- What if the government does not listen
to a prophecy that extols justice and the elimination of poverty?
-
What if someone is guilty of being
unjust, but the state is not that someone?
-
What if the church and state become
too closely linked?
What if # 1: What if the government does not listen to a prophet that extols justice and the elimination of poverty?
John Calvin
taught that the church has a responsibility to use legal means to end the rule
of an unjust government.[1] Wink notes that democracy has legal means
built within it to help end the rule of unjust governments. These means include dissent through such
operations as voting, legislative debate, and a free press.[2]
Are there
intermediate steps between absolute acceptance and absolute rejection of a
government, however? Can the church try
to help redeem a government before trying to engineer its downfall? In a democracy, the Church can challenge the
state for the same reason anyone else can – there is a freedom of
expression. When the Church exercises
its right to speak, it also must defend the God-given right of anyone else to
speak, whether it agrees with the speaker or not. The Church also must recognize that when it
speaks, the state will not necessarily act.[3] Stassen and Gushee write, “(T)he challenge
for Christians is to ground political efforts in a healthy understanding of
church, state, society and the reign of God."[4]
Peacefully confronting
the state is a matter of last resort and it should only happen if the state
does not fulfill its role of creating justice and serving the poor. Speaking is the most direct means of dissent. Like all citizens in a democracy, Christians
have a right to speak and a responsibility to speak when people are treated
unjustly. Martin Luther King, Jr. said,
“We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our
nation, and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make
these humans any less our brothers."[5] The weak undoubtedly exist. Ideally, the weak will be able to speak for
themselves. This is not always the case,
however. As long as the Church has a
voice, it must use it to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves and
to encourage people who can speak for themselves. God is the God of both the weak and the
powerful.[6]
What if # 2: What if someone is guilty
of being unjust, but the state is not that someone?
If the church is
going to confront the state, it must be certain that a problem exists. It is possible that the problems a society
faces are the result of other issues.
Mark Hill reminds the Church that the government cannot do everything. The Church cannot expect the government to take
care of the body while it only worries about the soul. The government will inevitably leave holes. The church should try to fill these holes.[7]
Such holes are not always due to the government being unjust. Larry Jones points us to the prophet Jeremiah and the rulers of his time. It is possible that the government finds itself in a position where a good choice is not available to it. Prophesying against the government, therefore, may not always be the church’s best response. The government may be better served, and justice may be better achieved, if the church instead encourages the government by helping to meet needs that the government cannot.[8]
Encouraging the state in this way may involve serving it. Such service will not be blind or uncritical. Recall Daniel. Daniel acted as a servant to the state, but
his ultimate allegiance was to God. If
the state contradicts God, commit to God.
If the state isn’t creating an issue, neither should we.[9] The Church will illustrate humility by acting
as a servant to the state. Christians
must be open to the fact that people who are not Christians may have better
ideas.[10] When Christians are serving the state, it is
important to realize that the state is responsible to all of its citizens. This means serving all people, regardless of
religious belief.[11]
What if #3: What if the church and
state become too closely linked?
The church needs
to understand that it is able to assist the government in meeting the
government’s role, but it cannot use the government as a means to fulfill its
own role. The Church must intentionally
limit its exhortations of the government to justice related issues and
acknowledge that its entire morality cannot and should not be instituted as
law. First, not all elements of the
church’s moral law are applicable to judicial law. Second, creating judicial laws to enforce the
entirety of the church’s morality may cause injustice. Freedom of privacy and judicial enforcement
of the complete Christian sexual ethic, for example, are mutually exclusive.[12]
I'll be posting some concluding thoughts for this essay series on Friday.
[5] Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Conscience and the Vietnam War." In The Lost Massey Lectures, ed. CBC
Massey Lecture Series, 180.
[7] Mark Hill.
"Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe," The Review of Faith & International
Affairs 7:3 (2009): 27 – 31.
[8] Larry B. Jones. "Church-State Relations and Social Welfare
in Europe," The Review of Faith
& International Affairs 3:2 (2005), 32.
No comments:
Post a Comment