: “In former times, as I learned in Dodona, the Pelasgians made sacrifices to the Gods, offering prayers, but did not call on the names of individual gods. After all, they did not yet know the names of the gods. The Pelasgians gave them the name “gods” (θεοi) because the gods established (θεντες) the world order and distributed all goods according to their will.”

Thus, theocracy, according to the views of Herodotus, aims to follow the world order to establish harmony (a perfect state) in society. The ritual of sacrifice itself was intended to determine the will of the gods based on the state of the victim, and later began to be understood as an offering to God, with the goal of inclining him to mercy. The roots of theocracy are lost in the depths of history: it is known [ to whom?] that in ancient states (in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Mexico and other places) the rulers were priests and decided matters according to their religious beliefs, or even proclaimed themselves gods.

One example of theocracy is given by the Bible (the book of Judges and the book of Samuel - in the Russian synodal translation of 1 and 2 Books of Kings), where it is described that in early period During the formation of the Jewish state, their society was ruled by judges to whom God revealed his will. For the same purpose, the priests used a special lot: Urim (light) and tumim (dark) - apparently, these were something like stones that were in a special bag with the high priest. The process of finding out the will of God consisted of clearly formulating a question to the high priest, which should have only two clear answers: yes or no. The priest prayed to God and took out the stone that was needed from the bag - it was believed that God Himself was guiding his hand. Urim meant “yes,” and tumim “no.”

Examples of other drawings are described in other places in the Bible: for example, Abraham asked about the future by laying out the cut bodies of animals on the altar, and by their spontaneous combustion he realized that his descendants were destined to rule Canaan (Gen. 15:8-18), and during the exodus the Jews They cast lots for who should be high priest, placing wooden rods in front of the sanctuary, and they recognized the worthy one by the fact that his rod sprouted buds (Numbers 17:2-8).

Theocracy was the basis of government for many developed states of antiquity. Thus, all the ancient pharaohs of Egypt were priests and proclaimed themselves gods or sons of gods, in ancient Greece decisions were often made on the basis of the prophecies of oracles (special objects, the phenomena of which were explained by special interpreters - priests or priestesses) and the ruling circles sent special embassies (theories) to the oracles, as well as on the basis of the fortune-telling and prophecies of their own prophets. There were elements of theocracy in more late times- in the Middle Ages and in modern times, when knightly duels and duels were chosen as the method of resolving disputes (sometimes this took the form of a game, for example, with dice or cards), or simply casting lots - it was believed that God himself was on the winning side, that is his victory serves the common good. The existence of theocracies in antiquity is not, however, proof of their necessity or benefit for modern society. On the contrary, the modern understanding of theocracy proceeds from the fact that such a form of government contradicts the principles of religious pluralism, democracy and the moral principles of modern society.

Josephus was the first to use the term theocracy in his writings. He wrote that while for the Greeks there are only three forms of government (aristocracy, monarchy and anarchy), the Jews developed a different system that does not fall into any of the Greek categories.

Historical states with elements of theocracy

The largest and most famous theocracies in history were the Umayyad Caliphate and the early Abbasid Caliphate, both in the Papal States. And as with any other state or empire, pragmatism was part of the policy of these theocracies.

Antiquity

Imperial cults in Ancient Egypt and other countries, the ruling monarch was deified, so that the state religion was dedicated to the worship of the ruler as a deity or an incarnation of a deity.

In ancient and medieval Christianity there was a doctrine of Caesaropapism - the doctrine that the head of the state is at the same time the head of the church.

Reign of Abdicated Emperors

In medieval Japan, there was a phenomenon in which the actual ruler was an abdicated emperor who took monastic vows as a Buddhist monk.

Tibet

Reformation

Geneva during the period of greatest influence of John Calvin and the Massachusetts Bay Colony The "Puritans" had many of the characteristics of a Protestant theocracy.

