This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The Political Church and the Profane State in John Milbank and William Cavanaugh RICHARD A. DAVIS I V N E R U S E I T H Y T O H F G E R D I N B U A Thesis submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Edinburgh. 2013 Declaration I composed this thesis, the work is my own. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or qualification. Name: Date: Abstract Contemporary political and public theology is predominantly statist, with a view of the state as the solver of human problems, and with the church urging the state to do more to bring about social justice and peace. This practice of politics as statecraft has been forcefully challenged by a number of recent theologians, such as those within the theological movement known as Radical Orthodoxy. Against such a backdrop, this thesis examines the work of two of Radical Orthodoxy’s most political writers: John Milbank and William Cavanaugh. Their characterization of the state, as based in nominalist philosophy and violence, is highly negative. This negative assessment renders statist theologies and the practice of statecraft profane and deeply problematic for Christians. They prefer instead to see the church as the only true politics. Yet this move places their ecclesial and sacramental politics in the overall modern movement of the politicization of Christianity. This thesis argues that the state is neither sacred nor profane, but if accepted as mundane, it is something that can be freely engaged with by the church as part of its overall witness to politics and society. In order to outline and assess the political theology of Milbank and Cavanaugh three biblical and doctrinal lenses – creation, preservation, and redemption – are used to judge their work. From the viewpoint of creation we see where Milbank and Cavanaugh find the origins of the state in comparison with other theological positions. This carries through to the commonly held view that the state is in the order of preservation, as an ordinance of God preserving human society from the chaos caused by human sinfulness. Finally, in redemption we see how in both Milbank and Cavanaugh the state becomes an anti-redeemer in competition with the political salvation found in the church and voluntary associations. The thesis concludes by drawing on the work of Jacques Ellul in advocating the desacralization of the state from being either sacred or profane. Such a perspective enables the Church to freely engage in statecraft as just one tactic in its political advocacy without corrupting itself. ii Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements v A Note on the Text vi 1 Introduction 1 2 The Sanctified State and the Politicized Church 36 3 Creation and the Origin of the State 65 4 Preservation and the Order of the State 103 5 Redemption and the End of the State 136 6 The Political Church and Desacralized Statecraft 169 7 Conclusions 202 Bibliography Primary Sources – William T. Cavanaugh 205 Primary Sources – John Milbank 212 Other Works Referenced 225 Index of Scripture References 256 Index of Names 258 Index of Confessions, Creeds, and Other Documents 262 iii Acknowledgements This work’s origins lie in my deep and abiding interest in the relationship of politics to the Christian faith. This interest is one that several members of my family have shared, especially my late maternal grandfather, Eric Heggie, to whom I dedicate this thesis. My faith was nurtured by my wonderful parents, Pam and Arthur Davis. They have always supported my dreams of pursuing advanced study and I owe them my heartfelt thanks for helping me through this work. Their moral and material support (including proofreading) was unwavering throughout my study, and their generosity knew no bounds. I owe them everything. I am also very grateful to other family members who supported me in various ways. I would like to thank here those people who prepared the way for my doctoral study. I could not have got through this PhD without encouragement from those who believed in me when I found it difficult to believe in myself. While they have probably forgotten such conversations, Dr Michael Meylan and Dr Mike Grimshaw were both greatly encouraging at different times. I would like to thank the faculty at my alma mater, the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Otago, and in particular, Prof Ivor Davidson (now at the University of St Andrews) and Prof Murray Rae who not only taught me doctrine and ethics, but also gave me the chance to develop a love of theology. It was during a week-long intensive course on the Old Testament prophets taught by Prof Walter Brueggemann (brought to Auckland, New Zealand by the University of Otago) that I decided to pursue further theological study, so he is due a special mention for his inspirational teaching. Furthermore, I’d like to thank my funders for their financial support. They are the Council for World Mission, the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership (for the Thornton Blair Scholarship), St Andrew’s on The Terrace (particularly their Kilby Fund for lay theological education – a rare thing indeed), and the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust. There are also numerous individuals who provided a cup of coffee, a bed or sofa, or a ride when money was tight. Their generosity helped to teach me what a gift economy looks like. For the opportunity to travel during my studies and the ideas this generated, I’d like to thank the Fondation Catholique Ecossaise, the World Communion of Reformed Churches (especially Dr Douwe Visser), the Society of Friends of the St. Andrew’s, iv Contents v Jerusalem, and the exchange programme between the School of Divinity, Edinburgh and the Evangelische Stift, Tübingen. When it comes to the research itself, thanks must go to my thesis supervisors: Professors Oliver O’Donovan and Duncan B. Forrester. They provided much needed guidance and encouragement at critical times. If doing a PhD is training to be an independent scholar, then my PhD experience certainly was a good start. Others in the New College community provided valued friendship. Deserving of special mention are my PhD peer support group, Ryan Gladwin, Josh Kaiser, and Nigel Zimmermann. Other colleagues at Edinburgh, namely Frank Dicken, Maegan Gilliland, Fran Henderson, Crystal Lubinsky, Daniel Miller, Jamie Pitts, Jason Radcliff, and Byron Smith were cherished companions on the journey. Others who deserve special mention for providing companionship and moral support are Aiko Widhidana, Laura Woodward, Cendy Yang, Gillian Townsley, and especially Lorna Lythgoe who treated me and my thesis with great care, providing excellent editorial advice in the latter stages. For help with computers I thank Dr Jessie Paterson (formerly of New College, Edinburgh) and Michael Edge-Perkins. Nicola L. C. Talbot helped with LATEX problems, including the scripture index. Richard A. Davis A Note on the Text The ‘state’ I have followed the modern convention of spelling ‘state’ with a lower case ‘s’. In quotations from other authors I have preserved the spelling of ‘state’ as it appears in the original form, which in older texts sometimes has ‘State’. In this regard I differ from the practice of David Runciman, the only contemporary author I have encountered that deals with the problem of the spelling of ‘state’.1 My practice harmonizes with Ludwig von Mises who suggested that liberals, unlike totalitarian statists, do not spell ‘state’ with a capital ‘s’.2 Gendered language I have avoided gender exclusive language in my writing. I have not, however, altered other authors’ words, but preserved their original expression. Scripture The NRSV translation has been for all English bible quotations and citations unless otherwise stated. In the body of the text names of biblical books appear in full. In the few quotations from other authors that include a scripture citation I have amended the scripture reference style for consistency and indexing purposes. 1. David Runciman, Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xiii. 2. Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944), v. vi Chapter 1 Introduction In the vibrant field of political theology, the state remains a central concept around which debates turn. One’s attitude to the state can have one condemned as a Constantinian, an anarchist, or as an apologist for violence. As a work of political theology, this thesis focuses on theological understandings of the state in North Atlantic theology from the late nineteenth century to today. But this is not a discussion of an abstract concept of the state, but rather how a theological assessment of the state relates to the church’s engagement with the state. As discussed in the following chapters, this period was characterised by the rise of a very favourable disposition among many theologians toward the state.