The Orthodox Church on politics: attitude, opinion and answers to frequently asked questions

Christianity and politics

Two millennia ago, the land of Israel was under the cruel tyranny of Rome. The people hoped for deliverance with the coming of the Messiah, but Jesus disappointed the majority of the population and did not get involved in political vicissitudes. Christ never resisted power, despite the terrible oppression of Israel. Opponents of the Son of God used cunning tricks to lure the Savior to the side of Rome or the people.

Christ taught to give what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God

However, the wisdom of Christ is above political selectivity. He never got involved in this empty game, having come into the world to save the souls of the unfortunate.

From the first years of its existence, Christianity determined a clear position in relation to political science.

• Religion proclaims eternally unshakable and universal principles of morality, designed to lead human souls to universal salvation from the bonds of the Fall.
• Politics is the ability to lead a country or various societies within that state. Its activities depend on the specific situation and the availability of opportunities to help solve the local problem.

Important!
religion and politics, governed by wisdom, are called upon to take care of man and his welfare. However, such a conclusion is only suitable for ideal conditions and is difficult to achieve in the circumstances of present existence. The position of the Church in relation to the state apparatus consists of the following statements:

1. The religious mission is in no way connected with the economic and political form of culture. The Church puts forward the main statement: the laws within the country must be subject to the moral laws given to us by the Lord Himself.
2. The autonomy (independence) of Christianity does not distance it from “earthly” affairs, but determines man’s place in material existence. The Church recommends that rulers act in accordance with the commandments, observe social justice, and take care of the good of the whole.
3. Religion is a spiritual pillar that helps bring the ideals of a better society to life. It is necessary to adjust not only world politics, but also to fulfill responsibilities towards your family, education and work. The spiritual healing of people of all ages brings great improvements in the sphere of public administration.
4. The Church does not exclude the versatility of citizens' judgments and gives the right to think in their own way. However, no group is allowed to use the authority of Christianity to achieve a specific selfish goal. Conscience is the most important tool for leading the state and smaller organizations.
5. The religion of different countries today unites many faiths and calls for tolerance so that cooperation brings positive results. Reasonable dialogue between Christianity and political leaders can put an end to senseless divisions of territories and introduce us to peaceful coexistence. State structures are required to respect the traditions that have been established since ancient times in certain faiths.

On a note! The relationship between politics and religion has a long history of positive cooperation and negative conflict. The reason for this duality was the desire of one of the structures to downplay the importance of the other. However, it is always necessary to remember the words of the Savior: “To Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s.”

Orthodoxy has a negative attitude towards the possibility of infiltrating political differences

Christian Empire[edit]

See also: State Church of the Roman Empire and Christendom

When the Roman persecution of Christianity ended under Constantine I with the Edict of Milan, and the Nicene Christian faith became the privileged religion of the Roman Empire, Christians were presented with questions they had never before had to face. Can a Christian ruler legally wage war? If Christians are discouraged from entering into litigation with one another in Scripture, how should they act as officers in the judicial system? What civil rights were to be granted to non-Christians or heterodox Christians in a civil state governed by the faithful?

Augustine of Hippo was one of the religious leaders who faced these problems in the "City of God"

; in this work he sought to defend Christians against pagan charges that the withdrawal of official sponsorship of pagan cult led to civil and military disasters in the Roman Empire from abandoned pagan deities. (Pecknold, 2010) Augustine sought to affirm that the City of God was a heavenly and spiritual matter rather than an earthly and political matter. The city of God is contrasted and in conflict with the city of men; but the final triumph of the City of God is guaranteed by Divine prophecy.

Catholics, War and Peace[edit]

Catholics have historically taken very different positions on issues of war and peace. The historic churches of the world are currently the main exponents of Christian pacifism, but the issue first came to light during the Roman Empire.

Roman army soldiers who converted to Catholicism were among the first to face these problems. Catholics in the Roman army had to face a number of problems beyond the obvious question of whether war could be reconciled with the Christian religion. Paganism permeated Roman military institutions. Idols of Greco-Roman gods appeared on the standards of legionnaires. Military service involves an oath of allegiance that might conflict with Catholic teachings even if they did not invoke pagan gods. The duties of Roman military personnel included law enforcement as well as protection, and therefore Roman soldiers were sometimes forced to participate in the persecution of Christians. Sexual promiscuity was considered a moral hazard to which military personnel were exposed. See Imperial Cult (Ancient Rome).

The conversion of Constantine I changed the relationship of the Christian churches with the Roman army, as well as the relationship of the churches with the Roman state. The completely opposite idea, sometimes called "Caesaropapism", identified the Catholic empire with the militant church. Latin word Christianitas

originally meant the body of all Christians intended as a political body, or the territory of the globe occupied by Christians, something similar in English to the word Christian. Apocalyptic texts were reinterpreted. The idea of ​​a Christian empire continued to play an important role in Western Europe even after the fall of Roman rule there; The name of the Holy Roman Empire testifies to its claims to holiness as well as to universal rule. The apocryphal apocalypse Pseudo-Methodius, written in the seventh century, depicts the saintly last Roman emperor holding his earthly kingdom, awaiting the return of Christ. According to Pseudo-Methodius, the Last Emperor will wage war in the last days against the enemies of God, including Gog, Magog and the Antichrist.

Difficult relationships

From history we see how often politics and religion penetrated each other.

• Sometimes there was a kind of bribery of the Church by politicians who wanted to win the favor of the holy fathers. Many rulers sought to combine the altar and the throne, which led to the dissolution of Christianity within the state apparatus. More often, politicians used this means for purely selfish purposes.
• Alliances between religion and government are called concordats. Today, unlike the Middle Ages, many different faiths coexist within one country. This makes it possible for Christianity to make its spiritual contribution to the development of a secular state. The Church begins to actively introduce virtuous ideals without interfering in the political situation.
• Separation reduces the stress on the relationship. However, even without influencing each other, the Church and the state are able to interact for the benefit of the people, because humanity belongs to God and is part of any state. Religion does not penetrate into the activities of politics, but reserves the right to evaluate the work of heads of state from a moral point of view.

Important!
Orthodox laity, as citizens of their country, have the right and must take part in political activities, but not as representatives of a religion. A Christian brings moral values ​​to society, improving the spiritual perception of the population. Servants of the Church must become religious leaders leading human souls to salvation according to all the canons of orthodox Christianity. While preaching the truth, they are obliged to distance themselves from political views.

See also[edit]

• Caesaropapism
• The Catholic Church and Politics in the USA
• Christian communism
• Christian Democracy Distributism
• Social credit

The post-Soviet government has officially abandoned ideology, but in fact this is a formality. A typical scheme operates: ideology in the USSR is called “artificial”, and the ideology of the post-Soviet regime is perceived as something “natural”. This was typical for any social system.

Orthodoxy has become part of the state ideology of Russia since the formation of the Yeltsin regime. After all, the reactionary regime needed to rely on something other than anti-Soviet slogans, which, if you study sociological surveys, have never been popular in society.

It was not for nothing that opposition politicians visited churches even at the end of the Soviet regime; they always did it publicly, so that such an event would be covered by all major media outlets. Like, look: the head of the city, a major official, is standing in the church with a candle. Why does this need to be covered? Exclusively in order to show society an example of approved behavior.

If this happened already in the last years of the USSR, then what can we say about post-Soviet Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, the authorities took on the task that is known today as the “revival of spirituality.”

Putin and Orthodoxy

Vladimir Putin became president of Russia in 2000. Can we say that Vladimir Putin immediately began to use religiosity for political purposes? No, we can’t say for sure about this.

The fact is that before becoming president, Putin was a major official in Moscow, and even before that, the second person in the mayor’s office of St. Petersburg. During this period, there can be no talk of any special religiosity of Putin.

Putin was simply a technocrat, he didn’t shine in churches, because there was no point in it. Apparently, until a certain point (until approximately May 1998), Putin did not want to be a public politician.

Putin became a public politician during the period when he was appointed director of the FSB (1998) and then head of the government of the Russian Federation. During these periods, he also did not say anything particularly about religion.

