Newsweek, Caesar, and the Things of God
May 6, 2010
Peter J. Leithart
The idea of the separation of church and state “began, in fact, with Jesus”, the editor of Newsweek assures us in a May 3 editorial on a federal judge’s recent decision that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. You can probably fill in the rest of the argument, which skims lightly and not altogether coherently from “My kingdom is not of this world” to Paul’s declaration that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” to free will, before returning to some real authorities: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the Treaty of Tripoli.
The editor, Jon Meacham, defends the American religious settlement that created a free religious market “in which religion can take its stand in the culture and in the country without particular help or harm from the government.” Religion doesn’t need government support, since anybody is free to pray whether or not there is a National Day of Prayer.
Violating the American tradition of religious liberty might damage and defile religion, warns Meacham. He hopes that “serious believers, given the choice between a government-sanctioned religious moment and the perpetuation of a culture in which religion can takes its own stand, free from the corruptions of the world,” will do what Jesus did and “choose the garden of the church over the wilderness of the world.”
Which is funny, since I picked up Meacham’s editorial just after finishing a chapter of Paul Veyne’s bracing new When Our World Became Christian (Polity, 2010), which vigorously and learnedly says pretty much the opposite. Throughout his brief study, Veyne, an emeritus professor of Roman history at the College de France and author of such classics as Bread and Circuses and Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?, notes the radical difference between paganism and Christianity. Unbeliever though he is, he considers Christianity a “masterpiece” and compares it to a “best-seller” that revealed a “thitherto unsuspected sensibility.” Paganism and Christianity were not different species of the same genus. Christianity belonged to a different genus entirely.
Centrally, Christianity differed from paganism because Christ made absolute claims beyond anything pagan gods dreamt of. Veyne observes that after Augustus defeated Antony and Cleopatra at Actium, he paid his dues to Apollo by building and funding a temple. But Augustus did not believe that Apollo had elected him, nor that he was Apollo’s servant. Like most pagan Romans, Augustus was happy so long as the gods responded to his prayers by giving him political and military victories. In short, “Augustus did not serve Apollo; he simply turned to him for help.”
As evidence of the “contracted and spasmodic” relationships between pagan gods and their followers, Veyne recalls two incidents. When the beloved prince Germanicus died, the plebs attacked temples and knocked down altars. Job’s “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away” was not in their religious vocabulary. If the gods wouldn’t help, the plebs would no longer render them worship. Much later, when Constantine’s descendant Julian (“the Apostate”) lost a battle, he decided he would never sacrifice to Mars again. Pagan devotion was pragmatic, functional, and temporary.
By contrast, the Christian was not concerned about being content with God but “endeavoured to make his God content” with him. Unlike Augustus in relation to Apollo, Constantine spoke of himself as Christ’s servant, and acknowledged that Christ had generously placed him in that position. When Constantine put the Christogram on his soldiers’ shields, most pagans did not understand that “the relationship between this god and his creatures was a permanent, passionate and mutual one.”
This fundamental difference in orientation had political consequences. For pagans, the gods left Caesar pretty much to himself. Emperors wanted the gods on their side, the strong gods especially, but in the fine print of the religious contract, the gods agreed to observe a high-minded policy of non-interference. Pagans had never confused Caesar with the gods, so there was no need to separate them. Pagan religious was ubiquitous, providing pomp and ceremony for important occasions, but the gods did not issue orders to Caesar or anyone else.
Christianity reoriented the relations of God and politics. Christians thought every one should submit to Christ, including Caesar. In place of the superficial veneer of sanctity with which paganism covered Roman politics, Christianity “theorized and systematized” the relation of politics to religion. Because of Christianity, Caesar would no longer be allowed to carry on picking and choosing gods as he pleased. Veyne argues that “God began to weigh heavily upon Caesar and Caesar was now obliged to render to God whatever was his due. Christianity would now expect from princes something that paganism had never demanded: namely, that they ‘make their power a servant to the divine majesty, to spread the worship of God far and wide’” (the quotation is from Augustine).
Veyne concludes, “Contrary to what is frequently claimed, Christianity was further from drawing a distinction between God and Caesar than any other religion” in the fourth century, and beyond.
This is the possibility that Meacham cannot allow himself to contemplate. He can imagine government sponsorship of religion and the religious coercion that frequently has followed, and he recoils. He can imagine religion standing prissily to the side, going to the garden alone, and his heart is strangely warmed. What he cannot imagine is the possibility that Christ might lay demands on Caesar. Yet it’s that third, unthinkable prospect that is inherent to the Christian gospel; it’s that third, unthinkable prospect that marked the political difference between Christianity and paganism.
