The Church Living Within the State
Discussing how those of the Church should interact with the powers of the State. In other articles, I have discussed the Scriptural and Church roots of Christian pacifism and anarchy and pointed to the merit of separating the Church and the State to protect the Church from the State. However, there are complexities to the issue presented by the Scriptures itself. Indeed, the Christian faithful are to eschew the ways of the world in the creation of an ordering principle. Our ordering principle comes from Christ Himself and is built upon the ethic of sacrificial love for all people. A truely Christian society would be, to put secular terminology upon it, something radically egalitarian, anarchic, and pacifistic. This is what Jesus taught, what the early Christian Church lived, and what has been a constant thread amongst the faithful remnant of the Church throughout the ages. But in eschewing the State, the State still exists and by the sword they have assumed authority over us. The Apostles Peter and Paul write about the State and how Christians are to regard it in two main passages, which are listed here below:
In reading over these passages, it is easy and compelling to use them as a justification for Christian service to the State in whatever the State commands, including going to war and pledging alligance to rulers and flags. If the government is instituted by God and given authority only to inflict upon the evildoer, then serving the State must be alright, right? Not only do I disagree with this assertion, but I think this is a far cry from what Peter and Paul themselves are saying. I do not see Peter and Paul, who were themselves murdered by the State for following an illegal religion based upon a Man who was Himself murdered by the State, intending to mean that the State being authorized by God makes legitimate the rule of Nazis or Taliban or Republicans or Democrats. In fact, I think it goes beyond obscene to suggest that the Nazis ruled with the blessing of God, and that if they had the opportunity to see what the Nazis did, that Peter and Paul would say they were blessed and just. One solution to this dilema has been to make the apology that Peter and Paul only meant good and just nations. However, this answer omits certain facts. First of these is that the passages are not so equivocal. Peter and Paul both say THE government, not A government... ALL authority, not SOME authority. Secondly, this response is nothing more than partisan patriotism which denies the fact that all nations' histories are dripping with blood. "Oh, God wouldn't support the Nazis, but God bless the USA!" Indeed... The USA which was born by a violent revolution against the ruling authority. The USA which spread itself across North America by waging war on Natives, Canada, and Mexico. The USA which funds terrorists and supports dictators around the globe whenever it suits them to do so, like they did with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The USA which, despite all its clamour about rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, is the only nation in history ever to use atomic weaponry... Twice... On civilian populations. Finally, the apologetic fails to take into account the context in which Peter and Paul were writing. Both Apostles were refering the solitary imperial power of their time, the Roman Empire, which was certainly no nicer than the Nazis or the British or the Americans. What are Peter and Paul getting at then? I think that when they speak of the State existing by the authority of God, it is more proper to interpret it as God permitting the State to exist, like God permits Satan and sin and death to exist. The State is not a just institution, and neither of the Apostles make that claim (which I will be discussing shortly). As far as God is concerned, He voiced His criticisms of the State quite clearly when the Israelites desired a king, pointing out the inherent injustice of such a system. Nevertheless, God permits them to have one:
Jesus also excuses Christians from injustice committed by the State when He says that Christians are not to take up weapons BEACAUSE His Kingdom is not of this earth:
Furthermore, Peter outright states that the State will commit injustice against us. He admonishes For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. Peter is well aware of Christians suffering Roman persecution, and instructs the faithful to endure it. This mirrors the words of Jesus:
Peter and Paul only say that we are to be subject to the State, to endure its judgements which God warned of, but never do they say that following or serving as an agent of the State is preferable and just. What God has authorized is that the State may execute those who disobey its laws... The Peters and Pauls and Jesus' of the world. Deitrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor who led an underground resistance church during World War II. Ultimately, he became embroiled in a plot to assassinate Hitler, was captured, sentenced and executed in a concentrartion camp mere days before the end of the war. Bonhoeffer accepted his punishment though: by plotting to assassinate Hitler, he had disobeyed the law of the State and was duely punished. God authorizing the State to punish those who break its laws says nothing about the rightness or justness of those laws or that State. Paul follows through, but in a kind of understated way which is common to the New Testament, when the Apostles had to write veiled commentary lest the Roman authorities be alerted to their movement. Paul says Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. What does Jesus say though?
