Weekly Blog - 20 November 2023 - The Role of States
The role of governments
This week in Arise’s weekly blog we take a look at what the Bible has to say about the role of the state, and how state authorities should administer just laws fairly. One of Arise’s 3 main campaigns is to support Christian-led Reform Movements who are campaigning for these standards of democracy, human rights, accountability and social justice from their governments all around the world.
We begin by considering what the Bible teaches us about good governance and social justice. First, both the Old and New Testament are very clear that states and national authorities have been established by God. This is true even when they do not know or acknowledge him. The state or government is as much a Biblical institution as the church. As Paul says “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Roms 13: 1). Having clarified this, both Old and New Testaments are consistent in setting out both the role of national authorities and how they should carry out that role. National authorities have been given the authority by God to govern well and administer justice. In one early example, Moses reminds the Israelites that under God’s authority he “took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly’” (Deut 1: 15 – 16). States should administer the law justly. As Jeremiah the prophet says “Hear the word of the LORD to you, king of Judah, you who sits on David’s throne – you, your officials and your people who come through these gates. This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place” (Jer 22: 2 – 3).
Administering the law justly means ensuring that all people are innocent until proven guilty. One expression of this, amongst others, is that “One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19: 15). It also means that all, whether rich or poor, citizens or foreigners, should be treated equally, as the book of Leviticus puts it, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly” (Lev 19: 15). The Bible recognises that in practice this often means protecting the powerless from exploitation by the powerful, and is damning of national authorities that fail to do this. As the Prophet Isaiah says, “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless” (Isa 10: 1 – 2). The Bible argues that those in positions of national authority should be of high personal moral standing. We are told that the king of the Israelites “must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself … He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold” (Deut 17: 16 – 17). It spells out that this very much includes no corruption or giving and taking of bribes. As the book of Proverbs says, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down” (Prov 29: 4). Therefore the law applies equally to all, both the rulers and the ruled, which in modern parlance we would term the ‘rule of law’. Thus, the UN Secretary-General’s 2009 Guidance Note on Democracy, a key document for the international community, says “the rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated”.[1] This is twenty-first century language which echoes ancient Biblical principles.
The Bible teaches that in fulfilling their duty to administer justice, national authorities are permitted to use limited force where necessary to enforce the law (detain criminals etc.). We see this in the Old Testament, in the law and the teaching on the role of kings and national authorities, but also in the New Testament, where John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter all seem to accept, and not criticise, the role of soldiers and national authorities to enforce justice. Paul tells us, “rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from the fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer” (Roms 13: 3 – 4). The state is the only institution in the Bible that is permitted to use force in any way (certainly the church and us as individual Christians should never use it), and even here that force should be limited.
Today, we talk about the state having a ‘monopoly of violence’, in Max Webber’s term, or as ‘Leviathan’, the same principle earlier described by Thomas Hobbes. The importance of this ancient Biblical teaching has been reaffirmed in modern times by scholars and political scientists. Thus, one of Steven Pinker’s central conclusions in The Better Angels of our Nature, a huge work charting the decline of violence in human history, is “A state that uses a monopoly on force to protect its citizens from one another may be the most consistent violence-reducer that we have encountered in this book … When bands, tribes and chiefdoms came under the control of the first states, the suppression of raiding and feuding reduced their rates of violent death fivefold … And when the fiefs of Europe coalesced into kingdoms and sovereign states, the consolidation of law enforcement eventually brought down the homicide rate another thirtyfold.” [2]
The nature of the law
So, if the role of national authorities is to administer the law justly, what does the Bible have to say about the nature of that law itself? Historically, all states used the law for two purposes: first, to stop people from harming each other, and second, for enforcing the religious and cultural views of their society (blasphemy laws, no divorce etc.). Thus, in traditional societies, many of the kinds of behaviours that we might think of today as personal moral choices, were not just matters of personal moral conviction, but legal requirements. This is the case in the Law of Moses, which set out God’s perfect standards in the Old Testament. It both maintains social justice, and legally bans idolatry or extra-marital affairs. The reigns of the judges and kings of the Old Testament were considered great or poor depending on the extent to which they enforced God’s law in full. So at a first glance, the lessons from the Bible for today are clear: that our national law codes should reflect God’s law in full, both in enforcing justice and preventing harm, and in upholding Christian morality and culture. However, when we look at what Jesus and the early church did, we get a surprise. When Jesus came as the messiah, the expectations of those around him were that he would take on the religious and political leadership of the state of Israel, throw off the Roman occupiers and re-establish and impose God’s law in full. Yet, as so often, Jesus turned these expectations on their head. Jesus and the early church did not try to take political power and establish God’s kingdom and its beliefs, values and behaviours by legal force. We read in John’s Gospel that “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself” (John 6: 14 – 15), and again later, Jesus tells Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest” (John 18: 36).
Jesus and the early church did not attempt to impose belief or behaviour on anyone. Thus, we see that Jesus had no criticism of those suffering from leprosy or long-term bleeding who were unclean, and who according to the law, should not have been associating with others in public. Indeed, he delighted in their company. Similarly, he was interested in showing love and mercy to those in lifestyles of adultery, prostitution and even blasphemy, rather than in imposing the death penalty, as the law implied. When the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus and asked him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” Jesus replied “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8: 3 – 11). Earlier, Joseph is commended for not following the same law when he believed Mary had been unfaithful, as he “did not want to expose her to public disgrace” and so “he had in mind to divorce her quietly” (Matt 1: 19). Similarly, Paul wants all to come to know Jesus, and urges all who do to follow good moral behaviour, individually and within their community. However, he is not interested in enforcing and imposing this behaviour on those who do not yet know Jesus, for as he says, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” (1 Cor 5: 12). Indeed Jesus was damning in his criticism of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law who did try to use the law to force belief or behaviour on others.
None of this implies that Jesus, and the early church, condoned poor moral behaviour or a lack of faith. Far from it. However, he believed people must choose such moral behaviours and faith out of love and desire to follow him, not because they are legally forced to. Thus, having saved the woman caught in adultery from those who would use the law to punish her, Jesus instead gently urges her, “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8: 11). Elsewhere, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sets out the kind of radical faith in action and good moral living he urges us to follow because we choose to, not because we are legally forced to, and concludes with “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7: 24).
So, did Jesus and the early church have no concept of the role of national authorities and the nature of the law they should enforce? Again, no. As we have seen, the New Testament refers multiple times to the role of national authorities as appointed by God (even if they do not know or acknowledge him), continuing in the tradition of the Old Testament. However, now it seems to see the role of these authorities as purely to uphold and administer justice by preventing people from harming each other, no longer to impose religious and cultural views and behaviour (and certainly not Christian religious and cultural views and behaviour) on society. As Peter says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Pet 2: 13 – 14). Around the world today, the most peaceful and tolerant societies, with populations with many different religious beliefs and values, have in recent centuries come to follow the same path that Jesus modelled 2000 years ago, accepting that the law should not be used to impose religious beliefs and cultural behaviours. Therefore, following the approach demonstrated by Jesus and the early church, Arise argues that religious and cultural views should not be imposed by law, but that the basis of all law in today’s world should be to practically uphold and administer justice by preventing and deterring people from harming each other. That is to say, the principle is that people should be free to believe and do what they want unless it hurts anyone else, at which point the law steps in to prohibit such behaviour.
