Abstract

William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.