Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun

Church and Ideology: Divisions and Reductions

Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun - Research Fellow at Yale University (USA). serhiy.hovorun@yale.edu

The article explores the milestones in the relationship of religion and ideologies since the Enlightenment. Religion and ideology exercised deep impact on each other. Thus, for instance, the divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the Church nowadays emerged under the impact of secular ideologies. In particular, this divide reflects the American bipolar political system. The roots of this division go back to the history of theological thought. They can be traced in two anthropological models, pessimistic and optimistic, which diverge on the issue of human freedom. The ancient Christian doctrines can be also interpreted in terms of "conservative" and "liberal" proto-ideologies: for example, Arianism and Severianism could be regarded as conservative movements. Instead of setting the Church's monopoly on any ideological trend, either conservative or liberal, the article suggests to reconcile them following the example of the modern political systems where coexistence and competition of the liberal and conservative ideologies do not lead to the system's collapse, but contribute to their further dynamic development.

Keywords: Orthodoxy, ideology, conservatism, liberalism, anthropology.

page 225
IF Karl Schmitt was right about "all the significant concepts of modern state theory being secularized theological concepts1, then this applies primarily to ideology. Ideology is a secularized form of theology. Like the latter, it offers a holistic view of the world and has the potential to mobilize the masses. In this sense, ideology is a full-fledged "secular religion" with its own "priests", whose role is played by intellectuals.2 Ideology can act as both a supplement to religion and a substitute for it. In any case, ideology and religion have a huge impact on each other.

"Ideology" was invented at the end of the 18th century as an alternative to religion and was intended to influence the consciousness and behavior of people akin to religious ones. The French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836), who coined the term "ideology", used the expression les elements d'ideologie3 as a device of secular epistemology. A staunch follower of the Enlightenment, de Tracy thought of ideology as a way of knowing the truth without "religious bias"4. Ideology, therefore, was conceived at its very creation as an alternative to religion.

After a pause of almost half a century, the concept of ideology returns to the intellectual forefront in the works of Karl Marx (1818-1883). Now ideology itself becomes an object of criticism as something that distorts reality. From the accusing party, she becomes the accused. Marx, in his work Die deutsche Ideologie5 (1846), criticized German idealist philosophy precisely for distorting objective reality. When the picture of reality is drawn on the basis of ideas alone, as was the case with idealist philosophers, then, according to Marx, it produces a "false consciousness". For Marx, true karma-

1. Schmitt, Carl. (1985) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, p.36. Trans. George Schwab. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

2. Cm. Bell, Daniel. (1962) The End of an Ideology: on the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, pp. 394 - 400. New York: Collier.

3. De Tracy's eponymous work Elements d'ideologie was published in five volumes between 1801 and 1815: de Tracy, Antoine-Louis-Claude Destutt. (1801 - 1815) Elements d'ideologie, vols. 1 - 5. Paris: Courcier.

4. Cm. Bell, D. The End of an Ideology, pp. 394 - 395.

5. Cm. Bluhm, H. (2010) Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Die deutsche Ideologie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

page 226
The truth of reality can only be reproduced if it is written on the basis of the social and economic interests of social classes. Ideology protects the interests of those social groups that have political power and capital. Marx put ideology and religion on the same level - as distorting an adequate perception of reality.

The history of Marxism has shown that the struggle against ideologies is similar to the fight against dragons based on the play "The Dragon" (1942-1944) by Eugene Schwartz. Dragon hunters often turn into dragons themselves and become worse than what they fought. Marxism, which fought against "idealistic ideologies," has itself become an ideology. In its Soviet version, it became a true totalitarian ideocracy. Fascism of various modifications, which came to power in Europe, including under the pretext of fighting communism, also turned into a totalitarian ideology, which was analyzed in detail, for example, by Hannah Arendt.6 Thus, ideologies in the twentieth century became templates for giant social engineering projects and ended in bloodshed with millions of human lives sacrificed to ideas.

During the period of totalitarian ideologies in Europe, these ideologies themselves became "political religions", described in particular by Eric Voegelin.7 In one case, the ideologues (Communists) rejected the traditional religion as such, and in another (Nazis), they encouraged it to cooperate. The contact of the Church with totalitarian ideologies has aggravated the tendencies towards the ideologization of religious life that were outlined in the Enlightenment era.

The tragic consequences of totalitarian ideologies led to a crisis of ideology as a genre. In 1960, Daniel Bell famously declared that ideology had ceased to exist.8 In a sense, he was right, because the ideology of the dey-

6. Arendt, H. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace; см. Weisman, T. (2014) Hannah Arendt and Karl Marx: on Totalitarianism and the Tradition of Western Political Thought. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books; Baehr, Peter (2010) Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Social Sciences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

7. Voegelin, Eric (1939) Die politischen Religionen. Stockholm: Bermann-Fischer Verlag. He developed the concept of "political religion" as a feature of totalitarian regimes in other works, such as the eight-volume History of Political Ideas and the five-volume Order and History.

8. Bell, D. The End of an Ideology.

page 227
It has lost some of its magical influence on the minds of people - at least in the West. It is noteworthy that the de-ideologization of Western society took place simultaneously with its secularization. The process of secularization, therefore, can be explained, among other things, by the crisis of ideologies with which the European Churches associated themselves in the previous period of totalitarianism.

A significant contribution to the de-ideologization of Western society was made by postmodernism, which emerged at the beginning of the century, but gained real strength after the Second World War. Postmodernism was not just another philosophical teaching, but a "discourse" transmitted through the means of philosophy, literature, theater, cinema, etc. With the help of these communicative means, he penetrated all the pores of intellectual and cultural life in the West.

One of the reasons for the popularity of postmodernism was its ability to weaken the grip of totalitarian ideologies and their impact on the masses. Ideology and postmodernism were mutually exclusive by definition 9 - at least that was the intention of the designers of postmodernism. However, as has happened with all ideology hunters, postmodernism itself gradually began to resemble ideology10, with relativism as one of the elements of an ideological approach to the perception of reality.

This feature of postmodernism scares many in religion and theology, and for good reason. Nevertheless, postmodern relativism is double-edged. While it challenges the integrity of religious perception and theological doctrine, it also helps liberate the Church from the traces of totalitarian ideologies. In their struggle for minds and souls, the totalitarian teachings of the twentieth century were either in visible alliance or in visible confrontation with religion. In both cases, they did not ignore religion, but infected it with ideological cliches. Postmodernism has the potential to liberate religion from the influence of totalitarian doctrines. He cannot point the way to religious truth - that is not his task; however, he can help the Church purify its own sources of truth by preventing ideologemes from becoming theologumena.

9. Hawkes, David. (1996) Ideology, p. 5. London; New York: Routledge.

10. See Ibid., p. 12.

page 228
The" end of ideology " announced by Daniel Bell and the neutralizing influence of postmodernism created the conditions for the transformation of the concept of ideology.11 Ideology was presented as "cultural software"12, which helps society to define itself and develop social and political action based on self-determination. In this sense, the concept of ideology has become more neutral and descriptive, applicable to a wide range of social phenomena. From the philosophical category used by Marxism and neo-Marxism, it became a sociological category.

A new stage in the evolution of ideology and its relations with religion has unfolded in the framework of American political science and sociology. American scholars such as Philip Converse [13] and Anthony Downe [14] have suggested that ideology should be viewed in the binary system of liberalism and conservatism [15]. This new ideological matrix reflects the American political system with two main parties - the Democratic and Republican. The bipolarity of the liberal-conservative ideological scheme was set in order to more adequately reflect the American two-party political system. The dilemma of liberalism and conservatism has thus become a reduction of many shades of the ideological spectrum. Its black-and-white color scheme reflected the duality of American political culture itself.

The distinction between liberalism and conservatism is useful for understanding the current American political landscape. At the same time, despite being tied to the American political agenda, the distinction between liberalism and conservatism as sociological categories can be methodologically useful in studying the relationship between global ideologies.-

11. See Knight, Kathleen. (2006) "Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century", The American Political Science Review 100 (4): 619.

12. Cm. Balkin, J. M. (1998) Cultural Software: a Theory of Ideology, p. 4. New Haven: Yale University Press.

13. Cm. Converse, Philip E. (1976) The Dynamics of Party Support: Cohort-Analyzing Party Identification. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

14. Cm. Downs, Anthony (1998) Political Theory and Public Choice. Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, Mass.: E. Elgar.

15. Cm. Knight, K. "Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century", p. 623. Sometimes socialism is added to liberalism and conservatism-see Kuper, A. and Kuper, J. (eds) (2004) The Social Science Encyclopedia, p. 162. London: Routledge.

page 229
logics and theology. Liberalism and conservatism can be correlated (but not identified!)with each other. with two universal attitudes to human nature, which can be described as open and closed. Open ("liberal") attitudes to human nature and society are inclusive, extroverted, and centrifugal. This attitude translates into a desire to discover new territories and proceeds from the hope that what should be discovered in these territories is good. Closed ("conservative") the attitude doesn't trust new experiences. Its main concern is to preserve the integrity of the individual and community. In the dilemma of either going further, risking losing what he has, or being content with what he has, not caring what is out of sight, the "conservative" always chooses the latter. Liberalism and conservatism reflect two archetypal approaches to the organization of human society, which can be traced throughout all the centuries of human history.

These two approaches are rooted in Christian anthropology, which has two tendencies: pessimistic and optimistic.16 In the Western intellectual tradition, these two tendencies can be correlated with the theological positions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. 17 Augustine saw human nature as deeply damaged by sin and unable to function properly. In order to function properly, it requires the intervention of divine grace. Thomas, although he undoubtedly recognized the influence of original sin on human nature, considered this nature to be more complete and capable of acting in accordance with natural law. The extreme antithesis of Augustinian pessimism is Enlightenment anthropology, which exudes an unquestioning optimism about human nature.

The two anthropological paradigms - pessimistic and optimistic - are based on the question of freedom. Optimistic anthropology assumes that, despite all their imperfections, people are able to use their freedom for themselves and others for good. All abuses of freedom stem from the very nature of freedom. Freedom cannot be what it is if

16. See Phillips, Elizabeth. (2012) "Teaching Political Theology", Political Theology 13 (6): 675.

17. See Phillips, Elizabeth. (2012) Political Theology: a Guide for the Perplexed, p. 32. London; New York: T&T Clark International.

page 230
this does not imply the possibility of abuse. In other words, you can't say yes to God to yourself and other people without being able to say no. Without "no", there is no possibility of"yes". Abuses of freedom, therefore, cannot abrogate freedom as such.