Meacham believes that the American “creed” of religious liberty implies that Christ and should leave Caesar well alone, and that Caesar should politely return the favor. But Christians have their own creed, and it does not permit mutual indifference of religion and politics. Frightening as it seems to be for Meacham, he must know that “Jesus is Lord” is also in the New Testament. Leaving Caesar alone is just what Jesus does not do.
Peter J. Leithart is a pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in, Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His next book, Defending Constantine will be published by InterVarsity Press.
Comments:
5.6.2010 | 11:50am
Erin Kelly says:
Amen. As Christians we must always continue to lay Christ's demands upon the political sphere. The ultimate Truth of Christianity demands it, no matter how "uncomfortable" or "imposing" it may seem.
5.6.2010 | 2:02pm
Bob G says:
Very interesting. The secular left, and Meacham, are caught in a contradiction: if there is an infinite, all-powerful God, how could it be that He has no interest in the secular order and government? They think God must discreetly make himself irrelevant to secular life. But it's now obvious that if this doctrine wins, He will be driven out of “private” life as well. Like it or not, for better or worse, it's all or nothing.
5.6.2010 | 3:38pm
R Hampton says:
From the perspective of the Church, the need for some Christians use the State to promote Christianity is the ultimate failing of belief -- God can not be victorious without the help of Government. From the perspective of the State, I'm with Jefferson and Madison -- the division between Religion and Government is essential for the good health of both.
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
James Madison, 1785
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.
The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience."
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
James Madison, 1785
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.
The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience."
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
5.6.2010 | 4:49pm
Heidi says:
A small detail: calling Julian "Constantine’s descendant" is inaccurate since he was his nephew.
5.6.2010 | 5:14pm
Bob G says:
Very interesting, Mr. (?) Hampton, but irrelevant to Mr. Leithart's piece. No one objects to the division between Religion and Government, nor advocates using the State to promote Christianity. But that does not mean God is irrelevant to Government or public life. The State is still under His judgment.
5.6.2010 | 7:28pm
R Hampton says:
Bob G,
I most objected to this comment: "He can imagine religion standing prissily to the side, going to the garden alone, and his heart is strangely warmed."
When Christ makes demands of Caesar, he is doing so on Caesar the man, not Caesar the Government of Rome. Should Caesar not abide by Christ, then compelling him to act Christian fails on two levels. One, the Truth is subverted because Jesus never needed to, nor wanted of us, to force unbelievers. Two, only souls (people) can be saved, so the Christianization of institutions is a gross misunderstanding of the evangelical mission. With that in mind "prissily" aside is essentially what Jesus did when those he preached to turned away.
And when ye come into an house, salute it.
And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
I most objected to this comment: "He can imagine religion standing prissily to the side, going to the garden alone, and his heart is strangely warmed."
When Christ makes demands of Caesar, he is doing so on Caesar the man, not Caesar the Government of Rome. Should Caesar not abide by Christ, then compelling him to act Christian fails on two levels. One, the Truth is subverted because Jesus never needed to, nor wanted of us, to force unbelievers. Two, only souls (people) can be saved, so the Christianization of institutions is a gross misunderstanding of the evangelical mission. With that in mind "prissily" aside is essentially what Jesus did when those he preached to turned away.
And when ye come into an house, salute it.
And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
5.6.2010 | 8:52pm
Ars Artium says:
No reasonable person fears a theocracy of any sort whatsoever in American government or public life. People who are anti-theist use the words "separation of church and state" in the service of a political agenda. They claim - and rightly so - their right to freedom of speech, but they want to deny that right to Christian citizens. They are radically opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of religion for all citizens and want these rights restricted to persons who agree with them.
5.6.2010 | 9:34pm
terry says:
The difference in the American experiment , seperation of church and state, and Christianity vs Paganism in an Empire, is that the America was to be founded without a King, with the "people" taking the place of the king, "one nation "under God". America is not an empire with an emperor. American founders too believed the king subserviant to God and the people, individual citizens, replacing the king in the new experiment were to be directly subservient to God. Thus religion was too high to take orders from transient earthly legislatures. In it's nature the founders saw correctly that governments can not order religion around. The new governement's purpose in America was to be subservient to the people, limited in power, and protect the rights of people, keep the peace etc. so they could go about there business being directly related and subserviant to God. No need for an intermediary and thus the need for seperation to keep government from creeping in on religion. That is what the seperation was about, to keep secular government from seperating the people from God. To protect religion from government, not vice versa. We still need that. Rulings on separation today, like the one to abolish the day of prayer, was most certainly not what was intended, where separation is used to reduce religion's influence in the public sphere. We need what was intended, separation to protect religion from government. "Forced regligion does stink in the nostirls of God". (Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and first colony with seperation of church and state) But praising religion in public and encouraging people to be religious and pray most certainly does not. Problems only arise when the people voluntarily separte themselves from God and quit being subserviant to him directly. It is wrong when seperation is used to encourage seperation from God rather than used to protect religion from Government.
5.6.2010 | 10:19pm
Artaban says:
To R. Hampton:
You state you're "with Jefferson and Madison"--a curious statement. One wonders, are you "with" the presidential Jefferson who ignored the sentiments of his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and used federal funds to encourage Christian missionary efforts to Indian tribes?
Aside from being mistaken in certain claims concerning the Madison conceded that "[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. " [from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]
It is a gross distortion of history to presume that "separation of Church and State" implied opposition to religion by some of the Founding Fathers. They did not fear Christianity or religion in the general sense. They feared religious sectarianism--particular sects warring for political and ecclesiastical monopoly or predominance. Think of their historical backgrounds. Many were exiles from an England where the monarch claimed rule over religion (Anglicanism) and used it as a mere pretense to purge political opponents.
The "Wars of Religion" that had so bloodied the soil of their European forebears were not, in many cases, really wars of religion. They were wars conducted by States for the purpose of plunder, dressed in the false trappings of religious disagreement. It was convenient for secular rulers to claim religious difference as a pretense to seize property owned by the Catholic Church (as some 50% of Europe was prior to Luther's protest), or on the other side, from rivals who "went" Protestant.
It is not religion, but power and politics, that would usurp a man's rights and freedoms. Do we not have plenty of politicians today that will switch party allegiances when it suits their reelection?
In an age where government is fast becoming the mother that eats her own children, we may very well find religion to be one of the few checks on State power.
You state you're "with Jefferson and Madison"--a curious statement. One wonders, are you "with" the presidential Jefferson who ignored the sentiments of his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and used federal funds to encourage Christian missionary efforts to Indian tribes?
Aside from being mistaken in certain claims concerning the Madison conceded that "[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. " [from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]
It is a gross distortion of history to presume that "separation of Church and State" implied opposition to religion by some of the Founding Fathers. They did not fear Christianity or religion in the general sense. They feared religious sectarianism--particular sects warring for political and ecclesiastical monopoly or predominance. Think of their historical backgrounds. Many were exiles from an England where the monarch claimed rule over religion (Anglicanism) and used it as a mere pretense to purge political opponents.
The "Wars of Religion" that had so bloodied the soil of their European forebears were not, in many cases, really wars of religion. They were wars conducted by States for the purpose of plunder, dressed in the false trappings of religious disagreement. It was convenient for secular rulers to claim religious difference as a pretense to seize property owned by the Catholic Church (as some 50% of Europe was prior to Luther's protest), or on the other side, from rivals who "went" Protestant.
It is not religion, but power and politics, that would usurp a man's rights and freedoms. Do we not have plenty of politicians today that will switch party allegiances when it suits their reelection?
In an age where government is fast becoming the mother that eats her own children, we may very well find religion to be one of the few checks on State power.
5.6.2010 | 10:24pm
John R T says:
Is there something missing:
´... liberty implies that Christ and should leave Caesar well alone,...´
R Hampton - please step back, read the essay again, and then again, if you do not understand what Christ asks.
´... liberty implies that Christ and should leave Caesar well alone,...´
R Hampton - please step back, read the essay again, and then again, if you do not understand what Christ asks.
5.6.2010 | 10:29pm
Casey Taylor says:
@P Leithart - Thank you for another insightful analysis. Always a pleasure to read.
@R Hampton - Thank you for your thoughtful reply to Leithart. I confess that I'm leery of statements like, "When Christ makes demands of Caesar, he is doing so on Caesar the man, not Caesar the Government of Rome." That smells like Luther's two-kingdoms theology and I find it ethically and ontologically troublesome. What would it mean for me to say that Christ makes a demand of me as an individual but not on me in my office of "father" or "husband?" I cannot be separated from my relational roles.
Which leads to your further two points. On the first, perhaps I've misread Leithart but I don't hear him arguing that the demand Christ lays on Caesar as emperor is to compel faith in Christ. Rather, I understand Leithart to mean that Caesar's subservience to Christ the Lord means that Caesar is not at all free to do as he wishes. In fact, part of the burden laid upon Caesar is to be a godly man who wields power in a Christ-like fashion, including refusing to compel others to faith in Christ - though Caesar may eagerly wish to do so!
Second, if salvation is for "souls alone," I can't make sense of my Bible. All that stuff about "new heaven and new earth," creation groaning for redemption...and then whatever you make of the New Testament language about "the Powers."
