The Balkan Peninsula, as a crossroads between the Middle East and Europe, as well as a center of cultural interaction between the peoples of the East and the West, is the subject of serious attention from the Church of Christ. Shortly after the holding of the Apostolic Council, probably at the beginning of the second half of the year 51 AD. Paul begins his second missionary journey. We must note that the first Christian history, the Acts of the Holy Apostles, although it recreates the stages of geographical distribution of Christian communities from Eastern Asia to Rome, aims to reveal the inclusion of not only Jews, but also Gentiles to Christianity.

The sources for the preaching of the Apostle Paul are found in the Holy Scriptures themselves. During the second evangelistic journey of the apostle, the Spirit of God did not allow Christian preaching in the regions of Asia Minor, but brought the apostle to Troas together with Ap. Silas, Timothy and Luke. App. Luke tells how in Troas “a vision appeared to Paul at night: a man, a Macedonian, was standing before him, begging him and saying: “Go to Macedonia and help us!” After this vision, we immediately asked to leave for Macedonia, because we understood , that the Lord has called us to preach the Gospel there. And since we were traveling from Troas, we came directly to Samothrace, and the next day to Naples, and from there to Philippi, which in that part of Macedonia is the first city – a Roman colony” (Acts 16:9-12).

Reaching Philippi is no coincidence through the island of Samothraki. The preaching of Christ’s faith in Europe began here – the thousand-year-old Balkan Thracian place of worship. It is interesting why preaching was not allowed in the Asia Minor provinces. It is suggested that St. Paul is most likely responding to the invitation of the Macedonians from Philippi, who later play a defining role in his environment, but on the other hand, how can these Philippians (Macedonians) end up with him when we know that his companions were of Asia Minor origin? From this we judge that App. Pavel, who knows Greek, takes with him people from the local Eurasian population. He used their linguistic knowledge among non-Greek speakers. The mission of Ap. Pavel is “organized according to the model of capillary penetration”. The apostle did not seek to cover a large space as a territory, but rather to build strongholds that would become bases of departure for subsequent preaching. For this purpose, he skillfully and successfully used both the infrastructure of the empire and the network of the ancient city (polis) with its specific cores. It goes around the important centers and cities at the crossroads, which are a kind of gathering places for the inhabitants of the district. People often go there because they are the seat of the administration and the courts. In practice, the word reached more people than it would have if the apostle had traveled from place to place. This has also been noted by the analysts of his missionary route.

St. Paul firstly headed for the famous Via Egnatia, making a detour to Athens and Corinth. General observations, however, show that a group of his disciples managed to connect the so-called “Central” (diagonal) road leading from Rome to Byzantium and passing through Vindobona (present-day Vienna), Sirmium (present-day Sremska Mitrovica), Naisos ( present-day Nis), Serdika (present-day Sofia), Philipopol (present-day Plovdiv), Adrianople (Adrien), Byzantium, which will be discussed below. Other apostles were appointed to instruct the newly converted believers: the evangelist Luke in Philippi, Silas and Timothy in Berea. Later in his Epistle to the Romans ap. Paul explicitly confirms the fulfillment of his task by saying that he “delivered the teaching of Christ as far as Illyricum” (Rom. 15:19). In his notes on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, bl. Theophylact Bulgarian writes: “the apostle Paul says: “because I spread the gospel from Jerusalem and the surrounding area even to Illyricum”. Do you want proof of what I am talking about, says (App. Paul)? Look at the large number of my students – from Jerusalem to Illyricum, which coincides with the borders of today’s Bulgaria. He did not say: I have preached, but fulfilled the gospel, to show that his word was not fruitless, but effective. Lest you think that he walked on a straight and broad road. “And the surrounding area,” he says, i.e. I have gone through the nations, preaching both to the north and to the south…”

St. app. Luke speaks of Philippi as “the first city in this part of Macedonia” (πρώτη της μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις, κολωνία) (Acts 16:12). Some think that the apostle errs in using the word μερίς (part), and justify their contention by saying that it never signified a periphery, a province, or any geographical division. It is assumed that some error was originally present in the text, and someone, wishing to correct it, replaced it with the word “μερίς”.

However, archaeological finds from Fayum (Egypt) show that the colonists there, many of whom came from Macedonia, used the word “μερίς” to distinguish the regions of the province. In this way, it is established that “Luke had a good idea of ​​the geographical terminology used in Macedonia”. Archeology “corrects” the pessimists and proves St. Luke right. The Philippian women, who were the first to be enlightened by the apostolic preaching, were proselytes – Macedonians and Phrygians, and they prayed to the Jewish God, identifying him with the ancient Thracian-Phrygian deity “Vedyu” – “Βέδυ”. To this deity, the Macedonians owe, according to legend, the salvation of their dynasty[9]. Archaeologists have confirmed with accuracy the topographical information described in Acts. According to Prof. Thompson, from the result of their excavations, carried out from 1914 to 1938, we have obtained “accurate information about the place where the Gospel was first preached in Europe”.

After Philippi ap. Paul continued through the cities of Amphipolis (near the village of Neochori), Apollonia (on the way between Amphipolis and Thessaloniki), Thessaloniki, Veria, establishing church communities everywhere. His disciples spread his work in Macedonia, Illyria, and Thrace despite opposition from interested Gentiles and Jews (see Acts 16:9-12 and Acts 16 and 17 in general). According to ancient church tradition, St. Ap. Paul also preached in Thrace. More specifically, the hypothesis that Nicopolis, which is mentioned in (Titus 3:12), is identical with Nicopolis ad Nestum, located on the banks of the river Mesta, is also proposed. Some researchers mark the city on geographical maps showing the path of ap. Paul. Archaeological excavations and diocesan lists reveal that it was a well-known episcopal center as early as the 4th-5th centuries. Thus, by God’s suggestion, the ethno-cultural region of Thrace-Macedonia is indissolubly present in the history of Christianity from the 1st century. Paul’s assessment of this region is a model of blameless faith and participation in the grace of Christ. According to St. Ap. Paul, who felt called to preserve Christ’s teaching without impurities, the churches here were a model for the entire Christianizing world at that time.

About the sermon of St. Ap. Andrei has an extensive historical and literary book. On the one hand, there is the rich apocryphal literature, and on the other, there are the short catalogs of the apostolic missionary journeys. But the most essential problem is how to differentiate historical fragments from apocryphal legendary layers and correctly interpret the extremely mysterious geography of Scythia and ethnonym nomenclature (Scythians, Myrmidons, Anthropophagi, etc.)? Another question raised by scholarship is: do the legends about St. Andrew have a political aspect to the rise to the throne of Constantinople? One of the possible answers is that the Church of Constantinople supposedly does not feel particularly confident in its status, determined at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 and confirmed by rule 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council in 451. Hence the tendency to compensate for the absence of reliable historical tradition through ad hoc legends and apocrypha. This is how the establishment of the Constantinople Cathedral of the brother of the ap. Peter – app. Andrei Parvozvani, also called “Parvozvanna”. However, this is not true, because there are various legends about almost all the apostles. The Eparchy of Constantinople derives its authority not simply from its founder from the number of apostles, but from its early Christian history, with which it can already compete with the claims of primacy of the Roman Curia. These statements may logically lead to such an opinion, but the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, with its interpretation by the canonists, introduces us to another angle of the problem. The explanations given by Ep. Nicodemus (Milash) gives us a clear idea that in the 6th century the Roman Church accepted the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Council and until then there was no need to assert any apostolic authority. Moreover, the popes until the 9th century did not claim any absolute, universal, infallible, divine authority of their see. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, foresaw that it was possible for Rome to deviate from the purity of the faith, and therefore established that the Constantinople Cathedral should be the first after it, equal in honor and second in administrative magnitude. Following the development of the criticism of the sources for the apostle Andrew, one cannot fail to notice that it makes a circle and, after a period of extreme skepticism, again approaches the traditional conclusions. These conclusions are that the activity of St. Ap. Andrei developed precisely on the Balkan Peninsula. Church tradition about St. Andrew was recorded by the early Christian writer Eusebius of Caesarea. He informs us that “to Thomas, as the legend narrates, Parthia fell by lot, to Andrew – Scythia…”. Similar information was also recorded by authors or sources such as Tertullian, Epiphanius, Synaxar of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Menology of Basil II. From the analysis of the text, recorded by Eusebius and going back to Origen, we can date this tradition to the end of the II – beginning. of the 3rd century. The witnesses of the sermon of the ap. Andrew in Thrace and Scythia are a whole host. Eusebius also repeats Rufinus (“as it has been handed down to us”) and Eucherius of Lyons († 449) (“as history tells”). To them we will add Isidore of Ispalia, who also affirms that the apostle Andrew received a share to preach in Scythia and Achaia. The notice of St. Hippolytus of Rome, who was a student of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, is also authoritative. In his short treatise on the twelve apostles, he writes: “Apostle Andrew afterwards, having preached to the Scythians and Thracians, suffered death on the cross in Patras of Achaea, where he was crucified on an olive tree and buried there.” Dorotheus spoke even more fully about this preaching of Andrew: “Andrew, brother of the apostle Peter, went around all Byzantium, all Thrace and Scythia and preached the Gospel.” Even with a possible interpolation of the authorship of St. Hippolytus or Dorotheus, we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the information presented. Indirect confirmation of St. Andrew’s apostolic preaching is also found in St. John Chrysostom, who delivers a special eulogy for the apostles, where he says the following: “Andrew enlightens the wise men of Hellas.” Here “Hellada” is not some toponymic fiction, but a real people, similar to all the others mentioned by the Saint of Constantinople, delineating the geographical regions of the apostolic preaching. It is unreasonable to believe that app. Andrew preached in Scythia, but not in Thrace. Finally, again, the entire church tradition tells us that the activity of Ap. Andrei is developing in the Eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. In Dobrudja, on the border between present-day Bulgaria and Romania, there are the following toponyms – “St. Andrew’s stream” and the “cave of St. Andrey”, where today the monastery “St. Andrei” “about whom legends related to st. Andrey and his three students Ina, Pina and Rima”. Some folk songs in Dobruja and on the left side of the Prut River remind of a missionary mission of St. Andrew in these lands. The power of the tradition about the preaching of the Apostle Andrew is so prevalent in the peoples who inhabited the so-called Scythia that even the Bulgarians of Altsek in Italy in the 7th century wore Andrew’s cross in a Hyksos shape. And it spread throughout Medieval Christian Europe, so that in the 14th century in Scotland, the nobles who considered themselves Scythian heirs could ask the Pope for ecclesiastical independence from England, citing Andrew’s sermon among the Scythians as an argument. Information has also been found about another apostle who preached in the Balkans – St. Ap. Philip. He is one “among the 7 deacons who baptized Simeon and the eunuch, was the bishop of Scythian Thrace”.

General written sources for the spread of Christianity

There is basic source data for the associates of the app. Paul and Andrew, who continue their work. Their number is exceeded only by the apostles from Asia Minor and the Middle East[28]. More than 20 apostles preached Christianity on the Balkan peninsula, and those who suffered for the faith numbered hundreds, even thousands. At the head of the Christian communities in Serdica, Philippopolis, Sirmium and in Tomi (Constanza) as early as the middle of the first century, there were bishops from the narrowest circle of Christ’s disciples, whom the Church marks as the “seventy apostles”. It is no coincidence that one of the ancient biographies claims that St. Cornelius was from Thrace, Italy. We have reason to see the presence of the Balkan inhabitants first in the act of transmission of the new faith from the Jews who preserved the true worship of God to the Gentiles, among whom were the Balkan inhabitants. Their contact with the God-protected people of Israel has been documented since the period of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and this has also been proven archeologically. Many Macedonians at that time inhabited Samaria, and Hellenes the coastal cities such as Gaza, Ascalon, Caesarea, Ptolemais, etc. The road from the Adriatic to the Danube, from where eastern traders moved to Italy and Pannonia, had a certain share in the early penetration of Christianity. So that the lands of the Balkan Peninsula are not only a place for spreading, but also a way for Christianity to penetrate into Europe. The reception, lively preaching and development of the Christian life of the principles bequeathed by the apostles themselves in these churches did not stop in the following years. Tertullian says that the succession in the churches founded by the apostle Paul was preserved until his time.

Let’s also look at the general reports about the spread of Christianity in the Balkans in the period I – V centuries. The chronology ranges from the II – III centuries, and the majority of the existing information is from the period IV – V centuries. The early reports are with panegyric in nature, they do not seek to fix the spread of Christianity in the Balkan region, but highlight its triumphal march throughout the Ecumenium. The earliest message of this kind is the testimony of the famous Christian ideologue Quinta Florenta Septimius Tertullian. He testifies that in the 2nd century. Christianity had already penetrated among the Getae, Dacian, Sarmatian and Scythian tribes. This is what the text says: “Et Galliarum diversae nations et Britanorum inaccesa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita, et Sarmaturum et Dacorum et Germanorum et Scytharum et abditarum multarum gentium et provinciarum et insularum nobis ignotarum et quae enumerare minus possemus”. There are opinions that Tertullian is an apologist and for this reason, he uses a lot of exaggerations and hyperboles. As an argument in support of this distrust, they consider a passage from a commentary on Origen’s book as an interpretation of the Gospel of St. Ap. Matthew. He believes that the Gospel has not yet been preached in the lands around the Danube. By the way, Origen’s work is also apologetic, as shown by the fact that the Alexandrian author wishes to answer the pagan Porphyry, who denies the truth of the words of the Savior (Matt. 24:14). The pagan philosopher believed that evangelism was complete and the world should no longer exist. Elsewhere, Origen writes that Christianity attracted a large number of followers among “every nation and race of men,” which means that it also spread among the barbarian world. Another writer who confirms that Christianity existed around the Danube River is Arnobius, who claims that there were Christians among the Alemanni, the Persians and the Scythians[32]. The next moment in the process of Christianization was the Gothic invasions of the 3rd century. There is indirect confirmation from the pages of the “Carmen’s Apologetics” by the poet Commodianus. He informs that the Goths took many captives, among them Christians, who also preached among the barbarians living around the Danube. The same is confirmed by the church historian Sozomen, who mentions that the Goths living around the Danube took many captives from Thrace and Asia, among them many Christians. These Christians healed many sick people and many Goths accepted their faith. The statement of Socrates [34] that some part of the Sarmatians, after the defeat they suffered by the troops of the imp. Constantine in 322 became Christians, it is also confirmed by Jerome, who describes the triumph of Christ over the demons in his letter to Laetus: “From India, from Persia and from Ethiopia we every hour welcomed crowds of monks, the Armenians laid aside their quivers, the Huns learn the psalter, and warm the Scythian cold with the warmth of their faith – the golden and blond Geth army is surrounded by church tents. Perhaps that is why they fight against us with a bravery equal to ours, because they profess the same faith”. Ergo, Christianity was already spread in the lands south of the Danube, so that it could successfully seek its followers in the areas north of the river. The father of Church history, Eusebius, rarely mentions Balkan Christianity, but we know that he was a selective writer. As Prof. Helzer also says, knowing about the work of Africanus, Eusebius did not use his information because it was already known to the public, but looked for other sources. He mentions bishops of Anchialo and Debelt. Aelius Julius Publius is known to have signed the epistle of Serapion of Antioch to Cyric and Ponticus, in which he also gave the following testimony about Sotas, the bishop of Anchia: “Aelius Publius Julius, bishop of the colony of Debeltus in Thrace, I call God to witness that the blessed Sotas, bishop of Anchia, wanted to cast out the wicked spirit of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not allow him”. Another Christian historian confirms that Christianity penetrated deeply into the Balkan Roman provinces: “the Hellenes, the Macedonians and the Illyrians… professed their faith freely because Constantine ruled there.” At the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, many bishops from the Thracian and Illyrian lands took part, and this is mentioned by all church historians, such as Eusebius, Socrates and Sozomen. Testimonies were also recorded by St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 300-373). We know that as a participant in the Council of Serdika in 343, he came to the Balkans. He indicates the peoples who accepted the “word of Christ” – the Scythians, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Armenians, the Goths.

St. John Chrysostom delivered a sermon in a Gothic church, using as a metaphor, different animals – leopards, lions and lambs, to which peoples accepting Christianity are likened. The secularist point of view of some authors leads to an overexposure of the importance of the empire for the spread of the faith, namely, the sermon of St. John reveals to us that it was actually the work of the apostles and their assistants. The church is first of all a divine organism, and secondarily it also has its administrative institutions.

Photo: A page from Ulfila’s Silver Bible from the 5th century, “priest” is translated with the word god / Public Domain

“And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors…if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14);

“If you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:15).

“Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Holy Fathers on Forgiveness:

St. Isidore: “Write the good on tablets of stone, and the offense on water.”

 St. John Chrysostom: “If we sincerely wish to be reconciled, we will not yield to our enemy until we have defeated him by strong entreaties, until we have drawn him to us and made him cease enmity against us. Are we showing him any mercy by doing so? No, the fruits of a good deed pass upon us: by this we attract the favor of God, we obtain forgiveness of sins, we receive great boldness before the Lord.

“Nothing makes us more like God than when we forgive evil people who offend us.”

“The more someone has sinned against us, the more we should seek to forgive him, because he becomes the reason for a multitude of sins to be forgiven.”

St. Basil the Great: “A Christian should not remember evil, but he is obliged from the heart to forgive those who have sinned against him.”

St. Rev. Ephraim (Syrian: “If you, man, do not forgive everyone who sins against you, do not bother to fast and pray. If you do not forgive your brother who has angered you in something, you fast and pray in vain – God will not accept you.’

St. Demetrius of Rostov: “God forgives only those who do not forgive themselves.”

St. Nikolay Velimirovich of Serbia: “Do not write down your neighbor’s sins: if you write them down, half of them lie on you; if you forget them, the Lord will also forget your sins.”

Photo: Icon Christ / Ikoni Mahnevi, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057324623799

Author: Associate Professor Dr. Kostadin Nushev, Faculty of Theology, SU “St. Kliment Ohridski”

When building its attitude towards the state in the modern world, the Orthodox Church turns to the classic Gospel truths about the relationship between the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God and the earthly state, to its millennial tradition and its current ministry in the world in the conditions of today’s socio-political realities.

The relations between the Church and the state in the modern conditions of social development, of a democratic civil society and a pluralistic political system, presuppose the existence and fulfillment of some fundamental conditions and requirements both on the part of the institutions of state power and on the part of the representatives of the Church. These requirements and conditions express both Christian traditions and evangelical principles, as well as the specific democratic spirit of modern models of partnership between the state and the church, and are particularly important for the affirmation of church-canonical, constitutional and international legal norms regarding freedom of conscience and religion.

In our post-communist socio-cultural context – mainly for the countries of Eastern Europe, these basic principles have their important place and special importance for overcoming the negative legacy of the time of totalitarianism and the anti-church policy of militant atheism. In the establishment and construction of modern relations between the Orthodox Church and the state, it is necessary to respect the established canonical traditions, but also to improve the legal and institutional framework according to today’s constitutional and international law. Therefore, it seems meaningful to recall some foundational principles and literal truths for building and maintaining normal, balanced Church-State relations that are valid in today’s democratic political and legal space.

Relations between Church and State – foundations, traditions and contemporary challenges

The main principles of classical Christian understanding and theological teaching about the relationship of Christians and the Church to the state and respect for its functions in society are rooted in the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. This Christian understanding is based on Christ’s words from the Gospel: “Render Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God” (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17).

In these Gospel words, we can recognize the classical understanding of the Church and the modern fundamental principles of constitutional norms and international legal acts on the attitude of the state to religious freedoms, on freedom of conscience and the internal autonomy of the Church in the field of religion and spiritual life.

Evangelical and New Testament principles

In the Gospel, there are two moments in which Jesus Christ clearly expresses his attitude towards earthly authorities or “Caesar’s kingdom” (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17). The first case is in Christ’s answer to the question whether a tax should be paid to the state. This question provoked Him to reveal His attitude towards the authority of the Roman emperor – “Caesar” (Caesar), which at that time extended into the lands of the Israelite people. The second case is when Christ is confronted by the representative of this earthly authority – the procurator of the Roman province of Palestine, Pontius Pilate (John 18:33-38).

In the first case, Christ reveals His attitude and understanding of the authority of the earthly ruler, distinguishing it clearly from the worship of God. In this way, He rejected both the pagan deification of the earthly king and the then Old Testament Jewish theocratic ideology of incompatibility between the authority of the kingdom of God over the people and the authority of the earthly kingdom of the Roman Caesar. This Gospel teaching of the Savior is the basis of the Christian doctrine and the tradition of the Church, in which there is an understanding of the state as a “Caesar’s” or earthly kingdom, which is defined and considered in opposition and distinction from the kingdom of God, but does not contradict it.

The earthly kingdom covers another, different and limited reality, while the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of the Spirit, is universal and not limited by earthly boundaries. God’s kingdom of the Spirit, according to the words of Jesus Christ, “is not of this world” (John 18:36), while Caesar’s kingdom is an earthly political kingdom and encompasses the earthly state. The state serves itself with the coercive power of political power (imperium), while the spiritual power of the Church is rather an authority (auctoritas), which is based on the truth of the Gospel and the power of God’s word and necessarily implies the freedom of the person and the voluntary consent of the faithful , who accept it based on their conscious conviction.

