The next Homily in the series is "An Exhortation Concerning Good Order and Obedience to Rulers and Magistrates." I am having a great deal of trouble with it on a variety of levels.
First, I am encountering unusual difficulties in translating the context of the 16th century to the 21st century. Oddly enough, the one anointed monarch left in the western world is also Queen Elizabeth and rules the same realm ruled by her predecessor in the original text. At the same time, the Homilist seems to assume the necessity of governance by an anointed king or somewhat equivalent monarchical ruler, which does not seem entirely justified by the Scriptures (see 1 Samuel 8) and is also not the situation for a vast majority of the world's Anglicans, particularly in the Global South. Somehow, I doubt the Homilist would have felt the same way about a Muslim President of Nigeria.
Second, I recognize this Homily as one that would have been severely edited in any edition of the Homilies made by Americans in the early days of the Episcopal Church, as the 1789 Articles of Religion promised. It seems almost unpatriotic to handle this text, since it condemns the very foundations of our commonwealth. (Also, it makes any denomination with historical connections to the execution of Charles I and a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy look hypocritical. The interactions between David and Saul are quite apropos to thinking through the English Civil War.)
Third, it accuses the Pope of a variety of things that was probably true of the Pope at the time but is not now and calls him nasty names that were probably as inappropriate then as they certainly are now.
Fourth, the exegesis in at least one place contradicts the Biblical text to such an extent as to be risible. I understand how to hold two contradictory interpretations of Mark 12:17. In no universe do I live in does Matthew 17:24-27 suggest that Peter and the Lord Jesus "paid tribute to the king." (Though it is a relevant passage to the subject, which I do not recall ever hearing preached upon.)
Fifth, it is hard to face a world that has seen the horrors of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Showa-era Japan, and a variety of other state-sponsored atrocities with the good news of "submitting to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13). When the commonwealth is functional (for you at least), I understand the compulsion to defend its stability and the lives of friends and relations with the justification of Divine Providence. However, just as anointed kings are few and far between (the distance between Westminster and Samoa…), the commonwealth is not always functional and perform the great Petrine function of governors, "the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them that do well."
Just as we cannot evaluate the respect due to the political authorities we have today in light of a theology that privileges anointed kings, we cannot give the political authorities the respect required by an absolutist theology of political authority partly justified by the difficult political conditions of Tudor England without raising the spectre of German evangelical quietism in the face of the Holocaust. We may lionize Bonhoeffer and the White Rose, but we rarely examine whether the Nazis co-opted German Protestants ideologically or simply cowed them theologically.
I, of course, will put out a remix of the Homily. In a perfect world, I'd completely rewrite it. But that defeats the point of the project. Instead, I'll outline here what a rewrite would look like.
The actual Homily begins with an assertion that the created world is in a perfect and hierarchical order. To paraphrase Frank Herbert, a place for every thing and everything in its place. It is difficult for me to maintain this view in light of the mechanisms of biological, geological, and astronomical evolution, particularly. I probably would say that creation is good, yet incomplete on account of the disobedience of our first parents and so the order we see in creation is a shadow of the perfect order that God intended and would seek that we imitate.
I then would say that just as we see the necessity of diversity in biological contexts, we see that God is open to diversity in political systems by citing 1 Samuel 8 (monarchy is not the one divinely ordained political system) and Exodus 18:13-27 and Deut. 1:12-18 (a primitive republic for Israel).
And then I'd discuss Christian duty regarding political authority by starting with 1 Timothy 2:1-4. The interpretation I'd give is that Christian respect for the idea of the commonwealth and temporal authority is founded on: (1) God's generosity to all in Christ and (2) the necessity of being able to proclaim and live out that proclamation in daily life. We seek the space from rulers to live quietly, peaceably, honestly, and according to the will of God as we understand it. And while we still can hold the position that others displease God in ways that do not harm us (or every activity of their heathen lives, if you prefer), the Lord enjoins us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39) and do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Lk. 6:31). We therefore are obligated to pray for and seek the space to live quietly, peaceably, honestly, and according to their understanding of the right to all of our neighbors. And if you doubt the generosity to non-believers in this, you should re-read Luke 10:25-37 and call me in the morning. The ability to freely receive and hear the Gospel is necessary.
Next, I would perform the extraordinary task of placing Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 into context by emphasizing that both passages describe functional commonwealths in which evildoers are punished and those who do right are rewarded (or at least left alone). This idea requires us to think a little differently about the Roman Empire than we are accustomed to doing. However, I will point out that Jesus shows very little animus to the Romans in his teaching. He heals the slave of a centurion (Lk. 7:1-10). His forerunner, John the Baptist, tells soldiers (possibly Roman or at least working for them) to avoid extortion and be satisfied with their compensation (Lk. 3:14). I could keep going with Paul's use of the privileges of Roman citizenship (Acts 22:23-28) to the revelation of the availability of salvation to the Gentiles through the household of a centurion (Acts 10).
Our current exegetical mindset poses Rome as the Evil Empire Jesus could not criticize for fear of being executed too early. Any favorable treatment is interpreted as later emendation to reduce political suspicion. I wonder if it is possible that Jesus considered the problems of Judea under Roman rule to be beneath His notice, much like the inheritance dispute He refused to judge in Luke 12:14. Maybe, we should take Him seriously when He says that "my Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would have fought to keep me from being handed over to you" (John 18:36). The disappointment of the Jerusalemites at the Passover was that Jesus had not come to liberate them from Roman occupation. There is nothing direct in the Biblical witness to suggest that Jesus preached strongly for or against the political authorities of his day. Satan had tempted Him with control of them, and He replied, "Worship the Lord your God and serve only Him" (Lk. 4:8).
The only points where Jesus might be making a critique of Roman power require deep context. Jesus casts out a demon named Legion in the country of the Gadarenes or Gerasenes (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-17), where there might have been a Roman garrison (or not…we are unsure where this incident took place). In another case, Jesus takes a Roman coin and asks, "whose image is this and what is it labeled?" When they reply, "Caesar's," he says "Render to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's." (Lk. 20:24-25). Yes, Tiberius Caesar is claiming to be the son of a god on the coin, but the incident can be read as a spiritual critique rather than one of political authority. Jesus seems more concerned with the greed of tax collectors rather than the collection of taxes.
Therefore, I'd emphasize that Christian teaching concerning how to respond to oppressive political authority begins with "don't sweat the small stuff." The best examples would be the incident in Luke 20 as well as Matthew 17:24-27. In the later example, Peter and Jesus are asked to pay the temple tax. Jesus makes the theological point that no one taxes their children, so the children of God are exempt from taxes to God, i.e., the temple tax. But he informs Peter that, "So we do not cause offense," our tax money can be found in a local fish, catch the fish and pay the man. On one hand, the idea that Christians are children of God (or that Jesus is the Son of God) is fundamental Christian theology. On the other hand, Jesus acts against this crucial theological principle so as not to cause offense.
So the summary of the first part of my homily would be: the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and Peter all suggest that there is such a thing as a functional political system, it has certain purposes ordained by God as common grace, it has certain purposes that support the church and its mission, and its imperfections should be tolerated to a point. In the latter case, functional political systems are entitled to a high level of respect, no matter their offense to our theological principles, as long as we still can believe them and proclaim them. Note that Jesus did not stop saying He was God's Son.
The second part would focus on evaluating dysfunctional political systems. Here I would make the extraordinary claim that our standard should focus particularly on how non-Christians, the sick, and the disabled are treated. Partially, this idea is based on the experience of Nazi Germany. Partially, this idea is founded on Luke 6, where Jesus "breaks the Sabbath" to heal and commands radical love for enemies in verses 27-36. I would argue that we should be concerned with systems where evildoers are rewarded and those who live peaceably, quietly, and honestly are punished, and I would rely mostly on the passages discussed in the first part.
The original Homily focuses on the relationship between David and Saul, particularly how David did take the opportunity to kill Saul after Saul tried to kill David. In the third part, I'd use these incidents as a way to discuss why non-violent and/or sacrificially forceful resistance should be the first response of Christians to dysfunctional political systems, again referring to Luke 6:27-36 and Romans 12:19-21. In other words, Christians should resist dysfunctional political systems in ways that protect the lives of others even at the cost of their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment