The relation between the church and the state is considered elusive because of various opinions and theological stands that are been constructed by several scholars and theologians. The intent of this article is to present the church’s involvement in politics as to build a just and harmonious society. Thus inadvertently the Baptist’s position on the Church and State relation is jeopardized, but for a considerable reasons on the influence of theologians, modern politics and the context (Nagaland).
A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. States may be or may not be sovereign. E.g., the state of Nagaland is a political craft of the government of India. Although the earthly Government is not the realized city of God, it is considered a divine authority instituted on earth. St. Augustine in this line commented, that the worldly city includes an emphasis on the tensions, frictions, competitions of interest and overt conflicts to which every human community is exposed. Nevertheless, the love of the city of God can overcome the city of this world. With love as the driving force and a substance for the leavening, the influence of a higher value upon a lower loyalty or love, it can transform and progressively resolve various accommodations of interest.
Karl Barth remarked, the State is an “external means of grace.” It is the sign, set up by God’s revelation, of concrete and visible order of life by which and in which, on the basis of accomplished reconciliation, we are summoned to serve our neighbor. Obedience is required of a Christian to give what belongs to the state in the form of being a good neighbor and a sincere and consistent citizen. This obedience is not a blind yes, but obeying man (state) in obedience to God. Barth noted, both the state and the church must exist together since they express equal similarities temporally in their structure, yet both are divinely instituted and under one power of Jesus Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, the State is a product of human nature and therefore our ability to live in society is derived from creation. The state is the highest development of the natural society.
Thus all three great theologians proposed the State as an ordained institution in the world. For Augustine we must act in love and with the power of love we can make greater and higher influence on earth. Barth’s approach is based on grace; we must act with gratitude and live a worthy life of being a good neighbor. For Bonhoeffer, in Christ all things have been created, whether powers or principalities and therefore the world bears the authority of God.
With regard to the State and Church relationship, Romans 13:1-7 becomes the key contending text juxtaposing binary views. Scholars who are in favor of the idea that Christians owe their government allegiance refer to this text and perpetuate the view that the government is a divine authority instituted by God. John Howard Yoder claims that Rom. 13 does not center on the teaching of the church and state relationship. Others consider the state is so corrupt that Christians should not be a part of it. They should continue to be good citizens but desist from matters relating to the state or politics. They should abstain from voting in elections, serving in military or holding of any public offices (the Mennonites and the Ana-Baptists). There is a hermeneutical polarization with regard to this text, but it is clear that Paul’s message to the Romans is directed towards a harmonious and peaceful co-existence in the society as rulers and subjects. He in particular envisages a state where Christians would have no fear or doubts and contribute good deeds towards the state. Thereby making an impact in the state and also maintaining a good relationship with those in authority.
John Calvin makes no clear distinction between the state and the church, yet he defended the Church’s authority to discipline and punish its members, and thus play a role in enacting and enforcing law. Martin Luther maintained that the Church and state must remain separate. He believes that the authority of government is instituted by God. However, he is apprehensive that God pleasing changes could come through secular authorities (state). For the Anabaptist Michael Sattler aired their views by strictly separating the two kingdoms.
The Baptist’s tradition on the separation of the church and state is loud and clear. Nevertheless, the influences of the Ecumenical movements like the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other Evangelical movements have perhaps debilitated the stand of the Baptists beginning from the 80s. Nevertheless, one thing is clear for the Baptist, when it comes to the priesthood and politics; we do not compromise the religious duties in serving the needs of the world.
In a Christian populated state like Nagaland, the church’s priority is not politics but at the same time the church should not desist from politics of social responsibility. In this regard, the involvement of NBCC in Clean Election must be seen as a campaign for Social Responsibility. One of the turning points for the evangelicals’ attitude towards social responsibility was held at Lausanne, Switzerland in July 1974, under the theme: “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.” This conference declared that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. Thus it aired the view that Lausanne Conference speaks not just of ‘social responsibility’ but socio-political involvement.’ Moreover, the politics of America have influenced our mindset so much that we already have embraced the relationship of the Church and state as approved. In his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to dismantle the laws that separate the church and state in America. Now that Donald Trump is the President, their alliance will have more avenues to stay closer than to deter.
Like Augustine opined, our love for God must be the driving force to love the world. As Calvin postulates, the church and state were to be two hands washing each other under God. Luther accentuated that the Church and State are two separate entities, but one under the divine authority of God. Abraham Kuyper expressed that both the church and the state are limited in their sphere. But there is no sphere of human life in which Jesus Christ is not ‘the supreme Sovereign’ and therefore both the church and state are servants of God. All these prominent theologians argued that the church and state are two separate institutions but one under the divine will and sovereign will of God. It is therefore implied that the Church and State must not push each other too far, less they find difficult to co-exist together and become rivals. On the one hand, the Church must not work hand in gloves with the powers of the state. The church should not play a partisan role in politics. The problem with this stand is that when the government or powers fail and military coup d’état, the church suffers along with the state.
On the other hand, the Church should not withdraw itself very far from the powers of the state, silence and non-interference itself would be a political stand itself. Nagaland is a Christian state and if churches abstain from the powers of the state, ushering non-believers and uncommitted Christians to rule Christians would be the outcome. This happened in Uganda when Idi Amin (a Muslim) took power in 1971-79; he persecuted Christians and started the expulsion of 80,000 Asian nationals from Uganda. This country was considered 80% Christians, this majority Christians were not interested in politics and allowed a Muslim dictator to rule and persecute them, even killed the Arch Bishop of Uganda (Jenani Luxum). It is said that under Idi Amin 500,000 people were killed motivated by ethnic, political and financial factors.
The Church is to be engaged in critical and constructive collaboration with the powers of the state by evaluating political decisions and proposed programs basing their understanding of the gospel. In this position, when the state makes decisions that are contrary to the gospel, the church can directly and courageously criticize the government. Since the Church is engaged in constructive collaboration with the state, it is likely that the state will take heed of the church.
The Church must resist the power of the state, if the powers that be become autocratic and ignore universal human rights; the church may do it all to resist such a state. The Church must be aware of the policy makers in the central government and if necessary, we must oppose decisions taken by the central government made against the wishes and religious sentiments of the state. Or even oppose the State government where policies are unchristian and justice endangered.
The challenge today is, as the BJP government is in power, the discrimination and harassment meted against the minority communities in India are quite alarming. Christians must come with a formidable policy to correct and change the motive of the majority attitude in India. The church must therefore stand vigil; perpetuate her political assignment to guide and counsel the State government with true love. Perhaps, there are several policies of the GOI that are precipitately acted with intention to harm the religious sentiments of the Christians and Muslims in India.
The Church and State are connected in such various ways that their relationship cannot be regulated in accordance with any single general principle. In a state like Nagaland it is difficult to draw a rigid distinction for Christian’s involvement in politics. Since the state is more than 90% Christians and the state workers are mostly Christians. The Church and State must be considered a divine craft of God to govern people, so that both institutes direct people to fear God and do justice outrageously. Christians are to leaven the society with the love of God as the driving force. Although obscurities and uncertainties may loom around since they overlap each other in function. One thing we can be sure about is that both the church and state are equally limited and are equally divine because there is no sphere of life where God’s sovereignty is limited. Thus churches in Nagaland must be seen working side by side along the State. If the Church desists from social responsibility it would decay from self-defeat. The Church may involve in politics but the credibility of the prophetic office should not be co-opted by other critics. To whom does the Christian social responsibility belong, if not the Church?
