The Concept of Trinity as Paradigm for the Relationship between Church and State

Transcription

1 G reek Orthodox Theological Review 58: The Concept of Trinity as Paradigm for the Relationship between Church and State Kakhaber Kurtanidze In t r o d u c t io n The optimal variant o f existence for modern society is the secular state, which is open to religion andrecognizes itspositive social values and understands the limitations o f its own political spheres. - V. Aman' Tlie concept that the Trinity is the true basis for Ghurch life and structure, as emphasized in the so-called neopatristic movement by theologians such as John Zizioulas and Ghristos Yannaras, is well known.2 More intriguing, however, is the possibility of expanding this Trinitarian basis for life even onto toe political sphere. Indeed, varying attempts at giving a theological basis for toe relationship between Church and state have been made in toe history of Christianity in boto East and W est-som e more Trinitarian than others depending on toe denomination involved. The receto paradigm shift that has been observed from a Christocentric universalism to a more Trinitarian understanding of the divine reality and of toe ecumene as the one venue for life3 allows us to speculate whether this Trinitarian model could be employed today as a paradigm for toe relationship between Church and state. The purpose of this paper is to answer tois uestion while 99

2 100 GOTR 58: affirming that neither the Arian model ٠٢ Eusebius of Caesarea nor the Chalcedonian one ofjustinian, ٨٠٢ the dyophysical schema of Luther, but only the Trinitarian model is most appropriate to serve as a paradigm for the relationship between Church and state* in the contemporary. world In order to develop this argument, we shall examine previous theological schemas from East and West for this relationship between Church and state and, building upon this basis of history, propose a Trinitarian model- H i s t o r i c a l M o d e ls o f t h e C h u r c h - S t a t e R elationship The Eastern Type (Byzantium) Starting from the fourth century up to the end of its existence in the fifteenth century, the Byzantine Empire was.* //' ^»( - kingdom faithful to the idea of the theocracy of the This notion had been shaped by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century.* Swayed by the strength of this dominant notion, the inhabitants ofbyzantium did not fathom any chasm between ffieoty and reality. Indeed, for the Byzantines, any failures of the empire were merely justified, temporary ٠٢- deals. They believed that God s ultimate plan was for the Byzantine Empire to be truly worldwide. Herein lays the hidden tragedy of Byzantium: it was assumed that the state can become intrinsically Christian. The Church was all too eager to assent to imperial protection, which, in Byzantine theology, was never controlled through any precise and detailed study ofthe nature and the role ofthe state and secular society in the context of fallen humanity. Thus the acceptance of Justinian symphony, bolstered by the doctrine of Chalcedon, included a fundamental error, because ٨٠ distinction was ever made between fallen created nature (this includes the concept of power, in a fallen sense that emerges

3 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 101 in all societies) and the equally created but not nonfallen nature (which concerns Christ and whatever cleaves tochrist only).9 Furthermore, at the end ofhis life Justinian became a supporter of aphthartodocetism,10 and consequently imperial authority and empire had become something imperishable and eternal, that is to say, ultimately divine." The same sort ٠٢ theological problems can be discerned even earlier than this ambiguous theory of Justinian. In the discourse ٠٢ Eusebius of Caesarea, we find Videlicet stating, Hence there is one God, not two, ٠٢ three, or more, for to assert a plurality of gods is plainly to deny the being of God at all. There is one Sovereign, and His sovereign Word and Law is one. '^ This oneness, coupled with a distorted Trinitarian theology, is what seems to be stressed in Eusebius s theories on the empire. Indeed, it is known that Eusebius s Trinitarian theory introduced subordination into the Trinity. This subordination was expanded in such a way that the emperor was included within this structure as some kind of emanation of the Trinity on earth.' ١Within this theory, then, God is one but devoid of equal personal relationships within his divine life, and consequently the power ٠٢ the emperor, who was the image of God,'* could not be shared15(!). Also, pronounced social hierarchy and inequality were recognized as order and as a natural consequence ٠٢ such a divine subordination.'^ Thus the empire, according to this theory, became a quasi-divine entity. In the twelve centuries of Byzantine history, the relationship between Church and state that was based on this theory took on various forms and features. The aforementioned theory of Eusebius, while not accepted in practice as is, in actual fact was never abandoned either. In other words, without it being an explicit teaching, the Eastern Grthodox churches always leaned toward this imperial model in practice. This means that fire very complex and explicit dogma of the Grthodox Trinity and of the two natures of Christ were not actually put

4 ?& ا : 0 into practice when the relation$hip between Church and state in the Byzantine reality was worked out. Despite this obscu- ٠ ٠٢ the state, one aspect rity regarding a Trinitarian basis Christianity in the mind of the Byzantines that did have an influence on the state theory was the following: foe major role ٠ good citizens in foe lifo ٠ society. Christians must be good citizens and thus transform '. society This notion was clearly reflected in foe fourteenth-century works of foe Byzantine thinker Theodore Metochites. Be considered that evetything involved in improving foe social life depended on foe most excellent (άρ(στων) of foe. ' citizens Thus it is evident that Byzantine thought emphasized foe important role of each Church member (believer) in foe life of society and consequently of the state The Western Model In Western Christianity an explicit tension between religion and society. Church and state, had already become characteristic by foe medieval era. Within Western Christianity one needs to distinguish between foe Roman Catholic model (synthesis and continuity between Church and world), the Lutheran model (distinction between foe realm of faith and foe realm of public responsibility), and foe Calvinist model (relation of sanctification and transformation, gospel and world). In foe space at ٠٧٢ disposal here, we cannot offer a full overview of all these theories. Rather, it is our intention to remark on some of foe mom salient reflections of foe most significant Western Church thinkers, which will help us to clarity the intention of ٧٢ thesis.^ Augustine ofhippo It is well known that Augustine of Hippo s theory of state had an enormous influence on the development of Western models ofchurch-state relationship. The separation between

5 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 103 Church and state that we take for granted today is a consequence of Augustine s thought. He sharply divided these as two opposite worlds: Church and state, foe city of heaven and foe city of earth. The state is seen as a necessary evil that compels citizens to overcome violence and violent actions. The law of the state offers Christians (citizens of heaven) a framework within which they can pave foe way toward their true home. Indeed, he stressed that Christians as human heings are social by nature. Christians thus introduce foe values of God, such as peace and love, into foe body of society so foe members are harmoniously included in foe complete structure of the body. ^ Let us note that fois harmony ( μμ λλης και μουσικής πολιτεία) of the social body is also found in foe thinking of the Byzantines. Bofo foe Byzantines and Augustine therefore introduce fois harmony into society (κοινωνική ^ιμφωνία) and propose it as foe responsibility of ال. Christians In fois way, divine harmony becomes a cohesive force that bonds foe social body as coexistence of Church and state. Martin Luther Tor Martin Luther both Church and state are instituted by God. Neither of them is sufficient without foe other The state as a secular power is not a necessary evil. Consequently, when foe human person serves foe state, he ٠٢ she is ultimately serving God. In fois case Luther uses a Christological model: foe one Christian person has two identities as foe one Christ has two natures. The Christian thus lives according to foe gospel (Church identity) by loving and suffering for others and acts as a member of society (state identity) by obeying foe law and by using foe sword when needed, thus operating on behalf of his fellows. Life on earth is a continuous tension between these two identities.^ In a sense fois practical application of Christological dogma is more sensible than foe Justinian model in that foere is a clear distinction

6 104 GOTR 58: between the two (Church and state), and thus the state ٨ this case doesn t become divine. Moreover, in the perspective of this theory, the state has a dynamic character. It can be transfigured and has the potential to become a positive foree on the condition that the citizens carry out divine values in their life in society. Huldrych Zwingli Huldrych Zwingli stressed the positive rcle of government even more than Luther. The two powers (Church and state) cooperate very closely and even overlap in the external trappings observed in the life ofthe community. However, in this scheme, man s inner life is supposed to concentrate on the defending of the Church,^ and when rulers do not respect Christian values, the believers must take a stand. Thus all life in the state depends on the Christian virtues of persons who have been transformed gradually by participating in the Church s inner (meaning liturgical and social) life. Zwingli practiced what he preached and served as an example of this polity, for he actually lived out the Christian virtues in practice. According to the principles of sola scriptura, he placed the Rihle at the center of Church life and had it as the sole point of reference for society ^. also One may even say that the personal Christian role of each citizen was thus promoted in the life of society. This therefore was understood as a step toward a transformation of reality where the body ٠٢ society was linked organically to the body ٠٢ Church and state as one whole organism John Calvin Similarly, John Calvin also promoted the notion ٠٢ these two entities in close relationship. Civil authority for Calvin was by far the most sacred and honorable of all human ٧٠ cations. He promoted the notion ٠٢ a theocratic government power divided between equal administrators.

7 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 105 Law, according to alvin, is ultimately instituted by the Divinity. It therefore is not a mere human invention but a process, an actuation and adaptation of the divine message to human social reality and needs. hristian magistrates cannot operate without law because the law is perceived as being impregnated with Christian values and thus forms the soul of society. Therefore, his social theory proposes that government and society listen to foe teaching of Christian values underscored by foe Church. This is precisely what Calvin and Zwingli also believed and in fois way influenced public life through their personal example in preaching and ٥٠٧٨ seling foe government. Calvin also reorganized ecclesiastical offices in such a way that foe Church could be more involved in social life. Thus Church and state became closety connected and Christian citizens played a crucial role in foe life of the state and society S om e A spects o f t h e C h u r c h -S tate R e la t io n sh ip At this juncture it behooves us to deal with some aspects of Church-state duo in more detail in order to delineate the dynamics of this relationship. Personal Role in Society We underlined above foe important and crucial role ofcertain specific individuals in society. Peter Burke, in his book History andsocial Theory, shows that although foe personal talent (charisma) of leaders (and, by extension, foe talents of all persons in society) is definitely significant, movements from below are equally important. In other words, foe readiness of the whole ٠٢ society and foe surrounding milieu are ^. society also crucial for development and movement in Thus, ultimately foe leaders and foe totality ٠٢ society are necessary for progressive change in society.

8 106 GOTR 58: The Coneept of Secularization Two item$ regarding this principle must he clarified: (a) First of all, the concept of secularization (especially in ^. connotations religious circles) often provokes negative The Greek theologian Nikos Matsoukas criticizes this gut reaction, stating that [the Church] is necessarily and naturall^ secularized. Otherwise, its path cannot he historical. The Church is in the world and yet simultaneously lives the eschatological event of salvation. It struggles within the time and space of this world in the spheres of morality and ethics in order to squelch errors and to mitigate scandals, and, simultaneously, it transforms the weakness of the human side of the Church (the nutshell, according to Matsoukas, that is, the solid, the external trappings of the hierarchal structure) within which fire body of the Church is visibly dressed, and imparts upon it something of the victory of the end times.30 (b) Second, granted that there are negative aspects ofsecularization that must be acknowledged, it should not be assumed that these are necessarily a product ofthe Reformation period. Indeed, the Reformation actually stimulated tighter relationships between Church and state and often increased foe authority of religious institutions in all areas of social and political life. So, in fois sense, urope was less secular in early modem times than in the Middle Age.s-^' Symbols In the Life of Church and Soeiety Having presented foe two elements ofpersonal role and secularization, we must now introduce foe concept of symbol. The importance of symbol for religious life, and especially liturgy, is beyond a doubt. ^ ft turns out that religious life and piety undergo change when their primary symbols are altered. Religious symbols interact creatively with social situations as one influences foe other. Thus, when religious life changes,

9 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 107 this is observable in light of both its symbols and the social ramifications that ensue. Indeed, symbols can even be eradicated and re-created without the occurrence of secularization (in its negative sense) because the changing and rebuilding of symbols ultimately reinforces the religious faith ofa community. Secularization may occur even if the expression ofsymbols is not changed formally with reference to nonreligious events and expressions (for example, foe national identity ofbelievers). On foe ofoer hand, new symbols of relationship between Church and state may also introduce foe values of foe previous faith into foe body of society. It must be reiterated here that, with respect to foe relationship between Church and state, foe changing of symbols is not necessarily due to foe negative aspects ٠٢ secularization, as is often assumed. Charismatic individuals and a new social environment can inspire a realistic mysticism that can create a new paradigm o f positive secularization where foe Church effectively carries out its historical as well as its prophetic and eternal functions. Such changes will be character- symbols- zed by foe morphing ٠٢ religious The Role o f Ritual What has been said thus far, however, needs yet further explanation. At fois point we must delineate in a more practical sense foe positive role of Church rituals in social/state life in order to set foe ground for a possible Trinitarian paradigm for Church-state relations. How do Church symbols work within and for a society? ft is evident that symbols imbedded in Church rituals (especially liturgical life in general) invariably expand outward and pass onto foe surrounding popular culture and even become necessary components ٠٢ that social life, as is clearly seen in many cultures. One ٠٢ foe functions ٠٢ ritual is foe upbuilding of foe religious community in communion as a way ofbeing. In theory fois com

10 108 GOTR 58: munal under$tanding of ritual discourages all distinctions in the hierarchy of religious communities, and, by extension, within wider social life. Thus it potentially can move in the direction of overcoming the corrupted hierarchical ٠٢- der both in society and in the hierarchy of the Church. This kind of understanding on a wider plane also dissolves barriers between members of different religious systems and thus promotes religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence in a multicultural ^. society And if we understand Church identity not as coming from the past, nor by what the Church is as an institutional reality in the present, but by what the Church is supposed to become at the end of time, the eschaton, then the Church logically becomes a factor in society that must prod the body of the state toward a tolerant, just, and environmentally sustainable society The Role of the Citizen The issue of ritual and symbols, and their importance in the life of the state, that we just dealt with logically lead us to inquire: do these automatically promote progress? And if this is so, where is there room for the free personal act that is one of the basic tenets of Christian anthropology? We pointed out that a charismatic leader can only manage to bring change to society when this society is ready to participate in this transformation. We know that any given society consists of and is a venue for concrete, personal, conscious acts. Symbols and rituals as concrete forms within fois venue actually create foe conditions for such acts.38 It is clearly evident that foe passive ٠٢ blind collaboration ٠٢ actors in foe sphere of social or Church rites and symbols is one thing, and foe collaboration of conscious agents is quite - another t h e latter signifies foe free assimilation and incorporation ٠٢ true values by way of symbol to foe community (i.e., to foe Church ٠٢ society). The whole body

11 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 109 of society must be impregnated with these values in order for the relationship between hurch and state to be one of quality. Such a relationship is dynamically multifarious and fosters progress. Social Coexistence as an Ontology of?ersonhood Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), in his article on understanding other *, religions employs the patristic concept of the Spermatic Word-Logos, which in essence is tantamount to the notion of the anonymous Christian. '** He supports his argument with a quotation from Maximus the Confessor: The divine Logos of God the Father is mystically present in each of His commandments... In this way, he who receives a commandment and carries it out receives mystically the Holy Trinity. ٠ Taking this one step farther, the archbishop concludes: If we apply these views to the sphere ٠٢ social life, perhaps new horizons might open up in ٠٧٢ theological understanding ٠٢ the mystery regarding the lives of people with other religious faith. * Thus social life is a common held where all things transpire and are determined, and within fais context the Church... [is] the instrument of the mystery of the salvation offae nations... [and] a sign of God s love for all mankind. ** By its symbols, rites, and concrete moral actions, fais reality is made manifest, and mutual learning and *. place mutual transformation take fa fais way, the social sphere is the field where life actually takes place, and fais field is for fae most part multicultural. Gnee imbued wifa a theological foundation that will stress equality, all aspects ٠٢ fais multicultural environment potentially can enjoy fae same respect. Indeed, every member ٠٢ society has to somehow realize his moral role in such an environment. Hence, in such a context, it is not mere COexistence ٠٢ individuals ٠٢ some groups that counts but fae

12 110 GOTR 58: my$tery of mutual transformation. In this vein, the Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili states that Marx had an idea. He decided to pat the social aspect not as an afterthought among persons, wfio had beforehand agreed among them selves and thus created the necessary conditions, but rather he set the social aspect as prior to them. He believed that the way people communicate among them selves is already precisely the essence o f each ofth em independently o f what agreement thc> might make. In other words, Marx considered that members o f society are formed by social communication. I repeat, there is no such thing as preprepared objective agents who then enter into communication, but rather there is a certain social unity that precedes the person-mcmbcrs and these persons are formed inside o f this unity... According to the young Marx the essence o f the person is relationship itself. Or to say it in another way, relationship is the essence o f the person...t h e image o f the human is basically plural, that is to say, humans interact as a com m unication^ plurality [that plurality that is intrinsic to relationships]. Conse!uently the essence o f the person is not a firm fact, which can exist by itself but it exists to the extent that the human person supports, produces and keeps relationships. If this constant maintenance and reproduction o f relationship is not present, there is no person, but a mere animal.46 The similarity between foe above and the theology of the person especially stressed by so-called neopatristie theology (cf. especially John Zizioulas and Ghristos Yannaras) is too obvious to overlook. In any case, in foe social sphere such interactions do not lead to mere coexistence but rather to foe very ontology of foe person, and this ontological transformation occurs through foe social context. Thus relationships within foe social sphere can become one nation under God, as is seen, for example, in foe context of the reality ٠٢ foe civil religion that Americans automatiealty adhere to. Indeed, to be a true American, one can hold another reli

13 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 111 gion ٢no religion at all... Ameriea holds together because of the American ideal, that anyone, of any race, creed, color, language, religion... can become a good American under this nation s Constitution and Bill of Rights. 47 By replacing American civil religion with Christian teaching, one can come up with a society with very different preconditions for its citizens, that is, with the capability to transform and be transformed by one s own active and conscious ethical existence and coexistence with others. This is foe essence of personal transformation on an ontological level. This, in our opinion, is foe best and foe only effective means for true COexistence. This entails foe abandonment of all efforts to com vert others through state propaganda ٠٢ other more violent means of state (direct ٠٢ indirect) influence. Rather, in fois case, foe proper conditions for citizens to discover foe treasure within their hearts are foe ultimate goal, and for this to happen, foe most appropriate locus is foe social sphere of responsible coexistence made possible only through a theological foundation. It is agreed by all that peaceful coexistence and collaboration on foe social level are crucial. According to foe above, foe most effective method for such peaceful social and consequently state (and Church) progress is a theological basis-ultimately a specifically Trinitarian basis-th at leads society toward ultimate transformation in foe eschaton. Indeed, based on such a theological foundation, fois type of social coexistence can ultimately be understood on foe ontological level. Orthodox Christians confess a dynamic definition of personhood. It is precisely in fois dynamic context that it is possible to include and embrace even foe atheist. Such a society, which includes Christians and atheists, is vivified as a multipersonal dynamic reminiscent of foe Trinity itself, a dynamic that is essential to life, according to Christian doctrine. Thus such a social schema can be understood as a gift primarily bestowed upon us by God himself. On a second level, fois

14 112 GOTR 58: same social model becomes our eucharistie gift back to God. Indeed, if the gift given is well pleasing to God, who knows how he can in turn transform humankind through his grace? This makes possible the hope that postmodernism, which has fragmented a united humanity into separate individuals, does not necessarily portend the approach of catastrophe or apocalyptic horror. Our epoch is indeed unique ط its difficulties, but the image ofhumankind transformed by God s grace ean also be unique today in ways impossible in toe past. Our task today, therefore, is to commune and live with dignity according to toe model of love set forth by toe Trinity: unity in diversity in a way that allows us to maintain and constantly increase our respect toward others and otherness. C o n c l u s io n To conclude, toe Church-State relationship ideally should be understood in toe light of toe Trinity, whieh proposes a paradigm for sueh a relationship. This reality in early paradigms (in boto East and West, as shown above) was not articulated sufficiently, although it was latently developing. We promoted this schema because the dynamic, changeable world can be interpreted as an image of toe essential, unehangeable being of the Trinity. Indeed, evety personal relationship in toe created world potentially bears toe seal of this essential relationship between toe divine persons. This is because neither toe state, nor society, nor toe Chureh can be understood as being eomposed of impersonal objects. Each of these entities is a living body of true persons. Therefore, evetything depends on these conscious citizens who form each of these toree bodies (state, society, and Church). In this way, toe function of conscious citizens can best be understood as being similar to that of toe veins in toe human body that link toe heart (toe Church) to toe whole body (toe state), thus conveying toe life force, which emanates

15 Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm 113 outward from worship into people s ordinary social-state life and flows back from there into worship once again. Thus, even while symbols, law, and regulations constantly change, the important role of the conscious citizen is unchangeable when he ٠٢ she lives according to the principle of diversity in unity and the unconditional love of the Trinity. In this way, we Christians [must] become God s grace for this age. ** Christians, therefore, ideally should be representatives of the Trinitarian grace of God as citizens in eveiy society of every specific given time and place. Indeed, when Christian values are being openly * rejected in our environments (states), these citizens have the duty to glean from the sphere of God s gift and grace-that is, the Church based on the Trinity-in order that a societal reform and transfermation be made possible in that society at large. Only then, according to this Trinitarian basis for society, can Christians live their special calling in fee world to be fee fee salt ofthe earth (Matt. 5:13) and fee light ofthe world, for a city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden (Matt. 5:14) and only a little leaven leavens fee whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6)- N otes. ر 998 ا : 32 ( 86 ' Iv. Aman, Gosudarstv i Tserkov, Kontinent 2For a general overview o f the neopatri$tie movement, see Paul Ladoueeur, Treasures New and Old: Landmarks o f Orthodox Neopatristie Theology, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2012): ; see also N. Asproulis, Holy Trinity, Church, Eschaton: Introduction to the Eucharistie Ecclesiology o f Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas [in Greek], Theologian (2009): K. Raiser, Ecumenism in Transition: ٨ Paradigm Shift in he Ecumenical Movement (Geneva: w c c Publications, 1991), 34. 4For our purposes in this paper, Church and state may be defined as the soeiety o f conscious citizens. Subrata Kumar Mitra, Desecularising the State: Religion and Polities أ in India After Independence, Comparative Studies in Society - Hisمح?ا tory 33, no. 4 (Oct. 1991):

16 114 GOTR 58: Alpha ^A. Uvorkin, Idea selensk y teokratiy ٧pozdney Bizantiy, Omega N1 (1994): G. Ostrogorsky, History o f the Byzantine State (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969), ^A. Schmeman, Sudba vizantiyskoy teokratiy, in Pravoslavnaia misl (Paris, 194^), S. Horuji, Isikhazm ٧ izantiy 1 Rosiy, in o Starom I Novom (St. Petersburg, 2000), ; j. G. Prolovskiy, Bizantiyskie Ottsi V-Vlflvv (Westmead and Parnborough, UK: Gregg International, 1972), 140, j. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, rev. 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press 1983), : The great dream of Byzantine eivilization was a universal Christian society administered by the emperor and spiritually guided by the Church. This idea obviously combined Roman and Christian universalisms in one single socio-political program. It was also based upon the theological presuppositions... The original enthusiasm with which the Christian Church accepted imperial protection was never corrected by any systematic reflection on the nature and role of the state or of secular societies in the life of fallen humanity. There lies the tragedy of the Byzantine system: it assumed that the state, as such, could become intrinsically Christian... In the thought of Justinian, the symphony between divine things and human affairs was based upon the Incarnation, which united the divine and human natures, so that the person of Christ is the unique source of the two the civil and ecclesiastical hierarchies. The fundamental mistake of this approach was to assume that the ideal humanity which was manifested, through the Incarnation, in the person of Jesus Christ could also find an ade uate manifestation in the Roman Empire Steven Runciman, Vizantiiskaia ), (Moscow, أسءمخ 7 10A.V. Kartashiev, Vselnskie sobori (Moscow: Pespublika, 1994), ١For the political theology of Justinian, see ٧. A. Cmetanin, Konsonatsia cvyashchenstva i tsarstvenosti kak osnova iustinianovskoy paradigm pomeyskogo sotsiuma, Problemi Teologii 3 (2006): ٧Eusebius, Oration in Honor o f Constantine, chap. 3: In the example of monarchical rule there is a source o f strength intrinsic to him. This is something granted by the universal King to man alone o f all the creatures on earth. The basic principle of kingly authority is the establishment of a single source o f authority to which everything is subject. Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord. This is why there is one God, not two ٠٢three ٠٢even more. Folytheism is strictly atheism. There is one King, and His Word and royal law are one. See also B. I. Fopescu, Models ofrelationship between Church

