This one has been a long time in coming. Truth be told, it’s going to be a work in progress.
As you all know, things are crazy in the world today. It might be because we are going through a “Fourth Turning.” It might also be because God’s judgment is upon us. We won’t know one way or the other until we end up on the other side of things.
Right now, I want to talk about governance and whether it is possible (or desirable) for Christians to be involved in politics. Before we do that however, we have to get certain things out of the way.
Here goes:
- We live in a fallen world. It’s simply not perfectible.
- God loves us. Even in our miserable postlapsarian condition, He still loves us.
- Because He loves us, he gives us ministers. Both spiritual ministers, as well as political ones.
- All power derives from God. It doesn’t matter if it’s top-down (monarchy) or bottom-up (republic). It all comes from God.
- Although we have no abiding home here in this world, we do owe allegiance to the nation in which we reside.
That’s about it in a nutshell.
In other words, there’s nothing wrong with politics. Politicians are no worse –or better–than anybody else. Just like our bishops, they’ve been given by God enormous responsibilities and all things being equal, we owe them our respect and obedience. (Woe to them should they misuse their powers!)
As St Paul said: “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom 13:4, KJV). This is what St Peter had to say about the matter: “Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king” (I Pet 2:17, KJV). In case you were wondering, these words were written by the Apostles when evil men like Caligula and Nero ruled over them.
And we, the people, owe it to the Lord to participate in proper governance, to the extent that we can. Why do I say this? Because He placed us in a time and place in which ordinary people can exercise some authority. Think of the the Parable of the Banquet, when the king prepared a great feast for his people and none of the chosen showed up. Each had his excuse. What did the King do? Did he throw away the victuals and close up his house? No, he told his servants to go to the highways and byways and gather random beggars and strangers. The outcast would take the place of the chosen.
I realize that politics has a dirty name, deservedly so. That said, the word itself comes from the ancient Greek word polis, that at is to say “city.” We all live in a polis, it might be a metropolis like New York or a humble burg like Bugtussle. It can also be our neighborhood association, bridge club, or (yes) your local parish. And in each of these venues, “politics” happens. There’s nothing wrong with that.
That said, the Church and the State are two different and complementary institutions. Contrary to what Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptist Association, there can be no separation between them. As much as I admire Jefferson, he was wrong, pure and simple. (And so were the Baptists he was writing to, for that matter.) Frankly speaking, it’s impossible to believe otherwise.
That’s not to say that they are similar, they most certainly are not. The duty of the Church is to sustain the soul of the individual. The purpose of the State is to protect his body. In other words, they complement each other. Going a little further, we can say that they both have the ability –and often times duty–to discipline the individual. The Church can employ excommunication, the State can punish the body. And in a rightly ordered society, they exercise their powers for the common good.
This latter point is crucial. If the Church or the State do not uphold the common good (as is increasingly obvious today in most Western societies), then allegiance to them will atrophy. Make no mistake, they too, can be judged by God.
According to Aristotle, there are three types of governance: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Commonwealth. Each has their benefits. Most polities throughout history have had one of these: Macedon was a monarchy, Sparta was an aristocracy, and Athens was a polity. Some were a mixture. Rome for instance, had what was called the mos maiorum in which the senatorial aristocracy was held in check by the comitia centuriata and the plebeian tribunician potestas.
The ideal situation is to have all three, somewhat equally balanced. In America, we essentially have analogs of all three codified in our Constitution: the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. (Actually, we also have a separate judiciary and independent States.)
That being said, these forms have their perverted versions: Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy (i.e. mobocracy). Each one of them are uniquely evil. Frankly, it’s hard to say which is worse. Presently, most of the Western nations are oligarchies, America included. The only silver lining I can offer is that each of them are inherently unstable and invariably crumble under the weight of their own contradictions after two generations.
Orthodoxy on the other hand, teaches a symphonia between Church and State, headed by a “dyarchy” of emperor and patriarch. We find something similar in the history of the Catholic West, as well. While this is shocking to modern ears, from a historical perspective, it is clear that these Medieval arrangements, based as they were on Christian principles, were remarkably stable and enduring. There was the added bonus that the monarch, his nobles and the people were all of the same faith.
So to wrap this all up, we live in a constitutional republic and we are afforded several liberties. We should feel no compunction in exercising them. That said, if a person feels the need to not exercise one of these rights, that’s OK as well. You don’t have to get on a soapbox and preach about the evils of the Seventeenth Amendment. Nor do you have to buy a gun. And you certainly don’t have to vote.
We should be cognizant of what rights we do have and that these are not incompatible with Christianity. And yes, we should “pray for the emperor.”
