To ascertain an authentic view of the state held by Christians is not as easy as might at first appear. The difficulty arises primarily from the fact that the New Testament, which forms the basis of the Christian belief and practice, is not a political book. It affords only a scant handful of passages which could be said to supply the Christian with a clear idea of what the civil state is and what his responsibility to it and participation in it should be. Again, in accounting for prevailing concepts we must allow for the continuing influence of the Judaistic tradition which preceded the Christian formulation, for the undoubted abiding influence of surrounding pagan philosophies and for effects of historical events which have tended even among Christians to alter or change the original Christian view.

In beginning with Jesus, we note the classical reference to his saying, (Matt. 23:21; Mark 12:17), “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” From the context we know he spoke of the obligation of men to pay taxes to the existing government. In the light of Paul’s detailed admonition to the followers of Jesus to support civil government, found in Romans, chapter 13, we construe the Apostle’s words to include more than payment of taxes, or an obligation to “render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” This injunction is based by Paul on the prior premise (verse 1) that every one must be subject to the higher powers, civil powers being ordained of God, there being no power but of God.

The State Is Necessary

Neither in Jesus nor in Paul is there any direction that obedience shall be conditioned on the form of government, whether monarchical, democratic or any kind whatsoever. In other words, theirs is a definite recognition of the necessity for the state as a means to social order. Very few Christians—with exception of the Quakers at one time—have ever held to a stateless society. Christians universally have stood against anarchy. Paul offered his argument for this position in Romans 13:3, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Peter likewise argued, 1 Peter 2:13–14, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governor sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.” Although Jesus and the apostles lived under very corrupt governments, they counselled submission to them rather than risk anarchy, which would be worse. This rejection of a stateless society differentiates Christianity from communism, for communism in theory looks to a time when “the state will wither away” and there will be no need for its police power to coerce. (U.S.S.R., A Concise Handbook, Edited by Ernest J. Simmons, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1947. p. 164).

It is significant that Jesus and Paul made their pronouncements before organized Roman persecution of Christians began, while Peter entered his in the midst of the severest persecution. John, in Revelation 13, confronting the worst of government hostility toward his faith, suggested only passive resistance, not political or military resistance. This would show a fixed Christian idea concerning the state.

The Right Of Revolution

The latter Scripture, however, may have contributed to a later interpretation of these cited passages for supporting the doctrine of the right of revolution. Revelation 13, if the common identification of the “beast” mentioned with the Roman Empire be allowed, unquestionably permits rejection of the empire and its rulers, if indeed it does not sanction overt action against them. The later upspringing acceptance of the right of revolution under sufficient provocation grew to expression when the specific scriptural injunctions came to be considered in the light of the entire body of Scriptures. The New Testament as a whole does not countenance the absolute state presently denominated totalitarianism. It limits the state by the words, “there is no authority except from God.” It is not possible to conclude from Romans 13 that there is divine sanction for every existing order or that such cannot be changed, for the authority of the state is always subordinate to the over-riding authority of God. Therefore the Christian conscience finds voice in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men.” In this connection it is appropriate to quote John C. Bennett:

The warning against anarchy has often been understood in the sense that the most that Christians should ever do by way of resistance to even the most tyrannical and lawless state is to refuse to obey and to take the consequences in the form of punishment and persecution. Even Luther and Calvin, who were not passive by nature, had great difficulty in suggesting anything more than passive resistance to the most tyrannical authorities. Both, however, in different contexts did provide for active resistance on the part of lower political authorities against higher authorities. The loophole for active resistance, even for violent revolution, became a major factor in the history of Calvinism; and as a result, Calvinism helped to inspire revolutions in many countries, including Scotland, England, Holland and the United States. In the period of the National Socialist state, many Lutherans approved of active political resistance in Norway, Denmark and Germany. Roman Catholics have in general had less difficulty than Protestants in approving active political resistance where political authorities have threatened the life or freedom of their church. (The Christian As Citizen, New York: Association Press, 1955, pp. 49–50).

Separation Of Church And State

On the other hand Protestants, particularly the left-wing Puritan independents, took the lead in disestablishing the church and in separating the church from the state. Baptist Roger Williams was moved by dislike of the state controlling the church, while Episcopalian Thomas Jefferson revolted against church control over the state, with the result that the American Republic set the pace for separation of church and state for most modern countries. Both Williams and Jefferson agreed that the membership of a state and a church are quite different, the constituency of the state being the population and that of the church being those gathered out of the population by reason of their spiritual qualifications. They also agreed that the functions of the church and those of the state being secular are under enforcement of police powers. Those contending for church-state separation assert that it has lessened corruption which has characterized union of church and state wherever such has existed. The United States Supreme Court has declared that in America separation of church and state has proved best for the church and the state. Thus convincing proof by historic experiment has been given against the hoary contention that union of church and state is essential to national unity.

Although advocates of church-state separation frequently give Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” as authorization for their belief, it is only fair to point out that the real reason for the new order originated in the struggle for freedom, both in the battle for religious liberty for believers and in the demand for political freedom on the part of citizens upholding the state. This is not to affirm that the plan is contrary to Christianity. Quite the opposite, adherents believe that while not explicit in the Christian system, it is implicit in the Christian teachings.

Secular State Is Modern

It is a fact, however, that the differentiation between the purely religious nature of the church and the essentially secular functions of the state is a comparatively modern development. No differentiation was seen in Babylonia, Egypt and the most ancient civilizations. Josephus wrote:

Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies and others under a republic form; but our legislator (Moses) had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a theocracy, by ascribing the authority and power of God. (Against Apion, Book II. paragraph 17, in Complete Works of Josephus. New York: World Syndicate Publishing Co. X, p. 500)

The Hebrew Repudiation

It will be remembered, however, that the Hebrew theocracy gave place to monarchy under King Saul, and that after the Exile of the Jews, fearing control of their religion by the heathen states in which they lived, forever thereafter renounced union of church and state. Those same heathen states long before and for a millennium after, maintained union of church and state. In primitive Greece, as elsewhere, there was no distinction between the religious and the secular. The king, in his capacity as head of the state, was also the chief priest and the guardian of religion. Unity of religion and the state was observed in the Greek city-republic. Socrates was condemned to death for religious heterodoxy. In pre-Christian Rome the ancient mixture of state and religion obtained, and in the later empire the emperors were deified and worshipped, to the horror of the Christians.

Considering world-wide practice, it was not surprising that when Constantine the so-called Great in 313 A.D. accepted Christianity, he prescribed it should be the religion of the state and that he forthwith commenced to persecute all dissenters unto death. While it must be admitted that by the stupendous event of Constantine’s conversion the Christian church acquired immense prestige and grasped unmeasured opportunities, it nevertheless suffered tragic deterioration in quality and impairment in its fundamental principles. Tertullian when persecuted preached, “It is a right and privilege of nature that every man should worship according to his convictions;” but he subsequently argued, “Heretics may properly be compelled, not enticed to duty” (Religious Liberty: an Inquiry, by M. Searle Bates. New York: International Missionary Council, 1945, pp. 137–138). Augustine, when a youth in North Africa pleaded fervently for freedom of of conscience, but later in Rome his position on religious liberty may be truly described in the maxim sometimes (perhaps erroneously) ascribed to him, “When error prevails, it is right to invoke liberty of conscience, but when the truth predominates, it is just to use coercion” (ibid., p. 139). For a thousand years thereafter history records the shameful conflict as to which partner, the church or the state, should control the other.

The Welfare State

In earlier parts of this discussion, emphasis was placed on the Christian view that the state was God-ordained to prevent anarchy and preserve social order. More recently Christians have widely insisted that the state, in addition, has the responsibility of extending Christian love to those aspects of public life which affect for good or ill the welfare of one’s neighbors. This may either be approved or condemned as “the welfare state,” according as one is pronouncedly liberal or conservative. Those who supported this view during the 11th to the 15th centuries urged it, not on biblical grounds, but as “an uneasy compromise between the agape of the New Testament and the world powers of feudal society.” Bennett says that it partly tamed this world but at the price of identifying Christianity too closely with the culture of the times and of encouraging too much that was unjust in society. Increasingly in varying degrees, governments have come to regard the principle.

It is proper to introduce at this point the view expressed by the World Council of Churches at Evanston.

Those who make true justice must be made sensitive by love to discover needs where they have been neglected. Justice involves the continuous effort to overcome those economic disadvantages which are a grievous human burden and which are incompatible with equal opportunity to people to develop their capacities. Justice requires the development of political institutions which are humane as they touch the lives of people, which provide protection by law against the arbitrary use of power, and which encourage responsible participation by all citizens. (Evanston Speaks. Reports of the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches, second section, “Social Problems—The Responsible Society in a World Perspective”)

Translated into particulars, governmental extension of love might cover social security, retirement benefits, assistance to the unemployed, aged and disabled, funds for veterans, housing, public health and care of the sick and mentally ill, soil conservation, agricultural subsidies, restraint of monopolies, regulation of public carriers, free education and the many other benefits.

At the outset of our discussion we conceded that Jesus and his followers prescribed no specific form of government for the state. It must be insisted, however, that democracy seems to be inherent in Christianity. Jesus himself has been called the great democrat. The implications of democracy are unmistakable in the Christian teachings. To the extent to which Christianity prevails in the world democratic government is likely to arise, for it has long been recognized that government tends to assume the pattern of the religion which prevails in a given society. An authoritarian religion produces a government akin to absolutism, and a voluntary religion encourages a government in which freedom is cherished. It becomes increasingly clear that Christianity initiated democracy in the world. Arnold Toynbee declares that democracy is a leaf torn from Christianity, although half emptied of its meaning by being divorced from its Christian context.

We conclude with the assertion that the rule of the people means the recognition of human rights—the right of the ignorant to education, the right of slaves to freedom, the right of the employed to fair wages, the right of the child to be well born, the right of all men to justice. This warrants the establishment of hospitals, schools, orphanages, a free ballot and a free conscience. Under the idea of the worth of man, we have never thought it necessary to claim that all men are equally endowed with gifts, or that they can get equal results; the idea demands only that all men shall be entitled to the same considerations under the law. It asserts that capacity and dignity are not conferred by station or possession but are inherent in the submerged as well as in the fortunately placed. Democracy recognizes that man’s personality is the highest value in the universe and society is to be organized in a manner to minister to his true life. Treatment of man is the test of merit in all institutions, systems, laws, philosophies. “What does it do to man?” is the validating question to ask of any government.

END

We Quote:

HOWARD E. KERSHNER

Author and Editor of “Christian Economics”

The Ten Commandments are the basis of satisfactory economic relationships as well as of morals. Coveting, stealing, untruthfulness, and murder are just as much violations of economic law as of moral law. Such practices in business or government can no more be made right by majority vote than the moral law itself can be changed by that method. One who does not establish a reputation for honesty and truthfulness rarely succeeds in business. The commandment against bearing false witness lies at the very heart of a successful business career. It is a question of morals, to be sure, but equally a question of economics. It is good economics as well as good morals to love one’s neighbor as oneself.—In God, Gold and Government, p. 49 (Prentice-Hall, 1957).

Dr. Joseph M. Dawson has served Southern Baptist causes effectively for more than a half century. Born in 1879 in Texas, he received the B.A. degree in 1904 from Baylor University, which conferred the D.D. in 1916 and is now proposing the J. M. Dawson Studies in Church and State because of his interest in this field as first director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Dr. Dawson was cited in 1955 by Protestants and Other Americans United for his contributions to religious liberty. He is author of America’s Way in Church, State and Society.

