Why and how there need not be tension between the material, the spiritual, science, and the political

Richard Fletcher tells us in “The Barbarian Conversion” how the Eusebian accommodation between church (Christianity) and state (Rome) in the fourth century was an intellectual marvel. Eusebius showed how the city of earth became the city of God and how the monarchy of emperor Constantine brought the kingdom of God to men. That accommodation between church and empire became the cornerstone for political theology.

The Eastern church mainly affirmed that harmony, but in 413 Augustine objected and said there is a material city of man and spiritual city of God and Christians were not of this world, which thereafter brought a tension to Western Christianity between church and state.

Monastic loving Augustine was thinking more like Christ, just as Christ resembled Buddha, who believed that material desires are hell and the religious path is to rid the body of all material desires, that was the way to see or experience the bliss of nirvana, which Christ called the God Within. So Augustine was affirming Eastern Buddhism perhaps without knowing it when he objected to the Eusebian accommodation between church (Christianity) and state (Rome).

Both had it wrong. The separation between the material and the spiritual in all the revealed religions was a big metaphysical error, which set up a great spiritual blockade against the material and supermaterial evolution of life to ascending levels of real material-supermaterial Godhood.

So there need not be that tension between the material and the spiritual just as there need not be that tension between religion and science and the political. A better more real and more natural formula is to follow the biological origin of social behavior and kin and ethnic centered human nature. That can lead us to affirm a harmonious ethnopluralism of ethnostates in politics, evolutionary realism in art, and theological materialism in religion and philosophy.