While asking these questions, we should notice the good things living in Canada allows. Federal, provincial, and municipal governments are certainly flawed, but they also provide beneficial services. The Canadian Church should also note that government services, while often very good, are not perfect. People are hungry in Canada. People are homeless in Canada. People are addicted in Canada. People are illiterate in Canada.
I think that the Canadian Church and the Canadian state can interact with one another and I believe that the imperfections in government and church social services are where this interaction should take place. I will assume two things as true. One, the governments in Canada are working to solve the problems that Canadians face. Two, Christian scripture teaches that followers of God have the responsibility to serve the disenfranchised. Government initiatives and scriptural imperatives, therefore, at least partially overlap.
Personally, I am nervous about the idea of connecting church with state or state with church, so I will propose very strict parameters for such a relationship. Within these parameters, however, the church and state can work together to serve people. The primary relational restriction I will endorse is that the Church should only advocate for the state to address social morality, i.e. only when someone else is hurt. This means the Church will not use the state to legislate personal morality.
Before getting too deep into my argument, I want to consider three questions: Why bother?, How much?, and Isn’t this a bad idea?.
Is it necessary for the church to work with the state to provide care for vulnerable people if the state and wider society is already doing a pretty good job doing it? Absolutely. It is necessary because the state is only doing a pretty good job. Similarly, the church will only do a pretty good job. There is tremendous need and a pretty good job is, well, pretty insufficient. Both groups will leave holes that need filling.
There is another reason. In The Cross of Christ John Stott defines the role of the state as ensuring justice. Sometimes, however, the state is unjust itself. For this reason, it is important that someone watches the government. Essentially, the church is a group that can watch the watchmen.[1] Even when the church sees the state’s imperfection, we must have enough humility to acknowledge the state as established by God.[2] God gave the state an awesome responsibility. Yes, those who have this responsibility have corrupted it (as the church corrupted our responsibility).[3] The state does not have absolute authority, but the authority it has comes from God. Christians are subject to the state. Working toward the ends of the state can mean working towards the ends of God.[4]
Assuming that I am correct in asserting that the church should work with the state requires another question. How much collaboration should there be? Although we need to acknowledge that God gave the state power, we also need to acknowledge that this power is limited. Abraham Kuyper, both a theologian and statesperson, tells us that the government’s power is primarily a tool to bring justice and secondarily a tool to care for its citizens.[5]
God did not create the state to spread the Gospel of Christ. Spreading the Gospel of Christ is a vital component of my faith, but doing so is the sole responsibility of the Church. This is true even when members of the governing party are Christians, even when the majority of a state’s citizens are Christians, and even when the state was founded by Christians.[6] However, if God’s kingdom is just and the mission of the Church is to transform the Earth, the Church cannot help but be passionate about justice. In justice, we see an overlap between the roles of the state and the Church. The common ideal of justice that the Church and state share means that the Church can serve the state in matters relating to justice.[7]
Earlier, I noted that I am nervous about a church-state/state-church relationship and this nervousness makes me ask a final question to introduce this series. Isn’t what I am suggesting a bad idea? History would suggest that it is. Mixing church and state has had horrible consequences. It makes sense when people bristle at the idea of any connection in these institutions. Despite this, I think there are two reasons why moving to the extreme opposite of Constantine and absolutely cutting ties is not a proper response to my nervousness.
First, Jesus was political. The Sermon of the Mount includes significant moral teaching, but a lot of this teaching has political aspects including sharing with people in need and not confusing justice with revenge.[8] This does not mean that the church should control the state. It does mean the church should challenge the state.[9] If the church and state are completely severed from one another, the church has no mechanism to advocate for social justice.
Second, I doubt a complete separation is possible. I have the freedom to vote, to speak, to gather, etc. Faith is not an aspect of my life. It is what forms my worldview. Like any other worldview, I cannot sever my faith from “other” parts of my life. When I vote, the church and state have a relationship. When I pay taxes, the church and state have a relationship. When I speak about an issue, the church and state have a relationship. I am a Christian and I exist in this society. This doesn’t mean the society will bother listening to me, but it does mean there is a point of contact. This also means others who do not share my faith should be afforded the same respect.[10]
I wll continue this series next Friday.
[2] One day I was at
a church in a riding that was not mine. I took communion and an MP whom I disagreed
with frequently and strongly happened to be sitting in the pew ahead of
me. She was so close that if she dropped
her bulletin, I likely would have been the person to pick it up. I have to recall this experience when
discussing politics. I still disagree
with the MP and her party, but I had to see her as a child of God instead of
simply the embodiment of ideas I find distasteful and unproductive. It was humbling.
[3] Abraham
Kuyper. "The Religious Roots of
Political Liberties." In The
Crown of Christian Heritage. 75 – 77.
[5] Abraham Kuyper. "The Religious Roots of Political
Liberties." In The Crown of
Christian Heritage. 86.
No comments:
Post a Comment