God, Man, the State, and Political Culture: Some Principles
William A. Dyrness
Because the State does not exist in its own right but because of an authority that is derived from God, an understanding of the character and purposes of God must precede and undergird all considerations of the state. God is living and personal and so is able to enter into a relationship with man and reveal his purposes to him. Further, he is infinitely good and powerful so that on the one hand man's highest end is fulfilled in the worship of his creator, but on the other hand man's disobedience and pride separate him from the loving presence of God. Finally, in his creative work and his continuing providential care over the world, God has manifested his love and concern for creation. The order of creation then finds its highest fulfillment reflecting the goodness and justice of God Himself. God's love and concern have been supremely evident in the life and work of Jesus Christ, the God-man, who exhibited in a concrete way God's goodness, and brought about a kingdom where this goodness was a visible reality by the power of God, seen in his character, teaching, miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension. Now through the proclamation of the Word in the Church God is calling all men to Himself so that they may realize his good purposes and thus glorify him. This call is expressed in both the great commission to make disciples of all nations, as well as in the great commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Man was created in God's image, so he is to reflect God's goodness and creativity. Thus, every man has dignity and value in himself because his primary responsibility and relationship is with God. In fulfilling this responsibility, he must be free to pursue the ends for which he was created: expressing himself in his family and community relationships, in the vocation for which he is gifted, and of course in his worship of God. A government that allows for true human development must recognize the sovereignty of these pursuits.
Since man is a rebel against God and his instructions, there must be a human authority that will allow the peaceful development of God's gifts. The New Testament implies there are two primary goals of government (Romans 13:1-7; I Timothy 2: 1,2 and 1 Peter 2:13-17) First, the government is to preserve order. No society can function and no man can live creatively unless there is an order in which man — individually and corporately — may express and embody his ideals. But this need for order must be balanced with the obligation of the government to preserve a minimum of justice. This second goal of government is necessary because of man's fallen condition and the fact that all his institutions reflect his distorted values. This role is negative and positive. It restrains those who seek their own ends at the expense of others the state does not bear the sword in vain — while it protects the basic rights of the community at large.
It follows then that the general attitude of Christians toward government is one of respect and submission (Romans 13:1-7). This general attitude, however, must always be viewed in the light of the Christian's ultimate commitment to God and His Word. The overriding responsibility is to God and his neighbor. This responsibility, however, the Bible makes clear, is to be fulfilled in the context of basic structures: the family and the larger community or state. The gospel does not replace these orders but puts them in their proper perspective while it works within them to permeate them with the spirit of Christ. The Gospel is also a challenge to these orders with its call to love, which in the Bible is a concrete course of action toward God and our neighbor.
Now we must recognize that it is within the setting of Philippine-style Martial Law that we have been called to be Christ's disciples. Government in the concrete reflects a variety of historical, cultural, and economic factors dependent on particular local and international situations. It is this particular setting in which we are called to serve Christ. The road to the kingdom of God always begins where we are; the needs that surround us are our immediate responsibility. While the complexity of the situation and the relative success of certain government initiatives keep us from making any actual prescriptions at this point, there are elements to which we as Christians must respond. There are directions we must go and alternatives we must consider as Christ's disciples.
On the one hand, there are aspects of Philippine culture which seem to argue for one-man rule to be acceptable and effective. In the first place, there is a tendency for the individual Filipino to identify his aspirations with his family or immediate group rather than with the nation as a whole. The "nation" is too abstract and distant to engage his interest. Thus, representative democracy may be a difficult goal to achieve at this point in history (See J. Jesus and J. Benitez. PSR, Vol. 18, pp. 110-122). Cooperation and participation typically are based on power relationships and personalism rather than common aims. For the Filipino, efficiency in government is not measured in general terms but in terms of the advantageous management of a downward flow of patronage from leaders and an upward flow of support from the people. Accordingly, a strong leader is often admired and respected because he offers the hope that this flow will be facilitated. Surveys on the local level indicate that the best conditions obtained here are dynamic figures with complete political control. "It is generally recognized that the Filipinos yield their truest loyalty to the top man if he has supreme power, and it is to him that they look for redress of their grievances" (Social Research 30, 1963, pp. 206, 207).
On the other hand, we must recognize that the centralization of power in the hands of one man has grave dangers. Part of the genius of the modern state is that the division of powers holds in check the (potentially) malevolent exercise of power. As historian Herbert Butterfield observes, a healthy disposition of force makes human nature appear better than it is! Further, it is unlikely that one man — or group of men —possesses sufficient wisdom for the complex requirements of modern government.
The second danger of one-man rule is that political and economic power when concentrated in the hands of one man leads inevitably (and perhaps, imperceptibly) to the exercise of moral influence. Again, the freedom of the people to pursue their goals and participate freely in the economic and social life of the nation is at stake. Moreover, no person is immune from the temptation of using power to coerce and discriminate; how much greater this temptation becomes when those who wield the power do so without public scrutiny is only too clear.
Finally, there is the danger that one man, having once attained power, will not (willingly) give it up. Unless constitutional means for the orderly transmission of power are allowed to prevail, succession may mean revolution. Reinhold Niebuhr's observations about totalitarian communism apply as well to Philippine-style Martial Law. For communism, dictatorship — as Martial Law — is only a transitory stage on the way to a better form of government. But, comments Niebuhr, if the Russian oligarchy strips itself of its own power it will be the first oligarchy in history to do so. Moreover:
The hope that the internal enemies will all be destroyed and that the new society will create only men who will be in perfect accord with the collective will of society, and will not seek personal advantage in the social process, is romantic in its interpretation of the possibilities of human nature. (Moral Man in Immoral Society, p. 194)
No government policy can realistically overlook the fact of man's sinful character and of his basic need for deliverance from sin— both personal and collective; for this, the Church not the state has the responsibility to proclaim the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead and as reigning Lord offers forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Holy Spirit to all who repent and believe. This work of evangelism in some mysterious way is related to the final victory of Christ's kingdom which he will bring from heaven and which will be characterized by righteousness and peace. But in the name of God who will accomplish these things and for the sake of the Lord who died to make it possible:
Comments