1. In rejecting the sacrament of order and preaching a priesthood of all believers, the Reformation rejects the division of labor within a community; with this, the Reformation rejects the the essential principle of modern society.
2. The modern insists that religion is a private affair; his world has therefore two authorities. The word of the Reformation is solus: it has but one God.
3. In the medieval and modern divisions of public and private, church and state, Christ's body is arrayed against itself and the individual believer is compelled to serve two masters. In the church of the Reformation, the body of Christ is one and the individual renders nothing unto Caesar.
4. In this way the Reformation is fundamentally opposed to the separation of Church and State. For Protestants, the paradigmatic moment on this issue is Constantine convening the Council of Nicaea, in which the Christian prince uses his political power for the good of the Church in the same way any other Christian would make use of his skills and position. For Romanists, it is Ambrose refusing communion to Theodosius, where the Christian prince, as a layman, submits to ecclesial authority. The Modern prefers the Roman picture, so long as Ambrose and Theodosius never speak.
5. Thus we may say that for the Reformation the Christian State is in the Church; for Rome, that State is under the Church.
6. For the Reformation, the church is thus totalitarian; this is a monastic impulse.
7. This totalitarian church of the Reformation is the martyrs' church of the first centuries. Tertullian argued for tolerance from the pagans and rigorism among the Christians; Augustine approved of the persecution of heretics and preached grace for all sinners in the church. Their mind was one and the same.
8. That this totalitarian church appears as a state church in a Christian society is a tautology; that it appears as counterculture in a godless society is inevitable.
9. We have need of a martyrs' church amongst the wreckage of the Reformation state, but we insist on thinking like Romanists and Moderns. We live in such wreckage because the Reformers 'gave, expecting nothing in return.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Sir,
I agree that your analysis works broadly in a general sense but take a few issues with the specifics. I would argue that the political theology (for lack of a batter term) of the Reformation that you posited is correct but only for the subset of Zwingli-Calvinist reformation. We can see them put these principles into practice within 17th century Holland, Geneva, and Massachusetts. And you might be correct in asserting that the purpose of this ideal church/state relationship is where the state ceases to exist and we are left with only church and that this was the aim of that set of Reformation. I strongly disagree that this is an encompassing ‘Protestant’ thesis of Church/State separation, that the alternative you proposed is strictly a ‘Catholic/Roman’ thesis, or that either of these thesis correctly interpret the ‘rendering’ passage in the Bible, or that your interpretation of it is necessarily correct.
Like I said above your ‘Protestant’ thesis I think is too general to apply to all of Protestantism or the Reformation and that it more specifically applies only to the Calvinist or Reformed strand of the Reformation. With that said I would argue that more broadly speaking the 'Roman' or 'Catholic' model, which since it is more distinctly articulated by Aquinas in his essays 'On Law, Morality, and Politics' I shall call the ‘Aquinas model’ is not strictly a Catholic model. Here the basic tenant is that the prince is supreme in the state as God is supreme in the universe, but that the prince is still a servant of God. The state and church exist separately but with one subordinate to the other. While I completely agree that this was Catholic ‘political theology’ in the middle ages and into the Reformation period I completely disagree that this model was restricted to the Roman church.
The Lutheran and Anglican strains clearly continued embracing the ‘Roman’ thesis which I think distinctly disproves your broader ‘Protestant’ thesis while also disproving the uniquely ‘Roman’ monopoly on the ‘Roman’ thesis. Luther, particularly how he handled the peasant’s rebellion (asking them to submit to princely authority) and how he was deferential towards his prince’s shows that while he rejected the Roman model of the papacy and hierarchy he still maintained the basic church/state theories of Aquinas. Another example is the Lutheran king Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden who was clearly a prince in the Aquinas mode, rather than the Calvinist mode. One could also argue that the Anglican tradition, which is distinctly part of the Reformation tradition, still maintains this model. So I would disagree with calling the Calvinist/City on a Hill model, explicitly the 'Reformation' model or referring to the Aquinas model as a 'Catholic' one and think you should adopt more specific terms.
