Douglas Wilson suggests the term “Mere Christendom” for his take on the relationship of Church and State, of Christianity and Nation. He writes:
I argue … for a principled abandonment of the disastrous experiment of secularism, and for a corporate confession of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and all done in such a way as to preserve and protect our liberties. This no doubt raises questions, and hence this book.[1]
This means that we have to start by defining secularism. Wilson writes:
“What is secularism? Aside from being the villain of this book? Secularism is the idea that it is possible for a society to function as a coherent unit without reference to God. It is the idea that a culture can operate on the basis of a metaphysical and religious agnosticism. It is the idea that we can understand what human rights are without knowing what a human being actually is.[2]
This immediately raises a couple of questions, one of which is as to whether or not secularism is the only alternative to Christian Nationalism , hold on to that thought because it is a theme common to interactions with most proponents of Christian Nationalist type ideology and so one that we will need to return to. The second question is whether or not he has offered a fair definition of nationalism. It is worth noting that the National Secular society offers its own definition of secularism as follows:
“Secularism is a principle that offers two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.”[3]
They go on to argue that:
The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures that religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and makes sure the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.
Similarly, The Humanist society say:
“We are committed to secularism – the principle that, in a plural open society, where people follow many different religious and non-religious ways of life, the communal institutions that we share (and together pay for), should provide a neutral public space where we can all meet on equal terms.”
One may debate whether or not that approach has worked out in practice in those societies that consider themselves secular but at this stage, we can acknowledge that the self identification of avowed secularists is different to the way that Wilson seeks to define their position. Whilst the underpinning philosophy of organisations like the National Secular Society seem to be humanist, it seems to be possible to argue for their definition of secularism whilst believing in God. Indeed, some might argue that the US constitution aligns, at least on paper with their approach.
The Humanist society say:
“We are committed to secularism – the principle that, in a plural open society, where people follow many different religious and non-religious ways of life, the communal institutions that we share (and together pay for), should provide a neutral public space where we can all meet on equal terms.”
Wilson goes on to argue that:
The public square cannot be neutral. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t. If Jesus is Lord, the liberties of those who don’t believe in Him are far more secure than the liberties of everybody in the hands of a Caesar who answers to no one above him.[4]
There is something in this for us to consider. Whilst secularists argue that there is the possibility of neutral ground, we are left wondering if a public square that insists that all religious voices are silenced is truly neutral or is weighted in fact to the irreligious. Theoretically though we might argue that it is possible to determine the laws and customs of a land based on an agreed consensus such as fundamental human rights. Though what we do when those rights come into conflict as we see with the right to life and the right to choose in the case of abortion is a trickier question. Perhaps even there we should be able to argue for a priority to those rights. The right to choose is surely dependent upon the very idea of an autonomous human being being worthy of dignity and respect whether or not we posit that in a belief that we are made in God’s image. The right to life should logically trump the right to choose as the latter is dependent on the former. The secularist can at least theoretically reach common ethical decisions with the Christian, though it may be harder for them to provide a basis for those decisions.
When Wilson argues that “If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t”, this might prompt the response that it depends on exactly what we mean by the statement. Again, there is a sense in which the ruler who can directly articulate a reason for their rules based on God’s revelation is in a better place than one who has no reference to God. However, the alternative is “Jesus is Lord” is not that our governors answer to no-one. Further, whilst Caesar may not recognise that Jesus is Lord, this does not negate the reality of his sovereign Lordship. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both point us to the genuine lordship of Caesar and the objective reality that Jeus is Lord, that God enacts his sovereign will, even through pagan emperors.
Wilson argues that:
In Christian societies, overreach is a possibility. The Scriptures teach that all men are sinners, and men will sin in Christian societies as well as in secular ones. But in secular societies, overreach is not a possibility, but rather a necessity, by definition. If there is no God above the state, then the state has become god—the point past which there is no appeal. If there is a God above the state, then hubris in high places will always be dealt with appropriately.[5]
However, the reasoning that underpins this is, as we have begun to see rather shaky. It should be possible to anticipate the rather blatantly obvious counter arguments from secularists. Indeed, as Christians we should note that from our perspective, the very reason that neutrality is impossible is that there is always a god above, personal or abstract, true of false. That god might be democracy, the rule of law, the market, ideologies such as communism and fascism etc. In some cases we get closer to seeing the State itself as god but that is not necessary so. However, in all but that last case, it isn’t true to say that “overreach is …. a necessity by definition.” Checks and balances are present.
Wilson concludes this little thought movement by saying:
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. If the Spirit has been exiled, how can we still have what only He can give? How can we reject the Giver and keep the gift? Those who puff themselves up and say that they can do this thing need to remember—wisdom is always vindicated by her children.”[6]
This is rather the woeful corrupting of out of context Scripture and the denial of what other Scriptures teach. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty/freedom” comes from 2 Corinthians 3:17. It comes as Paul draws to a conclusion a passage that has argued that under the New Covenant, we have something that the people of God did not have under the letter of the Law of Moses. The new covenant means that the Spirit of God is present with his people and so we do have freedom, we do have liberty whether or not we live under a government that acknowledges God or desires or freedom.[7]
We can see the same underpinning thought at work therefore when Peter tells his readers, that even under a repressive, tyrannical regime, they are free, that God is even using that regime for his purposes, for good and that they are to “live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover up for evil.”[8]
[1] Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom (p. 10). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom (p. 13). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom (p. 14). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[5] Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom (p. 15). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[6] Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom (p. 15). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[7] 2 Corinthians 3:18.
[8] 1 Peter 2:16.
Faithroots 