How should the Christian function as a prophet to the State, and even herself? I find this account of Barth’s answer to this question, provided by Paul Metzger, instructive:
[T]hus, as stated above, the church should resist any temptation to attempt to impose its will on the state. Now why is this? The reason is that when the church demands privileges and an audience in the secular sphere it forgets its own vocation and that of the state as well, thereby abandoning its freedom in the process. “Whenever the church has entered the political arena to fight for its claim to be given public recognition, it has always been a church which has failed to understand the special purpose of the state,an impenitent, spiritually unfree church.”
Now if the Church were to demand that the state accept its Word, would not the church in effect displace the state? If so, how could the church continue to serve God and the state in a nonpartisan way? Its word would then be bound, not free. Only as a church remains a spiritual institution will it have secular, political responsibilities, namely, those of exemplifying the ideals of the kingdom to the state and proclaiming God’s Word of the kingdom to the state. However, the reverse is not the case. If the church functions as a secular institution, it will forfeit its responsibilities in a sacred sphere.
The church must call on the state to listen to its Word, the Word of the kingdom, since the message of the kingdom concerns the state. But it must not demand that the state listen. The church must not use force, the instrument of the state, imposing its message on its hearers, but must seek to persuade its addressees of the need to receive its message through reasoned argument alone in the event of Christian proclamation, appealing to the state to take to heart its word rather than compelling the state to do so. The church must not demand but discuss, not presume upon but reason, appealing to the state to take its claims to heart, claims not about the centrality of the church, but about the centrality of the kingdom which both church and state are parts. Now if in God’s providential workings the state bestows on the church certain benefits and rights, even taking the church’s message to heart, the church must not come to expect such benefits, rights, and respect as irrevocable, permanent privileges, which must be preserved at all costs, but rather as gifts from God’s hand, gifts which may last but for a season. (Paul Louis Metzger, “The Word of Christ And The World of Culture: Toward a Synthesis Of the Sacred and Secular in the Theology of Karl Barth,”[dissertation form] 225-227 )
Trying to apply this to history.
1. So Rome must not try to force Henry VIII not to divorce and re-marry, but only persuade.
2. For Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads to sieze the government and destroy the Nobility and English Catholicism was a malfeasance of the Gospel.
3. For the Church to be recognized by the state as administers of the state’s authority of marriage is a blessing afforded it by the state and the Providence of God, but not to be expected.
4. As a state supports Catholic hospitals with some support, such as medicaid payments for services rendered to the indigent, if the state allows the hospital to select not to perform certain procedures, e.g. administer contraception, or perform abortions, then that is a blessing of the state and moreover of the Providence of God, but not to be demanded.
Comments:
1. Cool! Rome did believe itself to be Christ’s reign on Earth at that time, no?
2. Yeah, Cromwell was quasi-christian-stalinist (if I remember correctly). I don’t think Winston Churchill the Historian cared for him.
3. At this point the state can marry anybody it wants anyhow, and then tax them the better. I think maybe the best the church could do is divest itself of state marriage altogether. That way tax filers who are Church married, but not state married would get the same personal deduction as couples who are shacking up. This way the state could never demand that the church marry a man and his sheep.
4. Hmmm, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Rome’s Christian citizens paid taxes that were then used to support colliseum sports where their brothers, sisters, even children were murdered.
Well, I guess I agree. Still, a Catholic doctor or nurse or administrator can not administer procedures which defy their moral values. They must in conscience refuse. Then
a) the state would pull the plug on the hospital? They would refuse to pay medicaid reimbursements?
b)The Catholic Hospital would refuse medicaid patients?
c) They would close, leaving thousands of patients with fewer choices?
Overall, I think the argument is against Theocracy. And yes! Emphatically, I agree. More than at any time in my life. Until Jesus returns.
I also agree that a Christian theocracy is a bad idea. There is never a mandate from Christ to do so, and the Christian message, as I see it, does not lend itself well to state institutionalization. History is plenty full of examples of the Christian state doing as much harm as good. And I think that by keeping the Church out of the State it gives the Church freedom to be the Church instead of the state.
Ken,
Amen!
Indeed so-called Christian Socialism has been the bane of both Church and Theology! One can see this in the down-fall of the history of Anglicanism, sadly.
Fr Robert,
Do you think there is anything good that comes from Christian socialism? I mean there does seem to be some corollary between say the way Gollwitzer articulates his Christian Socialism (linked to at Travis’ site), and the kind of community we see taking place in Acts for example. I have often thought that Christianity, early on, and ideally parallels socialism. This is probably why Marx was called a Christian heretic; of course he was really more than that.
Bobby,
No, not really. I mean I am speaking in a ideal of goverment. And whatever the Church was in Acts, it certainly wasn’t government. The great democracy then of course was Rome! Personally, I don’t see any connection with real Christianity and socialism!
Pingback: Church and State « City Gates Theology
Fr Robert,
I was referring to “Christian Socialism” in reference to Acts. But yes, your point still stands since even Christian socialism represents a political theory.
Thank You Father Robert! I don’t believe the Church in Acts has anything to do with socialism whatsoever. What they did was voluntary, even on an individual level. To Ananias “while [the property] was your’s was it not your own? and after it was sold was not [the proceeds] under your own power?” [presumably to do with as he pleased]. To turn this into an injunction for state central planning for distribution of wealth is utter fantacy.
To what extent is the Church to seek redress for grievances against the state? Surely to preserve Church property. Certainly to preserve the freedom of the Church to be the Church. I would add that the Church should work to influence the government where life and safety are clearly at stake. One may argue that a high population area is no place to build a nuclear power facility. Certainly, we should fight (broken record alert!) for the weakest, of the weak: those who have no voice of their own. But where is OWS regarding laws that forbid one from even sharing the Gospel within 100 feet an abortion clinic? Oh that’s right, we save the Gospel for after we’ve gotten people into church, don’t we Kenny? What concern does liberation theology have that abortion disproportionately victimizes people of African heritage, and by a wide margin?
The Church had a clear call to stand against the atrocities if the 3rd Reich, and Stalinism. But by then, it was largely too late. The Church had already lost her parogative.
Certainly, if an individual Christian feels called to work for one political faction or another, because they believe that party represents the closest thing to the correct stance, then such a Christian is free in the Spirit to do so. I just personally believe that if you think moving toward socialism is going to help, you’re either wack, or very poorly informed. Europe is quickly heading down the Mediteranean loo. Socialistic Greece will not be able feed herself, much less help her neighbors. She is going to need maybe hundreds of billions to stay solvent, just to feed people, if they can’t get credit to pay people, because they couldn’t possibly pay it back. Italy Spain and France are in trouble too. That means that the more productive northern states have to bail these out with HUGE bailouts to keep these states and the financial institutions who have bought their bonds solvent.
Or the northern states can cut the Med loose, cut their losses, and try to earn back the losses on their own. All of this by the way, impacts everyone of you in your 401k if you have any exposure to foreign capital. Bottom line: There is no more money. It is all gone. You can print more bank notes to an extent, diluting the value of each note out there, devaluing your mother’s retirement (not to mention your own). You can confiscate all of the wealth from the uber rich and throw it at financial institutions and bureaucrats. That will not work, because the bureaucrats will just use it to up the ante. But stick a fork in it. It’s all over.
Your move.