The purpose of this blog is to help me formulate and express a personal faith that will make a positive social contribution. As a blog of ideas, I have reviewed a few of my essays from seminary that I would like to share with readers. These papers are shared strictly for information purposes and may not be reproduced.
I submitted this essay in 2009 toward the completion of Empowering the Church for First-World Re-Evangelization for Dr. Ross Hastings of Regent College in Vancouver, BC.
+
The
Canadian Church has neither the political or moral power that it had up until a
few decades ago, leaving it with several questions. What do we do now? Can or should the Church interact with
authorities that are decidedly secular?
How? Is Christianity simply a
personal matter or does it affect the world at large? While the Church asks these questions,
national, provincial, and municipal governments provide service to citizens
that the Church used to provide. This
service is not perfect, however. People
are hungry in Canada. People are
homeless in Canada. People are addicted
in Canada. People are illiterate in
Canada.
Could
helping to cure these social problems be the way that the Church should
interact with society as a whole or with the state? The governments in Canada are all working to
solve problems. Scripture teaches
Christians that the believer has the responsibility to care for the
disenfranchised. The government
initiative and scriptural command overlap.
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: How should the Church be missional to the state? This paper will argue that the Christian Church must use every tool available to it to effect positive change, including the state. Within strict parameters, the state can be a powerful ally for the Church and the Church should encourage the state to act in the interest of people. The Church should only do so regarding societal evils and should not try to use the state to legislate personal morality.
Darrell L. Guder led a study to determine what it means for the Church to be missional. Guder’s team concluded that a missional ecclesiology will be biblical because the Bible explains God’s mission in creation and the role of the Church in that mission. It will be historical and contextual because the Church serves a particular people in a particular time. It will be eschatological so the Church can understand who it is and proceed to the fulfillment of God’s promise to establish His kingdom. It will be actionable because being able to respond to the mission of God in action is important to fulfill God’s commission to create disciples.[1]
If the state is already fulfilling a role in providing care for vulnerable people, why should the Church get involved? In The Cross of Christ John Stott explains that although the state exists to ensure justice, the state may act unjustly itself. For this reason, it is important that someone watches the government.[2] Understanding that the state is imperfect, the Church must acknowledge the state as established by God. God gave the state an awesome responsibility. Like all responsibilities God gave people, the responsibility to govern is corrupted by those who hold it.[3] Although the state does not have absolute authority, its authority comes from God, meaning that Christians are subject to the state. Working toward the ends of the state can mean working towards the ends of God.[4]
Although the state is a God-created institution, it is important to acknowledge that the state is limited. Abraham Kuyper, both a theologian and statesperson, tells us that the government exists primarily to bring justice and secondarily to care for its citizens.[5] God did not create the state to spread the Gospel of Christ. This is the sole responsibility of the Church. The Church cannot expect the state to compel people to follow Jesus, even if members of the governing party or the majority of the state’s citizens are Christians.[6]
Understanding that the state is put in place by God to provide justice, what is the role of the Church? N. T. Wright explains:
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: How should the Church be missional to the state? This paper will argue that the Christian Church must use every tool available to it to effect positive change, including the state. Within strict parameters, the state can be a powerful ally for the Church and the Church should encourage the state to act in the interest of people. The Church should only do so regarding societal evils and should not try to use the state to legislate personal morality.
Darrell L. Guder led a study to determine what it means for the Church to be missional. Guder’s team concluded that a missional ecclesiology will be biblical because the Bible explains God’s mission in creation and the role of the Church in that mission. It will be historical and contextual because the Church serves a particular people in a particular time. It will be eschatological so the Church can understand who it is and proceed to the fulfillment of God’s promise to establish His kingdom. It will be actionable because being able to respond to the mission of God in action is important to fulfill God’s commission to create disciples.[1]
If the state is already fulfilling a role in providing care for vulnerable people, why should the Church get involved? In The Cross of Christ John Stott explains that although the state exists to ensure justice, the state may act unjustly itself. For this reason, it is important that someone watches the government.[2] Understanding that the state is imperfect, the Church must acknowledge the state as established by God. God gave the state an awesome responsibility. Like all responsibilities God gave people, the responsibility to govern is corrupted by those who hold it.[3] Although the state does not have absolute authority, its authority comes from God, meaning that Christians are subject to the state. Working toward the ends of the state can mean working towards the ends of God.[4]
Although the state is a God-created institution, it is important to acknowledge that the state is limited. Abraham Kuyper, both a theologian and statesperson, tells us that the government exists primarily to bring justice and secondarily to care for its citizens.[5] God did not create the state to spread the Gospel of Christ. This is the sole responsibility of the Church. The Church cannot expect the state to compel people to follow Jesus, even if members of the governing party or the majority of the state’s citizens are Christians.[6]
Understanding that the state is put in place by God to provide justice, what is the role of the Church? N. T. Wright explains:
…the
mission of the church is nothing more or less than the outworking, in the power
of the Spirit, of Jesus's bodily resurrection and thus the anticipation of the
time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and
earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule
over the redeemed world he has made.[7]
The Church cannot expect the state to bring about the Kingdom of God
because God reserved this role for the Church.