Now compare this to Genesis 1:27: God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. He tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, using a coin with Caesar's image on it as an example. The ONLY thing which is due to the rulers is that which carries their image. As for us, we carry the image of God, and so the rulers are not due for our lives and loyalty. The State may have its money, because indeed, "our" money is the property of the one who's likeness it bears. They never say, in short, that the State should be obeyed. Nor do I see them saying that the State only inflict judgement upon evildoers. They do say that the State does inflict judgement upon evildoers, but not only upon them. Peter's statement Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right is phrased in such a way as to imply that the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right is the SAME THING. That is, evildoers and righteous ones share the same lot... The only difference is that what is just punishment for the evildoer is considered praise for the righteous. Paul tells us not to be afraid if we have been good, instead fearing wrath only if we have been bad. But in either case, as with Paul himself, we shall be killed by the State. The most clear example of this is in the sacrifice of Christ Himself. Completely innocent and righteous, Jesus hung on the cross between two criminals, suffering the same fate as them. Peter declares that Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps. We are to imitate Christ who allowed the soldiers to capture and kill Him even though He might have called armies of angels to defend Himself and despite Peter's own willingness to turn to the sword. Absolutely ESSENTIAL for understanding Romans 13 is Romans 12, the immediately preceeding chapter. In it Paul gives several interpretive principles for understanding Romans 13. This includes:
Paul tells us not to conform to the world, to be willing to go to sacrifice and death, and just before he starts talking about the State, advises not being overcome by evil. So why did two leaders of an illegal, underground religion who were later executed by the State command such beliefs about it? I think the answer to this is stated quite clearly within the texts. Paul is talking specifically of paying taxes to the government, betraying that there was an apparent controversy in the early Church over paying these taxes to the government. Paul also speaks extensively about Christian behaviour, saying Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law and Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. Peter gets even more clear about what is going on in the Church at the time when he says Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. There are evident problems with Christians NOT being submissive to their masters, not honoring the king as he is due, and perhaps even not honoring all people or fearing God. They were using their freedom in Christ as a covering for some kind of evil deed. What Peter and Paul seem to be doing in these passages, then, is trying to prevent Christianity from becoming a full out revolutionary movement. And wisely so as well, since revolutionary movements are always doomed to failure and the State knows it. This is why Pontius Pilate allowed the release of the political revolutionary Barabbas and convicted the simple preacher Jesus... The revolutionary can only commit violence against the State, but the preacher can change the heart. The Zealots, to whom Barabbas belonged, were eventually crushed in the Roman razing of Jerusalem. But even when a revolution wins, like the Bolshevik or American revolutions, they invariably end up creating a corrupt empire of their own and ultimately succeed in changing nothing. There is an excellent line in Lloyd C. Douglas' novel The Robe in which a Roman authority observes that a man on a horse is no different from any other man on a horse, so if this Christian movement wishes to acchieve anything, they must stay on their feet. Had Christianity become a political revolutionary movement, it would have been stamped out through viciously justified Roman persecution. But by remaining a spiritual movement, the Church engaged in a much more deep and profound revolution for which they could be blameless in practicing. Christianity is a revolution of love and repentant souls, and there is no higher moral law which prohibits love. So the Christian, then, is to practice this revolution of love, giving only to the State what is its due, and enduring the unjust punishment of the State as a badge of praise in imitation of Christ's own punishment. The path of Christian love prevents us from engaging in the tyranies of the State, like warfare, and the requirements of Christian devotion prevent us from rendering unto Caesar what is God's, such as pledges of allegiance.
|