In modern parlance, this freedom which defines the boundaries of the law is captured in the concept of ‘human rights’, a concept which is rooted in Biblical teaching and has been strongly shaped by many devout Christians as it developed over the centuries. As Ian Mortimer says in his book looking at change over the past millennium, Centuries of Change, the idea that all people are free and equal, which underpins human rights and has spread rapidly since the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, is “a Christian sentiment in origin”.[3] Similarly, historian Yuval Noah Harari, though not remotely Christian, recognises this in his work Sapiens. Thus, in discussing the concept of unalienable rights in the American Declaration of Independence, he points out “The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul and that all souls are equal before God.” Similarly, modern western liberal humanism “is, in fact, founded on monotheist beliefs. The liberal belief in the free and sacred nature of each individual is a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in free and eternal individual souls.” And indeed also “Like liberal humanism, socialist humanism is built on monotheist foundations. The idea that all humans are equal is a revamped version of the monotheist conviction that all souls are equal before God.” Thus, “Our liberal political and judicial systems are founded on the belief that every individual has a sacred inner nature, indivisible and immutable, which gives meaning to the world, and which is the source of all ethical and political authority. This is a reincarnation of the traditional Christian belief in a free and eternal soul that resides within each individual.” [4]
Therefore, the law should be based on the Biblical, Christian concept of human rights as epitomised in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the internationally recognised global standard for human rights. Similarly, national authorities should be broadly secular or agnostic in nature, allowing citizens of all faiths and cultures to live in peace, showing compassion and flexibility to individual religious or cultural needs, providing no harm is done to others, without backing or imposing any particular religion. Therefore, there should not be an officially established church linked to the state, something we never see in the New Testament.
If the Christian view is that people should be free to do what they want unless it harms others, at which point the law steps in, then we can immediately see many Biblical injunctions that put this into practice and therefore should form part of national legal codes today. For example, the Bible makes it clear that “You shall not murder” (Ex 20: 13) or assault. Similarly, we are told “You shall not steal” (Ex 20: 15), rape, or kidnap, and that there should be no “extortion” or blackmail (Lev 6: 4). All of these things are not just personally morally wrong, they should also be illegal because they impose harm on others. Similarly, the Bible teaches that there should be laws against negligence, for example, “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard” (Ex 22: 5). Slander should also be illegal for we are told “Do not go about spreading slander among your people” (Lev 19: 16), as should giving false testimony, where we are warned “Have nothing to do with a false charge” (Ex 23: 7). By extension, we can also say that abortion should also be illegal since it involves harming another, although of course this is a complex issue and every possible support and kindness should be shown to women who find themselves in a situation of unwanted pregnancy.
Conclusion
In summary then, the Biblical picture seems to be that national governments are appointed by God. They must govern with justice and equality for all. And the laws they must enforce should be based on the principle of people being free to do that they want, as long as this does not harm others. In practice this means basing the law on the principles of human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document deeply informed by Christians theology and Biblical teaching (Arise Manifesto, pg 79 – 85). Understanding what the Bible has to teach us about the nature of the state and the law helps us to understand where this is broadly being put into practice in our world, and where it needs Christian-led Reform Movements to speak out, lobby and campaign to help push the governments of their countries towards this ideal.
Find out more
Find out more about how God is at work in the world, and the role we all have to play in that work, in the Arise Manifesto. This report is Arise’s big picture, researched, Biblical, holistic and practical vision for a better world. It looks at what the Bible says, and what we can learn from the best data and the world’s leading experts on the five major areas of evangelism, discipleship, social justice, development and the environment. It then draws these lessons together into a practical road map for the changes we need to see in our world, which the Arise movement campaigns to achieve.
Found this blog online, or sent it by a friend? Sign up to receive weekly blogs from Arise directly.
[1] Guidance Note of the Secretary-General on Democracy, UNDEF, (2009), p. 7, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/677649?ln=en
[2] Pinker, S., The Better Angels of our Nature, (London: Penguin Books, 2012), pp. 822 – 823
[3] Mortimer, I., Centuries of Change, (London: Bodley Head, 2014), pp. 219 – 220
[4] Harari, Y. N., Sapiens, (London: Vintage, 2014), p. 122, 257 – 258, 263