Christian Church as a socio-political institution

Alekseev Sergei Valer'evich PhD in Politics Associate Professor; Department of Social and Humanitarian Disciplines; Private Educational Institution of Higher Education 'S.Y. Witte Moscow University' 428027, Russia, Republic of Chuvashia, Cheboksary, Ninth Five-year Plan Ave., 2-3 grajdanin1989@inbox.ru Semenov Evgenii Vladislavovich Specialist of the Center for Scientometry and Rating Promotion; Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation 119606, Russia, Moscow, Vernadsky ave., 84 k.3 rome1221@mail.ru

Skutin Kirill Dmitrievich Expert; ANO 'Academic Alliance' 119606, Russia, Moscow, Vernadsky ave., 84 k.3 skutin.k@inbox.ru

introduction

The Christian Church, along with the state, is one of the oldest social institutions, has its own unique history of formation and continues to influence socio-political processes. Let us agree with the statement of the Hungarian historian E. Gergei: "Christianity never wanted to be a disembodied, spiritualistic religion that does not play a role in history, in the formation of human society ... the history of Christianity, the Christian (in particular, the Catholic) Church and the papacy is closely intertwined with the world historical process" ^{[5, p. 7]}. For centuries, there has been a belief that religious organizations with their governance structure deal primarily with social and spiritual issues, without taking part in political processes. Their main functions were reduced to spiritual enlightenment, participation in charity events and assistance to those in need. This view contributed to the formation of an opinion among a number of researchers and the flock that the church deals exclusively with spiritual and moral issues, influencing the formation of ethical and moral principles in the public consciousness. In this regard, the church was often perceived as a social, spiritual or socio-spiritual institution. This position has long been supported by representatives of religious denominations, who emphasized that the preservation of cultural heritage is impossible without the participation of religious institutions, while secular researchers drew attention to other aspects of the church's activities, namely political ones.

In recent decades, discussions have continued about the role of the church in politics, and its position remains significant, despite the global trends of secularization spread under the influence of globalization ^[1]. In a number of European countries and in the post-Soviet space, the Church continues to actively participate in the discussion of such issues as human rights, family values, bioethics, medicine, migration, etc. Thus, Ryazanova S.V., Mitrofanova A.V. analyzed the general difficulties faced by the Russian Church in social work with migrants when promoting Orthodox projects ^[18]. In the context of the digital revolution and globalization, the church is facing new threats and new opportunities, which confirms its importance as an institution today. The religious factor in politics continues to affect national security. According to Semedov S.A. and Britvin A.V., "as soon as religion is politicized, its pillars are falsified, and ideological values are replaced by political ones, an increase in xenophobia and threats of ethno-religious conflicts is immediately observed" ^{[4, p. 26]}. Thus, discussions about the politicization of the church continue to be relevant in the modern context, especially against the background of complex relations between religion and the state in different regions of the world. This problem is actively discussed in the academic environment, where aspects of the historical dimension and modern political processes are touched upon. In any case, this discourse cannot be considered within the framework of a single study, and it will excite the minds of scientists for many years to come.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The theoretical basis for the study of state-church relations was a combination of historical, functional and institutional approaches. The historical approach allows us to examine in detail the influence of the church on political power in different eras in many countries, identifying trends in its institutionalization not only as a social, but also as a socio-political organization. The functional approach helps to analyze the social functions of the church and their combination with the state, makes it possible to trace how in a number of cases the church successfully replaced the functions of authorities, formed social ideas about justice in a political and cultural context, as well as confirm previously established facts indicating its repeated use as an instrument of legitimization of political power. The institutional approach provides for the study of the church's participation in socio-political life as a socio-political institution, and also explains the trends in the interaction of the church with the state and society.

RESEARCHERS OF STATE-CHURCH RELATIONS

For centuries, state-church relations have attracted the attention of many Russian thinkers, whom we will conditionally divide into several broad groups. Pre-revolutionary representatives such as E.E. Golubinsky and N.I. Teodorovich contributed to the consideration of the mutual influence of church and state in the Russian Empire, exploring the historical processes of the formation of Orthodoxy as a state religion, as well as issues of church law. Historians of Russian emigration, for example, A.V. Kartashev and N.D. Talberg, focused on the historical past, as well as on the analysis of the changes that occurred after the 1917 revolution and the role of the church in the new realities. Soviet historians such as S.G. Lozinsky and E.F. Grekulov studied the religious policy of the Soviet state and the influence of atheistic ideology on the church. Modern researchers such as M.O. Shakhov and R.N. Lunkin focus on the dynamics of state-church relations in the post-Soviet space, analyzing the influence of religion on public and political life and on the legal aspects of state-church relations.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE CHURCH

