The State and Christianity

[JoeM]

Okay, the brief summary is that I can't resolve my faith with my views on international politics.

It seems to me that as a Christian I view all people as equal, but that the state necessarily divides the world into those who are citizens and those who are not and treats them accordingly.

How can I support the existance of the State and be a Christian?

I tend to a view of all faith that it is a personal relationship with God, but it seems hypocritical to practise isolationism at the state level and charity on a personal level.

On a similar level, interventionism necessitates the threat of violence and war, which I also cannot countenance.


One resolution would be to realise is how God wants humanity to organise itself.

However, that still begs the question of how to work towards that goal through Christian values...

Or is the existance of the State itself against God's will?

 

[El_Machinae]

Render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

[JoeM]

This was in response to a direct question on taxes.

I don't think it applies to the State, existance or behaviour of.

In those days you merely paid your taxes, you didn't have a say in what Caesar did.

 

[El_Machinae]

You think it was specifically about taxes? What did Jesus say about following Roman laws that were in addition to Talmud laws?

 

[JoeM]

@El_
I don't know - please enlighten me.


I seem to be able to find a lot of material on state politics and Christianity, but not the consequence of the existance of multiple states. Or is the presumption that only one should exist?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I can't comment on the Christianity aspect, but as someone whose morals also require me to reject anything that holds people to be unequal, I've also had to examine my view of the state, and as far as I'm concerned the answer is simple.

The state is one the most unethical concepts man has ever dreamt up and should be abolished immediately. To conclude otherwise would be to betray your stated belief that all are equal.

 

[JoeM]

The state is one the most unethical concepts man has ever dreamt up and should be abolished immediately. To conclude otherwise would be to betray your stated belief that all are equal.

Well, this was what I thought when first addressing the question, but simply dissolving government would lead to a worse situation.

It would seem that either a single planet-wide state be brought about or the dissolution of all institutions and organizations.

Neither seem all that practical.

 

[classical_hero]

You think it was specifically about taxes? What did Jesus say about following Roman laws that were in addition to Talmud laws?

God gave us human government so they can make our lives o much easier. This is how the Christian should react towards Governments.
Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

1 Peter 2:13-17 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Clearly these passages say that we should be submissive towards. Thus as a Christian one must be supportive of the Government up to a point.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

That point is when your are told not to preach the Gospel any more. If any government tried to sttop me from doing that, then I woul go to prision for that if I had to. This verse is so abused that most people take it out of context and say that just about any excuse is one that they can disobey Government. It is only once a Government steps over this line of stopping people from preaching the Gospel, then we are to obey God rather than man, since he is way more important.

Also about the "Thou Shalt not Kill" command in the Bible. This is clearly refering to Murder and if you look at more modern version you will see that it is translated as murder.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Well, this was what I thought when first addressing the question, but simply dissolving government would lead to a worse situation.

It would seem that either a single planet-wide state be brought about or the dissolution of all institutions and organizations.

Neither seem all that practical.

I have no issue with governance, just with a system that says one person is worth more than another because of where they are born (or their lineage, depending on the state).

A single planet-wide government, in some shape or form, seems to me to be the only moral solution, and I see no reason why this would not be practical. I don't imagine it will happen in my lifetime, but that is irrelevant when considering what is and isn't moral. In the meantime I'll just do what little I can to support internationalism.

 

[JoeM]

Well remeber that this single state would have to have popular sovereignty from all corners and cultures of the world - even the long lost pygmie tribes would have to have a vote - it may be possible, but I'd say improbable.

Maybe given time globalisation will connect all societies which would at least provide a framework for it.

 

[ArneHD]

There is christian anarchy.

 

[JoeM]

Yes, but how would that really be achieved? Certainly not now.

Howabout achieving a single state first - so that all the necessary values are universally respected, then dissolving the state to leave anarchy?


All sounds a little bit like a plot for a James Bond film to me.

 

[EdwardTking]

Okay, the brief summary is that I can't resolve my faith with my views on international politics.

It seems to me that as a Christian I view all people as equal, but that the state necessarily divides the world into those who are citizens and those who are not and treats them accordingly.

How can I support the existance of the State and be a Christian?

I tend to a view of all faith that it is a personal relationship with God, but it seems hypocritical to practise isolationism at the state level and charity on a personal level.

On a similar level, interventionism necessitates the threat of violence and war, which I also cannot countenance.


One resolution would be to realise is how God wants humanity to organise itself.

However, that still begs the question of how to work towards that goal through Christian values...

Or is the existance of the State itself against God's will?

Joe.


The way I see it.


Question: How do you eat an elephant?

Answer: You eat it in mouthfuls.


Question: How do you organise government for six billion people?

Answer: You organise it in managable accountable units:


e.g worldwide security - by the UN (or a better successor)
e.g. sub-continents - by federal states or unions (EU, India, USA)
e.g. large areas - by countries or States e,g, France, Texas
e.g. smaller areras - by counties or precincts.

The existence of states is therefore merely practical and is not immoral or against God's wills.

Of course the behaviour of the people in those states and those states is another question?

 

[JoeM]

Of course the behaviour of the people in those states and those states is another question?

I think it's part of the same question. If it is logically imperative that the State, through it's military arm, forces people to commit sin how can the existance of state be countenanced?


I want to avoid the argument over the commandments, legal homicide and war if we can. Let's just assume my position which is that if God is Love he can't be condoning war.

 

[EdwardTking]

I think it's part of the same question. If it is logically imperative that the State, through it's military arm, forces people to commit sin how can the existance of state be countenanced?

I want to avoid the argument over the commandments, legal homicide and war if we can. Let's just assume my position which is that if God is Love he can't be condoning war.

Some states get by without initiating aggressive wars against others.

e.g Sri Linka, Iceland

Are you referring to being required by law to pay taxes for US military?

 

[Truronian]

While not Christian, I have the same moral objections to the concept of states as you do; states by their very nature promote inequality. I'm of the opinion that the solution is gradual trantition towards a global state. Of course, any such transition has to occur naturally for it to hold any chance of success, and we as a race are not ready yet. Inequality (in this form) seems to be something we must put up with, for now.

 

[JoeM]

Well then I'll campaign for a one state world then. Seems to be the consensus.


So how does that come about without intervention?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think the state divides people into taxpayers (those who are compelled to maintain the cost of the state) and nontaxpayers, but then gives some of the benefits of being a taxpayer to citizens who don't pay taxes. Everyone is represented by a state, and fortunately we have one of the better ones (despite its myriad flaws, consider some of the alternatives). As we live in a world full of humans, naturally it happens that we need to be compelled to pay for national security; and naturally, some of this money is used instead for foreign misadventures. But remember, the tax paid to Caesar was also used to invade and conquer Rome's neighbors.

 

[Samson]

Well then I'll campaign for a one state world then. Seems to be the consensus.


So how does that come about without intervention?

That is what I hope for. I can imagine it comeing about in muchg the same way that the EU is growing and coming closer to a single state.

It needs people with the vision and energy to bring it about though, and a LOT more understanding between different people. 1 lifetime is probably not enough time, but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Brighteye]

Why does the belief that all men are equal contradict the essence of a democratic state?
Democracies give equal membership to all citizens; their are no longer different levels of citizenship. Thus all men are treated equally by the state, just as all men are equal in the sight of God.
What is the problem with foreign states?
Having our own state does not demand that we regard foreign states in a certain manner. We can accept them or condemn them as we choose.

If you regard citizenship of a state as a quality that stops people being equal in the sight of God, then you need to divest yourself of your bias about that state. Being a citizen is not a moral position. I and a citizen of somewhere else are not unequal; we are still free agents, but simply in different places.

I could divide people of the world into those with black hair and those without, but I would not be affecting their status as equals; they are different. It is the same for citizenship.