Thus, the Church first of all points out to the state its ideal goal, by which the state alone is alive, even if it is not aware of it – the Kingdom of God, and thus calls the state to speculation, or repentance (metanoia), or active churching. The Church compares the activity of the state with its ideal and makes manifest the sins and errors of the state not in order to hinder its activity, but in order to call it to perfection. But the Church itself does not set any specific goals and tasks for the state. A priest, a monk, a church hierarch, of course, think about state issues, perhaps even invent political theories, and naturally sympathize with certain measures of the state. But all this is not the thought and activity of the Church, but the personal opinions and personal activity of an individual churchman, an empirical person like any of us, even if incomparably more authoritative.

In blessing the state in its essence, in its life and ideal, the Church is in no hurry to bless individual concrete acts of the state and does not stoop to the level of a political factor or means. It anoints the sovereign to power, not to rule as such, but to Orthodox and good rule, kissing the Orthodox intention of the sovereign, by no means justifying the evil that he can commit. The Church blesses the Christ-loving army and prays for it, for only it allows the empirical state to fulfill its purpose, that is, to realize and protect the good of each and every one, for it is also always ready for podvig and sacrifice of its life for others. But by this the Church does not bless or justify either the fact that the state can and does use military force for purposes that are not prescribed for good, or that the army itself can cease to be Christ-loving and commit grave sins. The Church does not bless or justify the sins and murders committed in war: sin for her always remains a sin. But in condemning sin, it does not forget about the good done in sin and, calling for the overcoming of sin, expects this overcoming from human freedom. That is why, when the state declares war, the Church does not directly condemn the war, but prays that God will help the state to realize the truth that caused its sinful striving and which, despite sin, still remains in it. This truth is not necessarily connected with the overcoming of the enemy, but with the overcoming of the only enemy of Christians – evil. What the empirical truth consists in is not always clear, and it is not given empirically even to the Church, at least not to those who are unknown to those who enter it and represent it, except by the special grace of God. Therefore, war can also be an appeal to the Judgment of God, and even in defeat the truth of God can be achieved, to which, not knowing what it is, the state that began the war strove. It is for the realization of this Divine Truth that the Church prays, and not for the empirical overcoming of the enemy. For otherwise it would be necessary to admit that the Church can immediately pray for the victory of both adversaries, if Orthodox peoples are at war with each other, i.e., that her prayer has no meaning at all. When a war begins, the Church also prays for the Christ-loving army, that God would protect them from sins and forgive them the sins they committed, and bless them for the great feat of sacrifice.

Thus, it is clear that to this day one of the great feasts of the Russian Church is the feast of the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos, associated with the memory of the defeat of the Russians by the Greeks. Thus, on the other hand, it is clear that the Church, in the person of St. Alexander Nevsky, honors the defender of Orthodoxy and Russia from heresy and his sacrificial feat, although this feat was connected with the sins inevitable in war. And St. Sergius of Radonezh blessed, and in his person the Church itself blessed, Dmitry Donskoy to assert the independence of Russia. And Patriarch Germogen, as the head of the Russian Church, called on the Russian people to stand up for the Orthodox Faith and their fatherland, although this was connected with the war and with the inevitability of the sins committed in it. The actions of St. Sergius and St. Hermogenes have been recognized by the Church as its own, even if they confuse some, who do not understand that it was not evil, but good, even in evil, that was blessed.

15. In making a strict distinction between the Church and the kingdom of this world, which is yet to become the Church, this distinction should not be reduced to the difference between different groups of people, and moreover by external signs. Every person, every person within himself becomes partly ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical, and partly still remains in this world. The division between the ecclesiastical and the non-ecclesiastical passes within every individual: as the boundary between the good he does and his sin, on the one hand, and between his orientation toward the ecclesiastical and his orientation toward the "worldly," on the other. That is why it is impossible to separate the ecclesiastical from the non-ecclesiastical, the Church from the state or the "world," as one aggregate from another. To a certain extent, everything that exists, every person and the state itself belongs to the Church and enters into it. However, one is more ecclesiastical, the other less ecclesiastical. And it is by this approximate "more or less" that we oppose the "world" to the Church. It should not be otherwise, since the meaning and existence of the world is that it becomes the Church. By saying: "This concrete multiplicity of people is the Church, and that concrete unity of people is the world and, as an organized world, the state," we do not assert that in the first multiplicity of people all and all people are only ecclesiastical and have overcome the worldly and sinful, and in the second, on the contrary, everyone and everyone is only sin and sinners. In such definitions we speak only of the predominance of the ecclesiastical or non-ecclesiastical and also of the main, dominating goals of this or that plurality of unity. The goal of the Church is to transform the whole world into the Kingdom of God, the purpose of the state is to organize this world as it is.

But the Church, striving for its goal, still remains on earth and cannot neglect a certain self-organization, while the state, occupied with the organization of sinful existence, does not reject its ideal, i.e., its ecclesiastical existence, and conforms its activity to it, as far as possible.

From the basic task of the transfiguration of the world and of every person, which is their salvation, follows the entire external organization of the Church, grace-filled with her bishop Jesus Christ, her hierarchy, her local and ecumenical councils, the external forms of life, activity, sacraments, and teaching established by her. Thanks to this, the Church acquires visibility and appears as an external and harmonious organization, embracing all the Orthodox faithful, who, as if each being divided within himself, with the other part enter into the state organization. Therefore, the state and the Church confront each other as two externally defined organizations, guided by different and, however, in essence, not mutually contradictory, but even mutually agreed, goals. But this confrontation does not affect the fullness of the Church's existence, and it is impossible to oppose the state to the Church, as one concrete aggregate of people, to another of the same kind. For every person, and empirically every Orthodox believer, is both a member of the Church and a member of the state, only distinguishing them within himself and in one way or another harmonizing them.

16. From all that has been said, it is clear how unnatural and absurd is the modern idea of the "separation of the Church from the state"Such a "separation" is, firstly, an attempt by the state to deny the validity of its ideals and tasks by the Church and the need for this justification. In this way, the situation is created that the state either replaces the faith of the Church with some imaginary religion, for example, the religion of humanity or communism, or attaches absolute importance to itself, i.e., turns out to be self-adoring, or professes complete relativism, which is unable to justify anything and inspire no one. Secondly, such a "separation" is actually impracticable. For every believer still remains in the Church, and the state itself, insofar as it is not limited to the sphere of purely practical tasks and is guided by some ideals, i.e., insofar as it exists, it remains potentially ecclesiastical. And this is all the more so since if the state thinks that it separates the Church from itself, the Church does not and cannot recognize such a separation. "Separation" can have only one meaning in practice—the meaning of the separation of state and church external organizations. It concerns the rights and position of the church hierarchy, where it is closely related to the activities of the state, the rights and position of the entire church society, since it is both externally organized and is the subject of certain civil or even public rights. It is incorrect to call all this the "separation" of the Church from the state, if only because all this exists to one degree or another always and everywhere, without any general legislative acts and declarations.

Of course, since the spheres of the Church and the state are to a certain extent opposed to each other, this or that delimitation of them is practically not a matter of little importance. And moreover, such a distinction must come from the state, for it needs it, and the one Church does not divide anything. But here it is necessary to distinguish between principles and practice.

In her relationship to the state and the world, the Church sets herself the goal of calling them to free self-perfection in the Kingdom of God. Pointing to this goal, it denounces their sinfulness and sins and in repentance opens the way for them to be corrected. It blesses their good intentions and teaches them the truths of the Christian faith and life. But it does not impose its teachings or its denunciations on those who do not believe in it. And it gives concrete instructions only if it considers them possible and inviolable to freedom, and only to those who freely turn to it, i.e., declare their faith in it. The Church does not and cannot take upon herself either the leadership of the worldly activity of man, or the leadership of the practical and concrete policy of the state, therefore, in essence, there can be no conflicts between the Church and the state. If, for example, the state is indignant at the denunciations of the Church, it will thereby show that it recognized itself as a believer in the Church only in words, because, recognizing its religious and moral authority, in fact it only wanted the Church to support and praise it. And if the state asks the Church for a blessing for a bad or even dubious deed, it must reckon with the fact that the Church may not give it its blessing. Consequently, before turning to the Church with such a request, the state, in order to avoid hypocrisy, must recognize and actually ensure the complete independence of the Church from itself in the sphere of her activity. Then the Church herself will have the opportunity to speak out in those cases in which, under other conditions, she is forced to refrain from any utterance. If, on the other hand, some ecclesiastical institution or some hierarch goes beyond the above-mentioned sphere of the Church, engages, for example, in concrete politics, it is obvious that they speak on their own behalf, and not on behalf of the Church, and the state, with all due respect for the Church and their position in it, will treat them in this way. This will not be a clash between the Church and the state.

Church organization is one of the empirical unions and, as such, from the side, so to speak, of the outer shell of the Church, quite naturally lives according to the laws of a given state, recognizing them and submitting to them. Church organization is an empirical manifestation of the fact that the Church exists as an empirical manifestation of its own, which cannot be confused with the Church itself. A believing state can recognize a church organization as a legal entity, protect its rights established by it, even more than the rights of other organizations. A godless state can persecute the Church in its external organization and even hierarchy. But the essence of the Church is not affected by all this, and under normal conditions there can be no conflicts between the Church and the state on this basis.

The state, if it is a believer and Orthodox, of course, protects the independence of the Church in every possible way, listens to her general teachings, always listens to her voice, but does not demand from her specific and detailed instructions, does not "extort" miracles and actions of God's grace. Acting in its own sphere, the state itself and freely strives to work out its own state ideology on the basis of the ecclesiastical worldview, to set and solve its purely empirical tasks. It is not subordinate to the Church as an ecclesiastical organization, for, like the Church, it knows what the task of the Church is and what its tasks are, the state's. And the deeper the awareness of this, the more intimate the relationship between the Church and the state, the fewer reasons for misunderstandings. Ideally, there is a concerted action of the Church and the state, their "symphony," to use the term of the Byzantine canonists.

17. It goes without saying that the symphony of Church and State is an ideal state, to which one must always strive, but to which one can only approach more or less. True, one should not treat the symphony with excessive distrust and consider it only an idyllic dream. There were moments of great approximation to it in Russian History, for example, in the era of the gathering of the Russian land by the Grand Dukes of Moscow. And even under Alexei Mikhailovich, even after Nikon's attempts to invade the sphere of the state, the Russian people were not inclined to recognize the subordination of the Church to the state as correct. It was not for nothing that Peter the Great himself did not immediately decide to abolish the patriarchate. However, it is practically expedient, especially under the present conditions, not to leave everything to the natural course of events, but to think about some formal consolidation of the relationship between the Church and the state.

First of all, it cannot be the result of some kind of agreement between the Church and the state, a "concordat," or even a bilateral act. The Church cannot interfere in this matter, for this is a matter of the state, and the Church cannot divide or defend its "rights."

The Orthodox State must, by its unilateral act, recognize the independence of the Church from the state and its duty to guarantee this independence, to make it real and to protect it in every possible way. This means, first, that the independence or freedom of the Church is recognized in her religious, theological, teaching, moral, educational, missionary, and cult activities.