Christianity has become the label for the church marginalized by the modern secular state. So Leithart is against Christianity but not the church. Leithart calls the church to repent of its retreat and reassert its culture, language, and influence in the world at large, which includes the state. The church must return from its state imposed exile.
Haven't we tried this before you ask? What about the evils of medieval Christendom? Leithart convincingly argues that the evils of Christendom were inconsistencies, and not a problem intrinsic to that social order. The church and state may cooperate in ruling under God without coercing its people. The church was never meant to rule Christendom but Christendom was supposed to be ruled by a state with "Christian politics."
Leithart agrees that the church's message to the state is countercultural, but he also maintains that this is compatible with a Christian political realm outside the church. Leithart doesn't talk much about the direction of influence between the state and the church, but seems to assume that both are in need of constant reform and renewal by the dynamic of the gospel.
Leithart does appeal to Augustine's city of God. The church is political because it is a polis and ekklesia which commands loyalty greater than any state. The church is a threat to the usurping state. It is the true United Nations. If the state won't respect the spiritual, moral, and theological authority of the church then all the worse for the state. The church is not a part of the polis, it is its own polis, say Leithart (28).
This rings true. Modern liberalism has "cleansed" the public sphere of religion but this hasn't helped us agree or get along. We are more polarized than ever. What modern liberalism has done is take away the basis of persuasion. The Christian conscience has been erased from the public square. Without the ability to make religious arguments, we are at the mercy of our ruling appetites.
Patrick Henry proposed that a non-sectarian Christianity be declared the state religion of Virginia. Jefferson and Madison opposed Henry and this was never tried. What about Massachusetts Bay Colony? Well, I would point out that that was a coercive Christendom which failed because it was too strong where it needed to be permissive to dissenters.
There is a lot more here than a defense of Constantinianism. There is a robust view of the sacraments as an efficacious union of the symbol with the reality. This also works for Leithart as a spearhead against the secularist divorce of the natural and the supernatural. Leithart also highlights ethical transformation as part of the gospel. The gospel seeks to transform the community. "She withdraws from the world for the sake of the world" (135). He points to the work of Rodney Stark who documents the rise of christianity through social transformation in the cities. This led to Christendom and to use the title of one of Stark's books The Victory of Reason.
Leithart's sword cuts through so many layers of secularist armor that it's shocking and refreshing at the same time. Only God can make obligatory. Otherwise everything is permissible and the state wields brute force while the culture festers. The separation of church and state doesn't promote liberty but only slavery to appetite.
Leithart's prescription for change is worship and liturgy. He calls worship is an historical exercise that reenacts redemptive history through word and sacrament. These center us in redemptive history and teach us to "name the world through the Word" just like Adam (72-73).
The church's mission is not to accommodate her language to the existing language, to disguise herself so as to slip in unnoticed and blend in with the existing culture. Her mission is to confront the language of the existing culture with a language of her own (57).
He says that worship is a language course and liturgy is the teacher. Excuse me, I think its time for class.
No comments:
Post a Comment