[BronUVT]

Dear All,

Just a little snippet which probably gets no one anywhere. My wife and I were talking about democracy the other day. Your average Russian is not entirely persuaded that in the form we know it in England, at any rate, it is exactly what they need there, at least for now. Then she said, 'democracy killed Christ.' Hmmm.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Mabeavyledlib]

Did it? Surely it was a mob shouting for his crucifixion at the palace gates not a representative assembly of all the people of Judaea?

I am always rather aware of the limitations of democracy, indeed I am reading John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' at the moment. But I am not so sure it is much worse than any other possibility.

One of the problems with 'introducing' democracy is that it took centuries to develop here in England and cannot easily be introduced anywhere unless the people themselves will it and are willing to struggle to achieve some measure of it. Otherwise it tends just to become a form of dictatorship with a veneer of legitimacy or a 'bread and circuses' type of democracy keeping the plebs happy.

But I am not sure that any other option is better.

Peter

[bely832new]

Democracy as we know it first arises from the time of the Enlightenment & gets its intellectual basis from this also. What makes this ambiguous for us as Orthodox is the way in which we cannot entirely share the Enlightenment view of man. At points we even strongly disagree with it. On the other hand there is something in the way in which democracy implies the inherent dignity of man which we can partly relate to. There is also an idealism not completely contradictory to our sense of things.

From political experience though in the 19thc British, American and Canadian democrats, both liberal and conservative, came to recognize that rights alone without a moral foundation within the society would lead to social disaster. (Largely this came from the experience of the French Revolution). They even recognized that the underlying social moral code was what made democracy work in the first place since without this 'rights' is a license for destruction. That is why even when such democrats were personally lukewarm Christians they recognized the critical need for Christianity within society. (For those interested the books by Gertrude Himmelfarb are very interesting).

This balance it seems is what has been almost entirely lost. Indeed democracy cannot work or survive long term without a moral foundation in charitable selflessness. For without this it loses its anchor in a self-restraint that precisely is what is the only guarantee of a human rather than an abusive society.

In other words democracy ultimately depends not only on free will but also of the good will of all involved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[doctorzlo]

This balance it seems is what has been almost entirely lost. Indeed democracy cannot work or survive long term without a moral foundation in charitable selflessness. For without this it loses its anchor in a self-restraint that precisely is what is the only guarantee of a human rather than an abusive society.

In other words democracy ultimately depends not only on free will but also of the good will of all involved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr. Raphael/Andreas/Peter,

Churchill's famous statement that 'democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others' catches both the Enlightenment thinking, but also something of the balance Fr. Raphael describes; as a good English Conservative he was sceptical of the idea that government could do much good, but thought that on balance it could prevent some bad things.

It is not just the Orthodox who have problems with the Enlightenment project, Christians of all shades have struggled with it and its homocentric view of the world.

Nineteenth century moralists such as George Eliot saw that Christianity had had a useful social function, but they looked towards to it being replaced by education; this was because they believed that mankind was intrinsically good, and if one removed all restraints on it one would unleash the inner 'goodness'. The history of the last century provides a commentary on such hubris.

What such moralists failed to see was that Christianity was not just a useful tool of social control in primitive societies, it is a world-view in itself - as well as an otherworld-view. Remove it from the lives of mankind and it is not some inner goodness that is unleashed - quite the opposite.

Our democracy speaks much about the 'rights of man', and since the American constitution is based on Enlightenment thought its assumptions seem to be shot through American political and social thought. But we seem to have a defective conception of such 'rights', if they provide no protection for the unborn, and if they can be used as a tool to impose certain ways of being in the world on others.

It is unclear to me that democracy and Christianity are really reconcilable. When the Incarnate Lord asks the disciples 'But who do you say that I am?', He isn't asking them to vote, and the answer comes from one man who gets it correct: 'Peter answered and said to Him, You are the Christ.' [Matthew 8:29] The Lord does not talk about our rights, but about the Cross that we must take up when we follow Him; we are not offered a veto on His Will, but to submit to it with obedience, even unto death, as the Incarnate Lord did Himself at Calvary.