Pessimistic anthropology views human freedom with suspicion - as a potential source of evil. Freedom is indeed the only source of evil. However, those who prefer this anthropology try to solve the problem of the evil and negative consequences of human freedom by limiting freedom as such. They cite the sinfulness of human nature as a pretext for imposing restrictions on freedom. Pessimistic anthropology promotes various types of coercion aimed at correcting a person's behavior and views through external violence.

The Eastern Christian tradition developed its own anthropological model, which managed to avoid the extremes of Augustinism. This model was developed by the Byzantine monk Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662). In the course of the controversy concerning the energies and wills of Christ, he suggested that sin affects not so much human nature itself as the "gnomic" will of man. 18 The "gnomic" will is a function of the human mind, and it is in it that ignorance, doubt, and the struggle of opinions and evaluations are concentrated. Thus, the depravity of human nature is concentrated in the decisive and volitional part of it, where freedom is also rooted. All in all, nature remains a good creation of God.

However, Eastern anthropology has not escaped bipolarity, with the "Monophysite" and "Nestorian" interpretations of human nature at their extreme points. The first is associated with the name of the Constantinople monk Eutyches (c. 380-c. 456), who believed that human nature is so imperfect that in the Incarnation it had to mix with the divine nature in order to be saved. This anthropology is not far from Augustine's, although it is expressed in other terms. The other extreme was formulated by the Syriac theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) and spread through the efforts of the Patriarch of Constantinople

18. Disputatio cum Pyrrho, in J. -P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 91, coll. 308C-D, 325A.

page 231
Nestoria (ca. 386-ca. 450). According to this extreme, human nature does not require divine intervention for its normal functioning. People can improve their moral state by their own efforts, following the example of Christ. This anthropological position could be appreciated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his associates.

On the basis of the anthropological model expressed by Maxim and Thomas, the Church could help overcome the negative impact on society of the dualistic pair "conservatism-liberalism". Instead, it often falls into the trap of this dichotomy and takes on one of the ideological sides. This is the ideologization of the Church.

The interaction between the Church and ideology should be considered in the light of the fact that ideology largely imitates theology and uses the Church's communication tools. Historically, their relationship was dialectical. When ideology emerged from the cradle of religion, the latter provided ideology with much of its own ideas and vocabulary. Ideology first emancipated itself from the Church - radically or moderately-and then had the opposite effect on it. After the eighteenth century, the Churches, both in the West and in the East, came under constant pressure from ideologies of various sorts. This was due to the fact that Churches traditionally maintained a significant presence in the political space and did not want to leave it. The presence of Churches in the political space, however, led to numerous distortions of their purpose and mission. As Darryl Hart rightly observed, "Where Christians have tried to use their faith for political ends, they have tended to distort Christianity." 19 Ideologized theology has often led to this kind of distortion and has been subject to new rules dictated by ideology.

One of the earliest examples of this distortion can be seen in the Greek Church during the period when Enlightenment ideas were spreading among the Greek population of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek version of the Enlightenment was not anti-religious or even anti-clerical. He was actually a clerical 20. At him

19. Hart, Darryl. (2006) A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State, p. 11. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

page 232
There was a significant number of supporters among the clergy, including Hieromonk Veniamin of Lesbos (1759-1824), Hieromonks Stefan Dugas (late 18th century - 1830), Athanasius Psalidas (1767-1829), Konstantin Koumas (1777-1836), Neophytos Vamvas (1770-1855), Theophilos Kairis (1784-1853), a very influential Archimandrite Theoklitus Farmakidis (1784-1860), who was one of the authors of the autocephaly of the Church of Greece (1833) and others. A key figure in the Greek Enlightenment was Adamantius Korais (1748-1833).

Korais studied theology in Smyrna, and later moved to Montpellier in France to study medicine there. He was able to do this on a scholarship from the former Archbishop of Corinth, Macarius Nota-ras (1731-1805), who is known as a collector of the texts of "Philokalia" and the publisher of many Patristic tracts for popular reading. 21 Macarius helped Korais print his translation of Metropolitan Plato's catechism (1782). Korais also published his own theological treatises: "Synopsis of Sacred History and Catechism "(Venice, 1783), as well as "Small Catechism" (Venice, 1783). In the early years of the 19th century, Korais became interested in the ideas of the Enlightenment and began to write relevant political pamphlets. He especially promoted the concept of "metakinosis". According to this concept, modern European civilization was influenced by ancient Greek culture through the Renaissance. This culture must now be returned to enslaved Greece in the form of the Enlightenment. Korais thus became an example of an ideologically limited "liberal" theologian.

He was opposed by Hieromonk Athanasius, a native of the Aegean island of Paros (1721/22 - 1813), 22 who is an example of an ideologically limited "conservative" theologian. Athanasius led the ranks of polemicists with the Enlightenment. He completely rejected the Enlightenment in both its French and Greek forms. Enlightenment was for him a trick of the antichrist, 23 and he considered liberal philosophy a complete delusion and called it - "love of darkness", ism.-

24. Ibid., p. 40.

page 233
niv one letter in the word Athanasius entered into a polemic

with the ideology of Enlightenment on ideological positions. The anti-enlightenment ideology he used narrowed his Christian ideal to conservatism. A characteristic feature of Athanasius ' ideological scheme was opposition to the West. 25 He turned the traditional anti-Latin polemic in the Christian East into a polemic with the West. It is noteworthy that Athanasius ' ideological positions were not shared by his associates in the Kollivades group , a movement of spiritual and liturgical revival in Greece that lasted from the mid-18th century to the 1820s. Other key figures of this movement, Macarius of Corinth and Nicodemus of Svyatogorets (1749-1809), apparently did not share the ideological reductionism of Athanasius. Although they were anti-Catholic, they were not anti-Western. Nicodemus used spiritual literature in Western languages to write many of his works, and Athanasius supported the studies of young Greeks, including Adamantius Korais, in the West.

The Roman Catholic Church had a much more thorough debate with the Enlightenment than the Greek Churches. This controversy was more like a protracted military campaign. Only for a short time, such as during the pontificate of Benedict XIV (1675-1758), did the Catholic Church suspend this war. There were also cases of desertion in this war, as, for example, on the part of the so-called "Catholic Enlightenment" 26. But in general, it was a long and merciless war, which ended in reconciliation only at the Second Vatican Council 27.

The Catholic Church had many good reasons to oppose the Enlightenment. As a result of the French Revolution, which was inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and the subsequent rationalization and secularization of Western society, the Church lost many people, lost political influence and lost tangible material resources. However, the Church was opposed to the Enlightenment not only because of these losses,but also because it refused to accept them.

25. См. Demacopoulos, George and Papanikolaou, Aristotle, (eds) (2013) Orthodox Constructions of the West. New York: Fordham University Press.

26. См. Lehner, Ulrich and O'Neill, Michael Printy. (2010) A Companion to the Catholic Enlightenment in Europe. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

27. See Nichols, Aidan. (1998) Catholic Thought Since the Enlightenment: A Survey. Unisa Press, University of South Africa.

page 234
the ideology of Enlightenment as such. In an attempt to counter this ideology, Rome adopted its own ideology - antimodernism.

The main actor in the anti-modern ideologization of the Roman Church was Pope Pius IX (1846-1878). He began his pontificate as a liberal, elected with the support of the liberal party in the curia. After the Revolution of 1848, however, he suddenly turned conservative. He launched a campaign against liberalism both inside and outside the Catholic Church. Rome has identified a long list of different isms as its ideological enemies: "anti-clericalism, liberalism, anti-papism, radicalism, feminism, republicanism, immanentism, interfaithism, socialism, syndicalism, individualism, and intellectual modernism."28
Pius X (Pope from 1903 to 1914) also paid special attention to the struggle against modernism in the Church. In the apostolic decree Lamentabili Sane (1907) and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), he denounced modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies" (Lamentabili Sane, §39). In 1910, he introduced the oath against modernism for all clergy and divinity teachers. In order to identify the secret followers of modernism, he supported a secret group of censors called Sodalitium Pianum, and in France became known as La Sapiniere. The Sapinierists carefully studied the texts published by Catholic theologians, looking for traces of unreliable ideologies in them. Because of the actions of this group of zealots, many talented and intelligent people suffered 29.

The most important milestone in Rome's struggle against modernism was the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). His dogma of papal infallibility in matters of faith was, on the one hand, a theological statement. On the other hand, it was also an ideological declaration. This doctrine was intended to help the Roman See fight for its political rights and against modernism. The ideological agenda of the Roman Catholic Church in New York-

28. Poulat, Emile. (1969) Integrisme et catholicisme integral, un reseau secret international antimoderniste: La "Sapiniere", 1909 - 1921, pp. 121 - 123. Paris, Tournai: Casterman; Kurtz, Lester R. (1983) "The Politics of Heresy", American Journal of Sociology 88 (6): 1094.

29. См. Jodock, Darrell. (2000) Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti-Modernism in Historical Context, p. 27. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.

page 235
the reason for the struggle against modernism, of course, was laid down in the decisions of the First Vatican Council on primacy.

It should be noted that anti-modernism as an ideology was not invented by Rome. This was a more general trend that became widespread in the 19th century outside the Roman Catholic Church. Anti-modernism was largely inspired by Romanticism and the associated mood of decline, which was more aesthetic than rational.30 Pan-European antimodernism found its expression in literature, music, and philosophy. In keeping with this aesthetic, the Roman Church developed its own anti-modern style: neo-Gothic in architecture and Neo-Gregorianism in music. Roman anti-modernism found its intellectual expression in the form of neoscholasticism, which was promoted by the Curia as the main theological method. Roman anti-modernism became a typical conservative ideology that opposed modernism.

The property of ideology, according to its definition, is the translation of a system of views into political action. Roman anti-modernist ideology found expression in opposition to liberal political models.31 This confrontation has been particularly pronounced in the United States. In 1899, Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Testem Benevolentiae, in which he denounced the political system of "Americanism" and thereby stopped attempts by some American bishops and clergy to reconcile democratic values with the Catholic faith.32 Such reconciliation became possible only after the Second World War, when conservatism, which was embodied in the political program of the Nazis, was in crisis, and the Roman Church could no longer defend it as a God-established ideology. Back then, the work of theologians like John Murray helped bring Rome to terms with a democratic political system. This reconciliation took place at the Second Vatican Council and was recorded in the Conciliar Declaration Dignitatis Nitapae.

The fiasco of the Catholic ideology of conservatism, which dates back to the era of Pius IX and the First Vatican Council, can be illustrated by the figure of Karl Schmitt - the leading cato-

30. See Versluis, Arthur. (2006) "Antimodernism", Telos 137: 97.

31. Talar, C. J. T. (1999) "Crossing Boundaries: Interpreting Roman Catholic Modernism", U.S. Catholic Historian 17 (2): 27.

32. См. Hart, D. A Secular Faith, pp. 136 - 137.

page 236
a Greek anti-liberal philosopher and theologian who also became one of the ideologues of Nazism33. In his works, conservative ideology acquired the features of infallibility and sacredness, and was legitimized by theological instruments. The Schmitt trial during the Nuremberg Tribunal also provides a better understanding of the motivation behind the Second Vatican Council. This motivation included not only aggiornamento, but also the implicit recognition by the Catholic Church of the fallacy of sacralization of conservative ideology, which led to the pro-fascist sympathies of the Roman See and many Catholics during World War II. The Second Vatican Council can be interpreted as an act of recognition of the sad fact that the Catholic Church fell under the influence of a radical conservative ideology that contributed to the atrocities of World War II. In fact, the Second Vatican Council destroyed the monopoly of anti-liberal ideology in the Roman Catholic Church and desacralized it.

Ideologies create dividing lines within the Church. According to Daniel Izuzkiza, they divide the Church "into traditionalists and progressives, conservatives and liberals, those who emphasize identity and those who emphasize the need for dialogue, 'Christians of presence' and 'Christians of mediation', and so on. " 34 One of the most profound lines in modern church life is still the same as before. It is laid between the "conservative" and "liberal" doctrines. "Conservatism "in this ideological paradigm has become a kind of new orthodoxy, while" liberalism " has become a new heresy. When, for example, a priest is enlisted as a liberal, the same sanctions can be applied to him that were applied to heretics in the ancient Church. At the same time, completely non-Orthodox views are forgiven to those who promote them under the guise of conservatism. Ideology thus establishes new criteria for Orthodoxy and heresy in the Church.

As we have already noted, many modern secular ideologies have emerged from theological perspectives, and this has happened as a result of the Enlightenment. But did ideologies exist before the Enlightenment? Formally speaking, before the Enlightenment, ideo-

33. См. Galli, С. (2000) "Carl Schmitt's Antiliberalism: Its Theoretical and Historical Sources and Its Philosophical and Political Meaning", Cardozo Law Review 21: 1597 - 1618.

34. Izuzquiza, Daniel. (2009) Rooted in Jesus Christ: Toward a Radical Ecclesiology, p. x. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

page 237
There were no logies, but all socio-political views had theological forms. Theology was thus influenced by what might be called proto-ideologies. Proto-ideologies combined the political and social expectations of various strata of pre-modern societies and expressed them in theological forms. If ideologies are defined in terms of the subject-object-intermediary triangle, then, according to David Hawkes, elements of ideologies can be found both in the traditions of antiquity and in early Christianity, as an interpretive intermediary between the observing subject and the observed object.35 From this point of view, the struggle between Orthodoxy and heresy in the historical past, in addition to an indisputable theological agenda, also expressed social and political tensions in society. 36 One can cite many illustrations of how, in the pre-modern era, the political programs of various social groups expressed themselves through theological postulates, thus becoming proto-ideologies.

One of the most striking examples is the Cathedral of Chalcedon (451). This Council discussed formulas for the unity of Deity and humanity in Christ and summed up a long period of theological discussions on this issue. At the same time, Chalcedon became a bifurcation point for complex social and political processes in Byzantine society. Since the rigid political regime of Emperor Justinian (482-565) could not provide proper political mechanisms for the convergence of the social programs of the Byzantine classes, theology and especially Christology became the language of political and social discourse. A significant part of the Byzantine population, especially in Egypt and Syria, who did not agree with the policy of Constantinople, chose the theological formula of the one nature in Christ as the language of political and social protest. They rejected the language of the two natures: divine and human, which was adopted by Chalcedon, and thus sent a political signal to the capital about their dissatisfaction with the central government. The leaders of these groups were such theologians as Patriarch Severus of Antioch (465-538) and Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria (Patriarch from 535 to 566), but the population that supported them was not aware of the nuances

35. See Hawkes, D. Ideology, pp. 13-21.

36. См. Kurtz, Lester R. (1986) The Politics of Heresy: the Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

page 238
their theological argumentation. The people were content with some simplistic formulas, such as" one incarnate nature of God the Word", and made them a symbol of the campaign to solve a wide range of problems, including cultural, social and political ones. In other words, theological formulas became expressions of political programs.

This can be illustrated by the example of the well-known Constantinople parties "Blue" and "Green". These parties flourished during the period of controversy over the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon37. Initially, these were sports fan clubs that supported their teams in chariot races held at the Constantinople Hippodrome. However, they eventually developed into what can be described as political and theological parties with broad support far beyond the capital. The Blue Party, as most scholars believe, was associated with the upper classes of Byzantine society. Most of them also supported the Council of Chalcedon and its Diphysian Christology. The Green Party, on the other hand, expressed the demands of the lower classes to a greater extent and supported mainly the anti-Chalcedonian Christology. Up to a certain point, Justinian juggled these two parties, which was consistent with his policy of maintaining a balance between opponents and supporters of Chalcedon. As long as these parties were fighting each other, he didn't interfere with them. However, when they united against him during the revolt of Nika (532), he crushed them with the help of an army that left some thirty thousand bodies of supporters of both parties on the hippodrome of Constantinople.

