The Church & The State

One of the most persecuted Christian groups were Anabaptists, who were almost exterminated by Protestants. One of the main reason for brutal persecution of Anabaptists were their New Testament (NT) view that the Church and the State must be separated areas of life. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant branch of Churches (Lutheran, Calvinistic and Anglican Churches) are still convinced that there is nothing wrong for the Church to govern society, mainly because of the OT theocracy. ["Theocracy" means that the ruling class of people are priests. Iran is one modern example of Islamic theocracy]. Before evaluating whether theocracy is in itself an evil institution, I would first explain the distinction between a genuine Christian society and societies before Christ, by observing certain historical developments which are readily seen in the case of Donatists and Anabaptists.

Anabaptists were called neo-Donatists, because Donatists of the 4th century, (the century when the Roman Catholic Church was born by the unification of the "Church" and the State), were strongly opposing the Constantian changes. Donatists were a large group of churches active in the North Africa. Doctrinally they were quite correct, their only sin was political opposition against the mixture of union between the Church and State. I think that they were most doctrinally sound group we can find during the reign of Constantine. Many historic books dealing with them are too superficial, and intently misinforming readers that they were heretics because of their strict standards of Worship. They had a clear NT vision, which was new and very revolutionary concept of society:

Namely, that men can get along peacefully in the market place even though they do not worship the same shrine.

The NT conceives of human society as a composite thing, that is, composed of factions. It expects that some men will glory in the very same Cross over which other men stumble. It anticipates that some men will make their boast of the very same thing of which other men are ashamed. And it assumes that such diversity on the plane of religion does not imply cacophony on the square. It thinks that even though men differ basically and radically at the shrine they do not clash in the market place.

This is one of the New Testament's boldest innovations, the sweep of which will not escape the thoughtful. In this novel view it is plainly implied that there are resources in the as yet not regenerated human heart, due to the remnants of the original righteousness left after the Fall, resources that are adequate for the affairs of state, loyalties that are adequate for the political level, over and above the loyalties that result of the NT's "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."

In the NT vision, that which we today call the State and which we now call the Church are agencies that cater to differentiable loyalties. The State demands a loyalty that all men can give, irrespective of their religious orientation; the Church demands loyalty which only he can give who believe in the Christ. The State has a sword with which it constraints men, coerces them if need be; the Church has a sword also, but it has the sword of the Word of God, a sword that goes no farther than moral suasion.

The NT envisions no trouble in the outworking of this division of labor, as long as both sides play in the register intended for them; it envisions trouble only if and when either of the two goes outside its province, as for instance when, as in Act 4:18, men in the uniform of the State tell people whether they are to preach and what. The NT vision implies that as long as Church and the State weed each in its own garden there will be a tolerable modus vivendi.

It should not escape us that this was a novel insight, so novel as to be revolutionary. The world had never seen the like of it before. For all pre-Christian society is sacral. By the word "sacral" in this context, I will mean "bound together by a common religious loyalty." By sacral society we mean society held together by a religion to which all the members of that society are committed.

The society of ancient Babylon, for instance, was a sacral society. All Babylonians expected to bow to one and the same Object (cf. Dan 3); their society was pre-Christian. The society of Ephesus was sacral; all Ephesians were expected to join in the chant "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"; Ephesian society was a pre-Christian. In our own day the society of the Navajo is sacral; all members of that society are expected to take part in the ritual; their's too is pre-Christian society.

According to this conception, the Old Testament too was pre-Christian, as indeed it was in the chronological sense. Every member of Old Testament society was considered to be in the same religious category as was every other member of it. This makes Old Testament society sacral and pre-Christian. It was a monolithic society rather than a composite one. It was because the Jews of Jesus' day were pre-Christian, and therefore sacralists in their conception of things, that the problem "whether it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar" seemed to them to be an insoluble problem. How could a man, they asked, to be loyal to the political community by paying his taxes, without thereby being disloyal to the religious community. They, sacralists that they were, knew no answer to this question. It vexed them every time they tangled with it. And for this reason they confronted the Master with it, so that He too might be embarrassed by it and be hopelessly pinned in a corner. How great must have been their surprise at the ease with which Jesus, acting on the new insight He had come to convey, sailed through the dilemma with "Render to Ceaser the things that are Ceaser's and to God the things that are God's."

The tragic fact is that the first fall of "Church" was when it became the State Church during the reign of Constantine. It was a State Church which persecuted many genuine followers of Christ. It was a precursor to the birth of two false churches, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church. The sacral thinking became the dominant mind-set of Western world, which dominated almost 1500 years. There is no wonder that Luther, Calvin and many leaders of the Reformation was blinded by this mind-set.

Are sacral societies bad in themselves? This depends on who leads it. If the leading class are human priests and only priests then I would be much worried by such society. What about the OT sacral society? As Christians, we believe that God led them and was in their presence. And that is the fundamental difference between the OT sacral society and others.

A true theocracy is when God indeed rules. As Christians, we believe that our Lord will establish His Kingdom here on Earth and that there will be a period of His rulership.

Google Our Site