Augustine does sketch the relationship of Church and State, in a form with which I agree; but of course he was not able to give a detailed analysis of the relationship, because he had no experience of administration on that scale, and no tradition of administration on which to draw. After him the Dark Ages descended, and the opportunity was lost. Only in recent times has an adequate analysis been made, recognising that we all have only limited knowledge of any situation we are in, and therefore a fallible judgement of it; so that a decision making process must be set up, which commands respect, in other words which can be enforced; and which is subject to appeal. Religion should recognise that this is a secular process, which necessarily involves force and coercion. And Religion should admit too that non-resistance is a hopeless and irresponsible response, not only to violence and lawlessness, but to amicable civil disputes too. What was right in the Roman Empire; it is dramatically wrong now.
Today, in my experience, the C.of E. limits its interest in Law and Order to making a few unctuous prayers about it, and fails completely to recognise that force and coercion are both necessary and right, even for the most law-abiding community. The public quite rightly has tired of its spinelessness, and stays away from church. Its teaching is irrelevant to most of ordinary life, including in particular what to do when in a Romeo and Juliet situation. The parish parson ought to be the person a parishioner instinctively goes to in social or emotional difficulty. In fact he is the last person most people think of going to, because they feel his advice would not be worth listening to, as he is unlikely to have much worldly wisdom. So if they want to pour out their souls, they go to a counsellor attached to their local medical practice or to a psychologist.
Only once in my life have I ever heard a sermon preached on that uncomfortable saying of Jesus, that anyone who had faith in him would be able to do all that he had done, and greater things still when the religious authorities had made away with him. Most clergy shun this text; they do not preach on it, and probably do not think about it. And one wonders if this same Jesus, whom they profess to worship, would say that they were therefore not faithful to him. But whatever Jesus would say, the thought that they should use his courage and initiative to lead a life like his, seems as far from their minds as the East is from the West, to use the psalmist’s penitential phrase.
The simple truth is that Jesus, at great cost to himself, showed us the nature of an indwelling between Man and God. He did not go on to show us how a similar indwelling between men (or man and woman) dovetailed in with an indwelling with God. It was impossible for him to do both at the same time. But such a dual and complementary relationship is necessary before “believers” can start thinking seriously about Law and Order, and the administration of society. This goes far beyond anything Jesus attempted; but then this is exactly what he said we should do! Whatever anyone says about my attempt to solve the Romeo and Juliet situation, it was at least an attempt to do just this.
Is it a surprise that the Church of England, only one of whose clergy in my hearing has sympathised with my view, is now majestically heading for the scrap heap of terminal decline? Could it possibly be that, after 2000 years of neglect or failure, the Almighty, the Creator, has had enough of us? What would the minor Prophets have said? Or should someone else try again?
But the answer to that first question: “Could we have had a better account of Creation?” seems to be that we will never know. Not from Science anyway. What science can do is wonderfully to illustrate the way Creation has developed as Canon Professor Raven described in his Riddell Lectures in 1935 to Durham University. But as to the awful moment when physical matter was first created out of nothing, the best science can do is maintain a respectful silence. The account of Creation we have, is the only one we are ever likely to have; not literally true, but poetically true. And we must be thankful that we have got it.