A Biblical View of the State
October 28th, 2009 § 9 Comments
by Matthew Raley
The question we opened last week is whether evangelicals should continue to identify with conservatives.
This is first a theological question, not a political or social one. Evangelicals should not answer it from their cultural reflexes, but from what the Bible teaches. We need to integrate our loyalties as Americans and as followers of Christ by a renewed theology of citizenship.
I think an inquiry along this line starts with what the Bible teaches about the state.
The Bible does not prescribe a particular form for the state, treating the state in whatever earthly form as a God-ordained institution with stewardship over the civic affairs. God holds officers of state accountable for conduct in justice (including the punishment of violence, theft, and economic fraud and abuse) and warfare.
In the Mosaic law, human functions of state are divided amongst tribes and cities, going back to the system Moses implemented in Exodus 18.13-27. The tribes were assigned territories and governed themselves separately (Joshua 13-21). Thus the nation of Israel from its founding was a confederation, not a centralized human kingdom. Politically, it was a literal theocracy, formalized by a suzerain-vassal treaty (the Sinai covenant, says Deuteronomy 33.1-5).
The law is particularly strong in dividing the state from the priesthood. The Levites had charge of everything related to the worship of the Lord, as well as the enforcement of the ritual laws. The strongest indication of this division is Lord’s choice to take the tribe of Levi as his priestly possession, rather than all first-born sons spread through the tribes (Numbers 3.40-51). Worship was assigned to an group independent of all other loyalties.
The law prepares for but does not mandate a human king, sharply limiting his powers (Deuteronomy 17.14-20). The law and the judge Samuel are explicit that tyranny in the taking of property and in state aggrandizement is a form of evil (1 Samuel 8.10-22).
When a king is appointed by God, he is first from Benjamin (Saul), then from Judah (David), prohibiting the king from the priestly functions that belonged to Levi. Saul crossed this boundary, offering a sacrifice on his own authority, and the Lord’s verdict was that Saul would have no dynasty (1 Samuel 13.8-14).
David understood this separation thoroughly, and the reasoning of statecraft behind it. If worship is strengthened and preserved outside the state’s power, it becomes a source of moral and spiritual nourishment for the people. As such, the institutions of worship bring health to the culture, and serve to reform the state when it becomes tyrannical. So David devoted his reign to the reform, organization, and institutional longevity of the Levitical priesthood (1 Chronicles 22-26). As a result, the priesthood was a source of strength for the reforming kings in Judah throughout the rest of its history.
I draw two principles from these texts. First, authority over civil affairs is best divided among many institutions. This serves to check the evil of tyranny. Second, the state has the duty to preserve the separation of worship institutions. The state must not take over the sphere of worship.
Such was the design of the theocracy for Israel, which had specific purposes in redemption history. The biblical flexibility on forms of state more generally can be seen in a couple of ways.
God’s people showed that they could serve in pagan states. They did this by showing administrative prowess, just decisions, and refusal to yield points of worship to the pagan kings. Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41) and Daniel in Babylon (Daniel 1-2) are preeminent examples.
In the New Testament, the most prized aspect of the Roman state was the freedom and peace it gave, so that Christians could bear witness and grow without persecution (1 Timothy 2.1-7). The church saw the restraint of the Roman state in matters of spirituality as an advantage.
So the role of the state in the Bible is primarily negative: to preserve order against crime (Romans 13.1-7). This is because the Bible sees the actual rule of a nation in the conduct of the people themselves. The ethics of the people set the destiny of the nation.
One thing seems clear to me. The vision of the American religious right that government can be a source of righteousness for the people is not in agreement with biblical teaching. I don’t think anyone can plausibly deny that this is their vision. They have leaped too quickly and too often from the “If my people” verse to a call to elect this or that Republican. Further, the vision of the religious left that national righteousness is dependent on passage of the latest welfare scheme (“Budgets are moral documents,” etc, etc) is the same exact error in the opposite political direction.
In the context of biblical teaching, the actions of local churches are far more important in promoting ethics and justice in America than the actions of the state.
One thing I have never understood is why so many evangelical activists follow the Republican line on economic issues. For “values” issues, it makes sense. But from whence in the Bible do they find support for lower taxes, smaller government, no government role in health care, no regulation of utilities, etc.?
Thus, Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. Seems to me that believers would rest securely in not being aligned to a political party.
@thoughtbasket, great question. I don’t think most evangelicals have thought through those issues biblically. With many of the issues, like regulation of utilities, we’re pretty far out in a chain of inferences from any biblical passages. So anytime somebody claims the Bible supports their policy favorite, I pretty much chuck it.
The main biblical material on the state, some of which I’ve outlined above, broadly permits what conservatives call a limited government. What I want to do is help evangelicals step back from reflexive partisanship and craft a biblical view of citizenship. The Bible has a lot to say about poverty, for instance, both as it is produced by oppression and as it is caused by folly or sloth. A Christian citizen should be as nuanced as the Bible he claims to believe, and he should be the first to act where poverty is an issue.
Where does the free market stance really come from? Honestly, the small business person is very common among evangelicals. This person’s response to government has less to do with conservative politics than with inspectors, state and county officials, and city staff. Not many positive interactions there. Small business people have an identical response to corporate America: fury. And no one will ever convince them that government is their friend against big business.
I think this perspective is valid, but insufficient.
You have a great blog, by the way!
“The vision of the American religious right (is) that government can be a source of righteousness for the people.” Rather than attempt to deny it, I would suggest you find a conservative Christian leader who actually affirms that position. I would generally say I have seen myself as a conservative Christian, I’ve voted for conservative candidates, and favor the Constitution and free-market capitalism. However, I do not expect the government to be a source of righteousness. To the contrary, I expect our government to be lead by fallible and sometimes evil men, people whom most of us will never know well enough to have a very clear sense of their character.
I agree that the Church ought to be the source of wisdom and spiritual insight, such that issues like abortion would rest more on the wise judgments of people than on whether abortion is legal. Still I question that we should ignore the aggressive efforts of many who seek to institutionalize anti-morality to the point of making our efforts illegal.
That said, I agree with 95% or more of what you have written. Thanks.
Roger,
To be sure, I can’t think of conservative Christian leader who would say theologically that the government can be a source of righteousness. But a good many of them use the argument that God is judging the nation for unrighteousness (e.g. 9-11 and Jerry Falwell) that they see as state sponsored. Many others have a dominion theology that teaches we bring about the Kingdom of Christ through political action. Colson, I think, is a good example of this.
For the average evangelical, these kinds of statements significantly confuse the theological issues and suggest that the road to righteousness is through legal and political action. I hear this kind of talk among church-goers all the time.
However, taking legal-political action to preserve our liberty as churches in this nation is definitely what we should be doing. We just shouldn’t have illusions that by opposing gay marriage, let’s say, we’re making the nation more righteousness or returning it to a righteousness it lost.
[...] various aspects of the conservative movement, we have surveyed the Bible’s teachings about the state, about work, property, and profit, and about the unity of [...]
[...] agreement in priorities between biblical teaching and the conservative movement. The Bible’s view of the state, many of its economic teachings, its command to honor parents, and its examples of national loyalty [...]
[...] week, we surveyed the Bible’s view of the state in general, finding that government is set up by God for a nation’s justice and security, and that [...]
[...] Anglo-American traditionalism of the Burkean variety does not put up with abstract principles. Genuine social conservatism says, “The state must deal with the culture it actually governs, not the theoretical culture it desires.” The ethics and ways of the people rule the nation. This is not only the view of conservatives from Burke to Eliot, it is the basic view of the state taught in the Bible. [...]