17 ولل Kurtanidze: The Concept oftrinity as Paradigm andstate andtheir Significance for Today (Geneva: Bossey, 2002), Runciman, Vizantiiskaia Teokratia, ^.ΡΧ11ΓΪ5Κ)5, ΣτοιχειαΠολιτικήςΦιλοσοφίαςστούς«Ύπομνηματισμούς» του Θεοδώρου Μετοχίτου, in Scientific Annals of the Faculty of Theology,.? 34? 2001), vol.? (Thessalonica: School ofpastoral and Social Theology 15Ibid.,?1: ln Novella Justinian declares that he is not only committed to the laws, but that he himself is their lord as living law (έμψυ^ς νόμος). 1*Ibid., 68. Compare this to B. 1. Popescu, Models o f Relationship, 18: Following Byzantine thought John Chrysostom considers e ualitarianism as a potential source of anarchy. Be cites the fact that the principle o f subordination is evident also in nature in order to organize life... For this reason he requests that Christians not be ashamed of subordination, because Cod instituted it. 1^Runciman, Vizantiiskaia Teokratia, 154; Christos, Στοιχεία Πολιτικής Φιλοσοφ(ας, *Cf. Fopescu, Models ofrelationship, 23: Be [John Chrysostom] does not separate Christians from the world, but fries to make them a ferment and a matrix o f a new state... The followers of Christ must not flee society, rather they must transform and improve it peacefully. See also ibid., 24, 25, Φιλοσοφ(ας, Στοιχε α Πολιτικής Christos, 1 20 B. Boedemaker, Church and World, University Handouts (Geneva: Bossey, 2005). 21 This attempt is based especially on Fopescu, Models ofrelationship. 22Popescu, Models ofrelationship, 29-35, 38, Theodor Metochitae, Ύπομνηματισμοί634: «Τόναύτόν &pa ώςάληθως τρόπον ούδέν άνθρώποις εσται συμβιώσεως άρμονία και συμφωνία κοινωνική, και μμελώς και μουσικώς εχουσα πολιτεία... Άρμονία γάρ τις έστί τώ όντι καί τό πολιτικόν σύνθημά τε καί σύστημα και σύνταγμα», quoted in Christos, Στοιχε α Πολιτικής Φιλοσοφίας, Popescu, Models 40, Huldrych Zwingli, Commentary About The True and False Religion, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1981), *Popescu, Models ofrelationship, 61, 63-64, 62, Peter Burke, History andsocial Theory [in Georgian] (Tbilisi, 2002), Compare this to Jon N. Mack, who illustrates in his article that the reforms of Peter the Great in Russia were caused not so much from above, that is to say, from Peter himself, but emerged from below. The impetus for change is thus interpreted as coming from within Russian so-

