Rigney Formal Post 3: Christendom and the State

[Joe Rigney]

If we loosely define Christendom as a world-wide textual community, a continental shelf beneath an archipelago, the aggregate of various regional Micro-Christendoms (which are themselves constituted by the conversion of the monarch and the establishment of a bishopric), then we must ask what the relationship is between Christendom and the modern state? In particular, is the State inherently hostile to Christendom? Put another way, is the modern state an alternative to Christendom, perhaps even a heresy of Christendom?

Strayer's signs of a modern state are 1) persistence in time; 2) fixation in space; 3) permanent, impersonal institutions; 4) agreement on the need for an authority with power; 5) to make final judgments; 6) acceptance of the idea that subjects should give loyalty to that authority. Two aspects of this definition warrant comment. First, the notion of impersonal institutions. Strayer notes that large-scale cooperation demands "institutions which can survive changes in leadership and fluctuations in the degree of cooperation among sub-groups" (7). Here impersonal simply means an institutions which outlasts the death (or at least retirement) of the person(s) at the top. I question whether impersonal is exactly the right word here, but the sentiment appears unobjectionable. However, Strayer means more than simply successful transitions between leaders. He writes, "a state chiefly exists in the hearts and minds of its people" (5). The state, then, is an idea, an abstraction, and now as Christians we must tread more carefully, for abstractions can tend to get away from us if we don't keep a close eye on them..

Which brings me to the second aspect of Strayer's definition: the necessity of loyalty to this impersonal and abstract authority known as "the state." We ought not object to the idea of political loyalty in itself, even loyalty to a "state" (as defined by Strayer. But Strayer has more than loyalty in mind; he is looking for some kind of ultimate allegiance. According to Strayer, the most important sign of a state is the "shift in loyalty from family, local community, or religious organizations to the state and the acquisition by the state of a moral authority to back up its institutional structure and its theoretical legal supremacy" (9). Such loyalty is to a "final authority," a highest court of appeal. Reading charitably, I'll assume that Strayer would allow for a deity above the state, especially in the early stages of state-formation. However, the demand for such ultimate (human) loyalty calls into question whether any such God-above-the-state is recognizably Christian. For this "god" requires (note "the acquisition by the state of a moral authority") that allegiance to the state trumps allegiance to parents (family), neighbor (local community), and church elders (religious organization). Over time, it's not difficult to see how such a God-above-the-state would become increasingly unnecessary, and we would be left with the State-as-God.

In sum, if Strayer is correct that some of the distinguishing marks of modern states are ultimate earthly allegiance to impersonal institutions, we may rightly question whether members of a worldwide biblical community, oriented by allegiance to King Jesus and submission to his bishops/elders can ever live at peace with such states. 

Joe Rigney

612.455.3420

joe.r...@gmail.com

[Laura King]

Good observations and if I might add a bit more.  You mentioned Strayer's concept of loyalty to the final authority or complete allegiance.  I know his work was showing how this evolution or sorts took place but something still doesn't feel right and I couldn't quite figure this book out.  Either I missed it or it wasn't clear enough but how much of this state mentality did the medievals during that time really understand and/or adopt.  His work does a great job of outlining but I guess I wanted to get down to the more personal level.  Just my humble opinion.  Thanks so much.

From,

   Laura

On Saturday, July 7, 2012 9:21:17 AM UTC-5, Joe Rigney wrote:

If we loosely define Christendom as a world-wide textual community, a continental shelf beneath an archipelago, the aggregate of various regional Micro-Christendoms (which are themselves constituted by the conversion of the monarch and the establishment of a bishopric), then we must ask what the relationship is between Christendom and the modern state? In particular, is the State inherently hostile to Christendom? Put another way, is the modern state an alternative to Christendom, perhaps even a heresy of Christendom?

Strayer's signs of a modern state are 1) persistence in time; 2) fixation in space; 3) permanent, impersonal institutions; 4) agreement on the need for an authority with power; 5) to make final judgments; 6) acceptance of the idea that subjects should give loyalty to that authority. Two aspects of this definition warrant comment. First, the notion of impersonal institutions. Strayer notes that large-scale cooperation demands "institutions which can survive changes in leadership and fluctuations in the degree of cooperation among sub-groups" (7). Here impersonal simply means an institutions which outlasts the death (or at least retirement) of the person(s) at the top. I question whether impersonal is exactly the right word here, but the sentiment appears unobjectionable. However, Strayer means more than simply successful transitions between leaders. He writes, "a state chiefly exists in the hearts and minds of its people" (5). The state, then, is an idea, an abstraction, and now as Christians we must tread more carefully, for abstractions can tend to get away from us if we doGood obrn't keep a close eye on them..

[Jasmine]

Yea, I question that, too, Laura. In Strayer's mind the concept of the state was established. But how much of that translated to the common person? Since he did not say too much about culture, it's tough to know.