To return to the train of thought on Christianity and Government, I suggested in the previous point that while a theocracy would be ideal, it runs into two problems/objections.
The first is that we do not have a perfect "point man" (or woman) on earth between us and God. The interpretive factor means we should stand somewhat loosely between our Christianity and the state. To confuse the two or impose one on the other risks an oppressive system.
The second is that God has not modeled a Christianity equals state perspective for us. The New Testament actually has a "two worlds" model--Caesar's stuff has nothing to do with God's stuff. And God has created a world where the weeds and wheat grow alongside each other (Matt. 13). He gives those who choose to disobey the freedom to do so to their detriment.
These factors push us away from trying to legislate coextensively with our Christianity. God does not call us to make the state look like a particular church. God has created a world in which a Satan or an Adam can fall. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?", Paul says. "God will judge those outside" (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
The situational nature of NT teaching means that the story does not necessarily end with the NT model of church and state. For example, the early church had no role to play in government, unlike our current democratic situation. Nevertheless, the NT does not model the "make the state look like the church" approach so prevalent in conservative Christian circles. We might call this approach the "civil religion" approach, where the American flag and Christian flag stand side by side on our church platforms.
In point of fact, there is a good deal of overlap between the secular, universal egoist system we have been suggesting (and which approximates the basis of our Constitution) and what we would want in a Christian state. The universal egoist system tries to create an environment in which the happiness of all is maximized. Everyone is allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as they do not impinge on the happiness of others.
On the one hand, the Christian approach is not egoist at all. We are to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6). We are to "look not only on your own interests but the interests of others" (Phil. 2). In attitude, the Christian approach is diametrically opposite to the egoist one. We are to surrender our rights and freedoms for the building up of the body (e.g., 1 Cor. 9).
But there is an overlap because both systems work for the happiness of all. The universal egoist works for the happiness of all so that the individual can be happy. The Christian works for the happiness of all because we love our neighbors.
The overlap in terms of law are the rules that keep us from harming one another. The egoist forbids murder so that he or she is not murdered. The Christian works against murder so that the neighbor is not murdered. The egoist forbids stealing so that his or her stuff isn't stolen. The Christian works against stealing so that the neighbor's stuff isn't stolen.
Next entree: what do we do with the points at which the Christian wants to protect the egoist from his or her own misguided pleasure? The egoist system has little room for this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was wondering, especially with this recent post criticizing civil religion: what are your thoughts on the Libertarian party(www.lp.org)? Of course they are not a "contender" (neither is Kerry in Indiana), but maybe they should be given a fair evaluation in light of the current election, since it seems many people are dissapointed with both candadites of the major political parties.
Since Paul was writing to a church that could not affect politics democratically and was not even in the religious plurality (unlike modern America), isn't possible that Paul had the abovementioned disadvantages in mind when he wrote to those specific churches 2000 years ago? Shouldn't we count the advantages of today's church as blessings and view them as "talents"? Furthermore, the passage about Caesar and God was essentially about taxes, not laws, so the supposed dichotomy between the two is fuzzy.
Adam, I don't lean libertarian because I do see a role for the government in empowering and protecting people who are irresponsible (particularly if they could hardly do otherwise). I also see a role for involvement in countries like Sierra Leone that are not in our immediate interest (although I do believe helping such countries is in our long term interest). In my mind, what I call universal egoist is not exactly the same as libertarian.
Micah, I meant to leave the door open for a possible difference between Paul's context and ours, as you suggest. Do you remember making a comment like this on tongues back in NT survey? You suggested that just because they couldn't be unified and edified with uninterpreted tongues back then in the church at Corinth does not necessarily imply that no church would be able to function harmoniously and with edification with uninterpreted tongues now.
I do see the coin incident as reflective of a fundamental division between Caesar and God in the sense that coins were not necessary for commerce--it was a barter economy. The image on the coin was Caesar's and coins had nothing to do with the things of God. Of course it can be interpreted differently, but that's my take.
Post a Comment