The State and Christianity in the Political Philosophy of Nikolai Berdyaev

The problem of the relationship between the state and Christianity has existed since their emergence and the emergence of the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of Caesar.” In his time, Augustine Aurelius (356-430), Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) and many other representatives of the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations addressed this issue.

A significant contribution to the understanding of this problem was made by representatives of Russian philosophy, namely, Ivan V. Kireyevsky (1806-1856), Vladimir S. Solovyov (1853-1900), Fyodor A. Stepun (1884-1965), Pavel A. Florensky (1882-1937), Semyon L. Frank (1877-1950) and others. The works of Russian philosophers reflected such problems as the unification of churches, criticism of Western democracy and state structure, and the role of Orthodoxy in the development of Russian statehood. Russian philosophy also discussed the problems of building the Kingdom of God, Christianization of state and public life, the question of separation of Church and state, and many other issues.

The approaches of Russian philosophers to understanding the relationship between the state and the Church, and their attitudes, ideas, and views allow us to understand more deeply the relationship between the state and Christianity, to see the role of Christianity in the life of the state and society, and the importance of the institutions of the Church in the formation of domestic and foreign policy at various stages of state development.

Currently, in Russia, there is a surge of interest in the work of the famous Russian philosopher Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948), who made a huge contribution to the study of the relationship between the state and Christianity, and who also developed his own approaches for the comprehension of this relationship. As well, Vladimir G. Belous, Vyacheslav N. Zhukov, K.V. Lapitsky, A.E. Moskalev, A.K. Skovikov, E.S. Roslyakov, A.V. Shumilov, N.I. Yurchenko, and others, have considered such problems as the methodology of philosophical-political study of the life of the state, the problem of limiting the power of the state, criticism of capitalist society from the standpoint of Christianity, the problem of human rights in Christianity, criticism of fascism and communism, Christian evaluation of the Russian Revolution, the nature of the interaction between Church and state at different stages of the development of European statehood, the influence of the Reformation on the development of statehood, science and culture of European states, as well as other aspects.

At the same time, the problems of conceptualization of Christianity, its periodization, created by Nikolai Berdyaev on the basis of the development of European statehood and socio-political order, the mutual influence of the state on the Church and the Church on the state, are still relevant and require further reflection.

In the conditions of the modern restoration of Christianity in Russia there is an actualization of Berdyaev’s views on the Christian (Orthodox) interpretation of the origin, development and functioning of the state, the necessity of its existence for human society, the presence in it of violence and coercion, austerity and asceticism.

The development of civil society institutions in modern Russia actualizes Berdyaev’s vision of Christianity as a force limiting the influence of the state on the spiritual life of the individual.

The merit of Berdyaev in comprehending the problem of the relationship between Church and state is the development of guidelines for the functioning of the Russian Orthodox Church in the conditions of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ideas proposed by the philosopher may have been used by the Church leadership and have not lost their relevance and importance in modern conditions.

Taking into account the above, the author considers it appropriate to consider in this article the most important problems of interaction between the state and Christianity in the philosophy of politics of Berdyaev.

Methodology of Nikolai. Berdyaev in the Study of the Relationship between the State and Christianity

In the study of political processes and phenomena, Berdyaev uses both Christian and rationalist methodology. He wrote: “To religiously experience any event means to experience its inner meaning, to understand it from within, from the depths of spiritual experience, to experience it as its destiny, as sent down by the Providence of God. If it is necessary to experience the events of personal life in this way, then it is all the more necessary to experience the events of historical life in this way” [4, p. 32].

However, studying the methodological foundations of Berdyaev’s philosophy of politics, Professor V.N. Zhukov writes: “At the heart of Berdyaev’s religious philosophy is a pronounced eschatology (the doctrine of the ultimate fate of the world and man, the expectation of near catastrophes), which makes him revolutionary in relation to all things earthly and transitory… But on the other hand, both in Russia and in emigration, Berdyaev, considering the issues of practical politics, mainly stood on conservative-liberal positions, recognizing the value of social order, power and law” [9, p. 47].

In our opinion, it is advisable to add that, studying the issues of real politics, Berdyaev not only stood on conservative-liberal positions and recognized the value of order, power and law, but also widely used rationalist and Marxist methodology.

In Berdyaev’s philosophy of politics, the emergence, development and functioning of the state is closely connected with religion. The philosopher believed that already in the pre-Christian era pagan beliefs contributed to the strengthening of statehood. The state emerged in the ancient world as absolute violence, seeking to limit the animal chaos of the people of primitive society, as well as to establish law, order and stability. State violence covered all spheres of society, including spiritual, and the existing pagan religion sanctified state power and gave it divine honors. Berdyaev emphasized: “The absolute state, both Russian and any, is a pagan idea and has a pagan, pre-Christian origin; the horrors of unrestricted, despotic power—this is the legacy of primitive savagery and chaos” [1, pp. 8-2-2].

The philosopher believed that the liberation of ancient man from aggressive instincts could be realized only with the help of despotic state power. He wrote: “Through the despotisms of the East, man slowly and difficultly emerged from the natural-chaotic, elemental-animal state. The state was not a limited and delineated sphere for the people of the ancient world, it was everything for them” [3, p. 89].

In the process of evolution of the spiritual life of society, in a number of states, Christianity emerged, which significantly displaced pagan religions in the minds of people, and created certain conditions for the spiritual development of man, his self-identification and aspiration to freedom.

The development of Christianity, its internal structuring, institutionalization and increase in the number of adherents of this faith led to the fact that Christian believers gained relative spiritual freedom, and began to worship Jesus Christ, rejecting the pagan deification of the rulers of Rome. Christianity created a shell within which the relationship of man with God took place; the spiritual depth of man began to belong to the Church, not to the state, whose function was to regulate relations between people. Berdyaev emphasized: “Christianity made the greatest spiritual revolution, it spiritually freed man from the unlimited power of society and the state, which in the ancient world extended to the religious life. It opened in man a spiritual beginning, which does not depend on the world, on nature and society, but it depends on God” [7, p. 25].

The emergent relative spiritual autonomy of man, based on faith in God, was the first step to some independence of Christianity from the state. Christianity became a separate sphere, the “Kingdom of God,” and the state – the “Kingdom of Caesar.” The resulting “Kingdom of Caesar” and “Kingdom of God” differed in their essence and entered into a definite relationship for many years. Berdyaev wrote: “The question of the relationship between the Church) and the state is an age-old question of Christian consciousness and at the same time a crucial question” [5. P. 280].

This problem has not lost its significance in our day. Thus, Archpriest V. Tsypin writes: “The Church and the state have different origin and nature. The Church is founded directly by God Himself—the Lord Jesus Christ. The divinely established state power is mediated by the historical process. The goal of the Church is the eternal salvation of people. The goal of the state is their earthly well-being” [19. pp. 817-818].

Berdyaev distinguished several periods in the history of Christianity—the first Christianity, Christianity of the times of Constantine the Great (272 – 337), Christianity of the times of the Ecumenical Councils, medieval Christianity and Christianity of the New Age. Later, he singled out Christianity in socialist Russia and the USSR. The proposed periodization is associated with the most important stages of development of advanced European states, their political system and, accordingly, with the dominant political ideas of this or that period.

Berdyaev believed that Christianity, from the moment of its emergence, confirmed the inviolability of the state. never denied it, saw it as a force capable of resisting chaos, to prevent the disintegration of society and subordinate it to state laws. Christians must recognize and experience the harshness of the state, accept its violence and coercion, its demand that believers fulfill their duty, and much more.

Confirming the ideas of Berdyaev about Christian views on the state, V.N. Zhukov writes: “By the will of God, acting as an organizer of human chaos, the state forcibly maintains a minimum of freedom, goodness and justice. But it does it not out of love for the good and freedom, but because of the need to establish order” [9, p. 48].

Christianity as a State Religion

With coming to power in Rome of Constantine the Great, there was an elevation of Christianity in Roman society. The imperial power became Christian, and Christianity became the state religion and relied on the support of the state, sanctifying in turn the state power and performing other tasks to strengthen the statehood. However, the assistance of the state to Christianity had negative consequences for the church. Berdyaev noted: “The kingdom of Caesar provides assistance to the Church under the condition that its seal was placed on the Church. The state is sanctified by the Church; it ceases to be the kingdom of the beast in essence. But the Church is distorted by the state, for state ecclesiasticism is generated” [5, p. 285]. That is, Christianity positively influences the state, makes it more humane, limits it to some extent, but at the same time, it largely loses its purpose and fulfills the will of the state.

