Fun with Church and State

I remain fascinated by Fyodor, and especially Father Zossima’s comment to him: “above all, do not be so ashamed of yourself, for that is at the root of it all.” What is this phenomenon, shame? Where does it come from, and why does it cause us to act so embarrassingly? I’d like to think about this more. But not today.

Also worth brief comment: Father Zossima’s response to the woman who has lost her faith. He says she cannot prove the faith, but she can be convinced of it “By the experience of active love.” He continues, “Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably. In as far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul.” When I struggle with my own faith, it most often causes me to collapse deeper and deeper into myself, which makes me nearly incapable love. When incapable of love—self-giving love—I cannot be in relationship with the God of Love, thus making faith impossible. I should remember Father Zossima’s advice. If my faith is shaken, I should push forward in active love.

What I wanted to consider, however, is the political theology discussion in chapter five. I read this whole discussion in the context of the relationship between nature and grace. The Church, it is clear, is part of the realm of grace; in other words, it is a supernatural body made alive by the very infusion of the Holy Spirit, who is the divine soul of the Church.

The state, on the other hand, seems to be in the realm of “nature”. The question is, what is “nature”? Is it a secular realm that is divided from God and God’s purpose for human beings? Does it have its own a-theistic ends that are wholly unaware of man’s supernatural end (which, I argued last time, is deification)? How—if at all—is nature related to grace? These are the questions that have overwhelmed Catholic theologians over the last century. (Incidentally, as an aside, the right answers to these questions undermine the new natural law theory).

How we answer this nature / grace question makes all the difference in how we construe the relationship between church and state. Those who understand nature to have its own integrity which is entirely independent of grace—as if the two exist in separate spheres—will feel much more comfortable with a robust separation of church and state. Those who see nature as coterminous with sin (“fallen nature”) and grace as replacing nature will look for the Church to replace the inevitably sinful state.

I am interested in Ivan’s view for what it says about nature and grace.

To be continued…