The Christian is not a Christian alone by himself in a vacuum. Christian faith and practice call first of all for an individual and intensely personal and subjective surrender to Christ. But if it stops with this, Christian faith ends. The effective and dynamic Christian must live and witness in fellowship, in community. His community is the family, the neighborhood, voluntary, business and labor associations, his city or rural area, his state and nation, and the family of nations.

In the political realm, national and international, there is, however, a threatening menace which this concept of man living in fellowship, in community, spawns. Historically, we have seen the rise of an exaggerated statism that insists that the state is the fellowship, the community, or certainly the master of the community, instead of only the police force of the community of society. A free fellowship of any purposeful life is possible only when its members individually and collectively recognize responsibility to God. Without the Christian corrective of personal worth, dignity and destiny in Christ, the community degenerates either into license or frozen conformation to a dictated pattern.

Four Views Of Society

There are four different approaches to the world of human affairs. We may regard the world, in which we must necessarily live a social life, as something meaningless, entirely without rhyme or reason, fighting each our own way to what success we can grab, or, failing that, at least achieving survival. Secondly, one may think of the world as entirely physical, governed by mechanical law. Everything, including man himself, is caught in the throes of mathematical patterns, with moral decisions and responsibility unnecessary, or, at best, futile.

Probably not many thinking folk hold either of these two views seriously any more, though both have had their devotees. They certainly are not Christian views of the universe. Of most validity for us today are two other ways of regarding the world, conflicting with and opposing each other: the secularist view and the Christian view.

The secularist sees life only in terms of this present world of sense and physical objects, pleasures, creature comforts, the accumulation and enjoyment of many things. Indeed, the Christian also is not insensitive to God’s bounties placed at man’s disposal. He will want to use them all. But therein lies the difference: the materialist finds money and all it can buy in this world to be ends in themselves and actually permits himself to be enslaved; the Christian uses God’s gifts to honor his Creator and to serve his fellow-men, thus making himself, under God, the master of money and things. All of this surely can be seen to have the most meaningful application in determining and carrying out foreign policy.

Of course, the secularist is opposed to any form of religious faith and practice, not merely to religion in its Christian form. To be sure, the Christian can make common cause, in a broad sense, in the field of foreign policy with other world religions. To this degree he casts his lot with others who, believing in a god or gods, at least discard a purely fatalistic, mechanical and materialistic approach to the life of the peoples and affairs of the world.

Christianity And Human Values

But we are here concerned with the much higher ground which must be taken by those of us who know the God our Lord and Savior came to reveal. He is not only a Supreme Being, but absolute Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and the Maker, Preserver and Governor of this creation we know and in the midst of which we live and work. We affirm that we may know him and his will for us personally and collectively. We are loved by him and we may love him. And what is more, we may love and serve him in loving and serving our fellow-men.

To the Christian human values are far more important than property values, though he does affirm that to own property is an important and basic human right. He sees men and women and children as immortal souls, whose chief purpose and end is to know God and enjoy him even here on earth and gloriously in all eternity. Obviously, such a scale of values makes a great difference in the way we treat peoples and governments of other powers in the world, both great and small.

By nature we humans are too weak to fulfill our destiny. Man must be redeemed from failure, by God’s grace in Christ given a supernatural strength. So God in Christ came into history, into the world of human frailty, and has lived and worked dramatically ever since in the dedicated lives of obedient followers. And as to Christ when he was here upon earth, nothing of man’s hopes and aspirations, his sorrows or joys, was foreign, so his devoted disciples must not neglect the smallest need of men anywhere.