Having elevated the Christian Church, Constantine the Great, receiving in the process political force which began to support the Roman state, which itself had acquired violent ideas of statehood, began to use this political force in the interests of the state and to create new state formations, on a religious basis.

The Catholic Church and its Influence on Western European Statehood in the Middle Ages

To understand the relationship between the state and the Christian Church in the Middle Ages, Berdyaev develops the ideas of V.S. Soloviev concerning the relationship between Christianity and the state. In his work The Spiritual Foundations of Life, V.S. Soloviev wrote: “In the Christian West, the Church sought to be embodied in state forms, and in the Christian East, on the contrary, the state power concentrated in its hands not only secular, but quite often and the highest church administration” [15, p. 408]. To characterize these processes Berdyaev uses the concepts of “papotsarism” and “caesarepapism.”

Papotsarism was (is) the idea and practice of political power of the Catholic Church, going beyond religious competence, which is carried out both within a separate state and in relations between Catholic states [10, p. 112]. Thus, on the territory of Italy and Germany there were Catholic states, which had their own judicial, political and financial bodies, as well as diplomatic service. State affairs were considered by the popes as one of the most important activities of the Church.

Later, the Catholic Church strengthened its own political power, solved state issues and acquired property, financed maritime expeditions, determined moral and legal aspects of warfare. About this time, N.I. Yurchenko: “In the eleventh to the twelfth centuries, the Church turned into a strong political organization and quite realistically claimed to lead the entire Christian world. And the power of the Roman Pope was extraterritorial: the whole of Europe in the thirteenth century became essentially a theocratic monarchy” [20, p. 2].

With the attainment of the status of the state religion, the Catholic Church in the interests of faith, widely used violence, involving for this purpose the institutions of state power. Berdyaev wrote: “But soon, very soon after the state power recognized Christianity and became Christian, the teachers of the Church begin to deny freedom of conscience and defend coercion in matters of faith. Saint Augustine was the first in principle to allow violence against heretics, and even the execution of heretics, seduced by the struggle against the Donatists” [5, p. 286].

Berdyaev gave the following assessment of the activities of the Catholic Church at this stage of its history: “Catholicism developed a false religious doctrine about man and humanity; papism wanted to organize humanity on earth” [2. p. 282].

With the beginning of the Reformation in a number of European countries, the Constantinian period in the history of the state and Christianity began to be replaced by new relations, primarily the secularization of the Catholic Church in the life of Western European society and the state. In the West, Christian theocratic states gradually disappeared, new national states emerged, and the idea of papocaesarism lost its appeal and significance. At the same time, the Catholic Church managed to dogmatize certain aspects of papotsarism and introduce them into the practice of governance of Western European countries.

Berdyaev wrote: “The position of the Church in the historical environment is changing; a new world is ahead of her, and the old solutions to the question of the relationship between Church and state may not be applicable to it” [5, p. 280].

State and Church in the Christian East in the Middle Ages

In the Christian East caesaropapism flourished, as the idea and practice of an absolute state and deification of the emperor, exercising not only secular, but also spiritual (Church) power. Originating in Byzantium, Caesarepapism found fertile ground in the Russian state. In Orthodoxy, the power of Caesar (monarch) was given divine origin, the state and power were also deified, and Caesar was the deputy of God on earth [10, p. 112]. Orthodoxy sanctified autocracy, recognized the tsar as the head of the Church and said prayers for the monarchy. Thus, a famous supporter of the idea of Orthodox monarchical power L.A. Tikhomirov (1852-1923) considered the religious beginning, which permeated the worldview of the people, the most important condition for the existence of monarchical power. He wrote: “Sole power was often promoted in the meaning of the supreme ruler, dictator, leader, for very diverse reasons—for legislative or judicial wisdom, for energy and talents, to maintain internal order, for military abilities; but all these rulers could receive the meaning of supreme power only if the fact of their elevation was accompanied by a religious idea, which indicated to the people that this person was the representative of the supreme superhuman beginning” [17. pp. 85-86].