These things seem unlike the mindset of a democracy. That is not to say that Christianity is irreconcilable with democracy, just that we should not assume the opposite to be the case. The eagerness with which secular authorities seize upon the idea of 'rights' to suppress the symbols of our salvation warn us of where the idea of majority rule can lead.

Majority voting is not how we find the Truth delivered once for all; indeed, even in the secular realm, it is only the way we get the least worst option - sometimes.

Not, as Churchill reminded us, that other forms of government are any better. Those who look back to a golden age of Byzantium often do so by reference to an idealisation that history knows nothing of. All forms of government of men by men are vitiated by our propensity to self-will and sin; but because democracy thinks it is consecrated by 'the will of the people', it often arrogates to itself an air of sanctimoniousness which it mistakes for sanctity. It may be the least worst form of government, but it is not the Way, the Truth or the Life.

In Christ,

John

In Christ,

John

[DoctoBuntonTen]

And, of course, our democracy takes us into wars not many of us want. Democracy these days seems to be about finding ways to generate ever-greater consumerism and moral licence. (I shocked some students a while ago when I said that what people call freedom in moral terms was nothing more than licence to behave like stray dogs in the park. I can say that now that my misspent youth is so far in the past.) 'Democracy' and 'freedom' are terms used cynically and hypocritically to denounce any country which isn't like the USA or UK - but not those odious countries which, however, let us have bases and which co-operate in providing us with want we want. But anyway, I'd rather live in England than Sudan, Burma or Somalia. Churchill was right.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Vapepreab]

Hi Andreas

But does our democracy take us into wars we don't want? Or is it the deficiencies in our present democracy? If there were greater parliamentary democracy and less power held by the government - as was the case in the not so distant past - then we might not have taken part in so many recent adventures.

For myself, it is the lack of democracy which has caused these present problems, not democracy. But I do not think that even a better exercise of democracy would preclude them.

Nevertheless I am sure that the people of England did not enjoy the 100 Years War, or the civil war during the time of Stephen, and so a lack of democracy does not guarantee anything better.

At least there is now the possibility for good men to make a stand for the good. Maybe the Church needs to encourage their voice a little more, without entering into the murky world of party politics. If the people can be inspired to some good end then there is the prospect of something good being done - sometimes. That is a benefit of representative democracy. But are we trying to inspire people?

I agree very much that the life of the Church is not subject to plans and programmes, but at the interface with the world these things ARE needed. When there are hungry and needy people in the widest sense then it is not enough to ring our hands, not even enough just to pray, but we need to participate in the society in which God has placed us, getting our hands dirty even while we keep our hearts clean.

Peter

[Axxflcaj]

Dear Peter,

I was referring to 'democracy' in a somewhat ironic sense. The problem with the UK parliamentary system is that when we have a government with a large majority in the House of Commons, it can do pretty much as it likes. And prime ministers are not limited to two terms (unlike G. W. Bush and V. V. Putin) but can go on and on, as did Thatcher, to our ruination until she was ousted in a very undemocratic way.

As to actions, wouldn't it be good if Orthodoxy could be visibly getting stuck into problems without losing its essence as a Eucharistic community? 'Christianity with its sleeves rolled up' as the Salvation Army puts it. As St Theophan the Recluse said, 'the Christian must do good not only for its own sake; not only because it is demanded by his moral dignity as a man, but because it is a sacrifice pleasing to God. The Lord gave man moral freedom, and this was so that man might return this gift to God as the supreme sacrifice.' Go into any C of E church in England and you see a map showing where in the world the contributions of the parish are doing good: water supplies in a village somewhere in Africa, orphanages in S. America, or whatever. Go into a Greek Orthodox church in England and all you find is a load of leaflets asking why the Cyprus problem is still unsolved.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[insoneeri]

.