18 116 GOTR 58:1-4 ciety rather from without (Mack, Peter the Great and the Ecclesiastical Regulation: Secularization ٠٢Reformation, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 49, no 3 [2005]: 247). 29 For example, see Popescu, Models ofrelationship, 81. ^Nikos Matsoukas, Οικουμενική Θεολογία (Thessalonica, 2005), Mack, Peter the Great. On this see also K. Dobbelaere, Some Tendencies in the European Sociology o f Religion: The Secularization Debate, Sociological Analysis 48 (1987): Philip Gorski, Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Ghurch, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modem Europe, ca to 1700, American Sociological Review 65, no. 1 (2000): For two excellent reviews on symbol from the point of 1'ew of the Byzantine tradition, see Alexander Schmemann, Symbols and Symbolism in the Orthodox Liturgy, in Orthodox أTheology and Diakonia, ed. Demetrios j. Cons (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981), Wor- and John Zizioulas, Symbolism and Realism in Orthodox ship, Sourozh 79 (2000): For example, by the establishment in Russia ofthe college of bishops in place ofthe patriarch, Peter the Great both eradicated an existing symbol and created a new symbol to pull the old faith through into a new social environment. Thus, according to his view, for the sake of the common good, that is, for a well-ordered society, the Church had to change some of its symbols in order to ultimately play an incredibly valuable role in society (Mack, Peter the Great, 259, , 264, 267). ^lbid., One may, for example, cite the practice of spitting that has passed onto the popular culture of Orthodox societies such as Greece, as manifested in a comical way in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Compare M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis ofth e Concept o f Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1966), 62: It is not too much to say that ritual is more to society than words are to thought... It is impossible to have social relations without symbolic acts, quoted in Petros Vassiliadis, Beyond Christian Lniversalism: The Church s Witness in a Multicultural Society [in Greek], in ScientificAnnals ofthe Faculty oftheology, vol. 7 (Thessalonica: School of Pastoral and Social Theology, 2001), 3١7. ^ assiliadis, Beyond Christian Universalism, , 320. ^Ibid., *Cf. Merab Mamardashvili, 06H3amej1bH0cmb (j)op.mbi [Obligation of the Form], p. 4, h^://w w w.phloso^y.ru/libra^ It seems that there are things which as much as possible determine narrow edges of a field so that things within this field can be induced to some

19 Kurtanidze: The Concept o f Trinity as Paradigm 117 free event... [The] eapability o f the form [in our case, socialform ] is, aside from any analytical aspects, to induce the creative act o f understandin in the human being. ٣ See Merab Mamardashvili, Civil Society, ٠٠in The Civic Arts Review, 2 (Summer 1989): A state without citizens is a monstrosity... Civil society corresponds to the historical possibilities of man and history as a drama of good and evil... The problem is whether we have a few citizens who are capable of living according to values and realizing what is embodied in them... To be mature we have to know how and why we live and what the sources of our existence are. Cnly such people may be called citizens. Not those who merety have the right to take part in publie affairs, but those who are obligated and are capable of carrying out their duties in public life. See also Sergei Horugi, AHmueo3poo/cdeHue s / bin lass.ra/cgi Poccuu [The Antirevival o f Russia], K ://w w w.^li& sue.pl? d=71,htt^//intelros.ru/club/toxts^ *٠Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), A Theological Approach to Understanding Other Religions, in Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir s Seminary Press, 2003), *١Harvey Egan, AnAnthology ofchristian Mysticism (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 600: The experience of God forms the ambiance, undertow, ٠٢the basal spiritual metabolism, ٠٢daily life. Because of God s universal self-communication, communication that the human person must freely accept and not reject, anyone even the agnostic ٠٢ atheist-w ho lives moderately, selflessly, honestly, courageously, and in silent service to others experiences the mysticism ٠٢daily life. The courageous, total acceptance ٠٢life and ٠٢oneself, even when everything tangible seems to be collapsing, is perhaps the primary mystical experience of everyday life. Anyone who does so accepts implicitly toe holy mystery that fills toe emptiness both of oneself and life. And because Christ s grace supports this hope against hope, the experience is, at least anonymously, Christian, that is, Christian in fact if not in name. ^ArchbisfopAnastasiog A ^ o lo ^ c a la ^ r o a 130. ^Ibid., and , 150, 151. *٠John. j. Pas uini, Atheism and Salvation: Atheismfrom the Perspective of Anonymous Christianity in the Thought ofthe Revolutionary Mystic and Theologian Karl Rahner (New York: University Press of America, 2000), Peter c. Bouteneff, foreword to John Garvey, Seeds ofthe Word (Crestwood, N Y St. Vladimir s Seminary Press, 2005), M. K. Mamardashvili, Vvedenie V fiilosofiyu, in Moi opit netipichen (St. Petersburg, 2000), 210. ^Jacob Neusner, World Religions inamerica (Louisville, KY: Westmin-

20 118 GOTR 58: Ster ا 1 س Knox?ress, 2000), 2-3. Gosbert *ص T. M. Byamungu, A Human Response In Being S alt and 'Light ofthe World (Geneva: Bossey, 2005), 1,2. 49Ibid., ١.

21 آلما ورلم Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent. No eontent may be copied or ed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS ) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment!)٦٥. The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.