Miusov, Ivan and Zosima are discussing and debating the ecclesiastical courts and the relationship between the church and the state. Ivan holds that a compatible relationship between the church and the state are impossible. Issues such as the courts will never be fully resolved. The two options for the church and the state are (1) for the church to become a part of the state and merely occupy a corner of it or (2) for the state to rise to the level of the church and become one with the church. Miusov, at first, argues that Ivan’s ideas are “sheer ultramontanism.” Ivan points to the pagan Roman state that wanted to become Christian, so it included the church within itself. Nevertheless, the Roman state continued its pagan ways. Ivan suggests that the church should not look to become part of the state, but rather that the earthly state must me transformed into the church to solve the problems of the relationships between the church and state, such as criminal punishment. Zosima enters the discussion by pointing out that the punishments of the state are in essence ineffective, and that society is not truly protected by the punishment system. The pagan state has trained criminals to not experience a guilty conscience for wrongdoing, but rather to feel only that they have gone against an oppressive authority. Zosima argues that the law of Christ alone has the power and potential to transform an individual into a new person. Zosima also points out, however, that society is not ready for the state to be transformed into the church, although the state is destined to become the church, a “universal and sovereign church” (p66). Due to the fact that the church’s judgment alone contains the truth is cannot be melded with any other kinds of judgment. A difficulty in Zosima’s argument, however, is that for the time being, he suspends the church’s judgment and places the church in the role of the loving, gentle father. If one looks to the church as a model of God’s judgment, a wrong perception is received. God’s characteristics of love and justice are not reconciled. Zosima’s argument is strong in that it he uses many examples and scenarios to defend his position.
1 comment:
[blog entry]
Blog 01-10-08
Miusov, Ivan and Zosima are discussing and debating the ecclesiastical courts and the relationship between the church and the state. Ivan holds that a compatible relationship between the church and the state are impossible. Issues such as the courts will never be fully resolved. The two options for the church and the state are (1) for the church to become a part of the state and merely occupy a corner of it or (2) for the state to rise to the level of the church and become one with the church. Miusov, at first, argues that Ivan’s ideas are “sheer ultramontanism.” Ivan points to the pagan Roman state that wanted to become Christian, so it included the church within itself. Nevertheless, the Roman state continued its pagan ways. Ivan suggests that the church should not look to become part of the state, but rather that the earthly state must me transformed into the church to solve the problems of the relationships between the church and state, such as criminal punishment. Zosima enters the discussion by pointing out that the punishments of the state are in essence ineffective, and that society is not truly protected by the punishment system. The pagan state has trained criminals to not experience a guilty conscience for wrongdoing, but rather to feel only that they have gone against an oppressive authority. Zosima argues that the law of Christ alone has the power and potential to transform an individual into a new person. Zosima also points out, however, that society is not ready for the state to be transformed into the church, although the state is destined to become the church, a “universal and sovereign church” (p66). Due to the fact that the church’s judgment alone contains the truth is cannot be melded with any other kinds of judgment. A difficulty in Zosima’s argument, however, is that for the time being, he suspends the church’s judgment and places the church in the role of the loving, gentle father. If one looks to the church as a model of God’s judgment, a wrong perception is received. God’s characteristics of love and justice are not reconciled. Zosima’s argument is strong in that it he uses many examples and scenarios to defend his position.
Post a Comment