Heart Religion
Way back on June 7th, Caleb wrote: “Historically the Protestant church has tried to relocate the ground of existence in one of two places: either in a secularized institutional form, usually the state, or in the radically atomized heart of every individual. As a result, the history of the Protestant church is in part one of being manipulated by and put in the service of either state or individual. This has repeatedly led, in simplified terms, to either some form of collectivism or some form of liberalism, each tending towards more radical expression over the course of time.”
I was reminded of this observation, one with which I largely concur as a description of the difficult times in which we find ourselves as Protestants, while reading Russell Hittinger’s essay/review on/of Michael Burleigh’s Earthly Powers (in First Things, June/July, 2006). The piece is about the Roman Catholic church’s relationship to the state throughout the modern era. It concludes with the following observation:
“In Annum Sacrum, Leo made clear that, as the Church entered the twentieth century, it should no longer place its temporal hopes in the arrenments of the old political order. Once, he said, divine providence raised up a Constantine to deliver the Church from ‘the yoke of the Caesars.’ Today, however, ‘another blessed and heavenly token is offered to our sight — the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, with a cross rising from it and shining forth with dazzling splendor amidst flames of love. In that Sacred heart all our hopes should be placed, and from it the salvation of men is to be confidently besought.’ Leo understood that the Heart had to be affirmed without the political doctrines of nationalism and exceptionalism. He called the dedication ‘the greatest act of my pontificate.’
Hittinger then writes: “Today, it will seem a strange thing to make Jesus’ heart visually subordinate to Christ’s kingship, but once upon a time it was a profound exercise of political theology. It was nothing less than the way to preserve the Catholic imagination from what I have called the third-rail provincialisms of nationalisms and political religions. The human and earthly Jesus of th Heart is also the fully transcendent king.”
I offer this extended quotation to suggest that the difficulties posed by the modern state are not necessarily more pressing on Protestants than they are on Roman Catholics. If Protestants in reaction to the predicament of liberalism made a personal relationship with Jesus the chief expression of Christ’s kingly rule, then Roman Catholics also seem to have made a similar move. I’m not sure where that leaves us, except to say that for modern Christians, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, the options of political theology appear to be remarkably circumscribed. For myself, retaining Christ’s kingship over the church may be the best we can do. It may also be the only thing we can do.
If I understand you, both you and Stegall have urged that statism and individualism; collectivism and liberalism are the current political alternatives. And you have said here that Christians today must side with (or be happiest with) individualist-liberalism in order to preserve Christ’s reign over the church.
I suppose Stegall’s NewPantagruelism is an attempt to articulate a viable third way, but I have not been able to discern he thinks that is.
Nevertheless, there is a genuine way that is outside of the statist-individualist continuum. It preserves not only Christ’s reign over the church, but also individual liberty, communal prerogatives, and an intrinsically limited civil power (not a mere external limit by the individual). See Here.
In any case, in light of the testimony of Scripture, it hardly suffices that the only and best thing you can do is retain Christ’s kingship over the church. In fact, a Christ who is King only over His church is simply not the Christ of the Scriptures.
Or does your hermeneutic somehow enable you to read the Scriptures in a way that makes sense of what your saying here? I, for one, would like to see more of an explanation.
If the “See Here” link above doesn’t work, then see here instead:
http://reformatorische.blogspot.com/2006/02/dooyeweerds-societal-sphere.html
Dear DH,
Christ is king of the Church. On this point there is Protestant unity.
The sadness of your closing remarks really got to me. In terms of categories, there seem to be only two options available relative to Christ and the State. He is King over the state- or not.
If He is not- what are the options?
Rick
And you have said here that Christians today must side with (or be happiest with) individualist-liberalism in order to preserve Christ’s reign over the church.
I have said no such thing.
I suppose Stegall’s NewPantagruelism is an attempt to articulate a viable third way, but I have not been able to discern [what] he thinks that is.
I have a great dislike for so-called “third-ways.” Perhaps this is why it is not discernable in tNP.