What does this mean in the area of justice? If God’s kingdom is just and, as Wright
claims, the mission of the Church is to transform the Earth, the Church cannot
help but be passionate about justice.
Here we see an overlap between the roles of the state and the
Church. The common ideal of justice that
the Church and state share means that the Church has a missional role in
serving the state to bring about justice.
History has shown that mixing Church and state can lead to horrible consequences. People may therefore bristle at the idea of having any connection between these two institutions. However, to respond to the negative consequences of a close linkage between the state and Church by moving to the extreme opposite and completely severing ties is not a proper response. Stassen and Gushee show readers that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was a political speech as well as a moral speech. Jesus was also passionate about “deeds that shine light in the world.”[8] George Weigel argues that although the Church should not control the state, it should still “challenge” the state to be moral in its freedom.[9]
In a democracy the Church can challenge the state for the same reason anyone else can – there is a freedom of expression. When the Church exercises its right to speak, it also must defend the God-given right of anyone else to speak, whether it agrees with the speaker or not. The Church also must recognize that when it speaks, the state will not necessarily act.[10]
When the Church is missional to the state, it must be aware of the difficulties and dangers that come with doing so. The first obstacle that the Church must overcome in being missional to the state is the temptation either to try to regain the power it had in the past or, conversely, to idolize the state. Writing about the role of the Church in New Zealand, Allan K. Davidson explains that because the Church is no longer a primary voice in society, it must wait to be invited to speak. Upon invitation the Church must “be aware of the complex nature of the nation to which it seeks to minister.”[11] Hollinger points to some of these complexities when he warns Christians not to try to form a theocratic state but instead to try to be an influence. For Hollinger a theocracy may cause the Church to “undermine” its efforts.[12]
On the opposite extreme, the Church must not allow the state to become its master. The Church must realize that although the state is instituted by God to provide justice, it is still ultimately accountable to Him.[13] John Stott writes:
History has shown that mixing Church and state can lead to horrible consequences. People may therefore bristle at the idea of having any connection between these two institutions. However, to respond to the negative consequences of a close linkage between the state and Church by moving to the extreme opposite and completely severing ties is not a proper response. Stassen and Gushee show readers that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was a political speech as well as a moral speech. Jesus was also passionate about “deeds that shine light in the world.”[8] George Weigel argues that although the Church should not control the state, it should still “challenge” the state to be moral in its freedom.[9]
In a democracy the Church can challenge the state for the same reason anyone else can – there is a freedom of expression. When the Church exercises its right to speak, it also must defend the God-given right of anyone else to speak, whether it agrees with the speaker or not. The Church also must recognize that when it speaks, the state will not necessarily act.[10]
When the Church is missional to the state, it must be aware of the difficulties and dangers that come with doing so. The first obstacle that the Church must overcome in being missional to the state is the temptation either to try to regain the power it had in the past or, conversely, to idolize the state. Writing about the role of the Church in New Zealand, Allan K. Davidson explains that because the Church is no longer a primary voice in society, it must wait to be invited to speak. Upon invitation the Church must “be aware of the complex nature of the nation to which it seeks to minister.”[11] Hollinger points to some of these complexities when he warns Christians not to try to form a theocratic state but instead to try to be an influence. For Hollinger a theocracy may cause the Church to “undermine” its efforts.[12]
On the opposite extreme, the Church must not allow the state to become its master. The Church must realize that although the state is instituted by God to provide justice, it is still ultimately accountable to Him.[13] John Stott writes:
Let me
sum up the aspects and corresponding limitations of the state's authority. Because its authority has been delegated to
it by God, we must respect but not worship it… We are to respect the state and
its officials, giving them a discerning submission, not an uncritical
commercial.[14]
When
serving the state, the Church must recognize that the state is fallen, regardless
of how good it may appear. The Church
must see where the state is failing and contribute to improvement in these
areas.[15] The Church must also recognize
that there are some areas of life that only the Church can affect and allow
itself to work in these areas without input from the state or others outside of
the Church.[16]
The second obstacle that the Church will encounter when being missional toward the state is its own sinfulness. Sin in the Church has two dangers. The Church may not acknowledge the presence of sin within itself which leads to arrogance. Conversely, the Church may see its own sin and not act until it is completely eradicated, which leads to paralysis.[17]
The third obstacle that could prevent the Church from being missional to the state is history. Much like sin, history can paralyze the Church. The Canadian Church is aware that it is in a different position now than it was in the 1950s. Margaret Van Die, however, illustrates that this change in position does not mean there is no hope for the church. She explains that there is still an element of “sacredness” in the Canadian public life.[18] The Church does not only have to deal with external history, but also internal history. Like the rest of humanity, the Church is sinful. This hurts its credibility. The Church recently began making public confession of sin. While there is certainly more confession needed, these confessions will help the Church restore some of its credibility.[19]
