Questions of the day: How will it be like if an absolutely Christian government rules a country? What will happen if a country is ruled without a dichotomy between Christian faith and government administration?
Let us define the terms and paint the scenario. What if a government that fits these descriptions becomes a reality:
It is a Christian government, where the basis of Scripture is argued on the first level, applied in laws and ordinances in the second level, and discussed by everyone formally or casually in the third level. Christian principles are applied in every matter of governance, from economic plans to foreign policies. Administrative and ethical decisions are made according to Scriptures, not apart from it. It does not have two separate courts, e.g. a Christian Court and a Federal Court. It only has one court. There is no dichotomy.
It is a Christian government, but it does not Christianize people. It believes in a non-plural, one and only, living and true God. But it does not violate people’s free will. It does not afford every baby born in the country a Christian status by default. It does not make it legally difficult for those who want to come out from the faith. It is not troublesome for people to be labeled as a believer of another faith in their IC. An unbelieving spouse and his/her family are not required to get a Christian status by proxy. It does not insist on a Christian burial just because some people claim the deceased to be one, or used to be one. It does not barge down hotel rooms in an attempt to find promiscuous behaviour, and does not apologize after that.
It is a Christian government that is impartial. It does not grant special privileges to any race or religion, even to Christians. Even if it does, the privilege that Christians will have is extra taxation. So the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the marginalized can benefit form it.
I’m not surprised if we have doubts about the feasibility of a Christian government. This is because our picture of a theistic government is clouded by the discomforting picture of other religious governments that presently exist.
We tend to think that a country ruled by religion is oppressive, intolerant, and an infringement on human rights. But I have reason to believe that a country ruled by a Christian administration without a dichotomy between faith and government is for the betterment of humanity. Why?
Because the Christian faith is exclusively different from all other theistic beliefs. Therefore, a Christian government is also different from other non-Christian, theistic governments. Every professing Christian should not be ashamed to admit that the Christian faith is unlike all other faiths. Therefore it is only logical for a professing Christian to conclude that a hypothetical Christian government, if it exists, will be superior to presently existing religious governments.
However, even though Scripture is inerrant, improper application of Scripture will still occur, given the fallibility of man. A Christian government, even if it is run only by Christians, will not be a perfect one. Unless he who presides the entire government is perfect.
But the bible says that day will come to pass! A perfect person will one day preside a global government! The time will come when the believers who have part in the first resurrection will live, and “they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6).
Oh, how the whole creation waits. It “has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:22). We have much to look forward to. The world waits "for the sons of God to be revealed."
2 comments:
Josh,
I do not want to talk about how much better a Christian state could be, idealistically, realised in relation to existing Muslim state structures today. So forget about theistic governance clouds for a moment.
The basis of a "Christian state that does not Christianise its people" already rests on the (truistic) assumption that society is plural and not all are Christians (hence the act of Christianising).
Which is problematic, because I can't visualise a representative democratic form of government structured on that basis alone. Unless, we are talking about fascism.
And even in a situation where Christians form the majority of its people, a state couldn't afford to operate on the first two levels you mentioned. The third is entirely up to personal choice.
A staunch Christian who gets offended by "worldly" questions would probably ask WHY NOT?
I say it is imposibble to operate an exclusively Christian government without exclusively subjecting the others to oppression. Your example of One Holy Court is enough to illustrate that. Would Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other supposedly hellbound sinners want to be tried in that court? Again, some would say "everyone" will be tried by God one day. Non-believers, cynically, would just reply, "fine, we'll only meet on Judgement Day".
Let's talk about something else. Evangelism is part of Christian faith, and even in a Christian state that does not Christianise, this leads to all sorts of problematics. Will sedition not be a crime in a Christian state? How would defitions of truths and untruths be formulated in a Christian state? If in accordance to biblical teachings, thence, spreading of other religions would amount to spreading untruths. What about freedom of expression? How would freedom of worship apply in a Christian state as "operating on your first two levels" could outlaw those who worship demons. Will it then bring to systematic criminalising of non-believers?
These are questions every non-believer could, and should, legitimately raise because they are equal citizens. Unless, of course, we monolithically choose to believe in having a higher class made up of only those who worship the highest God.
I understand from where you're coming from. But if you have a theistic worldview, you'd see things a little bit differently.
A theistic worldiew believes that there is one Creator God, who created all things. Therefore all things belong to Him. There is but one truth - His truth.
Rationally, if someone does not have a theistic worldview, then believing in other gods is completely ok. Human rights and freedom of choice is the most sacred thing. Truth is plural.
It is outside my ability to come up with a infallible model of Christian governance. But what I'm saying is that in concept, a country (or world) ruled by God is the way to go. In fact, it is the way it was supposed to be. But creation order has changed since the fall of man.
But of course, all this will sound like fascist oppression, if a non-plural God is not believed to exist in the first place.
So the real question that remains is this: Does God's existence depend on whether or not we believe it to be so? How then should we live? If we say yes, then we will live one way. If we say no, then we will live a totally different way. And see things very differently.
In response to some of your questions:
1. The "Holy Court" is not one that judges people's religion. It judges issues based on truth. E.g. abortion is not argued based on convenience, but on sanctity of life. Homosexuality not argued based on freedom of choice, but on the violation of God's law. Legalizing prostitution of drugs is not argued on the basis of economics or social needs, but on the bible's standard of holiness.
2. Unbelievers have equal rights as citizens, because every human being is equal in God's eyes. They are not criminalized for the difference of their beliefs (e.g. erecting temples or spreading other religions). But they will be criminalized for their misconduct (i.e. religiously motivated murder or mass suicide). Their choice to believe in other gods will ultimately be judged by God at the Great White Throne. Man is not given the jurisdiction to do that.
Post a Comment