To overcome the mutual alienation of parts of Byzantine society, Justinian instrumentalized theology, which became a means of achieving socio-political consensus. It is in this capacity of "soft power" that theology was used in the form of neo-Chalcedonism38. From the theological School

37. See Cameron, Alan. (1976) Circus Factions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

38. See Lebon, Joseph. (1909) Le monophysisme severien: etude historique, litteraire et theologique sur la resistance monophysite au concile de Chalcedoine jusqu'a la constitution de l'Eglise Jacobite. Lovanii: J. Van Linthout; Moeller, Charles. (1951) "Le chalcedonisme et le neo-chalcedonisme en orient de 451 a la fin du Vie siecle", in Alois Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (eds) Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. 1, p. 637 - 720. Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag; Helmer, Siegfried. (1962) "Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes". Universitat Bonn; Richard, Marcel. (1977) "Le Neo-Chalcedonisme", in Opera Minora, vol. 2. Brepols; Gray, Patrick T. R. (1979) The

page 239
From this point of view, neo-Chalcedonism was an attempt to reconcile two Christological languages: Cyril of Alexandria with his key formula "one nature of the incarnate God of the Word" and Chalcedonian with his formula "two natures". From a political point of view, neo-Chalcedonism became a means of overcoming the social and political differences with Constantinople of those inhabitants of the empire who lived in its south-eastern parts. Just as the dissenting populace expressed their dissatisfaction with the theological language of Severus 'Christology, Justinian tried to bridge the gap between them with the synthetic language of neo-Chalcedonism, which included elements of both Severus' Christology and the Council of Chalcedon. Neo-Chalcedonism thus became a system of theological views that developed not as a result of purely theological arguments, but under the influence of political expediency aimed at reconciling socio-political groups. It was largely a political project, with signs of proto-ideology. Nevertheless, it was accepted by the Church as theological Orthodoxy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 553.

Another socio-political project, dressed in a theological toga, was monothelitism39. Monothelitism continued the neo-Chalcedonian project of Justinian. His inspiration and protagonist was the Emperor Heraclius (reigned from 610 to 641). Heraclius faced the same problem as Justinian: the anti-Byzantine sentiments of the population in Syria, who collaborated with the Persian conquerors on this basis and articulated their disagreement through theological formulations. Thanks to the support of the local population, the Persians were able to advance through Byzantine territory even as far as Constantinople. However, the Syrian collaborators were divided into two theologically incompatible groups. Some were Western Syrians who adopted the formula "one nature of Christ" as the basis of their group identity. Others were Eastern Syrians who believed that Christ had two natures and that His human nature was far more autonomous than even Chalcedon could accept-

Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451 - 553). Leiden: Brill; Gray, Patrick T. R. (1982) "Neo-Chalcedonianism and the Tradition: From Patristic to Byzantine Theology", Byzantinische Forschungen 8: 61 - 70.

39. See Hovorun, Cyril. (2010) "Controversy on Energies and Wills in Christ: Between Politics and Theology", Studia Patristica XLVIII: 217 - 220.

page 240
you, not to mention the Western Syriac anti-Chalcedonites. In order to reconcile the three groups, each of which built its identity on the basis of its own Christological formula, Heraclius proposed a common theological formula according to which Christ had two natures, but Heraclius later transformed the original monoenergism into monothelitism, with the key formula: two natures - one will in Christ. The mono-Energite-Monothelite formula was developed to satisfy at least partially each of the three sides: the Chalcedonites had to be satisfied with two natures; the anti-Chalcedonites were seduced by one energy, and the "Nestorians" (Eastern Syrians) by one will, which was for them part of the" composite persona " of Christ, uniting God and man in Him. From a theological point of view, the Monoenergetic-Monothelitic formula was an artificial construct made up of incompatible components mechanically connected to each other. Nevertheless, there was great political expediency in promoting this formula as a platform for bringing together different groups. Because of this expediency, it was adopted as the official orthodoxy of the empire. Religious motivation for solving political issues gave monothelitism the character of proto-ideology.

Only a few theologians opposed monothelitism and, consequently, the "ideologization" of theology. This group was headed by the aforementioned Maxim Confessor. Maxim rejected not only the theological aspects of Monothelitism, but also its political background, criticizing the idea that the state can interfere in theological matters. In fact, he defended the idea of emancipating theology from politics, for which he paid with his life.40
Like liberalism and conservatism, proto-ideologies can be defined in terms of open and closed worldviews. Although it would be an exaggeration to equate proto-ideologies with full-fledged ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, liberalism and open proto-ideology share the same roots as conservatism and closed proto-ideology, and these roots are rooted in anthropological views: either an optimistic or pessimistic understanding of human nature.

The dialectic of what might be called proto-conservatism and proto-liberalism in the Church can be traced back to-

40. See Allen, Pauline and Bronwen, Neil. (2002) Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

page 241
since apostolic times. This dialectic was reflected in the debate over whether the movement of the disciples of Christ, as the Church originally was, should remain confined to the Jewish community or go to the pagan world. The latter approach, associated with the name of the Apostle Paul, prevailed, and Christianity became a world religion. During the apostolic era, Christianity fully demonstrated its potential for openness, even at the risk of compromising the integrity of the existing community. Entering into an alliance with the Roman state, which was advocated by Eusebius of Caesarea, was a manifestation of Christianity's openness to new realities - what can be called the" liberal " potential of the Christian community. However, after the Church merged with the imperial structures, it largely lost the dynamic of openness, and it was dominated by the "conservative" principle, which also existed from the time of the apostles Peter and James, who embodied it. As Henry Chadwick so aptly put it, "it was a truly extraordinary step for the Church-from being the epitome of counter - culture to... embodying conservative social power."41
The Church took this step and immediately faced a major theological crisis. The dispute about the divinity of Christ between the Arians and Nicaeans had, among other things, an ideological dimension, although this dimension was not dominant. Two opposing sides can be represented in the categories of openness and closeness. The Arians, who believed that the Son was inferior to the Father and was His creation, were more conservative. They relied on subordinalism, which during the first three centuries of Christianity became a venerable and very widespread tradition, supported by many authoritative theologians of the past. Arians were also conservative in their use of theological language, which was more biblical. They criticized the" liberalism " of the Nicenes, who, in order to prove that Christ is God, borrowed such categories as hypostasis and consubstantial beings from pagan philosophy, thereby demonstrating an unacceptable openness to what was considered a hostile camp - ancient culture. The Arians, in fact, viewed the Nicenes as modernists and used this argument in polemics against them. It is generally considered that heresies bring a new dimension to the world.-

41. Chadwick, Henry. (2003) The Church in Ancient Society, p. 1. Oxford University Press.

page 242
The church believes in the doctrine of faith, while Orthodoxy keeps its dogmas intact. In a sense, this is indeed a criterion for distinguishing between heresy and orthodoxy. However, sometimes innovations are dogmatized by conservatives, and traditions are preserved by those who are open and creative. This was also the case with the dogma of the Trinity in the polemic between the Niceans and Arians.

The same thing happened during the Christological controversies of the sixth century. To what has been said above about the political background of these disputes, we can add their interpretation in terms of protoliberalism and proto-conservatism. The key point of post-Chalcedonian discussions was the interpretation of the theological language of Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444), and above all his formula "one incarnate nature of God the Word". No one doubted Cyril's authority, and Christological disputes in the sixth century essentially took place between schools of different interpretations of Cyril. This was precisely the point of the controversy over the Council of Chalcedon. The anti-Chalcedonites believed that the Council misunderstood Cyril, while the Chalcedonites insisted that there was no disagreement between the Council and the Archbishop of Alexandria. The anti-Chalcedonian school of interpretation, led by Severus of Antioch, was more conservative and literal in Cyril's understanding. The Chalcedonites, on the other hand, took a more creative approach to Cyril's legacy, and in this sense were "liberal" Cyrillites. To prove the consistency between Cyril and Chalcedon, they developed a complex philosophical apparatus based on Aristotelian categories. In effect, they were repeating what the Nicenes had done two centuries earlier with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.

These stories, which show how proto-ideologies influenced the formation of classical Christian theology, raise the question: can ideologies be banished from the Church at all? I would like this to be possible, but it is hardly realistic. It would be naive to think that the Church could suddenly be free of ideologies-no matter what definition of ideology we adopt. Any campaign for the liberation of the Church from ideology will sooner or later turn into an ideological one. The ideology will mutate, but it will not disappear from the Church. Does this mean that the Church is doomed to be a hostage to ideology? Not necessarily.

The Church cannot create a zone free of ideologies, but it can neutralize ideologies by turning them into a factor.-

page 243
It is a factor of creation and dynamic development. Ideology can be seen as an instrument of human knowledge: limited, damaged, often harmful-like everything that a person brings to the Church. And as with everything that a person brings to the Church, the Church should not try to get rid of ideologies, but to transform them. Given that ideologies are based on two dynamics immanent to human nature-openness and integrity, the Church can combine both of these dynamics in such a way that instead of fighting each other, they contribute to the expansion of the Church, while preserving its integrity.

This can be learned from the example of political systems. In the history of the last two centuries, ideologies have repeatedly led to wars between States and social groups. Now, however, the two main competing ideologies-conservative and liberal-coexist quite peacefully within political systems and, moreover, contribute to maintaining the stability of these systems. Conservative and liberal parties succeed each other in power and thus maintain a balance within society, which allows societies to develop without compromising their integrity. Where only one ideology begins to dominate, the balance is disrupted and society faces destabilization.

When the Church accepts only one ideology, it threatens aberrations in its perception of the truth. Paul Lakeland is right when he notes that " ideology... whether it's political or religious... it distorts the gospel. " 42 Ideology narrows a person's relationship with God down to moral and civic values. When Churches reduce themselves to what can only be a part of church life, they betray themselves. Many Protestant Churches in the West in the second half of the 20th century reduced themselves to self-identification with liberal ideologies in order to gain popularity in society. However, in the end, this led to the crisis of these Churches and the outflow of people from them. Orthodox churches face a similar danger if they identify with a conservative ideology. As in the case of Protestant Churches, this will provide them with sympathy for a while in a society that has a request for conservative ideology, but it will not bring more people to the Church, but, on the contrary, in the longer term it will result in the marginalization of the Church.