Petros says
Speaking of symphonia (which the EP practices in the complete wrong way), it looks like the Turks are yet again dangling the carrot of opening Halki in front of them. With a delegation of the EP visiting Ankara this coming week:
https://orthodoxtimes.com/turkey-reacts-to-ecumenical-patriarchs-remarks-on-theological-school-of-halki-reopening/
With Turkey’s recent major pivot East, NATO-skepticism, and interest in joining BRICS, it’s going to be *very* interesting to see if they allow for, what is for all practical purposes, a Western-backed religious institution to allow to re-open an educational institution in Turkey.
I would be completely surprised if Turkey/Erdogan allowed this and I personally don’t think Halki will be allowed to reopen and it will be another loss for the modern EP along with Hagia Sophia and Chora being returned to mosques and Soumela not being able to operate on its actual feast day.
BUT, if it is allowed, my assumption is that if this is the case that they are allowed to open there will be major caveats: Possibly the cessation of Western-backed money coming into the Phanar? Erdogan will more than likely not allow it to be a “Western” institution.
Or, perhaps the stipulation will have something to do with Ukraine?
With as contrarian as Erdogan is, who knows at this point. As we know Pat. Bartholomew will compromise anything it seems to save face, so equally for him: who knows at this point.
George Michalopulos says
I can easily see either of the options you presented, Petro. That being said, Erdogan is a slippery character, artfully playing both sides against the middle.
Unfortunately, one can only play this game for so long. Erdogan fancies himself as the New Sultan of a revived Ottoman/Islamic civilization. Because he’s put himself on this pedestal, he’s going to have to decide what to do about Israel’s aggression in Lebanon. For one thing, his population is mad as hell and is expecting (demanding) that he unleash the Turkish army on Israel.
Regardless, the EP will continue to be the patsy.
Petros says
Agreed, but, you can only be the patsy for so long until one or both sides decide to drop you once you become useless to them.
Since Turkey will no longer feel the need to appear to be a “Liberal democratic society,” I assume that Pat. Bartholomew will be on the losing end from Turkey.
Since the EU/NATO are collapsing, losing in Ukraine, and now turning their eyes towards Israel/Iran, I assume that Pat. Bartholomew will be on the losing end from this.
Trying to be everything to everyone means you’re nothing to no one and the great irony in all of this is what the Russians are the ones (possibly only ones, even above Greece), who could have helped Bartholomew and insulated him from the Turks.
Pat. Bartholomew must now be feeling the walls closing in on him.
*Side note: The AOB is meeting in Atlanta, it’s going to be interesting to see what is said/decided, especially after they released the statement (signed by Elpidophoros quite hypocritically), defending the UOC. I would love for the Assembly to actually produce something substantial and of note and ACTUALLY tackle some of the issues in American Orthodoxy (many of which perpetrated by Elpidophoros himself), but, I’m afraid it will be more run-of-the-mill generic statements. I hope I’m wrong.
George Michalopulos says
Agreed on all points, Petro.
Thanks for this bit of info regarding the AOB to defend the UOC and how they got Elpi to sign his name to it. Even if it was done hypocritically, it’s a huge slap in the face to the EP and his handlers in the State Dept.
I wonder, is Elpi breaking free of the Phanar and charting his own course? We’ll know if one of two things happens:
1. he tells the other GOA to metropolitans to not concelebrate with bishops from the fake church, and
2. he throws Belya under the bus.
I could add another: 3) he no longer meets with Ukrainian uniates.
What do you all think?
Petros says
“I wonder, is Elpi breaking free of the Phanar and charting his own course?”
I actually think it would be much worse for American Orthodoxy/GOA if he were to do so. As wild as it sounds I think being beholden to the EP Synod is what is keeping him “orthodox” in his Orthodoxy, but even that’s a stretch. Him charting his own course would be disastrous. Recently the EP Synod declared that all eparchies are to come into liturgical unity with Constantinople, not sure entirely what that means but I have a hard time thinking it’s altar girls and other things Ab. Elpidophoros has been testing.
1) He tells the other GOA to metropolitans to not concelebrate with bishops from the fake church
-> ->As best as I can tell, no Archbishop who oversees a diaspora eparchy under the EP has concelebrated with the OCU. If you think about it, all those who are under the EP which are on Assembly of Bishops in the diaspora have not (as best as I can tell) concelebrated with the OCU. If Ab. Elpidophoros were to do this then he would be kicked out of the AOB quickly, and I’m sure he knows this.
Also of note, all of the non-GOA bishops on the AOB are under Mother Churches who openly support Met. Onuphry & the UOC. This has got to make Ab. Epidophoros feel like an isolated lame duck.
2) He throws Belya under the bus.
->-> I have a feeling the Belya issue is dead in the water for the time being. Given how the AOB has previously reacted.
3) He no longer meets with Ukrainian uniates.
->-> On the nose I would say “talking/meeting” is not bad, but, I have a hard time believing he has genuine intentions.
George Michalopulos says
Petro, I thank you for this response. The thoughts you express in your first paragraph may be closer to the truth. If so, Bart and Elpi are playing a cat-and-mouse game, waiting each other out.
