Christian ethics in the founding fathers, Martin Luther King Jr, and Augustine

God and Government

Christians and Government

The separation of church and state that many in the Western world take for granted is far from a standard feature of government. This concept is not even clear-cut today, with such issues as the placement 0f the Ten Commandments in or immediately outside many court buildings, and even the portrayal of several religious figures on the Supreme Court building. But the issue goes much deeper than this, from political, theological, and philosophical perspectives. Regardless of whether or not a given government practices or even establishes a certain religion, early Christian texts have been used as arguments that obedience to an earthly government must be absolute, as this serves the basic interest of creating peace and harmony in the world. This view can be seen to raise many problems, and in fact there are many historical events generally regarded as good from both a general moralistic viewpoint and a specifically Christina perspective that would be considered immoral according to these texts.

Of the many contradictions that seem to arise throughout history in regards to this dichotomy, two are especially central to the history of the United States. The very formation of the country itself required an act of disobedience to the already established government of Great Britain. Many of the founding fathers believed that this action was not only philosophically defensible, but even that it was their duty as true Christians to establish a free government in place of the monarchy imposed on them from afar. Two hundred years later, Martin Luther King, Jr. practiced civil disobedience in his fight for the rights of African-Americans in an attempt to establish the same kind f freedom in an equal and unprejudiced manner. Few today would disagree with the morality of King's actions and beliefs, nor with their effects, and yet they can be seen as in opposition to certain Christian texts and even the Bible itself.

The Book of Romans contains one of the injunctions that Christians must show obedience to their governments: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans, 13:1-2). This passage seems clear-cut and straightforward; it goes on to claim that the individuals in authority are the servants of God, and that wrongdoing against them is the same as sinning in the eyes of God. But despite how clear-cut the issue seems, like much of the Bible it is very much subject to interpretation and can be seen to change with the course of history.

St. Augustine of Hippo's theological and political work City of God is even more open to interpretation. It is much more lengthy and complex than this brief passage from the Book of Romans, and not everything -- or even most things -- in the text apply directly to the situation at hand. Even what St. Augustine does say on the subject is not incredibly direct, either, which makes interpretation and practical application all the more difficult. It is clear that he does not give much reverence to the authorities established by man, believing that the City of God completely dwarfs any earthly government, and that there was no need to be overly concerned with the City of Man. At the same time, he seems to suggest that letting these governments be, and submitting to them, is the best way to get by, as though the battles in this world simply don't matter.

With these perspectives in mind, then, can the founding fathers of this nation really have been in line with Christian teachings on obedience to government in their Declaration of Independence from the authority in England? This was an act of conscious and explicit disobedience to the established authority -- and not just disobedience, but outright rejection and rebellion. At first, the passage in Romans seems unequivocal -- a rebellion against established authority seems to be the same as a rebellion against God. But a closer and more considered examination of the situation suggests that this is not the case. First, Romans was written with a very specific government in mind -- the Roman government, as a matter of fact. It considers authority as the earthly servant of God. At the same time, this passage suggests that free will exists, in that men have the ability to rebel against God and authority. Therefore, individual authorities could rebel against God and use their authority in ways that were not in his service. This would make the authority no longer the arbiter of sin, and rebellion would be almost morally necessitated.

For many who rebelled during this nation's revolution, and even those who came to the continent in the preceding century and a half, the most powerful motive was the belief that their government was no longer serving God's word and will. The passage from Romans implicitly makes obedience to the government contingent upon that government's obedience to God, and a rebellion in authority makes a rebellion of the people necessary if they are to continue serving God. In addition, the new authority they established could be seen, given a certain reading of this passage, as an assign that the revolution was blessed by God. As "there is no authority except that which God has established," it could be claimed that the rejection of England's authority and the establishment of a new continental authority was a manifestation of divine will. God established a new authority to replace that which had turned away from him.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s illegal acts were made in the same spirit, it could be argued, though his was not an attempt to reject or replace an authority but rather to change it. This makes the issue far more cloudy. A look at the results of his actions, however, makes it seem as easy to decide as the Declaration of Independence. The government was effectively replaced, and it was acknowledged that equal rights were morally and ethically demanded of a just government. In order for this to make King's actions truly moral, however, this would require that sin could be transformed by later results. This is a dangerous proposition, and so it must be concluded that King's actions were at best nebulous according to the Book of Romans.