CHURCH AND POLITICS IN DIALOGUE: A VIEW OF A PROPHETIC PARADIGM
2.3 CHURCH AND POLITICS
2.3.4 History of the relation church and state
2.3.4.1 Pre-Reformation
The Pre-Reformation relationship of state and Church is to a large extent determined by the adoption, at the time of Constantine, in 313 CE, of a Roman imperial decree declaring Christianity to be the state religion. In practice, it became so only in the 380s. The Church’s new status earned it favours from the state, including the exemption of the clergy from paying personal taxes and the Sunday becoming a public holiday. The church also won itself a generally dominant position for which it was criticized.
Before 313 Christianity had opposed the Roman emperor as mentioned in the confession of Polycarp: “’Swear by the fortune of Caesar,’” he answered, “’Since thou are vainly urgent that, as thou sayest, I should swear by the fortune of Caesar, and pretendest not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian’” (Goranzon, 2010:46).
38 2.3.4.2 During the Reformation
At the period of the Reformation, estates of monasteries were transferred to the crown or to local magnates. Some changes occurred in theological and political assumptions.
Many Church leaders remained part of governing structures. There was question of how to re-define a new Church-state partnership, but not of breaking the linkage. And the perception kept standing that “no bishop meant no king” (Moyser, 1988:7).
After the Reformation, soon after 1520, the Lutheran church was subjected to civil authority (Kouadio, 1994:1). As a result, in many countries a separation of Church and state evolved. This historical background plays an important role in Reformers’ viewpoints on, and in studies of, the Church-state relationship. Moyser et al (1988:3) comment that Christianity emerged as the legitimator of state authority and as the principal single integrating force within European society.
The early Reformers felt challenged to change society. During the Reformation process, the state-Church relation was by the Church understood in many different ways and interpretations vary from one theologian to another. Below the viewpoints of some Reformers regarding the gap between Church and state are discussed.
Martin Luther is known as the first of the Reformers. He was born on November 10, 1483, in Eisleben, Germany. On July 17, 1505, he entered the Erfurt monastery of the Augustinians. He was ordained priest in 1507 and began theological studies (Aland, 1979:9). The Middle Ages distinguished between two states of being, namely the temporal and the spiritual. The papal authority considered the clergy as belonging to the spiritual and the laity to the temporal state, so that the two were by their different categorization separated from each other. Luther, as part of his Reformative view, resisted this papal arrangement. All Christians belong in the spiritual estate and are equal in Luther’s view. Laity is different from clergy only in function (McGrath, 1993:205). When describing the difference between spiritual and worldly government, Luther talks about a spiritual government that is impacted by the word of God bearing the fruit of Spirit. With such a government humanity wouldn’t need legislative rule to guide it. Believers would naturally act morally and responsibly. God made worldly government and included kings, princes and magistrates, to perform God’s work, whether they are true believers or not.
39
Government, or the temporal order, is imposed by God so that it may maintain peace and repress sin. Luther recognises the coexistence of good and evil in both Church and society. In Luther’s view, good must be ruled by the spirit and evil by the sword.
Consequently, he encourages the coexistence of spirit and sword in governments of Christian societies. God established political power so that it may restrain human greed and wickedness. The church has spiritual authority which is persuasive but not coercive.
State authority, on the other hand, is coercive rather than persuasive. Luther acknowledges that Christians have civic and social responsibility and that some should hold public positions (McGrath, 1993:207-210). Luther developed a theocentric thinking, formulating his concept of two regiments and explaining God’s work in two ways. He understands God’s work firstly as using the church to fulfil his plan for his creation.
Secondly, God works through people and governments, in which context the temporal power is used to lead humanity (Dreyer, 2010:167). In this reflection, state and church both become agents of God’s work in the creation. Luther has regards for the temporal power. When appearing before the emperor and the Diet of Worms on April 18, 1521, he shows his regard by speaking modestly without raising his voice.
“My lord, emperor most serene, princes most illustrious, lords most gracious, I am here obedient to the order made yesterday evening that I should appear at this time. By the mercy of God, I beseech your most Serene Majesty and your most illustrious lordship to deign to hear with forbearance my cause which (I hope) is just and true. If through my inexperience I do not give any one his proper title or offend in anyway courtly etiquette, I beg you of your kindness to pardon me as a man whose life has not been spent in the court of princes, but in the cells of monks…” (Drewery, 1970:58).
A second Reformer is Huldrych Zwingli, born in Wildhaus, Toggenburg, the Eastern part of Switzerland, on January 1, 1484. He grew up in a family that counted several priests.
Two of his uncles had joined the priesthood and five of the family’s children had entered orders. At the age of 22 he was an ordained priest and on the 29th September 1506 he celebrated his first Mass in his native village (Courvoisier, 1963:13). He understood the
‘republica’ as synonymous with the church. Considering the relationship between church and government he writes:
40
“The best governments are those who submit themselves to the governance of the eternal King, Jesus Christ. The government must rule in accordance to the will of God. Every member of society should be baptised. As such, there is no distinction between the church and the people” (Dreyer, 2010:167).
In Zwingli’s opinion, church and social life should be mixed. This view elicited some criticism from Calvin. Courvoisier, studying Zwingli’s position on the relation between Church and state, writes that today’s conception of the church-state question does not necessary resemble 16th century views. In the time of Zwingli, the corpus christianum was a unified, single Christian society (Courvoisier, 1963:79). Zwingli’s concept of the state- Church question was influenced by the relationship of Church and state in his own region.
He himself was a prophet in the Secret Council of the state of Zurich where he interpreted the Scripture for the authorities. At the end of his life Zwingli established a distinction between Church and state, insisting on the unalienable rights of the church. Zwingli’s view of the responsibility of the Church ministers is that they have to preach the Gospel of the Lord. They report on civil authorities who use force in the exercise of their duty, Christian ministers have no power besides the word of God. The governor who uses force does so in his official capacity and not as a private individual. The governor’s responsibility is not to dominate (Courvoisier, 1963:85-86). Zwingli cites Matthew 22.21, where Christ says to render to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. It refers to the obedience the minister of God is obliged to show to the government which, after all, like the church originates from God. Ministers have a duty to preach divine justice to governors and citizens alike. By preaching divine justice, human justice will evolve. Without divine justice, the justice that human beings experience can only remain sickly. Even the magistrate with his temporary authority, must be aware that his authority derives from the teaching of Christ’s life as Christ also obeyed temporary authority. Zwingli is of the opinion that governors must act in accordance with the rule of Christ. No law should go against God. But Zwingli understands that the magistrate is the servant and administrator of a spiritual office before God, even when he is collecting taxes or restraining disorder by applying force (Courvoisier, 1963:87).
Zwingli’s theology of the relation Church-state is symbolised by a statue of the Reformer in Zurich, standing with the bible in one, and the sword in the other hand. In his thought, Church and state were as one community ruled by God. Zwingli’s insights were inevitably
41
related to the political reality of his time and in his surroundings. As a Reformer the patriotic dimension of his ministry impacted his interpretation of the Gospel. His political engagement was not tainted by any hint that the Gospel might be employed to serve political ends (Stephens, 1986:282-283). Zwingli’s prophetic mission was influenced by the example of the prophets of the Old Testament. He realised that the ministry must not be restricted to a special level of human existence but touch all of it. Zwingli has been named as the Reformer who was most influenced by humanism (Aland, 1979:90).
The third major Reformer is John Calvin. He was born on July 10, 1509, as the second child in his family. In his understanding human beings belonged to God: the people of God. Hence, he saw the inhabitants of Geneva as people of God, but he did not consider them as identical with the Church, because of differences of conviction and faith. There were among the Genevans those who had been baptized but who were sinners and disobeyed the Gospel. Calvin was of the opinion that “government had the responsibility to protect the Church and promote the Christian faith and true reformed teaching”. He bases his insights on the supremacy of the law of God. In his understanding of the relationship between church and government, worldly authority is subordinate to the law of God. True government must not exalt and place itself above the law of God but subject to it. At the same time, Calvin defines distinctions between Church and state. He differs from Luther in his understanding of the two kingdoms, the spiritual and the temporal kingdom. The fundamental difference between church and civil government consists, according to Calvin, in governance. Jesus Christ is the only king governing the Church.
The earthly government and power on the other hand, have been instituted by God. They have the power of the sword. The earthly governance has as its objective the maintenance of law and order. In Calvin’s opinion, the ’law’ should be based on the Ten Commandments. His view of the role of governments is that they must not invent new laws, but rather interpret and apply the perfect law found in Scripture (Dreyer, 2010:174).
In Calvin’s view, government is called and duty-bound to protect and promote public religion and worship. In his Institution 4.20.2, Calvin writes that governments should encourage Christians and church leaders to live in peace with each other. He calls Church and government the external means that assist all Christians to live an orderly existence and glorify God. However, in Inst. 4.20.8b Calvin distinguishes three forms of government:
42
the monarchy which, according to him, leads to tyranny, aristocracy leading to nepotism and personal enrichment, and, thirdly, democracy which results in disorder and chaos (Dreyer, 2010:175).
Calvin’s understanding of theocracy does not imply that the church should take on the function of a temporal government. The state, however, needs to listen to the preaching of the Gospel by the Church. In Calvin’s view, government’s duty is to govern with justice and for the benefit of each man and woman so that they may receive what is theirs. He sees rebellion against, and disrespect of, a just government as incompatible with the law of God. In Inst. 4.20.22 Calvin encourages men and women to obey and respect their government in all its actions as long as these are good and to the glory of God. He differs from other scholars in his opinion on disobedience, expressed in Inst. 4.20.25, where he encourages obedience to, and respect for, governments, even if they persecute people.
He argues that their institutions are willed by God and may represent God’s way to punish people for their sins. He does warn though against obeying a king who orders his subjects to commit acts that are clearly contrary to the Gospel. Instead of staging rebellions or making war against kings and governments, Calvin suggests one should rather leave one’s country in cases of persecution. His suggestion was taken up by many French Protestants who emigrated to, among other destinations, Southern Africa (Dreyer, 2010:177).