The state and the church are forms of relationship

In the course of history,the relationship between secular authorities and representatives of faith. The state and the church alternately became at different levels of influence on public opinion and the leadership of the country as a whole. If you look at the development of history, we will see that initially the state, as such, was not. The family was a unit of society and there was then only a patriarchal tribal community. According to God's providence, and in connection with the complicated social connections, the state began to develop gradually after the brothers Joseph went to Egypt, at the time of the Judges.

The state and the church act differently. Forms of relationships between them are caused by their different nature. If the Church was created by God himself, and the goal is the salvation of people for eternal life, then the state is created by people, not without the providence of God, and its purpose is to care for the earthly well-being of people. That is, with a visible difference between the two departments, there is also a clear similarity between them - both of which are meant to serve people. But in no case should the Church take upon itself the state functions relating to the struggle against sin by methods of violence, coercion or restriction. Similarly, the state should not interfere with the work of the church, its concern to respect the laws of the church and help in matters of moral development of the population.

State-church relations in the Middle Ageswere arranged so that the church took a leading position over the state power. And besides, it concerned not only Christianity, the same thing happened in Islam and in Buddhism. The church took part in both legislative and judicial activities, largely bringing the influence of religious ideals and principles to the state's managerial policy. Politics within the church and interchurch, including, often changed the whole course of the history of states. One only has to remember the crusades; split the church, which in turn led to a political and legal split in Europe.

In the Soviet era, the persecution of the church began,the state did not need a competitor in the struggle for influence on the consciousness of the masses, it wanted individual power. The state and the church at that time completely dispersed on different sides of the barricades. The new state did not want to divide spheres of influence, did not want to have a church at its side, as a spiritual and moral control over its actions and taken measures. Such control could become a litmus test that would show the true face and actions of the ruling power, but who needed it? It was more profitable to declare religion as opium for the people, to destroy temples and to persecute all believers.

By and large, the state and the church shouldbe complementary, because they are both called to bring good to people and take care of them. The church is a spiritual component of society, but how can society be separated from the state? And how can the church influence the moral development of a person while away from society, without influencing its development and not controlling the spiritual purity of power? In addition, if the state compels believers to act contrary to God's commandments, to sinful actions, the church should be in defense of its flock, entering into negotiations with the current government or, if necessary, turning to world public opinion.

Given that the state and the church are called uponto bring good to people, then they have common spheres of interaction. This applies to such areas as peacekeeping, charity, morality, spiritual and cultural education, protection and development of cultural heritage, family support, and custody of prisoners. In order to avoid confusion in the spheres of activity and not to lead the church authority to the worldly character, clerics are forbidden to take part in the government, so that they are relentlessly in the performance of their direct church duties.

  • Rating: