The New Testament is full of political language: Jesus is Lord, the Ecclesia of Christ, the Peace of Christ be with you. etc. The way of Empire is replaced by the way of Christ, The power of Empire is replaced by the power of Christ, The Peace of the Empire is replaced by the Peace of Christ. The message is that the Empire cannot save you, and cannot set the world to rights.
For three hundred years or so the church seems to have existed as a counter-cultural organisation, and that meant counter-Empire. In 313 Constantine announced official toleration of Christianity, and by the 380s Theodosius had made Christianity the official religion of Rome. This is the beginning of Christendom, where Church and state began to act together.
Did the Church , in effect, sell out to the Empire? Did it compromise its integrity?
In the world today we seem to be witnessing the very death-throes of Christendom, yet in the USA and Northern Ireland particularly the Church still plays a huge and controversial role in government and politics. If you have read Shane Claiborne’s “The Irresistible Revolution” or “Jesus for President” or Jim Wallis’ “God’s Politics”, indeed, if you have any interest in either the Church or Politics then you will know that this relationship is fraught with difficulties.
I have heard Christians involved in politics state that they should use their power to legislate in line with God’s principles. However, why does this always seem to mean legislating against Civil Partnership rather than legislating in favour of the poor and homeless? What about Iris Robinson’s comments? Can someone in Political authority make a charged statement and then claim that they are speaking on behalf of Christianity, or even speaking on behalf of God? Can the same political leader then attempt to side-step responsibility for their views saying “This is not my view, it is God’s”? More critically, do the government have “the responsibility to uphold God’s Law”?
My question is this:
What is the appropriate model for Church-State interaction, and how should Christians in Politics behave?
Looking forward to your comments.
4 comments:
Thanks for inviting me to this conversation Michael, although I'm not nearly as well read on the issue as some others.
I believe Christians should be involved in politics (small p) because a key message of the Bible is to seek justice and compassion for the poor, widows, orphans, immigrants... And if Christians walking closely with their God begin to resemble this sort of Christ-like nature it is understandable that others might want to elect them to govern.
One difficulty is the issue of Old Testament prohibitions/The Law - I think Paul's direction is that the Law would be written on the hearts (and therefore followed whether or not they are compelled so to do) of those that love Christ, so I find it difficult to be certain that Christians should legislate for the entire population in these areas. Yet I don't know many people who think murder shouldn't be considered a crime...
Another difficulty is the age-old attraction of money, sex and power: People of God who find themselves with power are just as prone as anyone else to misuse such power, causing huge problems (just think Mr. Priest-King David).
I think even in Northern Ireland Christendom is dying quickly. Some charismatic church leaders might have political sway, but most local congregations are sidelined when it comes to civic decision-making; very little of Synod/Assembly/Conference proceedings are reported in the news and their committees unheard at Stormont because they can't afford to employ lobbyists.
Stephen Nolan's radio show is a different matter! But the Christians interviewed on air in that situation rarely speak officially on behalf of the Christian community.
So there's a few half-baked ideas for you. Happy Studying!
Thank you Ross. That's a perfect start, and these looser ideas are exactly what we want to hear at this point.
What do you think is the correct relationship between Christians and the state?(when I say 'correct' I mean that advocated in the Bible)
Further, what about the idea of a 'Christian country'. If there really was an entire nation of Jesus' followers what would their government look like?
Just noticed your follow-up comment - briefly:
I think the correct relationship is for Christians to pray for their leaders. It is also to work for justice and the care of the poor, widows, orphans and aliens. Christians should not retreat from interaction with the state, but also should take very great care before taking power.
A truly Christian nation would be interesting to observe! However, it is impossible, it will always be flawed. That doesn't mean we ought not to work for a true reflection of God's Kingdom here on earth - we pray for it everytime we say the Lord's Prayer - but it will always be tempered by selfishness on both an individual and a collective scale.
If churches don't always hear/discern God's voice correctly, often continuing with practices that once were God's will but perhaps no longer, I wonder how a 'Christian' nation might be expected to do any better?
hmmmm - just a quickie ...
and it's because of the so-termed death throws of christendom ...
essentially, no-one can read the NT and see a tight relationship between the state & the church ... but what is worse, is that the religious authorities of the church in the time of Christ, got the State to do it's dirty work - including murdering Christ.
Church sponsored state terrorism?
Anyway - the important thing, is that given church & state are never meant to be best buds - is there now an opportunity for proper renewal? Can the church actually begin a new confidence, not in aiming to influence the state by sidling up to it, but by, when necessary, standing straight in opposition to it.
Post a Comment