@R Hampton - Thank you for your thoughtful reply to Leithart. I confess that I'm leery of statements like, "When Christ makes demands of Caesar, he is doing so on Caesar the man, not Caesar the Government of Rome." That smells like Luther's two-kingdoms theology and I find it ethically and ontologically troublesome. What would it mean for me to say that Christ makes a demand of me as an individual but not on me in my office of "father" or "husband?" I cannot be separated from my relational roles.
Which leads to your further two points. On the first, perhaps I've misread Leithart but I don't hear him arguing that the demand Christ lays on Caesar as emperor is to compel faith in Christ. Rather, I understand Leithart to mean that Caesar's subservience to Christ the Lord means that Caesar is not at all free to do as he wishes. In fact, part of the burden laid upon Caesar is to be a godly man who wields power in a Christ-like fashion, including refusing to compel others to faith in Christ - though Caesar may eagerly wish to do so!
Second, if salvation is for "souls alone," I can't make sense of my Bible. All that stuff about "new heaven and new earth," creation groaning for redemption...and then whatever you make of the New Testament language about "the Powers."
5.6.2010 | 11:14pm
terry says:
For activist or christians or anyone concerned with helping the poor out of poverty, "500 million" coming out of poverty in China and India alone can't be quickly passed over unless one is completely disingenuous. If you add the millions in Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Brazil that have come out of grinding poverty since the 80s where supply side economics took root, it is possibly close to 100 million more. Why hasn't there been parades celebrating this? Why is this so rarely talked about in the public square? What other system has come even close?
It is not enough to be concerned for the poor, one has to adopt and promote approaches that work and actually help the poor. Proof is in the pudding as they say, supply side, neo con capitalist or what ever kind of pudding. Proof is in the pudding. We need to talk about this more. Thanks Mr. Novak for doing so.
It is not enough to be concerned for the poor, one has to adopt and promote approaches that work and actually help the poor. Proof is in the pudding as they say, supply side, neo con capitalist or what ever kind of pudding. Proof is in the pudding. We need to talk about this more. Thanks Mr. Novak for doing so.
5.7.2010 | 9:35am
Paul says:
It seems to me that Veyne overreaches. Sophoces Antigone becomes rather unintelligible on his account. So also does the Persian sacking of the Greek temples and the Greek sacking, under Alexander, of the Persian temples. And one could go on--noting passages in Plato's Laws, for instance. But one does not need overreach as Veyne does nor even to deny the importance from distinguishing, perhaps by separating, church and state in order to affirm the most important premise--namely that Christ makes demands of Ceaser. For Scripture quite clearly teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is King who has ascended to the right of the Father--which is a distinctively Jewish way of saying that he has taken the place of rulership, that the sceptre is in His hands. He is now a king of kings. And Romans 13, as well as I Peter, suggest that this King of Kings has some expectations of the lesser kings of this world. The Kingdoms of this world have (not will) become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. And he shall reign--both now and forevermore. But, of course, he has also chosen to exercise his temporal authority through the kingdoms of this world inasmuch as they exercise the sword for justice rather than vainly. Exercising the sword for power or gain is to exercise it vainly rather than with authority. But when exercised for justice, then the kingdoms of this world are cloaked in an authority they receive from Him. As Christians we are members of this greater Kingdom, though situated within a particular kingdom. We are ambassadors of Christ's heavenly rule, who must admonish the kings of this world to exercise the sword with justice--but who also must submit ourselves, for Christ's sake, to the exercise of that sword.
5.7.2010 | 10:06am
Dom says:
While I agree with Dr. Leithart that Caesar is ultimately subject to the Lordship of Christ, I do not agree with his argument regarding the application of this claim to the National Day of Prayer. I am not here arguing for or against the court’s decision, but for what the claim that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not might mean.
It is a question, primarily, of who issues the commands of the true Lord—of who is His herald. This, emphatically, is not Caesar. It is the Church, the Body of Christ. As such, it is the Church that should call the nation (and Caesar) to prayer and repentance, not Caesar. To leave this responsibility to Caesar is to give him greater status that he is due.
If that is established, the question becomes, “what is Ceasar to do in response to the command to submit to the Lordship of Christ?” The answer to that, I think, would be to point back to the call of the Church, the Lord’s true herald, rather than establish an ordinance in his own authority. In this way, the Church remains the mouthpiece of the Lord, rather than shifting that responsibility to Caesar, to whom it is never actually given.
In this way, I think the Church should be more concerned with whether or not Caesar is praying, not issuing commands to pray. Those, at least, are my present thoughts on the subject.
It is a question, primarily, of who issues the commands of the true Lord—of who is His herald. This, emphatically, is not Caesar. It is the Church, the Body of Christ. As such, it is the Church that should call the nation (and Caesar) to prayer and repentance, not Caesar. To leave this responsibility to Caesar is to give him greater status that he is due.
