the world after Constantine the Great,
-- were not eternal nor absolute relationships. They were but ephemoral and
transitory relationships. Christianity can enter into a completely new period,
into a third period, and it has already entered into it. This finally must be
recognised. There has ended the period of the symbolic consecration of state
power. The outwardly-compulsive and conditionally-symbolic unity of the Christian
world has disintegrated. It has disintegrated from within, and this has found
expression on the outside in the processes of secularisation and in the revolutions.
The world is coming apart. The realisation by force of the Kingdom of God within
the kingdom of Caesar is shown to be impossible. The kingdom of Caesar lives
according to its own laws. And this catastrophic process, finishing off the
modern era, is not only a matter of woe for the Church of Christ, but also of
rejoicing, since Christianity loses in quantity, but wins out in quality. There
triumphs truthfulness and sincerity, and struck down is the lie and insincerity.
In Russia there has begun a persecution against the Church from the side of
the godless and anti-Christian state, but there has ended the enslavement of
the Church to the state, the captivity of the Church, which brought it into
the condition about which Dostoevsky spoke, saying that the Church since the
time of Peter the Great has been in paralysis. The false and vile protection,
the official state position in which the Church found itself, was worse than
a persecution. It is possible to frighten Christians with persecutions, though
in them it will build up a religious fortitude, but the official protection,
depriving the Church of its independence, can only enervate and paralyse the
energy of Christians. Yet all the same we have to admit, if we look religiously
at the catastrophe that is happening, that the Church is not only passively
suffering the blows from without, from the Revolution, but that also in the
Church itself spiritual changes are occurring, with a passage over into another
historical epoch. And a return to the old era, to the old relationships of church
and state, to the old consecration of the kingdom of Caesar, cannot obtain nor
can it be wished for. It is necessary to look ahead, and not backwards. The
Church of Christ stands anew before the raging elements of the world, it encounters
anew the hostility of the kingdom of Caesar. But inwardly it is already all
different, than it was prior to Constantine, during the first centuries of Christianity.
Rising up in opposition to Christianity is now not the pre-Christian pagan world,
but rather a significant portion of the world which is anti-Christian, revealing
in itself principles of hostility to Christ. And the persecutions on the part
of the anti-Christian world are more terrible, than were the persecutions on
the part of the pre-Christian world. The kingdom of Caesar inwardly is breaking
apart. In the world there is no peace. The sword is chopping the world to pieces.
There has ended the period of a mixed-up condition, of an outward unity or a
seeming neutrality. We are passing over to the realities, to the primal realities
of life and we ought to call everything by its own name. It is already impossible
to call Christian that, which in itself contains nothing Christian. The world
in reality is divided into he kingdoms of Christ and of the Anti-Christ. The
power of authority to the end of time will have a positive mission and the Church
will consecrate the principle of the power of authority. But whether the power
of authority will be found in the hands of Christians, this is more than problematic.
And indeed whether a Christian power of authority can uphold the oneness of
the world, which is divided into two kingdoms and in which quantitatively there
prevails, and actually, will prevail the Anti-Christ's kingdom. The kingdom
of Caesar only at times consents to call itself Christian. But it has not become
Christian at its most real and ontological roots and fundamentals, it has remained
a pagan and natural kingdom, receptive to anti-Christian currents and influences.
And in the old Christian, the theocratic kingdom of Caesar, the anti-Christian
principles had mightily breached their way through, with the lust for power
of the kingdom of this world. And now at present these principles ultimately
triumph within the kingdom of Caesar. The sacred and strong monarchies can exist
only up until the time, when the natural kingdom of Caesar ceases to be neutral,
up until the time of its fracturing and the revealing of its anti-Christian
principles. But when this has occurred, then the sacred monarchy is rendered
an utopia. And the position of Christianity becomes tragic afront the face of
the elements raging in the world: it cannot be wholly either with the "rightist"
camp, nor with the "leftist" camp, nor with the centrist camp, since in all
these camps there can all the same triumph the godless kingdom of Caesar. Christians
can and ought to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but the things
of God they cannot render to Caesar, in such things the image of Caesar should
not appear upon. And in this is the meaning of the events of our time.
In the current historical period, in this latest hour
of history, Christians ought to enter upon the path of not merely a symbolic,
but rather of a real realisation of Christianity in life, the realisation of
the truth of Christ. The Kingdom of God is conceivable in each instant of our
life. The truth of Christ can and ought to be realisable amidst all historical
conditions, in every setting. We cannot remain still satisfied with the conditions
of Christian signs and symbolic sealings. In the outward there ought also to
be the same, what also is within. We ultimately have entered into a period of
life, when the realities ought to be laid bare and when only the realities should
concern us. We want to stand face to face before the final realities. Ontological
sincerity and honesty ought to be our pathos. If we are Christian, then we cannot
not want, but that society should be maximally Christian, yet as such really
Christian and not merely illusory as Christian. Within Christianity there remains
eternally the eschatological hope, in it there cannot be bypassed the seeking
of the Kingdom of God, which ought to conquer the world. The meaning of the
ensuing epoch in Christianity consists also in this, that within it anew Christianity
will be eschatological, and not exclusively historical. And he idea of the Kingdom
of God ought to be explored not merely historically, but also eschatologically.
This also was undertaken in Russian religious thought. Or epoch possesses an
outward and formal affinity with the first centuries of Christianity, but inwardly
and materially everything is quite different, everything is infinitely more
complex and difficult. Yet history has not happened in vain. The Kingdom of
God has not been realisable nor found its place in either our historical flesh,
nor in our expanse and times, it is not there and it is not here, it does not
possess outwardly discernable signs, it cannot be conceived of by any sort of
historical process of evolution and cannot be built up by any sort of guarding
over, it likewise is not in the "right" just as it not in the "left", in it
likewise there is nothing of the "reactionary", just as there is nothing of
the "revolutionary". Only at the end of time, in the miraculous transfiguration
of the world can there be fully manifest the Kingdom of God, it is ahead, but
it likewise is in eternity, it approaches imperceptibly and in each moment it
ought actively to come to realisation for us. Inapplicable are any sort of the
categories, taken from the kingdom of Caesar, it has not the slightest affinity
with the kingdom of Caesar, in it everything is different and transpires otherwise.
The Kingdom of God has nothing in common with the fatal ordering of life, upon
which all monarchies are based. The Kingdom of God is not a symbolic sanctification
of the kingdom of Caesar, it is not in the historical life of the Church, as
the Catholics tend to think in following Bl. Augustine, -- in the Kingdom of
God there is the everything in all, it is a real and not symbolic kingdom. And
it originates in everything, everything that attains to a genuine ontological
reality, everything that finds itself in God. The Kingdom of God cannot be conceived
of by human activity alone, but it also cannot be conceived of without human
activity.
VI
Can the idea of a sacred and Christian
monarchy, the idea of a Christian and Orthodox tsar, as an anointed one of God,
can it be carried over from the historical perspective to the eschatological
perspective? The eschatological idea of a
Christian tsar and a Christian tsardom is a final recourse to an utopia, a final
attempt to transfer the kingdom of Caesar into the Kingdom of God. Monarchy
belongs wholly to the historical path, it is bound up with the workings of Christianity
within the naturo-historical world. Monarchies had a positive vocation in the
historical destinies of Christian peoples and they had their own advantage over
democracies, which are fictitious and transitory in nature. One can at present
still desire the historical path of monarchy and the new type of social monarchies
that can still yet appear. 14 But the idea of a Christian tsar is entirely
an historical non-eschatological category, it belongs entirely to the symbolic
kingdom of Caesar, and not to the real Kingdom of God. In the Kingdom of God,
which is a transfiguration of the world, there will be no sort of kingdom of
Caesar. The kingdom of Caesar exists only in the natural, the non-transfigured
world. Inapplicable to the Kingdom of God are those categories of might of authority,
which derive entirely from the natural kingdom of Caesar. In it everything is
otherwise and dissimilar to our world and its laws. A theocratic and sacred
autocratic monarchy will nevermore yet be in the world. The holy Russian tsardom
was the last of its type. This period in the history of Christianity has irreparably
ended. And the visionary dream about its return is an harmful utopian and romantic
dream, it is the lack of desire or the incapacity to stand afront the ultimate
religious realities. The Church knows only one Bridegroom -- Christ. The Kingdom
of God knows only one King -- Christ. The eschatological idea of kingdom is
the idea of the Kingdom of Christ, the non-mediated Kingdom itself of Christ,
King and HighPriest. Within Christianity lies hidden the expectation for an
universal royal priesthood. The Apostle Paul says: "Ye -- art a chosen people,
a royal priesthood". St. Makarios of Egypt says about the anointing of all Christians
to a royal kingship: "Just as with the prophets all the worthier was the one
anointed; wherefore being anointed were kings and prophets: thus now also spiritual
people, anointed with an heavenly anointing, are rendered Christians by grace,
so that they may be kings and prophets of the heavenly mysteries". 15 "Know thou art of a noble descent, and namely, that
thou art called to a royal dignity". 16 The Kingdom of God also will be an universal royal
priesthood. This nowise signifies a denial of the hierarchical principle within
the historical path, as various sorts of sectarians would suppose. Towards the
universal royal priesthood it is possible only to go by the hierarchical churchly
path. And indeed the very Kingdom of God itself -- is hierarchical. And an universal
royal priesthood is not a denial of the hierarchical structure of being. But
the eschatological idea of a royal priesthood is contrary to the theocratic
idea of a tsar. The Christian king-tsar was necessitated upon the historical
path, not because that by this was realised the Kingdom of Christ, but namely
because that the Kingdom of Christ had not been realised, and he was needed
in the world of the unrealised Kingdom of Christ. Suchlike also a view was in
the Biblical understanding of the origin of royal power of authority. The eschatological
and apocalyptic epoch will be connected with suchlike manifestations of the
Holy Spirit, about which we are unable to speak or know anything. We know only,
that in this epoch there will not be carried over categories of our historical
being, and to it are not applicable concepts, taken from the kingdom of Caesar.
