Christian Nations?, A Discussion of Church and State

Hi all,

I'd like to start a thread to hear others thoughts on the influence and involvement of the Church with the state and with politics in general.

I recently read something by Bp. Kalistos Ware on the history of the Byzantine Empire defending it in spite of its corruption as a vision of the kingdom of God on Earth. Now I reespect Bp. Ware, but, knowing something of Byzantine history, I had a hard time swallowing this. Still it got me thinking about about the church's involvement in politics and the shaping of societies in general throughout the ages.

Just so you know a little bit about my background on this issue I was involved with Operation Rescue in the 90's and was arrested by the LAPD along with a number of othes for blocking the door to an abortion clinic in downtown Los Angeles. I have since re-evaluated this movement and currently feel that civil disobedience is not the best way to handle the abortion issue. And in fact I question, now whether, the church should be involved in shaping our society at all. One of the issues that always disturbed me during my time in the CEC was hearing sermons on current events and politics, and the constant intermingling of social issues with the things of God.

Now I am still pro-life and I'm not necessarily asking for posts on the abortion issue or the CEC per se. But I'm hoping we can talk about whether there can be really such a thing as a Christian nation? Whether the church's job is not simply to administer the sacraments and guide men's lives as they attempt to amend their lives? Whether the church's job is not simply to pray and sit at the feet of Christ. I obviously have a particular viewpoint on these issues, but I also have a very open mind and would like to hear what others think the role of the church is in relation to government and society in general and how that role should be carried out.

Now I attend a church called Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church. So the saint of my Church issued the edict of Milan, and in effect, caused the Roman empire to become the first Christian Nation. And I should not wish to dishonor him, or the many godly men who throughout history both in the east and west have striven to instill Christian principles in their society. I simply have honest doubts and questions about the efficacy of the intermingling of politics and spirituality and would like to hear from any interested in discussing this.

I wonder if it might not actually be more interesting to look at State and Church - how governments have influenced the Church. You can sart with Constantine pulling all the bickering bishops together so that he could compel them into some form of unity in order that he might have an easier time of ruling. Or perhaps we could look at various European nations and the relationships between different kings and bishops and the churches financial contributions to military ventures. Or perhaps even look at more recent examples of political climate change regarding things like homosexuality and illegal immigration and its influence on 'the church' in the West?

Well you've certainly made me stop and go "hmm," and that's always a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Certainly that is a part of the issue that I was proposing to talk about, although I hadn't looked at it from quite that angle. Maybe you could say more about how you see state and church from this perspective. Is political involvement in church affairs a good thing or a bad thing as far as you're concerned?

I believe the two should remain firmly separated.

There, that is all there is to it.

Is that possible? Nations are comprised of people. The church is comprised of some of those same people.

Shall those within the church abstain from politics? Shall persons involved in politics abstain from the church? Sounds like a recipe for the one with the sword victimizing the one without.

Not that this is necessarily bad (from an eternal perspective).

==============
As for Jonathan's question, I would ask if he would begin with Nicaea and answer two questions for me?

1. Does the fact that a pagan ruler (Constantine) gathered the bishops together rather than the bishops deciding among themselves that a council was needed influence the doctrine of the church? Put another way, if the bishops themselves had not been forced to come together, is it not entirely possible that the Arians and Trinitarians would have followed the natural course and split off into two churches (both with valid Apostolic Succession) and thereby given us a very different history than the one that so many stake their claim on?

2. Constantine did not convert to Christianity until on his deathbed. Yet he was involved in the final outcome of the first council. That being the case, is it reasonable to believe that there was some secular influence in the doctrines that were hammered out in that council? If so, is this a good thing or bad? (OK. That's three questions.)

No JCS I meant the church as an institution.

Individual church members (non-clergy) as private citizens (not representing the church in a formalized manner) are free to be involved in politics.

Hi JCS,

The answer to all of your questions is at present "I don't know." As I said earlier I hadn't really considered the issue from this particular angle and I'll have to think about it some and get back with you. My head (and my heart) has really been in the Trinitarian discussion on the other thread for the last few days. Also I'm in the process of starting a new job so it may take me a bit to ponder the questions you have posed.

