Богословље

Византија, Православље и демократија

Аристотел Папаниколау
Универзитет у Фордхаму
Одсек за теологију

Богословље: 2 (2009) 115-137
Цео текст (.PDF) УДК 271.2:342.34

 

Abstract. Чланак се бави питањем усагласивости источно-православног хришћанства и савременог схватања демократије. Слике из медија сугеришу најчешће опозициони Православних Цркава став према демократији, а у најбољем случају амбивалентност. Извор ове опозиције и двосмислености делимично долази као последица православног византијског наслеђа. Овај утицај је евидентан у недавној дебати између два савремена православна етичара, Стенлија Харакаса и Виген Гуројана, а у погледу одговарајуће улоге Православне Цркве у односу на америчку демократску државу. Кроз анализу поменуте дебате износимо став да не постоји „сукоб цивилизација“ између Православља и демократије, и да је православна подршка комунитарној форми демократије зајамчена унутрашњим теолошким претпоставкама. У чланку нудимо конкретан одговор на неизбежно питање о односу религије и империје: да ли су верске традиције, чија је философско-политичка мисао формирана у контексту империје, неусагласиве са модерним демократским принципима о одвојености Цркве и државе, мултикултуралности, и верског плурализма.

Summary. This article is an attempt to explore the relationship between Orthodoxy and democracy, arguing that such an analysis is necessary given both the current state of confusion of political thought in Orthodox theology and the presence of the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe and within American society. Furthermore, the article successfully demonstrates that the Byzantine legacy has shaped the Orthodox debate over church-state relations, particularly that between two Orthodox ethicists, Stanley Harakas and Vigen Guroian. It has also led to confusing and contradictory responses of the Orthodox churches facing contemporary problems. For Harakas, the symphonia that existed between the church and the monarchical state during the period of the Byzantine Empire constitutes the paradigm for Orthodox understandings of church-state relations, whatever form the state may assume. In relations of symphonia “the Church and State cooperate as parts of an organic whole in the fulfillment of their purposes, each supporting and strengthening the other without this causing subordination of the one to the other.” For Guroian, the Byzantine model of symphonia is an inherently accommodationist approach to church-state relations in which the true nature of the church is sacrificed to the interests of the state. Guroian understands the church as an eschatological community in and through the Eucharist, and this particular understanding defines the church’s mission in the world. Because of this understanding of church for Guroian, it would be a betrayal of the Orthodox Church’s true nature if it were reduced to a functionalist role vis-à-vis the state or another denomination alongside others. Aristotle Papanikolaou argues that Orthodox acceptance of democracy, participation in democratic institutions, and commitment to the common good are not contradictory to Guroian’s understanding of the church but, rather, are its natural result. This is not symphonia but simply a positive theological justification of a particular form of government. Orthodox thought, particularly its Eucharistic ecclesiology and its doctrine of the Trinity, has the greatest affinity with communitarian understandings of democracy. Insofar as both attempt to grapple with what it means to exist as a unity-in-diver sity and how to give form to the simultaneity of the one and the many, a fruitful and constructive conversation should ensue between these two streams of thought.