For the past couple years I've had this notion growing in my mind about the separation of life into different spheres being an entirely artificial construct. Some kind of effect of the modern age.
I'm not educated in these matters all that well, but I think your essay helps me understand better.
Life is life. Why would religion get shoved in a box from Amazon?
Yes. While we may very well speak of a "spiritual life," the fact of the matter is that if our religious beliefs are true and if our God is who he says he is, then He is in all things and our entire existence is oriented around and towards Him. How we live is as important as how we pray, if Jesus is to be believed. So, then, how can we say our religion is separate from our politics, or that our religion is something which must be kept to "inside church" as if the Church is not the whole Body of Christ, on an earthly pilgrimage to heaven?
Take what you said above, "...He is in all things and our entire existence is oriented around and towards Him." The immensity of that truth strikes me as above and beyond mere words. Maybe not. I think I'm describing numinous awe? Or trying to.
To come at it another way by use of analogy, when one keeps our "religion separate from our politics" you're sitting on a tree branch and sawing it off from the trunk. Not a great move.
Haha yes, I see. I do not want to give the impression that the mystery can be so easily understood. If we were to sit back and unpack exactly what that sentence of my meant and what its consequences were, we'd be unpacking for decades.
I’ve been spending a great deal of time listening to different Christian leaders, newly born again Christians, and many in between. I’m trying to believe more fully in a faith that depends so deeply on self interpretation. There is no direct contact with the spiritual, i.e conversation, witnessing the miraculous, or other 5 sense discernible event. I’m searching for the all in kind of faith that you speak of in this essay. Where every minute of every day I seek the wisdom of my God through the teachings of the Bible. Where prayer isn’t only resorted to in times of need or adversity, but and immediate response in all daily life. Prayer upon awakening to a new day not promised, prayer to relinquish my control over anything, seeking God’s will over everything, and prayer in the quiet moments when my mind can, and often does, run rampant in fear through the newest events in a gone crazy world. I remember specifically, a conversation with an elder mentor at my church as we studied a book we were reading together. I expressed my desire to just “Be.” She completely understood what I meant by that. I couldn’t have articulated that then, but we seemed to be able to communicate without words. I am now able to explain, and what I think I meant was that I didn’t want to have to think about any wrong choices, only to immediately make the right choices. As I write this, I understand what that actually looks like. It’s like the Garden where everything was perfect and there was no knowledge of ‘good and evil.” I understand the idea of free will and the need to choose. I know your essay is bigger than what I’ve boiled it down to. It more than just prayer. But, I may be wrong, but prayer is where it all starts. It’s prayer where we accept our brokenness. Where we give up our control and abide in God’s will. Where we seek wisdom for decisions.
So many misinterpret separation of church and state. The believe, as you wrote, that the church should have nothing to do with politics and the state should have nothing to do with church: Church should be left at the doors out into the world. Again I may be wrong, but I interpret it to mean that the church should NOT be the state. The way I understand it, the forefathers came from a place where they were ruled by the King, who was actually ruled by the church. The wanted a government that was ruled by the people who were guided by God.
Yes, the founders certainly understood it more as meaning that the State shall not establish a Church or recognize one as being the "official" State-sponsored Church. However, we do know that they were okay with states requiring oaths of belief in God, and they were also okay with persecuting certain groups (unfortunately such as Catholics). We have developed some from that point in a positive way. I would also add that I myself do not want the Church and State to get mixed up in a formal capacity, since that encourages corruption and can lead to the Church forgetting its mission. It can also lead to the State meddling in spiritual matters (very bad).
Very good comments on prayer by the way, you said it very well.
Jean Danielou is a beast. I'm reading his book Lord of History right now, and he delves into many of these same topics in greater detail. He's helped me tremendously in forming a view of Christianity that is cordoned off into the "spiritual" parts of life, but rather affects everything (including "secular" history). I couldn't recommend him enough.
Well-formed Christians exercising their legitimate freedom, in every sphere of life, constitute the bridge between the Church's authority, which is sacramental and educational, and the day-to-day operation of all human institutions, whether in the home, in personal life, in business, in academia, and not least in political action and the operation of government power.
Well-formed Christians must be men and women of prayer, daily and consistently. A life of prayer is necessary for all Christians, most of whom do not live in monasteries. This means that time must be found, which is a struggle, amidst family and professional obligations. It also means bringing a prayerful spirit to all ordinary human activities.
None of this means bishops and priests occupying government offices and exercising government power, purportedly in the name of God. That would be a distortion and lead to the corruption of both religion and government authority.
The clergy, by preaching the truth, providing the sacraments to the laity, and forming them to live and work as Christians in a frequently hostile world, equips the vastly larger population that constitutes the Church, to transform and Christianize the world from within.
I am in perfect agreement that the spiritual life cannot be made private, and must exist in the public sphere. In this way, prayer absolutely is a political problem.
Where I think I might take issue is (as I perceive it, so don't take this as a commentary on your capacity) the potential error in limiting the notion of politics to government and the State.
I think governance and hiearchy are perfectly natural and desired structures for any society. I think the monopolized version of these structures in the form the State (whether by modern technocratic oligarchical republics or older Two-Power monarchies) is both unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the dual objective of peace and piety.
I don't think the State as most people conceive it is necessary for either peace or piety--in fact, I think history suggests when coercive power is centralized it might even be harmful in the long run to both. I do agree that the public life needs prayer. I just disagree on what we might mean by public and politics.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I can definitely get on board with the idea that the modern State is...non-ideal (and even inclined towards evil). I don't want to give the impression that this essay was just calling for "The Modern State But Catholic." There are serious structural flaws with the modern State, and I'd like to see a development towards another form altogether. I don't think Catholic Social Teaching envisions something like the modern State anyway
The way in which some Medieval cities operated via outlawry and the Holy Roman Empire's quasi-polycentric law isn't a terrible notion. That locality, customs, and mutual voluntary cooperation generate order is probably a closer idea of the State I would imagine the Church has in mind.
But we have a state religion in America; it is the Progressive State, and this is one insanely jealous god indeed.
While restoring some spirituality would be a good thing, since all they offer is the abyss, to understand what that would take please review the recent successes of Islam against said Progressives, that’s what it takes.
For a more Christian example, let us return to Constantine in 312 at the Milvans Bridge- His Legions did not advance praying, it was no pilgrimage of grace, and
IN HOC SIGNO VINCES doesn’t mean in this Sign Priests influence power, nor have it.
I don’t think, at this time anyway, their intent is to upset progressive regimes. Said regimes are being used as a tool to thwart Christianity. There will come a time, however, when Islam will eat the progressive regimes as they will no longer be needed.
For the past couple years I've had this notion growing in my mind about the separation of life into different spheres being an entirely artificial construct. Some kind of effect of the modern age.
I'm not educated in these matters all that well, but I think your essay helps me understand better.
Life is life. Why would religion get shoved in a box from Amazon?
Yes. While we may very well speak of a "spiritual life," the fact of the matter is that if our religious beliefs are true and if our God is who he says he is, then He is in all things and our entire existence is oriented around and towards Him. How we live is as important as how we pray, if Jesus is to be believed. So, then, how can we say our religion is separate from our politics, or that our religion is something which must be kept to "inside church" as if the Church is not the whole Body of Christ, on an earthly pilgrimage to heaven?
Is at least partially the fault here like forgetting the explanation of the mystery is not the mystery itself?
Can you elaborate?
I'll try!
Take what you said above, "...He is in all things and our entire existence is oriented around and towards Him." The immensity of that truth strikes me as above and beyond mere words. Maybe not. I think I'm describing numinous awe? Or trying to.
To come at it another way by use of analogy, when one keeps our "religion separate from our politics" you're sitting on a tree branch and sawing it off from the trunk. Not a great move.
Haha yes, I see. I do not want to give the impression that the mystery can be so easily understood. If we were to sit back and unpack exactly what that sentence of my meant and what its consequences were, we'd be unpacking for decades.
I’ve been spending a great deal of time listening to different Christian leaders, newly born again Christians, and many in between. I’m trying to believe more fully in a faith that depends so deeply on self interpretation. There is no direct contact with the spiritual, i.e conversation, witnessing the miraculous, or other 5 sense discernible event. I’m searching for the all in kind of faith that you speak of in this essay. Where every minute of every day I seek the wisdom of my God through the teachings of the Bible. Where prayer isn’t only resorted to in times of need or adversity, but and immediate response in all daily life. Prayer upon awakening to a new day not promised, prayer to relinquish my control over anything, seeking God’s will over everything, and prayer in the quiet moments when my mind can, and often does, run rampant in fear through the newest events in a gone crazy world. I remember specifically, a conversation with an elder mentor at my church as we studied a book we were reading together. I expressed my desire to just “Be.” She completely understood what I meant by that. I couldn’t have articulated that then, but we seemed to be able to communicate without words. I am now able to explain, and what I think I meant was that I didn’t want to have to think about any wrong choices, only to immediately make the right choices. As I write this, I understand what that actually looks like. It’s like the Garden where everything was perfect and there was no knowledge of ‘good and evil.” I understand the idea of free will and the need to choose. I know your essay is bigger than what I’ve boiled it down to. It more than just prayer. But, I may be wrong, but prayer is where it all starts. It’s prayer where we accept our brokenness. Where we give up our control and abide in God’s will. Where we seek wisdom for decisions.
So many misinterpret separation of church and state. The believe, as you wrote, that the church should have nothing to do with politics and the state should have nothing to do with church: Church should be left at the doors out into the world. Again I may be wrong, but I interpret it to mean that the church should NOT be the state. The way I understand it, the forefathers came from a place where they were ruled by the King, who was actually ruled by the church. The wanted a government that was ruled by the people who were guided by God.
Yes, the founders certainly understood it more as meaning that the State shall not establish a Church or recognize one as being the "official" State-sponsored Church. However, we do know that they were okay with states requiring oaths of belief in God, and they were also okay with persecuting certain groups (unfortunately such as Catholics). We have developed some from that point in a positive way. I would also add that I myself do not want the Church and State to get mixed up in a formal capacity, since that encourages corruption and can lead to the Church forgetting its mission. It can also lead to the State meddling in spiritual matters (very bad).
Very good comments on prayer by the way, you said it very well.
Jean Danielou is a beast. I'm reading his book Lord of History right now, and he delves into many of these same topics in greater detail. He's helped me tremendously in forming a view of Christianity that is cordoned off into the "spiritual" parts of life, but rather affects everything (including "secular" history). I couldn't recommend him enough.
Good post.
Well-formed Christians exercising their legitimate freedom, in every sphere of life, constitute the bridge between the Church's authority, which is sacramental and educational, and the day-to-day operation of all human institutions, whether in the home, in personal life, in business, in academia, and not least in political action and the operation of government power.
Well-formed Christians must be men and women of prayer, daily and consistently. A life of prayer is necessary for all Christians, most of whom do not live in monasteries. This means that time must be found, which is a struggle, amidst family and professional obligations. It also means bringing a prayerful spirit to all ordinary human activities.
None of this means bishops and priests occupying government offices and exercising government power, purportedly in the name of God. That would be a distortion and lead to the corruption of both religion and government authority.
The clergy, by preaching the truth, providing the sacraments to the laity, and forming them to live and work as Christians in a frequently hostile world, equips the vastly larger population that constitutes the Church, to transform and Christianize the world from within.
I am in perfect agreement that the spiritual life cannot be made private, and must exist in the public sphere. In this way, prayer absolutely is a political problem.
Where I think I might take issue is (as I perceive it, so don't take this as a commentary on your capacity) the potential error in limiting the notion of politics to government and the State.
I think governance and hiearchy are perfectly natural and desired structures for any society. I think the monopolized version of these structures in the form the State (whether by modern technocratic oligarchical republics or older Two-Power monarchies) is both unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the dual objective of peace and piety.
I don't think the State as most people conceive it is necessary for either peace or piety--in fact, I think history suggests when coercive power is centralized it might even be harmful in the long run to both. I do agree that the public life needs prayer. I just disagree on what we might mean by public and politics.
A marvelous post. Thank you for it!
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I can definitely get on board with the idea that the modern State is...non-ideal (and even inclined towards evil). I don't want to give the impression that this essay was just calling for "The Modern State But Catholic." There are serious structural flaws with the modern State, and I'd like to see a development towards another form altogether. I don't think Catholic Social Teaching envisions something like the modern State anyway
The way in which some Medieval cities operated via outlawry and the Holy Roman Empire's quasi-polycentric law isn't a terrible notion. That locality, customs, and mutual voluntary cooperation generate order is probably a closer idea of the State I would imagine the Church has in mind.
But we have a state religion in America; it is the Progressive State, and this is one insanely jealous god indeed.
While restoring some spirituality would be a good thing, since all they offer is the abyss, to understand what that would take please review the recent successes of Islam against said Progressives, that’s what it takes.
For a more Christian example, let us return to Constantine in 312 at the Milvans Bridge- His Legions did not advance praying, it was no pilgrimage of grace, and
IN HOC SIGNO VINCES doesn’t mean in this Sign Priests influence power, nor have it.
Islam has done very little to actually upset progressive regimes.
I don’t think, at this time anyway, their intent is to upset progressive regimes. Said regimes are being used as a tool to thwart Christianity. There will come a time, however, when Islam will eat the progressive regimes as they will no longer be needed.