Above is the last flag to fly over a Christian Constantinople. Its proponents today consider it the symbol of the ideal Christian state, representing the symbiosis and equality of the secular and religious authorities in a single state. Above is the dream that was Byzantium--the kingdom of heaven on earth.
There is a theological rationale for this. Orthodox Christianity has a long history of upholding the potential sanctity of the material order as a consequence of the pervasity and efficacy of Christ's Incarnation. If God became man, entering into and joining himself with our fallen nature, then even fallen matter has the potential for holiness. Our belief in the sanctity of the relics of the saints, our requests for their intercessions and our veneration of their icons are all based in this fundamental affirmation that that which has fallen away from God may be restored to communion with Him and by virtue of that communion may become holy. Hence any veneration given to a saint or a relic or an icon is directed ultimately to God, who has made that person or object holy. And hence did the fathers of the seventh Ecumenical Council pass anathema on those who refused to venerate the saints and the relics and the icons, seeing in that refusal ultimately a denial of the reality of Christ's Incarnation and of His sanctification of the created order.
This argument has been extended into political theory--that is to say, if a person or an object may become holy by participating in the holiness of Christ, then so may (and must) a state. And the argument is made that the denial of the potential for a Christian state is therefore subject to the same anathema passed on those who deny the efficacy of Christ's Incarnation.
It is at this point in the argument that the Christian Conservative movement joins with the Byzantine theorists of the theanthropic state in arguing for the imposition of Christian morality upon society. "We are able to go up and take the country," they say. "We must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill," they say. And the means, they say, urging the Christian community to action, is the law. All we have to do to create a Christian state is enshrine Christian morality and faith in the Constitution of the United States, and then enforce the law.
They should consider the history of such ideas. What was the fate of Christian Byzantium? What was the fate of Winthrop's "City on a Hill." What is the current state of European Christendom? The city on a hill seems doomed to fall, into sin or to foreign tyranny--despite all our efforts to enforce godliness, God does not seem overly pleased.
Byzantium is now remembered for the intrigue and complexity of its internal politics, New England for its bigotry and dourness, and the era of Christian Europe is otherwise known as the Dark Ages. Whether or not those reputations are completely justified (and they are not), they nonetheless prove Winthrop's prophecy true. "...if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speake evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us..."
And hence the final accomplishment of every Christian state that has ever existed is simply posterity's attribution of their sins to the God they claimed to serve. Despite our best efforts, the kingdom of heaven has not yet descended to earth.
Is it possible that we're chasing a red herring?
6 comments:
The funny thing about the history of this debate is that Islam beat the Christian church to the punch from the beginning - Christians had to rationalize and defend the decision to make holy the secular places; for Muslims, it was never even an open question. Of course a government/war/etc. could be used in the service of God.
I think it's a question worth opening again.
Do you care to elaborate on that? Are you suggesting that Christianity should again seize the reins of political power? Or are you saying Christianity should eschew the old rationalizations and surrender all political aspirations?
I'd only go so far as to say that Christians shouldn't have to apologize for seizing the reins - the only way it can be considered utterly evil is through a gross misunderstanding of history, and repeated use of the number-one historical fallacy that almost everyone makes - assuming that people living hundreds of years ago were motivated by the same things and were a great deal like people today. And since no one would march off to fight Muslims today as an act of piety, no one back then would either. And since using the state to promote Christianity would be frowned on today, it must have been back then as well.
"Christianity is evil? No, I think the real problem is that you think you understand history."
So, uh, where's day three, buddy?
*sigh* It just took a bit longer to write than I expected. I'm still not quite happy with it. Oh well.
Also--I see your point. Historically, Christianity has simply acted as has every other religion, worldview, nation-state, etc.
The problem, to my mind, is that such actions are fundamentally contrary to the essence of Christianity. Therefore it is ironic that those who condemn and reject Christianity base judgments on some essential Christian ethical presuppositions.
And both sides end up contradicting themselves. Lovely.
Post a Comment