If that is established, the question becomes, “what is Ceasar to do in response to the command to submit to the Lordship of Christ?” The answer to that, I think, would be to point back to the call of the Church, the Lord’s true herald, rather than establish an ordinance in his own authority. In this way, the Church remains the mouthpiece of the Lord, rather than shifting that responsibility to Caesar, to whom it is never actually given.
In this way, I think the Church should be more concerned with whether or not Caesar is praying, not issuing commands to pray. Those, at least, are my present thoughts on the subject.
5.7.2010 | 10:52am
Paul says:
Dom,
It would seem, given Romans 13 and I Peter, that temporal authorities are not only subject to the authority of Christ but agencies of his administration. They are not the only way by which the Christ exercises his Lordship over the world. But insofar as they command what is just, they must be considered to issuing commands that are ultimately grounded in His authority. And so in this sense, Caeser can be said to issue commands of the one true kurios--albeit the justice of those commands is a necessary condition of such a predication. Moreover, given that Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, one might wonder how it could be wrong for those Kings over which He is now King and those Lords over which He is now Lord to recognize His supremacy in some way. I certainly have affinities for the Madisonian position--which has a surprising amount of social scientific evidence to back it up. Even so, a national day of prayer seems just about the mildest acknowledgment that one could imagine of the present (and not merely future) lordship of the King of Kings.
It would seem, given Romans 13 and I Peter, that temporal authorities are not only subject to the authority of Christ but agencies of his administration. They are not the only way by which the Christ exercises his Lordship over the world. But insofar as they command what is just, they must be considered to issuing commands that are ultimately grounded in His authority. And so in this sense, Caeser can be said to issue commands of the one true kurios--albeit the justice of those commands is a necessary condition of such a predication. Moreover, given that Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, one might wonder how it could be wrong for those Kings over which He is now King and those Lords over which He is now Lord to recognize His supremacy in some way. I certainly have affinities for the Madisonian position--which has a surprising amount of social scientific evidence to back it up. Even so, a national day of prayer seems just about the mildest acknowledgment that one could imagine of the present (and not merely future) lordship of the King of Kings.
5.7.2010 | 11:26am
Charles Rivera says:
@Paul: Antigone has no trouble fitting into the model of pagan religion proposed in this article. The gods do not require absolute and total dedication from human beings, only the proper respect. Creon does not give them their proper respect, and so Tiresias informs him he will be punished for it. It is not a matter of subjecting oneself absolutely, but merely subjecting oneself in certain matters to someone stronger. Similarly, if the god does not prove strong enough to prevent things like military catastrophe, there is no reason to respect him anymore. Of course, to be fair, Greek tragedy does seem to dwell more on the apparent caprice of the gods (e.g. Euripides' Bacchae) than the article here gives the pagans credit for. In general it seems like a just appraisal of pagan in contrast to Christian religion.
5.7.2010 | 12:11pm
Jon Rowe says:
"One wonders, are you "with" the presidential Jefferson who ignored the sentiments of his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and used federal funds to encourage Christian missionary efforts to Indian tribes?"
Jefferson, arguably, didn't do this. He made a number of treaties with Indians tribes. The Indians in question (Kaskaskia) had already converted to Roman Catholicism (for which Jefferson had little regard). Jefferson did provide funds accommodating the Indians wishes in regard to erecting a church and supporting their Priest.
Jefferson, arguably, didn't do this. He made a number of treaties with Indians tribes. The Indians in question (Kaskaskia) had already converted to Roman Catholicism (for which Jefferson had little regard). Jefferson did provide funds accommodating the Indians wishes in regard to erecting a church and supporting their Priest.
5.7.2010 | 12:12pm
Mike Melendez says:
Don writes "I think the Church should be more concerned with whether or not Caesar is praying, not issuing commands to pray."
Though I agree with the first part, the second fails. No one, certainly not the President, commands that people pray on National Prayer Day, let alone that anyone is asked to chose a different belief system. I don't believe that this minor tradition violates
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
The declaration is not a law and hence not covered. Arguing that it is comes close to violating the second clause
"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if National Prayer Day were passed by both Houses and signed by President with a requirement to pray, then there would be an argument. But politics has never let such minor points get in its way.
Though I agree with the first part, the second fails. No one, certainly not the President, commands that people pray on National Prayer Day, let alone that anyone is asked to chose a different belief system. I don't believe that this minor tradition violates
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
The declaration is not a law and hence not covered. Arguing that it is comes close to violating the second clause
"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now if National Prayer Day were passed by both Houses and signed by President with a requirement to pray, then there would be an argument. But politics has never let such minor points get in its way.
5.7.2010 | 4:01pm
Robertlifelongcatholic says:
This is not a conservative problem but a liberal one. The liberal interpretation allows for all kinds of living breathing interpretations. This is not what the originalist constitutional framers had in mind and to do so renders any sense of government of, by and for the people useless.
