Dec 31
Church and State: an Enlightenment hangover?
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.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Doug,
At the risk of being pedantic, some Christian anarchists have addressed some of your questions (take or leave their ideology, I suppose):
http://jesusradicals.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
-JAK
December 31st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Surely it is theologically possible to hold the position that the state is a necessarily evil institution, opposed to God. Some Anabaptists have gone in that direction, encouraged of course by the way in which the state around them was obviously doing the devil’s work by persecuting them. I think Walter Wink leans in this direction. It is of course hard to reconcile this with Romans 13, but there are plenty of theological positions out there in the church which contradict Romans in one way or another.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
It might be theologically possible, but I doubt that this would be biblical, traditional, practical or desirable.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I think we have to back off some of our favored interpretations of texts like Romans 13. (I doubt that this refers to Caesar - liking better Nanos’ interpretation that it is Synagogue authorities that are referred to.) The questions for me are: who has authority and who has and uses what kinds of power. Authority come back to what others will accept and powers are often best seen when they have been abused.
The governance structure I have in vague mind is one which says - not by might nor by power but by my Spirit, says the Lord. And it cites and uses pragmatically the great lines from The Merchant of Venice - The quality of mercy is not strained … And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.
I understand that governance fails at times. There can be no justification for failure - simply acceptance and regrouping for a possible temporal recovery.
You will notice that I think it is acceptance by the people that matters here. In this area, I think we need to do God ‘indirectly’.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Perhaps my understanding of history is deficient but I always understood the US Bill of Rights’ desire to prohibit laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof to be rooted in the desire to avoid things like the bloody state-religion-sponsored struggles between Protestants and Roman Catholics that are found in earlier British history (not bashing the Brits here but their history had a great influence on the beginnings of ours).
The concept of some sort of a Chinese firewall (a technical term in information security, BTW) between church and state is a much more modern development.
While everyone likely has more reading than they have time to do, a dip into The Federalist Papers will provide some great insights into what the founders were concerned about and thinking. Beware though, some “living consitution” folk have been converted to devout adherents of “original intent” after reading those documents.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Where does the legitimacy of the State come from?… 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?
Doug, these are good questions you pose in your last bullet paragraph. The first one is tricky. Although God is Almighty Ruler in heaven and earth, without the people, the State has no legitimacy, in my opinion. However, to remove God out of the question is not entirely possible because it is God who the people recognize as the one who gives us our existence. But then I would say that a state that is unrelated to God is possible; however, it must be the responsibility of the people to govern in a way that is pleasing to God, while keeping God outside the governing structures. God, then, must be seen as personal matter but who still rules the dictates of a governor’s own conscience. In this way, the will of God can still influence governance indirectly.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I think you’re blurring two separate issues here.
(1) Yes, I think the state is established by God, and has a God-given mandate to use force, if necessary, to restrain evil.
(2) I think the Church, and the individual Christian, are called to a higher ethical standard, which forbids us to kill. Certainly it forbids us to kill in the grossly indiscriminate way of war, which always, always results in many non-combatant deaths and much civilian misery.
When I speak of a separation between church and state, I mean that they are distinct institutions with distinct mandates. The Christian may not participate, in good conscience, in some aspects of the state’s business.
But that doesn’t mean the state lacks a legitimate, God-given mandate.