As much as I regret Bart’s archpastorate, it would be a very good thing if he brings all his eparchies into “liturgical unity.” This altar girl thing has GOT to stop. (I’ve given up all hope of theological unity.)
Brendan says
George: “I’ve given up all hope of theological unity”
… in our time, perhaps?
Christine says
Great essays from George and Gail keep me coming back for more! Such good content.
I would love to recommend an amazing video that is just one of the best summations of what we are going through that I’ve heard in a very long time. My husband and I have watched it a couple times on our smart tv with popcorn–better than anything in a movie theatre. The first part is a short speech about who is rigging everything we are seeing play out in world events, and the second part is a fabulous conversation between two gifted minds about the current war of good vs. evil in America and the WHY and the WHAT is happening behind the scenes. I know an hour’s a long watch, but maybe at your next movie night at home, bump this to the top of your list.
https://youtu.be/6gmdh5DxfMs?feature=shared
Gail Sheppard says
Thanks, Christine!
I liked the video! I especially liked the last part where they talked about what it means to be a good citizen in a tyrannical regime. At no time can we sit back and do nothing. Just educating ourselves is part of that process, especially when it generates thought on the part of others who can then articulate their thoughts to others, which I think the readers of this blog do well.
Michael Martin says
Keep in mind that there are many ways to be civically engaged besides just voting for whatever puppet is put in front of you.
You can join (or support) organisations which advocate for the causes you believe in. Here in New Zealand, there is an extremely effective organisation fighting the “cancel culture” called the Free Speech Union. They have a team of sharp lawyers who have won an impressive string of court cases, and who have caused many “petty tyrant” bureaucrats to back down. In one case, they made a city council turn tail and run, just by showing up at their doorstep!
For those whose consciences will not allow them to vote for “the lesser of two evils” (which is still voting for evil!), this can be a viable and very effective form of civic engagement.
Gail Sheppard says
How likely is it that one who cannot bring himself to go to the poll booth would do the work of an organization like Free Speech Union? And how effective it is after the fact? This organization says they “have helped thousands of people across the UK who’ve got into trouble simply for exercising their right to lawful free speech.”
I don’t doubt this is true.
But if the right people were voted into office, they wouldn’t have to fight for people’s right of free speech.
In the U.S., we’re at the point where every branch of government, including many state institutions, have been infiltrated. Even this blog has been infiltrated. We’re down to depending on our sheriffs who are overburdened with their own challenges now that they’re letting in murderers and rapists from other countries by the tens of thousands.
I think it may be too generous to think the people who aren’t voting is because it would be voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Ignorance and laziness may be factors, as well.
The choice we have before us now is whether or not we’re going to remain a free country, not whose running for office. Both Kamala (whom I believe will be replaced by Clinton) and Trump have teams of people behind them with different world views.
Watch this short video and you’ll see the world view of the Harris team which is the polar opposite of the Trump team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-B1MbLNtQ
Brendan says
Those who don’t vote may think they are *just* refusing
to sully their hands by participating in farce and fraud;
but the message the fraudsters are likely to take from it
is that they are happy with whatever government emerges.
Brendan says
…and Trump is less likely to start a war with Russia
than Harris and the Deep Staters that control her.
…and Trump will not attempt to restore Roe v Wade.
These are two great issues of our time
on which Trump and Harris clearly differ
“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”
https://biblehub.com/library/various/the_teaching_of_the_twelve_apostles/chapter_i_the_two_ways_the.htm
“There are two ways, one of life and one of death;
but a great difference between the two ways.”
Is war on the way of life or of death?
On which of the ways is abortion?
Do you care? Or are you lukewarm?
Brendan says
Here is a rational reason for voting, if you have need of one:
“Why Kamala Harris Will Kill at Least 5 Billion People if She Becomes President”
https://theduran.com/why-kamala-harris-will-kill-at-least-5-billion-people-if-she-becomes-president/
Eric Zuesse: ‘Kamala Harris said on September 26th that the United States is at war with Russia in Ukraine, and that Donald Trump would “surrender” to Russia if he becomes President again. She made clear that the war between Russia and Ukraine is also war between Russia and America — it is America’s war, just as-if Ukraine were a U.S. state. Here is how this was reported by France’s Agence France-Presse, under the headline “Harris meets Zelensky and slams Trump’s ‘surrender policy’ for Ukraine”:
Harris did not mention Trump by name but said there were “some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory.”
“These proposals are the same of those of (President Vladimir) Putin. And let us be clear, they are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender,” she said, referring to the Russian leader.
