Chapter 9: Religion, Faith, and State
Before addressing the changing relationships between religion and the state, we need to understand the functioning of the state.
Each state has an established leadership class which can be closed or open. The rules, laws, and practices of the state are designed to serve the interests of that leadership class. When the gap between most of the people and that class gets too wide and the people see the leadership class as their enemy, the state breaks down.
When people feel connected to a religion, that religion tends to share its fate with the people. Christianity started as a fringe religion with mostly marginalized people and religious visionaries who sought a better world, or at least a better society. They lived out that better world through sharing of resources and stories and love. As the Roman Empire lost the trust and loyalty of its people, the influence of the church grew. The adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine was an effort to bolster the legitimacy of the empire in the eyes of some or many of the people.
The closer the church got to power, the farther it got from many of the people who were its reason for existence. Fortunately, neither the state nor the church is homogenous or static.
Historically, some revolutions included a strong influence by religions that were close to the people. Base communities with their people-focused priests and bishops like Oscar Romero helped poor people in several Latin American countries dare to resist dictatorships and the institutional church.
The close ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the Union Nationale led to the widespread rejection of the Roman Catholic Church by Quebecois who resented the role of the church in helping the conservative government repress a large part of the people.
When a religion is aligned with oppressive powers, it is seen as an enemy of the people and can lose when society changes dramatically. The Orthodox Church was closely tied to the Czars and became essentially outlawed by the communist governments that replace the czars. It hung on. It now has a close relationship with Putin and again has a great deal of influence.
The State only cares about a religion when that religion is seen as a support for gaining and maintaining power or is a threat to power.
Until about 1970, churches in Canada seemed important to governments and major church leaders had easy access to the prime minister. By 2000, as churches declined in Canada, prime ministers totally ignored church leaders. Religious people need to recognize that they only matter to the state if they have influence with enough people.
This is where faith enters the decision-making process. Faith leaders need to evaluate how much the state leadership fits their beliefs and how important influence with the state matters to them.
The greatest power today lies with the ultra wealthy and corporations and televangelists like Joel Osteen with their prosperity gospel fit right in. Evangelical churches lately favour conservative parties such as the Republicans as the political parties to support.
In Eastern Europe, Orthodox and conservative Catholic Churches have become aligned with nationalist populist parties, gaining influence with a few states but losing the support of modernist members of those nations.
These relationships are always fluid in which state leadership classes continually evaluate the usefulness of religions to them and religious leaders weigh their values and beliefs and priorities.
Before addressing the changing relationships between religion and the state, we need to understand the functioning of the state.
Each state has an established leadership class which can be closed or open. The rules, laws, and practices of the state are designed to serve the interests of that leadership class. When the gap between most of the people and that class gets too wide and the people see the leadership class as their enemy, the state breaks down.
When people feel connected to a religion, that religion tends to share its fate with the people. Christianity started as a fringe religion with mostly marginalized people and religious visionaries who sought a better world, or at least a better society. They lived out that better world through sharing of resources and stories and love. As the Roman Empire lost the trust and loyalty of its people, the influence of the church grew. The adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine was an effort to bolster the legitimacy of the empire in the eyes of some or many of the people.
The closer the church got to power, the farther it got from many of the people who were its reason for existence. Fortunately, neither the state nor the church is homogenous or static.
Historically, some revolutions included a strong influence by religions that were close to the people. Base communities with their people-focused priests and bishops like Oscar Romero helped poor people in several Latin American countries dare to resist dictatorships and the institutional church.
The close ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the Union Nationale led to the widespread rejection of the Roman Catholic Church by Quebecois who resented the role of the church in helping the conservative government repress a large part of the people.
When a religion is aligned with oppressive powers, it is seen as an enemy of the people and can lose when society changes dramatically. The Orthodox Church was closely tied to the Czars and became essentially outlawed by the communist governments that replace the czars. It hung on. It now has a close relationship with Putin and again has a great deal of influence.
The State only cares about a religion when that religion is seen as a support for gaining and maintaining power or is a threat to power.
Until about 1970, churches in Canada seemed important to governments and major church leaders had easy access to the prime minister. By 2000, as churches declined in Canada, prime ministers totally ignored church leaders. Religious people need to recognize that they only matter to the state if they have influence with enough people.
This is where faith enters the decision-making process. Faith leaders need to evaluate how much the state leadership fits their beliefs and how important influence with the state matters to them.
The greatest power today lies with the ultra wealthy and corporations and televangelists like Joel Osteen with their prosperity gospel fit right in. Evangelical churches lately favour conservative parties such as the Republicans as the political parties to support.
In Eastern Europe, Orthodox and conservative Catholic Churches have become aligned with nationalist populist parties, gaining influence with a few states but losing the support of modernist members of those nations.
These relationships are always fluid in which state leadership classes continually evaluate the usefulness of religions to them and religious leaders weigh their values and beliefs and priorities.
Last edited: