MetaCatholic

Allow me to end the year by stirring things up a little. In a recent comment Stephen appealed to the separation of church and state in the way that many people do: as though it was (almost) self-evident. It’s an obvious mantra of much American political life, and it has often made its way across the pond, as though it was quite normal. I don’t myself have any strongly held views on this topic, but let me offer a few observations and questions to suggest that it’s not quite as straightforward as it seems. I also note, that faced with the Religious Right in the US, I’d personally repeat the mantra as an apotropaic incantation every day.

• The original move towards the separation of Church and State came from those who objected to the English Anglican hegemony. It was as at least as much a religious intention for freedom as a political one, and in its beginnings, ironically, theology and politics were conjoined at the hip.
• In its developed form, it depends on the Enlightenment myth of objectivity. Somehow the state is meant to be religiously neutral. However, as we have come to reject the myth of objective neutrality in every other sphere of knowledge, we have ignored its pretensions in politics. A better justification for the separation of church and state needs to be found if the idea of separation is going to commend itself.
• It is not an obviously successful idea. Despite its privileged role in American political mythology, it is almost impossible for an American politician to describe themselves as an atheist if they wish to get elected. By contrast, in the UK, where there is an established religion enshrined in law and omnipresent at least ceremonially on state occasions, it can be regarded as the death-knell of a politician to be regarded as religious. “We don’t do God” as Tony Blair’s press spokesman Alistair Campbell famously said. The established Church of England seems to do rather better in the UK at creating a multi-faith and no-faith public sphere than the formal separation of church and state does in the US.
• Theologically, there is also an interesting case to be asked about God. Where does the legitimacy of the State come from? There are various answers to that, which can be expressed in philosophical, moral, legal, political and theological terms. Traditionally, however, while by no means excluding philosophical, moral, legal and political analyses, Christian theology has wanted to answer the question with reference to God as the undergirding legitimate authority of everything, including the state. Neither State nor Law are absolute providers of the judgements by which society is organised and maintained, but themselves stand under judgement for what they do. Obviously that can be worked out in practice in very different ways. But the theory that government is to be measured by the kingdom of God, and judged by God is, I think, for the Christian one possible way of distinguishing between democracy on the one hand and ochlocracy or demagoguery on the other. Majorities may deliver power, they do not always confer legitimate authority. Is it theologically possible for Christians to conceive a State that is unrelated to God? If the answer is no, how do Christians think they can conceive a state that is unrelated to God’s people?

These are questions I have no answer to. But like my posts on the fag-end of the 39 articles, they leave me convinced that political theology is an area where we simply have to do better.