She was virtually repeating President Joe Biden’s statement on the same day, that Ukraine must and will win this war against Russia with America’s help, and must never yield any of the territory in Ukraine that Russia now occupies. “Russia will not prevail, Ukraine will prevail, in this war”, he said. He made this commitment there, in the presence of, and to, Ukraine’s leader, Volodmyr Zelensky. In other words: If WW3 is necessary in order defeat Russia in Ukraine, then America will do it. … ‘
Gail Sheppard says
They may be overplaying their hand at this point. They made the mistake of allowing the war in Ukraine to be too visible. Most are acutely aware of how much money they’ve thrown at Ukraine and how close to a nuclear war we just came because of it. Europe is obviously most at risk due to it’s proximity. People also know Putin’s demands because he kept them so simple. You could write them in a single paragraph. He just doesn’t want NATO in there given their intent to annihilate Russia. The language they’re using does not match up with what the world now knows. At first, yellow and blue flags were everywhere. Not so much anymore. They’ve seen how the leaders who slobbered all over Zelensky, snubbed him at recent meetings. The Church is fed up. Epiphany has no use for the Church, and has said so. The people, especially in Europe, have really suffered as a result of all these policies promoted by the likes of Harris, et al. – She is looking delusional at this point.
CrzyDcn says
I think God gives us the government He thinks we need to move our society towards repentance. But what do I know? I’m just a crazy deacon.
Hilber Nelson says
George writes, “The duty of the Church is to sustain the soul of the individual. The purpose of the State is to protect his body.” As with all tyrannical governments such as ours that have openly declared war on their subjects, it not only demands 24/7 obedience, it seeks our soul. Therein lies the inevitable collision course between pious Christians and the tyrannical oligarchy formerly known as our constitutional republic. When the state not only openly violates its duty to protect our borders and the unborn, but demands worship of its globalist transhumanist ideologies, it becomes the duty of us Christians, and of all freedom-loving citizens, to counter the evildoers. Failure to do so is to stand with them in compliance. Silence in the face of such tyrannical soul-killing evils of our government (abortion, human trafficking, election fraud, lawfare, trans ideology) is itself evil. God will not hold us Christians guiltless for sitting on the sidelines of our pews. How can we call ourselves Christians if we say we love God, who commands us to love Him and our neighbor, but do not lift a finger to protect our neighbor against such evils?
George Michalopulos says
Very well stated.
Joseph Lipper says
Perhaps the main principle of democratic-type governments is the principle of how they achieve their legitimacy. Democratic governments are both promoted and understood as achieving their legitimacy by the populace. As Lincoln said, it is “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
However, St. Paul turns this completely around in his letter to the Romans, saying that governments are legitimate solely because of God, not because of the people. He says that government officials are “ministers of God” and that the “powers that be are ordained by God”. As George points out, St. Paul is writing this about the pagan Roman government of his time, the same government that would later martyr him. It was a hard-to-hear saying for many Christians then and still is now. It is also the same with the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus told Pontius Pilate, “thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above”. The authority that Pontius Pilate had over Jesus Christ was ordained by God and even made Pontius Pilate unknowingly a minister of God.
This understanding of the legitimacy of local government as coming from God is also constantly affirmed in the Orthodox Church. We can see this in our prayers, at Divine Liturgy, at Vespers, at Matins. Wherever in the world Orthodox Christians may be, they are always praying for their country and for all those in civil authority and public service, including the armed forces. Regardless of how their governments came into power, whether by honest or dishonest means, Orthodox Christians are nonetheless given to pray for their local government. In the U.S., we don’t subversively pray for some “king” or someone else we want in power, but rather we pray for whoever is the President. In Russia, Orthodox Christians don’t subversively pray for the “Tsar”, but rather pray for Putin and the Russian government. In Jerusalem, Orthodox Christians pray for their crazy Israeli government. In Jordan, Orthodox Christians pray for the King of Jordan. All these governments are affirmed locally by Orthodox Christianity as having whatever power and legitimacy they do have as coming from God alone.
Gail Sheppard says
But, Joseph, everything comes from God. “He maketh his sun to arise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust.”
Legitimacy is not inherently good or bad. I’ve never heard that word used in Church.
We pray. To pray is to ask God for His help. Not to legitimize someone’s position by virtue of the fact they are in a leadership role. God’s authority talked about in Romans 13 is about what God has allowed. God often uses the bad for our good.
Did God legitimize Pharoah’s authority over Moses and the Israelites? No. Did God legitimize those over the Saints who had them murdered? No.
The only authority God legitimized was the authority of Christ and through Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles. Did He look with favor on various leaders at various times? Of course. But He didn’t legitimize anyone because leaders, like everyone else, have free will.
What St. Paul was saying is that God uses bad leaders for our good and in that sense, they are ordained by God (used by God) because of their role. Rulers are called God’s ministers because they create opportunities for spiritual growth on behalf of the ruled in their struggle to obey.
But though St Paul emphasized the importance of obeying God ordained rulers saying, “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves,” he didn’t obey Nero which resulted in his beheading. So, the meaning of what he said is probably misunderstood to some degree.
I worry that people are going to see what you wrote and interpret it to mean that God appoints all leaders to their position, thereby legitimizing what they do.