During the short reign from 1494 to 1498 of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest, Florence could be considered a theocracy. During his reign, non-Christian books, statues, poems and other objects were burned, and sodomy was punishable by death; Christian practices gained the force of law.

Mormonism

Another example was the administration of the short-lived state of Deseret.

Islam

The first Islamic state had its capital in Medina and was ruled directly by the Prophet Muhammad. After his death, the Islamic state expanded and became an empire (caliphate) with its capital first in Damascus, then in Baghdad.

Current countries with elements of theocracy

Islamic states

An Islamic theocratic state is referred to as a caliphate. Islamic State is a state that has adopted exclusively Islam, in particular Sharia, as the basis of its political institutions or laws. Although there is much debate about which states or groups operate strictly according to Islamic law, Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts in all aspects of law and religious police to enforce social demands. Most Muslim countries in the Middle East have legal systems influenced to varying degrees by sharia; at the same time, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Mauritania use largely secular constitutions and legal systems (the latter calling themselves an "Islamic Republic").

Greek sovereignty over the peninsula is secured by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923; The self-government regime is initially based on the provisions of the first Charter of Holy Mount Athos (“Tragos”), approved by Chrysobulus of Emperor John Tzimisces in 972. Unlike the rest of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Athos exclusively uses the Julian calendar, including in administrative documents.

Theocracy in Christianity

In Christianity, the theocratic form of relations between church and society is papocaesarism, in which the clergy, the first church hierarch (most often the Pope), concentrated both secular and spiritual power in his hands. The period from to the 14th century is the period of the highest development of papocaesarism in the West, in Catholic Church. In Russia, the period of domination of papocaesarism is the reign of the patriarchate of Filaret Romanov, when it was he who concentrated in his hands both spiritual and temporal power with

Epistemology

“Theory of unity” in cognition:

Eat three sources knowledge:

• - empiricism (experience);
• - rationalism (reason);
• - religious mysticism (intuition). She is the main one!

Each of them explores different sides of life.

However, cognition essence peace is possible only through unity, those. unification of three ways knowledge: science (experience), philosophy (reason) and religion (intuition, mysticism).

Social philosophy

The theory of “universal theocracy”:

The world is dominated by “unbrotherly relations” of hostility between people and cultures. To correct this, it is necessary to combine the positive elements of the spiritual cultures of the East and West. And for this, first - to reunite the Christian churches: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism.

The Eastern (Orthodox) Church has a wealth of mystical contemplation.

The Western Church is a supranational spiritual authority independent of the state (the Pope).

The basis"universal theocracy" - union of state and church, with the moral authority of the latter. As a result, enmity and selfishness will be overcome, and the “kingdom of God” will be created on Earth in the form of a world state under the rule of the Russian emperor and the Pope (Catholic Church).

The role of Russia.

It will reconcile the extremes of East and West, lay the foundation of a free universal theocracy, unity, because The Russian people are free from any narrow-mindedness and one-sidedness, above narrow national interests. The reforms of Peter I proved the ability of the Russian people to combination Eastern and Western cultures.

In addition, the Russian people have the ability to self-denial, so necessary for the universal church, tolerance.

Berdyaev Nikolay Alexandrovich

outstanding philosopher, religious idealist, existentialist

At first he was a legal Marxist, then he became a religious thinker and an active critic of Marxism.

In philosophy he is a follower of V. Solovyov.

In 1922 he was exiled abroad: Berlin, France (since 1924). Dzerzhinsky Kamenev - lecture at Cheka on Lubyanka. “I felt sad.”

Berdyaev is a philosopher of freedom.

The difference between philosophy and science

Philosophy is not science, because she is free creativity , not a device.

While science is a process of cognition reality and therefore inevitable devices To her.

Anthropocentrism (the doctrine of personality)

Berdyaev - supporter existentialism(the center of his attention is the spiritual “I” of a person).

Subject freedom of personality, creativity, spirituality- one of the central

At Berdyaev's.