Go into any C of E church in England and you see a map showing where in the world the contributions of the parish are doing good: water supplies in a village somewhere in Africa, orphanages in S. America, or whatever. Go into a Greek Orthodox church in England and all you find is a load of leaflets asking why the Cyprus problem is still unsolved.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Food for thought indeed in your post. As St. James tells us
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26 We know from Eusebius, for example, that one of the things which marked out the early Christians from the culture of which they were part was the great care they took of each other, and their works of charity to their poor. When we speak about the traditions of the Church, we bear these things in mind.

This is not, as some have thought at times and in places, a call to political action, it is a command to take care of each other, as Our Heavenly Father takes care of us.

The poor and the oppressed on Cyprus as elsewhere are our concern; the political fate of Cyprus is just that - and we are told to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. In a democracy such as this one, that allows us to vote for whomsoever we would wish - for all the good it often does.

In Christ,

John

[zzquo0iR]

In the US at least it seems that people are trained from youth to hold “democracy” to be the best form of government, the source of all justice, and the only moral way to organize a society. Its very hard to get people to look at the issue from a detached and logical point of view.

[actrisski]

In the US at least it seems that people are trained from youth to hold “democracy” to be the best form of government, the source of all justice, and the only moral way to organize a society. Its very hard to get people to look at the issue from a detached and logical point of view.

Dear Scott,

Indeed, and there is probably nothing wrong in some of that. Democracy has proved to be what Churchill described it as - the least worst form of government. Lenin got one thing right when he described politics as being the answer to the question 'Who, whom?' - who rules whom. The ability to change one's leaders is good for them. How we organise ourselves in this world is always going to be difficult; it is a consequence of the Fall, if you like.

The Church, however, is not a democracy, any more than God is a democrat. We do have a choice - we can choose to hear and obey the Word, or continue in our disobedience and sin. God's justice and our own are not, it seems, the same, and His morality is not what passes for that quality in this world - although in both areas we get better results when we aspire to align our ways with His commands; but they are commands, not requests or propositions which we can put to the town meeting.

Yesterday the British Prime Minister made a speech in which, inter alia, he talked about the need to put the values of this society ahead of any religious 'views' - and he is a practising Christian. I suspect that, as an Anglican, he probably identifies the views of this society with those of the Church, since Anglicanism tends in that rather fuzzy and vague direction.

But there is a sting in the tail of democracy. It does have within itself totalitarian instincts - Rousseau wrote about forcing people to be free. It does, indeed, assume that it is the measure of morality and justice. It can respond well to reminders that pluralism in the private sphere is important, but how good it is going to prove at coexisting with a Christianity that insists on its values, we shall see.

Until recently, as Mr. Blair's speech suggests he thinks still is the case, Christianity has been able to assume that democracy would treat it benignly because of the place of the Church, or Churches, within our society. As this society has become more atheistic, it remains to be seen whether such cosy assumptions are correct.


In Christ,

John

[markoiutrfffdsa]

Dear John,

As to your post of 12.34am [will you tell me how to do quotes?] I know Cyprus very well - I haven't see any poor or oppressed there! They have a higher standard of living than most English. I remember reading that St Theophan the Recluse said, don't sit at dinner tables fretting about the poor of the world - help the person right in front of you. The trouble is, how does someone like me help the poor and oppressed? I don't know or meet poor people! And if I did, could I go up to them and say, you look poor - here's a fiver?! So should I give to charities and make a donation to some disaster appeal? But then I wonder where that money is going. Yet in whatever circumstances God has placed us, there must be something we can do. In my experience, God plants little opportunities for doing some good - some kindness or other. Also, I think we can take a sacramental approach to all we do. We can all pray about our work and do it for God, not for the monthly salary. (I owe my job to St Nicholas - I can tell the story.) For those like me who teach, I offer this. Before I go to a lecture or tutorial, I pray, 'Lord bless the work that I do, that it may be pleasing to Thee and beneficial to my students.' Something of the kind can be said in any job. Someone on another post quoted St Seraphim of Sarov: acquire grace and thousands about you will be saved. Well, I can't say about my acquiring grace, but in all sorts of ways, we can try to put into practice these words.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[primaveraloler]

