CRITICAL REFLECTIONS FOR MODERN-DAY CHRISTIAN
Introduction
Christians are in total agreement that we are to live at peace with the state as long as the state allows us to live according to our religious convictions. It is altogehter desirable for Christians to live according to the laws of their land. Today, some Christians live in freedom, while others live under repressive governments. According to Peter 2:13 and Romans 13:1, Christians are commanded to cooperate with the rulers as far as conscience will allow. For hundreds of years, however, there have been different interpretations of how we, as Christians, are to do this. Those living under democratic governments encourage their citizens to obey the authority, based on such verses, while others, living under oppressive and cruel governments, tend to encourage a different attitude, understanding these verses in a different way.
In order to provide answers for this debate we will use the following key terms.
State: Political and juridical organization of society usually confined to a determined territory[1]
Government: A body within a community, political entity or organization which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations[2]
Theocracy: Form of government in which only God and his law is sovereign[3]
The purpose of this work is to demonstrate 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.
The state
Throughout time the state has constantly evolved, from its concept to its evolution, organization and history. Its evolution or, to express it in a more appropriate term, its birth, can be traced out back in History, from Nimrod, through the Greek polis, the Roman empire, up to the modern states. The state as a political organization is a term used exclusively for a particular type of organization appearing in the Middle Ages.
The word state, as a juridical an political term, was first used by Machiavelli, when he introduced this word in his book "The Prince", saying: "The states and sovereignties that have had and have authority upon men, were and are either republics or principalities[4]
The state presents itself as a way of organizing life of those subject to it, adopting different forms, but always with formal structures to exercise its power, while expressing and defending its interests.
There are certain elements that identify the state as an independent political body:
Territory: The space within which the state exercises its power or "imperium".
People: It is a social group residing in a determined territory, whose unity is expressed in common ties of idiosyncrasy, culture, language, and consanguine relationships.
A proper legislation (a body of laws): It possesses a unitary juridical order, which unit derives from a constitution, whether written or not, which contains the territorial, political and legislative structures sustaining such state.
Sovereignty: In its decision-taking, such state is independent and autonomous, accepting no interference from other states.
a) The state and government
The state articulates its policies through a set of structures, organs, by which its political power is expressed. The government rules through the continuous creation of order and laws. This is perhaps the most important characteristic of the government, because, in order to rule over the population, it must create both a material and juridical order, which, if intended to perpetuate in power, must be based in values as justice and common welfare. Governments adopt, according to history, political culture, geography, etc. different forms. There are Republics, Monarchies, variations in between, and even theocracies.
b) Legitimate and illegitimate government
The concept of legitimacy is central to the study of governments. To say a government is legitimate is to accept its claim that it has the right to impose certain set of laws and regulations, and to punish those who transgress them. There are different theories to explain that right.
Social contract theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rosseau, believe that governments reduce people's freedom/rights in exchange for protecting them, and maintaining order. Many people question however, whether this is an actual exchange (where people voluntarily give up their freedoms), or whether they are taken by threat of force by the ruling party.
Other statist theorists, like David Hume, reject social contract theory on the grounds that, in reality, consent is not involved in state-individual relationships and instead offer different definitions of legitimacy based on practicality and usefulness.
Anarchists, on the other hand, claim that legitimacy for an authority must be consensual and reject the concept of states altogether; for them, authority must be earned not self-legitimated.
| Página siguiente |