Fr. Gregory, are you familiar with the work of the RC philosopher Michael Hanby? He can be a bit bombastic, but I appreciate his clarity in describing the metaphysical and epistemic foundations of the Cartesian/Lockean foundation of our moral/practical polity, i.e. of "Separation of Church and State", "market place of ideas", and the like.
In other words, I have the opposite reaction as you do, in that I would find it exceedingly strange these or any other 'social document' coming from the Church did not 'privilege' (to choose a word) the *Reality* that is the Gospel & Tradition. Any thinking that grants foundational Lockean polity (and the metaphysics and most importantly theological anthropology that lies behind it) would be, by definition, *non-Christian*. Now, plenty of Christian's claim to grant a mere *strategic* ground to Lockean Liberal polity/anthropology (i.e. they claim they are fully committed to a theoretical, often 'eschatological' Christianity), but in practice non-Christian "secularism" always carries the day. This is particularly true now that the "Protestant Consensus" died out in western culture (in America's case, certainly by the end of the 1960's) and we (i.e. the vast majority of the population and the "culture") are truly "post-Christian". Indeed, that is a central weakness of both these documents (as you point out in your own way), that they want it both ways - a Lockean "freedom of conscious" ensconced in law along with a contradictory privileging of Christian doctrine/anthropology/culture/history.
However as Hanby likes to point out, it is very (very very) difficult anyone in our culture - even those of us who have philosophical/theological minds, to see past the "horizon" of Lockean Liberal thought. It is the metaphysical/epistemic water in which we all swim. All to say that I am willing to forgive the incoherence of these documents, as in the end they still cling to Christianity, and that in is an real achievement given our circumstances. That said I should add that I have only spent any real time with Russian document, as I suspect the EP/GOA (as an practical institution in the last 100 years or so) has ceded too much to Classical Liberalism, even if their historical circumstances has made this understandable to a certain degree.
Its so interesting to observe how again and again, Christians of all traditions fall for the idea that they can bring about holiness by force of law, often under the guise of “religious freedom.” We see this in the USA on a grand scale with the Moral Majority/Religious Right/Christian Nationalism/God and Country rhetoric that has been on the scene for decades. I have relatives that attend a very nationalistic mega church that constantly cries out for religious freedom, but their pastor actively denounced and protested a Muslim community center being opened in their area. “For me but not for thee!”
The truth, I think, is the other way around. If one wants to see a change in society, one must first engage the world with loving discipleship. The rest will inevitably follow and won’t have to be “enforced.” To me, trying to make society “behave like Christians” (which is not repentance but behavior modification out of fear) is a cheap cop out for actual evangelism and social engagement. It does nothing but foment resentment in a society that isn’t actually converted to Christ and thus doesn’t have a Christian worldview. It becomes a huge stumbling block to people actually encountering Christ because Christ becomes associated with a power structure. On the surface, society might have a Christian veneer, but beneath will be all kinds of abuses and perversity.
It also turns “Christians” into voters, not Christ-followers. They can feel like they’ve done their Christian duty at the polls and rallies while they completely neglect their neighbors’ needs and their own spiritual development. It equates citizenship of a worldly state with citizenship in the Kingdom of God when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Using the state to enforce religious ideals and “feelings” doesn’t really keep society striving for repentance and salvation… it’s a cheap substitute that requires so little from believers who don’t have much skin in the game as it were.
I think it’s safe to say that both the USA and Russia have been dealing with the dangerous consequences of Christians who sell-out to secular powers, including incredibly immoral and crude individuals, in hopes that there will be a “greater good” in society. The idol is that gnawing urge for power in a quest to build some kind of utopian kingdom, but it isn’t really God’s. When people delude themselves into believing that they are on a mission from God without asking His opinion on the matter, it is easy to start justifying wars and violence and the dehumanization of others.
Fr. Gregory, are you familiar with the work of the RC philosopher Michael Hanby? He can be a bit bombastic, but I appreciate his clarity in describing the metaphysical and epistemic foundations of the Cartesian/Lockean foundation of our moral/practical polity, i.e. of "Separation of Church and State", "market place of ideas", and the like.
In other words, I have the opposite reaction as you do, in that I would find it exceedingly strange these or any other 'social document' coming from the Church did not 'privilege' (to choose a word) the *Reality* that is the Gospel & Tradition. Any thinking that grants foundational Lockean polity (and the metaphysics and most importantly theological anthropology that lies behind it) would be, by definition, *non-Christian*. Now, plenty of Christian's claim to grant a mere *strategic* ground to Lockean Liberal polity/anthropology (i.e. they claim they are fully committed to a theoretical, often 'eschatological' Christianity), but in practice non-Christian "secularism" always carries the day. This is particularly true now that the "Protestant Consensus" died out in western culture (in America's case, certainly by the end of the 1960's) and we (i.e. the vast majority of the population and the "culture") are truly "post-Christian". Indeed, that is a central weakness of both these documents (as you point out in your own way), that they want it both ways - a Lockean "freedom of conscious" ensconced in law along with a contradictory privileging of Christian doctrine/anthropology/culture/history.
However as Hanby likes to point out, it is very (very very) difficult anyone in our culture - even those of us who have philosophical/theological minds, to see past the "horizon" of Lockean Liberal thought. It is the metaphysical/epistemic water in which we all swim. All to say that I am willing to forgive the incoherence of these documents, as in the end they still cling to Christianity, and that in is an real achievement given our circumstances. That said I should add that I have only spent any real time with Russian document, as I suspect the EP/GOA (as an practical institution in the last 100 years or so) has ceded too much to Classical Liberalism, even if their historical circumstances has made this understandable to a certain degree.
Its so interesting to observe how again and again, Christians of all traditions fall for the idea that they can bring about holiness by force of law, often under the guise of “religious freedom.” We see this in the USA on a grand scale with the Moral Majority/Religious Right/Christian Nationalism/God and Country rhetoric that has been on the scene for decades. I have relatives that attend a very nationalistic mega church that constantly cries out for religious freedom, but their pastor actively denounced and protested a Muslim community center being opened in their area. “For me but not for thee!”
The truth, I think, is the other way around. If one wants to see a change in society, one must first engage the world with loving discipleship. The rest will inevitably follow and won’t have to be “enforced.” To me, trying to make society “behave like Christians” (which is not repentance but behavior modification out of fear) is a cheap cop out for actual evangelism and social engagement. It does nothing but foment resentment in a society that isn’t actually converted to Christ and thus doesn’t have a Christian worldview. It becomes a huge stumbling block to people actually encountering Christ because Christ becomes associated with a power structure. On the surface, society might have a Christian veneer, but beneath will be all kinds of abuses and perversity.
It also turns “Christians” into voters, not Christ-followers. They can feel like they’ve done their Christian duty at the polls and rallies while they completely neglect their neighbors’ needs and their own spiritual development. It equates citizenship of a worldly state with citizenship in the Kingdom of God when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Using the state to enforce religious ideals and “feelings” doesn’t really keep society striving for repentance and salvation… it’s a cheap substitute that requires so little from believers who don’t have much skin in the game as it were.
I think it’s safe to say that both the USA and Russia have been dealing with the dangerous consequences of Christians who sell-out to secular powers, including incredibly immoral and crude individuals, in hopes that there will be a “greater good” in society. The idol is that gnawing urge for power in a quest to build some kind of utopian kingdom, but it isn’t really God’s. When people delude themselves into believing that they are on a mission from God without asking His opinion on the matter, it is easy to start justifying wars and violence and the dehumanization of others.