The traditional Christian understanding and teaching of the Church about its relationship with the state is based on the principle Gospel truth and theological position that the state and the Church are two separate realities. They are different and separate, but they are not irreconcilable and do not contradict each other (Romans 13:1-7).

The State and the Church have their own specific tasks, different functions and spheres of competence within the limits of their own ministry for the good of the individual and of society as a whole. They are different institutions, but not incompatible with each other and can interact within the limits of their powers if they observe the principles of mutual respect and equal partnership.

Theological understanding of Church-state relations in contemporary Orthodox social teaching

What can and should the Orthodox Church do in this regard and what are the special current tasks before it within the framework of the contemporary socio-political situation? How are these current tasks understood and reflected in the perspectives of the specific historical and cultural tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy? How does the modernization, democratization and Europeanization of the Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe affect the preservation and renewal of the traditions of the relationship between the Church and the modern legal state!?

It is necessary to remind that today’s society is radically different, both from the realities of the theocratic monarchy of Byzantium, and from those of the political system of the Russian Empire or, in the context of Bulgaria, the legal system of the Third Bulgarian Kingdom (1978-1947) and the norms of the Tarnovo constitution.

Some modern Orthodox clergy and theologians in this connection today point out that the Orthodox Church in the countries of Eastern Europe, facing the modern political and state-legal realities, is facing a very serious test and a fundamental challenge. It is expressed in the need for the Orthodox Church to reformulate its traditional or Byzantine “symphonic” understanding of its relations with the “holy Christian empire” or the old monarchical state in the direction of the new institutional relations with the modern democratic legal state. The constructive incorporation of the Orthodox Church into the modern European model for partner relations with the state or its latent presence as a counter-cultural and conservative-retrograde factor in the process of democratic social development will depend on the efforts to make this path successful. A new effort is needed to seriously rethink the gospel truths, historical traditions and contemporary realities in the field of relations between the state and the Church.

Basic Principles of Church-State Relations

We could formulate the main principles and conditions for modern democratic and balanced relations of partnership between the state and the Church in three main points and present them in the following way:

1. unconditional and categorical respect, guarantee and observance of basic human rights and religious freedoms both on the part of the state, which has adopted them in its legislation as universal values ​​and European legal norms and standards, and on the part of the Church;

2. maintenance and strict observance of the principle of the rule of law as a fundamental basis of the democratic rule of law and its unwavering application in the field of religious freedoms, relations with the Church and church activities in society;

3. building balanced relations of partnership between the state and the Church, in which the institutional separation between them is preserved and not violated, the difference of their specific spheres of political and religious autonomy.

All these modern relations of cooperation between the Church and the State are built and based on the principles of personal freedom, freedom of conscience and religion, respect for human rights, the rule of law and the maintenance of a just social and legal order oriented to the common good in one modern, democratic and European pluralistic civil society.

In fulfilling the outlined conditions for building and functioning of balanced and equal partnership relations between the Church and the state in a democratic civil society, it is necessary for both church officials and state authorities and institutions to make serious efforts to maintain the just legal order based on freedom of conscience and human rights and to overcome some serious challenges of a cultural, historical and political nature.

Contemporary challenges and perspectives

The political history of relations between the Christian Church and the state in the twentieth century clearly show that only in the conditions of the rule of law and strict respect for human rights and the rule of law, the secular principles of separation of the Church from the state and the separation of the political from the religious sphere do not lead to violation of the freedom of the person, conscience and religion. In the political system of the totalitarian state, where this respect is absent, the separation of the Church from the secular state leads to oppression and deprivation of personal freedom, violence against the conscience of believers and discrimination of religious communities by the state.

For the Orthodox countries and for the local Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe only after the so-called “democratic revolutions” of 1989 opened a chance for a freer construction of relations with the democratic legal state in the spirit of the perception of the universal principles and norms of natural human rights.

Western Christian denominations, in their struggle against Nazism and right-wing totalitarian movements in Europe, prepared a better basis for adopting the fundamental principles than the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Catholic Church finally moved towards this new Christian culture of human rights after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the adoption of its new doctrinal documents (Dignitates Humanae, Gaudium et Spes, etc.).