42. Lakeland, Paul. (1986) Freedom in Christ: an Introduction to Political Theology, p. 94. New York: Fordham University Press.

page 244
Bibliography/References

Allen, Pauline and Bronwen, Neil (2002) Maximus the Confessor and his Companions: Documents from Exile. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Arendt, Hannah. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Arkas, Nikolaos. (1960) Athanasios о Parios (Paradoseon Fruros) [Athanasios Parios (The Guardian of the Traditions)]. Athens.

Baehr, Peter. (2010) Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Social Sciences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Balkin, J. M. (1998) Cultural Software: a Theory of Ideology. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bell, Daniel. (1962) The End of an Ideology: on the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. New York: Collier.

Bluhm, Harald. (2010) Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Die deutsche Ideologie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Cameron, Alan. (1976) Circus Factions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chadwick, Henry. (2003) The Church in Ancient Society. Oxford University Press.

Converse, Philip E. (1976) The Dynamics of Party Support: Cohort-Analyzing Party Identification. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Demacopoulos, George and Papanikolaou, Aristotle (eds) (2013) Orthodox Constructions of the West. New York: Fordham University Press.

Downs, Anthony. (1998) Political Theory and Public Choice. Cheltenham, U. K.; Northampton, Mass.: E. Elgar.

Galli, C. (2000) "Carl Schmitt's Antiliberalism: Its Theoretical and Historical Sources and Its Philosophical and Political Meaning", Cardozo Law Review 21: 1597 - 1618.

Gray, Patrick T. R. (1979) The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451 - 553). Leiden: Brill.

Gray, Patrick T. R. (1982) "Neo-Chalcedonianism and the Tradition: From Patristic to Byzantine Theology", Byzantinische Forschungen 8: 61 - 70.

Hart, Darryl. (2006) A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Hawkes, David. (1996) Ideology. London; New York: Routledge.

Helmer, Siegfried. (1962) "Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes". Universitat Bonn.

Hovorun, Cyril. (2010) "Controversy on Energies and Wills in Christ: Between Politics and Theology", Studia Patristica XLVIII: 217 - 220.

Izuzquiza, Daniel. (2009) Rooted in Jesus Christ: Toward a Radical Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub.Co.

Jodock, Darrell. (2000) Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti-Modernism in Historical Context. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.

page 245
Knight, Kathleen. (2006) "Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century", The American Political Science Review 100 (4): 619 - 626.

Kuper, Adam and Kuper, Jessica, (eds) (2004) The Social Science Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.

Lakeland, Paul. (1986) Freedom in Christ: an Introduction to Political Theology. New York: Fordham University Press.

Lebon, Joseph. (1909) he monophysisme severien: etude historique, litteraire et theologique sur la resistance monophysite au concile de Chalcedoine jusqu'a la constitution de l'Eglise Jacobite. Lovanii: J. Van Linthout.

Lehner, Ulrich and O'Neill, Michael Printy (2010) A Companion to the Catholic Enlightenment in Europe. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Kurtz, Lester R. (1983) "The Politics of Heresy", American Journal of Sociology 88 (6): 1085 - 1115.

Kurtz, Lester R. (1986) The Politics of Heresy: the Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Moeller, Charles. (1951) "Le chalcedonisme et le neo-chalcedonisme en orient de 451 a la fin du Vie siecle", in Alois Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (eds) Das Konzil von Chalke-don: Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1, pp. 637 - 720. Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag.

Nichols, Aidan. (1998) Catholic Thought since the Enlightenment: A Survey. Unisa Press, University of South Africa.

Papadopulos Stylianos. (2000) Agios Makarios Korynthu, о Genarhis tu Filokalismu [Saint Makarius of Corinth, the Father of Philokalism]. Athens: Akritas.

Parios, Athanasios. (19 802) Peri tis Alithus Filosofias. I Antifonisis pros ton Paralogon Zilon ton apo Evropis Erhomenon Filosofon ke epi Afilosofia to Imeteron Genos Anoitos Iktironton [On the True Philosophy, An Objection against the Irrational Zeal of those Philosophers who Come from Europe and Foolishly Teach our People on A-philosophy]. Triest.

Phillips, Elizabeth. (2012) "Teaching Political Theology", Political Theology 13 (6): 670 - 673.

Phillips, Elizabeth. (2012) Political Theology: a Guide for the Perplexed. London; New York: T&T Clark International.

Poulat, Emile. (1969) Integrisme et catholicisme integral, un reseau secret international antimoderniste: La "Sapiniere", 1909 - 1921. Paris, Tournai: Casterman.

Richard, Marcel. (1977) "Le Neo-Chalcedonisme", in Opera Minora, vol. 2. Brepols.

Schmitt, Carl. (1985) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Trans. George Schwab. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Talar, C. J. T. (1999) "Crossing Boundaries: Interpreting Roman Catholic Modernism", U.S.Catholic Historian 17 (2): 17 - 30.

de Tracy, Antoine-Louis-Claude Destutt. (1801 - 1815) Elements d'ideologie, vols. 1 - 5. Paris: Courcier.

Versluis, Arthur. (2006) "Antimodernism", Telos 137: 96 - 130.

Voegelin, Eric (1939) Die politischen Religionen. Stockholm: Bermann-Fischer Verlag.

Weisman, Tama. (2014) Hannah Arendt and Karl Marx: on Totalitarianism and the Tradition of Western Political Thought. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Yannaras, Christos. (2006) Orthodoksia ke Dysi sti Neoteri Ellada [Orthodoxy and West in Modern Greece]. Athens: Domos.

page 246

Permanent link to this publication: