Oliver O'Donovan is often accused of 'Constantinianism', especially by the likes of Stanley Hauerwas and his followers. In fact, at a recent conference I am lead to believe that this accusation was given quite an airing - though not in his presence! What I think they mean is that he does see some positive place for state-craft, and a requirement for the church to be at least attuned to it, or in conversation with it, especially when providence delivers a repentant 'king'. What were the Christians supposed to do come the Edict of Milan 315 AD? Say to Constantine, 'thanks, but no thanks'? Does the church really insist that the state return to its former persecuting ways and undo its gesture of repentance? I suppose it is easier to live with a hostile state because we all know where we stand!
Of course, the Constantinian arrangement has produced some rather rotten fruit: medieval papalism on the one hand, and Erastianism on the other. One makes the church into a (parallel?) secular power (the pope having armies for example) to which kings must give allegiance; the other makes the church merely the puppet of the state (as with the German Christians in the 1930s). Strangely, in both cases there is an exchange of evangelical authority for the instruments of earthly rule. In the case of papalism, a misapplication of the doctrine of the keys from Matthew 16 is brought forward: 'binding' and 'loosing' become acts of judgment and punishment in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities. The context of Peter's declaration of Jesus as Messiah is eclipsed...
Today in the West (at least in the US and Australia - Christians in the UK seem politically toothless) a resurgence in the political power on offer to Christian groups appears as a temptation for them to forget their primary task of preaching the gospel and instead pursue what are actually secular ends by secular means. The terrible danger is that we think we are building the kingdom of heaven by engineering a 'Christian' government. But that does not necessarily mean that the repentant politician or the political party which wants to know what Christians would like to see should be left swinging in the wind.
Martyrdom, as ever, provides an interesting point of divergence between the two views. O'Donovan sees martyrdom as a possibility latent in the Christian experience but at times not a necessary path to pursue, when the ruler appears to be genuine in his/her desire to submit to the authority of God. Hauerwas would ask at this point 'why isn't anybody killing us?' and seek to emphasis the points of divergence to such a degree as to produce a violent reaction against the church... While I am attracted to Hauerwas' radicalism, I am also disturbed by it!
4 comments:
This is a fascinating and difficult issue. I think what we need to do is see what is solid ground and build from there. As part of this I would suggest a few points:
- There is no suggestion in the Bible that Christians will necessarily be persecuted by the State. What is taught is that they will always be opposed; and that they might be persecuted by secular authorities. It is perverse to seek persecution in an attempt to prove one's purity as a Christian.
- Christianity is a personal commitment to Christ which is only made possible by God's enabling grace. From this, it follows two things: a) it is meaningless to declare Christianity the official religion of the State. A state cannot have a religion; b) it is wrong to declare Christianity the religion of people living in a geographical area (cujus regio ejus religio or the like). It presumes on God's will for them.
- there is no suggestion in the Bible, again, that rulers cannot be Christian. All things being equal, it is a good thing if they are. However, as a matter of wisdom (not necessity), the State should not attempt to punish wrongdoing against God if it has no negative impact on fellow citizens. It is not its role and it would give the worst possible picture of the Christian gospel.
It is difficult to make history with if's. But my conviction is that, with 17 centuries' hindsight, the bad brought about by the Edict of Milan has outweighed the good by far. Yes presumably Christians should have opposed the move at the time, esp. since Constantine was such a dodgy Christian himself. We need to learn from the past.
Yes presumably Christians should have opposed the move at the time
As you mentioned, 'if's' put us on wobbly ground. There's almost a kind of pragmatism to a Christian approach to politics: Nothing much is stipulated, but, if you find yourself in the situation, then... there are several courses of action which are difficult to choose between.
The NT I guess doesn't give us much to go on there, as it is largely foreign to the 1st century context. However, a perhaps useful example might be Paul's attitude to slavery - 'if you can secure your freedom, do so' ? What would be the implications of this? Is christianity inherently politically reactionary then?
Yes, although a Hauerwas might say that the reason no persecution is coming is because of the collusion of the churches with the culture...
Strangely both liberals and conservatives accuse the other side of being in league with the culture. This is kinda fascinating. 'you liberals' we say, 'kowtowing to feminism and emancipatory narratives and the like'. 'you conservatives' they say, 'merely repeating the sexism and racism inherent in the culture'... an interesting impasse, don't you think?
(why does the word 'ontology' EVER help?)
Post a Comment