# EO and Communism



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 3, 2006)

I'm just thinking out loud here. I was wondering if perhaps there was something intrinsic in the Eatern Orthodox worldview which fostered the spread of communism in Eastern Europe. I know that socialism tends to follow in the wake of Catholic theology, especially liberation theology. Those nations which embraced Protestantism tend to be more capitalistic and democratic (though that is changing as the West abandons Protestantism). Anyone know of any research into this area? I'm just curious whether there was any worldview characteristics which catered to communism which EO was responsible for instilling in the population. Perhaps there's no connection. But it just seems odd.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2006)

Good observations. When Bahnsen went to Russia he got in an economics disagreement with an EO priest who advocated communism. I can get you that lecture if you want. He talks about bringing the gospel to Russia. He also stood before men who 5 years ago were the most brutal men on the globe.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 3, 2006)

Patrick I've been reading _The Possessed _(Dostoyevsky) this week and he advocates that it is atheism that leads to the abyss of a lot of those social theories. He writes from something of an 'inside' perspective having been something of a revolutionary. I think you would like the book if you are thinking about this right now: it's very much to do with religion as a major force in political theory (and he thought a lot about both). He also puts in the mouth of one of his characters, that Rome in effect has a Christ who fell to the third temptation, which I find a rather fascinating idea.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 3, 2006)

Thanks. I know certainly that communism is at heart atheistic. But it just seems strange that it would be so widely accepted in such a religiously oriented society. Perhaps EO did not impact the population that extensively? But that seems odd since it was there for hundreds of years before. Perhaps teh people were disillusioned with EO? It's difficult enough to understand the theology let alone the history.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 3, 2006)

The Russian Orthodox Church was thoroughly penetrated by the KGB at the highest level. A friend of mine wrote an article about this some years ago before he died.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 4, 2006)

Patrick- Leon Trotsky's _History of the Russian Revolution _is online here. I found this in the first chapter this morning:

"The clergy, following after the nobility, played no small rôle in the formation of the tzarist autocracy, but nevertheless a servile rôle. The church never rose in Russia to that commanding height which it attained in the Catholic West; it was satisfied with the rôle of spiritual servant of the autocracy, and counted this a recompense for its humility. The bishops and metropolitans enjoyed authority merely as deputies of the temporal power. The patriarchs were changed along with the tzars. In the Petersburg period the dependence of the church upon the state became still more servile. Two hundred thousand priests and monks were in all essentials a part of the bureaucracy, a sort of police of the gospel. In return for this the monopoly of the orthodox clergy in matters of faith, land and income was defended by a more regular kind of police."

He also makes the point that both France and Russia by and large skipped the reformation (and he seems to consider the 'Anglo Saxon interpretation of Christianity' more virulent than EO, Rome -- perhaps even atheism?). He seems to indicate that the church in these places had not the 'virulence' of any true religion and had become more an arm of the government, an empty earthly kingdom, than the kingdom of God which was being striven for so violently elsewhere (of course he doesn't put it that way- he doesn't seem to like the violence of true religion, or of seeking the kingdom of God and wants to write that up to a religious pretext, and the personal rights aspect to what has infused protestantism with its power). And in both countries atheism was extremely dominant in their 'revolutions'.

from _The Possessed:
_"....But you went further: you believed that Roman Catholicism was not Christianity; you asserted that Rome proclaimed Christ subject to the third temptation of the devil. Announcing to all the world that Christ without an earthly kingdom cannot hold his ground upon earth, Catholicism by so doing proclaimed Antichrist and ruined the whole Western world. You pointed out that if France is in agonies now it's simply the fault of Catholicism, for she has rejected the iniquitious God of Rome and has not found a new one...."

"....not a single nation has ever been founded on principles of science or reason. There has never been an example of it, except for a brief moment, through folly. Socialism is from its very nature bound to be atheism, seeing that it from the very first proclaimed that it is an atheistic organization of society, and that it intends to establish itself exclusively on the elements of science and reason. Science and reason have, from the beginning of time, played a secondary and subordinate part in the life of nations; so it will be till the end of time. Nations are built up and moved by another force which sways and dominates them, the origin of which is unknown and inexplicable: that force is the force of an insatiable desire to go on to the end, though at the same time it denies the end.... The object of every national movement, in every people and at every period of its existence, is only the seeking for its god, who must be its own god, and the faith in him as the only true god...."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 4, 2006)

Those are very interesting quotes Heidi. Thankyou. I also wonder if perhaps there was a direct borrowing of the EO concept of theosis. Perhaps the communists, in order to explain the concept to the commoners, argued they were bringing about the deification of man through the instrumentality of the state? I know that the liberals in the early 20th century used the postmillenial eschatology in a similar way to argue their socialistic schemes as a means of ushering in the kingdom. Even as late as Franklin Roosevelt that idea was being used in his campaign speeches to give a religious push to his socialistic policies. I suppose we wouldn't be able to know that much though about the origins in Russia unless some of that old propaganda was translated to English.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 4, 2006)

There is a lot of talk about man becoming god, the people being the body of god etc. in the book-- Dostoyevsky had unusual and very unique ideas but I would imagine that yes, that was probably somewhat typical as he puts it in one form or another in the mouths of the 'real' revolutionaries – those who have rejected the more communistic ideal and a total atheism. But one character seems very clearly to understand that this is still atheism, at least so far, and makes a distinction between believing in attaining to that kind of god and believing in God:




> “....the very fact that you reduce God to a simple attribute of nationality...”
> 
> 
> “I reduce God to the attribute of nationality? ...On the contrary, I raise the people to God. And has it ever been otherwise? The people is the body of God. Every people is only a people so long as it has its own god and excludes all other gods on earth irreconcilably; so long as it believes that by its god it will conquer and drive out of the world all other gods... A really great people can never accept a secondary part in the history of Humanity, nor even one of the first, but will have the first part. A nation which loses this belif ceases to be a nation. But there is only one truth, and therefore only a single one out of the nations can have the true God.... only one nation is 'god-bearing', that's the Russian people...
> ...


 

It's very interesting. I was wondering too if maybe Protestantism hasn't struck a sort of mean between Roman Catholicism as having established itself more as a government above governments, and EO which if Trotsky is right simply made itself a servant of government-- as being a kingdom 'not of this world' and yet working and praying that the kingdom would come into this world-- rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God alone what is God's. Perhaps the church being so subject to the govt. prepared the way for an even more servile form of oppression than had happened in the RC countries?


Ruben points out to me though that we would not only have to know about the propaganda that was being spread at the time (which in the book is something like 'kill God, abolish marriage, etc.) - but would probably have to know what kind of sermons were being preached by and large to the people. It's not enough to see the doctrinal statements, because the preaching can be very different?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 4, 2006)

That is true. It wold be interesting to see what was preached to the people, though preaching is not a strong point in the EO liturgy. Perhaps homilies here and there. but Ruben is right. It wouldn't be enough to consider the doctrinal statements. In our own history in the US the liberals were preaching socialism under the cloak of Westminster, and yet totally defying it in their preaching. More to consider...


----------