And when he became president, in his first interviews, for example, he spoke critically about Nicholas II[1]:

“Journalist: “I recently saw a photograph at an exhibition where Nicholas II is on the roof of this house with his wife

Putin: - And what was he doing there?

Journalist: - I looked at Moscow

Putin: Well, he had nothing to do, he wandered around the rooftops. Here, Nicholas II, right?

Journalist: - Yes.

Putin: “Well, you see, I’ve completed my travels.”

It is clear that this is a largely political statement, and the journalist obviously expected that Putin would evaluate Nicholas II positively, which was customary in the nineties. But Putin not only did not change his position, but in the future he also spoke negatively several times about Nicholas II, who was not just a political figure, but this character was also canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin, for example, sometimes calls Nikolai “bloody” in public speeches[2].

And another interesting point about the initial period of Putin’s rule. In an interview with Larry King regarding faith in a higher power, Putin said the following[3]:

“L. King: So you believe in a higher power?

Vladimir Putin: I believe in people. I believe in his good intentions. I believe that we all came to do good. And if we do this, and we do it together, then success will await us in relations with each other, in relations between our states. But the most important thing is that in this way we will achieve the most important thing - we will achieve comfort in our own hearts.”

There, Putin said that he does not consider it right to publicly demonstrate the religiosity of senior government officials:

“You know, I prefer not to dwell too much on this topic. I believe that these are things that a person should keep to himself. Faith in God should not manifest itself in external effects - it should be in a person, in a person’s heart.”

As you can understand, Vladimir Putin at first tried to refuse to demonstrate religiosity in public, but Putin soon changed his position. First of all, in foreign policy. An interesting moment from the initial period of Putin’s rule:

“Before the first meeting in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana, Putin studied Bush’s dossier compiled for him, detailing his character and biography. In particular, it said that Bush was very religious, in his youth he was fond of alcohol, at the age of 40 he stopped drinking and gained a devout faith in God.

At the very beginning of informal communication in Ljubljana, Putin told Bush a story from his life. He once had a dacha near St. Petersburg. And a few years ago it burned to the ground, fortunately, none of the relatives were injured. By some miracle, the only thing that survived the fire was the aluminum cross donated by his mother, which Putin took off when he went into the sauna. That incident convinced him that miracles do happen, Putin concluded. The religious Bush was amazed. “I looked into his eyes and saw the soul there,” he will say after that memorable first meeting.”[4]

This suggests that Putin was first forced to use religiosity for political purposes by foreign policy. But then it became relevant for domestic politics.

After all, Putin had to position himself somehow. He did not want to be associated only with the fact that he once worked for the KGB. Putin chose the model of a conservative-populist, that is, his slogans in both foreign and domestic policy already in 2001: traditional values, patriotism, greatness and so on, a modernized analogue of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

It was not difficult for Putin to make friends with the church, because you need to understand that in the Soviet years, the KGB was the most actively interacting with the church (in addition to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church)[5].

The union of Putin and the Orthodox Church was natural. The fact is that since the late eighties, Soviet officials have had a tradition of visiting churches and lighting candles (so that this process will be covered by the media). It is clear that in the last years of the USSR not everyone did this, but a significant part did. And in the early nineties, after the collapse of the USSR, almost all officials did this, even those who did not believe in God.

You can take, for example, Alexander Lukashenko, who calls himself an Orthodox atheist[6]. He claims that although he does not believe in God, he still goes to church and lights candles. Because supposedly “closer to the people.”

In fact, this is not an attempt to “get closer to the people,” but bureaucratic norms. Who has a better chance of becoming one of the Russian, or post-Soviet, officials: a person who stands with a candle in a church, or a person who is trying to publicly expose a religious cult in the spirit of atheistic propaganda from the times of the USSR?

The same can be said about the passion of Russian officials for tennis during the Yeltsin years. At that time, most officials were tennis fans, but as soon as Yeltsin ceased to be president, tennis immediately ceased to be popular in this environment.

Putin’s connection with the church began after banker Sergei Pugachev suggested to the president that for the sake of popularity it was worth openly supporting the Russian Orthodox Church. Pugachev is not just a banker, but in a sense, previously even the money bag of the church; he not only communicated with church leaders, but was their friend. Moreover, Pugachev had a letter from Patriarch Alexy II to Yeltsin, which indicated that Pugachev could be considered a mediator in the dialogue between church and state[4].

During the first 8 years of Putin’s rule, Pugachev could be considered one of the president’s main associates. And all this time, Putin’s interest in religion intensified, he began to appear in churches more and more often, especially during the holidays.

Putin in 2001 clearly abandoned the idea that religion is a topic that “is best not to dwell on.” Years later, Sergei Pugachev directly admitted that religion for Putin is a tool:

“We must understand that Putin does not have any confessor. At least in my opinion, Putin is not a believer and is religiously uneducated. In order to understand something, he needs to read about it. Moreover, reading for two days is not enough. You need to somehow devote yourself to this, you need to understand, you need to feel, believe. As I remember, he perceived it as the “All-Russian Popular Front”, “United Russia”, as a certain community of people who are connected by one goal that can be used”[7].

Is Pugachev right? If you carefully study the union of Putin and the Orthodox Church, then he is completely right, because the church is certainly becoming politicized, in fact becoming something similar to the “All-Russian Popular Front”, if we consider the public statements of the main church figures who prefer to talk about social -political issues, not about “spirituality.”

Putin needed to rely on some ideological principles, and today they are known - “spirituality, traditions, patriotism.” This is especially true in view of the fact that a significant part of Russians, albeit formally, call themselves Orthodox.

Church and politics

The Church has a positive attitude towards an alliance with the authorities. Patriarch Kirill supports Vladimir Putin. In 2021, the patriarch stated:

“I would like to thank you for the fact that in the current conditions in the Russian state, this ministry of the church goes hand in hand with many government institutions, and we have dialogue and cooperation in various areas. And, of course, that’s why we achieve certain goals”[8].

You can also recall Patriarch Kirill’s proposal to include a mention of God in the Russian Constitution. What was this for? So that the church has a basis to campaign for amendments to the Constitution.

Patriarch Kirill urged believers not to distance themselves from politics, which follows from the charter of the Russian Orthodox Church[9] (Canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church do not conduct political activities and do not provide their premises for political events), but to vote for amendments to the Constitution[10].

Therefore, the policy of the Orthodox Church towards those in power is more than loyalty, it is open support for the initiatives of the same Putin. The only thing missing is calls to vote for Putin in the elections. Although this happens in some churches[11].

The reason why the church is not active enough in politics and does not make particularly significant decisions is that the authority of the church in society is insignificant, and its political weight is about zero. The fact is that in the early nineties, clergy themselves participated in politics, became deputies, Orthodox political parties appeared, but they all failed in the elections.

It was beneficial for the church to formally distance itself from politics, declaring that it was not a matter of religion. In fact, this was done largely with the aim of not demonstrating one’s own political weakness and lack of influence. In this regard, it is easier to be one of the branches of the current government, constantly declare that one must obey any authorities, praise Putin and even Chubais.

Yes, there is even such an interesting moment. This is how Patriarch Kirill congratulated Chubais on his birthday:

“Occupying various key positions in the state during difficult years for our country, you have rightfully earned the reputation of one of the most effective leaders in Russia.

Today you stand at the head of the most important state corporation, designed to make a significant contribution to the process of modernization of the national economy.

I sincerely wish you success in your work, carried out with zeal for the benefit of the Fatherland. May the all-merciful Lord grant you and your loved ones health, peace of mind and prosperity.”[12]

In a similar way, the Patriarch congratulates all major officials of Russia, and it does not matter whether they are believers or not. Chubais is not even formally a believer; he calls himself a “non-militant atheist”[13].

If we talk about subordination, then the church for the current ruling class is a tool to influence an insignificant, but still part of the Russian population. Churched citizens in Russia are, at best, 1-2% of the population, but you still need to understand that this is a lot of people, and it would be strange to refuse such support.

Orthodox Union

The union of government and church, on the one hand, seems strong; on the other hand, nothing new has happened in this regard for many years, that is, the church does not strengthen its influence in society, does not give additional influence to the current government.

