A Christian state?
Recently we discussed the possibility of a secular state, and I suggested at the possible limitations of the practicality of a “secular” state. I’d like to expand a bit more positively on the topic with this post.
I’ve gone back and forth on the issue of pacifism on this blog, and currently I’m not a pacifist (though I see that a lot of criticisms some pacifists, like Hauerwas and Cavanaugh, make of the modern political system are very valid). For Christians who agree with me, there is no excuse for avoiding deep reflection on the interface of our religion and our politics, since our religion does not allow us to consider politics, even violent politics, completely out of bounds.
Granted these two points (i.e., secularism is impractical, Christianity does not prohibit involvement in the judgments of the state), the spectre of theocracy is not in principle avoidable. I think all Christians nowadays would recognize there have been severe abuses of state power in the name of Christian religion, and thus would not agree that just any arrangement of religion and state would be a good idea. What would be most helpful is guidance from God about politics.
At this point, for those of a traditional evangelical, Catholic or Orthodox strain, appeal will probably eventually be made to the Old Testament as a possible basis for political ethics (this has been done frequently in the history of the Church; one excellent volume summarizing the history of Christian political thought is From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought by Oliver and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, which summarizes the history from the beginning of the post-apostolic church up until the beginning of the modern era (with Hugo Grotius)). In recent theology, this has been attempted by different groups and theologians: Reconstructionism (and other Reformed thinkers, including significantly the Kuyperian tradition), the Moral Majority, liberation theology, Christopher Wright, Oliver O’Donovan, and others.
There are various possible objections to this procedure, but I think the most pressing one for modern (postmodern?) citizens is the issue of religious freedom: if we grant that as Christians the OT in some way provides an ethical standard for modern states, does this imply that morality requires the end of religious freedom? As I said above, I think the vast majority of modern Christians would not want to go there. But the serious question is: does this method force us to anyway?
I think, helpfully, the answer is no. The most succinct and helpful explanation of why I have found recently has come from two thinkers: Vern Poythress and Oliver O’Donovan.
First, Poythress argues in his book, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses:
Deut. 13:1-18 instructs Israel on how to deal with false prophecy and seduction to false worship in its midst. A false prophet is to be put to death (13:5). Even if a member of your own family entices you to false worship, that person is not to be spared (verses 6-11). If a whole city goes astray into idolatry, the city is to be destroyed (verses 12-18). The guilty city is destroyed in the same way that the Israelites destroyed the Canaanite cities when they entered the land of Canaan: nothing at all is left (Deut. 13:15-17; exactly as in Deut. 7:2; 20:16-18; Josh. 6:21). The people are especially warned to keep away from the “cursed” things (Deut. 13:17; 7:26; Josh. 6:18). The special word herem (חרם) is used in these cases signifying items “consecrated to God for destruction.”
How are the general principles of just recompense operative here? First of all, the city committed to false worship is sinning against God. This sin like all other sins deserves destruction in hell. Those who attempt to destroy God will themselves be destroyed. But as usual, this type of observation does not help us to understand how the Israelite recompense for this crime differs from the recompense for any other crime. We should therefore ask the question whether any human beings are injured in addition to the direct insult against God. The passage itself indicates that a “detestable thing has been done among you” (verse 14), suggesting that the people are polluted by the idolatry among them. The related verses concerning small-scale rebellion have a similar note: “so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you” (verse 5); “all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you” (verse 11). The city becomes a “whole burnt offering” (verse 16), which certainly suggests that a purification is taking place in the process.
We conclude, then, that the city engaging in false worship has committed an offense against Israel, not merely against God. False worship within the land of Palestine pollutes the people. As in the case of theft and other crimes, the proper recompense involves two aspects. (1) Restoration: the guilty city is responsible to restore Israel to purity; and (2) punishment: the guilty city is to suffer the same penalty in the reverse direction. The destruction of the city accomplishes both aspects simultaneously. First, the city functions as a whole burnt offering (verse 16). Those who offer the offering, namely the people of Israel, are purified by the act of offering. This act not only removes the evil from among them but also signifies a penal substitution: the city bears the penalty that otherwise Israel would bear. Second, since the city has polluted Israel, Israel must in reverse fashion pollute the city. Since the city has already suffered a first radical pollution by its act of idolatry, the only way for Israel to bring further pollution on it is by utter destruction. Cases dealing with individuals rather than whole cities involved in false worship (verses 1-11) are to be understood along the same lines. The discussion is less elaborate, but we can assume that the same principles are operative.
The logic of the penalty against false worship in the OT was that of holy war, which is clearly distinguished from non-holy war by the things commanded of the Israelites (complete destruction versus restraints, etc.). Insofar as the church is not permitted to execute holy war, then, these laws do not apply in the present dispensation of history. And there are plenty of good reasons for thinking this is the case, many of which Poythress gives later in the same chapter quoted above (and in an index of the same book dealing with theonomy).
One of the ways I have understood the difference between the dispensation of the Torah and the current period in redemptive history, though, is as it was explained to me by Oliver O’Donovan: the Christian church now lives under the shadow of the final judgment, and thus there is no more room for political (in the sense of violent) judgment in the church. Excommunication is understood as a provisional witness to the final judgment, its provisionality being evident in the fact that its goal/hope is ultimately restoration, even though it clearly is meant to symbolize an irrevocable judgment. (This understanding of the relation of church to politics is found in four of O’Donovan’s books: Resurrection and Moral Order, The Bonds of Imperfection, The Desire of Nations, and The Ways of Judgment).
Another, perhaps simpler way to understand the relation of the current era to the era of the law is in the words of Paul in Ephesian 6:11-12s: “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the comsic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Another simple way of understanding the difference could be found in Jesus’ words to Pilate in John 18:36. (I don’t think the “render unto Caesar” passage is as helpful as some make it out to be, since Jesus is most likely be ironic in many ways; he’s not intending to give plain teaching on the subject, but rather outsmarting those asking him a trick question.)
Thus, granting that this objection to the idea of OT-based political ethics can be met, I h0nestly wonder if there is any reason not to pursue in depth the kind of projects that people like the Reconstructionists, and in a different way people like Christopher Wright, have attempted. If God has given us revealed guidance about politics, why would we not listen?
Okay, I must start by asking without any sort of rudeness, what makes a Christian state better than a secular state (if this was discussed in a previous post I apologize)? Or for that matter why isn’t a Muslim state or a Jewish state another option? Any answer relating to the fact that the Christians have the majority is irrelevant because I recall a point in history when Christians were not the majority. Now put yourself in that place, not as a current minority, but your own religion. If the government was pagan would you honestly submit to their rule and would you find it fair and would you find that this did not, in fact, impose on your rights, not only as a citizen, but as a human being? Would you truly find this democratic (assume this hypothetical government was a democracy similar to the US). Now, as people we are not perfect, so I can’t expect you to actually be honest with yourself. But the basic science of behavoir says that you would not submit to the pagan rule. My point being that minorities matter, too. All people are equal in God’s eyes; ALL of them, even the ones who are poor and the ones who think differently that you do. If you were to go through the steps of Socratic reason, you would find that those behaviors or principles are in conflict with one another. One thing I feel a lot of people either forget or refuse to accept that a secular government is not the same as an Atheist or Agnostic or Pagan or Satanic government. A secular government is one that is not tied to a religion. Christian leadership, I feel, should come from the Church or from communication with God. The fact is that a secular government is not anti-religious or Ungodly. While religion is important, I firmly believe that there are times and places when we need to listen to logic. I truly hope not, but I accept that you may feel that Christians are better or more fit to run the country.
By the way, saying that this country was founded on Christian principles is not only irrelivant because America is open to everyone, it is not true, seeing as Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were Atheist and did everything in their power to separate church and state. There is nothing wrong with them because they were Atheist, they were still brilliant leaders and separation of church and state is not in a negative light towards religion, it is just bringing what I was taught was a uniquely American brand of justice.
Chez,
Just as a point of historical fact, Christians did, for the first few centuries of the church, submit to the rule of Rome – a rule that was quite oppressive to the Christians. Likewise, around the world today, Christians submit to the rule of various regimes that are not merely non-Christian, but actually anti-Christian. Now this is not to say that no Christian has ever taken up arms against an oppressive rule – this would be a false claim. I’m merely putting to you that Christians can and do and have lived under regimes that did not suffer them kindly.
Thanks for your comment.
I think I can summarize your comment into roughly four points:
1) There is no intrinsic superiority to a Christian state
2) A Christian state would violate the rights of minorities
3) A secular state is not a pagan state, but a non-religious state
4) America was not once a Christian nation (or if it was, it is irrelevant)
I’ll start with the last, first: I really am not committed to any view of American history. I happen to think it was more Christian than many let on (for example, the the constitution says that *Congress* shall make no law establishing religion, but it said nothing about state governments; in fact, many of the early states had established churches), but ultimately it is irrelevant for the reason you give: America is no longer such, and there is no reason why earlier American history is absolutely morally normative for today.
The third point is something we did discuss earlier (only recently, look for the posts on “A secular theocracy”); part of my argument there was that a true secularism is impossible. All governments make decisions about what kinds of religious behaviour is acceptable; but this implies the government is not religiously neutral, which is functionally equivalent to saying it has religious convictions (or convictions about religion). A truly secular state is a fantasy, because states have to make decisions about what is right and wrong, and thus ultimately are making decisions about the same issues that religions have convictions on. They are overlapping circles. Thus, I think that the best option is not a secular state, but that each state should decide for itself what religion it will establish (the system set up at the Treaty of Westphalia).
Your second point sort of raises the exact argument I tried to address in this post: I don’t think a truly Christian state would require anyone to be Christian by force of law. But perhaps you would argue: any law based on distinctively Christian principles would violate the rights of a non-Christian minority, who don’t agree with those principles. I don’t find this very persuasive. As a rule, the majority in a democracy directs the actions of the state. For example, currently Western nations are pro-choice in law. This is contrary to the beliefs and wishes of the pro-life minority, but there is no violation of the rights of pro-lifers that their beliefs are not enshrined in law. The fact of the matter is, democracies enact what the majority of voters tell it to, and this will contradict what minorities want (by definition). In fact, the present reality of a non-Christian state is contrary to my desires, but I don’t regard that as a violation of my political rights.
Your first point is not something I intended to argue for in this post. For now, I’ll simply admit I have not demonstrated (in this post, anyway) that it would be superior by the standards of unbelievers or even by the standards of some secularist Christian theologies. I was more focusing on arguments against the morality of a Christian state, so such a demonstration was not my intention at this point.