Personally I think religion and culture play a greater role in determining the quality of life in a nation than the form of government the nation may have. For that reason some monarchy's are better then some democracy's and some democracy's are better then some monarchy's, etc ... Overall I think the best form of government has proven itself to be monarchy however. Its extreme longevity alone is something to think about. Its the form of government the majority of humanity that raised itself above the level of tribalism has lived under for majority of history. Its the form of government advocated by the greatest philosophers, religious leaders, and saints throughout history.

What did the Orthodox saints of the time say about the rise of democracy and the destruction of the traditional monarchy's? Its something worth looking into. Which form of government best conforms to the image of the heavenly governance.. the hierarchy of angels under the monarchy of God ? We pray “on earth as it is in heaven” , heaven is our guide on how the earth is to be governed. Certainly the fallen nature of the world would prohibit an exact image but that doesn't mean you don't try to accomplish it in so far as you can. I forgot the father who said this but there is a saying that monarchy is connected to monotheism, aristocracy with polytheism and democracy with atheism. I'll find out who said that.

Modern democracy came about as a revolt against authority and tradition. If you look at the people who fomented the rebellions you will find a disproportionate number of Freemasons ( like George Washington), Deists (Jefferson), atheists (Tom Paine), hell fire club members (Franklin), etc.. I don't think it was a coincidence that the theory of democracy rose to predominance at the same time that what was left of traditional Christianity in the west was being left behind, enlightenment rationalism and materialism were on the increase and such.. Democratic revolutions from the French to the American plunged the world into warfare and at least in France lead to a reign of terror and beheadings. Democracy (especially when coupled with capitalism and central banks) has also made the world easy pickings for exploitation and political control by (through buying elections and control of media) international bankers, plutocrats, and corporate bosses. Democracy inevitable leads to demagoguery, division and rule by money. It has traditionally been considered the worst form of government. It also has a tendency to evolve into totalitarianism which is simple the flip side of the democratic coin.

[ImmitsRom]

I think a general topic heading of Christ and politics might be useful. The challenge is that there is often much opining on the subject without any recourse to the foundational documents. We would not opine on theology without at least some reference to Scripture and the Fathers would we? Words have meaning. They also have origins. You can go back and find who was the first to use a word and find out what he meant by it. In the case of politics, it goes back to Plato. He defined the polis as the soul written large. That dictum holds true today, despite the attempt to evade it. The political order is based on more than just formal structures. The political order, whatever its formal structure, is a representational one, on the level of transcendence. It represents more than just individual or group interests. It represents a society, which means that it serves a transcendent function. And a society can only understand itself symbolically through some transcendent goal, aspiration, dream, etc.

It does that symbolically, through the myth, whatever the myth is for that society, that typically involves a mythic founding that is pure and true, and a mythic beyond, that is also pure and true, and the present struggle in between to either recapture a lost innocent past, or find it anew beyond some transcendent horizon, if only we had the power and the will to come together, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the basic structure in Scripture applies to the defining myth of any political society as well, as much as it might be corrupted.

As Plato pointed out, therefore, the polis is a represntation of the state of health, or of disorder, of the souls of the people in that society, or, more accurately, of the paradigmatic souls of that particular society. So in the case of an Athens dominated by sophists, the sophistic disorder became paradigmatic for the society as a whole. There is a kind of divine comedy to all of this, because, of course, the person who represents spiritual order stands over and against the polis as a judgment against it, and is usually put to death, or made an outcast. When the truly spiritual man comes along, he becomes the new paradigm, and for the survival of the society it becomes necessary to push him aside.

This tension is best represented in Christianity on the personal level. It is the tension between a transcendent heavenly reality and a fallen world that operates in every Christian soul. We cannot bring transcendent, heavenly reality into our own bodies in any more than just a fleeting sense, nor do we simply condemn a fallen world as worthless, meaningless, having no redeeming value. Both are gnostic inversions of reality: condeming the world (or our bodies) as evil on the one hand, or trying to create heaven on earth on the other hand. Each Christian lives in a realm in between the two, which is the nature of the spiritual struggle. This is usually played out in the political world with compromise and moderation and what we would usually refer to as moral capitulation, punctuated by episodes of extreme violence.

Because the nature of politics has been obscured by people like John Locke, who do not see it in Platonic terms, but only in terms of formalistic structures, it was deemed necessary to purge Christianity of its symbolic, spiritual "accretions" and return it to its supposedly "pure" form of a moral system with a trinitarian god at the top of things, but not having a whole lot to do with us otherwise. This was supposed to elminate social violence and intolerance. And to some extent, the liberal experiment has done that, even though the liberal would flatly deny that there is anything transcendent about this enterprise.

The best rule, of course, is rule by wise men and women, raised up by God for that purpose, as in the Old Testament judges, or, in the parallel case, by the philosopher king. But people clamored for a king. So, if we were to search for a kind of pragmatic taxonomy, I think we would have to say that rule by the wise comes first, followed by kingship, followed by the benign dictator, followed by democracy (or rule by popular opinion), followed by tyranny. Modern societies are ruled by popular opinion, not so much by the formalistic structures of democracy, and popular opinion is largely molded, not by politicians but by the media. And the media get their opinions from the predominant opinions in the academy, and from cocktail parties.

Democracy is a fact of life largely because it reflects the new econonomic realities: the economic dominance of the middle class, or what we sometimes call the nouveau riche, which is largely governed by the precepts of conventionalism and utilitarianism and contractarianism -- all of which are outgrowths of the protestant revolt and the political theorists like John Locke who enshrined these principles in their work.

But they have adopted the even earlier mythology of Petrarch, that man has progressed to a point in history in which the darkness of the past can now be overcome and we can remake history, and human nature through the power of science and the new philosophy. This progressivist bias to history is at the core of all political movements and societies. That some new age is just around the corner. It is a constant myth in history. Christianity is the only thing that ever debunked it, because the new man and the new age awaits the final judgment of a transcendent God. In the here and now all we have are approximations, and they are fleeting.

Monarchy per se provides no assurances against this gnoticism, because many of the monarchs of Europe were the first to adopt this new age of man paradigm, going back at least to Elizabeth I of England. Prince Charles and all his babble about global warming, etc., is following a fine tradition in that sense. But on the theoretical level, monarchy symbolizes divine sovereignty over man, nature, society, history, with the monarch serving a representative function in both directions -- as a secular parallel to the bishop. The monarch, intrinsically, can take the long view of things, because of his relative wealth, leisure, and the fact that he has an inherited sovereignty that is passed down (if he or his siblings are not killed by a rival royal faction).

But to argue in favor of monarchy today puts the cart before the horse. We must first find the monarch in our own souls before any legitimacy can be ascribed to a political monarch. And today we all think and act like autonomous man -- the epitomy of the new age -- despite our Orthodox patina.

[arraxylap]

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people" (Oscar Wilde).

Democracy is a mechanism for the people to give responsibility for running a country to a chosen few. In he UK, we have the strange situation that it is not the people who really have the authority to give this power, since all power, theoretically, resides with the Sovereign.

How much should we, as Christians, get involved in politics? Christ said: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Is this not an example of how we should lead our lives? Lord Acton states: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," if this is true, surely we should stay as far from power as possible?

With love in Christ

Alex

[DariushPetresku]

I think a general topic heading of Christ and politics might be useful. The challenge is that there is often much opining on the subject without any recourse to the foundational documents. We would not opine on theology without at least some reference to Scripture and the Fathers would we? Thats a very good point.


But on the theoretical level, monarchy symbolizes divine sovereignty over man, nature, society, history, with the monarch serving a representative function in both directions -- as a secular parallel to the bishop. The monarch, intrinsically, can take the long view of things, because of his relative wealth, leisure, and the fact that he has an inherited sovereignty that is passed down (if he or his siblings are not killed by a rival royal faction). Yes and the monarch is often more able to resist special interests and money powers. In a democracy its takes a lot of money to get elected and then the politicians owe favors to those who financed them. Though a certain level of popularity must be maintained in all governments at least in a monarchy the king is not as beholden to the fickle will of the masses and public opinion. "The majority" is no more fit to run a state then they are to perform surgery, or work as rocket scientists. It's like running a football team by the majority vote of the fans rather than by a trained and knowledgeable coach. A monarch is trained from youth to rule and in a good Orthodox nation they would also be raised to have a firm grasp of philosophy, morality and Orthodox theology. Certainly no form of government is foolproof and the monarch can turn out to be a tyrant that ignores the dignity of man and such but overall I think its a better way.


But to argue in favor of monarchy today puts the cart before the horse. We must first find the monarch in our own souls before any legitimacy can be ascribed to a political monarch. And today we all think and act like autonomous man -- the epitomy of the new age -- despite our Orthodox patina. Thats a good point. To try impose a monarchy in the US for example at this time would be a waste of effort. Good government can never be imposed anyway it needs to arise in an organic fashion from the religion, culture and traditions of the people. We will have an Orthodox monarchy when we are worthy of an Orthodox monarchy. Many of the modern saints of Russia did in fact claim that the Russian monarchy was lost because the people were no longer worthy of it.

[Edwardthe_third]

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people" (Oscar Wilde).

Democracy is a mechanism for the people to give responsibility for running a country to a chosen few. In he UK, we have the strange situation that it is not the people who really have the authority to give this power, since all power, theoretically, resides with the Sovereign.

How much should we, as Christians, get involved in politics? Christ said: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Is this not an example of how we should lead our lives? Lord Acton states: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," if this is true, surely we should stay as far from power as possible?

With love in Christ

Alex

The actual quotation by Lord Acton is:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In Christ,
Brian

[Lapsiks]

Dear Brothers (and sisters) in Christ,

Mr. Jones rightly directs us towards Plato - and I would add Aristotle, although his approach is somewhat different. The profound truths in Mr. Jones' comment that:
This tension is best represented in Christianity on the personal level. It is the tension between a transcendent heavenly reality and a fallen world that operates in every Christian soul. We cannot bring transcendent, heavenly reality into our own bodies in any more than just a fleeting sense, nor do we simply condemn a fallen world as worthless, meaningless, having no redeeming value. Both are gnostic inversions of reality: condeming the world (or our bodies) as evil on the one hand, or trying to create heaven on earth on the other hand. Each Christian lives in a realm in between the two, which is the nature of the spiritual struggle. This is usually played out in the political world with compromise and moderation and what we would usually refer to as moral capitulation, punctuated by episodes of extreme violence. speaks directly to Mr. Haig's comments. I think Acton's actual comment was more like 'all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'; the difference may seem small, but is crucial.

Acton was a liberal Catholic, one of those who opposed the introduction of Papal Infallibility, and his thought was permeated with his faith. He knew that in a fallen world those who hold power will indeed be tempted to abuse their trust; that is what happens in this world. However, that did not make him turn from politics. He was a good friend of Mr. Gladstone, and with him believed that the Christian had a duty to bring himself and his Faith into the political sphere. Both men were students of Plato, and they would have agreed with what Mr. Jones writes about the polis representing the spiritual health of a society. As Burke put it so well: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ Can we then really do nothing?