For the Orthodox Church, it was only after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe that the possibility of a free, independent and positive interpretation of the doctrine of human rights and the adoption of its principles in the spirit and context of the Orthodox Christian theological teaching and church social doctrine was discovered. The post-communist situation, of course, offers other opportunities for traditionalist and isolationist “revival” and revitalization of tradition. With the growing role of religion and the Church in public life, these opportunities may lead to confrontation with modern political and legal principles and the values ​​of modern democratic society. Such attempts and projects lead to peculiar fundamentalist forms of fanatical religious psychology and intolerant religious culture.

Therefore, the Orthodox Church is faced nowadays with a serious challenge and test to make efforts to overcome the remnants of the old traditionalist – Byzantine or Caesaropapist, political and legal concepts, which lead to the fusion of state and Church and prevent the creation of modern balanced relations between them. They are incompatible with the universal norms of individual freedom of personality in the public sphere and freedom of conscience in the field of religion and confessions.

In the modern era, these archaic models from the time of the traditional mono-confessional society are also incompatible with the principles of the democratic legal and non-confessional state and the socio-cultural realities of the pluralistic civil society. In other words, in order to face contemporary political realities, the Church in the traditionally Orthodox countries of Eastern Europe must rethink and overcome some aspects of the old Byzantine “symphonic” paradigm of relations with the state. This formula of the “symphony” was inherited from the Eastern Orthodox imperial model of sacral monarchy and above all to overcome the associated Caesaropapist stereotypes.

Along with this, systematic efforts are needed to adopt the modern contractual-legal paradigm of equal inter-institutional relations with the state and adopt a balanced attitude towards the concept of human rights by rediscovering its Christian roots in the teaching of the dignity of man as a free and God-like person (Genesis 1:26-27) and the principles of Christian humanism.

For some more conservative circles in the circles of the Orthodox Church and individual political defenders of Orthodoxy, interpreting it only as an alternative and counterpoint to the West or modern civilization, this may represent a kind of cultural shock and a serious challenge. A change in the discussed direction would be an “encroachment” or “betrayal” against the inherited tradition and the archaic legacy of the past. But in some of its forms, this legacy is reproduced in the present through peculiar worldview stereotypes and political paradigms, which are an echo of the old habits of resorting to the “sword of Caesar” to resolve intra-church and religious-religious issues. Such approaches prevent the creation of modern, equal and balanced relations between the Church and the state in modern society.

All these general principles and vaguely outlined trends can be observed and outlined in the specific social, political and cultural context of the various local Orthodox churches with different features, specificities and variations. In certain problematic directions, they are observed in the relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with the state authorities in modern Russia, in the countries of the European Union or in a special form for the Orthodox Church diaspora in Western Europe and North America.

The principles of interaction between the church and the state are particularly important for Bulgaria in particular and for the development of relations between the democratic rule of law and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) as a religious institution of the “traditional” according to the Constitution (Art. 13, Para. 3) ” Eastern Orthodox confession” in the Republic of Bulgaria. In recent years, after the entry into force of the new Law on Religions (LA) and the country’s full membership in the European Union, some decisions of the Constitutional Court on important questions about the role of the state and the limits of church autonomy, the consistent efforts by the state to implement the special legislation for religious communities for the purpose of “overcoming the schism and division in the BOC” in the spirit of the constitutional principles of the separation of the Church from the state, the foundations of the modern system of relations, cooperation and partnership between church authorities and state institutions are being built and shaped a number of areas of public life in the conditions of a democratic public environment and a European legal framework for guaranteeing human rights and the freedom of religious communities.

Source: First published at dobrotoliubie.com

References:

Nushev, K. Christliche Sozialethik und Sociallehre der Kirche. Grundprinzipien und Orthodoxe Perspektiven. – In: Die Gesellschaftliche Rolle der Kirche. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Sofia, 2016, ss.14-22.

Nushev, K. Orthodoxy and human rights. – in: Harmony in differences. (ed. Georgeta Nazarska, Svetla Shapkalova), Publishing House: About the Letters-Opismeneh, S., 2015, pp. 101-108 (in Bulgarian).

Nushev, K. Religious education in the Bulgarian school – traditions, problems and perspectives in a national and European context. – in: Humanism. Science. Religion. Religious education and upbringing in institutional and confessional discourse. S., BAS, 2018, pp. 24-35 (in Bulgarian).

Nushev, K. Christian freedom and the challenges of neoliberalism in connection with the topic of Christian education and contemporary Europe. Contemporary Christian Education. Conditions, challenges and expectations. Association of Professors of the Teaching Subject Ethics in Religions “Enlightenment”, Skopje, 2018, pp. 49-63 (in Serbian).

