When Christians Govern
I
am a Christian. Thus, as a Christian I
try to implement the teachings of Jesus in my life. That is, when Jesus
teaches us how to act or react, or the sort of attitudes we are supposed to
have, I think as a Christian I should try to follow these teachings. At least I
should make that my aim. Thus when Jesus condemns lust or hate or racism
I take that as a signal that I should avoid these sins. And when Jesus
recommends humility, gentleness and love I think I’m supposed to try to live
this way. I can’t imagine a person who claims to be a follower of Christ
who wouldn’t agree with this. Thus I
think the idea of asking the “WWJD question” is a good thing.
I
also think that Christians should try to implement the teachings of Jesus
organizationally and communally. While it is admittedly more
complex I think that the teachings of Jesus ought to influence more than our
personal and private lives. I think
they have something to say to churches and Christian institutions as well. For instance, if a church wants to fire their
youth pastor I don’t think they ought to do so while ignoring the teachings of
Jesus. Same for a church who wants to
remove an ineffective Sunday school teacher.
I don’t want to limit the teachings of Jesus just to individuals—I think
these values should apply to individuals and all institutions and organizations
that claim to be Christian.
But,
what about when Christians govern? What happens when a Christian gets in control
of city, state or national government? Should a Christian President or
Senator attempt to base their decisions on the teachings of Jesus? Or do these teachings become irrelevant for
Christians leading government institutions?
I
want to make Jesus relevant to government. I want Christian
political leaders to try to follow the teachings of Jesus when they make
decisions. I know we do not have a “Christian nation” and government in this
country is essentially secular, but I’m not talking about establishing a
Christian nation—but about how a Christian might make decisions when they are
in charge. ON what values they make
these decisions. My answer to the
question of How Christians should govern is, “Christians ought to try insofar
as possible to base their decisions on the teachings of Jesus.
Thus
governing Christians, in my opinion they should ask “the H.W.J.G. question”—How
Would Jesus Govern? I want a Christian Emperor, or Christian King or
President to have mercy, show compassion, be generous, help the downtrodden and
establish justice and work for peace—the values Jesus taught. I don’t like the idea that a King might be
gentle, kind and loving to his family but he is completely free to rule as a
despot when it comes to the kingdom—“because nations can’t run like families.” I don’t want a Christian who becomes
President to check her Christian teachings at the door to the Oval Office and
use some other set of values for decision-making. I hope they’ll take
Christ’s values to the desk and cabinet table and let Christ lead them in their
decisions. It just makes sense to
me. I don’t like the idea of
compartmentalizing the teachings of Jesus Christ to personal life freeing up a
Christian leader to operate under some different value system.
I
think you’ll agree with me here won’t you? (You may not agree so
quickly by the end of this day.)
However,
while this is my position I recognize there is a powerful hermeneutical
argument against it. My position is attractive to most Christians at first glance
but is usually rejected on further thought.
So, before you nod too much in agreement, consider the argument against
my position: Here is how such an argument goes:
1. Jesus
spoke to an oppressed people and thus His teachings are applicable only to
similar contexts. Jesus’ teaching was given
to the Jews under the oppressive domination of Rome. He taught these
Jews how to respond to oppression. He
gave little help to a Christian Roman Emperor—there were none. Thus, Jesus his followers to turn the other
cheek when struck. He taught them when they were forced to carry a load
one mile to cheerfully offer to go a second mile. He taught they should
love their enemies and pray for them who despitefully used them. And, of
course, the apostle Paul chimed in to reinforce this sort of teaching. However in practicing good hermeneutics we
ought to consider the original situation before interpreting the Scriptures.
Jesus’ teachings on love, forgiveness and blessing enemies apply clearly to
people under oppression—but they have
little to say to Christians in power who are running governments. When
Christians get into power and run nations they must move beyond these
one-dimensional teachings of Jesus to an oppressed people to something more
elaborate and realistic.
2. Now it is true that early Christians took these
teachings seriously but as soon as Christians got into power they were quickly
abandoned. The first Christians did indeed feed the
hungry, clothe the poor, take in the homeless and care for widows and orphans.
They actually did turn their other cheek and refused to resist evil. They
sold possessions and gave the proceeds to help the needy. When they were
dragged before the lions they didn’t take up arms but prayed that God would
forgive the very people ordering these horrid acts. But it didn’t
last. Eventually the emperor himself
converted. The Christians were in
power. And once they got into power
they realized they couldn’t run an empire on the simple teachings of Jesus—they
needed something else a revised Christianity form the simple teachings of the
peasant of Nazareth.
Jesus’ teaching might be a nice way to run a
family—but it is a ridiculous way to run a country A nation cannot pray for its enemies or bless those who curse
them—they must be strong and defend themselves or they will get run over.
Consider how silly it would be to actually follow the teachings of Jesus if you
were President. The results would be preposterous: After the attack on the
world trade centers a few years ago should we as a nation have turned the other
cheek? Should we have quickly forgiven
our enemies? Should we have prayed for
them? Increased our foreign aid to
Moslem extremists? Should we have
absorbed their evil like Christ did on the cross? Preposterous! The teachings of Jesus are irrelevant to
nations? And if Christians are going to
run nations they need something else.
Jesus’ teachings simply don’t work for governments. A Christian in power must develop another
set of values to govern from. Most of what Christ taught must be discarded when
Christians get into power—ot at least moderated substantially. To follow seriously the teachings of Jesus
as a nation would be national suicide—it would be to lead a nation unarmed
before the lions. Jesus’ teachings
simply don’t work for people in power.
This is the argument
against my position. The argument is
convincing. But I am unconvinced. I’m not ready to so quickly abandon Jesus’ teachings and values
in governing. Why? Because to me Jesus Christ was the
Revelation of God. He shows us what God
is like, what God values, what God expects.
I think God said just what He wanted to say in the Word, Christ Jesus.
He communicated values that told us what God is like. It is the best picture of God we ever got. Christians can’t get away with sticking
Jesus’ teaching back in the first century so they can replace them with a new
religion of nationalism or civil religion.
Well,
they can get away with it. They are
getting away with it. But at least some
of us will at least hang around to make them feel guilty for it.
I
say the teachings of Jesus Christ reveal to us God’s values for individuals and
governments. If Christ’s teachings
“simply don’t work” for governing then the Christian leader in power has a
simple choice: be a good leader or be a good Christian.
--Keith
Drury kdrury@indwes.edu
Delivered
to the IWU Religion Colloquium November 17, 2004