The right to exercise power, usually through the creation of laws and the protection of such laws by repressive organs, is justified very differently, depending on what form of government is analyzed. In the case of Republics, the assumption that the power belongs to the people, with the existence of three branches: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive, gives certain margin to accept such claim. The exercise of democracy and the election of government by the people give them the required legitimacy to rule.
In the case of monarchies, the king represents the nation, therefore he is usually above his fellow citizens, having a "natural right" to govern, "given by God", such assumption usually based on 1 Peter 2:13 and Romans 13:1 to support such claim. Let"s remember Luis XIV, King of France, saying "I"m the state".
The last form of government is the most interesting, as it not longer exists, and will provide certain answers to our study.
The word theocracy originates from the Greek ?e???at?a, meaning "the rule of God". This form of government, in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. It was first coined by Josephus Flavius in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government for Jews. Josephus understood theocracy as a form of government in which only God and his law is sovereign. In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God. For example, a prophet like Moses led the Israelites, and the prophet Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. In ancient Greece and Rome denying the gods of the state was a crime. In Rome, the emperors were often deified.
The Hebrew theocracy is restricted to the first 400 years since their departure from Egypt. The law of God, or Torah, is the civil code for the tribes of Israel. In moments of crises God would raise a leader, called judge, to rule among the people. This was a temporary position, and in times of peace it is believed that every tribe governed itself with sufficient autonomy.
In an interesting passage, from the Book of Judges, Gideon refuses to become a king, because it would mean a betrayal to God. Judges 8:23. When Samuel is requested to give a king God Himself declares His disappointment. 1 Samuel 8:7. Based on these verses, the author believes that God"s intention was to rule over His people, not to appoint any authority over the nation of Israel.
Government and Christians
The issue of the Christian's relationship to government has been vitally important throughout the history of the church. Christians always have been faced with a struggle in this matter because the church has found itself under all kinds of governments and rulers with different perspectives of leadership.
Traditionally and historically, the church in democratic governments has less trouble with its response to government as compared to the church in other countries–like those who live in Cuba or China. In the struggle to answer the question of their relationship to government, Christians have not always answered it properly. There are three main interpretations on how Christians should relate to the government:
1- Some believe that the state is so corrupt that Christians should have as little to do with it as possible. Although they should be good citizens as long as they can without compromising their beliefs, they should not work for the government, vote in elections, or serve in the military.
2- Others believe that God has given the state authority in certain areas and the church authority in others. Christians can be loyal to both and can work for either. They should not, however, confuse the two. In this view, church and state are concerned with two different spheres-the spiritual and the physical- and thus complement each other but do not work together.
3- Still others believe that Christians have a responsibility to make the state better. They can do this politically, by electing Christians to occupy political positions. They can also do it morally, by serving as an influence for good in society.
None of these views advocate rebelling against or refusing to obey the government" laws or regulations unless those laws clearly violate, or require a Christian to violate, the moral standards revealed by God. The questions to ask would be: What or which are the moral standards revealed by God? And, which has been the effect of following such interpretations? It is the author"s personal opinion that Christians have the responsibility to submit to the government, but also the right to improve and oppose it, when such government stands in opposition to the Word of God.
When the Old Testament is examined, looking for answers to this issue, it is clearly seen the attitude assumed by the prophets throughout the history of Israel. Over and over again they condemned kings and societies, pointing out the wickedness of rulers and corruption of God"s word. Their voices were on the side of God but also on the side of the poor and destitute, the orphans and widows. Wherever there was evil, they did not fail to declare and condemn such evil, even to the risking of their lives! From Elijah condemning King Ahab to Micah denouncing the sins of the leaders and rulers, we see the prophetic role as one involved with society, and the government. Old Testament prophets considered their task to denounce the evil of their days, whether done by simple men of carried out by the Kings, priests and rulers!
Where the New Testament prophets different? Ask John the Baptist, who died because of his words against Herod! We, as Christians, have advocated a life so self-centered and spiritualized, that we have forgotten to be light and salt. While enjoying fellowship with Jesus and one another, we forget to teach our communities what is right and wrong, and to denounce it no matter who does it! On the grounds that all authority has been appointed by God we tend to forget that men also take the power by force, that governments are not elected by consensus, that some, after elected, become enemies of the human race. That most of them are approving hundreds of laws, which laws stand in opposition to the Word of God. We forget that Christ came to bring freedom, total and complete, not just salvation. Most of our churches hide from the moral decay of the society, pretending to serve God, and forgetting that our voice, as spokesmen of Jesus, has something to say when the government is corrupt and the nation is suffering. The author does no advocate the abandoning of ministry to become a part of a new political Christian party. Nor is the intention of the author to forget the calling and work of the church, because the church cannot afford to become a party follower, or just a protest voice for governmental change. That's not its calling, but taking part in what"s happening to the government and the nation, to say what"s right and wrong, to join forces in order to help those whose rights are robbed and violated, that is part of our calling.
Conclusion
We have a right to disobey the government is when it commands us not to do something God has commanded us to do, or when it commands us to do something God has commanded us not to do. The church, as the body of Christ, needs to articulate his calling in a way that its influence transcends the walls of our buildings and touch the lives of those around, showing that we care in an uncaring world. The Church, as light, must show what is right from wrong, and join forces to fight wrong. We have the responsibility to submit to the government, but also the right to improve and oppose it, when such government stands in opposition to the Word of God.
Bibliography
Fernández Bulte Julio.2002.Teoría del Estado y el Derecho. Editorial Letras Cubanas.
Fernández Bulte Julio.2002.Teoría del Estado y el Derecho. Editorial Letras Cubanas.
Josefo Flavio. Siglo I A.D. Contra Apión.
Mahoney, Ralph. 2003.. El Cayado del Pastor. World Map Publishers.
I would like to end this report with the words of our National Hero, Jose Mati:
"We are free, but not to be evil, not to be indifferent to human suffering, not to profit from the people, from the work created and sustained through their spirit of political association, while refusing to contribute to the political state that we profit from. We must say no once more. Man is not free to watch impassively the enslavement and dishonor of men, nor their struggles for liberty and honor."
Autor:
Tony Cruz
[1] Fernández Bulte Julio.2002.Teoría del Estado y el Derecho. Editorial Letras Cubanas.
[2] Fernández Bulte Julio.2002.Teoría del Estado y el Derecho. Editorial Letras Cubanas.
[3] Josefo Flavio. Siglo I A.D. Contra Apión.
[4] Machiavelli. “The Price”.
| Página siguiente |