National Apostasy: What does Keble’s Assize Sermon Teach Us Almost 200 years later?

“Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against you; but I will teach you good and the right way.” – 1 Samuel 12:23

“For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish, And those nations shall be utterly ruined.” – Isaiah 60:12

Intro

Almost 200 years ago Fr. John Keble preached his now famous “assize sermon.” This prophetic sermon is often credited with marking the beginning of the Oxford Movement in England. This sermon was entitled “National Apostasy,” and touches upon themes pertaining to the relation between Church and State, and principally the duties of a Nation who has, in her official legislature, deemed herself a Christian nation. It considers what happens when such a nation begins to turn away from Christ, and what the causes and effects of this are. I believe Keble’s sermon is just as relevant in our day as it was in his own. Today, particularly here in North America, discussions concerning Christian Nationalism are rampant, garnering attention from politicians and the common man alike.

Is it possible or desirable, it is asked, to have a nation that is dedicated to and grounded in ruling in a way that honors Christ and His Church? Politicians and pundits on both sides of the political divide will speak out against it, but I believe Keble sheds some important light on our current situation that demands to be thoroughly considered. Not only is it possible to have a Christian Nation, but it is meet and right so to do; and, in light of the impending apostasy looming over England in his day, Fr. Keble provides us with insight for how we can hope and labor to see national reform and repentance in our own day.

What is A Christian Nation?

It could be argued that “Christian Nationalism” is as amorphous and hard to define as it is to define “Anglicanism.” There are doubtless differing shades of Christian Nationalism, some commendable and others condemnable, but one can’t read Keble’s Assize Sermon and come away thinking such a thing as a Christian nation is impossible. In his own words, a Christian Nation is one which “[acknowledges,] as an essential part of its theory of government, that, as a Christian Nation, she is also part of Christ’s Church, and bound, in all her legislation and policy, by the fundamental rules of that Church.”^{^[1]} It is a willful submission to Jesus as the Christ of God; a professed faith in the King of Kings, placing as a part of national interest the interests and care of His Church. This kind of national arrangement, Keble insists, demands a genuine piety. It is a matter of grave contradiction, therefore, to have in public office an Atheist or infidel. St. Paul informs us that the ruling authority, whether he is a believer or not, acts as a minister of God’s justice^{^[2]}— how much more fearful is it then to be a believing ruler who assumes in his public office the bonds of being a servant of Christ? Hence, we can see why in Keble’s day the gross contradictions with the manner in which English officials treated Ecclesiastical offices, and their own public offices, was tantamount to apostasy.

Some may take issue with the idea of a nation being fundamentally Christian both in her policies and in her officials, possibly upon pretenses of infringing upon one’s religious liberties or other democratic sensibilities. It is fine to have these objections (debates over these topics are good and healthy, after all!), but please know that these are particularly modern scruples. How we view the political order today is not as it has always been. I would argue that looking back into history will reveal a more natural way in which nations were governed and led. I would now like to take some time to discuss what it is to govern, and from that how Keble’s concept of a “Christian Nation” is a necessary conclusion from these principles.

The Nature of Governing

To govern is to guide and lead something towards a particular end. This end is of necessity some perceived good; for why would we move ourselves and others towards a thing unless we saw it as better than our current state? When we govern ourselves it is to control our passions and subsequent actions in order to attain some good end—namely the attainment of some virtue. Within this conception of our “good end” we can distinguish between physical (or natural) ends, and our spiritual (or supernatural) end. Just as man is both body and soul, his good end, or purpose, is also twofold. Man, being made from the dust of the earth and imbued with the breath of life has, as it were, a foot in both the earthly and the heavenly realms. So then, we can consider man’s natural ends as those which pertain to his immediate physical well-being, and his ability to provide some lasting inheritance for his posterity. Man’s supernatural end is communion with God.^{^[3]}

Moving from the individual, we can look to the family. A father governs his household towards the attainment of its good end, which is the good ordering of its members. It is the proper end for a family to thrive and prosper, and so the father sees to it that with everything possible in his power, these ends are met. The father works in order that his family is fed, sheltered, and able to live a good life. He sees to it that his children are in an environment wherein virtue is extolled and vice is condemned. He also ensures that, since it is the chief end of man to have communion with God, that his children are raised and trained up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. To put it another way, he ensures that both civil and religious piety are instilled in his family. He acts as the chief example by which everyone else is to learn, and he provides what is needed for each person in his household to flourish and thrive towards these ends. It is natural, therefore, to extend this into the larger society. There is a reason that the ancient world considered their Kings and other rulers to be fathers over those whom they ruled. It was because they recognized the role of their leaders as a kind of father, providing and guiding the society at large to their proper ends.

Church and State?

Now, we must consider whether or not the civil leader has a right and a duty to promote religion in his domain. Our modern sensibilities would tell us that he does not. What say does the government have in what religion I choose to practice? The government can’t legislate morality! It turns out, actually, the government has a lot to say and indeed does legislate morality. Even today our government, a so-called bastion of free thought, has legislated the sexual perversions and degeneracy of homosexuality as something that is good and right; it is currently up for debate whether or not Christians will be able to say basic New Testament truths such as who was responsible for the death of Jesus without incurring civil penalties; and even today our civil leaders debate whether or not the murder of the unborn is actually a good, god-given right. As you can see… It’s not a matter of whether or not the government has a say in these things or not—it already does.

It is not surprising then that when we examine the nations of the world, up until very recently have we begun to see the decline of formal national religions. Both Athens and Rome of old had their gods enshrined and religion was just as much a public affair as it was private. There were varying degrees of tolerance throughout the different nations, but one thing was common—from small tribes to massive empires, religion was at the heart of politics. This is not surprising at all because societies are built around a heritage which includes strong shared beliefs about the common good. These kinds of beliefs have a solidifying power because of the nature of them. They command a strong love and loyalty, something Western society today takes issue with. This naturally includes religion, as it concerns man’s ultimate end.

David sang, “The wicked shall be turned to hell, and all the nations that forget God,” and extolled the nations to “Serve the Lord with fear,” and to “Kiss the Son.”^{^[4]} Civic atheism is as absurd as private atheism. It is not impossible for a nation to be atheistic—indeed it has been tried and championed—but the possibility of a thing is not the same as the wellbeing of a thing. The union of the soul with God is life and therefore brings well-being and goodness. So too in the civil realm. Where a nation is committed to pleasing God, and governing in accordance with the divine will, there will be life and prosperity.^{^[5]} Where this is neglected, there is only death and decay—nature itself teaches us this. Inasmuch as a man has the right to order his household towards religious piety, so too then does the civil leader. We have already established the relation between the civil leader and those under him is a natural analogy between a father and his children—this is just a natural consequence of these principles. Because the civil leader has a duty to promote and maintain the good of society, it is essential therefore that he also have a care to the religious disposition of his people. As David testifies, “He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, like the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after rain.”^{^[6]}

It is a flawed view of religious liberty and human dignity that would remove this right from the civil ruler. To argue otherwise is contrary to human flourishing and to human nature itself. Man is created to seek out the Truth—that is, to seek out God—but this is not done in a vacuum and outside of the influence of those around him. The right of a father to catechize and instruct his children in his religion is upheld by most proponents of religious liberty. This is because, deep down, we know that man needs instruction and guidance throughout life. We are led, as it were, by the hand of those whom God has placed over us. Doubtless, each individual must seek out the Truth on their own, and must critically examine what has been handed down to them from others. It is this ability, which no one can take away, that is most in accord with human dignity. But this does not, and cannot, preclude the right and duty of a civil leader from having a concern for the religious disposition of those under his care.

Coercion and Tolerance

It should be noted that none can convert the soul but God. Threat of the sword may constitute an outward submission, but it can never directly convert. That is not the purpose in establishing a national religion. Rather, the goal is to bring about an environment wherein virtue and true religion can flourish, and as a result the people of the nation can easily grow and attain their proper ends. It is the creation of an environment conducive to conversion and human flourishing that is sought, not the forced coercion of a people. Once more, the analogy between a father and his children is fitting here. The citizens of such a nation have the right to inquire about the national religion and are free to examine its claims. They can even remain unconvinced and in their private life still be of another religious disposition. It is not contrary to a Christian nation to have citizens who are personally atheists, Hindus, or Muslims. It could possibly even allow some degree of public exercises thereof; but it must be maintained that it is not inherently contrary to human dignity to suppress the public exercise of false religions. It is quite possible, and indeed is the case in religious pluralism, that the public exercise of false religions is subversive to the maintenance of the true religion. Inasmuch as the promotion of true religion is aimed at the good of society, the inverse is equally true. Allowing false religions an equal standing in the public life is to hinder the good of that society.

For what other reason than this did God forbid the erecting of altars to false gods within Israel? God does not seem to agree that religious liberty as we have it today is in line with human dignity. “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes…”^{^[7]} Man was not made for an atomized individualism. Man was made for community, and it is in the community that he is to grow and prosper. We are all dependent upon others. It is therefore good and right for a nation to establish a national religion and to suppress those false religions that would subvert the good of the people and national order. Diversity is not always the strength it is chalked up to be. When considering the common good of a particular people, diverse concepts of the “good” does more to divide and weaken a people than it does to strengthen them.

Fr. Keble indicates as much as well when he laments the state of affairs in his day when an increasing indifference towards the religious beliefs of public officials was becoming the norm. Why is this? Not only because it is tantamount to apostasy when public officials are sworn in under the auspices of being a servant of Christ and of His Church, but also because it creates a conflict within public interests and creates disorder and chaos rather than order and peace. To argue otherwise would be ignorant as to how one’s own religious beliefs impact his public life. The two are inseparably joined together, and man cannot rend asunder what God hath joined.

Two Kingdoms

Traditional Protestants have upheld a Two Kingdom model of theology in order to understand the relationship between Church and State—though the Magisterial Reformers did not understand the Church and State to be identical with those two kingdoms. In contrast to modern Reformed Two Kingdom theology (itself a misnomer)— which posits the Church is the kingdom which Christ has rule over and the State is separate and unconcerned with the Church—the view of the Reformers was that this distinction between two kingdoms exists within man himself. It is a distinction between the inner man, the conscience, and the outer realm which constitutes these two kingdoms. God alone is Lord over the conscience, and therefore this inner kingdom is ruled invisibly by God’s grace in the life of the individual—here the earthly king has no rule. As it pertains to externals, however, here God rules through the mediation of the earthly king. This rule, in contrast to that of the invisible kingdom, does not bind the conscience but deals with the external affairs of man in society—here the king has absolute rule in his own domain.

This view is worlds better than the modern Two Kingdom thought prevalent in some Protestant circles. To assert that the Church exists as a separate society amidst the secular societies of man is to be rejected principally because of our view of grace. Grace does not destroy what is natural, but perfects it. None of the Apostles espoused this kind of Anabaptist theory of Church and State. While it is true that we have citizenship in heaven, it is also true that we are still citizens of the earthly societies we find ourselves in and are instructed to obey and honor those authorities as they are the servants of God. Grace does not remove natural relations and our obligations thereto. It is not as if grace transplants us into a purely spiritual, and invisible, nation wherein our natural loyalties are dissolved and replaced with those of this new spiritual society.^{^[8]} Once again we must look to the composition of man’s existence. He is neither purely physical nor purely spiritual—he has a foot in both worlds and therefore has an interest in both his natural goods and his spiritual good. Not to belabor the point, but this is also the direction in which the sacraments are aimed. Baptism is not a political identifier wherein we disavow our national interests and loyalties to that of Christ’s Church. They are not at odds with one another, which is why the grace given in the sacraments restores and sanctifies the whole man in order that he might both be in communion with God and thereby be better equipped to love and serve his neighbor.

