The State

Before launching into a series of isolated topics surrounding the church and the state it seemed worthwhile to introduce the basic framework for the discussion on each in separate essays. The hope is that this will make explicit the typically veiled topic position. Here, in a condensed form, is my comprehensive understanding of the empirical thing, the state, and the normative position of what it should do. This outline is an attempt to answer the questions that inevitable come when tackling any more micro-level question: how does this fit into the larger conceptual framework? This is that conceptual framework. It is worth noting that we are talking not about what, in the United States, we call states (smaller divisions of the country), but rather to a term encompassing country.

The state, for a bit of political science terminology, is the transcendence of government. A particular government is not the state. The state is the larger concept which encompasses government. Government is a particular set of institutions and bodies. The state is all of that plus. Formally modeling the concept of stateness here is not necessary. What is more important is the scope of the state. What should the bounds of state be? Where, to use an old phrase, is the water’s edge? What defines the area of state?

It is my understanding of that the American state has been unique. Our evolution has been a unique process, an ongoing process, into the limits and boundaries of state. This American process has been to limit state activity in order to promote private activity. Like a weed the state is not easily pruned and it suffocates other forms of activity whenever it grows into a new area of life. In order to limit this strangulation the original intent of the state was minimalistic. Our smaller states were, in essence, to compete. Why? Because in competing they forced more dynamic state definition. It is easier to prune smaller weeds if the need arises. This was the intent of the constitution.

Like all things, however, this conceptualization of state ended the moment the constitution as a document was no longer merely words on a page, but ratified law. Law must be applied and many wanted law to expand – allowing for a larger conceptualization of stateness. Chief Justice Marshall opened the door for this conceptualization in a multitude of his cases beginning with Marbury v Madison. The constitution, although written, was forever to be a document in flux. What this meant is that the borders of stateness were not fixed; they would be forever floating within a range. Not quickly, or rapidly, but slowly like a glacier the definition of state could be altered.

Although we have a written constitution, this free floating border, has allowed us to fundamentally change the nature of state in our country. Slowly over time this minimalistic state engulfed all sovereigns within its path and became the monolith that it is today. In recent times the Rehnquist court attempted to cut the corners from the state – to pull it back ever so slightly. Which leaves us with the fundamental question of our time: what is the future of the state? Indeed this is the question for every time because it is, at least as long as we continue in our current manner, not a fixed pillar.

This is the brief history of the American state. But what of our normative framework? What value should be placed on the state? If the state is, as many would argue, the catalyst for positive then its growth should be praised and welcome. Conversely, if the state is truly a danger, then its increase should bring nothing but worry. The fundamental problem with the state is it forces homogeneity. It generates singularity by necessity and destroys, if I dare utter the word, diversity in its path. The state cannot allow for variation. Law is law. Once a thing has been incorporated into the domain of the state it must become fixed. Then, to change whatever this thing is, is to change the state. The larger the state becomes, the more difficult this process of state change.

An example may well illuminate the situation. When the church was considered part of the state apparatus how many churches were there? The situation tended to be limited because the state required uniformity within its domain. It required a church. Even on a topic with range, think of airwaves. Television is regulated by the state. While there is room for limited variety television, because of its domain, is television regardless of the station. Post-offices are post-offices. There is no variety. The state, as noted earlier, takes things and makes them immutable without a change to the state itself.

Where then is the normative framework it may be asked? It lies here, if the desire is for a world devoid of the most basic element of human nature – variation – then the state can achieve this. If, however, we wish to keep our humanity the state cannot become all encompassing. As the state increases, the range of variation in humanity decreases. This is exactly what is necessary in limited cases. There cannot be variation of humanity in murder, rape, and theft for instance. Here the great singularity of the state is not only necessary; it is required for society to continue. Where then is the point where the line need be drawn? Or more aptly, the wall be constructed to keep the state out? I, like the famous John Stuart Mill, find that normative point to be where my variation conflicts with your variation. Or, in his words, my freedom to swing my cane ends where your nose begins and at this point the state also begins, because here we need singularity (See J.S. Mill’s On Liberty for more).

As I look into the world of state action I am examining through this conceptual framework. It contains both empirical and normative aspects and it explains well the nature, purpose, and use of the state. As we look at the world today we need to examine it through this lens. What is the role of the state? How does this role affect our humanity? Our freedom? What actions should government take to ensure that the state stays within its domain? This is where we will be headed with the state.

Beginnings

It seems necessary to begin with, intuitively enough, a beginning. An outline of what this particular piece of bloggish writing will encompass and perhaps attempt to touch on some of the questions which this writer is hoping over time to illuminate. The title of the blog is ‘Church and State.’ But not in the traditional sense of separation thereof, instead this is an attempt to explore those very concepts. Sometimes through essay, sometimes through analysis, sometimes through satire this blog is an attempt to answer larger questions about the nature of things. It may seem ironic that a blog would attempt such a seemingly grandiose purpose. Can a blog of sorts fulfill such a purpose? I answer with a resounding maybe!

What is the outline for this little insignificant project? It arises out of dissatisfaction with the current discourse on two different, yet interrelated, topics: church and state. The church, or religion, is in a decline. First mainline Churches adopted practices which have doomed them to a slow, prolonged death. A death by strangulation of sorts, the vine which is suffocating these churches is modern liberalism coupled with an embrace of post-structuralist theory. This process has ceased to be an intriguing question. Instead, what is fascinating is the related decline of what many would have considered “fundamentalist” churches. These evangelical and quasi-evangelical churches are just beginning, abet in their own unique forms, to embrace the mainstreams positions. The result of these variables seem almost inevitable: similar consequences as have been suffered by the mainline churches.

What is perhaps different from the earlier forms adopted by the mainstream Christian churches is a third embrace by these ‘fundamentalists:’ consumerism. The evangelical / quasi-evangelical church has begun to operate like a Starbucks franchise. It has embraced the consumer mentality and advanced it in concert with an acceptance of modern liberalism and, increasingly, postmodern or poststructuralist theory. Here at Miami a colleague’s work is focused on mega-churches and consumerism. She is a psychology graduate and is not particular Christian, but she finds this a phenomenon which will shape the future of the church and I must agree with her.

The state, in many ways, is suffering a similar identify crisis as the church. The state of the 21^st century is increasingly becoming all-powerful. Both Republicans and Democrats have both come to accept the fundamental truth that big government is good government. Regardless of the desirability of this situation, it has created a new set of issues for the definition of government and state. Both are grappling with a newfound set of normative goals which would have never been considered in political theory only 50 years ago. As the state increases its size, it must decide an increasing number of issues. As government defines these issues it necessarily must make sweeping moral and social decisions and force non-conformers to the margin in its wake. The cleavages between groups will only grow as the number of areas in which government operates expands and there is no end to the expansion in site.

As these two institutional pillars in the American landscape redefine themselves, our own socio-political system cannot help but undergo a massive shift. How we understand and contextual ourselves cannot remain static as such foundational institutions reshape. It is the purpose of this so-called blog to examine these shifts, how they interrelate and react to one another, and to comment on them. Almost without question our era will be an important one. We therefore come full circle to the reason for this so-called blog. I will be analyzing these structures through essay, through comment, through satire, and a variety of textual forms. Perhaps it is only the musings of an odd man, but I hope it is more and I hope it is worthwhile for not only me, but for anyone crazy enough to read it with me.