Personality There is center of being, the highest spiritual value.

Personality – more primary being. Personality is free, active, creative Start. She must confront the surrounding being as an embodiment necessity, causality, passivity.

There is always a conflict between the individual and society (the world around us). Society wants to absorb and enslave the individual. Exit - primacy of personality over the impersonal (collective, clan, class, society).

Berdyaev highlighted two main types philosophy and stood for the one that asserted: the primacy (beginning) of freedom over being, the independence of the subject over the world, dynamism, dualism, anthropologism.

The existence of dualism (an equal principle of the spiritual immaterial) was fundamental and defining for Berdyaev (including the dualism of freedom and necessity, spirit and nature, individual and general).

Doctrine of Freedom- the main thing in his work.

He denied the concept of freedom as a known necessity (given by Spinoza). she turns out subordinate necessary.

Liberty– there is freedom of spirit, creativity, the inner deep energy of a person.

Liberty irrational, i.e. incomprehensible to reason. It is rooted and arises in that Nothingness from which God created the world.

The first mentions of theocracy, as well as of secularism, are found in scriptures and religious treatises that have come down to us from ancient times. As a rule, theocratic ideas developed within the framework of individual creeds, many of which contain ideas about a certain highest, ideal (heavenly) society, where people live under the direct divine guidance in carefree, happy leisure and complete harmony with the divine will. Goodness, justice, love triumph here, and there are no human vices. Paradise can be seen in past events of the past or, conversely, in the distant future of humanity, taking the images of the “kingdom of God”, “golden age”, “kingdom of the son of man”, etc. In certain faiths, for example in the ancient Egyptian religion, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity, such ideas, which henceforth for brevity will be called the idea of ​​the kingdom of God, reach high degree development. Abdulaev M.I. Theory of state and law: Textbook for universities. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - P. 259.

It is impossible to speak of the kingdom of God as a theocracy in the strict scientific sense of the word, since neither political power relations nor religious and legal regulation exist in it. The significance of the analysis of ideas about the kingdom of God for this study is that all concepts, as well as practical models Theocratic and, in part, quasi-theocratic power were inspired precisely by the idea of ​​the kingdom of God. Thoughts about the kingdom of God disturb the minds of both theorists and practitioners of theocracy, who want the return of the “golden” past or the speedy onset of a heavenly future. The theocratic idea is a politicized creed. Attempts to nationalize religion and the desire to use it for political purposes should be considered as manifestations of the theocratization of power.

The ideas about the kingdom of God found in ancient religious texts are, of course, associated with the political and legal reality of early class states, being to a certain extent a reflection of the power of the priests and religious and legal regulation public relations. For example, the description of the reign of the legendary rulers - the founders of states: Menes, Romulus, Remus, Theseus, the righteous Chinese Vanir, etc., has a specific historical character. But to no lesser extent they contain mythical, fantastic motifs associated with divine origin or the election of earthly rulers, with their presence supernatural abilities. In relation to social interactions and theoretical models of theocracy, they also act as an independent, independent phenomenon. In addition, from the point of view of religious consciousness, the divine world order with the harmony of divine and human relations reigning in it has greater reality than earthly life, since true existence for believers is God. Therefore, the idea of ​​the kingdom of God influences historical reality a very strong reverse effect, changing it “in its own image and likeness.” Marchenko M.N. Theory of state and law: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Prospect, Moscow University Publishing House, 2012. - P. 234.

The ideals of Christian theocracy were described by St. Augustine. One of his main works is called “About the City of God”. “Looking closely at Augustine’s apologetic activity,” wrote Evgeny Trubetskoy, “we will see that all of it is nothing more than a preaching of divine power... The eternal kingdom of God in Augustine’s teaching receives the meaning that remains behind it in the history of Western Catholicism, namely the meaning of the program which the church must realize within itself in a process of gradual historical development" In our opinion, assessing Augustine’s work as an apologetics of divine power, embodied in the medieval Catholic theocracy, is not entirely correct. Antitheocratic movements in the church were also formed on the ideas of Augustine. Thus, evangelical Christianity, which accepted the doctrine of divine grace developed by the thinker, denied power church hierarchy and abolished the mediatory mission of the church in the salvation of human souls. The political and legal views of St. Augustine are contradictory and in some moments bear the imprint of mixing Christianity with Platonism and legal ideology Ancient Rome. As a result of this, the theologian shows inconsistency and often does not make a clear distinction between the natural (earthly) and supernatural (divine) orders of existence, which leads to the idea that he identifies the City of God - the true power of God with the Christian Church operating in the earthly world. A comprehensive analysis of his work gives reason to believe that this is not so.

The claims of the church and clergy to secular power were justified by theocratic theories. The essence of these theories was that the state occupies a subordinate position in relation to the church, from which it follows that secular rulers should be subordinate to the church not only as simple believers, but also in a number of respects in the exercise of political power.

The justification was based on the arguments of Augustine Aurelius (see Chapter 4), the theory of the “moral law”, according to which the church has the right to evaluate and “judge” the actions of the emperor not only as a Christian, but also as a bearer of power.

Widespread were the “two sword theory”, based on an arbitrary combination and interpretation of quotations from the gospels (the emperor receives his sword from the church and therefore must serve it with his sword), and the “sun and moon theory” (how the moon receives its shine from the sun, Thus, royal power borrows its brilliance and authority from the pope).

The Church used various forgeries - for example, the “Donation of Constantine” (a forged document on behalf of Emperor Constantine I, who allegedly transferred power over the Western Roman Empire to the popes back in the 4th century) and “False Isidore’s Decretals” (which says that the kings and Since the first centuries of Christianity, emperors have been subordinate to the popes as the successors of Christ and the Apostle Peter).

To curb the obstinate overlords, the church sometimes appealed to their vassals, releasing them from the oath of allegiance, calling for the overthrow of the “tyrant.” This tyrant-fighting idea was substantiated in his treatises by the English theologian, historian and lawyer John of Salisbury (? - died in 1180).

In the spirit of Roman law and church tradition, he argued that subjects, by the will of God, vest power in the prince, who is subject to divine laws and receives the sword (the right to shed blood) from the church. The state is like a body: the prince is its head, the senate is its heart, the judges are the ears and tongue of the state. The soul of the state, wrote John of Salisbury, is the priest.

If a prince violates divine laws (which give each his own), church canons, and the will of the clergy, such a prince is a tyrant. The tyrant destroys the freedom of the people, the laws turn his subjects into slavery. The people have the right and obligation to deprive him of power. John of Salisbury, for the first time in the ideology of the Christian Church, allows and theoretically justifies the murder of a tyrant, objecting, however, to the use of poison, since poisoning is a dishonest and insidious method.

The tyrant-fighting teaching of John of Salisbury, based on a peculiar combination of the ideas of theocracy and democracy, found almost no supporters or followers among his contemporaries, but became widespread in the 16th century, especially among the Jesuits.

Emperors and kings sought to justify their independence from the church in secular affairs. Defending themselves against the claims of the church, emperors and kings referred to the texts of the same scripture about the divine establishment of all (i.e., their) power (“the existing powers are established by God”). They interpreted in their own way the “theory of two swords” - the sword of secular power does not depend on the church, since Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The secular state developed on par with theocratic states. What is characteristic of the secular state and its development is that it proceeded in comparison with the theological one, but unlike the latter, it develops the ideas of separation of state and church from each other.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov(1853-1900) - an outstanding Russian philosopher, famous publicist and poet, born in Moscow in the family of the greatest historian S. M. Solovyov. Having received an excellent education at home and graduating from high school with a gold medal, Vladimir Solovyov entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. A year later, having become interested in biology, he transferred to the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics. Three years later, disillusioned with natural science, he returned to the study of history and successfully graduated from the university (1873). He defended his master's thesis in 1874. At the age of 27, Solovyov became a Doctor of Philosophy

The work of Vladimir Solovyov is usually divided into three periods:

• 1) Slavophilism (1874-1881);
• 2) departure from Slavophilism - a critical period when the philosopher thought in socio-political rather than philosophical categories (1881-1889);
• 3) the period of synthesis of all his ideas, the creation of his own teaching, a period of mainly positive, creative creativity (1889-1900).

From the point of view of a political scientist, the most interesting is the second period, during which such works as “The Spiritual Foundations of Life” (1882-1884), “The History and Future of Theocracy” (1885-1887), “The Justification of Good” (1887) were written. , “Russia and the Universal Church” (1889), “Russian Idea” (1888), and many journalistic articles. Separating himself from the Slavophiles, Solovyov also modified his geopolitical concept. Now, in terms of its political position, Russia is no longer seen by him as one of three opposing forces: “... In the great dispute between East and West, it (i.e. Russia. - B.I.) should not stand on one side, represent one of the disputing parties, - ... she has a mediation and conciliatory duty in this matter, must be, in the highest sense, an arbitrator of this dispute.”

In spiritual and cultural terms, Solovyov advocated a policy of “reconciliation” and “union” with the West, and for the continuation of the political course of Peter the Great. The difference, in his opinion, should be that Peter’s “connection” with Western Europe was external and formal in nature, and “real and internal reconciliation with the West consists ... in free agreement with the spiritual principle on which the life of the Western world is based...” Solovyov's understanding of politics is predominantly transcendental in nature. Politics as a theory and practical activity should be aimed primarily at the unity of Christians, mutual understanding of subjects and authorities. The policy of Christian countries, including Russia, must be Christian, for which the first principle should be “the transformation of private truth into universal truth,” the free unity of humanity in the Universal Church.

True and correct politics for Solovyov also follows from the truth of unity: religious unity (Christianity) should bring to life the unity of churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) and the unity (“reconciliation” or “union”) of Christian states. “Russian politics,” Soloviev asserts, “must be Christian politics.” By theocracy, he understood, on the one hand, divine power, that is, the free unity of the Divine with humanity, and on the other, the union between the Pope and the Russian Tsar.

The unity of churches should lead to the creation of a “divine-human theocratic society”, social structure which will consist of a divine part (priests, clergy), an active divine-human part (princes, leaders) and a passive human part (the people), and in “human dignity” all people must be equal. Such a society of “universal theocracy” should unite all Christian nations, including Russia, and be governed under the leadership of Rome.

In his work “The Russian Idea,” Soloviev notes that Russia must cleanse itself of its political sins, which consist in the desire for the Black Sea straits, the Russification of Poland and national egoism in general, and prepare itself for the implementation of “its real national idea,” which should be, first of all, a Christian idea. As the embodiment of this idea, Soloviev envisioned the Universal Church, which would be a “universal brotherhood” emanating from the “universal fatherland through unceasing moral and social sonship.” “Thus,” he noted, “all three members of social existence are simultaneously represented in the true life of the Universal Church, guided by the totality of all three main active forces: the spiritual authority of the universal priest... representing the true enduring past of humanity; the secular power of the national sovereign... personifying the interests, rights and duties of the present; finally, the free ministry of the prophet (the inspired head of human society as a whole), ushering in the beginning of the realization of the ideal future of humanity. This implies Solovyov’s understanding of such an important political category as nationalism. National differences, in his opinion, will remain “until the end of centuries.” But nationalism and national pride destroy the unity of the world in Christ. “Russia,” he notes, “is the most complete development... and the most powerful expression of the absolute national state, which rejects the unity of the Church and excludes religious freedom.” From this follows the essence of the Russian idea, which is to serve the empire, national state The universal Church, the universal state and society, in restoring on earth the “faithful example of the divine Trinity”