One issue which faces all systems of religious authority is how to structure their relationship with the rest of civil society. Even when the form of government is theocratic and therefore controlled by religious interests, there remain aspects of society which are ostensibly distinct from traditional spheres of direct religious control, and thus some form of working relationship is required.
When society is not governed theocratically, the demands on creating a structured relationship which preserves the legitimate authority of each are even more pressing.
How that is managed will depend a great deal upon the way in which religious authority is itself structured.
Charismatic authority figures, for example, will tend to have hostile relations with the larger culture because they are almost by definition revolutionaries. Rationalized authorities, on the other hand, can typically have very cordial work relationships with civil authorities — especially when they, too, are organized along rational/legal lines.
Assuming that political and religious authority is invested in different individuals and structured in separate systems, then there must always exist some tension and potential conflict between the two. Such tension can actually be beneficial, with each challenging the other to become better than they currently are; or it may be detrimental, as when one corrupts the other and makes it worse, or even when the conflict becomes violent.
The first and most common situation in which the two spheres of authority may come into conflict is when one, the other, or even both groups refuse limit their authority to just those areas otherwise expected of them.
One example would be political leaders attempting to assume the authority to appoint bishops, a situation which caused a great deal of conflict in Europe during the Middle Ages. Working in the opposite direction, there have been situations where religious leaders have presumed the authority to have a say in who deserves to be a civil or political leader.
A second common source of conflict between religious and political authorities is actually an extension of the previous point and occurs when religious leaders either gain a monopoly or are feared to be seeking a monopoly of some vital aspect of civil society. Whereas the prior point involves efforts to assume direct authority over political situations, this involves much more indirect efforts.
An example of this would be religious institutions attempting to assume control over schools or hospitals and thereby establishing a certain amount of civil authority which would otherwise be outside the legitimate sphere of ecclesiastical power. Very often this sort of situation is most likely to occur in a society which has a formal separation of church and state because it is in such societies that the spheres of authority are most sharply distinguished.
A third source of conflict, one which is most likely to result in violence, occurs when religious leaders involve themselves and/or their communities in something which violates the moral principles of the rest of civil society. The likelihood of violence is increased in these circumstances because whenever a religious group is willing to go so far as to take on the rest of society head-to-head, it is usually a matter of fundamental moral principles for them as well. When it comes to conflicts of basic morality, it is very difficult to reach a peaceful compromise — someone has to give in on their principles and that is never easy.
One example of this conflict would be the conflict between Mormon polygamists and various levels of American government over the years. Even though the Mormon church has officially abandoned the doctrine of polygamy, many “fundamentalist” Mormons continue on with the practice despite continued government pressure, arrests, and so on. At times this conflict has broken out into violence, although that is rarely the case today.
A fourth type of situation in which religious and secular authority can conflict is dependent upon the type of people who come from civil society in order to fill the ranks of religious leadership. If all of the religious authority figures are from one social class, that can exacerbate class resentments. If all of the religious authority figures are from one ethnic group, that can exacerbate inter-ethnic rivalries and conflict. Much the same is true if religious leaders are predominantly from one political perspective.
When society is not governed theocratically, the demands on creating a structured relationship which preserves the legitimate authority of each are even more pressing.
How that is managed will depend a great deal upon the way in which religious authority is itself structured.
Charismatic authority figures, for example, will tend to have hostile relations with the larger culture because they are almost by definition revolutionaries. Rationalized authorities, on the other hand, can typically have very cordial work relationships with civil authorities — especially when they, too, are organized along rational/legal lines.
Religious Authority vs. Secular Authority
Assuming that political and religious authority is invested in different individuals and structured in separate systems, then there must always exist some tension and potential conflict between the two. Such tension can actually be beneficial, with each challenging the other to become better than they currently are; or it may be detrimental, as when one corrupts the other and makes it worse, or even when the conflict becomes violent.
The first and most common situation in which the two spheres of authority may come into conflict is when one, the other, or even both groups refuse limit their authority to just those areas otherwise expected of them.
One example would be political leaders attempting to assume the authority to appoint bishops, a situation which caused a great deal of conflict in Europe during the Middle Ages. Working in the opposite direction, there have been situations where religious leaders have presumed the authority to have a say in who deserves to be a civil or political leader.
A second common source of conflict between religious and political authorities is actually an extension of the previous point and occurs when religious leaders either gain a monopoly or are feared to be seeking a monopoly of some vital aspect of civil society. Whereas the prior point involves efforts to assume direct authority over political situations, this involves much more indirect efforts.
An example of this would be religious institutions attempting to assume control over schools or hospitals and thereby establishing a certain amount of civil authority which would otherwise be outside the legitimate sphere of ecclesiastical power. Very often this sort of situation is most likely to occur in a society which has a formal separation of church and state because it is in such societies that the spheres of authority are most sharply distinguished.
A third source of conflict, one which is most likely to result in violence, occurs when religious leaders involve themselves and/or their communities in something which violates the moral principles of the rest of civil society. The likelihood of violence is increased in these circumstances because whenever a religious group is willing to go so far as to take on the rest of society head-to-head, it is usually a matter of fundamental moral principles for them as well. When it comes to conflicts of basic morality, it is very difficult to reach a peaceful compromise — someone has to give in on their principles and that is never easy.
One example of this conflict would be the conflict between Mormon polygamists and various levels of American government over the years. Even though the Mormon church has officially abandoned the doctrine of polygamy, many “fundamentalist” Mormons continue on with the practice despite continued government pressure, arrests, and so on. At times this conflict has broken out into violence, although that is rarely the case today.
A fourth type of situation in which religious and secular authority can conflict is dependent upon the type of people who come from civil society in order to fill the ranks of religious leadership. If all of the religious authority figures are from one social class, that can exacerbate class resentments. If all of the religious authority figures are from one ethnic group, that can exacerbate inter-ethnic rivalries and conflict. Much the same is true if religious leaders are predominantly from one political perspective.