We are compelled to recognise, that in the churchly consciousness this is not
something disclosed before the end-time. Movement towards the Kingdom of God,
towards the Second Coming of Christ signifies an epoch that is pneumatological
and spirit-bearing.
The third period in the history of Christianity
will stand beneathe the banner of an intensified religious struggle, of the
clash of Christian and anti-Christian principles. In this period a Christian
renewal is possible, a qualitative strengthening of Christianity. But only with
difficulty could it set itself the task of the re-creation of a confessional
Christian state in the old sense of the word. The Christian Church ought finally
to cease relying upon the state power and it ought to direct its own particular
energy inwards. Inside the Church will be brought together a genuine Christian
community of people, a social brotherhood in Christ, which in the "Christian
state" there was not. In this period they would cease ascribing that exceptional
significance to government power and politics, which they had ascribed in the
preceding period. People would unite under a religious standard, inwardly spiritual,
and not the external and political standard. The difference between good and
evil in people has hardly any relationship to the political inclinations of
people. To morally judge people dependent upon whether they be of the "right"
or of the "left" is quite great a spiritual perversion. The "right" or the "left",
monarchism or republicanism are in essence totally insignificant and pitiful
things, things third-rate before the face of God, before the face of authentic
spiritual life. People become spiritually close and united or spiritually distant
and divided not at all because they are "rightists" or "leftists", not because
they are for monarchy or for republic, it is not at all in these external spheres
that the relationships of people are determined. Hardly can it be presupposed
and even less can it be desired, that anew there should be a return to a realising
of the work of Christ in the world, of the Kingdom of God, by the forceful methods
of the kingdom of Caesar. This jumble and confusion would already be impossible
in the coming period of Christianity. And if there should be a coercive confessional
state, then this would be a socialist or communist state, based on a contrary
atheistic religion, a state which would persecute Christians and the Church
of Christ. In Russian Communism is given a prime example of such a Satan-ocratic
state. The Church of Christ in this world always was and will be oppressed,
-- either by a false protection, converting it into tools of the state, to Caesar's
ends, or by persecution. The third period of Christian history brings with it
a final freeing of Christianity from the temptations of a pagan Roman imperialism,
from utopian visionary dreams about the universal might of tsar or pope, i.e.
from the idea of a coercive and quantitative universalism. The Christian world
is being freed from those pagan and anti-Christian temptations, is being cleansed,
is being rendered more spiritual and deeply profound. The pretensions to a coercive
quantitative universalism ultimately has passed over to Communism, to the godless
kingdom of Caesar. Communism shows itself by force to be a compulsory theocracy,
it exists as an utopia. The Christian world, however, strives ultimately towards
the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world and which comes imperceptibly.
But that, which is "not of this world", can be manifest in this world and it
ought to be manifest. The new epoch within Christianity signifies a passing
over from the symbolic significations of the truth of Christ and the Kingdom
of Christ within the kingdom of Caesar, a passing over instead towards a real
transfiguration, towards a real realisation of the truth of Christ and the Kingdom
of Christ, without pretension to an outward state. The old "Christian state"
did not try even to realise Christianity within social life. Having been set
free from the pagan temptations, from the regarding of Caesar's principles as
divine, it will enable the reapproachement of the Eastern and Western Christian
world. Their divisions were primarily temptations of the kingdom of Caesar.
In the Kingdom of Christ, in the Kingdom of God, there cannot be divisions.
The divisions occurred within the kingdom of Caesar, and were construed as sacred,
as being of the Kingdom of God. We ought to recognise, that there transpires
not only an outward, a political, social revolution, but that there transpires
also an inward and spiritual upheaval, opening up a new period for Christianity.
The mixed-up kingdom, in which " the things of God" and "the things of Caesar"
were not sufficiently separated wherein one substituted for the other, has ended.
The Christian state also was a jumbled half-Christian state. An half-fast Christianity
is already an impossibility. A time of choosing has begun. Christianity can
be only a qualitatively inward, spiritual power in the world, and not a quantitative,
outwardly coercive power. Christianity can but be really a power realising the
truth of Christ. The new wine is being brought forth in the Christian world
and it is impossible to pour it into the old wine-skins. In the "world" itself
there are being discovered creative religious processes, which ought to be recognised
as churchly. But the third period, into which we enter, is not yet the final
period. We live with the great hope, that there will begin a yet conclusive
period, in which will be manifest the miraculous power of the truth of Christ
in the world, a power resuscitating to life eternal, and that the Kingdom of
God will come. The Church is not yet the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God
comes imperceptibly not only within the visible protective-walls of the Church,
but also into the world, into social and cosmic life, as yet not perceived as
churchly life. In the Kingdom of God there will be nothing of a resemblance
to the kingdom of Caesar, to the present order of the natural world, it will
be a real transfiguration of the cosmos, a new heaven and a new earth.
Nikolai Berdyaev.
1925
© 2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos
(1925 -303 -en)
TSARSTVO BOZHIE I TSARSTVO KESARYA. Journal
Put', Sept. 1925, No. 1, p. 31-52.
1
My theme does not include consideration of the problem of the relationship of
Christianity to the social question.
2
Vide "Collected Works of Khomyakov", tome VII, p. 424.
3
Much of interest on this question can be found in E. Troeltsch's "Die Sozial-lehrender
Christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen", 1919. Vide Chapter I, "Die Grundlagen in
der alten Kirche".
4
Papism assumed such an exceptional significance in the West, because for a long
time the Roman Church had to fill in as a substitute for the state and assume
the functions of governing.
5
K. P. Pobedonostsev regarded this as a result of ignorance.
6
The medieval consciousness never recognised the absoluteness of the state nor
the absoluteness of monarchic rule. Only in the modern period has there been
a returning to this attitude, to the ancient pagan principles. Medieval teachings
set natural law higher than the state, made the state subject to justice, and
recognised the law in opposition to such authorities as transgressed the law.
Vide the interesting book of Otto von Dierke, "Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht"
(the section, "Die publizistischen Lehren des Mittelalters").
7
An interesting and accurate critique of theocracy can be found with Pr. E. N.
Trubetskoy in his book, "Mirosozertsanie Vl. Solov'eva" ("The World-Concept
of Vl. Solov'ev").
8
Vide the book of M. Zyzykin, "Tsarskaya vlast' i zakon o prestolonasledii v
Rossii" ("The Power of the Tsar and the Law of Assuming the Throne in Russia"),
1924.
9
[trans. note: the same words are used in the anointing with myrh-chrism in the
sacrament of Chrismation (Myropomazanie)].
10
Vl. Solov'ev thought thus, when he constructed his concept of theocracy.
11
Much of interest in this regard can be found in the investigations of P. Verkhovsky's
"Uchrezhdenie dukhovnoi kollegii i dukhovnyi reglament" ("Foundations of the
Clerical Collegium and the Religious Regulation").
12
The book, "Monarkhicheskaya Gosudarstvennost'", was republished abroad and enjoys,
evidently, great popularity in the rightist monarchic circles. It is necessary
moreover to mention, that for the court-bureaucratic reactionaries the ideas
of L. Tikhomirov are ill suited, in that his monarchism is sharply populist
and in the social regard bears a democratic character. Tikhomirov is an opponent
of the bureaucratic absolutism.
13
Actually in the West also, monarchy was avowedly sacred and the king of France
was regarded a king verymost-Christian.
14
The old sort of monarchies cannot be revived. The monarch can only be some sort
of president of the republic with a strong and independent power.
15
Vide "Prepodobnago Ottsa nashego Makariya Egipetskago dukhovniya besedy, poslaniya
i slova" ("Spiritual Discourses, Letters and Sermons of our Father Makarios
of Egypt"), p. 148.
16
Ibid., p. 209.
© 2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos
Permission granted for non-commercial distribution
|