Blessings,

Jonathan

Hi JCS,

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. It has been a very busy, but very wonderful time in my life.

I guess I'd have to answer that I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions implicit in your questions.

I have a great respect for history and I wish more people read it, but I sometimes agree with Voltaire's assessment that "history is a pack of tricks we play on the dead."

Your assumption seems to be that since St. Constantine refused baptism until late in life that he was simply a pagan ruler who was perhaps using Christianity to unify his empire and consolidate his power. I'm not sure I totally buy into this characterization. For one thing in the historical period we are speaking of many converts delayed baptism until fairly late in life because it was taken so seriously. For another thing, however one chooses to interpret his vision it is clear that he had some very real powerful experience which changed his outlook on life.

I tend to see St. Constantine as a man who was a sincere convert to Christianity who delayed taking the final step because he was afraid that his office as ruler of an empire would force him to do many things which were morally questionable. As indeed he did.

Obviously simply being a catachumen does not give him the authority to call a church council, but the one person you seem to leave out of your thinking is God. Is it not possible that God was using this man and his unique situation to bring together and clarify important doctrinal issues? Is it not possible that the "squabbling" bishops were good men who had strong views because it was important for them to articulate holy truth correctly? Is it not possible that the "political" aspect of the this council has been misinterpreted and exagerrated by historians who wish to see these events in a certain light?

This is how I would tend to view your first question at any rate. I'll have to give more thought to the other issues you raised and post more later. Bed now. Sleep. ZZZZ.

I don't see how this helps to thwart the idea that he wanted to have these bishops get together for any purpose other than to quell any potential violence that tends to be the end result of altogether too many religious disputes. Eusebius reinstated Arius after Alexander deposed him and Eusebius was later excommunicated (after the council) then reinstated to his office at the urging of Constantine because, well, Eusebius was his brother-in-law. Clearly, Constantine was influential in that matter at the very least.

Constantine defeated Licinius on the field of battle and thereby became the supreme emperor. Licinius was a brutal, conniving scallywag who was later executed by the imperial senate for plotting more general scallywagness. But that encounter between Licinius and Constantine was a battle between military forces, that is: an overt decisive encounter between rivals.

Once he was in supreme command of the empire it most certainly was on his mind that maintaining the peace would be a very difficult task unless he was to fall back on the whole brute force thing that so many before him employed with less than desireable results. Considering that twelve years prior to the council he (along with Licinius – who was married to Constantine’s sister btw) issued the famed religious tolerance edict and restored confiscated properties back to many Christians, it seems clear that there was a distinct change in political policies. Had Constantine done this on his own, I might hold another opinion but considering the character flaws of Licinius and the fact that Licinius went along with the idea, I tend to think that there was some political motivation behind it for which Constantine's alleged conversion does not give a full account. Licinius didn’t give a camel’s poop that the Christians were being persecuted. Death and mayhem seemed to be his favorite passtimes. (And I have a hard time swallowing the whole "I had a vision" bit in which the sign of the cross of Christ became a military emblem that would assure victory in battle. That doesn't sound like Christ a whole lot to me.)

It seems plausible to me that this Council was indeed a politically astute move on the part of Constantine. And, as you pointed out, he continued to do things that were “morally questionable” which to me seems to indicate that there is great room for doubt about any firmly held Christian convictions played the strongest part in the matter.

As for leaving God out of the equation, I have a tendency to shy away from presuming that this council or any other event in history was explicitly God’s doing. I don’t know Him and so I cannot speak with any kind of authority as to whether He had a hand in the matter or not. I do think that it is a huge error to ascribe things to Him that one is not 100% certain about. It is too easy to use a “this is the way it happened so God must have been involved (e.g. approved of it)” argument to justify, say, slavery or crusades or the establishment of a new and evil "Christian" denomination or even eccumenical councils. I’m not quite willing to buy that kind of reasoning or presuming. I'm not saying that it is untrue, just that it is not beyond a resonable doubt that He in some manner orchestrating this particular event any more than He orchestrated Apartheid or the Irish Potato Famine.

Be that as it may, with regards to this council, it would have been one thing for Constantine to call the bishops together and lock them in a room until they worked things out. It is an entirely another matter when he (whether a neophyte or a full-on pagan makes little odds) inserted himself into the debates and decision making. That, to me, would be like asking Ted Kennedy or Newt Gingrich to participate in a gathering of the House of Bishops.