For many years, the authorities took various measures to increase the influence of the church. Consider, for example, Putin’s open support for the church. After all, for Putin, as a politician, spending time on church cannot be empty.

But in fact, there was still no special return. Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs on church attendance even during the holidays indicate that the situation in Russia in this regard has not changed much since the nineties of the last century. For example, about 2% of the population comes to church at Christmas[14].

Although according to 2021 polls, 55% of Russians say they are Orthodox[15]. Thus, since the post-Soviet period, the authorities have managed to convince the average person that Orthodoxy is not a relic of the past, as they tried to prove in the USSR, but a cultural pattern of the nation.

But what does this give in practice? Recognition that Orthodoxy is part of history, culture, perhaps patriotism (in the understanding of modern authorities, of course) as an ideology. But recognition of the cultural role of Orthodoxy does not equal the churching of the population. A Russian man in the street can call himself Orthodox, recognize the enormous role of Orthodoxy in the history and culture of Russia, but ignore Orthodoxy as a religious structure, that is, not attend churches and not know religious dogmas and norms.

Political Orthodoxy definitely has a future. After all, after the collapse of the USSR, there are practically no political forces that would oppose Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is supported by all systemic parties in Russia, as well as a significant part of the non-systemic opposition. For example, Alexey Navalny, although he takes an anti-clerical position, still calls himself a supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church[16].

There are practically no people in Russian politics who support abandoning cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church in favor of anti-religious policies. And in many ways this is precisely due to the “revival of spirituality,” when Orthodoxy was formally accepted as a cultural norm, almost obligatory for the Russian population.

That is, a politician who begins to engage in anti-religious propaganda will almost certainly not be able to achieve anything in Russia. But at the same time, religious fanatics have little chance. There have been attempts to create a political party with a religious bias in Russia, but they always ended in failure. These are primarily nationalist projects like the “Congress of Russian Communities”, “Derzhava”, “National Republican Party of Russia”, “People’s Union”, etc. All these parties and movements received little support in the elections.

This means that Orthodoxy in politics can only be used as a complement to another ideology. With such little influence, Patriarch Kirill, however, has ambitions. He wants to expand the influence of the church, which is natural for corporations. But there will be no return on state ideology from this expansion.

Therefore, in modern conditions, we can say about the union of the church and the government this way: the union in one form or another will persist for a long time, but any serious changes are unlikely. The authorities are conservative, including in terms of relations with the church. That is, the church can claim certain preferences, but nothing more. At the same time, it is important to understand that if the leadership of the church had held views similar to the position of the ex-schema-abbot Sergius, then, most likely, there would have been no union between the government and the church at all. Therefore, in this matter, first of all, the church must make compromises in order to preserve the “symphony”.

Sources

Sources

1. Putin about Nicholas II “Damn, I’ve traveled a lot.” URL:
   
2. Did Putin question the sanctity of Nicholas II? URL: https://politsovet.ru/44492-putin-postavil-pod-somnenie-svyatost-nikolaya-vtorogo.html
3. Interview with CNN anchor Larry King. URL: https://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558
4. Mikhail Zygar. The entire Kremlin army. A brief history of modern Russia, 2015.
5. Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) on the cooperation of the Church with the KGB: Well, they collaborated, so what? URL: https://ahilla.ru/mitropolit-tihon-shevkunov-o-sotrudnichestve-tserkvi-s-kgb-nu-sotrudnichali-i-chto/
6. Putin and the Orthodox atheist Lukashenko visited holy places in Karelia. URL: https://www.vesti.ru/article/1347714
7. “Putin is not a believer.” URL: https://www.pugachevsergei.com/Putin-not-a-believer-person/?lang=ru
8. Patriarch Kirill thanked Putin for the high level of dialogue between the church and the authorities. URL: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/7662593
9. Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. URL: https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419782.html
10. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill took part in the vote on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. URL: https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5654660.html
11. Father calls for voting for V.V. Putin. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-H2C8HMdc
12. Patriarchal congratulations to the General Director of the State Corporation “Russian Nanotechnology Corporation” A.B. Happy 55th birthday to Chubais. URL: https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1182675.html
13. Anatoly Chubais about the attempt on his life, privatization and the creation of a market in Russia. URL: https://pozneronline.ru/2019/07/26031/
14. Country of atheists: less than 2 percent of Russians took part in Christmas services. URL: https://newizv.ru/news/society/07-01-2018/strana-ateistov-v-rozhdestvenskih-bogosluzheniyah-prinyali-uchastie-3-6-protsenta-rossiyan
15. Celebration of Easter. URL: https://fom.ru/TSennosti/14379
16. Navalny's interview with Akunin: About religion and the Church. URL: https://o-apankratov.livejournal.com/177224.html