Joseph Lipper says
Gail, whatever power and authority a government has is what is legitimate. This is not about government actions. Governments do bad things all the time while still retaining their power and authority.
With the saints who were martyred, and especially with Christ, they willingly submitted themselves to the government to be martyred. They didn’t resist. In this way, they were fully obedient to the government. They recognized that their government had the legitimate right and authority over their bodies to kill them.
On the other hand, an illegitimate government is one that makes claims of power and authority, but doesn’t actually have it. Where the government doesn’t have power and authority is over the soul of a man, that is unless a man gives up his soul to the government. The martyred saints recognized that their government had no legitimate authority over their souls, and so they instead willingly gave to Caesar what is Caesar’s: their bodies.
Gail Sheppard says
I don’t think our current government has power or authority, not even from it’s people. I actually provided proof the elections were stolen last week. As I recall, 2000 Mules and Absolute Proof also showed the nation how the elections were stolen. Did you hear about AZ this week? They admitted they cheated. And not by some small number. Executive Orders about potential election fraud continue to be in force.
None of this screams “legitimacy” to me. It speaks of what illegitimate governments have done since the beginning of time.
The Saints were martyred because they wouldn’t submit to their governors. You’re not “being obedient” when your person is overcome by groups of men who haul you into a torture chamber, set you on fire, put you in front of hungry lions for sport, tie rocks around your waist and throw you into the ocean. Being obedient implies a “choice.” There is no choice involved when your body is given over to those who intend to do you harm.
An illegitimate government is one that makes claims of power and authority it doesn’t actually have. The fact that it is a government doesn’t mean it garners the favor of God.
The only person I know who gave up His person (which is what you may mean when you say “soul”) is Christ, Himself, when He said, “it is finished.” No Saint asked for death; they asked (insisted might be a better word) in honoring Christ, exclusively, which resulted in their death. They didn’t choose to die. Death was a consequence of their non-compliance by refusing to also acknowledge the legitimacy of paganism and it’s practices in some cases. I suspect, in all other ways, the Saints were probably good citizens under their governments, as St Paul encouraged. (Edited for clarity.)
Elizanna says
Well said Gail. I totally agree.
Gail Sheppard says
It’s rare when people agree with me. Thank you!
Joseph Lipper says
Gail, not all martyrs are counted as saints. Saint Sophrony of Essex relates the story about a group of Christians who were being led to martyrdom. One of them angrily tore up the emperor’s decree in defiance, and although he was martyred, he was not counted worthy among the saints because of his act of defiance against the emperor.
As for the martyrs who are saints, they recognized the god-given authority of their government. They didn’t denigrate that authority either. St. Peter writes:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” 1 Peter 2:13-17
Sure, there may come a point in our lives where we have to choose between obedience to Christ and obedience to a God-given authority, but in the U.S. we have religious freedoms. If our job requires us to do something immoral, then we can politely decline and quit. Quitting might be very difficult, but we won’t be martyred in the U.S. for quitting our jobs. Quitting is not really considered disobedience either.
George Michalopulos says
Joseph, we hardly have religious liberties anymore in America. If we did, the FBI wouldn’t be sending field agents into Catholic chapels where the Latin Rite is being celebrated.
The hostility to traditional, conservative Christianity is palpable from all of the towering heights of American power: politics, academia, Hollywood, down to the local government. It used to be subtle now it’s way more overt. Think of how American embassies have been ordered to be bedecked with sodomite flags or that some states are making it legal to execute babies which have been born live.
I could go on and on.
Brendan says
““Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”.
Indeed. But is this the same as:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the lord’s sake” ?
What about ordinances of man that are for the lord’s
(but not the Lord’s) sake, such as “Bow down and worship
this man or that brazen idol; and murder all the children in Gaza” ?
By sacrificing your discretion to total obedience
you are yourself actively choosing to do evil
if that is what your ‘lord’ commands you to do.
Joseph Lipper says
St. Peter implores Christians to primarily be servants of God, as God is the highest power. However, any power and authority that our earthly governments actually have is given to them by God. We can therefore serve God by submitting ourselves to the authority of our governments. This is actually a very powerful testimony of Christians that is often completely overlooked in election years.
The typical message of elections is that government power and authority come from the people. That’s not really true anyways. The purpose of elections is primarily for people to give consent to their government, as “the will of the people”. (However, one certainly doesn’t even have to vote to give their consent to the government.)
Yes, there can come a point where the authorities that are over us may ask us to do something we believe is immoral. At that point, there is a divergence, and we can usually politely decline and step aside “for the Lord’s sake”.
Brendan says
“However, *any* power and authority that our earthly governments *actually* have is given to them by God.
We can therefore serve God by submitting ourselves
to the authority of our governments.”
*Actual* power and authority can be usurped.
See the Latin Emperors of Constantinople.
See False Dimitry.