The fourth obstacle for the Church to overcome is cynicism. The diminished role of the Church may lead it to think that there is nothing for the Church to do. The Church may even believe that there is nothing that it can do. As an antidote to this cynicism, N. T. Wright, George Weigel and John Howard Yoder point to significant things Christians have done for the world. Wright points to the work of “ordinary Christians” who care for people by organizing play groups for children, helping financially desperate people, and campaigning for adequate housing.[20] Weigel gives a list of Christians who were motivated to act by their faith, including William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonheoffer. Weigel asks and answers, “Is it possible to imagine something called ‘Europe’ without men and women such as these… It seems very unlikely.”[21] While writing from a perspective that likely would not encourage such a close relationship between the Church and state as this paper, Yoder still brings attention to the many good things the Church gave to culture, such as “hospitals, service of the poor, generalized education, egalitarianism, abolitionism, (and) feminism.”[22]
With an understanding that the the state was created by God to oversee justice, an understanding that the Church was ordained by God to carry out God’s work on Earth – a part of which must include justice – and an understanding that neither the state nor the Church perfectly fulfills its God-given role, where is there room for the Church to be missional to the state? Using Guder’s definition of missional – biblical, historical, contextual, eschatological, practical – it seems that the Church can best be missional toward the state by serving the state when it acts in accordance with God’s will and by admonishing the state when it is not acting in accordance with God’s will.
Realizing that Guder’s definition of “missional” must include action, what does this look like? In contemporary Canada, the Church is missional toward the state by praying, by understanding the role of Church and the role of state, by serving, and by confronting.
For the Church to be missional to the state, it must begin with prayer. The Bible commands the Church to pray for those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-2). This is part of submitting to their authority.[23] The Church must have a proper idea of prayer, however. In the CBC Massey Lectures, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “As a minister, I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility.”[24]
The work and responsibility of the Church is explained by Stassen and Gushee when they write, “the challenge for Christians is to ground political efforts in a healthy understanding of church, state, society and the reign of God."[25] A healthy understanding of the Church and of the state means that both are under God and that He gives roles to both. In his article Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe, Mark Hill argues that the Church must understand that the government cannot do everything. The Church cannot expect the government to take care of the body while it only worries about the soul. The government will inevitably leave holes that the Church should strive to fill.[26] Larry Jones likens this understanding of the Church’s relationship to the state to the role Jeremiah played in the Old Testament. He points out that the government often finds itself in a position where it cannot make a wholly good choice. Realizing this, the Church must encourage the government while helping to meet needs that the government cannot.[27]
A proper understanding of the Church, however, means that the Church must help the government fulfill the government’s role while not pushing the government to help fill the Church’s role. The Church must intentionally limit where it pushes the government to act. This means that the Church acknowledges that its entire morality cannot and should not be instituted as law. The Church must recognize which areas of its moral law are applicable to judicial law. This means understanding that an action should not always be illegal simply because it is immoral. For example, bringing the entirety of Christian sexual ethics into law would necessarily violate individual personal privacy.[28]
The Church can also be missional to the state by acting as a servant. As illustrated above, the Church can be tempted to idolize the state while serving it. This does not mean that the Church should not serve the state, but instead means that the Church should serve the state properly. Larry B. Jones points the Church, particularly Christian non-governmental organizations, to the example of Daniel. Daniel acted as a servant to the state but stood firm in his commitment to God when the state contradicted Him.[29] The Church will illustrate humility by acting as a servant to the state. Christians must be open to the fact that people who are not Christians may have better ideas.[30] When Christians are serving the state, it is important to realize that the state is responsible to all of its citizens. This means serving all people, regardless of religious belief.[31]
The Church can also be missional to the state by confrontation when the state does not fulfill its role. The Church must watch the state. While the state is God’s servant, it is not perfect.[32] Dana Wilbanks argues:
The second obstacle that the Church will encounter when being missional toward the state is its own sinfulness. Sin in the Church has two dangers. The Church may not acknowledge the presence of sin within itself which leads to arrogance. Conversely, the Church may see its own sin and not act until it is completely eradicated, which leads to paralysis.[17]
The third obstacle that could prevent the Church from being missional to the state is history. Much like sin, history can paralyze the Church. The Canadian Church is aware that it is in a different position now than it was in the 1950s. Margaret Van Die, however, illustrates that this change in position does not mean there is no hope for the church. She explains that there is still an element of “sacredness” in the Canadian public life.[18] The Church does not only have to deal with external history, but also internal history. Like the rest of humanity, the Church is sinful. This hurts its credibility. The Church recently began making public confession of sin. While there is certainly more confession needed, these confessions will help the Church restore some of its credibility.[19]
The fourth obstacle for the Church to overcome is cynicism. The diminished role of the Church may lead it to think that there is nothing for the Church to do. The Church may even believe that there is nothing that it can do. As an antidote to this cynicism, N. T. Wright, George Weigel and John Howard Yoder point to significant things Christians have done for the world. Wright points to the work of “ordinary Christians” who care for people by organizing play groups for children, helping financially desperate people, and campaigning for adequate housing.[20] Weigel gives a list of Christians who were motivated to act by their faith, including William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonheoffer. Weigel asks and answers, “Is it possible to imagine something called ‘Europe’ without men and women such as these… It seems very unlikely.”[21] While writing from a perspective that likely would not encourage such a close relationship between the Church and state as this paper, Yoder still brings attention to the many good things the Church gave to culture, such as “hospitals, service of the poor, generalized education, egalitarianism, abolitionism, (and) feminism.”[22]
With an understanding that the the state was created by God to oversee justice, an understanding that the Church was ordained by God to carry out God’s work on Earth – a part of which must include justice – and an understanding that neither the state nor the Church perfectly fulfills its God-given role, where is there room for the Church to be missional to the state? Using Guder’s definition of missional – biblical, historical, contextual, eschatological, practical – it seems that the Church can best be missional toward the state by serving the state when it acts in accordance with God’s will and by admonishing the state when it is not acting in accordance with God’s will.
Realizing that Guder’s definition of “missional” must include action, what does this look like? In contemporary Canada, the Church is missional toward the state by praying, by understanding the role of Church and the role of state, by serving, and by confronting.
For the Church to be missional to the state, it must begin with prayer. The Bible commands the Church to pray for those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-2). This is part of submitting to their authority.[23] The Church must have a proper idea of prayer, however. In the CBC Massey Lectures, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “As a minister, I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility.”[24]
The work and responsibility of the Church is explained by Stassen and Gushee when they write, “the challenge for Christians is to ground political efforts in a healthy understanding of church, state, society and the reign of God."[25] A healthy understanding of the Church and of the state means that both are under God and that He gives roles to both. In his article Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe, Mark Hill argues that the Church must understand that the government cannot do everything. The Church cannot expect the government to take care of the body while it only worries about the soul. The government will inevitably leave holes that the Church should strive to fill.[26] Larry Jones likens this understanding of the Church’s relationship to the state to the role Jeremiah played in the Old Testament. He points out that the government often finds itself in a position where it cannot make a wholly good choice. Realizing this, the Church must encourage the government while helping to meet needs that the government cannot.[27]
A proper understanding of the Church, however, means that the Church must help the government fulfill the government’s role while not pushing the government to help fill the Church’s role. The Church must intentionally limit where it pushes the government to act. This means that the Church acknowledges that its entire morality cannot and should not be instituted as law. The Church must recognize which areas of its moral law are applicable to judicial law. This means understanding that an action should not always be illegal simply because it is immoral. For example, bringing the entirety of Christian sexual ethics into law would necessarily violate individual personal privacy.[28]
The Church can also be missional to the state by acting as a servant. As illustrated above, the Church can be tempted to idolize the state while serving it. This does not mean that the Church should not serve the state, but instead means that the Church should serve the state properly. Larry B. Jones points the Church, particularly Christian non-governmental organizations, to the example of Daniel. Daniel acted as a servant to the state but stood firm in his commitment to God when the state contradicted Him.[29] The Church will illustrate humility by acting as a servant to the state. Christians must be open to the fact that people who are not Christians may have better ideas.[30] When Christians are serving the state, it is important to realize that the state is responsible to all of its citizens. This means serving all people, regardless of religious belief.[31]
The Church can also be missional to the state by confrontation when the state does not fulfill its role. The Church must watch the state. While the state is God’s servant, it is not perfect.[32] Dana Wilbanks argues:
When
the state serves the purposes ordained by God, Christians are to cooperate with
the state in their realization. But when
the state acts in ways contrary to these purposes or, even more seriously,
systematically and persistently violates God's righteousness, Christians are
called to posture criticism and even, on occasion, resistance.[33]
The most direct way that Christians can confront the state is by
speaking. Like all citizens in a
democracy, Christians have a right to speak.
