When you consider how illiterate most clergymen are in their understanding of science and modern knowledge, there is a good deal to be said for Eucken’s view. In the 1960s a committee of the Church of England prepared a Report called “Putting Asunder”, which was meant to give wise advice to the secular world on marriage and divorce, a subject which the Church should have known all about. Unfortunately its proposals were enacted in the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (later re-enacted in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973), which in my opinion was a disaster from which it will take generations to recover. And in my book “Man’s Relationship with God”, I attempt to show at considerable length how poor the Report was. It was a shambles of imprecise woolly thinking; and the consequences were as bad as the drafting. The Church is not fit to advise on such matters; on eschatological matters maybe, but not on practical matters. Unless we are all to become monks in monasteries (which was very much the attitude of the Church when Rome was falling apart), the clergy have made religion a delightful world of dreams, which has nothing to do with ordinary life. Whereas my view is that the companionship of the Almighty should influence (though not necessarily dictate) every single thing one does, from getting up in the morning to going to bed at night; and of course He should influence one’s attitude towards the State. And this should be so, even if it makes the clergy’s influence irrelevant. As Cranmer says in his elegant prose, “..mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts”; but not necessarily dictate our conduct.
For centuries it has been assumed that one’s duty to the State demands that one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life for the State, if called on to do so; for instance in time of war. Ultimately, one obeys God rather than the State, if one believes in God, and if there is an incompatibility of duties; a priority with which I imagine all devout Muslims would agree. But that only means one may have to sacrifice oneself; I emphatically deny it justifies the sacrifice of others. It means one is entitled to be a martyr; not a butcher. And the general opinion is that you should not seek martyrdom; it should come to you, not you seek it.
Short of self-sacrifice, the question is whether one willing to accept the Rule of Law, as one of the greatest blessings human society has ever devised? If so, one must be prepared to use force to make it effective. Similarly, one may have to resort to war, and be prepared to use even greater force. There is little difference, save in degree. The significant point is that one must be prepared to act; there is little point either in attempting to enforce a law, or in declaring war, if the force required to make either effective is not available. The likely result will be either contempt for the law, or catastrophic defeat in battle. And probably the failure will be due to the “do gooders”, preventing proper preparations being made whilst there was time, although they will immediately disclaim responsibility when disaster supervenes.