Christian
Nation?
Is there such thing a thing as a Christian Nation? And, if there is, should we be one? Is it even possible for a nation to be Christian? These are the questions some thoughtful Christians struggle with this week in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.
We know what a Christian person is—one who has trusts Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and commits to live a life governed by the teachings of Jesus. But is there such a thing as a “Christian nation?” What would that be if there were one? Many Christians would say such a nation would let the teachings of Jesus govern the actions of that country.
What if the United States were to seriously try to be a Christian nation in this way? Especially thinking of how we would respond to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C.?
What if we seriously tried to implement the teachings of Jesus in
calculating our response? Should we “settle
matters quickly with our adversary?”
Should we reject the eye-for-an-eye retaliation and obey Jesus’
teaching,
”do not resist an evil person?” Should
this nation actually “love our enemies” and pray “father forgive them” for
those bent on our death and destruction?
Should we simply meekly go like a lamb to the slaughter?
What if we did? What if a nation purposely tried to live by these radical principles of Jesus, not the “you have heard it said” principles he revised. What would happen to such a nation? Could it continue to exist or would it simply be stomped out of existence?
Which brings some Christians to the following conclusion: the principles of Jesus are designed to govern a person’s life, not a nation’s life. That is, they argue a nation should not try to be Christian, but must survive in a depraved and crooked world by stooping to sometimes depraved and crooked actions. Nations have to tell lies at times—we call this diplomacy. Nations can’t refuse to fight back—if they did they’d be taken over by their enemies. Nations sometimes have to kill, and steal, and cheat their enemies. It’s a matter of survival. When nations are attacked they must do something in return. If someone puts out our eye we must respond by putting out both of the eyes of our enemy, and maybe knock out all their teeth to boot. In fact we might even poke out the eyes and knock out the teeth of the folk where you are staying. Such a nation might turn to the Old Testament for models of how to behave, but not to the teachings or example of Jesus.
So is this your position? Do you believe that a nation should not be “Christian” in its response to the world? That there are times when a nation must give a secular response to a secular problem, and should lay aside the teachings of Jesus as meant for persons, not nations?
If so, the problem for the Christian comes when such a nation goes to war. What do you do? To what extent can a person committed to the teachings of Jesus participate in actions by nations controverting those teachings?
This discussion among thinking Christians recently raises several options. Where do you come down?
1. Nations should be Christian. “The United States should respond to attacks according to the Sermon on the Mount, by forgiveness and turning the other cheek. God is sovereign and will do the vengeance for us—that’s His responsibility.”
2. Some wars are a just wars. “Injustice was done in New York and Washington. God has delegated to humans, particularly government, responsibility to punish evildoers. We should punish these evildoers, not expect God to do it for us. It is the realm of government’s responsibility, delegated to them by God. When we do so we are in a sense “doing God’s work.” This is a “just war” and it is right to participate in it.”
3. Religious crusade. “Taking the above one step further, since this is God’s work we are serving God Himself when we do this. Participating in such a war is doing the work of God every bit as much as building a Habitat for Humanity house. The enemies of the One True God should be destroyed, and doing so will be accomplishing God’s work.”
4. Two worlds. “Sure, nations are not “Christian” but individual Christians are “not of this world” anyway. What nations do is up to the nations, it has little interest to me. I am part of another kingdom—a spiritual kingdom of Christ that is above nationalism—I am a citizen of another kingdom.”
Liberal idealists often take the first position. Augustine and many Americans take the second. The Christians of the middle ages took the third view as they went off on the Crusades to “win back the Holy land from the infidel.” Many Anabaptists (Brethren, Mennonites, etc.) take the fourth view and do alternative service during war.
There are challenges to all of these views.
The first requires a faith in God’s retribution that history does not support, the holocaust being a recent example. Do you really believe God will balance the books on injustice? Soon enough? Is vengeance really God’s realm or is it only His territory after life, and not in the present? Do you really believe in that powerful and active God? Can you trust Him this much? Do you?
The second position requires a decision on which war is “just” and which is not. Who will decide this? How will it be decided? In America’s Civil war both sides decided the war was a just one. Was it? Is it up to each individual to decide this? Do we often see our own war as just and the other side as mostly unjust?
The third position is seldom admitted publicly. After all, who wants to be associated with the morally appalling Crusades. Yet many functionally have this position. Once a nation goes to war, especially with a country of another religion, the “just war” position tends to gravitate to this position. This is how the United States wages a “holy war” of its own.
The fourth position has problems too. Are you willing to resign from active participation in the destinies of nations? Are you willing to stand on the side and bind up brokenness at the foot of the cliff where people are being tossed, without climbing up to the top of the cliff and stopping the ogre tossing them over?
So, if these were your only options (and they’re not) and you had to pick one as your dominant position (and you don’t) which position would you primarily claim?
So, what do you think?
So what do you think?
To contribute to the thinking on this issue
e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu
Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday