While there is much for Americans in the classical liberal tradition to like in Basis of the Social Concept (2000), there are moments when the underlying illiberalism of the Russian Orthodox Church bleeds through. look for example at what we read in section III.6 (Church and State), the bishops address religious freedom both philosophically and practically writing that "The religio-ideological neutrality of the state does not contradict the Christian idea of the Church’s calling in society."
They go on to say that the Church has a duty to remind the State "that it is inadmissible to propagate such convictions or actions which may result in total control [by the State] over a person’s life, convictions and relations with other people, as well as erosion in personal, family or public morality, insult of religious feelings, damage to the cultural and spiritual identity of the people and threats to the sacred gift of life."
This caution doesn't preclude Church and State from working together for the common good. "In implementing her social, charitable, educational, and other socially significant projects, the Church may rely on the support and assistance of the state." What comes next, however, is worrying.
After affirming religious liberty and Church/State partnerships, the bishops suggest that these need to be linked to the "number" of believers in a given tradition and "the place they occupy in forming the historical, cultural and spiritual image of the people and their civic stand." The document doesn't define what is meant here but it is hard to avoid at least the thought that this reflects an expectation of special consideration and deference by the Russian state to the wishes of the Orthodox Church in Russia.
To be fair, the Moscow Patriarchate is not asking to be the "established church" of Russia. But it does seem to be suggesting that the policy scale be weighted in its favor and so (at least implicitly) asking for a state-sponsored advantage over other Christians and other religious communities.
Put slightly differently, the Russian Orthodox Church isn't asking to be granted a religious monopoly but it does want a regulatory advantage that (in the economic order) we would recognize as not only unjust but one that is ultimately to the Church's "competitive" disadvantage in the market place of ideas.
The assumption here is that while "freedom of conscience" is not inherently contrary to the Gospel, it does represent a shift from religion as a "social" phenomenon to a "'private" affair." This change, they go on to say, "indicates that the spiritual [i.e., Christian] value system has disintegrated and that most people in a society which affirms the freedom of conscience no longer aspire for salvation."
Whatever the sociological truth here, it isn't clear that this is necessarily wholly detrimental to the life of the Church. What is clear, is that the bishops are complaining about the loss of social (and presumably, State) support for their mission.
What comes next however reveals a morally questionable understanding of the relationship between Church and State. "If initially, the state emerged as an instrument of asserting divine law in society, the freedom of conscience has ultimately turned state in an exclusively temporal institute with no religious commitments." Besides the dubious proposition that the State should (or at least, may) exercise coercive power to enforce the Gospel, as a practical matter it is not at all clear that the
…adoption of the freedom of conscience as legal principle points to the fact that society has lost religious goals and values and become massively apostate and actually indifferent to the task of the Church and to the overcoming of sin.
Indeed after criticizing the State's withdrawal from enforcing religion as apostasy, the bishops affirm the importance of religious freedom.
…this principle has proved to be one of the means of the Church’s existence in the non-religious world, enabling her to enjoy a legal status in secular state and independence from those in society who believe differently or do not believe at all.
It is hard to escape the thought that the Moscow Patriarchate here is arguing for religious freedom for the Church while denying that same freedom (or at least the same measure of freedom which amounts to the same thing) to non-Orthodox communities. There is a lack of integrity in the Russian Orthodox Church's position that I think goes beyond ambivalence in the face of the negative consequences of religious freedom. Patriarch Kirill for example explicitly frames his support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in theological terms going so far as to promise salvation to those (Russian) soldiers who die in battle.
While making some good points about the separation of Church and State as well as freedom of conscience, this support is limited. Such freedoms are only seen as desirable as long as they are to the Church's advantage. Again, this might be understandable if religious freedom were merely a fig leaf to justify the aggressive imposition of secularism. But this is not the case in Russia or in the Western world.
It seems that the support for religious freedom in the Basis is religious freedom for the Russian Orthodox Church. Freedom for other religious and ideological traditions is (or should be Basis seems to suggest) limited to only those areas where they support the Church's agenda.
In his 2022 Clean Monday sermon, Patriarch Kirill explicitly justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine by highlighting the increased prominence of LGBTQ+ activity in Ukraine. One can certainly disagree with gay rights parades and same-sex marriage. But this disagreement doesn't justify invasion. The response to bad ideas isn't bombs and bullets but words.
Stepping away from the explicit issue of religious freedom, both in the Basis and the Ecumenical Throne's document For the Life of the World (FLOW) there is a tendency to devalue human freedom at least in some arenas. This is not a matter of criticizing the misuse of freedom or calling for the government to intervene after the fact when freedom is abused. Both documents call instead for the government to intervene to prevent the exercise of freedom.
It is one thing to keep pigs out of the public square. It is entirely a different matter to do so by preventing people from owning pigs. What I mean by this porcine turn of phrase is that in both documents, I notice a call for the State to compel virtuous actions in the service of securing outcomes that the authors (in the Church's name) see as morally good.
Let me concede that the ability of the Church to preach the Gospel is a very good thing. Likewise, there are all sorts of economic outcomes that are not only morally good but politically prudent. Outcomes, however, are not my concern here.
Rather, it is the willingness of the authors of both documents (and again, in the name of the Church) to ask the State to bring about morally good results. For all their differences, (and remember, FLOW is a critique of Basis) both documents (do I need to say it a third time?) invite the State to use its coercive power on behalf of the Gospel. Or maybe more accurately, one of a range of outcomes all of which are more or less compatible with the Gospel even if only in a limited manner.
But while this or that outcome might be desirable, it is the rare situation in which is the only desirable outcome. More frequently, what we see in public policy is not the "one thing needful" but a diversity of more or less equally good results. To see why this is morally problematic we only need to look to Russia's invasion of Ukraine to see how easily the Church can become--willingly or not--an accomplice in the State's evil.
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.