Further reading[edit]

• Mill, John Stewart. On Freedom: Translation into Modern English
  . ISR Publications, 2013. “Editorial: Christianity and Freedom.” [1]
• John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus
  (1972)
• "Politics", article in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought
  , Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Piper, editors. (Oxford, 2000) ISBN 0-19-860024-0
• McKendree R. Langley, The Politics of Political Spirituality: Episodes in the Public Career of Abraham Kuyper, 1879-1918
  (Jordan Station, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1984) ISBN 0-88815-070-9
• Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Distorted
  (2006)
• C. S. Pecknold, Christianity and Politics: A Brief History Guide
  (Cascade, 2010)

Links[edit]

1. Wilken, Robert (1984). Christians as the Romans saw them
   . Yale University Press. P. 125. ISBN 0-300-03066-5.
2. Wilken, Robert (1984). Christians as the Romans saw them
   . Yale University Press. P. 117. ISBN 0-300-03066-5.
3. Polygamy and democracy: A cross-cultural comparison. Intercultural Studies, 34/2 (2000), 190-208.
4. Korotaev, A. (2003). Christianity and Democracy: A Cross-Cultural Study (An Afterthought). World Cultures
   , 13(2), 195-212.
5. Unilineal descent organization and deep Christianization: A cross-cultural comparison. Intercultural Studies
   , 37/1 (2003), 133-157.
6. Shields, John A. (2009). The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right
   . Princeton University Press. pp. 46–67. ISBN 978-1400830107. Christian radicalism
7. ^ a b
   Christiannopoulos, Alexander (2010).
   Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel
   . Exeter: Academic imprint. pp. 181–182. Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians, Chapter 13
8. Acts 2:44–45
9. Acts 4:32–37
10. "ABOUT" . simple way
    . Retrieved December 28, 2021.
11. ^ a b
    "Bruderhof - A Community of Intentional Community".
    Fellowship for Intentional Community
    . Retrieved December 28, 2021.
12. "Life Among the Bruderhof". American Conservative
    . Retrieved December 28, 2021.
13. Christoyannopoulos, Alexander (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel
    . Exeter: Academic imprint. pp. 43–80. The Sermon on the Mount: A Manifesto for Christian Anarchism
14. Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (March 2010). "The Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence: From Turning the Other Cheek to Rejection of the State" (PDF). Political Research Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on 05/05/2011.
15. Christoyannopoulos, Alexander (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel
    . Exeter: Academic imprint. P. 19 and 208. Leo Tolstoy.
16. ^ a b
    Ellul, Jacques (1988).
    Anarchy and Christianity
    . Michigan: Umm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 86–87. ISBN 9780802804952. Interpretation of Romans 13:1-2
17. Lipscomb, David (1866–1867). On Civil Government
    . Doulos Christou Press. item 72. Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled by the “prince of this world,” the devil. His mission is to cause anger and revenge here on earth. Human government is to hell as the church is to heaven
18. Lipscomb, David (1866–1867). On Civil Government
    . Doulos Christou Press. p. 69. This higher power is an avenger to cause anger on the one who does evil. A Christian is clearly forbidden to take revenge or be angry, but he must live in peace with all people, doing good against evil. Then a Christian cannot be an official or executor of this higher power.
19. Christoyannopoulos, Alexander (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel
    . Exeter: Academic imprint. pp. 123–126. Opening
20. "Story" . Hutterites
    . 2012-02-23. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
21. "Church Community". Bruderhof
    . Retrieved December 28, 2021.
22. Jantzen, Kathy. "Christianity and Politics, Past and Present", C2C Magazine
    , June 19, 2009