My point is simply that his presence and participation did in some way affect the outcome and therefore would support my original assertion that there have been times in history when civil authorities or governmental interference have influenced church governance or theological understandings. And this doesn't even touch on the influences that culture has had on Theology which is another discussion.

There is no doubt that things changed tremendously for the Church during Constantine's reign. No longer underground and persecuted, Christians were now "in the open" and even assumed public office. To say it was a huge change is to make an understatement. The Church entered a different era almost overnight. As some problems were no longer a major concern (persecution) other issues reared their ugly head (State/Church, nepotism, money to name but a few). There is no denying that Constantine the politician asserted his great influence over the Church - not all bad, nor all good. What is more significant to me is that the Church survived through all of this, especially in light of the rise of Arianism and the new challenges it faced. I believe it is significant to note that although Constantine called for the first Ecumenical Council in AD 325, it must not be forgotten its chief accomplishment (the Creed) was not ratified some 50 years after his death.

When we look into the rear view mirror of history, it is indeed a temptation to simplify matters using 20/20 perfect hindsight. However, to conclude that God used Constantine, one is not denying or turning a blind eye to the severe complications and "messy- ness" of history. To me the entire account of the Bible is just this - God's eternal purposes accomplished through (in spite) the mess of our collective human life times. The Old Testament is replete of accounts of politicians asserting their influence: some for good, some for bad. No need to go into detail, but suffice it to say that in spite of this mess Christ God stooped down and became man. It mattered not. God's plan was not hindered, delayed or corrupted.

I believe it is no different for us today. God's plan is not hindered, delayed or corrupted. Oh yes, and one other thing remains the same: it is still messy.

(Hey wait a minute! Did I just describe my life?)

I was recently listening to a podcast from the Journal Nature about the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. I don't think I really understand this field of study well enough to discuss it, but what struck me was the researchers comments regarding his findings. He said, "From within the space-time continuum there can be no story to explain what we are seeing."

If there's one thing which is true of human beings it is that we are interpretive story telling animals. We see random groupings of light in the sky and invent constellations and myths. We witness physical phenomena in the world around us and must construct a special kind of narrative to explain what we have observed. And likewise when memory or history records certain events and we cannot refrain frrom projecting onto them explanations and meanings. And yet the story we tell ourselves and others to parse the meaning of what has happened may be no more than a fable. Certainly it reflects what we might call, for lack of a better term, our point of view.

You see the events surrounding Nicaea and construct a human narrative regarding the motivations of the persons involved and meanings of these events. From a certain factual perspective you may be correct. But to attempt to understand church history apart from a belief in God seems to me like the physicist searching for explanations of quantum entanglement from within the space time continuum. Within the sphere of mere human events and the datum that history records there can be no story to explain what we see. Or rather we can construct such a narrative, but it will not be full of the meaning which the participants ascribed to it, and may be no more than a mirror in which we see our own faces.

It seems to me, as Celine was saying, that the scandal of Christianity has always been that mere frail and fallible human beings claim to have been touched and moved by a holy and infinite God. We can always look to their weaknesses to their failings as reason to discount what they assert. Yet to do so perhaps misses much that is significant. That evil persons have at times affirmed the same to me does not prove that we should not take such a witness seriously. A madman may claim to be the president of the United States. This does change the fact that there actually is a president of the United States.

To me what is of importance about the council of Nicaea is not the morals or mores of its individual participants, and I am sorry if I gave you the impression that this is what I was arguing. I do not necessarily think St. Constantine was a particularly good Christian. But I find it difficult to swallow the view that he was simply using Christianity to his own ends. As the reign of Julian highlights he alienated a significant portion of the populace by his conversion. I was objecting to your labelling him a pagan simply because he had not yet experienced the sacrament of baptism.

To me what is significant is the declaration of the credal faith, and I see this as unique event in the history of Christianity, not a precedent that should be followed.

What I was really trying to do in my somewhat cumbersome way was to point out that I find it difficult to answer your original question since we disagree on its premises. You seem to wish to talk about Christian history in way which focuses on the historical facts and which discounts that there might be something divine going on. I on the other hand see the Church, not as a mere human institution. To me the church is the ongoing incarnation of my Lord Jesus Christ. To me the Nicaean creed is not a simply a document penned by men in a particular historical time and place. Rather it is the work of the Holy Spirit continuing His ministry of revealing, clarifying, and illuminating the mysteries of God.

I certainly have no wish to end the discussion, but it makes it hard to talk about these things when we have such different perspectives. And it occurs to me to ask what event in history you would accept as being influenced by God beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt? And further is reason the most appropriate tool by which to evaluate these matters?

I guess just to summarize our where we are so far (more for my own benefit than anything else) I actually proposed this thread to discuss the problem of church and state from the other direction, whether the church really should be active in politics. You asked whether it might not be more interesting to look at secular interventions in the church and proposed among other things the council of Nicaea as an instance of this. I'm questioning whether that particular unique event is really an example of what you are talking about.

This mere fact, that you were listening to this, is of enormous interest to me. I find it fascinating that you would invest time in something like this. You actually truly astound me at whiles and I believe that I am not intellectually equal to even discuss matters with you as you are far superior to me in knowledge, understanding, and eloquence.

Taken at face value, I would ask then how you can really look on the Bible as anything other than a compilation of writings by men who "record[ed] certain events and [could not] refrain frrom projecting onto them explanations and meanings."

True. I didn't enter into the dialogue to discuss divine intervention (DI) but I suppose that it is a matter that cannot be ignored. I can't really discuss DI because, frankly, God makes no sense and to discuss His involvement (or non-involvement) is beyond my capacity. I am only able to look on the things I understand and discuss them. When it comes to DI, I have to either believe that God has orchestrated everything in Human history or He has not been involved at all. If He has only been involved periodically, it's impossible to distinguish which things to attribute to Him and which to attribute to natural causes or whatever.

See above.

I know no other tool. Faith is way too speculative and easy to manipulate. Having fresh wounds from a bunch of self-proclaimed "prophets" who were skilled at such manipulation, I am physically and mentally incapable of taking anyone's word for ethereal explanations based on their particular speculation. That, to me, is as prone to "our point of view" as creating narratives based on historical facts.

When I posited my initial response to your post, I actually had in mind something other than just the Council of Nicaea. I was actually more interested in the over-arching topic of how Chritian Theology has been tainted/diluted/altered by entities from without.

One such over-arching topic would be the matter of slavery. In Paul's letter, slavery was not addressed as an evil and in much of church history it was not only accepted but justified as being something to which God had no objections; contrasting with today's point of view in which slavery in and of itself is considered an evil. This is a mere example of the kind of change that the church has undergone and it actually falls more into the category of cultural influences. I was merely suggesting looking at the matter from the other end; rather than seeking to validate the importance of Christians in polictics, I thought it would be of interest to discuss the matter of nominal or non-Christians influencing Church polity. I mean, honestly, how often do you think that Christ would have commanded people to go on Crusades or would sanction stealing lands away from the natives of a new world or to use the sword as a means of converting to the Catholic faith? Not many, I suppose. It has to be asserted, therefore, that the Church has not always acted as a benevolence to society or that it has remained uninfluenced by powerful political civil entities.

However, I will bow out of the conversation so that you and Celine and others of the faith can talk about all the good things that the Church has brought about in civil society and how important it is for the Church and its members to be actively involved in civil politics. It is clear that we are on completely different planets with regards to this discussion and it's not likely that those planets will align any time soon.

In some ways I find the question about a Christian nation a very peculiar one. Something like a discussion about a Christian car or Christian food.

Just a thought.

Well that's kind of my point. Can there actually be a Christian nation? Evangelicals tend to think this is a Christian nation when in fact we are essentially a completely secular republic founded primarily by 18th century Deists who were in many ways actually opposed to Christianity. I personally kind of like it that way since the Jeffersonian separation of Church and State and the establishment and free excersize clauses tend to give me a kind of religious freedom that would be enviable in many places in the world. I'm always puzzled by Evangelicals wanting to have more Christian influence in the government, since they seem to be unaware that historically once this happens its only a matter of time before some sort of religious persecution of opposing viewpoints becomes inevitable.