Berdyaev, like Tikhomirov, also distinguished between autocratic and absolute monarchy. He wrote: “The power of the tsar is not absolute, unlimited power at all. It is autocratic because it does not have as its source the will of the people and is not limited by the people. But it is limited by the Church and Christian truth, spiritually subordinated to the Church; it is a service not to its own will, but to the will of God. The king must not have his own will; he must serve the will of God. The king and the people are bound together by the same faith, the same submission to the Church and God’s truth” [4, p. 44].

According to the views of Tikhomirov and Berdyaev, autocratic power is religious, based on the beliefs of the people, which sanction the power of the tsar and who themselves must belong to the Orthodox faith and fulfill the will of God. In addition, autocracy should have a broad popular social basis, should not suppress the life of the people, should not act as a soulless violence against its subjects. Although Berdyaev himself considered such a monarchy a utopia: “It is clear that the religious, Orthodox idea of autocracy, the sacred monarchy, is the purest utopia of the perfect, ideal state and social order; the same utopia as the papal theocracy, as the perfect, ideal socialist system… But in fact autocracy always turned into absolutism and was absolutism. Both Byzantium and Russia, the two great Orthodox monarchies, were not types of religious autocracy” [4, p. 45].

Berdyaev believed that the Orthodox Church strengthened the autocratic state, promoted its development, gave the autocracy the status of dogma, introduced anointing as a strengthening of state power and giving the ruler confidence in the unconditional obedience of the people. Along with critical assessments of these processes, it is necessary to emphasize the positive role of Orthodoxy in the formation and development of domestic statehood. Thus, speaking at a meeting with historians and representatives of traditional religions of Russia on November 4, 2022, the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin emphasized: “The role of Orthodoxy in the formation and development of the Russian statehood is positive… As for the history of the Church, the spiritual history of our people, this is an extremely important component in Russian statehood, because we know where Russian statehood began—Old Ladoga, and Novgorod, and then Kiev—and the unified centralized state of the country began to form on the basis of the power of the prince, a single economy, market, language and faith” [11].

The most vivid manifestation of caesaropapism in Russia was the synodal period. In 1701 Peter I abolished patriarchy and canceled the local councils. In 1721 the Holy Governing Synod was established, which became the highest state body of church-administrative power in the Russian Empire and in fact existed until 1917. This time in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church became known as the synodal period and the establishment of strict state management of all aspects of Church life, which did not allow Orthodoxy to have a positive influence on the processes of state development. Absolute monarchy was built on rational principles: the tsar had absolute, unlimited power of governance; the tsar was not a servant of the Church, which itself was entirely subordinate to state power.

F.M. Aksakov, Dostoevsky and A.S. Khomyakov in their works speak about the abnormal relations of Church and state in Russia. The famous Russian philosopher Vladimir S. Solovyov wrote: “Y.F. Samarin and especially I.S. Aksakov pointed in the sharpest way to the abnormal conditions of our Church life… Aksakov argued that religious freedom is the basic life of the Orthodox Church, without which it loses its true character, turns into an ‘office of the Orthodox confession,’ in one of the branches of state administration” [16, p. 257].

Solovyov believed it was necessary to realize the entry of Christianity in the life of Russian society, in the activities of the state, to positively influence social relations. Criticizing the inactivity of the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, he wrote: “In these two centuries in Russia many social successes were made: serf slavery was gradually relaxed and, finally, completely abolished, criminal laws were relaxed, torture was destroyed, the death penalty was almost eliminated, and some freedom of confession was allowed. All these improvements, no doubt, were undertaken in a Christian spirit, and meanwhile, representing the Christian beginning in society, the spiritual authority did not take any part in all of this” [14, p. 238].

The Problem of Separation of Church and State

According to Berdyaev, the separation of church and state was of great importance, both for the state and for the Church itself. As a result of separation, an atheistic, anti-Christian statehood would be formed, and the vices and shortcomings in the system of state structure would be revealed. The state, separated from the Church, would no longer pretend to be Christian and would not be able to cover itself under religious authority.

Throughout the history of its existence, the state, including the imperialist state, has always been pagan and has not conformed to Christian values and precepts. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the authorities artificially supported the institutional unity of the state and the Church in order to preserve and strengthen the existing state structure, and speculated on the faith of the Russian people in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, as well as in the power and truth of Christ.

In addition, Berdyaev believed that the separation of the church from the state would allow for not only the shortcomings in the functioning of the state to become obvious, but also would identify the vices in the life of the Church itself: “Static Orthodoxy, taken in its limitation, is unable to make this judgment on power, cannot separate itself from the state, too fused with the human kingdom to lead the world to the Kingdom of God” [2, pp. 288-2-2].

Berdyaev saw negative processes in the development of society and the state, due to the unity of Church and state. Thus, as a result of incompetent state policy, faith in real religious values was lost, the people were forcibly preached the lies of the official state religion, which became an instrument of the state.

The separation of Church and state is also conditioned, according to Berdyaev, by the evolution of the relationship between Christianity and the state: “The distinction and delimitation of the two kingdoms remains eternal; but the relationship between the two kingdoms in the history of Christianity does not remain unchanged; it changes in different ages of Christianity. Christianity knows no fixed formula that will forever define the Christian dispensation of the kingdom of Caesar. One thing alone remains immutable: Christianity does not mechanically and revolutionarily deny the kingdom of Caesar; it recognizes it as a special sphere of existence, different from the kingdom of God, but necessary for the purposes of the kingdom of God” [4, p. 31]. The Christian Church has its spiritual basis, but carries out its activities in different historical and political conditions, in relationship with the Kingdom of Caesar, which is not only a monarchy, but other state structures, including a democratic or socialist republic.
The philosopher tried to analyze the process of secularization of the state, from the Christian perspective. Losing its religious foundations, the state splits, experiences great upheavals; but God, according to Berdyaev, created the state to fulfill His purposes, so Christians have only to experience the constantly arising intra-state contradictions.

Berdyaev calls the doctrines about the creation of a perfect divine state, the doctrines about the extinction of the state, and a complete state-free state on Earth utopias. The state is the difficult and sacrificial path of humanity; it cannot be based on love alone; and unlike the Kingdom of God, it is inherent in violence and evil.

Contradictions between the State and the Church in Russia

Berdyaev paid considerable attention to the problem of resolving conflict situations arising between Church and state. He believed that the forms of state are themselves religiously neutral, but quite easily can turn into an anti-religious force, to become a deified self-sufficient principle. In confirmation of these thoughts of Berdyaev, authors V.G. Belous and K.V. Lapitsky write: “In some periods of domestic history, the relationship between Church and state acquired the character of a direct political conflict. It is not surprising that intra-Church disputes contained a deep political background. The reflection of such situations in the public consciousness is traditionally referred to as “Church issue” [8, p. 104].

In our opinion, anti-religious activities of the state can arise because of political strife or during revolutions, when the new state power carries out persecution of the Church, which sanctified the activities of the old power, and calls for the destruction of new political institutions. This can manifest itself in atheism and persecution of the Church, as was the case during the October Revolution and in subsequent periods of Soviet history.

Based on the analysis of the relationship between Christianity and the state, Berdyaev came to deep fundamental conclusions. In his opinion, the unity of society in faith largely determines the stability, integrity and functioning of the state, gives it the character of holiness and firmness. This holiness and firmness exist as long as the peoples believe in it. The philosopher wrote: “The constitution of the state and society is entirely determined by the religious beliefs of the people. Forms of state power fall when the beliefs of the people fall, when there is no longer a sanction of power in the religious consciousness of the people” [4, p. 38].

The state can function stably, have internal unity and purpose only on the basis of spiritual religious unity. If it is absent, the state turns into a dictatorship and decomposes. State violence without spiritual religious unity is unable to ensure the existence of state power. In confirmation of the thoughts of Berdyaev, modern authors A.V. Shumilov, A.E. Moskalev and A.K. Skovikov write: “If the relationship between the clergy and the political elite were formed in a cordial partnership, there was a unity in the positions between the leadership of the country and the leadership of the church, which certainly had a positive impact on the political system of the state” [18. pp. 17, 173].

In 1917, there were serious changes in the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Holy Governing Synod, established in Russia in 1721, was abolished in August 1917. In its place, the Holy Synod was established and patriarchy was restored.

Patriarch-elect Tikhon criticized the Soviet authorities for the massacres of clergymen, opposed the new laws on civil marriage and its dissolution, anathematized the Bolshevik persecution of the Church, condemned the actions to incite fratricide and the murder of Nicholas II, accused the authorities of deceiving the people, showed the complete untenability of the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Lenin’s decree “On Separation of Church from State and School from Church” was evaluated as a document that allowed persecution of religion and the Church.

In emigration after the Russian Civil War, structures of the Russian Orthodox Church were also established, including the 1921 Council of Karlovac, which established the Higher Church Administration (VCU) abroad, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), to whom the Council gave the title of Deputy Patriarch. The VCU consisted of the Synod of Bishops and the Supreme Church Council. The documents adopted at the Council of Karlovac and the appeal to the Genoa Conference (10.04.-19.05.1922) called for the revival of the monarchy and the destruction of Soviet power in Russia.

The activities of the leadership of the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia and the Supreme Church Administration abroad led to the aggravation of relations between the Soviet state and the Church, and there was a threat to the existence of Orthodoxy in Russia.

In these circumstances, Patriarch Tikhon made a penitential address to the Soviet authorities and called on the faithful to be loyal to them. With the death of Tikhon, patriarchy was once again, in effect, abolished.

In order to save the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Sergius, the de facto head of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time, appealed to the Russian Church Abroad and urged it to support Soviet power. Metropolitan Sergius’ appeal made a lot of noise in the emigrant environment and led to the aggravation of the situation.

Berdyaev in his article “The Howl of the Russian Church” of September 3, 1927 supported the Metropolitan’s appeal and justified the timeliness and necessity of this document for the settlement of intra-church relations and church-state relations in the Soviet Union. As E.S. Roslyakov writes: “The main theme of A.N. Berdyaev’s works devoted to ecclesiastical problems in exile is the future of the Church in the new historical conditions… The main problem that the philosopher posed in his works is the problem of church-state relations” [13, p. 91]. Berdyaev, in fact, substantiated the strategy (way) of life, activity of the Russian Orthodox Church both, in the Soviet Union and abroad. He argued that the structures of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad cannot be considered as ecclesiastical emigration—it is an offshoot of the Mother Church in Russia.

The Church must endure the agony and free itself from the perennial reign of Cæsar, break relations with autocracy, and exist in any natural and historical environment. In its activity, the Church must strive to Christianize society, the state, and culture—but, at the same time, it cannot recognize them as Christian. For the activity of the Russian Orthodox Church, all types of states that have existed in history are no more Christian than the workers’ and peasants’ state. The Church must be loyal to the state power, must not engage in political struggle, must not have any political ideal, and must not be affiliated with any political party.

Citizens who profess Christianity may belong to various political parties and organizations, but they must coordinate their political activity with the requirements of Christian conscience. Berdyaev wrote: “Loyalty to the Soviet power on the part of the Orthodox Church means only that the Church does not participate in the political struggle against it and cannot bless any form of struggle, except for the spiritual; that the Church accepts the fact of the formation of a new natural-historical environment and can only strive to Christianize this environment from within, spiritually fighting against godlessness and defilement in the name of Christ’s Truth” [6, p. 2]. With such an approach, the Russian Orthodox Church contributed to the vitality of Soviet society, contributed to the defeat of the Nazi invaders, and preserved the spiritual Orthodox culture. In 1943, patriarchy and other structures of the church were restored.

In modern Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church has come to play a significant role in the life of the state and society, bringing Christian values to them, without interfering in the internal political struggle between political parties and other structures. “The state will continue to actively develop creative partnership with the Church in all significant areas, first of all—in the education of the young generation, in the preservation of cultural heritage, in solving pressing public problems” [12], Putin said.

Considering the above, we can draw the following conclusions. In his work, Nikolai Berdyaev showed the role of Christianity in the development and functioning of the state at all stages of its historical development, Christianly justified the need for the state as a political institution, capable of ensuring legality, stability and security in society. In his philosophy, Berdyaev gave a periodization of Christianity in the relationship with the development of European statehood, culture and economy. The essence of such forms of interaction as papocaesarism and caesaropapism, the problem of separation of Church and state and others are revealed. Of particular importance in the work of Berdyaev was the comprehension of the life activity of the Russian Orthodox Church in the conditions of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, in fact, became the theoretical and methodological basis for the formation of relations in the new political conditions.

Source