Two Masters? I'm a Christian and a Citizen, Part 2

In my last essay, I suggested something that I think is, at least somewhat, radical: the church and state should have a relationship, but this relationship should not allow the church to compel citizens to follow Christian moral teaching.  Instead, the church and state should join forces only when their divine mandates overlap.  The overlap of these mandates is in relation to ensuring that people are not made victims of oppression.  Neither the church nor the state has proven itself trustworthy in how it uses power, so I pointed out that having such a relationship in place makes me nervous.  To calm my nerves, I suggested that the church should have strict parameters regarding how it relates to the state.  In this essay, I want to explore these dangers and parameters more.


The Canadian Church should acknowledge three potential problems when we share a common goal with the state.  The first problem is the temptation to equate the church and the government.  This can happen in two ways, either by trying to exploit the relationship so we can regain the power we had in the past or by turning the state into an idol.  


Humility from the church will be a tremendous tool in overcoming the temptation of making this relationship a power grab.  Humility forces us to recognize that our power is diminished and shared.  Humility will allow us to speak boldly as a body when we are invited to contribute to the discussion.  Humility requires that we recognize that the culture of which we are a part is changing.[1]  In our context, our goal should be to influence the state instead of to implement a new theocracy.[2]

Acknowledging God’s divinity will help to avoid the temptation of idolizing our government.  Such idolatry is problematic regardless of which political party is in power.[3]  The state is created and, therefore, is not supreme.  The state’s role in ensuring justice is vital, but the state remains accountable to God.[4]  The church should respond to the state with respect and discernment, but without worship or absolute endorsement.[5]  There is sin in the state (as there is sin in the church).  If the church is able to see where the state is failing, we can help to address these failures.[6]  The church must also recognize that some areas of life are the responsibility of the church and not the government.  We should assume these responsibilities without input from people outside of the church.[7]

The second possible problem when the church shares a common goal with the state is the church’s own sinfulness.  The problem of sinfulness can result in arrogance or paralysis. 

Arrogance is a problem.  When proposing that the state and church undertake a limited joint effort, we need to ask ourselves – and be honest in our answer – what reason would people have to associate themselves with us?  We seem to be very good at publically announcing the sins of others, but not so good at seeing ourselves as an active, sinful part of society and history.  This hurts our credibility.  Acknowledging when we mess up can give people a reason to take us seriously.[8] 

Conversely, we can’t be so eager to see the sins of the church that we let our acknowledgment crush our will.  When the kingdom is completely fulfilled, sin will no longer exist.  Until then, sin is a reality that requires that we confess our role in it, repent from it, and act in spite of it.  If we wait until sin is completely gone to act, we will not act.[9]  

The final problem I want to discuss is cynicism.  The diminished role of the church may lead us to believe that the church has no place and no value.  Cynicism is an attractive and easy way to see the world, so an antidote is helpful.  N. T. Wright points to the work of “ordinary Christians” who care for people by organizing playgroups for children, helping financially desperate people, and campaigning for adequate housing.[10]  George Weigel lists Christians whose faith motivated their actions.  This list includes William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonheoffer.  John Howard Yoder – who likely would not encourage the sort of relationship that I am advocating – brings attention to some of the many good things the church gave to culture.  His list includes hospitals, organized social services, education, and the end of slavery.  Yoder also reminds the church that Christians were involved in the beginning of the equality and feminist movements.[11]

I will conclude this series next week by suggesting what role the church should have while participating in a relationship with the state.

---

[1] Allan K. Davidson.  "Chaplain to the Nation or Prophet at the Gate?"  In Christianity and Modern Culture, 311.

[2] Dennis P. Hollinger, Choosing the Good, 254.

[3] A confession is in order.  On the day of Jack Layton’s funeral, I was still living in Vancouver and speaking with a friend from the US now living in Canada.  My friend was politically interested and witnessed his first Canadian campaign and election.  I was attempting to explain what Layton had accomplished in the context of the last several elections.  I then said that I was nervous about what was going to happen to parliament now that Layton was gone and that I had hoped that Layton was the one who was going to fix things.  That remark sounded oddly familiar.  Several days later, I realized the men on the road to Emmaus said something very similar about Jesus.

[4] Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, 256.

[5] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, 301

[6] John G. Stackhouse Jr.  Making the Best of It, 224.

[7] John G. Stackhouse Jr.  Making the Best of It, 355.

[8] George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral, 114.

[9] George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral, 264

[10] N. T. Wright, Surprise By Hope, 266 – 267.

[11] John Howard Yoder, “How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of Christ and Culture,” in Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, 69.