5.7.2010 | 4:10pm
R Hampton says:
The truly Christian way to have a "National Day of Prayer" is through evangelical efforts; organizing churches from different denominations and religions to participate.
Consider that September 19 is "Talk Like A Pirate Day". Started as a lark by a couple of guys from Oregon in 1995, it has become an annual event covered by the national media, expanding into the U.K., Australia and New Zealand -- all without governmental promotion.
The effort Christians would need to invest to make a privately sponsored event become nationally recognized would have a greater, positive impact on society then any government's official stamp of approval. So when Christians use the State to promote Christian acts for which they are personally responsible, they are engaging in spiritual welfare.
Consider that September 19 is "Talk Like A Pirate Day". Started as a lark by a couple of guys from Oregon in 1995, it has become an annual event covered by the national media, expanding into the U.K., Australia and New Zealand -- all without governmental promotion.
The effort Christians would need to invest to make a privately sponsored event become nationally recognized would have a greater, positive impact on society then any government's official stamp of approval. So when Christians use the State to promote Christian acts for which they are personally responsible, they are engaging in spiritual welfare.
5.7.2010 | 6:44pm
Bob G says:
Wow, what a powerful set of reflections. Really interesting.
I would love to get into it with Terry on a fascinating subject: the market’s achievements over the past 30 years. I agree with much of what he said but think he's overlooking a true downside. This may, in a practical sense, be the most important subject the world faces, as we'll see in coming months and years.
As for R. Hampton, this superficial observation. When Lincoln declared a national day of prayer it was not controversial. But as Christian influence waned it became more so. We'll probably never get the subject sorted out because it will be decided by cultural factors. The fewer real Christians there are the less defensible the practice becomes. Thanks to all!
I would love to get into it with Terry on a fascinating subject: the market’s achievements over the past 30 years. I agree with much of what he said but think he's overlooking a true downside. This may, in a practical sense, be the most important subject the world faces, as we'll see in coming months and years.
As for R. Hampton, this superficial observation. When Lincoln declared a national day of prayer it was not controversial. But as Christian influence waned it became more so. We'll probably never get the subject sorted out because it will be decided by cultural factors. The fewer real Christians there are the less defensible the practice becomes. Thanks to all!
5.7.2010 | 10:12pm
Paul says:
Charles,
I must demur from your analysis of Antigone. The invocation of the ordinances of heaven, unwritten and secure, and the fact that Creon's verdict can be disobeyed because Zeus commands differently suggests a different conception of antique religion than that proffered by Veyne. And then there's Socrates. I commend an anthology on Socratic religion edited by Paul Woodruff on that count.
I must demur from your analysis of Antigone. The invocation of the ordinances of heaven, unwritten and secure, and the fact that Creon's verdict can be disobeyed because Zeus commands differently suggests a different conception of antique religion than that proffered by Veyne. And then there's Socrates. I commend an anthology on Socratic religion edited by Paul Woodruff on that count.
5.7.2010 | 11:33pm
david ripple says:
James Madison "Whilst we will assert for or ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yeilded to the evidence that has convineced us"
Okay, Mr. MadatSon let's have some of that divinely inspired good old Shiria law(honor killings and an Islamic instead of a Deist government), and while we are at this "freedom bussiness" allow for some of those heart warming Aztec religious rituals!
It is obvious that the Founding Fathers can and did regulate religion according to their own idealogical designs and purposes.
Okay, Mr. MadatSon let's have some of that divinely inspired good old Shiria law(honor killings and an Islamic instead of a Deist government), and while we are at this "freedom bussiness" allow for some of those heart warming Aztec religious rituals!
It is obvious that the Founding Fathers can and did regulate religion according to their own idealogical designs and purposes.
5.8.2010 | 11:55am
pdn Michael says:
I guess I'm not clear about the "danger" that is supposed by those of Meachem's ilk, nor the threat to the Madisonian neutrality R Hampton finds so bracing.
Now, I happened to attend the local version of ND of P. In a metropolitan area with a population of roughly 340,000, there *might* have been sixty people there. The event was obviously but unsurprisingly ignored by the mainliners (no doubt the "reasonable" in Meachem's scheme) and apparently ignored by Catholics except for a nun who offered a reflection. Other than the nun, it was clear that each of the participants was an evangelical by the sort of prayer each offered, only four of whom were actually public servants. Thus, it was largely ignored, mostly evangelical, thus mostly unscripted and fairly spontaneous. It was not on government property and it was at lunch time, so presumably not on the "work time" of the few public officials who participated.
What is it, exactly, that is so frightening about this? Compare it to the third or fourth Saturday of January each year in this same community, where as many as two or three thousand march in opposition to the horror of abortion. It is a much more pan-denominational event than ND of P, although naturally the mainliners seem to be staunchly "reasonable" by their absence here as well. Abortions, despite not only this annual march but weekly protests at local clinics as well (each by Christians who challenge both the morality and the dubious "right"), seem to continue unabated. There is no end in sight.
My point here is that there is not a great deal to show for what has been a relentless 35 year Christian assault against abortion, involving a far greater number of Christians than the piddling few dozen I saw at Thursday's ND of P. I ask again: What is it about a scanty group of folks publicly gathering to pray that is so unnerving, anyway?
Now, I happened to attend the local version of ND of P. In a metropolitan area with a population of roughly 340,000, there *might* have been sixty people there. The event was obviously but unsurprisingly ignored by the mainliners (no doubt the "reasonable" in Meachem's scheme) and apparently ignored by Catholics except for a nun who offered a reflection. Other than the nun, it was clear that each of the participants was an evangelical by the sort of prayer each offered, only four of whom were actually public servants. Thus, it was largely ignored, mostly evangelical, thus mostly unscripted and fairly spontaneous. It was not on government property and it was at lunch time, so presumably not on the "work time" of the few public officials who participated.
What is it, exactly, that is so frightening about this? Compare it to the third or fourth Saturday of January each year in this same community, where as many as two or three thousand march in opposition to the horror of abortion. It is a much more pan-denominational event than ND of P, although naturally the mainliners seem to be staunchly "reasonable" by their absence here as well. Abortions, despite not only this annual march but weekly protests at local clinics as well (each by Christians who challenge both the morality and the dubious "right"), seem to continue unabated. There is no end in sight.
My point here is that there is not a great deal to show for what has been a relentless 35 year Christian assault against abortion, involving a far greater number of Christians than the piddling few dozen I saw at Thursday's ND of P. I ask again: What is it about a scanty group of folks publicly gathering to pray that is so unnerving, anyway?
5.8.2010 | 2:01pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Artaban's response to R. Hampton is fantastic! Atheists and their ilk are fond of saying how many have died in the name of religion, by which they mean Christianity. But from the time of Constantine to the founding of America, religion and the European state were inextricably bound together. Thus Artaban is absolutely right, it is not religion that compelled the state to exert its power.
5.9.2010 | 9:27am
Howard Richards says:
"Separation of Church and State" is a good idea in the same sense that "separation of Science and State" is a good idea. Scientists (as such) should not make laws that would be binding on the public; they do not have the necessary background or interests. It is even more clear that politicians should not attempt to legislate the outcome of experiments. It is already hard enough for one person to be a good scientist or a good statesman without trying to be both. Likewise, there have been many attempts to have churchmen run the State, or to have the State govern the Church. These have generally, if not always, proven to be disasters.
But "separation of Church and State" is also a bad idea in the same sense that "separation of Science and State" is a bad idea. The business of natural science is discovering truth -- not all aspects of truth, but at least the truth about the physical world. In order to make good decisions, lawmakers must have access to these truths and take them seriously into account. Likewise, to make good decisions, they must have access and take seriously into account the truths which are taught by the Church; laws which are made with no regard for truth are always trouble waiting to happen. Likewise, scientists have to be required to obtain informed consent from people who may take part in their experiments, and there have to be laws governing the safe operation of laboratories and the proper disposal of waste. Similarly, the State has a role to play in property disputes, criminal complaints, etc., that arise within the Church.
But "separation of Church and State" is also a bad idea in the same sense that "separation of Science and State" is a bad idea. The business of natural science is discovering truth -- not all aspects of truth, but at least the truth about the physical world. In order to make good decisions, lawmakers must have access to these truths and take them seriously into account. Likewise, to make good decisions, they must have access and take seriously into account the truths which are taught by the Church; laws which are made with no regard for truth are always trouble waiting to happen. Likewise, scientists have to be required to obtain informed consent from people who may take part in their experiments, and there have to be laws governing the safe operation of laboratories and the proper disposal of waste. Similarly, the State has a role to play in property disputes, criminal complaints, etc., that arise within the Church.
5.10.2010 | 11:26am
Egypt Steve says:
All completely ridiculous. The money quote is this:
"Veyne concludes, “Contrary to what is frequently claimed, Christianity was further from drawing a distinction between God and Caesar than any other religion” in the fourth century, and beyond."
Well, yes. 400 years *after Christ,* when Christianity had unfortunately and ironically become the state religion of an exceptionally brutal conquest empire, theologians who wanted the attention and favor of the new elites came up with a theory of the compatibility between Christianity and the State. So the situation remains today.
I remind my Christian brothers: you cannot serve two masters. You can serve God, or you can aspire to political power. Not both.