Principles In Foreign Policy

In realizing Christian principles, even in the complicated pattern of today’s foreign policy and its execution, we may be assured of God’s aid and enlightenment. “Be ye perfect” is the Lord’s admonition. There is supreme value in obedience to the unattainable, surrender to the impossible. The Christian is not satisfied with what is better; he is seeking the best, the perfect. The better has too often been a deceiving half-way house on the road to the best. The Christian’s Leader bids him fix his goal as nothing less than the perfect, asks him to sacrifice toward its achievement, and leave the result to the Heavenly Father. Frustrations and failures must not be allowed to deflect our course.

Christian principles in foreign policy are not essentially different from those which govern relationships in other personal or social situations, though some would have greater relevance in international relationships. I do want to suggest, however, some Christian standards which need to be raised particularly in the area of dealings nation with nation.

One is that right thinking and conduct are positive, dynamic and creative, not negative, vapid and lifeless. The Christian must rid himself of a negativism which merely opposes, pointing the finger in condemnation and horror. He must be an informed, active participant in the determination of his country’s foreign policy and vigilant watchman of its execution. He does not wait for others less guided and illuminated to chart the course and then stand on the sidelines to criticize. He does not merely applaud from the bleachers if the fight is going well, but he is down in the arena doing battle.

That man always and in every condition is to be regarded as an end and not a means or instrument is another Christian principle of the highest order in foreign relations. This principle is closely allied to the concept and conviction that every individual person is precious in God’s sight. But this end-man and priceless person flowers perfectly only in sacrificial service for God’s honor and glory and the welfare of his brothers. The good and purposeful foreign policy must have room in it for the development of the individual’s fullest destiny as God’s highest creation.

The Power Of Love

The over-riding Christian principle in our relations with other powers is that love is stronger than force or hate. What difficulty we have practicing it! As someone has said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has only been found difficult and not tried.” But do we not have from Christ’s own life the example of love as the only redemptive, creative way of life? Of course, I am not speaking of love as something sickly and sentimental, but rather a strong thing of the will. I am not speaking of love as a Christian principle to apply in foreign relations because of desiring or expecting man’s love in return, but because when man is true to God and to God’s will and purpose for him, man cannot help but love, serve and give. Remember, we live in fellowship, or we do not live. We are not really human when we do not love. A fellowship of anger, conflict and hatred is unthinkable. Anger, conflict and hatred separate and isolate.

Foreign relations are often thought to be profound and complex. They are really simple. People all over the world, as well as those in the United States, want only simple things. They want to worship God according to conscience. They want to exchange opinions with others and freely choose what is reasonable and morally right. They want to live in their homes and communities with family, friends and associates without fear. They want to develop religion and morals, culture and tradition, arts and sciences, drawing upon the heritage of all peoples everywhere, both that life might be richer for them in the present and for their children in the future. They want to work productively at congenial creative tasks of their own choosing. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They want government to which they consent.

International misunderstanding, distrust and tensions deny these simple wants to altogether too many people. It is the dedication of our President and our country to strive by all means to realize a world climate which will make these simple wants of all people to thrive and bear fruit.

In a deeply fundamental sense, the achievement of these simple wants is a moral and religious objective and the motivation must come from religious and moral sources. The love of God, the love of country, the love of others—will last always and win the final victory, because the Creator implanted a sense of divine origin and personal dignity in every human being. So, even as we face realities in the world about us, especially those of us of the Christian persuasion and practice must seek to make the world a better place, knowing that this shall be accomplished only as we humans surrender to the will of God and accept his guidance and help.

Draw The Sword Humbly

Peace with liberty and freedom is the over-riding issue of our times. Because of his own mixed nature of good and evil, man dare not throw away the sword, but he would do well to draw it humbly, knowing that the very deed is proof that he has failed once more in a better wisdom. Right here, however, you and I have a personal responsibility. We assume altogether too naively that peace will come without effort and cost. Of course, peace will cost us something. But does not war cost infinitely more, not only in money, men and material, but in lost happiness, liberties and purposeful, creative use of our talents? All of us can contribute to peace in our own thought, word and action. And we all must do so if we are to have peace. It grows out of our lives, hopes and aspirations.

Make no mistake about it: every one of us is involved. War diminishes life for each one of us and peace enlarges it. Therefore, we each have a private stake and a private responsibility. The world in arms spends not only money. It spends the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the aspirations of its artists, the faith and spirit of its religious thinkers and doers, and the hopes of its children.

We have in the United States not only a great and good life, but because of it, also a vast responsibility. Whether we wished it or not, we have come into world leadership. We can’t shrug off the responsibility of that by saying as does Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The world is out of joint, O cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right.” It is not easy to be a world leader and possess great power. To know the pleasures of power we must inquire of those who seek it, but to know its pains we need only ask those who have it. America did not seek world power, but, having it, we have no choice but to play the role with dignity, patience and strength.

I plead that each of us learn the lesson from our founding fathers that the center of good government is in the heart of the good man. The good man is assured and made bold and strong to face his problems through the conviction that he is always in the hand of God. Every human life is of divine concern. This defies fatalism or the philosophy that man is a helpless pebble on the beach. Too, this prevents man from looking for ease and security, for which he often has bartered away his individual freedom and liberty. There is no security in this world, only opportunity. Recognition and practice of such principles of trusteeship and responsibility made and have kept this country strong, free and great.

I am asking you, with me, to emulate those who have gone on before us in leading lives of discipline, believing in our religion, our country and our children’s future. I want you to accept the role of a responsible member of your family, your community, your state, nation and world. I want you to be a responsible employee or employer, a responsible supporter of your home, church and school. Acceptance of such responsibilities by other Americans before us has made our country great. It can be kept great only if we in our time do likewise.

END

Preacher In The Red

“HIS EXCELLENCY …”

Many years ago the famous radio preacher, Dr. S. Parkes Cadman of Brooklyn, N.Y., addressed a great men’s meeting in Center Congregational Church, New Britain, Conn. The pastor, Theodore A. Greene, introduced the celebrated cleric with a sudden burst of oratory.

Dr. Greene said he had been backstage in a great radio station and had looked upon the electrical equipment, the batteries, generators, had witnessed the sparks, lights, powers of the air.

Increasing in eloquence, the New Britain pastor cried:

“Think of the radio ministry of Dr. Cadman and his incredible ministry across the air-waves of the nation every Sunday afternoon, the millions who listen in spellbound! I have introduced many prominent speakers to this Church, but I am happy on this occasion to introduce the king of the electrons, the ruler of the airways, in fact, the prince of the power of the air!”

Dr. Cadman arose as a man staggered; he hesitated as he moved toward the sacred desk. It was a strange moment, and Dr. Cadman wordless. Finally he found his voice:

“Gentlemen,” he gasped, “I have been introduced to many audiences with many compliments and sometimes with criticism; but this is the one and only time I have ever been released upon any audience as his majesty, the devil!”

—THE REV. PHILIP JEROME CLEVELAND, Canterbury, Conn.

For each report by a minister of the Gospel of an embarrassing moment in his life, CHRISTIANITY TODAY will pay $5 (upon publication). To be acceptable, anecdotes must narrate factually a personal experience, and must be previously unpublished. Contributions should not exceed 250 words, should be typed double-spaced, and bear the writer’s name and address. Upon acceptance, such contributions become the property of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Address letters to: Preacher in the Red, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Suite 1014 Washington Building, Washington, D.C.

Joseph Simonson served as United States Ambassador to Ethiopia from 1953 to 1957. For twenty years he pastored Lutheran churches in the Midwest and then became Director of Public Relations for the National Lutheran Council from 1951–53. He holds the B.A. degree from St. Olaf College, Th.B. from Luther Theological Seminary and the LL.D. from Concordia College. His special interests, he remarks, are “preaching, politics and poultry.” In this article, he deals broadly with the first two.