Germany in the years immediately preceding World War II and into the beginning of the “Reich” was a terrible place. In fact, Europe was a terrible place during this time. Statism in both its left and right wing forms was winning the day. In every country in Europe and in the USA, racism and xenophobia were openly and strongly expressed, even by churchmen. In Germany out of that hellish cauldron came the Barmen Declaration and the Bethel Confession, the statements of Christians trying to live out their lives under horrific circumstances.
Recently I looked at the Barmen Declaration and gave my opinion that it reflects a “special” time in the life of the Church rather than the “normal” way in the Church relates to the government. However, since then I have been doing some thinking, and I will make a different point at the end of this post. But, on to the Bethel Confession.
Frankly, the Bethel Confession is a classical Protestant document with regards to the Church. It has a naïve view of the Reformation and a thoroughly Reformed view of history. That is to say, it does not believe that anything post-Apostolic can speak to us and can be a better way to express truth than the view of people who live 2,000 years later. Ultimately, the Bethel Confession follows the classical Protestant line of backing up its statements by disbelieving that the people living closest to the Apostles could possibly have correctly remembered the teachings of the Apostles. I will not post the counter arguments, as they are the classical counter arguments of the Orthodox as over against the Protestants.
Nevertheless, the Bethel Confession does make an interesting statement with which I mostly agree:
The national character of a church is limited by the content of the proclamation. Based on it alone, only by the church itself, can the manner and form of its entry into time be determined.
This is actually mostly correct. Sadly, the proclamation goes on to say:
Secular authority and church are both from God. They are separated from each other by insurmountable boundaries and yet dependent on each other.
The two statements are actually contradictory. First, nowhere in either Old or New Testament do you find the Church and the secular authority, “separated from each other by insurmountable boundaries.” Rather, the Old Testament prophet, the Old Testament priest, the Old Testament King, John the Baptist, Christ himself, Saints Peter, John, and Paul, and the hierarchs of the established Church are pictured as interacting with the State and even giving the State directions and yet being responsible citizens of the place in which the Church finds itself. I have already pointed out in previous posts how there was an interaction and interpenetration between the Church and the State that is more than simply speaking from one independent sphere to another independent sphere.
But, the Bethel Confession does speak accurately when it says that only by the Holy Spirit and the Church, “can the manner and form of its entry into time be determined.” Uhm, but the Barmen Declaration does not actually mention the Holy Spirit, but rather mentions the Scriptures. What is correct is the explicit admission that the Church adjusts itself to the culture which it encounters in a particular place and at a particular time in order to make decisions about its particular practices.
That is, when I look at the Church in time, there appear to be a variety of ways of relating to the State. More than that, even the same Church in the same State can vary in its relational practices in accordance with the cultural time slot in which it finds itself. The principle is that there is no strict rule regarding how the Church ought to relate to the State. Rather, when the Church (or the Old Testament community) is unable to exert much influence it goes into a survival mode in which the preservation of the faith becomes of paramount importance. When the Church is able to fully express itself openly (Roman Empire, Nehemia, Ezra), it becomes a participant part of the State and takes up the role of being the conscience of the State.
In other words, there is no strict separation of Church and State, but rather the determination to be able to express the fullness of the Church (and the Gospel) as much as the Church is able to. When it is not able to, it becomes a secretive society which separates itself from the State. When it is able to, it becomes a partner with the State in the building of a culturally appropriate Christian expression.
In other words, my final thought is that there is no one doctrine of Church and State that can be stated as a propositional truth. Rather there are a set of behaviors that vary according to the openness of the State to an expression of Christian doctrine.
Good interesting post. The one principle that both state and church must adhere to is obedience to God or submission to King Jesus. This is where they speak to one another, especially the church to the state.