I would also disagree that the goal of the entire Reformation, even within the Calvinist thesis, was for the creation of this stateless entity where we are left with only Church. Again this might fit the Calvinist model but I would argue that it is the natural side effect of a faith characterized by individual agency and a personal relationship to God. Such a theology precludes any kind of organizational entity that somehow divides one’s loyalty to God, so loyalty to the state, the polis, the family, the church is superseded by the undivided loyalty to God. Through that specific loyalty the other logical loyalties flow, excepting perhaps loyalty to a Prince who one can call a Popish figure that blasphemously attempts to have a God like influence over the temporal realm. I can easily see how the Aquinas thesis, as interpreted by the Reformers would be upsetting and even offensive to those embracing a hard core reformed theology. But I would argue that the alternative ‘Calvinist’ thesis springs up naturally as a by product, not as the goal, of that particular theology.
(continued)
Lastly I would argue that your endorsement of this ‘protestant’ thesis, specifically your 3rd point is entirely problematic. My first reservation is with the following quote
“In the medieval and modern divisions of public and private, church and state, Christ's body is arrayed against itself and the individual believer is compelled to serve two masters.”
Aquinas clearly felt that the prince by serving the Church and serving God would receive the loyalty of his faithful subjects to him because he was a servant of Christ, not because he is in essence a temporal replacement for Christ. In this sense by serving the prince, the Church, or the pope, they are not serving alternative masters but rather serving Christ through his servants on Earth. While again this disconnect between Christ and the layman might be offensive to Protestant ears, specifically those of the Reformers, it is distinctly not serving two masters, it is ultimately serving one master, arguably in a less direct way, but still one master all the same. The entire reason the monarchy was able to survive in this period was because so many people sincerely believed it was in the service of God.
(continued again darn space restrictions)
My second reservation is with this quote:
“In the church of the Reformation, the body of Christ is one and the individual renders nothing unto Caesar.”
And I have several reservations with it, the first is the irony that you then hail Constantine as the archetype for a Protestant conception of a statesmen, both because he literally was Caesar and also because what he did exactly fits into the Aquinas thesis rather than the Reformed thesis. I think that while the Reformers would want a Council of Nicea to rule in say opposition to a Pope, I think they would definitely have issues, at least according to your logic, if it was organized by Caesar and the question of two masters is raised by that very action. Similarly he is serving God and in turn is seen as a pious man by his people and thus they serve him as a servant of God in the Aquinas model.
Your other example also fits the Aquinas model in the sense that the temporal authority is submitting to an ecclesial one. I see little difference between the two examples, except that in the former one could argue its fits neither model and proposes something even more offensive to the Reformers, essentially the church being subservient to a state figure, even if they are merely listening to his call to council and he removes himself from the matter afterward. In calling the council that surely offends the sentiments of those proposing your thesis, in differing to it the example proves the Aquinas thesis.
Lastly my largest reservation is that a) Christ does not want us to render nothing unto Caesar and b) Arminian theology, which you and I subscribe to, is incompatible with this thesis.
The quote clearly says render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and has been endlessly debated since the moment Christ uttered it. I think to argue that one’s involvement in ‘rendering unto Caesar’ should be limited to taxes and following the laws of the land is a valid one, one I do not subscribe to, but one I think makes some sense. Arguing that it somehow calls for replacing Caesar entirely and leaving only God behind in its wake seems to be a bit of a stretch and I think you have to make a much more compelling case for why this is a coherent political theology. If anything I would argue that the quote compels Christians to, in effect, participate in public life to the fullest extent without sacrificing their Christian principles. Essentially that God cares little for civil and public affairs so long as those affairs do not determine things that also must be ‘rendered unto God’. For instance one could argue the command not to kill requires us to ‘render unto God’ by obeying it and ‘rendering unto Caesar’ by protesting or disobeying laws or policies that encourage killing. Essentially we have to project God into the civil sphere to ensure that Caesar acts morally whether he be a king or a democracy. This of course is a valid interpretation that I am sure you disagree with, but the interpretation that eventually this command by Christ should change by eliminating Caesar seems flawed since nowhere does Christ argue this, nowhere are men not ruled by other men in the bible, in fact David and Solomon are Old Testament examples of kings following the ‘Aquinas thesis’.
Lastly, a thearchy would prohibit the freedom of men to choose to obey God, I think it is very important to God that this choice is a free one and not one coerced by the state. The passage ‘he who eats of me without discerning of my body is committing a grave sin’ can be used to apply to many different facets, but clearly it seems to indicate that a convert who is not genuine in his own conscience is not a genuine convert, and thus a state that coerces or compels religious obedience and eliminates freedom of conscience is a state that eventually encourages sin.
A loaded reply old friend and one I am sure you will find many reservations with, but hopefully the resulting conversation shall be fruitful.
James, I want to say first that I’m glad you responded, since I definitely had some of our conversations in mind when I was writing these theses.
I would like to first take issue with some of your historical claims. First, my association of Constantine with the Reformation is firmly based on the attitudes of the Reformers themselves. During the early years of the Reformation (and the late Middle Ages) there was great debate over who had the authority to convene a council of the church, the Pope or the Emperor. The Reformers naturally sided with the Emperor, and, although Charles V, their Roman Emperor, did not take their side, many other Princes did, Henry VIII being the obvious example.
Secondly, you bring up Luther’s views on the Peasants’ War. I think there is no clearer example of the unity of the State and the Church in Reformation thought. I do not have the text in front of me, but, as I recall, Luther hardly embraces the view that the State should kill the peasants’ bodies while the Church saves their souls, that is, dividing the duties of church and state. Rather, the peasants’ rebellion against the state is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against his Church in the form of the Princes. Thus the peasants deserve destruction and no mercy.
You also make the claim that the Reformation, and Calvinism in particular, is a faith “characterized by individual agency and a personal relationship to God.” This is a popular opinion so I will not fault you for repeating it, but it is almost completely wrong. Individual agency has no place in traditional Protestant thought, all of which is very emphatic about the bondage of the will. As to a personal relationship with God, it is to be noted that, although the Reformation put a strong emphasis on personal piety for all believers, this relationship with God is inseparable from a relationship with one’s neighbor (Luther’s Freedom of a Christian is the classic here). A religious movement which does away with contemplative monasteries does give exclusive space to the relationship with God.
You write that, in Thomas’ model, “the state and church exist separately but with one subordinate to the other.” You have articulated my perception of the Roman (Thomistic) attitude precisely, but you seem to have missed my criticism of it. In this statement there are two entities envisioned as being in some way analogous: the church, which cares for souls, and the state, which cares for bodies. Thus, just as the soul rules over the body, the church has authority to rule over the state.
This model is like the modern model because it asserts there is such a thing as the State, a social entity fundamentally distinct from others, such as guilds, corporations, clubs, etc. In the modern model, the State possesses a unique sort of authority which emerges from the people; in the Thomistic model, as you and I have described it, the State possesses a unique sort of authority which it receives from God. In either case, because it possesses a unique authority, the State is expected to function differently than other social entities, and to rule over them. The church, which possesses its own unique authority, rules over the state in turn in the Romanist model.
I reject the principle that there is such a thing as the State, and hence also that government possesses a unique authority, whatever the source. Those whose social station has placed them a position of rulership have responsibilities different from those which merchants or laborers have by virtue of their social station, but the responsibilities of rulers are not fundamentally or essentially different sorts of responsibilities from those of laborers or merchants. Thus, when the Reformation calls for people to use the skills and opportunities of their social station to serve God, farmers are called to grow food and kings are called to make laws, and to do so, both of them, as Christians. The king’s duty is not essentially different from the farmer’s: they are both worldly duties which may be undertaken in a godly manner.
Therefore the Christian Emperor who convenes a council of the church has not overstepped his bounds, but has rather offered up his services to God and his church, just as a potter might offer up a communion chalice for the community’s use. In either case, cooperation with the clergy will be necessary for the gift to bear fruit—they may choose whether or not to use the chalice or adhere to the council—but they do not have special authority to forbid such gifts nor would it be good pastoral policy to advise the laity not to offer their gifts and services to God and his congregation.
As to your comments on rendering unto Caesar, we are operating with two fundamentally different readings of ‘Caesar.’ For you, it seems, Caesar is the State; as I have said, I hardly believe in the State as such. For me, Caesar is principally the oppressor, the worldly power that stands against the church. The coin is rendered to Caesar because it bears his image, and man is rendered to God because we bear his image. Under your reading, paying taxes to anyone called ‘king’ or ‘government’ is rendering unto Caesar, but under mine, taxes paid to a Christian, whatever his title, are not rendered to Caesar, but to a brother.
I would also point out to you that, in all three synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees’ question of whether one should render unto Caesar is followed by the Sadducees’ question about remarriage and the resurrection. Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees’ question is a firm reminder not to carry over the categories of the present age into the kingdom of God. If you take Caesar as a universal principle of human existence, just as the Sadducees, like good Mormons, assume marriage is forever, you will find yourself compelled to give him things that actually matter, like your passion and your energies, rather than what he is due, a lump of metal.
As to your anxieties about "the church serving the state," having digested my comments here, what would you say to theses 7 and 8?
Obviously I knew we would disagree on the 'render unto Caesar' based on our previous discussions and that is a broader argument we can take up after we address a few specifics.
Again I ask what is the distinction between the Thomastic model of princes serving the Church and the Reformation model as you articulated of princes serving the Church?
In your initial post you seemed to take up the position that the state is a construct that binds individuals to a master that is un-Godly and thus it's co-existence with the Church in any kind of capacity is antithetical to the mission of the church. Thus you are articulating a position where the Church, as you pointed out with your comment that their goal was to eventually 'only render unto God', either radically exists by itself as the primary authority in a society, or, which I suspect is closer to your interpretation, the state which is the radical affront to God that man created, is eliminated and we restore the Kingdom of God on Earth through the sole primacy of the Church. If that is your position than I cannot see how the examples you provide either in the case of Luther or in the case of Constantine fit that particular model. In both of those instances princes are serving the Church in the Thomastic model by submitting themselves to the Church first. Again Theodosius also fits this example by submitting to Church authority.
The following sentence "Rather, the peasants’ rebellion against the state is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against his Church in the form of the Princes" seems again to submit to the Thomastic model. Princes are acting in God's stead on this earth and thus obeying them is in effect obeying the Church. Prince's in so far as the act as agents of the state act in a manner in which they submit to church authority making the state, not a separate entity, but part of the body of the Church, a vital organ of it in fact. The Thomastic model essentially equates the universe as all of humanity with god as its head and the rest of us making up the various organs. The state as lead by the Prince is the heart of this organism, since while it is inferior to the head, it essentially acts as a sub-head for all of the other organs, blood vessels, etc. while getting its own directive from God. Similarly in this model the Pope acts as the representative of that head on Earth and thus has authority over the Princes. In the Thomastic model princes are submitting to clergy, one could argue that where there are differences in the Luther and Constantine examples is that clergy are submitting to princes-and that is certainly the case in Britain and Sweden where the monarch appoints the clergy and thus has final authority over them.
Now one could still operate a Thomastic model within a Protestant setting so long as the prince differs to clergy or simply rules in a manner that is befitting the service of his Lord in heaven and articulates his rule as such a service, I do not see how that differs from your examples.
Secondly I would argue that the Thomastic model differs extremely from the modern model. The modern model, at least the post-enlightenment one, is one in which the state is a secular entity and is completely separate from the Church which is relegated to the private sphere. That is definitely following neither the Reformation or the Thomastic model. Now we could argue that the Reformation model represents a more idealized depiction of a thearchical society, one that eliminates the state altogether and leaves only the Church. I would argue that Geneva and Plymouth are examples of such societies in Christian history, as well as the persecuted church. In this case Christians separated themselves from the society of the state they were living in to form new societies that were entirely Church oriented and existed in a 'post-state' situation. Yet with Constantine that larger state is molded with the Church and is consumed by the Church becoming a part of it, but a part that is in fact inseparable and indistinguishable from the Church. Temporal authority as derived by princes in the Thomastic model is still considered an outlet of divine authority both because the Princes are ordained by God and crowned by his Vicar (either the Pope or a Bishop) and because pious Princes will serve His ends exclusively and in doing so simultaneously serve their people and their state in a manner that is not separate from the service to God but completely dependent and inseparable from their service to God.
So in summation I would argue that the Thomastic model is one where the state still exists, as opposed to the Reformation model, but where it exists as a subdivision of the Church and ultimately an agency that submits completely to its authority. This is at least the case when examining the structure of the medieval and early modern state before the Reformation. I would also argue that either the Anglican and Lutheran examples fit the Thomastic model in the sense of Princes serving the Church, or fit an entirely different model, especially in the Anglican case, of the Church serving princes.
Neither to me seem to submit the Reformation model as you defined it, one of the Church standing alone as the state is swept away or forgotten due to the piety of the people. And as a pragmatist and arguably because I am a born-again papist, in both cases a Christian that is present and active in worldy affairs as part of a commission to serve others and improve our lot on this Earth as well, the Thomastic model seems more useful and practical.
Also from a Burkean sense it is more appropriate solution to our current situation since undoing the state would create a period of disorder and chaos, and even if it was reordered along the foundations of the Reformation model the Irishman would not approve since you have undone the foundation you were given and caused needless disorder.
Russell Kirk would argue that Burke's vision of the Church and State is certainly not a modern one of separation with the Church being a captive of the private sphere. Kirk argues that Burke has an almost Catholic interpretation of Church/State affairs following a Thomastic model whereby the monarch submits to the authority of the Church. This is one of the many reasons he was accused of papacy throughout his entire political career. Also he seems to value the order and authority of the Church over the authority and order inherent in the monarchy. One of the reasons he supported the American revolution is because in his mind the King was acting as a tyrant and an unjust ruler and that the Americans were in fact the more properly Christian nation because the society they were trying to create was more just, in both a political and a moral sense, than the society they were overturning. In some particular cases the revolution was a religious war with the various Protestant (and some Catholic) Americans overturning the authority of the Anglican church that was forced upon them (Presbyterians paying Anglican parish taxes in VA in addition to their tithes to their own church) and was an abrogation of the American's duty to their church, in effect the King was forcing them to side with the state against their conscience. This wasn't the only reason and Burke had a lot of secular reasons for his support, but it demonstrated his own loyalty to the Church first, the order in effect For God, For King, and then For Country. The French revolution on the other hand upended both the authority of the monarchy and the authority of the Church and tried to create a completely new society that was not founded on Christian morals or natural (i.e Divinely ordained) order. He would also chastise the Diestic supporters of that revolution within America that he once considered comrades in arms.
Kirk also concedes however that Burke was not entirely Catholic in his understanding of this relationship. One could argue that by supporting the rule of the Church over the King that he was meeting the Thomastic model, by expecting his King to be a good Christian by submitting to the authority of the Church. On the other hand, there were telling quotes Kirk uses on this question where Burke argues that the King is to be respected as a temporal ruler but that his justice only derives by the fact that he is a fellow Christian, in effect a brother. This might differ from the Thomastic model where the King is a sort of temporal God head and might conform better with the Reformation model where the King is to be obeyed because he is a pious individual and a figure that respects God, not a figure that derives his authority from God, nor a figure to be obeyed even if he was not Godly. Aquinas has a rather lame quote where he urges Christians not to rebel against a distinctly un-Christian king but rather pray for God to deliver them from his tyranny and replace him with a better King. In that sense Aquinas could be valuing the authority and order of a distinctly Godless state, though again one must presume he believed that God would deliver those people and thus not tolerate a state that did not conform to his image. So in summation I think that Burke has strains of both models in his interpretations. He views the English state, led by a wise and Christian ruler, as a stateless Church. The Church of England binds the British people together, and the King is only to be respected as he is God's servant. Moreover in his support of toleration for all believers (though not un believers) Burke is viewing the Christian bonds as more important than national ones. A Presbyterian or a Catholic is no less loyal to the King because he is not an Anglican, and Burke argues that a more pious Catholic or Dissenter is in fact going to be more loyal than a lukewarm Anglican. So for Burke patriotism is simply just a byproduct of Christian love and piety, and a natural byproduct at that.
James,
I believe you are having difficulty apprehending my argument because your presuppositions about the structure of society keep reshaping my arguments into their terms. You characterize my position in one of your posts as “the state serving the church.” This is, I think, a mischaracterization, and I in fact explicitly reject this as a Protestant position in Thesis 5: “For Rome, the state is under the church.” The Christian state, or as I would rather express it, a governing class made up of Christians, does not serve the church, it is the church, for in it two or more are gathered, and thus Christ is there.
Fundamentally then, we are differing on what we mean by ‘state,’ ‘church,’ and ‘society.’ For me, the state is a class or a guild of rulers, a profession. To be a ruler is analogous with being a farmer or a merchant or a beggar: each of these is a different social station which bears different responsibilities, functions, and expectations. Society is the community of human beings, both the polis (America, China, Britain, Rome, Carthage, etc.) and the cosmopolis (the world, ‘the global community’). Within society are individuals with differing functions, and a certain group of these are the rulers, and comprise what you call ‘the state.’ Out of this society the church is called, and it transcends both the polis, because in the Supper of the Lord people of all nations and languages are one in his body, and the cosmopolis, because in Baptism the Christian has shed the corrupted nature which binds worldly humanity together in a common form of life. The church is called from every walk of life, rulers, merchants, farmers, beggars, all classes, all occupations. Some Christians are called to leave behind their worldly professions and become monks or pastors, and some are called to live for the Lord in their worldly labor.
Let us now apply these terms to the situation of the Late Medieval and Reformation world. The entire society of Western Europe has been called into the church, insofar as we speak of the polis: citizens are baptized and take communion. Therefore the state is in the church and is the church, and the church is in the state and is the state, because the governing classes are Christians. How then can the state serve the church or the church the state?
Here let us introduce the sacrament of order and from a medieval principle of ecclesiology derive not only the ‘Thomistic model’ we have been speaking of but also, by extension, modern political theory. In a sacramental understanding of ordination, the ordained Christian becomes different sort of human being than the lay Christian, a difference analogous to the difference we have outlined above between the baptized Christian and the rest of humanity. These more Christian Christians, the clergy, assert that it is they alone who live to the Lord; I mention the division of labor in Thesis 1 because this leads to the idea that, because clergy and monks live to the Lord, those who are not clergy do not need to. Because these special Christians live to the Lord, however, and others do not, lesser Christians must obey them in all matters.
Notice how this hierarchical idea introduces a church within a church. Just as, in our definitions above, the church was called out of society to be different than it, the clergy, in this model, are called out of the church to be apart from and different from it. Thus in this model to speak of the church, that is, the elect people of God, is not to speak of the baptized, but of the ordained.
At this point the state must be theorized, because, although the king, as a lesser Christian, must obey the clergy, practical reality and the overwhelming evidence of scripture demand that the king’s subjects must also obey him. One solution, which we have repeatedly discussed, is merely to add the state as another level of hierarchy between the clergy and the laity. This is essentially what you mean by saying “the state serves the church.” It is crucial to see that authority for the state in this model is developed as analogous to the authority of the clergy, that is, it is conceived of as deriving from God’s special election of the ruler. The other solution, which speaks of the temporal and spiritual swords, is the progenitor of our modern separation of church and state, and relies even more heavily on the idea of the ruler as a special sort of Christian.
The key point is this: because the sacrament of order locates authority in a special grace from God, the state can only be conceived of as authoritative if it too receives a special grace from God. Hence it is necessary that the class of rulers be envisioned not as people with a role in society, but a people set apart from society. Both divine right and social contract theories maintain this point, that government, the ruling class, is something different from other classes of society. The one may say that the king is the instrument of God while the other might say that rulers act with the authority of the whole people somehow vested in them, but they hold on this one point, that a ruler acts on society in an essentially different way than a merchant or a farmer or a beggar.
Is it a coincidence then that scholars like Constantin Fasolt would argue that the modern state derives from the pattern of the medieval church, that is to say, of the medieval clergy? Hardly, when we see that this is the case.
When you have abolished the sacrament of order, as the Reformers did, authority no longer derives from a special grace of God, and thus there is no need to theorize the rulers of a society as being essentially different from other members of society. Rulers have their task and farmers have theirs, and both are called to take them up in a manner befitting Christ. Thus when we come to the matter of something like disseminating doctrine among the people or convening a council of bishops, where the material resources available to a ruler by virtue of his social station will be very useful, the ruler is called to use them in the cause of Christ. If you wish to describe this as “serving the church,” that is fine, so long as you understand than a pastor preaching on Sunday and the merchant giving alms are also “serving the church.” The church is not something outside the Christian which he submits to, it is something he is, and for this reason I find the phrase “serving the church” to be misleading and not very useful.
I'd like to see you bring a bit more Scripture to the table, James. Reasoning without Scripture is like rowing without a boat.
Post a Comment