Thursday, May 15, 2003
Church and State
The notion of secular government is historically recent. There may be exceptions, but most societies have always had strong ties between the governing and religious authorities, even to the point of the two being combined. The writers of the US Constitution set out to prevent this in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
At that time the intention was not to deny religion a place in the government of the state, but only to prevent the state favouring one religion over another. In its original context this meant favouring one protestant denomination over another. It was assumed that Christianity would continue to be the religion of the people, providing the underpinning for the state. However, 200 years later protestant Christianity no longer has cultural hegemony in the USA. According to Hauerwas (1999) this leaves the question as to what underpins American culture, how it is to be formed, how virtue is to be instilled, using which institutions, supporting what ultimate convictions. He contends that American churches have so accepted the principle of freedom of religion (by which I think he means the formal separation of church and state) that they have allowed their Christian convictions to be relegated to the private sphere and in a climate of political liberalism they have thus become politically irrelevant, with no authority to challenge the state whenever its demands would compromise loyalty to God.
In the UK there is both an established religion and freedom of religion. In the US context this may sound strange, where freedom of religion seems to be associated with the separation of church and state. But in the next year or two there is due to be legislation passed in the UK that makes discrimination on religious grounds illegal. At the same time the Anglican church remains the established church, with the Queen as Supreme Governor and bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
Having the Queen as Supreme Governor goes back to Henry VIII, who came to believe that the monarch was the proper head of the church within his territories and not the Pope. Whether or not one disagrees with this view, there is an underlying idea that there is a role for the church (or religion) in the state. The establishment of a church (not necessarily the Anglican church) is an admission, in principle at least, that the state is ultimately subject to God and is grounded on values that are given meaning by religious faith. This place that the state gives to religion is quite often ignored, but I'm coming to think that it might be valuable after all. It also makes more sense to me when Prince Charles says he would prefer to be a Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the faith. I think he sees that it is religious faith in general which gives a meaning to morality that a purely secular ethic may not.
There is also the question of authority. What authority should the state have over the church, and should the church have authority over the state? Hauerwas ends his article by pointing out that the church's freedom comes from God, not the state. It is not for the state to decide what religion should be, or what values that religion should hold, and then to grant freedom to whatever can show itself to be a religion under the state's criteria. What the church should be, and what it values should be, are things to be decided by God. Quite possibly those things may come into conflict with the state. When there is conflict, the church has authority to refuse to comply with the state's demands, out of loyalty to God. In this respect the church has authority over the state, and has authority to tell the state that it is in the wrong.
The notion of secular government is historically recent. There may be exceptions, but most societies have always had strong ties between the governing and religious authorities, even to the point of the two being combined. The writers of the US Constitution set out to prevent this in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
At that time the intention was not to deny religion a place in the government of the state, but only to prevent the state favouring one religion over another. In its original context this meant favouring one protestant denomination over another. It was assumed that Christianity would continue to be the religion of the people, providing the underpinning for the state. However, 200 years later protestant Christianity no longer has cultural hegemony in the USA. According to Hauerwas (1999) this leaves the question as to what underpins American culture, how it is to be formed, how virtue is to be instilled, using which institutions, supporting what ultimate convictions. He contends that American churches have so accepted the principle of freedom of religion (by which I think he means the formal separation of church and state) that they have allowed their Christian convictions to be relegated to the private sphere and in a climate of political liberalism they have thus become politically irrelevant, with no authority to challenge the state whenever its demands would compromise loyalty to God.
In the UK there is both an established religion and freedom of religion. In the US context this may sound strange, where freedom of religion seems to be associated with the separation of church and state. But in the next year or two there is due to be legislation passed in the UK that makes discrimination on religious grounds illegal. At the same time the Anglican church remains the established church, with the Queen as Supreme Governor and bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
Having the Queen as Supreme Governor goes back to Henry VIII, who came to believe that the monarch was the proper head of the church within his territories and not the Pope. Whether or not one disagrees with this view, there is an underlying idea that there is a role for the church (or religion) in the state. The establishment of a church (not necessarily the Anglican church) is an admission, in principle at least, that the state is ultimately subject to God and is grounded on values that are given meaning by religious faith. This place that the state gives to religion is quite often ignored, but I'm coming to think that it might be valuable after all. It also makes more sense to me when Prince Charles says he would prefer to be a Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the faith. I think he sees that it is religious faith in general which gives a meaning to morality that a purely secular ethic may not.
There is also the question of authority. What authority should the state have over the church, and should the church have authority over the state? Hauerwas ends his article by pointing out that the church's freedom comes from God, not the state. It is not for the state to decide what religion should be, or what values that religion should hold, and then to grant freedom to whatever can show itself to be a religion under the state's criteria. What the church should be, and what it values should be, are things to be decided by God. Quite possibly those things may come into conflict with the state. When there is conflict, the church has authority to refuse to comply with the state's demands, out of loyalty to God. In this respect the church has authority over the state, and has authority to tell the state that it is in the wrong.