In Protestant Two Kingdom theology there exists, as far as I can see it, an inherently disjointed relation between the two, even if it is a small one. Yes, the earthly king is granted care over the religious disposition of his people in Two Kingdom theology, however, I worry that the language of two distinct kingdoms tends towards an opposition where there need not be. It is true that God alone is Lord over the conscience, but we must not be mistaken in thinking our spiritual life is unaffected by the physical. When we bind ourselves to a particular discipline, such as praying the Offices daily and prioritizing attending Sunday Mass, it is indisputable that our spiritual life is benefitted. This leads me to propose a different model by which we understand the relation between the inner and the outer man, and between the Church and the State. The rule of Christ in the Church is also not purely invisible either. It is mediated through very tangible and physical means. Just as God mediates His justice through the actions of civil leaders, so too does He mediate His grace through the ministry of the Church. Those Bishops in apostolic succession truly represent Christ in this world, and through their ministry, the Priests and Deacons exercise Christ’s domain and kingdom here in this life. This is why I feel a different model may be more conducive to articulating the relationship between Church and State.

Two Lungs

I would propose that we should see the relationship as a more organic and integral one. As man has a foot in both the spiritual and the physical realms, it is important that both are held together in harmony. The internal and the external, the spiritual and the physical, are therefore the two lungs by which man breathes. It is no better, or easier, to separate religion and politics from a man than it is to separate his soul from his body. You can try it, but the man won’t be alive to find any benefit from having done so! Man is not properly whole without both the spiritual and the physical—the religious and the political. We should view both Church and State as working together, and not at odds or without respect to the other. The State concerns itself with man’s natural ends, and with man’s duty to both God and neighbor. The Church concerns itself with man’s supernatural end, and provides him with the means of grace in order for him to attain that end; which includes equipping him to thereby better love and serve both God and neighbor.

Since it is not in the power of the State to save man, the State cannot on its own bring man to his highest end—grace is needed. Therefore the State must seek to aid the Church in her work of bringing man into the ark of salvation; and since the State is concerned with helping man attain both his natural and supernatural ends, the State is wise to seek the counsel of ecclesial leaders in order to best ascertain ways to promote and help the true religion prosper. However, all analogies must eventually come to their breaking points. We are considering a whole man, made as God designed; not whether or not an impaired man can get by with only one of these lungs. In the natural world, one can live a relatively normal life with only one lung. Not so in this analogy. Again, we are concerned with the whole man as God has designed him; with two lungs—both natural and supernatural ends that are not inherently opposed or at odds.

It also must be stressed that in this analogy, one lung cannot do the work of the other. It is not within the right of the Church to take civil matters into their own hand. God has not given her the sword, but the keys. For the same reason, the State cannot assume the role of the Church—the State is not permitted to ordain or administer the sacraments. We see this principle laid out here in Scripture. In 2 Chronicles 26, we read of King Uzziah, son of Amaziah, who started off his 52-year reign well. He sought the Lord, and did what was right in the eyes of the Lord as his father had done. However, as he grew in fame his pride became his downfall. We read in verse 16 that when his strength increased his heart was lifted up, and he transgressed against the Lord by attempting to offer incense in the temple. We read of the 80 priests who stood valiantly with the priest Azariah, who withstood the king with these words: “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed!”^{^[9]} Would to God that our land would be so blessed to have both civil rulers and priests who sought to honor God in their respective stations!

Conclusion

Fr. Keble’s day was not unlike our own. While we are not working from an explicitly Christian ruling class, with laws and leaders publicly (at least on paper) professing to serve both Christ and His Church, we nevertheless find ourselves at a point of turmoil in our reflection on how man is to handle the tension between Church and State relations. We too feel the crushing weight that religious indifference and pluralism has placed upon our communities—something which Keble saw sprouting has now grown full-bloom in our day. It is often touted that diversity is our strength—but it is not. It cannot be, because diversity is inherently divisive. It breaks down what has otherwise been solidified. In Western Civilization, this solidifying factor has undoubtedly been Christianity—the fruits of which naturally include established religion. We must once again seek to solidify our society, and our culture, around the Christian religion; for it alone encompasses the whole man and seeks and provides the means for his ultimate flourishing.

Thus far we have only concerned ourselves primarily in the abstract. We have only dealt with foundational principles in establishing the validity of having a Christian nation. There is still a very real need for strategies and ways in which these principles can be implemented in our context today. I do not think it is impossible, but I confess my own inadequacies in beginning to see how they can be implemented. I will leave that work to those whom God has called and gifted to such ends. They are far wiser than I, and I will follow the example and advice Fr. Keble commends us to in seeking national reform.

First and foremost we must commit ourselves to prayer. We must pray for our nation as fervently as we can, and for our current political leaders. We must pray for their conversion if they are not yet converted; and if they are we must pray that God would give them grace to fulfill their duties toward Christ and His Church. Then we must protest the wickedness of our day, what Fr. Keble calls “remonstrance.” We must be as the Prophet Samuel, and seek to show those around us “the good and right way.”^{^[10]} It is our duty to love God and neighbor, and with this is a call to patient endurance. For decades now our society has been decaying slowly. The water in the pot is coming to a boil and we have been conditioned so as not to notice the rising temperature. But it will come to a boil if things do not change. We must be aware of the errors of our day and we must be willing and ready to show others the way we ought to go. Keble warns us that appeals to God’s word for societal reform will be met with opposition:

I have ventured on these few general observations, because the impatience with which the world endures any remonstrance on religious grounds, is apt to show itself most daringly, when the Law and the Prophets are appealed to. Without any scruple or ceremony, men give us to understand that they regard the whole as obsolete: thus taking the very opposite ground to that which was preferred by the same class of persons two hundred years ago; but, it may be feared, with much the same purpose and result. Then, the Old Testament was quoted at random for every excess of fanatical pride and cruelty: now, its authority goes for nothing, however clear and striking the analogies may be, which appear to warrant us in referring to it. The two extremes, as usual, meet; and in this very remarkable point: that they both avail themselves of the supernatural parts of the Jewish revelation to turn away attention from that, which they, of course, most dread and dislike in it: its authoritative confirmation of the plain dictates of conscience in matters of civil wisdom and duty.^{^[11]}

Yet, appeal to it we must for Christ alone has the words of eternal life.

Notes

Fr. John Keble, “National Apostasy”, Preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, on July 14, 1833 ↑
Romans 13:1-7 ↑
Note that this end is singular in contrast to the plural “ends” of man’s natural needs. This is principally because God is one and all other lesser goods, both natural and supernatural, are aimed at aiding man towards this ultimate end. ↑
Psalm 9:17; Psalm 2:11-12a (NKJV) ↑
This is not to argue that a nation pursuing such ends will never suffer hardship or evil. It is simply stating that the overall state of that people will be better off than if they were not pursuing these ends. ↑
2 Samuel 23:3b-4 (NKJV) ↑
Deuteronomy 12:8 (NKJV) ↑
Indeed, by becoming Christians we take on additional responsibilities and loyalties, principally those pertaining those who have a care for our souls, and to the needs of our brothers and sisters; but these additions do not take away from what is in place from our creation. ↑
2 Chronicles 26:18 (NKJV) ↑
1 Samuel 12:23 (NKJV) ↑
Fr. John Keble, “National Apostasy”, Preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, on July 14, 1833 ↑