"Veyne concludes, “Contrary to what is frequently claimed, Christianity was further from drawing a distinction between God and Caesar than any other religion” in the fourth century, and beyond."
Well, yes. 400 years *after Christ,* when Christianity had unfortunately and ironically become the state religion of an exceptionally brutal conquest empire, theologians who wanted the attention and favor of the new elites came up with a theory of the compatibility between Christianity and the State. So the situation remains today.
I remind my Christian brothers: you cannot serve two masters. You can serve God, or you can aspire to political power. Not both.
5.11.2010 | 11:05am
Artaban says:
Egypt Steve, it is NOT true that "theologians who wanted the attention and favor of the new elites came up with a theory of the compatibility between Christianity and the State".
You seem to forget the frequent disagreements and disputes of the popes and bishops with secular rulers. These are regular events from the 300s right up to the present day. St. Ambrose [340-397] excommunicated Theodosius for his slaughter of civilians, and opposed Empress Justina's civil interference in Church affairs, to say nothing of the (lay) investiture controversy that provoked the reforms of pope Leo IX [1049-1054] and his successors.
Speaking of the "exceptionally brutal conquest empire", is it not rather fortunate that Christianity subsumed it? Who was it that ended arguably the most brutal form of capital punishment ever devised (crucifixion)? Who brought low the slave trade in the Empire and ended the gladiatorial games? Who served as the cement when the political power of the Western Roman Empire dissolved, and held civilization together?
The answer to all those questions is simple: it was the Christians, and notably the Church leaders. The bishops and popes took restored the crumbling roads, acquaducts, and bridges. They saw to the feeding of the poor and care or orphans, because no one else was doing it, and ended up with formidable civil authority quite by accident. They solved the problem of their age, but as often happens, the solution to the woes of one age becomes the problem of the next (as we are seeing today with Social Security and the welfare state).
Christians must act in the political sphere, and assume economic and political power (though not as an end in themselves, and knowing full well the perils they hold), for the secular--or as they'd be called in a prior time, the "princes of this world", the pawns of Satan--will do all they can to eradicate Christ's Bride.
You seem to forget the frequent disagreements and disputes of the popes and bishops with secular rulers. These are regular events from the 300s right up to the present day. St. Ambrose [340-397] excommunicated Theodosius for his slaughter of civilians, and opposed Empress Justina's civil interference in Church affairs, to say nothing of the (lay) investiture controversy that provoked the reforms of pope Leo IX [1049-1054] and his successors.
Speaking of the "exceptionally brutal conquest empire", is it not rather fortunate that Christianity subsumed it? Who was it that ended arguably the most brutal form of capital punishment ever devised (crucifixion)? Who brought low the slave trade in the Empire and ended the gladiatorial games? Who served as the cement when the political power of the Western Roman Empire dissolved, and held civilization together?
The answer to all those questions is simple: it was the Christians, and notably the Church leaders. The bishops and popes took restored the crumbling roads, acquaducts, and bridges. They saw to the feeding of the poor and care or orphans, because no one else was doing it, and ended up with formidable civil authority quite by accident. They solved the problem of their age, but as often happens, the solution to the woes of one age becomes the problem of the next (as we are seeing today with Social Security and the welfare state).
Christians must act in the political sphere, and assume economic and political power (though not as an end in themselves, and knowing full well the perils they hold), for the secular--or as they'd be called in a prior time, the "princes of this world", the pawns of Satan--will do all they can to eradicate Christ's Bride.
6.19.2010 | 3:53pm
Michael K says:
If religion were truly a check on governmental power, we never would have invaded Iraq on a weak premise; the Christians would have had the ability to stop the unprovoked bloodshed. But that's not what happened. Why? Two reasons. One, many so-called Christians were fully in support of the war whether we had a just reason to invade or not. Two, regardless of what is claimed during election campaigns where a candidate is shown attending church with his family, very few of our current batch of legislators has any intention of upholding the fundamental Christian tenets of being kind to others, turning the other cheek, and caring for the sick and the poor. If they did, we never would have invaded Iraq, and we would live in a United States where health care was truly available to all citizens regardless of income. If any of you who claim to be followers of Christ disagree, then you aren't really a Christian at all. The undeniable truth is that in conservative and/or right-wing terms, Jesus Christ was about as much of a leftist hippie as you can be. In any event, especially given the large number of Christians in the USA, if religion had real power over government, there are several wars which we never would have become involved in including Iraq and Vietnam. Additionally, the government would enact taxpayer-funded national health care immediately. So if you're a Christian and you think that health care for all is a bad idea and that war is a good idea, take a good long look in the mirror and see if you can figure out for yourself the fact that you aren't really a Christian at all.