There is a great deal there which is discernable, however.
I think the problem here for Baus is his taking Caleb and me to be advocating individualism over against statism in the current structures proscribed by liberalism. I won’t speak for Caleb but I did not read his earlier post that way. What I read him saying was that Protestants have either baptized the state or the individual but have not thought about what one might call mediating structures (a loaded term, no doubt for Caleb since Neuhaus, whom Fr. Jape regularly rebukes, regularly uses the concept). My post was simply to show that Roman Catholics, at least at the beginning of the 20th century felt a similar tension and so you have Pope Leo (I’ve lost count) advocating an individualism comparable to evangelicalism — Christ as king of the Heart.
Like Caleb, I’m no fan of third ways. They usually turn out to be Laodecian. One alternative to either the nation-state or the individual is a federal system that allows local communities to set their own norms (whether or not they flourish) as well as the associations and institutions within those communities — schools, voluntary societies, families, churches, ect. Of course, the US pretends to be a federated republic, but a Civil War, two world wars, and a sovereign Supreme Court have pretty much tamed federalism.
I would still like to see a return to federalism and the recent blog on which Caleb and I participated, reactionaryradicals.com, a blog about William Kaufmann’s new book from ISI Books, gave some of us a chance to advocate localism and rue their demise.
How does this relate to Christ’s kingship as Rick Gamble asks? Well, Christ would be Lord of all those communities, and local institutions as well as the federal government by virtue of his deity through his work as creator, and through providence. I think he would be Lord whether those institutions affirmed him or not.
This is the point I keep stumbling over with those who regard me to be denying the Lordship of Christ when I insist upon his Lordship over the Church. I do believe Christ rules over his church as redeemer, through the office of king, the other two offices being his priestly and prophetic duties. But I do regard his kingship over the state, whether local, national, or federal, to be real but different from his rule over the church.
Perhaps some of that difference would stem from an organic as opposed to a legal relationship. If you have to add an amendment to a constitution to make Christ Lord, then it seems to me you have missed something basic about this redemptive rule. In the realm of salvation it strikes me that Christ’s rule would be more organic and covenantal (yes, I know covenants are legal but my sense is they are different from constitutions). In a covenantal relationship, if the head of the clan, family, or some other form of hereditary relationship said, “as for me and my house we will serve the Lord,” then you have an expression of redemptive kingship. I don’t see that same dynamic at work in a constitutional arrangement.
As for the Dooyewardian take on sphere sovereignty, I think I can appreciate what it’s trying to do. But it’s way too complicated for me. Chalk it up to my American provincialism.
Some clarifications:
My second statement “And you have said here Christians today must side with… individualist-liberalism” was meant to apply to Hart alone, not Stegall. Sorry for the ambiguity.
And I see now that Hart is not intending to say this.
Now, both Stegall and Hart have eschewed “third ways.” So I take it that this has connotations I am not aware of and did not intend. Taking a cue from Gamble, it may be helpful to put it in terms of an either-or. Either Christians “baptize” (accomodate) some position along a given political continuum, or they articulate a position (that may or may not overlap other positions on certain points) which is conceived on the basis of distinctly Christian views (and not merely accomodated to Christian views in some fashion). I think, hypothetically anyway, we can all acknowledge a difference here.
I would yet appreciate Stegall pointing out where he articulates an outline of his NewPantagruelist approach. And is it within a liberal continuum, or not?
Hart says that Sphere Sovereignty is too complicated. But I have pointed to my uncomplicated essay (in this comment thread, and successfully linked in my original post of 11 June) that should convince him and everyone else here otherwise. In fact, it is only as complicated as any system of liberty for local communities, including associations and institutions within those communities — schools, voluntary societies, families, churches, ect.
Some of the distinctions between the neocalvinist approach to this system and other approaches is that we 1) argue for our position on the basis of distinctly Christian views (ie, we don’t accomodate other approaches), 2) differentiate “sovereignty” from the “autonomy” of the liberal continuum in its part-whole approach, and 3) have a basis for intrinsic limitations of the state and other communities.
One of our distinctly Christian views, upon which we base our position, is the reign of Christ over all. Now that Hart has unequivocally affirmed Christ’s reign over ALL… and he, and neocalvinists, (and National Confessionalists?) affirm that Christ’s reign over different things (e.g. church, state, other) is as “real but different” in each case, we can begin discussing what that reign means in different cases.
I hope Chellis can clarify whether National Confessionalists affirm that Christ’s reign is different in each case. I think he has already clarified in his view that the responsibility of the state to recognize Christ’s reign does not entail that Christ’s reign over the state is dependent on that recognition.
I would yet appreciate Stegall pointing out where he articulates an outline of his NewPantagruelist approach.
I do not know that there exists an outline, or even if there is one defined “approach.”
I would suggest looking a number of places. On the “About” page you can link to the “Welcome Statement,” to our “Editorial Guidelines,” and to a collection of classic statements on “Pantagruelism.”
Any of Fr. Jape’s “Swarming the Pub(l)ic Square” columns are recommended.
I have linked to several pieces of note already: my recent discussion of natural law and the death penalty, our editorial statement on the 2004 election, our statement of policial alternatives followed by four entries from American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.
Or you could just peruse the back issues. I recommend Chris Shannon’s piece on Illich, Mark Henrie’s piece on Traditionalist Conservatism, the piece titled “Let’s Roll Over,” Jeremy Beer’s retrospective on Caelum et Terra. There are many others.
The closest thing we have to a summary might be the three images currently gracing the front page.
Just dropping in from Synod. Great discussion. I knew that Caleb, Darryl, and I would start agreeing soon.
I agree with everything Darryl said in his comment above with the exception that I would say that Christ rules the nations in His mediatorial capacity.
This does not make his reign over communities, localities, and nations the same as his reign over the Church. His reign over the Church is holy and based on His justice/saving grace. His reign over all else is common and based on his justice/common grace.
I also think an amendment without an organically Christian legal/constitution al framework is silly. It is rather a point of discussion (even provocation) to begin a discussion about getting to that organic development.
Sorry this is confusing and disjointed (I am supposed to be listing to a speach).
Keep at it.
While I agree that a Constitutional amendment does little in terms of changing the hearts of a nation, is there any other place that our country could publicly profess that Jesus is Lord?
Obviously, the framers never thought that their own words would be reinterpreted to the point of meaninglessness, and the Constitution is worthless if no one upholds it, but can you look me straight in the eyes and tell me that, all else being equal, a Constitution that acknowledges Christ as Lord of the nation is inferior to one that does not?
In a biblical worldview, the state does not exist to “sanctify” the heart of the citizen. That is the work of the Spirit and the Word, and as believers think and live Christianly, we “lay down our lives” for our neighbor, to demonstrate and work for a biblical implementation in any culture. I have been deeply helped in understanding the covenental roots of the American experience by a former scholar of Temple University, Daniel Elazar, and I find little contradiction in his approach with what I have read in Dooyeweerd or Kuyper. Elazar was a scholar in covenental thinking from a Jewish perspective, and traced it through Jewish history, and also the Reformation. He gives a thoroughly biblical grounding for his thinking, and I think an understanding and re-application of the covenental model of life, where there is unity, individuality, and strong kinship, is the best we can hope for until the full arrival of the “age to come”. There is so much on this website, especially his analysis of hierarchical, organic, and covenental cultures (much of which overlaps with Dooyeweerd’s ground-motives discussion). See: http://www.jcpa.org/djeindex.htm The tendency toward the dominance of the American Supreme Court is, in my opinion, not a liberal-conservative issue, but a tilt toward Plato’s Republic (Philosopher Kings) and away from a covenental society, with an emphasis on interpreting the consitution as a fundamentalist would interpret the Bible in a literalist fashion. What we will end up with is a Consitution as Magisterium, while the American Constitution as a covenental document exists to call relationships into existence, define them, and delimit powers, (ethics) not to define morality.