Church and State

How are church and state similar, and how are they different? Why is it important to distinguish between the two? Should we love the church? Should we love our country? There are many ways to answer these questions, but I would like to approach it from the point of view of covenant.

Biblical covenants are primarily composed of three aspects. They began with ah historical introduction, followed by mutual obligations and commitments, and ending a solemn ceremony of ratification of the covenant. In the Old Testament, the historical foundation was the escape from Egypt and entrance into Canaan. The mutual obligations was the Law, and the solemn ceremony was animal sacrifices and a meal such as the Passover. In the New Testament, the historical foundation was the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The mutual obligation is the new law of love, and the ratification of the covenant is the Eucharist.

The notion of covenant can also be applied to the United States. The foundational history of the United States was the arrival of the settlers, the revolutionary war, and the conquest and settlement of the country. The law is the civil law of our country which enshrines the values inherent in the original conquest and settlement. The civil covenant is ratified through such actions as the pledge of allegiance, Fourth of July celebrations, our national anthem, presidential inaugurals, and so forth.

The critical difference between church and state can be seen in their histories. The church was established by the cross and resurrection. The cross was Jesus' final renunciation. That renunciation began in the desert where he was tempted by the desires of his body (hunger), the need for land and wealth (Luke's second temptation), and the need for religious validation (the third temptation). By contrast, the early history of the United States was the realization of each of the devil's suggestions the desire for a better material existence, the need for territory (the robbing of the Indians), and finally, these two impulses were cloaked by the religious justification of manifest destiny. From these two different histories follow two ethics, the one of sacrificial love, the other, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

In many ways, we in the United States are quite fortunate. We struggle to maintain certain positive values, freedom, equality before, the law, and the recognition that the purpose of government is to serve. I have lived in other countries and have seen the terrible consequences of ignoring these norms.

We need, however, to keep the differences between church and state clearly in mind. Nowhere, at least nowhere that I have been able to find, does Scripture command us to love our country. The people of God are an exile people. Our homeland, as Paul says, is in heaven. Our Lord may secretly rule over the state, but he was also "crucified under Pontius Pilate." That was not an accident. The best service Christians can do the state is to obey its laws and respect it when it fulfills its function of justice (Romans 13), or prophecy against it when it begins to claim our love (Revelation 13).

I write these words for two reasons. First, I think there is a real danger that our country, as the world's only superpower, will impose a "Pax Americana," and that this regime will involve the kind of self-serving military actions that can be found in our history. It has already begun. Secondly, I believe we are called to love the Lord our God, and also to love the church. The church is the body of Christ. We are to love her gospel, her Eucharist, her hope, her people, and above all, her Lord. That means forming upon earth a community of people who are willing to live according to the way of Jesus, and not the way of the world.

Plenteous Harvest, September, 1993.

Comment

It has always amazed me that conservatives, who take the Bible seriously, seemed incapable of recognizing that Scripture does not validate the United States of America. Major aspects of our economic system, our frequent undeclared wars, invasions, police actions, and kidnappings, do not reflect biblical norms. As soon as this idea is launched, it is immediately assumed by the conservative reader that one is a socialist in economics and a pacifist in foreign policy. No, these matters are spiritual discerned. Some wars, in my view, are legitimate, and others are now. In my view, the United States lacked courage in Nicaragua, was illegal and immoral in Panama, and brutal in Vietnam, to name only a few.

When the Sandinistas took over in Nicaragua, I saw nothing wrong with allowing them their socialist experiment. That tiny country posed no threat to our country, nor did its economic experiment. Rather than allowing them to determine their own destiny, the United States imposed an economic blockade and fomented a brutal civil war that has left their country in shambles. In regard to Panama, I can only imagine what would have happened if the Panamanian army had suddenly arrived on our soil and kidnapped our president. Even if he had been a common criminal, we would have considered it illegal and immoral. In regard to Vietnam, it was, among other things, the result of an anticommunist hysteria that could not distinguish between a war for national liberation and a communist world plot.

The fear of communism, however, was based on something more fundamental, the fear of the North American upper class that their wealth and power might be taken from them. But wealth and power were exactly what the devil offered Jesus, and had he accepted the offer, the devil would have seen to it that Jesus was involved in some form of killing before it was over. It is shameful for members of the body of Christ to love their country more than they love their Lord and his body the church.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
1993.