In the scientific literature, various approaches to measuring state-church relations are distinguished, where, depending on the criteria, various classifications and corresponding author's methods are proposed, which can be found in most detail in M.O. Shakhov and O.S. Shutova ^[21]. The position of researcher S.A. Mudrov, who considered a number of ways of influencing the church on the state, is very interesting: "1) direct or indirect lobbying, including with the help of various friendly organizations; 2) political mobilization (especially among parishioners) and a more active influence on the formation of public opinion" ^{[15, pp. 45-46]}. In general, when it comes to the interaction of the state and the church, conditionally their relations should be considered in the context of "neutrality", "partnership", "alliance" or "confrontation". With neutrality, both institutions try not to interfere in each other's affairs (partly modern France). In the case of partnership, the state and the church act as equal subjects with their own interests, which can jointly participate in both domestic and foreign policy (USA, etc.). With trusting relationships, there are tendencies to form alliances when both institutions seek to conclude an alliance and support each other in all key areas, since the stability of the political system and public order (the Russian Federation, the Russian Empire) depends on this. With this form of interaction, a tendency subsequently arises towards the "nationalization" of the church and the "churchification" of the state. Representatives of the church take an active part in socio-political processes, and politicians in religious ones, and joint management is being formed. Therefore, secular and religious figures put forward different points of view on the interaction of the state and the church in the socio-political process, and apply the author's criteria to determine the most stable development of state-church relations. A more ambiguous relationship develops in confrontation, when one of the institutions occupies a dominant position and opposes the rise of the other. However, such a situation in the history of mankind is less common, the exception is the history of Russia during the Soviet period, when the state at the legislative level banned the participation of churches and religious organizations in socio-political life and limited them to the framework of religious activities. In response to this, as the Soviet historian M.M. Sheinman noted, the Roman Catholic Church launched an entire campaign: "In February 1930, Pope Pius XI addressed the clergy and believers with a call for a "crusade" against the USSR. This call was the beginning of a broad anti-Soviet campaign in many countries" ^{[22, p. 20]}. The Church, being a social institution, continued to try to actively influence political processes. At the same time, the confrontation itself took place not only with the secular authorities, but also within the church itself. These conflicts can be traced throughout world history. This was the case with the confrontation between the Western and Eastern churches, which led in 1054 to a split into Catholic and Orthodox, and several centuries later, due to the Reformation, into Protestant.

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION

We will demonstrate how, over the centuries-old history, the church has managed to occupy a key niche in socio-political life, having undergone a transformation from a social to a socio-political institution. Turning to the experience of Medieval Europe, one can see how the dogmas of the Catholic Church prevailed everywhere, and the influence of secular ideas in research activities was limited, especially when it came to the status of the church in the state and its autonomy. Therefore, contradictions arose in various historical periods: on the one hand, it was argued that religious organizations do not interfere in politics and their activities are limited to the socio-spiritual sphere, on the other — in conditions of instability, many religious institutions, including the church, became active in political life as influential actors (the Thirty Years' War, the wars between Catholics and Protestants and For example, after Pope Urban II, on behalf of the church, called on secular rulers to launch crusades to the East in the name of saving the Holy Sepulchre, radical Islam intensified ^[6]. The Crusades only intensified the state-church and confessional contradictions. Their importance and support among the flock did not allow the church to remain aloof, since not only state, but also religious interests depended on its position.

Centuries later, similar examples were given by the Italian thinker N. Machiavelli in the work "The Sovereign", who demonstrated how the Catholic Church, in the struggle against secular power, strengthened its influence in Italy. The peak of power falls during the papacy of Alexander VI, after whose death Pope Julius II "found a mighty Church upon his ascension: she owned the Romagna, humbled the Roman barons, whose parties collapsed under the blows of Alexander, and, moreover, opened a new source of replenishment of the treasury, which no one had used before Alexander" ^{[14, p. 334]}. Historical facts are remarkable precisely because, on the one hand, they confirm the role of the church as a social institution, and on the other hand, they show its involvement in political processes. The activities of the church often go beyond the exclusively social and spiritual sphere. Being both a social and a spiritual institution, the church is an active subject of political life. According to researcher V.I. Katin, "the church's non-participation in political activity does not mean its refusal to publicly express its position on socially significant issues, from bringing this position to the attention of the authorities of any country and at any level" ^{[10, p. 24]}.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH

Turning to the historical and political practice of foreign countries, it can be noted that the church not only entered into conflicts with the secular authorities, but also repeatedly helped the latter in governing the state. The Christian Church replaced a number of functions of state power, including during periods of political crises, when the masses turned to it more often in search of answers. A similar situation is typical for Russia during the imperial period. Thus, with the adoption of separate sets of laws on the protection of the Christian faith from all kinds of harassment, as well as normative legal acts regulating the status of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the life of the state, it was allowed to assume many state functions and responsibilities, including in the field of education, family relations, spiritual development, social-political and international issues, etc. ^[2]. For this reason, the Russian diplomat K. Katakazi, in a letter to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, stated: "More than ever, it is desirable that our co-religionists in the east know and remember that Russia is the main champion of Orthodoxy and that our sovereign vigilantly and diligently protects the holy Church" ^{[16, p. 462]}.

For many years, the ROC was given issues related to civil affairs, so church records appeared, which were called metric books (documents in the form of civil status records). The procedure for maintaining metric books was legislated in the Russian state at the Moscow Cathedral in 1666-1667. This privilege has significantly increased the authority of the church among the non-believing population and flock. She was entrusted to conduct business on behalf of the state, which directly affected the position of the clergy, who were in close relations with the royal court and enjoyed its protection. After the events related to the confrontation between Patriarch Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, due to the fact that most of the clergy supported the tsar in this dispute, historian A.V. Kartashev notes: "In gratitude for the peace achieved in the church and the state, he almost completely abolished the validity of the Monastery Order of 1649, returned to the Russian bishops their judicial privileges in almost all breadth and inviolability. The liquidation of the Monastery Order itself was delayed, however, until 1677" ^{[9, p. 231]}.

In European history, there are separate periods when the state, represented by the king, entrusted the church with the function of collecting additional taxes from the population (the church tax (tithe), which was established during the Middle Ages, was subsequently abandoned by many European countries). Currently, only in Germany, at the state level, it is still allowed to levy church tax in favor of a religious organization, whereas in France, since 1905, it has been prohibited. The situation is different in modern Greece. Clergymen have the official status of civil servants, which gives them the right to receive government salaries directly. According to the Union of Orthodox Journalists, "in 2018, in accordance with the new Greek law on salaries of senior civil servants, the basic salary of the archbishop was 2,600 euros, the metropolitan – 2,210 euros, bishops – 1,820 euros. An additional 75 euros is paid for a doctoral degree and 45 euros for masters" ^[11]. The situation was similar in the Russian Empire, when the clergy were fully supported by the state. Even during the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the clergy actively received additional salaries from the imperial court. An interesting historical episode is when Emperor Alexander III reported to the chief prosecutor Pobedonostsev: "It has long been my dream, my deep conviction that it is necessary to come to the rescue and provide for the rural clergy, and now, thank God, I have finally succeeded. My grandfather Nikolai Pavlovich started this business in the forties, and I'm just continuing it" ^{[19, p. 887]}.

In some countries, the Christian Church has the right to an advisory vote at the legislative level, which allows the clergy to lobby church interests through third parties. Their opinions are taken into account at different levels of government, they enjoy special trust in society and are under state protection. As a result, state-church relations are aimed at concluding cooperation agreements, transferring various movable and immovable property, cultural and historical monuments or state objects to the use of the church. In a number of European countries, churches are completely exempt from various taxes, since all funds received by the church fund are charitable in nature, and receive various preferences from the state. Therefore, a number of European politicians openly criticize the church, since it constantly interferes with the political agenda, instead of dealing with spiritual issues. R.N. Lunkin notes: "According to M. Le Pen, the church intervenes in everything that is possible, but not in those areas that it should actually deal with. Le Pen condemned the Pope for his desire to impose care for immigrants and refugees on European countries" ^{[12, p. 106]}.

Despite the difference in religious rituals, certain characteristic similarities remain between the churches that bind them together, such as church singing, Christian holidays, etc. All churches strive to spread those spiritual and moral values that allow them to interact more closely with society - mercy, justice and kindness. At the heart of every religious cult is a belief in the supernatural, namely in higher divine powers, therefore, in general, the church is a place that unites believers based on spiritual signs.

THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN SOCIO-POLITICAL PROCESS

Separately, we can highlight the modern trend in politics, when many politicians do not hide their attitude to religion. They openly declare their religion in public or through the media, especially during various campaigns. By relaying their attitude to faith, they form a religious agenda. Modern media (secular and Christian) play a significant role in shaping public opinion about the church, highlighting its positions on key political and social issues. Based on this, new phenomena are being investigated in the scientific literature - "mediation of religion", "digitalization of religion", "digitalization of religion" or "mediatization of religion" ^{[17, p. 132]}. The trend has spread in the United States, where it is clearly manifested by the example of the statements of the American establishment. The current American President, D. Biden, has repeatedly stressed the importance of religion in his life in his speeches. On the day of his nomination for the post of president of the United States, before visiting the polling station, he went to church liturgy, similar actions were performed by previous presidents. In general, the American establishment is very religious, and many politicians turn to religion to rally American society. Statesmen try to demonstrate piety and their piety so that citizens do not doubt their religiosity. Religious symbols and worship are a guarantee of stability, which is demonstrated to the public at the time of taking the oath of office in important public positions. Where the majority of the population is Christian, individual church officials during sermons and liturgies more often raise issues related to politics, offering their own assessments of the events taking place in the country. We agree with the statement of researcher R.N. Lunkin that the religious factor is of great importance both in various conflicts and "in the struggle of neoliberal anti-traditionalism with identificism… In the context of the politicization of religion in the modern world, religious freedom has become used as a political technology or tool" ^{[13, p. 129]}.

There is a tradition of swearing on the Bible - a symbol of loyalty, openness and honesty of the chosen candidate taking office. Thus, US presidents take an oath not only on the Bible, but also on the Constitution. George Washington is the first president who actually laid the foundations of such a tradition that has survived to the present day. Former and current Presidents of the United States B. Obama, D. Trump, and J. Biden repeatedly used expressions related to higher powers, faith, and religion during official speeches. During official meetings, as well as attending church liturgies, they form the image of religious politicians. Such appeals have become the accepted norm in American practice. Many US presidents, regardless of which party they ran for election from, often in their speeches emphasized the God-chosen American nation, the presence of certain higher forces that protect the American people, and also used the "image of God" and other elements of religion, thereby gaining appropriate political points. The belief in God's election primarily performs the functions of a political ideology that exploits Americans' commitment to religious values for this purpose ^[8].

Such statements by the leaders of the states allow the public to form religious beliefs and values that can influence the political situation in the country. In the United States, the majority of the population is religious, but in recent years, as various surveys show, the percentage of the believing population has begun to decline. In telephone surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults identified themselves as Christians, which is 12 percentage points less than in the last decade. According to another survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021, the percentage of believers among young people in the United States (aged 18 to 29 years) It is 44%. About 36% of young people do not consider themselves to belong to any religion, and 20% belong to other religions. It is important to note that the percentage of believers among young people in the United States is decreasing compared to previous generations, and the proportion of those who do not belong to any religion is increasing ^[24].

A similar trend can be seen in other countries. For example, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel (a representative of the Protestant Church by religion) often mentioned God during New Year and Christmas addresses to the German nation. For example, in 2003, during her speech, she stated: "I stand for a strong Protestant church that supports people with its actions according to conscience and helps them find solutions" (quoted by Timoshenkova) ^{[20, p. 172]}. In the post-Soviet space, such a unique phenomenon as religious parties is being formed, which is not new for Europe, since A. Merkel has been the leader of the CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) party for many years. According to S.P. Dontsev, "in countries where the functioning of religious parties is allowed, their political subjectivity manifests itself mainly within the framework of the Christian democratic movement" ^{[7, p. 150]}.

conclusion

As we can see, Christian churches, being non-governmental organizations, retain a certain degree of influence on socio-political life regardless of the historical period. In the context of modern challenges, Christian churches take a position close to the state authorities. The situation during the COVID-19 pandemic is very significant. The leadership of the churches actively supported the authorities in the fight against the epidemic and severely criticized the "anti-vaccinators". The higher clergy urged to take precautions, this phenomenon has been observed in different countries. Pope Francis took an active position, urging everyone to get vaccinated. In Russia, as N.A. Baranov notes, the position of Patriarch Kirill testified that the ROC rethought its attitude to the pandemic "as a test sent down from above, and there is uncertainty regarding church and state policy in the fight against this evil." ^{[3, p. 16]}. Along with this, politicians who turn to the topic of religion as a system-forming factor for stabilizing social foundations attract additional attention from the believing electorate. Religious parties are being formed, which affects the processes of clericalization, therefore, discussions about the politicization of church organizations will arise in the scientific community for many years to come. Many modern challenges do not bypass religious denominations, whose position remains very relevant and affects public opinion (abortion, artificial intelligence, artificial insemination, bioethics, globalization, migration, secularization, etc.). For this reason, the processes of globalization themselves have not been able to fully have a significant impact on the political consciousness of the majority of Russian citizens from- for historical memory ^{[23, p. 60]}. The political elite, actively interacting with the clergy, tries to build new communication channels and brings the necessary information to the potential electorate.

The Church, being a spiritual organization, retains a huge potential as a socio-political institution. All the presented conclusions make it possible to update further research in the field of transformations of the institutional functions of the church, the adaptation of church organizations to new political and social realities, as well as to identify possible directions for analyzing changes in their status and the "politicization of religion" in various political systems.