Church and State

[a-lily-of-peace]

Something on my mind lately - is there a link between church and state?

More specifically, does anyone have any perspective on what seems to be a link between democracy/capitalism/Protestantism compared to monarchy/feudalism/Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

This isn’t to criticise either way, just curious about the cultural links between a society that is always looking for what can be perfected and refined, testing everything against the scriptures and having no teacher but God, compared to a society that is more focused on making peace with whatever God gives, finding comfort in knowing that no matter what your place or rank, you are a part of the body of Christ and every part is loved equally so there’s no need to strive to change your place.

Looking for perspectives from everyone but I hope it’s less about justifying an ideology of state (“have more people suffered under feudalism or capitalism”) and more about exploring the concepts and modes of life.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

I'll be interested to see what's said!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Historically, there has been an opinion that High Church is associated with more authoritarian structures and Low Church with more republican ones. A famous example here, was James I who famously said: No bishop, no king. Similarly, the High Church Laudianism of Charles I was opposed by the Low Church Puritanism of the Parliament in the English Civil Wars. Or we see the Calvinist Dutch provinces become Republican as opposed to the Catholic monarchy of Spain.

You can argue that a Church with a strong centralised structure is more amenable to a centralised State, and a more federal or republican structure mirrors a synodal or congregational pattern of Low Church Protestants. It is difficult to argue that one causes the other, as historically the forces worked in tandem. The Dutch revolt against the Spanish is part and parcel of the Dutch Reformation for instance, so rejection of the Roman Catholic clergy structure has a political dimension too. Likewise, the US has a history of Puritan settlement in New England, who rejected Bishops (under the King) on account of their non-conformism and subsequent suppression by the English State anyway.

It is also true that as a state becomes more centralised, it tends to regulate clergy more closely, leading to more hierarchy in that structure. So we see a strong Catholic hierarchy mirroring the late Roman Empire diocesal divisions, strengthened by the secular power accrued to Bishops in the mediaeval period. The Anglican Church historically also had vicarages used as appendages to the Class structure (think of the Regency novels of Austin or Hardy's Wessex).

So certainly Low Church Protestantism and more democratic institutions had an historic association, but this may just be Anglo-Dutch eccentricity. The French Revolution rejected Christian power structures in totality, for instance. A Catholic is expected to demur to the hierarchy though, which was why Kennedy was attacked as 'bowing the US to the Pope' or why the Know-Nothings attacked Popery. Catholic politicians have managed work arounds for this mostly, and it seems as if the Catholic Church is reticent to use refusal of communion or excommunication against them. That said, in other places the Catholic Church lead the democratic revolution (at least initially) such as in Latin American Revolutions, such as Mexico.

It is difficult to say if there is a real association of ideas, rather than historic artifact. The Feudal system or Old Guard tend to have co-opted the Church, so usually those that oppose one opposed the other, but not universally.

Connecting Capitalism is a different kettle of fish entirely. There is a strong idea of a Protestant Work Ethic, where Protestantism lead to the working man being seen as having a vocation from God, and thus obligated to work as hard as he is able - which thus jump-started or caused the ascendancy of Capitalism (depending on your view). Again, historically Protestant countries were over-represented in Industrialisation and so, such as Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, the US etc. Interestingly, as modern historians have pointed out, there is a simultaneous decline in productivity as countries' share of Protestants also decline with modern secularisation. Protestants have also bern more keen on education in the past, to assist everyone reading the Bible, which had a knock on effect of greater prosperity in Protestant populations than Catholic ones. Although, Middle Class populations tend to have been drawn to Protestantism disproportionately, as they were often locked out of power structures, but sufficiently wealthy to support its overthrow or opposition, so again this might just be artifact of the initial groups that Reformed. So there is some support for seeing Protestantism as supporting Capitalism more robustly, but the argument that Capitalism is a specifically Protestant trait is not really true. Capitalism in Europe largely began in prosperous Italian city-states, which often had some freer government, but they were mostly Catholic in the Reformation (barring Savoyard Waldensians). Generally more democratic government encourages competition, and thus Capitalism, as the government tends to meddle less with economic systems and establishes fewer restraints or monopolies.

So we have many different strands to untangle, that are difficult to do. The associations do have a vague and not-universal pattern in history, but whether one is causative of the other is hard to establish and can always be hedged by exceptions (that may be proving the rule or maybe not). Personally, I can see why Low Church Protestantism that rejects manmade hierarchies might predispose to Republicanism, and also find the argument for the Protestant Work Ethic compelling; but the reverse, that Catholicism predisposes Feudalism or Monarchy is less clear in my mind, as the exceptions come thick and fast, not least the centuries old frictions between the Church and State over Investitures and liberties of the Church. Reactionaries gravitate toward old Conservative certainties, which was why Petain or the Bourbonists in Spain were so pro-Catholic, but the pattern is reversed in the New World, and nationalist groups in Britain or Hungary are more Protestant nowadays. There are many factors to consider, and the birth of Protestantism as Europe was loosening its feudal ties, is perhaps pulling the wool over our eyes a little bit.

 

[Tolworth John]

Something on my mind lately - is there a link between church and state?

More specifically, does anyone have any perspective on what seems to be a link between democracy/capitalism/Protestantism compared to monarchy/feudalism/Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

This isn’t to criticise either way, just curious about the cultural links between a society that is always looking for what can be perfected and refined, testing everything against the scriptures and having no teacher but God, compared to a society that is more focused on making peace with whatever God gives, finding comfort in knowing that no matter what your place or rank, you are a part of the body of Christ and every part is loved equally so there’s no need to strive to change your place.

Looking for perspectives from everyone but I hope it’s less about justifying an ideology of state (“have more people suffered under feudalism or capitalism”) and more about exploring the concepts and modes of life.

If you can find it the long article" the Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy." Goes a long way to answering your questions.

Basically the idea is that evangelical Christianity with its strong emphasis on reading the Bible has always stressed education and has lead in teaching converts to read and write,costarring from the bottom of society.
This has lead to a growing class of educated people who as Christians adept they are responsible for there actions before God and equally responcibile for change in there society.
The result is they print bibles and other education and health books, start newspapers, engineering works to make printing presses, tools etc.
Farming methods are improved and the local leaders working at these things get pushed into politics to change things at a higher level or responcibile represent there people.

If you want to see how others see this search out the article by atheist Matthew Parish, " Why Africa needs Christianity!"

He grew up in Africa and went back as a journalist . He saw both as a young man traveling in Africa and as a journalist the difference Christianity makes to ordinary people and he really believes Africa needs Christianity. Unfortunately it is a mark of his spiritual blindness that he cannot see that the rest of the world including himself also needs Christianity.

A modern book that makes similar claims again by an atheist is ' Dominion' by Tom Holland, it is about the making of the west's Christian attitude to life.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Thank you for that really in depth response!

The main thing that connected Protestantism with capitalism in my mind is denominationalism perceived as competition in a marketplace of ideas, not so much as a matter of innovation but of interpretation and application.

I also didn’t consider the French Revolution but you’re right that it’s a Catholic country, and thinking about it now I wonder if the enlightenment philosophies filtered through differently (liberty, equality, fraternity compared to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all men created equal) and if there’s any relevant cultural difference between how each state legislates the protection of happiness and equality.

There are non religious cultural influences too, Scandinavian countries are more Protestant but they were also very communal societies even as pagans.

Just thoughts really.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235503063_The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy

This will get read, thank you!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thank you for that really in depth response!

The main thing that connected Protestantism with capitalism in my mind is denominationalism perceived as competition in a marketplace of ideas, not so much as a matter of innovation but of interpretation and application.

I also didn’t consider the French Revolution but you’re right that it’s a Catholic country, and thinking about it now I wonder if the enlightenment philosophies filtered through differently (liberty, equality, fraternity compared to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all men created equal) and if there’s any relevant cultural difference between how each state legislates the protection of happiness and equality.

There are non religious cultural influences too, Scandinavian countries are more Protestant but they were also very communal societies even as pagans.

Just thoughts really.

Something worth considering is the Legal tradition. The US has inherited English Common Law, while France has always used more Proscriptivist laws. So French laws tend to codify what one ought to not do and established by statute, while Common Law refers back to precedent more readily. You see it exactly mirrored there, as the French establish a Liberty, Equality, Fraternity by a Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen; as a codification of supposed Natural Law. The US holds it self evident that one pursues Life, Liberty and Happiness; so it is not codified as such, and looks back to a creator endowing such right and established by precedent. You can already see the seeds perhaps of why the US did not fall to a home grown autocracy, and France rapidly became the First Empire of Napoleon.

Also, the British colonies were asserting their right as Englishmen to be represented before being taxed, as established by precedent of centuries back to the Magna Carta after all; and the French were arguing against Divine right of Kings and grasping at a Natural order to oppose it. In the latter, what you establish by Statute can more readily be repealed or modified, but what is long term tradition is harder to mould.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Speaking in terms of an Australian perspective, since European settlement anyway, when it was first settled as a colony, it was a penal colony. Eleven ships loaded with convicts left England and landed in Botany Bay in 1788, but soon realised they should have been at Sydney Harbour. Australia did not get off to what might be called an evangelical start - we didn't have Pilgrim Fathers as our first settlers.

We had the exact opposite - a bunch of criminals, although some of them were political prisoners, and a number would have been unjustly sentenced, and brutally treated.

At that time the Church of England was the official religion. Catholicism was banned, but eventually made an inroad and was "legalised" in 1836 in the then colony of New South Wales if my understanding is correct. In those days one's faith was usually delineated along ethnic grounds - English migrants tended to be Anglican or Protestant, while Irish migrants were usually Catholic. But discrimination was rife.

In time the barriers dwindled, but so did personal Christian faith. Nowadays other religions are in the mix - at one time Mosques were rare, but there are at least four that I'm aware of within a twenty five kilometre radius from home, and possibly more. The same could be said for Buddhist temples, and even the occasional Hindu or Sikh temple. There's one Taoist temple on the northside of the city where I live that I'm aware of.

When I was a kid, such "foreign influences" were unheard of.

To my mind, one of the problems is the division of church and state, which inevitably means that as time goes by, more and more power gravitates to the state. I sometimes wonder if God has left the Moslems pretty much un-evangelised as a judgment on a post Christian West, but also as a challenge to our church-state division.

I occasonally day dream about some sort of over-arching ethics body, comprised of various branches of both state and religion, depending on the subject being investigated eg. refugee rights, economic egalitarianism, euthanasia, social security and so on. It would decide on matters of ethical importance, and it's advice would be heeded by the state as a final authority. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[1watchman]

This subject seems to be going down a road of comparing carnal man and his interests, against what the Holy Bible shows as the mind of God with ETERNAL truth.

One can see 'democracy' is making all people equal, and that might be nice in the world, but not consistent with the Word of God (and somewhat taking from those who have for those who choose to have not by choices, and not talking about poor people) ---which is contrary to God's calling OUT of the world's ways to be conformed to the mind and ways of our Creator. It leaves off the Word of God as our real authority, which speaks of love and care for the have-nots, but not indulgence.

'Capitalism' is again much of man's ways to placing the economy on the structure of building and investment of ways of gain therein, and forgetting God's intent.

'Protestantism' was and is a protest against man setting up religious control over liberty; and is in practice giving total liberty to man to choose ---which is mostly today as a determination in religions apart from Holy Scripture, I see.

I would rather leave the world's ways aside and hold fast to the Word of God.

 

[J_B_]

Something on my mind lately - is there a link between church and state?

Luther spoke on this topic, developing the idea of a Kingdom of the Left (somewhat akin to secular authority) and a Kingdom of the Right (the Church). This was not, as some people conclude, an early version of separation of church and state. Rather, it was based on the idea of "vocation", that God calls each of us to a task and we should do our task, not meddle in the tasks of others.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luther spoke on this topic, developing the idea of a Kingdom of the Left (somewhat akin to secular authority) and a Kingdom of the Right (the Church). This was not, as some people conclude, an early version of separation of church and state. Rather, it was based on the idea of "vocation", that God calls each of us to a task and we should do our task, not meddle in the tasks of others.

More strictly speaking, the two kingdom theology posits that the left hand kingdom rules by Law, and this is the vocation and duty of the state to curb lawlessness; the Church on the other hand, the right hand kingdom, operates solely by the Gospel.

While not strictly speaking a separation of Church and State in the modern sense, it was one of the inspirations for the principle of separation, James Madison (the father of the US Constitution) credits the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms as one of the influences on his thinking in this area. How influential I don't know, it's a subject I'd need to look into more.

I recently read Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer's essay The Church and the Jewish Question, in which he seeks to address the political and ecclesiastical issues of the 1930's and what the Church's response must be. It was written specifically following "the Aryan paragraph" which represented the kinds of inroads the Nazis had made into co-opting the Protestant Church of Germany (through the Deutschechristen movement), in which Christians of Jewish background were barred from the Church in spite of the fact that they were baptized Christians. Bonhoeffer begins by making clear the distinction between the state's duty of Law and the Church's duty of Gospel, and that the Church cannot impose itself upon the state moralistically, so that even if the state is doing law and order wrongly, the Church cannot coopt the vocation of the state; though individual Christians as citizens through their vocation as citizens most certainly can voice themselves either as individuals or collectively through various humanitarian organizations--but the Church as Church cannot. However, Bonhoeffer continues that the Church might find itself in a position where it must act, through criticism and condemnation of the state, by consoling and tending to the wounds of the victims of the state, and if push comes to shove, to throw itself headlong and say enough is enough.

For Bonhoeffer enough was enough, by the imposition of the state upon the Church in telling the Church how to govern herself, by telling her that baptized Christians had no place in the Church because of their Jewish background the state has crossed a line that the Church cannot abide by. It is here that we find the Kirchenkampf, the Church-Struggle, between the Deutschechristen and the emerging Reichskirche, and its opposition in the underground Confessing Church which would come to produce the Barmen Declaration which asserts that the Church confesses the sole Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that the Church's authority is through the Gospel and from Christ through her ministers of the Word, and no other leaders (fuhrers in the German) can be accepted. The imposition of the state upon the Church is wicked and wrong. And the Church must make its stand against the state for the state has not only deprived people of their due rights by its unjust laws against the Jews (and the Holocaust that followed obviously), but was forcing its hand against the Church; and thus the Church became morally obligated to speak and act, to not just bandage the wounded crushed beneath the wheel of injustice, but to take hold of the wheel itself.

It probably seems strange to some to see Bonhoeffer move carefully in discussing how the Church cannot impose itself moralistically upon the state, in order to eventually wrestle with these things theologically before arriving to a basis of action; but Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran and theology matters even in crisis. The Church must still be the Church no matter the situation, for the Church to lose her identity as the Gospel people, and instead think herself something else, is to cease to be the Gospel people and becomes either subservient to, or an arm of, the state.

Bonhoeffer's influence (at least it seems here) on MLK can probably also be seen here, as King would later say,

"And those who have gone to the church to seek the bread of economic justice have been left in the frustrating midnight of economic privation. In many instances the church has so aligned itself with the privileged classes and so defended the status quo that it has been unwilling to answer the knock at midnight. The Greek Church in Russia allied itself with the status quo and became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will. But if the church will free itself from the shackles of a deadening status quo, and, recovering its great historic mission, will speak and act fearlessly and insistently in terms of justice and peace, it will enkindle the imagination of mankind and fire the souls of men, imbuing them with a glowing and ardent love for truth, justice, and peace. Men far and near will know the church as a great fellowship of love that provides light and bread for lonely travelers at midnight." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, A Knock at Midnight

-CryptoLutheran

 

[J_B_]

More strictly speaking, the two kingdom theology posits that the left hand kingdom rules by Law, and this is the vocation and duty of the state to curb lawlessness; the Church on the other hand, the right hand kingdom, operates solely by the Gospel.

Yes, the Law/Gospel dichotomy runs through everything Lutheran. Your summary is better than mine, though one characterization I've heard that I also like is that in the Kingdom of the Left, man moves first whereas in the Kingdom of the Right, God moves first.

While not strictly speaking a separation of Church and State in the modern sense, it was one of the inspirations for the principle of separation, James Madison (the father of the US Constitution) credits the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms as one of the influences on his thinking in this area. How influential I don't know, it's a subject I'd need to look into more.

Maybe, but the Nazis also claimed inspiration from Luther, so I wouldn't take that too far. Madison started out firmly in the Federalist camp, but over time was swayed to join Jefferson's Democratic-Republican camp. So, his views changed considerably over time, influenced more by the Enlightenment than Luther.

Muhlenberg is the more interesting case for American Lutherans since Luther never had to deal with the practicalities of his idea. When Muhlenberg was trying to establish the first Lutheran communities in the Americas, he faced a difficult challenge from the ideas of the Enlightenment. Germans didn't interpret "liberty" the same way the English colonists did. The English looked at "liberty" in a "freedom to achieve the best" context, whereas German immigrants looked at it more as a "freedom from government oppression" context. As such, they resisted Muhlenberg's attempts to create any kind of church government.

The first Lutheran churches in the Americas were built on private land - a radical idea for the time. The problem was then that the owner of the land often imposed himself on the church as its ruler: my land, my church, my rules. Pastors who didn't comply were sent back to Germany.

Muhlenberg went looking for a solution, and copied the methods of the American Episcopalians, who were having similar problems. To solve the bickering, they appealed to the colonial governors for a charter, thereby taking control out of the hands of individual land owners and placing ownership of church property in a legal construct - a "church body" akin to the legal construct of corporations. It seemed to work, but only because the early colonists, and then the young American nation, was peopled by those with a mindset geared toward liberty.

Unfortunately, it made most churches a de facto ward of the state, no matter how much people shout "religious liberty!" To this day most churches obtain a charter from their state, my LCMS congregation included. Unbeknownst to most, most churches exist at the discretion of their state.

Point being, while Luther's idea is true to the way things should be, it's darn difficult to make it work in this fallen world.

 

[Springbok]

The term "capitalism" was coined by, I think, Engels, in any case it's a socialist smearing of the free enterprise system.

To talk about "capitalism" doesn't actually say anything. Not really.

Now, socialist fluff aside…

Regarding the OP, it is just a fact of history, that the industrial revolution took place predominantly in the Protestant world. Likewise, the time in which Feudalism dominated, was the "Catholic age" before the Reformation. It's just how history of church and economy played out.

Heck, the Magna Charta, the beginning of modern democracy, is a "Catholic" document.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Two Swords Doctrine and Romans 13 comes to mind.