FORMATION OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS. Dr. Sergey Lukin.

Dr. Sergey Lukin

Introduction

The Orthodox socio-economic teaching, in general, and the concept of social responsibility of business, in particular, are developed to a considerably lesser degree in comparison to the catholic social doctrine. This applies to general church documents, as well as to works by particular individuals.

Western Christians inherited the major part of anything but simple Roman institutional legacy. More advanced capitalistic foundations, usury, lease system, and, later, the development of innovative Italian banking forced western Christians to turn to economic topics more frequently.

The secession of heterodox Christians, referred to as the Protestants, who laid the foundation for the development of the present-day economic theory, and the emergence of the economism in secularizing western society posed serious challenges to Christian traditions. Supporters of the economism, resting upon materialistic concepts, considered economic aspect of society dominating and governing. Published in 1891, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum, establishing contemporary catholic socio-economic teaching, was a response to these challenges.

The most fatal kind of economism - Marxism - took roots in the Christian East, Russia in the second half of XIX century. Its vehemently increasing influence required immediate response of the Church. Therefore, a number of Committees were organized in 1917-1918, before and during The Local Council of Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). The objective of the Committees was to develop official socio-economic doctrines of ROC. Bolsheviks, who at first paralyzed the Committees’ activities and then launched the most vicious persecutions campaign, hindered efforts of the Church and impeded its development of social and economic resolutions. The materials are still waiting for the researchers in archives. The works of Orthodox writers, based on the research of the socio-economic concepts outlined by the Holy Fathers of the first century appeared in the second half of XIX – beginning of XX century. The most significant research of the above mentioned legacy was carried out by Professor Vasily Exemplyarsky of the Kiev Theological Academy. Also, a wide range of works by Father Sergey Bulgakov, Vladimir Ern, and by other writers appeared in this period of time and addressed various issues of economic philosophy.

During the next seventy years church institutions of Russia were on the verge of survival. Fortunately, there were theological writers of The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia who, nonetheless, addressed socio-economic concepts. Archbishop of San-Francisco John (Ioann) (Shakhovskoy) stands out as an exceptional author.

Following the revival of church activities in 1980s, Orthodox philosophy returned to these problems. In 2000, The Foundations of Social Doctrine of ROC was passed at The Archbishop Council of ROC. The two sections of the Foundations – Work and Its Fruits and Property – in their entirety addressed economic questions. Another document, specifying this doctrine - The Code of Ethical Principles and Economic Rules - was passed at The Fourth Global Russian Peoples Council, despite the fact that it is not considered an official church document, although it was drafted by Orthodox writers and approved by Apostle of ROC. A wide range of publications by various authors, addressing concepts of Orthodox Christian economy, including social responsibility of business, appeared in recent 20 years. Among them there are writings of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Archmandrite Ieronim (Testin), Konstantin Kostyuk, Tatyana Koval, Michail Rumyantsev, N.Somin, and V.Kadalintsev.

Teachings of Holy Fathers as Foundation for Orthodox Concepts of Social Responsibility of Business

The Eastern Orthodox Church, including ROC, insists on unalterable preservation of teachings of Jesus Christ and Apostles, in its exact form, as presented in the Holy Bible, Holy Tradition, and the ancient symbols of the Universal Church. The first century teachings of Holy Fathers were formed upon these foundations and created a basis for later concepts, including views of the contemporary Orthodox authors.

Many Holy Fathers addressed various aspects of economic life and social responsibility of business.

In this context, considerable attention should be given to the Cappadocian Holy Fathers, namely to Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (The Theologian), and Saint Gregory of Nyssa. ^{Their views are based on the concept that God is the supreme Owner of every creation found in His world. A man is only a steward, or a manager, of the trusted to him property, and he is expected to manage the property in compliance with the Owner’s will. Holy Fathers of Cappadocia considered public property the most adequate for His will and the principle of brotherhood love. They, however, did not favor the abolition of private property, but called upon wise management of the property, according to God’s will, that is being considerate toward others, as the property belongs to all through God.}

“How did you gain that what you have now? If you say that you gained it by chance, then you are a heathen, you do not accept the Creator, you are not grateful to the One who gave it to you. And if you admit, that is it came from God, then name the purpose, for which you received it? Or do you claim that God is unjust and divided the essential commodities of life unevenly among His children? For what purpose do you become richer and richer, and that other person lives in poverty? Is it not, indeed, for you to receive recompense for your kindness and for your true divine economy, and for that poor person to be honored with the reward for his patience?”

Saint Basil the Great suggests asking yourself the following question, “…Who are you, for what purpose were you placed here, who did you receive it from, and why were you preferred by many?” The Saint emphasizes that the one who received the property from God shall give an account before its true Owner, “Do not think that everything was arranged for your enjoyment, but treat what you have as trusted to you, not your own. It will not keep your heart merry for long, it will soon wither and disappear, but you will be asked to provide an account for your actions.” Saint Gregory The Theologian draws attention to the volatile nature of material wealth, which “quickly passes by, is granted for an hour, and, as pebbles in game are tossed in thrown from one place to another in different directions, and belong now to one person and soon to another.” In his opinions, “nothing can be considered owned “, it will either be taken away by time or will wanders to the hands of others through the deeds of envy.”

Saint Basil, without speaking against private property, illustrates, that the existence per se of such concept is evidence that social order is remote from Christian ideals. All benefits in the ideal Christian society, in his opinion, shall be public. “You can say, Whom do I offend if I keep my property to myself? – Tell me, what property is yours? Where did you take it and how did you bring it into your life? Let’s suppose that a certain man took his seat at a performance, and then began to force newly arriving people to leave, considering that which is offered his own - the rich are like that. They take possessions of that which is common, make it their property, because they get hold of it earlier that others. If everyone, having taken enough to supply his need, left the rest for the needy one, there will be no rich and no needy. Did you not enter this world naked, arriving from your mother’s womb? You are dust and will return to the dust?” Saint Basil views the proprietary practices of the first century Jerusalem’s Christians, who made genuine efforts to live according to the Christian principles. They had “everything in common: life, soul, amity, common food, cordial brotherhood, unfeigned love, which created one body from many, united disparate souls into oneness and single-mindedness.” (7) Fully realizing that the contemporary Christians are not yet ready to the life structure similar to the one of Jerusalem Christians, Saint Basil endorsed private property as the lesser of the two evils.

Nor Gregory Theologian was an advocate of immediate rejection of private property. He, nonetheless, invites us to strive toward the ideal of Christian society in agreement with individual possibilities. Saint Gregory expressed the Orthodox principle of socially responsible conduct: To serve your neighbour with your property to the degree of your inner readiness to such ministry. “Put everything aside; accept the true and only God, because you are a steward of another’s property. And if you do not wish to refuse everything, then give away the largest part. If you do not wish to do even that, then, at least, make a wise use of the surplus.” In tune with these words, is the thought of Gregory of Nyssa, who urges each and every one to provide the needy ones with help, “Give what you have, for God does not expect beyond your abilities. You provide bread, another provides a cup of wine, clothing comes from another one, and therefore, the misery of an individual in need can be eradicated by the common effort.”

According to Saint Basil the Great, non-religious approach to socio-economic problems is passion possessed and insane. Similar to Aristotle’s position, the desire to increase the carnal riches is viewed as a pathologic aberration of economic life. People, who consider covetousness a driving force of economic development, are “similar to the insane, frenzy, dream unreality, and express what the illness brought about into them”. Referring to such individuals, he wrote, “So is your soul, possessed by the lust for money, sees gold in everything, sees silver in everything…. You wish that everything turned into gold alloys and think only about as many ways as possible to make it happen. Is there anything that you will not do, or have done, for the sake of gold? Bread for you becomes gold, wine is deposited into gold… every thought brings you gold.”

First century Christians did not oppose private ownership, but saw it as a tool, with the help of which to get rid of the extreme poverty and provide for basic everyday needs. Thus, Hermas – author of book The Pastor, who lived in second century A.D., some brothers think he to was a brother of the Pope Pius I - compared the state of being poor to being in shackles, and believed that such conditions may lead a person to commit heavy sins. The responsibility of a rich person is to rid the poor from this danger. “He, who is in need and suffers from restricting daily life circumstances, is in extreme pain and destitution. Therefore, he, who rescues the poor soul from such extremity, gains a great joy, because the poor, finding himself in so strained circumstances, suffers from affliction and torments himself, as in the vicious circle. Many lay hands on themselves as a result of such misfortunes and fail to survive the affliction. Therefore, if anyone learned of such misfortune of a person, and did not set him free, bears a grievous sin and has the blood on his hands.” Hermas is also one of the first Christian authors, who views business and economic life as service to God. “All your wealth and efforts you shall spend for the good of the fields and households, which you received from God. For this is why the Lord made you wealthy - so that you exercise these duties to Him.” At the same time, Hermas emphasizes that highly-morally and ethical environment is essential part of any business, “You, Hermas, had many personal misfortunes, due to many vicissitudes in your household, for you didn’t intervene with them, but were indifferent and busy contemplating your cunning financial affairs.”

Many early Christian authors urged us to consider wealth a gift from God’s. St. Clement of Rome, Origen, and St Clement of Alexandria belong to this school. The latter is known to be paying special attention to economic subjects. In the light of our discussion, his views on property and true wealth present special interest. Only friendship of a man with God makes a man truly rich, “if the friends share common possessions, and a man is in friendship with God, and is a friend precisely through Logos, then everything becomes the property of the man, and, as everything belongs to God, everything belongs commonly to both friends, to God and the man. It is high time for us to call only one devout Christian rich, wise and godly.” A godly Christian, being a friend of God, has a responsibility to treat the relevant property in “God’s way”, that is to receive and manage it with reverence.

Origen, St. John Chrysostomus, and other Holy Fathers also note that granted by God property can be only acquired in honest ways. According to Origen, “That, what we honestly and fairly receive - such as sweets fruits and bread, which strengthen the heart of the man, and sweet grapes and wine, which give joy to a man’s heart - we receive from God and by His provision”. St. John Chrysostomus adds that the wealth or poverty can also come from sins. Sinfully acquired riches include wealth, gained by deceit, theft, sorcery, etc. Poverty from previous impudent living can also be the consequence of sin. Wealth, by itself, is not evil, but the ways with which the wealth was acquired and used can be evil. “I say this not because money is a sin – sin is not to share with the poor and abuse the money. For God has not created anything evil, but all perfect, therefore, the money is good, too.” Later, he notes: “We do not ask for being not rich, but against being evil rich, because it is permissible to be rich, but not permissible to be covetous or violent, and have ill reputation from all.” St. Augustine (Blessed) expresses the idea similar to that of St. John Chrysostomus. “Thus, belongings (riches), made for the glory of the Creator’s and to test the righteous and punish the evil people, fairly, by any means, can not be condemned.… The Creator of the Universe and the God Almighty divided gold and silver between people in such a way, which is, by nature and character, good, although not the superior good.”

Holy Fathers discerned true wealth from evil one. St. John Chrysostomus presented the distinction in a most vivid way, “No, not the one who does not have anything is poor, but the one who desires much; it is not the one who has a lot, but the one who feels no need of anything is rich…. Desires, but not the presence of absence of money, make a person rich or poor … therefore, let us despise the wealth, so that we enjoy the wealth.”

When speaking of social responsibility and faithful management of the wealth, Holy Fathers always point to the associated with wealth crying inequality, which does not deserve a right to exist in a Christian society. At the same time, they do not advocate abolition of private property and communistic experiments because people, generally, can not reach the highest degree of perfection. Only the transformation of inner man can change material relations between people. According to Lactantius,”He, who wishes to make everybody equal, shall abolish not marriages and property, but impudence, pride, and arrogance, so that the most influential barons considered themselves equal with beggars….Nothing, with the exception of the God’s religion, can make it happen.” Any Christian can manage his wealth in godly ways in any economic system. The very same Lactantius demonstrates these ways, “The greatest and most godly fruit of wealth is to use the resources not for your own pleasure, but for salvation of many, not for your own present use, but for the justice, which never ceases….Therefore, the highest virtue is hospitality… Redemption of captives – is a great and fair act of justice… Generosity of people, who throw their wealth away into the sea, is vain and careless; it is the farthest away from all kinds of justice… Not less great deed of justice is to protect widows and orphans, who are left and in need.”

St. John Chrysostomus not only expresses dogmatic ideas, but also invited his listeners to take actions, aimed at strengthening the social protection of the needy. When in Antioch, the minister precisely outlined a concrete blueprints in one of his sermons. He noted that, judging by the property status, Antioch society was divided into three classes: the rich, the poor, and the middle class - the majority belonging to the middle class. “I presume that one tenth is the rich, one tenth is the most poor, and the rest have moderate capital… There are only a few very rich, a lot of people with average income, and very few poor, in comparison to them.” The rich and the middle class could, without any excessive burden for them, feed the hungry. “Nevertheless, with so many rich people around, who could help the thirsty, many still go to bed hungry – but not because people with average income couldn’t afford helping them, but because of the hardheartedness and cruelty.”As an illustration for wealthy Antioch Christians, St. John brings their attention to the charity activities carried out by the Church, noting that the capital and income of those who give does not decrease. In addition, he doesn’t make the listeners feel obliged to act the same way, but, descending to their infirmities, calls upon socially responsible living, within limits of their powers. “I do not force you to decrease your property, not because I do not wish it, but because I see little desire in you to do so. Therefore, this is not what I say, but I say that you should give a share from your profits and do not hide anything from them. It is enough for you that you have a source, from which the financial profits come; make the beggars partakers of it, and be a good steward of what was granted to you by God.” Increasing the force of his argument, St. John Chrysostomus replies to the imaginary opponent who claims that he pays taxes to support the troops that fight for him against the enemies, “… and there are a lot of troops here – the poor, and there is also a battle, in which they fight on your side… therefore, seeing these warriors, who daily fight with the Devil on your behalf you with their prayers and petitions, demand from yourself this sweet tribute – their daily living. The King of Heaven, in His meekness, has not sent torturers to you, but wishes that you give with joy.” It is worth noting that in many of his sermons St. John Chrysostomus raises the question of individual social responsibility, not that of corporations or a state. He views it as a special investment process of its kind, the objective of which is the salvation of the soul. Here is how he develops the thought about “heavenly investments” in his explanatory comments on Gospel of Matthew, chapter 21. “There is no need to pay twice to pass that which is invested by us, no need to exchange the money. Your business is to give: The Lord Himself will pass it to the Heaven; He will find the most profitable deal for you… Here, on Earth, when you give something away, you can not return it, but there, on the contrary, you will receive what belongs to you with great honor and will gain greater and spiritual riches…God himself gave you the note of acknowledgement, saying, “He, that has pity upon the poor lends to the Lord.” (Proverbs 19:17) He also gave you the deposit and the bail, despite that He is God. What is the deposit? All the joys of this life, material and spiritual, as a foundation for future gains… Let us not be so wretched, merciless, and cruel to ourselves, but engage into this wonderful transaction, so that we gain when leaving, pass it to our children, and receive future mercies through the benevolence and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Him and the Holy Father, and the Spirit be the honor, glory and power, now and forever. Amen.” Continuing his line of reasoning, the corporate social responsibility is similar to the investment though an agent. The difference between corporate and individual social responsibility is the same as between tax and free giving.

Pastoral Sociology of Archbishop John of San-Francisco

During the communistic dictatorial regime and endless church persecutions in the USSR, major efforts of the clergy and congregation were put into preservation of the liturgy church life in Russia. Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was in a better position, with no external persecutions. Moreover, the majority of its members found refuge in more economically developed countries of the world. This created a more constructive incentive for the development of the Orthodox socio-economic school. One of the brightest representatives is Archbishop John (Shahovskoy) of San-Francisco, a descendant of a Russian ancient noble family, who was ministering as a pastor in Nazi Germany and later moved to California.

In his Foundations of Pastoral Sociology, Archbishop John raises the issue of comprehending poverty and wealth from the Christian standpoint, discusses the problem of ownership, and pays attention to social responsibility of business, viewing it as a ministry of the rich. Commenting on the moral neutrality of wealth, Archbishop John mentions that the wealth by itself is not evil, and the poverty by itself is not useful… but lust and serving to the wealth as to an idol (by the rich and the poor) is individual and social poison. According to Archbishop John, there are three camps on the moral map of ethics: 1- the godless poor, 2- the godless rich, 3 – poor and rich (from the material viewpoint) Christians. The Church of Christ views the rich and the poor differently: the “rich” – are the poor in spirit, the “poor” – are those who are rich with earthly gains.

The position of the Church toward those, who are materially rich, according to Archbishop John, is the following: The rich serve the Church. The position of the Church toward the poor: The Church serves them. The poor are considered needy of being served; the rich deserve the right to serve. “In the earthly understanding, the wealth, power, and status are always interwoven with the concept of service, but not with the enjoyment of the secular living (which is the philosophy not only of the paganism, but also lower paganism for the greater elevated itself above this principle of utmost Epicureanism). Archbishop John further develops his thought the following way: “Saying to the world, “May the greater one be the servant of you all”. Under “the greater one” our Lord Jesus Christ meant a rich person – rich with money, position, talent, or gift. The greater one shall serve, but not govern through the gifts (material or spiritual) which were given him only for a period of time. According to the words of the Archbishop John that, which is granted to a person as a “talent”, must be employed wisely for the good of the world but not kept to oneself. To keep the talent to oneself means using the wealth egoistically. It can be added that making profit for yourself, from the Christian standpoint, is the same as keeping the gift to oneself, but not a wise investment for the good of the world. Wise management of the gift, according to Archbishop’s words, can be in two ways: one includes giving your property out to others, either all at once or gradually, the other is pretending that they wish it, but in their souls have sincerely given it out to God, caring only about how to properly manage it in the future. This correct management can take a form of “usual economic management, or building of a good factory or agricultural enterprise”. However, as Archbishop John notes, “it will have an outward appearance of all things of the world, but in its essence intrinsically will be a small creation of the Kingdom of God…” Wealthy Christians, land owners, entrepreneurs, being formal owners, in reality become attentive fathers and even servants of their employees. “Such is the mentality of all wealthy Christians: owners, industrialists, and manufacturers… Such was the dominion of truly Orthodox kings.”

Archbishop Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was held more than a decade after the end of the church persecutions in Russia and ex-Soviet Union countries, at the turn of the millennium. The most significant document adopted by the Council was The Foundations of the Social Concepts of ROC (later the Foundations). In sections devoted to economic problems, questions of social responsibility of business are also raised. As noted before, more extensive presentation of the Orthodox view on this problem can be found in the The Code of Ethical Principles and Economic Rules (later the Code), adopted at Fourth Global Russian People Council. Both documents are regulatory teachings, and describe, as noted in the Preamble to the Code, the ideal model of economics, which does not exist nowadays, but striving towards which we can and shall in our daily lives.

Personal social responsibility of an entrepreneur is given special emphasis in the Foundations and the Code. It should be noted that entrepreneurship is considered professional work activity, although very specific. “Church grants its blessing to any work/professional activities, serving to the good of people, if the work does not contradict Christian moral standards….” The Foundations mention that our Lord Jesus Christ in his parables, when mentioning various professions, including the ones related to management and business (merchant, steward) does not show preference in regards to any of them. In the Code, entrepreneurship is equal to any other type of work. “Wellbeing of all honest entrepreneurs and workers shall correspond to their work contribution. By expressing this opinion, the Church obviously, tries to overcome the deeply rooted Communistic stereotype about irreconcilability of work and capital. Moreover, the Church draws attention to the common objectives of the business and employees - in Christ there are no entrepreneurs, nor employees. If there are “no bond, no free”, as Apostle Paul says in Epistle to Galatians, in the same way it refers to free employers and employees.

Every employee and every employer are subject to social responsibility. This idea gains its special significance in the contemporary world, especially for the citizens of Gigapolis , where the share of employment income in total income exceeds 60% and is increasing. Moreover, the income of many formal employees (representatives of top management of corporations, successful athletes, popular musicians, etc) are many times higher than the income of small and middle size business entrepreneurs, as well as profits of the shareholders from the shares, to such extent that it is high time to consider exploitation of capital by work. The Foundations mention two reasons for work: to provide for yourself and to give to the needy. It is also mentioned that it is God’s commandment to those who work to take care of those, who are, for some reasons, can not provide for themselves – the disadvantaged, sick, foreigners (refugees), orphans and widows – and share with them the fruits of your labor, “so that the Lord Your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.” (Deut. 24:19-22). The Code develops this idea further, “Assigning part of your income to help the elderly and needy, disabled and disadvantaged children shall be a norm for any profit-making enterprise, for any working well-off individual, including any employee.”.

Due to the specifics of the entrepreneurial activities and the hired workers, entrepreneurs bear certain responsibilities before the employees. First of all, the responsibility to reward honest work in timely manner. The Foundations mention is that the refusal to pay for the honest labor is not only a crime before that person, but is also a sin before God. Employment is the main source of income for the hired employee, therefore, dismissal without a proper cause, law wages, untimely and incomplete payment of salary (a common practice in Russia in the1990s) force the employee to the verge of existence. The Code considers entrepreneurs’ failure to pay salary a theft, which dehumanizes employees, drives them to destitution, provokes to anger, and voids them of enjoying the fruits of their labor. The Code sets a minimum level of living expenses, the lowest possible salary. The salary shall provide not only the healthy food, but also enable to cover costs of everyday supplies, to cover the expenses of the children, and pay rent. This is the most important, but not the only one responsibility of the employers, according to the Code and the Foundations. Good economics in all its forms is a socially responsible activity. The Code and the Foundations point out some aspects of such business responsibilities:

1) Responsibility for spiritual, intellectual and physical development of the employees (especially of managerial level), concerns for their quality rest. The Code mentions that material and financial capital is impossible to be created and kept today without intellectual capital – benevolent application of an individual’s abilities, knowledge and skills. Employer with wise long-term goals will take care of the free time of the employees in such a way that their personalities will grow and develop. Individual with fully blossoming potential and talents will bring the most profit and contribute more to the society, in general, and to the concrete goals in economics.

2) Participation in social and pension security programs of the employees. “An employee, who does not have a long-term perspective to receive a decent pension, does not have access to education, medical services, social insurance – will never find joy and fulfillment in his work…”

3) Employers shall develop partnership programs and give access to the employees to managing the enterprise, in accordance to their professional level of education and expertise. The purpose of such programs shall be the transformation of an employee into a partner, who feels “involved in the destiny of the common business”.

4) Business shall not be built upon the destruction of the public morale. Moreover, employees shall not be involved in such destruction. The Foundations mention, that our modern world gave birth to the whole industry, the aim of which is to promote sins, evils, and encourage to fulfill deadly lusts and habits, such as drinking, drug abuse, fornication and adultery. The Church is a witness of the sinful nature of such activities, because they corrupt not only employees, but the society in general. Morally responsible business shall not have anything to do with such activities as trafficking in persons, prostitution, pornography, medical and spiritual charlatanism, sales of illegal weapons and drugs, political and religious extremism.

5) Ecological responsibility. Manufacturing and other types of economic activities shall not cause any significant damage to the environment, which is an asset of not only all currently living people, but is also intended for the future generations. The non-renewable natural resources, which are necessary today to the people, shall be used wisely, thinking of the next generations and, where possible, shall be replaced by renewable resources. Participation in environment protection projects, introduction of energy saving and waste-free technologies is the most important goal of the business class.

6) Tax evasion, understatement of true income, and illegal capital outflow are considered by Code stealing from your fellow countrymen.

7) Socially responsible behavior takes form of fair competition, in particular, abstention from the use of morally-degrading advertisement. Commercials, which contain obvious deception, exploit sexual desire, and encourage people to drink, smoke, or abuse immaturity of children and teenagers – shall be considered amoral and may not be supported by the business people. Religious or national feelings shall not be offended by advertisements either.

In summary, contemporary Orthodox views on the concept of social responsibility of business are based on the teachings of the first century Christian Holy Fathers. Special attention to the issues of economic life, including social responsibility of business, was devoted by Hermas, Saint Clement of Rome, Origen, Saint Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. John Chrysostomus. Teachings of the social responsibility of business of the Holy Fathers are based on the foremost important principle: To serve your neighbour with what you have to the degree of internal readiness to such ministry.

The idea of ministering with property was developed by Orthodox authors for the last two centuries. A representative of the ROCOR Archbishop of San-Francisco John (Shahovskoy) formulated the idea of service in such a way: The rich serve to the Church, the Church serves the poor. The poor are considered needy of being served; the rich deserve the right to serve.

Detailed presentation of the contemporary Orthodox stand on the problem of social responsibility can be found in two most significant works: The Foundations of the Social Concepts of ROC and The Code of Ethical Principles and Economic Rules. The first is an official church document; the second is a Church-approved text. The Foundations and the Code emphasize personal social responsibility of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship, in this case, is considered a type of work, although a very specific one.

The Foundations and the Code, therefore, express, in economic sense, the idea of service to God and to the neighbour in a more detailed, contemporary acceptable form. One can suggest that further development of the Orthodox teachings of social responsibility of business will continue in this direction.

Проблемы современной экономики (Евразийский международный научно-аналитический журнал), 2003.- № 1(5),- С.134-137.www.m-economy.ru

Василий Великий. Беседа 6. На слова от Луки (12,18): “разорю житницы моя, и большия созижду”; и о любостяжательности // Василий Великий. Творения. М. 1993. Часть IV. С.96-97.

Там же

Василий Великий. Беседа 6. // Василий Великий. Творения. М. 1993. Часть IV. С.96

М. 1993. Часть IV. С.138.

Зейпель И. Хозяйственно-этические взгляды отцов церкви. М., 1913., С. 46.

Hermas, Pastor, sim. 10,4,2. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.47.

Hermas, Pastor, sim. 1,8. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.47.

Hermas, Pastor, vis. 2,3,2. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.47.

Clemens, Alex., Cohortatio ad gentes,12. Цит. по: Зейпель

Origenes. Contra Celsum, 8, 67. Цит. по: Зейпель

Chrysostomus, In ep.1 ad Cor., hom. 13,5. Цит. по: Зейпель

Chrysostomus, In ep.1 ad Cor., hom. 5. Цит. по: Зейпель

Augustinus, Sermo, 50, 3-6. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.50-51.

Chrysostomus, In ep.ad Philipp., hom. 2, 5. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.62-63.

Lactancius, Divin. Itstit., 3,22. Цит. по: Зейпель И. Указ. соч., С.91.

Св. Иоанн Златоуст. Толкование на святого Матфея евангелиста // Полное собрание творений св. Иоанна Златоуста в двенадцати томах.- Т. VII, Кн.II. – М.: Святитель Иоанн Златоуст, 2001.- С.678.

Там же

Свод нравственных принципов и правил хозяйствования (Принят VIII Всемирным Русским Народным Собором)//

Основы социальной концепции Русской Православной Церкви. VI.5. http: //www.mospat.ru/chapters/conception/

Гал. III, 28.

Основы… VI.4.

Основы…VI.6.

Свод…V.

Основы…VI.6.

Свод…VI.

Свод…VIII.

Свод… VIII.

Свод… V.

Свод…IV.

Свод…V.

Основы…VI.5.

Свод…VII.

Свод…VIII.

Свод…IX.

Conclusion