The Radical Golden-Mouth: Some Notes on the Political and Economic Philosophy of St. John Chrysostom

As I’ve mentioned, one of the projects I’d like to work on at some point is an Orthodox Christian-inspired approach to political philosophy and economy. One aspect of this would naturally be a discussion of Patristic approaches to these issues. Since today is the feast day of St. John Chrysostom, I present some rough notes on his ideas related to some key topics.* I have to admit that, even knowing some of the background, I was surprised in compiling this at how radical his views sound to modern ears.

The Origin of the State

For St. John, and unlike some later Christian writers, especially in the West, the foundation of the state is not in natural law. Like St. Gregory of Nyssa[^1] he thinks that part of what it means for humanity to be made in the image of God is that we are free and capable of self-government, that each of us is equally an image of the heavenly King: “The image of government is what is meant [by being made in God’s image]; and as there is no one in the heaven superior to God, so there is no one on earth superior to humankind.” [^2] It follows from this any political authority that rests on coercive power over others is a deviation from the order of creation, a result of the fall:

For of governments, some are natural, and others artificial: natural, such as the rule of the lion over the quadrupeds or the eagle over the birds; artificial as of an emperor over us; for he does not reign over his fellow servants by any natural authority. [^3]

Likewise, in discussing the authority of man over woman (which he does think in some ways natural) and comparing it to political authority, he says “From the beginning, God made only one sovereignty…but after our race ran headlong into extreme disorder, there appeared also other types of government.” [^4] In his Homilies on Genesis, he pinpoints Nimrod as the originator of this type of authority:

Nimrod too, however, in his turn in imitation of his forebear did not take due advantage of his natural preeminence [in strength and bravery] but hit upon another form of servitude in endeavoring to become ruler and king. You see, there would not ever be a king unless there were people being ruled. But in that case freedom is seen for what it really is, whereas slavery is the most galling obstacle to conditions of freedom, when all the more power is exercised over free people. See what ambition is guilty of. Observe bodily strength not keeping to its limits but constantly lusting after more and clutching for glory. You see, the orders [Nimrod] gave were not those of a leader. Rather, he…[acts] with a view to ruling over the enemy.[^5]

It follows from all this as well, incidentally, that slavery is unnatural. “[S]hould anyone ask, whence is slavery, and why has it entered into human life (and many, I know, want to ask such questions, and be informed concerning them), I will tell you: Slavery is the fruit of greed, of degradation and savagery ... the thing is the result of sin.”[^6]

The Authority of the State

The fact that the state is unnatural does not imply that it therefore has no authority over us. Chrysostom thinks that in a fallen world, the state is necessary to keep society from falling into chaos, and to keep the vicious from taking advantage of others. The state allows us to live together in an imperfect world. Thus, there is a sense in which secular governments are ordained by God, and in which, when we obey them, as he says, we are actually rendering a debt to God.

Nevertheless, he is deliberate in the ways that he describes the functions of the state and/or ruler, as “medicine” and “doctor,” as “educator” and “pedagogue.” And he points out in his homily on Romans 13 that the claim “the powers that be are ordained of God” applies only in general, and not in every particular case. It is God-ordained that (in this fallen world) there should be a hierarchy of governing powers, but it does not follow that every ruler is themself elected by God. He uses the analogy of marriage to make the point: “Thus when a certain wise man says, ‘It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman’ (Proverbs 19:14, LXX.), he means this, [that] God made marriage [as an institution], and not that He joins together every man that comes to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God.”

On Private and Common Property

St. John Chrysostom is widely known for having a lot to say about the right use of wealth. Like the Stoics, he is quick to distinguish between what is necessary for us to be good, merely to act with virtue and avoid vice, and what is indifferent. He puts wealth in this latter category. Neither wealth nor poverty can suffice for either virtue or vice. What matters most is how we use what we have (or lack). Thus, he indicates that God gives the wealthy their money so that they can use it virtuously by helping those in need. Too often, this is taken to be the main theme of his discussion of wealth and property, and has even been taken by some Orthodox writers to partially constitute a robust defense of private property.[^7]

But this is not at all the whole story, and is not the most fundamental thing he has to say about property. In a sense, the things discussed above are analogous to what he says about the government. In a fallen world, a coercive state may be necessary to help humanity to live together peaceably, but that does not mean that it is either natural or ideal. The same is true with property. It may be true that in a fallen world, where some, for various reasons, are wealthy, and others are not, it is most important for the souls of each that they use their lack or abundance well. But that does not mean that such inequality is either a part of God’s good creation or something that we should be indifferent towards remedying if possible.

The first clear mark that Chrysostom does not have in mind anything like the libertarian notion of property rights is that, like the other Cappadocians and many other saints, he insists that the abundance of the rich literally belongs to the poor, and their failure to share it constitutes robbery. “This is robbery: not to share one’s resources. Perhaps what I am saying astonishes you. Yet be not astonished. For I shall offer you the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, which say that not only to rob others’ property, but also not to share your own with others, is robbery and greediness and theft.”[^8] “Therefore …those who have something more than necessity demands and spend it on themselves instead of distributing it to their needy fellow servants, they will be meted out terrible punishments. For what they possess is not personal property; it belongs to their fellow- servants.”[^9]

More fundamentally, he claims in several places that the whole distinction between ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ is artificial, a result of the fall, and something that Christians ought to try to escape. “But what is the meaning of ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’? For, truly, the more accurately I weigh these words, the more they seem to me to be but words. ...And not only in silver and gold, but also in bathing places, gardens, buildings, ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ you will perceive to be but meaningless words. For use is common to all. Those who seem to be owners have only more care of these things than those who are not.”[^10] “For ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ —those chilly words which introduce innumerable wars into the world—should be eliminated from that holy Church….The poor would not envy the rich, because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common.”[^11] He even goes so far as to claim that those who are rich are so only as a result of injustice:

Tell me, then, how did you become rich? From whom did you receive it, and from whom he who transmitted it to you? From his father and his grandfather. But can you, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning did not make one man rich and another poor. Nor did He afterwards take and show to anyone treasures of gold, and deny to the others the right of searching for it: rather He left the earth free to all alike.[^12]

As the above quotations all indicate, the most fundamental things Chrysostom has to say about property are that it is meant to be common, that private property is a result of sin, and that excess wealth, while providing an outlet for virtuous giving is at least almost always a result of injustice and literally belongs to the poor. Common ownership is the ideal which best represents God’s economy. Furthermore, Chrysostom thinks then-present instances of common ownership are still praiseworthy and represent this ideal even when that common ownership is by way of the state. I’ll end with one last extended quotation to this effect:

The possessions of the Emperor, the city, the squares, and the streets, belong to all men, and we all use them in an equal degree. Look at the economy that God has arranged. He has created some things that are for everyone, including the air, sun, water, earth, heaven, sea, light, and stars, and He has divided them equally among all men, as if they were brothers. This, if nothing else, should shame the human race. The Emperor has made other things common to all, including the baths, cities, squares, and streets. There is not the slightest disagreement over this common property but everything is accomplished peacefully. If someone tries to take something and claim it as his own personal possession, then quarrels arise. It is as if the very forces of natures were complaining, and as if at that time when God was gathering them from everywhere they were trying with all their might to separate among themselves, to isolate themselves from each other, and to distinguish their own individual property by coldly saying that ‘this is yours but that is mine’. If this were true, quarrels and bitterness would arise, but where there is nothing of this sort neither quarrels nor disagreements occur. In this way we see that for us as well a common and not an individual ownership of things has been ordained, and that this is according to nature itself. Is not the reason that no one ever goes to court about the ownership of a public square the fact that this square belongs to all?”[^13]

[1] See, e.g., De hom. op. 4.1.

[2] Hom. ad. pop. Ant. 7.3.

[3] ibid.

[4] Hom. in 1 Cor. 34.7.

[5] 29th Homily on Genesis.

[6] Hom. in Eph. 22.9.

[7] https://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2013/10/23/eastern-orthodox-moral-case-property-rights

[8] De Lazaro Concio, 2, 4, PG 48:987-88.

[9] Ibid., col. 988.

[10] De Virginitate, 68, PG48:584-85.

[11] In Dictum Pauli, “Oportet Haereses Esse, ”2, PG 51:255.

[12] In Epistolam I ad Timotheum, 12, 4, PG 62:562-63 (in Schaff, NiceneFathers, pp. 447-48).

[13] Homily XII on 1 Timothy 4:1-3, as quoted in Vol. 7 of Georges Florovsky, Collected Works.

*Unless otherwise noted, citations and translations come from Pagels, E. (1985). The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s Exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus That of John Chrysostom. The Harvard Theological Review, 78(1/2), 67–99, or Avila, C. (1983). Ownership: Early Christian Teaching. Orbis Books, London.