The theology of the Church in the presence of the State

The relationship of the church to the state has always been one of a precarious nature.  Ever since Jesus utter the words “give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s”[1] in the twenty second chapter of Matthew, the church has been divided apropos the meaning and application of the text.  On the one hand theologians have argued that the body of Christ is to be actively engaged in civic and econo-political life; however, even these theologians differ with regard to the appropriate degree and formulae of social and public praxis.  Conversely, a number of theologians (taking their cue from the dialogue that occurs between Pilate and Jesus in the Gospel of John 18:33-38) have also argued that the “Kingdom of God” exists in an entirely separate sphere from terrestrial governing bodies and imperial entities.  These theologians often look at Christ’s commandment to “render unto Caesar” as an example of Jesus’ skillful use of esoteric teaching, implicitly teaching that in reality everything belongs to God and so there is nothing left to give to the emperor.  Though these two theolo-political perspectives do not represent the full spectral array of Christian political philosophy, their position at the margins of the spectrum allows them to be instructive and provide challenges to the more normative perspectives.  Theologians of the former persuasion will be examined first, as this ordering allows for an easy comparison between the two aforementioned perspectives.

There have been a number of contemporary theologians and church leaders that have argued for active ecclesial engagement with secular political power.  These theological scholars and clergy have often been attracted to divergent and even conflicting arenas of political engagement.  Similarly, this “body” of theologians also differs regarding the appropriate level of political involvement prescribed for the “body of Christ.”  Generally, the spectrum of theo-political engagement is reflective of secular civic participation. 

            Latin American liberation theologians can be counted among those that argue for radical political engagement.  The main task proposed by liberation theology and its proponents is the revolutionary restructuring of society in order to address the material necessities of the poor and, as Jose Miranda argues in his labourious text Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression, the spiritual sustenance of the wealthy and politically powerful.[2]  A majority of liberation theologians see systemic, global capitalism as the main obstacle to the realization of the principles of God’s kingdom within an earthly context.  Individuals may “sin,” or do harm to one another, but “Sin” proper is more often the result of the social and political edifice of the consumer capitalist superstructure.  Miranda clarifies this position stating, “[i]njustice is more a work of the social machinery, of the system of [capitalist] civilization and culture, than it is of people’s intentions.”[3]  This position is also embraced and made more explicitly political by the liberation theologian and scholar Pablo Richard.  In his essay, “Biblical Theology of Confrontation,” he develops the premise that Christians (whether they are formal scholars, members of the clergy, or lay believers) cannot engage with, or encounter the consumer capitalist nexus (which he refers to as a system of idolatry) without conflict:

In these times it is impossible to seek the God of Jesus Christ without coming directly face to face with the idols and fetishes of the dominant system.  Christians can theologically analyze the question of God only from a political perspective that confronts the religious system of modern capitalism.  The poor can seek the visage of the real God only by working within a political praxis of liberation.  Likewise, the class struggle has been transformed into a struggle of the God of Jesus Christ against the Olympus of the gods of the capitalist system.[4]

Upon cursory inspection it should be readily apparent that the proponents of liberation theology view capitalism as a deterrent to authentic Christian worship and praxis; however, liberation theo-political scholars do not simply recommend non-participation in the market as the Christian solution.  On the contrary, most liberation theologians advocate a radical restructuring of the socio-economic order, which most often includes a revolutionary engagement with the main guardian of the market (the visible arm of the market to borrow and paraphrase a term developed by Adam Smith): the state.  Within the context of his book A Theology of Liberation, Gustavo Gutiérrez emphasizes the fact that liberation theology is “a theology which does not limit itself to think the world, but which attempts to place itself as a moment of the process through which the world is transformed.”[5]  Here, one finds Gutiérrez appropriating Karl Marx dictum: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various way; the point, however, is to change it.”[6]  Radical engagement, coalescing in the form of a revolutionary challenge apropos the political economy of the status quo is best expressed by Jose Miguez Bonino.  In the text Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Bonino argues that while Christians may chose different methods of confrontation with the unjust state (nonviolent resistance vs. physical conflict) , they must side with the oppressed in their task of liberation:

A Christian ethics cannot take refuge in the subjective appeal to “my conscience” or satisfy itself with a readiness to suffer violence without resistance.  For it is not our life or comfort as Christians which is at stake – at this point the Christian community can only follow the road of the cross – but the life and humanity of our neighbor.  Certainly Christians in the struggle for liberation will witness to their faith – as well as to the ultimate goal of the revolution – by insisting on counting carefully the cost of violence, by fighting against all idolization of destruction and the destructive spirit of hate and revenge, by attempting to humanize the struggle, by keeping in mind that beyond victory there must be reconciliation and construction.  But they cannot block through Christian scruples the road clearly indicated by a lucid assessment of the situation.  Even less can they play the game of reaction lending support to those who are profiting from present violence or weakening through sentimental pseudo-Christian slogans (however well meaning) the will among the oppressed to fight for their liberation.[7]

Having examined the position of liberation theology, and establishing its advocacy of radical political engagement, it is necessary to look at several of the theologians who place themselves on the opposite side of the civic participatory spectrum.  These theological scholars put forward the position that, rather than participate in revolutionary upheaval, Christians are expected to establish alternative social constructs within the context of the existing socio-political order.  The theologian and religious scholar Greg Carey clarifies this position in his treatise “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script.”  In this article Carey argues that while the book of Revelation is an anti-imperial text par excellence, it does not promote revolutionary incursions against the imperial powers of injustice.  On the contrary, Revelation invites the “body of believers” to establish an alternative social order while waiting for the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.[8]

Vernard Eller, the late Church of the Brethren minister and former professor of religion at the University of La Verne, also held the position that Christians were meant to be the genesis of a new type of society.  He affirmed the concept that, while Christians are supposed to radically resist the power of the earthly state in matters of injustice and ultimate loyalty, they are not to do so through violent or coercive revolutionary means.  Eller’s view of the Christian’s radical resistance to imperial and state authority is centered on the reality of the fundamental uniqueness of Christian ethical and social praxis.  The Christian resists the state’s power by virtue of being transformed into an alien entity in relation to the dominant norms and mores of the social context within which the (s)he finds her/himself.  Eller develops this idea in his classic text War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation, creating an analogy that compares the presence of the Christian community in secular society with the presence of an emetic in the bowels of a poison-laden stomach:

The consequence of taking an emetic is that the stomach is thrown into the convulsion (revolution) of vomiting; but in a very real sense this is not the emetic’s doing.  All in the world it does is refuse to be assimilated; it remains the “indigestibility” it is.  The stomach actually brings convulsion on itself through its effort at making this foreign substance conform to its gastric terms.  Truly, it is by ignoring both the poison and the stomach that the emetic has its curative effect of getting the poison disgorged…Just so, the Christian approach of defenseless nonconformity is more radical than what usually passes as radicalism today…Here then is the sense in which defenseless love gains the victory that overcomes the world and purges it of evil.  True – yes, very true – the emetic gets itself vomited out along with the poison (this is the way of the cross); but for the Christian emetic there is a resurrection that puts it back into business.[9]

If this statement does not provide one with enough clarity in relation to Eller’s view of the relationship betwixt the church body and the body politic a simple quote from another of his texts, Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy over the Powers, should suffice to do so: “What it comes to is that theology and politics are controlled by two different orders of truth…every attempt at mixture creates complete confusion.”[10]

            When placed in juxtaposition these two theological perspectives create in interesting aporia, or space of suspended tension.  Proponents of both positions can neither claim to exhaust the possibilities of Christian theo-political activity, nor can they claim to have the final say on the appropriate attitudinal position which the Christian must adopt with respect to the current ordo seclorum.  With regard to these distinct religious and civic positions, however, their import lies in their extremity.  Due to the fact that liberation theology and antinomian, or anarchic theology reside on the margins of the political praxis debate, they are in the position to provide the more normative theological schools of thought with numerous and pertinent challenges.  In recognition of this reality it is imperative to have at least a cursory understanding of these opposing viewpoints.

Sources Cited

The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version

Bonino, Jose Miguez Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)

Carey, Greg “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script,” in In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008)

Eller, Vernard War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation (Kitchener, Ontario: Herald Press, 1981)

Eller, Vernard Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy over the Powers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1987)

Gutiérrez, Gustavo A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1973)

Marx, Karl “Theses on Feurerbach,” in Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1959)

Miranda, José Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1974)

Richard, Pablo “Biblical Theology of Confrontation” in The Idols of Death and the God of Life (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983)

---

[1] The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Matt. 22:21

[2] José Miranda, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1974), xi.

[3] Miranda, Marx and the Bible, xi.

[4] Pablo Richard, “Biblical Theology of Confrontation” in The Idols of Death and the God of Life (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983), 4.

[5] Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1973), 15.

[6] Karl Marx, “Theses on Feurerbach,” in Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1959), 245.

[7] Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 128.

[8] Greg Carey, “The Book of Revelation as Counter-Imperial Script,” in In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 157-176.

[9] Vernard Eller, War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation (Kitchener, Ontario: Herald Press, 1981), 211-212.

[10] Vernard Eller, Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy over the Powers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1987), 170.