See the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
See the Pope of Rome.
bob karp says
If there is proof that the elections were stolen, why not present that proof to the attorney general; and file charges?
Gail Sheppard says
He did. The acting Attorney General eventually resigned over the matter because he failed to act.
Trump also went to the DOJ.
Per the DOJ, “Trump directly and repeatedly asked the DOJ’s acting leadership to initiate investigations and file lawsuits on his behalf publicly declaring the 2020 election was corrupt” but they ignored him.
They ended up resigning over the matter, as well.
Trump also went to the courts who refused to hear his case because he “lacked standing.”
But the DOJ eventually posted the evidence, albeit begrudgingly. The degree to which they obfuscated and deliberately got in the way shocked me. You’d think if there was no compelling evidence, as they claim, they would have been happy to investigate and prove Trump wrong.
If you’d like to see the evidence itself, I recommend you read what the DOJ published here: https://monomakhos.com/it-was-a-shocking-day/
I also recommend you skip the caterwauling and pejorative rhetoric in the front of the document and start with the evidence the DOJ begrudgingly attached to the back. If you start there and move forward, you can decide for yourself what, if anything, happened.
Finally, there is some compelling evidence in two movies I’d recommend: Dinesh D’Souza’s (of I See Dead People fame) called 2000 Mules and Mike Lindell’s Absolute Proof. Google, of course, trashes them, which is all the more reason to see them.
Taking a deeper drive will not only tell you about the election, it will show you the degree to which this country is in deep #$%^.
George Michalopulos says
Are you kidding? This AG? The same one who puts Soccer Moms on terror watch lists because they have the temerity to go to school board meetings and ask pointed questions? Or sends FBI agents to infiltrate Latin Masses?
Brendan says
Joseph: “..whatever power and authority
a government has is what is legitimate.”
Power and authority are not coterminous.
The Prophet Amos testifies to that.
If they were, the Nazis (and Netanyahu)
would be innocent.
Joseph Lipper says
Brendan, if someone has the power and authority to bomb another country, and in fact does, then those exploded bombs are the legitimate proof of that power and authority. That’s why both governments and terrorists are seen as legitimate threats. Legitimacy is not innocence.
Sometimes governments act as terrorists, and sometimes terrorists become the government. The Bolsheviks were terrorists, but when they came into power, St. Tikhon of Moscow recognized them as the legitimate governing authority, and he forbade his clergy from taking a political stance against them.
George Michalopulos says
That may have been a mistake. The immediate outcome was the Soviets putting together their program of Renovationism. When that failed, it was on to Sergianism. Now of course, the Holy Spirit revived the ROC. Still, it’s best not to tempt God, tp believe that “it’ll all work out in the end.”
I could be wrong. Regardless, St Tikhon pray for us.
Brendan says
Joseph: “..whatever power and authority
a government has is what is legitimate.”
Moi: ” Power and authority are not coterminous.
…If they were, xxxxxxx would be innocent.”
Joseph: “if someone has the power and authority
to bomb another country, and in fact does,
then those exploded bombs are the legitimate proof
of that power and authority.”
Moi: They are proof of the exercise of power.
but prove neither that the authority claimed
nor the exercise thereof was legitimate.
Ronda Wintheiser says
You know, Gail, I’m with Melania Trump in this when it comes to seeing God’s hand in our leaders.
I don’t see any other explanation for Trump’s escape so far. Two and now I hear three attempts on his life?
The very first escape, that is what came to my mind immediately. It is undeniably a MIRACLE that Donald Trump is still alive. And I know where miracles come from.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/melania-trump-says-miracles-saved-her-husbands-life-5730676?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2024-09-27&src_cmp=mb-2024-09-27&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc6w8fB0YwcTB%2F7YcnmZWBrd72FdAKSwaATgcZ10Tm9FAvSeaEJs8Bg%3D%3D
Brendan says
Roman 13:1 [KJV}
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Indeed. But power may be legitimately used
or it may be illegitimately misused.
Amos testifies to that.
Gail Sheppard says
As created beings in the image of God, we have power, too. We need to use it.
Brendan says
I don’t think Sparta had an Aristocratic constitution, George.
It was a totalitarian state, ruled by a committee of ‘Ephors’,
which conquered its immediate neighbours in Messenia,
making slaves of all the people and stealing all the land.
To maintain possession of all their ill-gotten gains,
they had to keep the polity on a constant war footing.
All full citizens (Spartiates) were members of the army,
which was led by two ‘kings’, one from each of two houses.
These ‘kings’ were really a sort of hereditary generals,
raised up or thrown down as the Ephors decided.
Funding the military was the chief function of the state.
The modern state which most closely resembles Sparta,
in the thorough degradation of its indigenous neighbours
and in its perpetual organisation for war upon them
(to prevent them reclaiming their freedom and property),
is the Republic of Israel.
George Michalopulos says
You’re correct Brendan. When I said it was “aristocratic” I meant the state was dependent upon the homoioi (peers). These were the common hoplites who wer guided by a severe militaristic ethos, very much like the Samurai of Japan, with their bushido code (“way of the warrior”).
The ephors were at the top, while the two kings presided over the gerousia (senate). But it was all dependendant upon the homoioi.
Michael Bauman says
George, I believe your assumptions are not true.
1. All government is hierarchical. The hierarchy is grounded in God or in the power of darkness.
2. We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. Any semblance of that died with JFK.
3. We live in a culture ruled by hierarchical gangs, the federal government gang has the most power rooted in the darkness.
4. We only get to vote on those folks the gang wants to be window dressing. It is a charade that has no meaning.
5. Those who defy the gangs will be put aside one way or another.
6. The only real option is through worship, prayer, fasting and alms giving.
7. They have already succeeded in putting us aside in cubicles of irrelevancy. Martyrdom is not really an option.
I no longer choose to participate in the charade.
Ronda Wintheiser says
Dearest Michael.
Choosing not to participate is impossible. The word itself tells you that. The word means “to partake, to share or share in.” It’s a verb alright, but it’s a passive verb. From the1530s, “to partake, to share or share in,” a back-formation from participation, or else from Latin participatus, past participle of participare “to share, share in, participate in; to impart,” from particeps “partaking, sharing,” from parti, past participle of partir “to divide” (from Latin partire, from pars “a part, piece,” from PIE root *pere- (2) “to grant, allot”) + Latin -cip-, weak form of stem of capere “to take” (from PIE root *kap- “to grasp”). Meaning “have features or characteristics in common with another or others” is by 1570s. Related: Participated; participating.
You ARE participating simply by being an American. You are benefiting from the fruits of the work of other people. Whether those fruits are good, or whether they are evil. The only way you can NOT participate is to leave.
You are simply choosing not to to do the good that you could do. There can never BE only one real option, as you put it. We are to be in the world, but not of it. We owe it to each other to do good. That might mean feeding the hungry. Or that might mean taking a role in creating good government. Or that might mean simply casting a vote for someone who, as Fr. John Peck put it, may not be the best man, but he is not a mad man. Your choice not to act gives more power to the mad man. Or woman, as it may be.
And since our system was created so that we ARE are responsible for who rules over us. God certainly is sovereign. When I realized Jessica had autism, I could have completely given up and put her in God’s hands, instead of fighting to help her be able to participate as much as possible in meaningful relationships with people by finding the kind of teaching and resources in a program that was a constant struggle but that improved her ability to communicate and engage with other human beings.
Your refusal to vote at the very least is simply making it more likely that it will be more difficult for the rest of us. A heavier load, harsher consequences. And not just for us. For our children and our grandchildren.
Antiochene Son says
“If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it.” ~ Mark Twain
Brendan says
“If voting doesn’t matter, why try to jail/kill/smear Trump?”
George Michalopulos says
Michael, I was speaking in the ideal. I do not dispute hierarchy. I chose not to include it because it’s in the aether.
my next post in this series will specifically with the facts on the ground (which are as you state). An oligarchy.
If I may go out on a tangent: we have no choice but to participate, or stated another way, by not participating, we participate.
Still, I can’t blame you. I believe the battle was lost when the election was stolen in 2020. Just the fact that Biden can be removed lickety-split means that the oligarchy is firmly in charge from here on in. Think of it as a politburo.
That said, the draconian measures that are being employed by the oligarchy means that they’re not long for this world. The fear is how many they’re going to take down with them.
Elizanna says
I am with you, Michael. I also no longer choose to participate.
Misha says
Michael,
I agree with most every word you wrote above, especially the “gangs” observation.
IMO, the fundamental problem we face in America is that the American religion has become Liberalism and Christianity has been rejected as a moral foundation. With respect to the mechanics of government, this was true at the Founding. The Founders believed in a bottom up theory of political authority and only paid Deistic lip service to the top down variety (” . . . endowed by their Creator . . .”). The consent of the governed was the gold standard for them, not Christian morality.
This partly stemmed from the fact that they inherited a fractured “church” of Protestant sects and Roman Catholicism. Thus, tolerance and diversity were prized as peace-keeping and religious authority had to pass through the prism of “we the people” in order to be legitimate to them.
In the end, this resulted in the anti-Christian bottomless corruption that we have today, corruption of law, of culture, of religion and even of language and thought themselves. That is to say, it was flawed in the beginning and the flaws have expanded to result in a monstrosity. So, I cannot blame you one bit for not wanting anything to do with this Leviathan.
However, even in the blackest night, God makes lemons into lemonade.
What seems to be developing in the world as a sort of new norm – especially in the non-Western part – is a form of government with a strong presidency and a single dominant party representative legislature tied to the national traditions of the country. Popular support for such an arrangement seems to be on the rise even in Western Europe if the performance of UKReform, AfD, Meloni, Orban, etc., is any indication. The old days of two or more parties participating in a professional wrestling match orchestrated by a fascist oligarchy may be coming to a close. I see it as a restoration of kingship (executive power) over the oligarchs (like the boyars of old). The decisive factor is national interest. Oligarchs are citizens of the world. Kings (or powerful executives) are fiduciaries of a distinct political entity.
It is in this vein that I can vote for Trump, though I don’t consider myself “MAGA”. I don’t expect him to suspend the Constitution. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper to be worked around by staff attorneys. Of course, I do not share their enthusiasm about the Founders or the Spirit of ’76. However, in America, this is mostly an expression of traditional nationalism more than a glaring endorsement of Enlightenment Liberalism.
What may be possible is to unseat the Uniparty form its perch in Tammany Hall in favor of some other arrangement. In order to be anything more than a flash in the pan, this new arrangement will have to be dominant over any attempts by the old Uniparty to reassert dominance through electoral means. The sum total of that is that the new government will need to have an authoritarian edge to it, since allowing the Uniparty to regain power would be the last time they allowed it to slip through their fingers.
It is a precarious moment in American history. I’m convinced that Trump will prevail if the count is anywhere close to legitimate. Too many indicators point to this. You may actually see the dissolution of the United States into smaller political entities as a result, depending on the severity of the reaction from the Uniparty. It is unlikely they will go quietly into the night.
So be it.
Gail Sheppard says
RE: “The old days of two or more parties participating in a professional wrestling match orchestrated by a fascist oligarchy may be coming to a close.”
I agree 100%.
George Michalopulos says
Misha, this sentence of yours is golden: “I see it as a restoration of kingship (executive power) over the oligarchs (like the boyars of old). The decisive factor is national interest. Oligarchs are citizens of the world. Kings (or powerful executives) are fiduciaries of a distinct political entity.”
I would take it even further: the king as paterfamilias, of an ethnos, being related by several degrees from the people he “reigns” over.
This would mean smaller, distinct nations with clear boundaries. And the majority would be classically Christian (i.e. not any of the Protestant sects as Protestantism is now essentially moribund).
Misha says
Yes, I’m somewhat fond of Robert Filmer’s schema of the whole Christian system being based on the patriarchy, with the king being the father of fathers. That dovetails nicely with the Russian image of the Tsar-Batyushka. The king runs the country like a man runs his house. Completely natural arrangement born out of Divine Providence as to who is blessed with the prowess to lead the nation.
It is also true that a government or monarch can descend into tyranny – like Julian the Apostate, for example – and in such a circumstance the faithful owe the government no duty at all but to correct it. This is assuming that the monarch’s reign was a departure from a prior Christian one.
When it comes to heathen, the plot thickens. The question then becomes, “How bad is the oppression and how good is our chance to throw it off?” Christ and the early Christians were quite patient with Rome given its manifest power in the world. Yet after Christianity had ascended, emperors could be opposed due to infidelity to the Law of God.
I am wary of taking generalizations in the Bible as absolute. You can always find “on the other hand”.
Brendan says
“…based on the patriarchy, with the king being the father of fathers.
That dovetails nicely with the Russian image of the Tsar-Batyushka.”
It also dovetails with the Scottish clan tradition
where the eponymous founder of the clan.
is considered to be the father of the clan.
Take Clan Donald (the Macdonalds) for example.
The founder was Donald, Lord of the Isles.
His descendants bear the name *Macdonald*
(or any of the variant spellings thereof).
*Macdonald* means *Son of Donald*.
*Clan Donald* means *Children of Donald*.
The current chief is styled *The Macdonald*.
The ancient Israelites had similar traditions.
The Israelites were the Children of Israel
(which name was given to Jacob ben Isaac
following his struggle with the angel of God).
Jacob’s sons founded twelve tribes within Israel.
Whether a particular person would be described
as (for example) a Danite or as an Israelite
would depend on the context of the discussion.
There is the Father and there is the Family.
There are Families and there is the Clan/Tribe.
There are Clans/Tribes and there is the Nation.
There are Nations and there is Humanity.
Each expansion follows naturally from the earlier.
However, these relationships are nor rigidly fixed:
You can marry into a family, clan or nation.
You can marry out of a family, clan or nation.
You can be adopted into a family, clan or nation.
You can be expelled from a family, clan or nation
And you can create a new family, clan or nation.
In every case, these relations are natural.
What is not natural is the liberal/globalist ideal
of creating a completely rootless society,
wherein all familial/tribal/national roots are erased
and no man is a son of anything but the State.
George Michalopulos says
Bravo! Very well said!
Brendan says
1) Family – 2) Clan/Tribe – 3) Nation
Ecclesiastes 4:12 [KJV]
“And if one prevail against him,
two shall withstand him;
and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
Brendan says
PS: ‘I am wary of taking generalizations in the Bible
as absolute. You can always find “on the other hand”.’
Absolutely…!