I am reminded of Yeats' prophetic words in 'The Second Coming':
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand The 'worst' are, as always, full of passionate intensity; but so too are those who follow the Incarnate and Risen Lord. That is why Mr. Jones is correct to divine the tension between the transcendant reality and the mundane reality.

Andreas' words strike a chord with me. What can I do Lord? But the Lord always provides an answer if we open ourselves to it; like Andreas, I try to dedicate my work to the Lord. To be charged with the education of anyone is a great and a sacred charge, and my job is to do it selflessly and to the highest possible standard; there are times I want to take the short cut, fob the exigent student off with a few books rather than a conversation about her work - at those moments I remember in whose name I work, and don't do what my selfish will wants. A small enough thing, but a good reminder to me.

Democratic politics provides, for the reasons Mr. Jones so eloquently argues, little enough chance for politicians to listen to the still small voices - the clamant voices of the Market drive us towards a materialist and functionalist view of man. It will not hold, because it cannot; it is based upon false premises, and like every house built on sand, will fail.

But in the meantime, most of us live with it, and thus far it has not been antipathetic to Christianity - although there are signs that this might not be the case over the longer term. Revolutionary movements acting in the name of the 'people' in France, Germany and Russia have not shown much tolerance for Christianity, after all, and in our western world we are about to get the first generation of politicians for whom religion has not been a formative influence.

There is, of course, no best form of government, partly because context is all. One of the greatest follies of that fatal and flawed Enlightenment project was the belief that there was a 'best' form of government - and that it could be exported. Experience tends to suggest this is another example of the hubris of modern man.

The question of how we, as Christians, relate to politics is, as Mr. Jones suggests, a worthy thread in itself. But I have long been haunted by the words of Burke and Yeats which I quote above.

In Christ,

John

[9uWzBx4l]

In discussion with my wife and her family, it appears (if they are at all representative of the feelings of Russians) that Russians feel that the monarchy they had was very much bound up with the idea of the tsar being God's instrument on earth but he could only be so if he had autocratic power. They are not interested in any restoration of the monarchy which would be 'constitutional' on the British model. Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning.

It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[HsSp82U8]

Only if a tsar were to be handed autocratic power would monarchy have its sacramental meaning.

It is instructive to read the will of Tsar Alexander III in which he offers advice to his heir. In one vital respect, Tsar Martyr Nicholas did not follow his father's advice: 'do not get involved in war'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

An interesting thought. The problem with the advice was, of course, that Romanov Russia was, in many senses, a vehicle for war. Whilst little in the way of what we would consider civil society existed, Russia proved over the centuries extremely good at war; I think Alexander III was one of the few Romanovs who heeded his own advice. The prestige which the dynasty gained from taking Russia to the height of Empire was crucial to its popularity, and, of course, had Nicholas II had the same success as, say, Alexander I or Catherine II, then the regime would have received a great boost.

Monarchies tend to rest on the support of aristocracies, and the aristocratic code is one in which war is a matter of honour; indeed, most aristocracies originally rested upon the warlike skills of their ancestors, and expertise in war was always one of the great justifications of aristocracy - all of which is to suggest that monarchies on the traditional model tended towards regarding war as politics by other means. One might, however, note that such wars tended to be less destructive and on a lesser scale than modern wars; exceptions were wars of religion, such as the Thirty Years' War.

Do you think that the Russian feelings you mention are evidence of the influence of the Byzantine model? There is, I suspect, something primal in the idea of a God-King, and early Christianity was able to take over, and sacralise, such pagan notions. Perhaps sadly, I can't see us going for that one now - although the late John Paul II gave us a glimpse of what might be possible.

In Christ,

John

[YTmWSOA5]

I think the Russians often had no choice but to go to war. Sorrounded by often times violent enemies and would be conquerers to the west (Napoleon , Hitler, etc.) as well as the mongols and the Japanese, etc. That coupled with its lack of warm water ports, and large stretches of land that were far from ideal for farming added up to a big potential for war.