§ 222. The Independence of Church and State Authority

Despite the fact that both the church authority and the state authority derive from one and the same source, the divine source, they nevertheless differ from one another in their essence, and each is, for itself, independent and autonomous within its own sphere.

As regards their institution, they differ from one another. The Church was founded by God directly,[1] and He gave her a determinate constitution;[2] whereas individual states were founded by God indirectly—namely, in that He implanted in man’s nature the striving toward association, and from that striving of man’s the states arose, which received, by human laws, this or that internal constitution of their own.[3] They differ in their extent: the Church is limited neither by time nor by place, but is destined for all the peoples of the world; the state is limited to a certain territory, a certain people. In this the Church is, and can be, only one, in the strict sense, while the state is many; and she is unchangeable and enduring, while states do not possess these qualities, for states arise and pass away, while the Church will endure to the age. They differ from one another also in their object: the state concerns itself with man insofar as he is, in general, a human being, while the Church concerns itself with him insofar as he is a Christian, a member of the body of Christ. But the chief difference between them lies in the purpose of each: the Church has as her purpose to prepare man for the future eternal life, while the state’s purpose is to secure him a peaceful and orderly life on earth; and in accordance with this particular purpose of each, each also disposes of its own particular means—she, as a spiritual kingdom, disposes of spiritual means, and the state of earthly means; nor, by the teaching of the Orthodox Church, may the Church, whatever her circumstances may be, make use of earthly means for her own purposes and employ material force to convert someone to Christianity, or by force defend certain rights of hers which the state, as the occasion offers, wishes to dispute and not acknowledge.

According to this difference between Church and state, each is, for itself, independent and autonomous within its own sphere.

The purpose of the Church, as we have mentioned, is the salvation of all people and their union with God, and accordingly it is plain that such a purpose of the Church cannot be subordinated to any other purpose. And this purpose God Himself set for the Church—hence, in fulfilling it, the Church must be unconditionally independent and autonomous within her own sphere. She is, by her own foundation, catholic, and were she not so she would cease to be what she is; and this would come about were she obliged to depend on the state, were she not entirely autonomous and free to preach her own doctrine at every time and to all peoples. Christ marked out precisely the boundaries between Church and state when He said that one should render unto God the things that are God’s, and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, by which He asserted the independence of His Church. This same independence and freedom of the Church the apostles also clearly asserted, when the Jewish council in Jerusalem wished to forbid them to preach in the name of Christ: “Judge ye whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God. We ought to obey God rather than men.”[4] This same independence and freedom the Church has asserted and defended after the apostles as well, and most resolutely of all when she was persecuted by the state and when the state wished by force to strip her of that freedom.

Just as the Church is independent and autonomous within her own sphere, so too, again, the state is independent and autonomous within its own sphere. The state has its own determinate purpose, consisting in the earthly good of man. In realizing that good, no one may hinder the state, nor has anyone the right to influence what it does in that direction. It may morally depend on the social and national conditions amid which it exists, but juridically its authority is entirely independent of every other authority, and consequently of the church authority as well. In cases where the state authority should transgress against morality, the Church has the duty, and also the right, to raise a voice of protest and to strive to influence the state authority to turn from the path it has by chance taken; but the state authority, just as it may accept, may likewise reject that influence of the Church and act entirely on its own, and the Church must content herself with having done her duty, and patiently bear that the law in question, which offends eternal justice, remain in force for as long as the abnormal state of affairs continues. Just as the state has no right to meddle in matters that concern the salvation of souls, so the Church has no right to meddle in matters that the state authority administers according to its own reasons of state. The Church must be entirely autonomous within her own sphere, and the state, again, entirely autonomous within its own sphere. And so that the affairs of the one and the other authority should not become confused, and so that the Church should not lose her spiritual character and come into conflict with the state authority, she has, by particular legislative provisions, forbidden her ministers to enter into any worldly affairs whatsoever. The 6th Apostolic canon says: “A bishop, presbyter, or deacon must not take upon himself worldly cares; otherwise let him be deposed.” The 81st Apostolic canon repeats this, and says: “We have said that a bishop or presbyter ought not to give himself to secular administration, but should attend to church needs. Let him therefore either desist from this, or be deposed, for no one can serve two masters, according to the Lord’s commandment.” In the same sense the 83rd Apostolic canon speaks: “A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who occupies himself with military affairs and wishes to keep both—Roman service and priestly administration—let him be deposed, for: the things that are Caesar’s are Caesar’s, and the things that are God’s are God’s.” The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls these Apostolic canons to those who, belonging to the clergy, neglected their priestly service and preferred to occupy themselves with secular affairs, and, confirming the penalties that had until then existed for such clergy, concludes its 10th canon thus: “It is better for him to go and teach children, and his own household, and to read to them the holy books, for it was for this that he received the priesthood.”