The Christian Church entering into the State could, of course, surrender no part of its fundamental principles -- the rock on which it stands -- and could pursue no other aims than those which have been ordained and revealed by God Himself, and among them that of drawing the whole world, and therefore the ancient pagan State itself, into the Church. In that way (that is, with a view to the future) it is not the Church that should seek a definite position in the State, like 'every social organization,' or as 'an organization of men for religious purposes' (as my opponent calls the Church), but, on the contrary, every earthly State should be, in the end, completely transformed into the Church and should become nothing else but a Church, rejecting every purpose incongruous with the aims of the Church. All this will not degrade it in any way or take from its honour and glory as a great State, nor from the glory of its rulers, but only turns it from a false, still pagan, and mistaken path to the true and rightful path, which alone leads to the eternal goal.
There is a theological argument here that is pretty much inconceivable for most Americans insofar as we take the First Amendment as a “first principle” of any political philosophy or theology. Whether or not the First Amendment can be reconciled with Christian anthropology (and, of course, of Christianity is true, then anthropology tout court), we—or, at least, I—feel as though to doubt it is to challenge the entire regime, thus making myself a traitor to my nation.
But anyway, trying to leave such irrational fears aside, a Christian cannot blindly accept a political document with a suspect theological foundation. Ivan’s political theology, I think, should be a live intellectual option. At the foundation of his view is the universal vocation of the Church to bring the whole world into the order of redemption. This is called the “cosmic scope of salvation”. Again, I am building here on the anthropology I expressed in my first post. God created the physical universe—with human beings at the pinnacle of the material world—with the intention that the world would be in communion with Him. When the head of the material world—man—fell, sin seeped into every crevice and corner of the Creation. Jesus Christ, by uniting in himself the Created and the Divine, opened not only the way for man’s redemption, but the redemption of the whole cosmic order. All things are to be healed and elevated in Christ, not excluding those natural social structures that promote the common good.
Now, when Ivan speaks of the State entering the Church, what does he mean by “the Church”? I would guess that he is speaking broadly: the order of grace. The natural social structure that we call the state—like all things human—is meant to be healed and elevated through communion with Christ. It is not set off from the cosmic scope of Christ’s work, to be left in a ‘secular’ realm, because no such realm exists in salvation history.
In The Brothers Karamazov, Miüsov complains that this position is unacceptable because it simply erases the state and puts the Church in its place. Fr. Païssy tries to clarify that, according to Ivan’s view, the Church does not become the state. That would be to pull the Church down. Instead, the State is to be elevated to its true end within the Church. As I mentioned before, what is really at stake here (in the Western discussion, at least; the East has avoided some of this) is the relationship between nature and grace. According to many 20th Century theologians (in continuity, they say, with the Great Tradition) human nature has a supernatural end. In other words, human beings—as spiritual beings—have an end that exceeds itself. This end, our natural end, is Communion with God, which we can only enjoy by grace. Is it possible that the State—a social structure which is entailed in human nature—is also ordered toward grace, and thus unfulfilled until it is brought into the Church?
There are so many critiques to be made, and I have not even scratched the surface of an adequate defense of this view here…but it is extremely interesting…and I really wonder what role (if any) it will play in the rest of the book. Even if these political theological questions are isolated to this chapter, it is worth asking whether Ivan could mount a helpful critique of the “separation of church and state”…or are we incapable of even conceiving as plausible other understandings of the relationship between the two?
No comments:
Post a Comment