The State as the Absence of God

Artwork by Edward Rowen

Among Christians, there are several perspectives on what the proper relationship is between the church and the state. In this post, I want to briefly discuss a few ideas from two political theologies, Christian anarchism and Christian nationalism. I will then offer an evaluation and propose that aspects of the two theories can be reconciled to create a more coherent political theology.

Christian Anarchism

Christian anarchists posit that Christ and the state are fundamentally opposed to each other. The Sermon on the Mount is central here. Whereas Jesus says not to resist evil, that judging others is wrong, and that one should love their enemies, the state does the very opposite, Christian anarchists maintain.[1]

To elaborate on just one of these points, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos writes about Leo Tolstoy's beliefs about not judging others:

However startling this may seem, Tolstoy therefore insists that Jesus' instruction not to judge further condemns all earthly tribunals: if we are not supposed to judge and condemn our fellows, then neither can that be done through courts of justice. Our judicial system is unchristian not only because it resists evil, but also because it involves judging—both forbidden by Jesus. As a result, a Christian can neither be a judge, nor take part in any trial, nor take a fellow human being to court. Christians must stay clear of human courts.

Christian anarchists also tend to oppose Christians holding office, voting, paying taxes, serving in the military, and working for or relying on police services. Of course, not every Christian anarchist addresses each of these issues in exactly the same way, so there is some nuance within this general opposition.[3]

To summarize, on the Christian anarchist view (at least, the Tolstoyan version), it is not just that the church and the state should not intermix, but they cannot even begin to do so coherently, as the values of Jesus and the values of the state are at odds with one another.

Christian Nationalism

In stark contrast to Christian anarchism is Christian nationalism. Stephen Wolfe defines Christian nationalism as “a totality of national action consisting of civil laws and social customs conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.” The idea that the state is an instrument used by God to punish wrongdoing, borrowed from Romans 13:4, is also important to this perspective. On the Christian nationalist view, it is good for the state to be informed by the church.

Evaluation

The Christian anarchist wants nothing to do with the state, while the Christian nationalist wants to claim the state for himself.

For my part, I appreciate the seriousness with which the Christian anarchist takes the words of Jesus. There is a certain bravery to eschewing that which is established and practical. Having said that, at face value Christian anarchism appears highly impractical at best and utopian at worst. 

While there are some Christian groups like the Hutterites and Amish who prioritize separating themselves from modern society, there are many other Christians who do not. The Christian anarchist almost seems oblivious to the practical benefits of the state. Paying taxes, for instance, helps fund important institutions and systems. such as healthcare and infrastructure, while the police contribute to preserving order in society.

While it is hypothetically possible that every Christian could withdraw from modern society, it seems far from realistic. It might be responded that Christians immersed in society are just taking the easy way out and not living the way they ought to because it's exceedingly difficult. Perhaps. But it could just as well be argued that the imagination and morality are fountains of infinite aspirations. In the actual world, people are limited in their decisions, often settling for the best option among a number of imperfect ones.[4] The moral perfectionism of Christian anarchism eclipses this important fact.

As for Christian nationalism, I appreciate its recognition of the state as an instrument used by God to punish wrongdoing. However, as a Canadian, I don't see my country moving towards an understanding of itself as a Christian nation anytime soon. Although it's true that about half of Canadians consider themselves Christians (53.3%), census data shows that this percentage has decreased over time. In 2001, 77.1% of the population identified as Christian, while in 2011 it was 67.3%. By contrast, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh populations are growing. Over one-third of Canadians report having no religious affiliation whatsoever.

The State as the Absence of God

Christian anarchism and Christian nationalism are unrealistic in different ways. The former rejects the state to an impractical and irrational degree, while the latter is overconfident about the feasibility of the state being Christianized.

Both theories get something right, which is that God is in a sense absent from the state. But the Christian anarchist makes the mistake of believing that the divine absence is absolute and will continue to be so, while the Christian nationalist mistakenly believes that the divine absence is relative, but will (or at least ought to) become absolute in the future.

I'd like to return to the idea of the state as a means by which God punishes wrongdoing. Gregory Boyd observes that in Scripture "God's judgment or 'wrath' [is frequently equated with] the withdrawal of his protective presence or, as the OT [Old Testament] frequently puts it, with God 'hiding his face.'"[5] Framed in this way, the punishment administered by the state can be understood as the absence of God.

God's absence perhaps applies to other dimensions of the state as well. As Christian anarchists are correct to point out, in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness by offering him the kingdoms of the world, which Jesus of course rejects.[6] On a Trinitarian understanding of God, then, perhaps we could say that God withdraws his presence from the state in terms of ruling directly over it.

Does this mean that God is completely absent from the state? I think not. As discussed earlier, the state contributes to practical things many of us benefit from, and it would be ungrateful to overlook them. Efficient hospitals, well-maintained roads and bridges to drive on, and social order are good things for humans to have. These contribute to the quality of both life and morality, and so, we should think that these things are of some relevance to God, who is morally perfect.

Notes

1. These tensions are covered in detail in chapter one of Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos.

2. Ibid., pp. 48–49.

3. Ibid., pp. 165–167.

4. Thomas Sowell (Intellectuals and Society, p. 95) has written persuasively on this point:

"Solutions," are not expected by those who see many of the frustrations, ills, and anomalies of life—the tragedy of the human condition—as being due to constraints inherent in human beings, singly and collectively, and in the constraints of the physical world in which they live. In contrast to the vision of today's anointed, where existing society is discussed largely in terms of its inadequacies and the improvements which the anointed have to offer, the tragic vision regards civilization itself as something that requires great and constant efforts merely to be preserved—with these efforts to be based on actual experience, not on "exciting" new theories.

5. Gregory A. Boyd, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, p. 821.

6. Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, p. 75.

Bonhoeffer on Nonresistance

Plough published this excerpt from The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I'm sharing it rather late. (The article was published last year in August.) However, I think it's a helpful piece of the puzzle in making sense of the relationship between Christianity and politics.

If we took the precept of nonresistance as an ethical blueprint for general application, we should indeed be indulging in idealistic dreams: we should be dreaming of a utopia with laws which the world would never obey. To make nonresistance a principle for secular life is to deny God by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world. 

If Intelligent Design Is "Pseudoscience," Then Neo-Darwinism Might Be Too

If you've ever read anything about intelligent design (ID) online, you're sure to have noticed that it is dismissed by many elites as "pseudoscience." Wikipedia has a terrible track record of shoehorning this term into every article that mentions ID.

Why? A big part of it, as far as I can tell, is that ID does not adhere to methodological naturalism (MN). Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, one of ID's architects, defines MN in this way: "a principle that specifies that scientists must explain all events by reference to materialistic (non-intelligent) causes whatever the evidence."

ID breaks the rules of MN by inferring an intelligent source from things like the irreducible complexity (i.e., you take one piece out of the system, and it won't function anymore) of bacterial flagellum or the biological information contained in DNA. The main idea that drives ID is that complex systems and information have an intelligent cause.

Now perhaps I can see the appeal of MN. It's parsimonious in its ontological commitments, as it only makes room for material things.

Suppose we accept MN. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to classify ID has a scientific-philosophical research program, instead of as a purely scientific one.

But the criticism that ID is a "pseudoscience" could just as well be levelled against neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, who writes in his book The Blind Watchmaker that "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view."

Dawkins steps outside the boundaries of MN here. While ID theorists infer a designer from information encountered in the natural world, Dawkins infers that no such designer exists, all while providing an anti-metanarrative for natural selection. This is not just methodological, but also ontological, naturalism.

Selective Separation of Church and State

In a previous post, I wrote about a psychological consequence of the separation of church and state: if church and state are separated entirely, this creates a rift in church members' thinking about the state, for they cannot refer to their religious beliefs when thinking about the state. This is impossible, especially regarding moral issues involving the state (e.g., abortion laws, drug policies, military decisions), for moral beliefs belong to religious beliefs.

Consider some sentiments from left-wing Christians. Brenda Davies from the God is Grey YouTube channel says in this Jubilee discussion that "universal healthcare is the most Christ-like thing I can imagine." Exodus 23:9 is also often repeated by left-wing Christians with regard to immigration policy, so it's not surprising that social-justice magazine Sojourners includes it in their article "22 Bible Verses on Welcoming Immigrants."

Perhaps I'm being speculative here, but I believe there's a certain kind of person who claims to endorse the separation of church and state yet has no problem if religion is used to inform certain laws and policies, so long as religion informs those laws and policies in their preferred way. This group I am imagining would of course include progressive Christians, but it could also include non-religious progressives who didn't mind getting the political ends they wanted by religious means.

What does the separation of church and state apply to, then? It seems to me that it applies mostly to matters of a sexual nature, such as divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and trans rights. This is selective and inconsistent.

As far as I can tell, "the separation of church and state" is usually shorthand for not applying certain ethical standards of a religious community to those outside who would find those ethical standards unpleasant.

So it's not really about separating the church and the state at all. It's about removing any obstacles that might get in the way of one's preferred laws being commenced or policies being enacted.

Authenticity Is Bipolar

When I ponder the age I live in, I come away thinking that the quest for authenticity is forged in opposite directions. Allow me to explain.

On the one hand, there is an aspiration for augmentation, particularly of the self, and sometimes to the point of absurdity. An example of this would be someone of one sex believing that their "true self" is actually the opposite sex, which I have previously suggested is as misguided as denying one's birthplace or biological parents.

On the other, there is an aspiration for limitation, this time not of the self, but of the things one encounters. Hobbies and entertainment immediately come to mind. We might have several streaming platforms with a near-infinite amount of songs, but there has also been an interest in CDs and vinyl in recent years. Three of the malls in my city have a Sunrise Records, for instance. CRT TVs are also trending; the CRT Collective group on Facebook has over 261,000 members. Many people want fewer songs, smaller screens, and less customizability. This is an understandable response to choice overload.