Spinoza in His Time: The 17th-Century Religious Context

In one of the last paragraphs of his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), Spinoza extolls the harmony between people of a diversity of faiths, maintained by the magistracy of Amsterdam. However, he also seems apprehensive about the possibility of the return of chaos, such as during the Arminian Controversies in the Dutch Republic in the 1610s and the English Civil War in the 1640s and 1650s. The so-called Wolzogen affair in 1668 probably rattled him. Spinoza’s fears would, however, prove groundless. Theological controversy in the public church was often fierce and bitter, but did not threaten the integrity of the State after 1619. Political and ecclesiastical authorities supported discussions and debate in which a new theological consensus could be hammered out. From the examples of Petrus de Witte’s Wederlegginge der Sociniaensche Dwaelingen and Romeyn de Hooghe’s Hieroglyphica, I will argue that such freedom was not limited to the universities, under the aegis of academic freedom, but that Spinoza’s call for free research and open debate was in fact everyday reality.

Demo(n)s dan Kratos: Kritik Terhadap Praktik Demokrasi dari Kacamata Kekristenan

Democracy is often glorified as the modern language of an open government, making room for differences, and advocating justice. Primarily when power lays in the hands of the people and not only in several people. This idea was parallel to Christian values. However, behind this noble idea, democracy contains a problem, namely, when it only perpetuates the power of a few people. On behalf of the people, the ruler’s agenda continues to be maintained because democracy opens up opportunities for abuse of power. Demos and kratos easily slip into demons and kratos. This article aims to criticize the practice of contemporary democracy and, at the same time, seeking gaps for the Church’s contribution to maintaining democracy as a tool for flourishing humanity. To achieve that, I suggested three concepts: the Church as a public church, the Church as a counter-culture, and the Church as a liberating community. Through it, the Church can and is encouraged to be active in maintaining democratic values.AbstrakTidak jarang demokrasi diagungkan sebagai bahasa modern dari pemerintahan yang terbuka, memberi ruang bagi perbedaan, dan menjunjung keadilan. Terutama ketika kekuasaan tidak dipegang oleh sebagian orang saja, melainkan di tangan rakyat. Sebuah ide yang sejajar dengan nilai-nilai kekristenan. Namun demikian, di balik gagasan adiluhung tersebut, demokrasi ternyata mengandung permasalahan pelik, yaitu ketika ia justru melanggengkan kekuasaan segelintir orang saja. Atas nama rakyat, agenda kekuasaan terus terpelihara karena demokrasi justru membuka peluang bagi penyalahgunaan kekuasaan. Demos dan kratos berubah menjadi demons dan kratos, terutama ketika kekuasaan yang dipegang segelintir orang cenderung menjadi kekuasaan yang zalim. Artikel ini mencoba mengkritisi praktik demokrasi tersebut dan juga melihat celah sumbangsih gereja dan kekristenan dalam menjaga demokrasi tetap sebagai reka kehidupan bersama dari, untuk, dan oleh rakyat. Tiga konsep yang ditawarkan adalah gereja sebagai gereja publik, gereja sebagai tenaga penyeimbang, dan gereja sebagai komunitas pembebas menjadi penting karena melaluinya, gereja bisa dan didorong untuk ikut aktif dalam menjaga nilai-nilai demokrasi.

THE REGULATION OF ISSUES OF PERFORMING BAPTISM AND OCCASIONAL CHURCH RITUALS IN THE CONTEXT OF RUSSIA-ARMENIA INTERFAITH RELATIONS (1828–1905)

The article attempts to analyze the regulation of situations in which, for the commission of the sacrament of baptism and other church demands, persons of Orthodox confession were forced to turn to the priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and persons of the Armenian confession to the Orthodox priests. However, it was not a question of a change in religion. It was established that such situations occurred due to forced circumstances and often entailed negative consequences of state-legal, church-canonical and domestic nature. For example, the fact that an Armenian priest baptized a child born to Orthodox spouses was regarded as "seduction from Orthodoxy", even if it was caused by a dangerous disease of a newborn. The baptism of an Armenian child in the Orthodox rank led to intra-family religious strife: the child was now considered a member of the Orthodox Church, while his parents continued to belong to the Armenian Church. It is concluded that, firstly, the entry of Eastern Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Church into Russia played a significant role in the emergence of church-practical situations and the need for their regulation by Russian law and the governing bodies of both Churches. Secondly, the decree of the Echmiadzin Synod of 1854 granted the Armenian priests the right to perform all church sacraments in respect of children baptized in their infancy in the Orthodox rite, provided that the parents, being of Armenian religion, did not give a written obligation to raise their children in the Orthodox religion. Thirdly, the patronizing policy of the empire regarding Orthodoxy and the dominant position of the Russian Church led to a complication of relations between the Orthodox clergy and the clergy of the Armenian Church. In cases where representatives of both Churches had equal initial rights to perform public church actions (for example, the rite of blessing of water on the feast of the Epiphany within the same city), primacy, and in some cases (as, for example, in 1858 in Astrakhan) exclusive right granted to the Russian Church.