Photo: Icon of Ever-Virgin Mother of God / Ikoni Mahnevi, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057324623799

Author: Protopresbyter Mihail Pomazanski

 Vladimir Solovyov gave a new impetus to the development of Russian philosophical and theological thought, setting himself the task of “justifying the faith of the fathers” before the reason of his contemporaries. Unfortunately, he made a number of clear deviations from the Orthodox-Christian way of thinking, many of which were adopted and further developed by his followers.

Here is a brief exposition of these moments in Solovyov, which stand out because of their difference and even their clear deviation from the creed professed by the Church.

1) He presents Christianity as the highest stage of the overall sequential development of religions. According to Solovyov, all religions are true, but one-sided, and Christianity synthesizes the positive aspects of previous religions. He wrote: “Just as external nature is revealed to the human mind gradually, in consequence of which we must speak of the development of experience and natural science, so the divine principle is gradually revealed to the human mind, and we must speak of the development of religious experience and religious thought … Religious development is a positive and objective process, it is a real interaction between God and man – a God-human process. It is clear, wrote Solovyov, that none of the stages and none of the moments of the religious process can be in itself a lie or a delusion. “False religion” is contradictio in adjecto”*.

2) The doctrine of the salvation of the world in the form in which it was given under the apostles is cast aside. According to Soloviev, Christ came to earth not to “save the human race”, but to elevate it to a higher level in the order of the successive manifestation of the divine principle in the world – the elevation and deification of man and the world. Christ is the highest link in the series of theophanies (epiphanies), crowning the previous theophanies.

3) Solovyov’s theology focuses on the ontological side of being, that is, on the life of God Himself in Himself, and due to the insufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, thought resorts to arbitrary constructions – rational or based on imagination.

4) A being named “Sophia” is introduced into the Divine life, standing on the border between the Divinity and the created world.

5) A distinction between male and female is introduced in the Divine life. With Solovyov, this moment is obscured. Father Pavel Florensky, following Soloviev, presents Sophia as follows: “This is a great Royal, Feminine Being, who, without being either God, nor the eternal Son of God, nor an angel, nor a holy man, receives veneration both from the finisher of the Old Testament and from the Progenitor of the New” (“Pillar and affirmation of truth”).

6) An elemental beginning, an elemental aspiration, is introduced into the Divine life, forcing God the Word Himself to participate in a certain process, a beginning that subordinates the Logos to this process, which must elevate the world from the state of pure materiality and limitation to the most perfect forms of being.

7) God as the Absolute, God the Father, is presented as distant and inaccessible to the world and man. Despite what is said in the word of God, He separates himself from the world in an inaccessible area of ​​being, which as absolute being has no contact with relative being, with the world of phenomena. Therefore, according to Solovyov, a mediator between the Absolute and the world is necessary. Such a mediator is the “Logos”, who became incarnate in Christ.

8) According to Soloviev, the first Adam united in himself the divine and the human nature, similar to their relationship in the God-manhood of the incarnate Word, only that he violated this relationship. If it is so, then the deification of man is not only a gracious sanctification of man, but is a restoration in him of the divine humanity, a restoration of the two natures. But this does not agree with the entire teaching of the Church, which understands deification only as beneficence. “There has not been and there will not be another person, says Rev. John Damascene, consisting of Divinity and humanity, except Jesus Christ.”

9) Solovyov writes: “God is the all-powerful Creator and All-Sustainer, but He is the Ruler of the earth and the creatures that come from it.” <…> “Deity is incommensurable with earthly creatures and can have a moral-practical relationship (power, dominance, management) towards them only through the mediation of man, who as a divine being is commensurate with both Deity and material nature. In this way, man is a necessary basis for true Divine rule” (“History and Future Theocracies”). This position is unacceptable from the point of view of the glory and power of God and so to speak contradicts the word of God. At the same time, it is disproved by the simple observation of the existing. Man subjugates nature to himself, not in the name of God as a mediator between God and the world, but for his own selfish needs and purposes.

The points noted here, where Solovyov’s views diverge from the teachings of the Church, show that Solovyov’s religious system is completely unacceptable to the Orthodox consciousness.

Note:

* contradictio in adjecto – (lat.) contradiction in definition, such as “round square”, “dry moisture”, “wooden iron”, etc.

Source: Protopresbyter Mikhail Pomazansky. Orthodox dogmatic theology. St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 1992.