We must speak out when people are treated unjustly. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “We are called
to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, and
for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these
humans any less our brothers."[34] The
weak undoubtedly exist and have no voice of their own. As long as the Church has a voice, it must
use it to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves. God is the God of both the weak and the
powerful.[35]
How does the Church in Canada respond to hungry, homeless, addicted, and illiterate Canadians? Certainly the Church must be missional directly to those in immediate need of help. Direct action, however, should include supporting others who are serving the same groups, even if the state is among these servants. Within proper parameters, this means the Church must be missional to the state. Although the state and the Church are different and have different purposes, they can be powerful allies in certain circumstances. When the Church pushes the state to care for the disenfranchised, the Church is missional not only to the state, but also to the “least of these”.
How does the Church in Canada respond to hungry, homeless, addicted, and illiterate Canadians? Certainly the Church must be missional directly to those in immediate need of help. Direct action, however, should include supporting others who are serving the same groups, even if the state is among these servants. Within proper parameters, this means the Church must be missional to the state. Although the state and the Church are different and have different purposes, they can be powerful allies in certain circumstances. When the Church pushes the state to care for the disenfranchised, the Church is missional not only to the state, but also to the “least of these”.
Notes
[1] Daniel Guder, et. al. Missional Church. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998), 11 – 12.
[2] John Stott. The Cross of Christ. (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2006),
298.
[3] Abraham Kuyper. "The Religious Roots of Political
Liberties." In The Crown of
Christian Heritage, ed. Stone Lectures (New Dehli: Nivedit Good Books,
1994), 75 – 77.
[4] Stott, Cross, 299-300.
[5] Kuyper, Liberties, 86.
[6] Oliver O'Donovan. The Desire of the Nations. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996), 251.
[7] N. T. Wright. Surprised BY
Hope. (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 264 – 265.
[8] Glen H. Stassen and David P.
Gushee. Kingdom Ethics. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003),
473.
[9] George Weigel. The Cube and the Cathedral. (Downer Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 122
– 123.
[10] Dennis P. Hollinger. Choosing the Good. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),253.
[11] Allan K. Davidson. "Chaplain to the Nation or Prophet at
the Gate?" In Christianity and
Modern Culture, ed. John Stenhouse (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2005), 311.
[12] Hollinger, Choosing, 254.
[13] O’Donovan, Desire, 256.
[14] Stott, Cross, 301
[15] John G. Stackhouse Jr. Making
the Best of It. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008), 224.
[16] Ibid., 355.
[17] Ibid., 264
[18] Marguerite Van Die. "Introduction." In Religion and Public Life in Canada,
ed. Marguerite Van Die (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001),
14.
[19] Weigel, Cube, 114.
[20] Wright, Hope, 266 – 267.
[21] Weigel, Cube, 92.
[22] John Howard Yoder, “How H. Richard
Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of Christ and Culture,” in Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, ed.
Glen H. Stassen, D. M. Yeager and John Howard Yoder, (Nashville: Abingdon,
1996), 69.
[23] Stott, Cross, 299-300.
[24] Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr. "Nonviolence and Social
Change." In The Lost Massey
Lectures, ed. CBC Massey Lecture Series (Scarborough: House of Anansi
Press, 2007), 204.
[25] Stassen and Gushee, Ethics, 479
[26] Mark Hill. "Church-State Relations and Social
Welfare in Europe," The Review of
Faith & International Affairs 7:3 (2009): 27 – 31.
[27] Larry B. Jones.
"Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe," The Review of Faith & International
Affairs 3:2 (2005), 32.
[28] Hollinger, Choosing, 253 – 254.
[29] Jones, Europe, 34.
[30] Stackhouse, Best, 167.
[31] Van Die, Introduction, 13.
[33] Dana Wilbanks. "The Church as Sign and Agent of
Transformation." In The Church's
Public Role, ed. Dieter T. Hessel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993),
35.
[34] Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr. "Conscience and the Vietnam
War." In The Lost Massey
Lectures, ed. CBC Massey Lecture Series (Scarborough: House of Anansi
Press, 2007), 180.
[35] Stassen and Gushee, Ethics, 478.
No comments:
Post a Comment