Putting Religion in its Place: The Secular State and Human Flourishing – A Debate

Last updated on: June 24, 2014 at 8:45 pm by Guest Contributor

Putting Religion in its Place: The Secular State and Human Flourishing – A Debate 2014-06-24T20:45:00-05:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Throughout the seventeenth century, European civilisation was tortured by religious conflict. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and other political thinkers of the time wrote against a background of terrible dislocations: the wars of religion, religion-tinged political struggles between great European dynasties, and the ruinous conflict between the British Crown and parliament. The troubled times provided an occasion to rethink the proper relationship between the claims of religion and the operation of worldly (or secular) political power.

Although Hobbes’s greatest single work, Leviathan (1651), consists largely of theological analysis to defend his model of the state, its most important line of argument uses entirely secular reasoning. That is, Hobbes analyses the function and operation of the state in terms of human beings’ worldly interests. For Hobbes, the state should aim at limited secular goals, such as peace and security, and the kind of material prosperity that these facilitate. It should view religious rivalries as just one more threat to peace. However, he thought, the secular ruler cannot be merely indifferent to religious matters. To ensure that the peace is maintained, the ruler must suppress outward expressions of all religions except one – no rivalry of doctrines can be allowed.

Other seventeenth-century thinkers moved decisively in a more liberal direction. Among these, Locke was enormously influential. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), he accepts the Hobbesian analysis, insofar as he sees the state as the result of a social contract and defines its role in entirely secular terms. But he draws totally different practical conclusions. On Locke’s account, men and women enter into social arrangements for mutual assistance and defence – against, for example, rapine, fraud and foreign invasions. It is the role of the state to protect citizens from these things.

At this point, his main line of argument identifies a distinction between the proper aims of secular government and those of spiritual teaching. For Locke, the apparatus of the state is directed toward our “civil interests,” which he defines as “Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of the Body; and the possession of outward things such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like.” It is the duty of the secular ruler to provide protection for “these things belonging to this Life.” The ruler’s remit should not “be extended to the Salvation of Souls.”

Locke reached these conclusions from within Protestant Christianity, and his stated reasons for limiting the role of the secular ruler to protecting worldly things include a mix of secular and theological concerns. All the same, the Hobbesian analysis of the state lay in the background, and with it the argument that the essential point of the state is peace and security, and the worldly goods they allow, rather than any spiritual transformation.

By contrast with the state, Locke thought, a church is a free and voluntary society aimed at worship of God and the salvation of those involved. Its only power is of teaching and excommunication, and it has no jurisdiction over those who do not belong to it. Perhaps Locke over-simplifies here, but his main point is a plausible one: religious organisations are focused on otherworldly doctrines and are ill-adapted for the exercise of secular power.

On Locke’s account, it looks as if the state apparatus can do a reasonably effective job of maintaining order, protecting citizens and advancing ordinary human flourishing. By contrast, it has no expertise in any otherworldly order of things, in identifying goods that transcend human flourishing, or in assisting with whatever transformations are needed to obtain these transcendent goods. It has no business with the salvation of souls, or anything analogous. Rather than favouring the views of one or other religion, the state should allow them all to pursue their own goals, as long as they don’t produce civil harms.

Thus, Locke proposed a functional separation of religion and the apparatus of the state. The state should act for entirely secular reasons, based on knowledge that pertains solely to the order of this world. It should place no reliance on the doctrines of one or another religion. The different religious sects, cults and churches, in turn, should not pursue political power or influence in an attempt to impose their doctrines on the citizenry.

Read the rest here

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 23, 2014

Frustrated Fellowship: Millennials and the Future(s) of Black Baptist Churches

Next Post

June 25, 2014 Fear of a Black God and White Devils: Jay Z and the Five Percent Nation-Part 2

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Amy Steele Andre E. Johnson Book Reviews/Series Brian Foulks Call for Chapters Carol Howard Merritt Classes Conferences Contributors Crystal St.Marie Lewis Daniel White Hodge Earle Fisher Eulogy Fredrick Robinson Guest Contributions Henry McNeal Turner Institutes Interviews Joseph Boston Katherine Whitfield Kimberly Peeler-Ringer Lectures/Roundtables Natalie Bullock Brown R3 Book Series R3 Contributor Rashad Grove Readers Reflections Symposiums Teaching Traci Ellis Travis Harris Uncategorized Video

Select a Month June 2020 February 2020 December 2019 November 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 October 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz