This is another entry publishing a paper I've written for the still-ongoing C3 Academy, the classes my church is putting on to help raise up leaders within the laity. This paper is on the subject of the relationship between the church and the state. If you are a theonomist, you may not care for this paper, but then I am not trying to please theonomists. Read on:
What sort of role should the
church play in the public sector? In what ways should the church strive to
engage with and affect culture? In what ways should the church be separate from
culture? Is separation of church and state a good thing? What advice would you
give a young believer who has ambitions of going into politics? Is that a good
idea? Can you be a good Christian and participate in the democratic process?
Undoubtedly one of the most hotly debated topics in
the United States is the subject of the relationship of religion to the
state. After all, some of the earliest
colonists came out of a desire to practice religion freely, and the concept of
freedom of religion was considered crucial enough to enshrine in the first
amendment to the Constitution. But while
the result of such a beginning has been a country that for many years has been
a bastion of freedom for virtually all religions save perhaps the ones
demanding human sacrifice and criminal activity, it has also produced a strange
hybrid of American patriotism and moralistic therapeutic deism that bears
little resemblance to biblical Christianity.
Likewise throughout the world, the church has been
impacted negatively in many ways when, as an organization or entity, it tries
to mix itself in with the affairs of government. Most notably of course is the sacralism of
the Roman Catholic church that defined several centuries of European power
struggles, as well as individual nations (such as England and Scotland)
establishing state churches and placing the ultimate decisions about questions
of leadership and even the translation of Scripture, as was the case in the
translation of the King James Bible, into the hands of the monarchy. The result is that “the church” as a body
starts being defined in very strange ways, the ability of a local church to be
obedient to God’s calling on them to preach the Gospel is hampered, and in many
cases the Gospel itself is muddied as people begin believing that their standing
before God is one of birth and sacrament, external actions and deeds they take
part it, rather than one of spiritual regeneration and God’s gracious gift of
faith.
However, the opposite trend that sometimes takes
hold is equally dangerous to the life of the church: receding from all
engagement with the world outside, building up walls around the church until
there is nothing left between those within and those outside except
hostility. This certainly has a long history
as well, taking various forms of asceticism and fundamentalism that stress
righteousness rooted in one’s actions and company, rather than righteousness
rooted in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
It is difficult to imagine parallels between ancient monasteries and
modern cultish fundamentalist groups, but both groups sought or seek to be away
from “worldly” influences, as though they do not carry those influences within
themselves.
This is a classic example of two equally wrong
positions arguing with each other. Both
miss the larger point and attack the fundamental command of Christ to those who
follow after Him: to make disciples.[i] This is not to suggest that either group is
completely devoid of true believers or that countries with state churches
cannot have Gospel proclamation. However,
a church that has as its titular “head” a man who calls himself king and claims
to derive his authority to rule from God may have some confusion over the idea
of what Paul calls “pseudo delphoi,” “false brethren” in Galatians 2. After all, if all it takes to be a brother in
Christ is to be a citizen of a particular country, how could there be any such
thing as a person who is not really of the body? 1 John 2:19 would be meaningless, as no
longer would there be a defensible position of “not of us” since any such
person could point to their sacrament.
On the reverse side, a fundamentalist group can quickly cross the line
into cult territory, where exegesis of Scripture is replaced with leaders’
opinions and their rejection of the world outside results in a theology of
navel-gazing. A message intended to
transform hearts and produce servants is replaced with treating anyone outside
the circle of believers as a diseased creature.
This leads to the positive argument: the church
should have a relationship with the state, and a believer can serve in a
position of authority. Both of these,
however, are rooted in the truth of the Gospel and the knowledge that authority
and power are, in fact, derived from our Creator and granted based on His good
grace and will to glorify Himself. When
Christ returns He will place all authorities in subjection to Himself, because
He is the one who grants their being and scope.
Charles Spurgeon argues that part of preaching Christ is preaching Him
as authority over all:
We have not yet mounted to the full height of our ministry unless we
learn to preach Christ as the King
of kings. He has an
absolute right to the entire dominion of this world. The Christian minister, as
ordained of God to preach, has a perfect right in God's name to preach upon any
subject touching the Lord's kingdom, and to rebuke and exhort even the greatest
of men. Sometimes I have heard it said, when we have canvassed the acts of an
emperor or senator, "These are politics;" but Christ is King of
politics as well as theology. "Oh! but"—say they—"what have you
to do with what the state does?" Why, just this: that Christ is the head
of all states, and while the state has no authority over the church, yet Christ
himself is King of kings, and Lord of lords.[ii]
Some might say that he is contradicting Paul’s
words:
Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist
have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has
appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For
rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of
the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his
approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if
you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the
servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's
wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because
of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending
to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them:
taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom
respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.[iii]
I would argue, however, that what is
seen here is agreement: Christ is the king of politics, because He has
appointed them. Therefore, while no
earthly ruler has authority to forbid the believer to be such, or to preach and
live out the Gospel (though he may use the power granted him to attempt to
enforce such a desire), Christians should recognize that even under oppressive
regimes we do have a duty to live respectfully and graciously. The sufferings we face will bring glory to
God, and there is recognition of government as a form of common grace,
providing order and protection even when it is abused.
For a believer who sought to take an
office of government, whether elected official, law enforcement officer, soldier,
or something else, I would use the same passage to demonstrate the role that
they are seeking to take on: “instituted by God,” and “an avenger who carries
out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” These
concepts were abused by kings in days gone by claiming “divine right of rule”
and using that to oppress, steal and murder, but a believer must recognize the
incredible weight these words carry: if I am a legislator and instituted in my
position by God, it is my duty to honor God by how I do my job, how I treat my
colleagues and my constituents, how I speak and act and vote. If I act instead out of greed for money or
power, I will have to stand before God and account for the way I used the
office He gave me.
Likewise, a soldier can certainly serve
and do his duty in honor to God, and he serves perhaps as the most literal
image of an avenger carrying out God’s wrath.
Even soldiers of an evil conquering regime in the Bible were said to be
tools in the hands of God—and they were then judged by God for the state of
their hearts in carrying out that will.[iv] “I was just following
orders” is not a defense for a soldier who takes part in wicked acts, because
his ultimate duty is to God and obeying Him.
Even John the Baptist did not tell soldiers coming to him to stop being
soldiers, but rather told them to be content with what they were given and not
to abuse their authority.[v]
It is typical, I believe, for people to become
myopic about the country and government they are within. I have known many American Christians who
have a hard time envisioning how Christianity can exist, let alone thrive, in a
country like China that still officially oppresses the faith. But the reality is that Christ is not for any
particular setting, or culture, or time, but He is for all places and
people. We do not need to create Western
democracy before Christianity can grow; likewise, we don’t need to have a
strange twisted longing for the oppression of Roman gladiator arenas and secret
police arrests to see believers “get serious” about their faith. God will save exactly as He wills, and the
means by which He has chosen to do so is by the preaching of the Gospel.[vi] Our obedience to His decreed will in this is
not bound by any law or culture or government, but is something we do out of love
inspired by His sacrifice for us, driven by the Spirit sanctifying us. There is not fear of preaching in oppression
because no one can do anything that will take us away from His love.[vii] Likewise, Western secular democracy should be
seen as a gift of rest from God even in trying times such as these, because it
allows us to have a role in the process.
When God grants a believer such an opportunity, we should take that with
the purpose of glorifying God in humble service to those over whom we have
authority, following in gentleness after the footsteps of our King to His
cross.
[i]
Matthew 28:19
[ii]
Spurgeon, C. (1861, March 25). The First Sermon in the Tabernacle - Sermon 369.
Accessed via the Spurgeon Archive: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0369.htm
[iii]
Romans 13:1-7
[iv]
Isaiah 10:5-19
[v]
Luke 3:10-14
[vi]
Romans 10:10-15
[vii]
Romans 8:31-39
No comments:
Post a Comment