Sometime ago I posted excerpts from a John Milbank essay critiquing the secular nation-state; returning to that topic, I want to share excerpts from this William Cavanaugh paper that addresses the problem clearly and penetratingly. You should read the full essay when you have the time; for now, read these selections, all of which are taken from the paper’s conclusion.
The nation-state is neither community writ large nor the protector of smaller communal spaces, but rather originates and grows over against truly common forms of life. This is not necessarily to say that the nation-state cannot and does not promote and protect some goods, or that any nation-state is entirely devoid of civic virtue, or that some forms of ad hoc co-operation with the government cannot be useful. It is to suggest that the nation-state is simply not in the common good business. At its most benign, the nation-state is most realistically likened, as in MacIntyre’s apt metaphor, to the telephone company, a large bureaucratic provider of goods and services that never quite provides value for money.
The problem, as MacIntyre notes, is that the nation-state presents itself as so much more; namely, as the keeper of the common good and repository of sacred values that demands sacrifice on its behalf. The longing for genuine communion that Christians recognize at the heart of any truly common life is transferred onto the nation-state… The nation-state is a simulacrum of common life, where false order is parasitical on true order. In a bureaucratic order whose main function is to adjudicate struggles for power between various factions, a sense of unity is produced by the only means possible: sacrifice to false gods in war. The nation-state may be understood theologically as a kind of parody of the Church, meant to save us from division.
Cavanaugh is certainly right in (at least) this one regard: the nation-state must be understood theologically. Unfortunately, most of us – whatever our religious persuasion – aren’t giving any serious thought to it; we simply accept that the state is “natural” and exists for the common good. However, those of us who’ve sworn allegiance to Jesus’ kingdom are especially required to give this serious consideration.
Cavanaugh continues,
The urgent task of the Church, then, is to demystify the nation-state and to treat it like the telephone company. At its best, the nation-state may provide goods and services that contribute to a certain limited order-mail delivery is a positive good. The state is not the keeper of the common good, however, and we need to adjust our expectations accordingly. The Church must break its imagination out of captivity to the nation-state. The Church must constitute itself as an alternative social space, and not simply rely on the nation-state to be its social presence. The Church needs, at every opportunity, to “complexify” space, that is, to promote the creation of spaces in which alternative economies and authorities flourish.
What is your response to Cavanaugh’s argument (which, I remind you, is only hinted at here in these excerpts)? Specifically, what do you make of his call for the church to “complexify” its space, to build “alternative economies and authorities”? How does that work? What would it look like if we were to attempt to accomplish it?
Cavanaugh makes a goes on to make a useful etymological argument for the Church with in the nation-state that I think might shed some useful light:
“In calling itself ekklesia, the Church was identifying itself as Israel, the assembly that bears the public
presence of God in history. In Greek usage, ekklesia named the assembly of those with citizen rights in a given polis. In calling itself ekklesia, the Church was identifying itself as fully public, refusing the available language for private associations (koinon or collegium). The Church was not gathered like a koinon around particular interests, but was concerned with the interests of the whole city, because it was the witness of God’s activity in history.123 At the same time, the Church was not simply another polis; it was rather an anticipation of the heavenly city on earth, in a way that complexified the bipolar calculus of public and private.”
The complexity of space Cavanaugh is after, and arguably one which we should allow, preserve and participate, is one that, as he goes on to say, “bridges” the “halfs” and the “half-nots.” The Church in this context does not rely on the nation-state’s interest in upholding and preserving the common good because the nation-state interest when unmasked lie solely in the divisive and the competitive associations within its structuring. The Church, in contrast must understand itself not as a particular association or private gathering, but as an ekklesia “of neither Greek, nor gentile…” participating in the life of the triune God, who alone is and is for the common and good of all. We are not a static gathering of people grounding around a set of ordered premises, but an organic community springing forth from the life of God. Our economy must be one that seeks to serve one another and not self interest, our encounter of the other is not disinterest and aloofness, but engagement and concern compelling us to action on their behalf.
I was recently got hung up reading in 2 Chronicles on Solomon’s dedication of the temple. Several things about Solomon’s speech struck me, and got me to thinking about what it means to be TEMPLES of the holy spirit; and some of the things that came out of that thought pattern are somewhat relevant to the question being discussed here about the false persona of the nation-state, and the role of the church in complexifying life. For brevity-sake, I’ll just throw some bullet points out and make a few connections.
1. In 6:18, Solomon makes an important statement within a rhetorical question, “But will God indeed dwell with men on Earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you. How much less this temple which I have built.” This strikes a chord with us today. Even while we are living out our lives individually and as members of the church, including all that Teal spoke about, we must recognize that not only are we not acting alone, but that neither are ours the only hands engaged in the work.
2. Two verses later, Solomon requests that God’s eyes be open towards the temple, which he describes as the “place where You said You would put Your name.” That is a pretty powerful idea, when we realize that we are now the temples of the Holy Spirit. And indeed, we bear the name of our Lord-CHRISTians.
3. The next striking thing for me were some very progressive statements that Solomon made. In beseaching God to hear prayers, he says, “whatever prayer, or whatever supplication is made by anyone,” “moreover concerning a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel,” and “when they return to you.” Solomon first appeals for all the people of Israel (no class distinction), then more scandolously on the behalf of foreigners, and finally on behalf of the lawless. For all these groups he asks, “Let your eyes be open, and and let your ears be attentive to the prayer made in this place.”
4. Paul talks to the Corinthians about being Temples, first in reference to being temples of God and not man (Paul plants, Apollos waters, God gives increase), and second in chastisement for their participation in the crooked economic and social practices in Corinth, demanding they separate themselves. Obviously, however, he does not mean a full monastic type separation, as this seems inconsistent with his overall message, and the life of Christ. So there is your complexity.
5. It is interesting that in Revelation, we read that the city has, “no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.”
6. So how do we get there? What complexification do we engage in? Like Teal said, we don’t rely on the Nation State to look out for the common good; realizing that good is not so common, lest it is intentionalized. The complexity we offer into our space is the complexity of the contrast between the world’s idea of the common good (which is actually expressed most often in covering one’s own behind, lots of paperwork, legalities, beauracratic overcomplication, and hiding behind policy and procedure), and the penetrating reality of a people who have quite literally taken to HEART Solomon’s sentiment about what God’s temple ought to be. When we understand and reflect on what the temple was supposed to be, it can shed a whole new light on what Pentecost meant to the Christians, and leave no surprise when things get “complicated.”
Teal,
I do think you’re right to note Cavanaugh’s emphasis on the for-the-world-ness of the church. We aren’t a community that exists for itself, for advancing its own agenda, but for serving the world with the good news that it has been redeemed and set free. “The church is herself only when she is for the world” (Bonhoeffer).
And as you say, the triune God revealed in Jesus is the only “common good.” That, in fact, is the very word we must speak to the state – and to all the powers.
Michael,
Thank you for joining the conversation! You’re reading of Solomon’s prayer is v. helpful, esp. your emphasis on its hospitality, its openness to the other. Also, you’re quite right that the more we “complexify” our relational space – the more we make room for others – things will get more and more complicated! But we need to pray for that day to come – and sooner than later!
CG
Just to respond briefly to Chris’s initial questions:
The impulse to complexify space by creating multiple alternative economies and authorities, the approach which Cavanaugh is advocating here, is at least loosely connected to a set of concepts which gets a lot of buzz in theory and cultural studies. There is much talk of privileging the localized and the embedded, of arborescent vs. rhizomatic resistance to globalism and its systems of oppressive power (particularly economic power). The images Deleuze & Guattari use are the tree (arborescent) and crabgrass (rhizomatic). Arborescent resistance is tree-like, with vertically connected histories and allegiances (roots) and various subdivisions (branches) of the same singular structure extending from its locus of power. Rhizomatic resistance is rootless, multiple, chaotically unpredictable, and nomadic, like crab-grass. It’s easier to uproot the largest tree than even a small field of crabgrass. So you can see the basic principle which guides their privileging of the rhizomatic over the arborescent.
I’m only vaguely familiar with their thoery; I haven’t read it first-hand and may have misrepresented it here, but this is my basic understanding. Although I’m sure it’s not quite the same exactly, I think there are theoretical connections with Cavanaugh’s points that are worth mentioning. Personally, I find these approaches hopeful and intriguing, although I can’t say I’m ready to argue that they are the only or most effective ways to resist the nation-state and globalism.
Mark,
Intriguing.!. Indeed.