| Part ofa series on |
| Christianity |
|---|
 |
The relationship betweenChristianity andpolitics is a historically complex subject and a frequent source of disagreement throughout thehistory of Christianity, as well as in modern politics between theChristian right andChristian left. There have been a wide variety of ways in which thinkers have conceived of this relationship, with many arguing that Christianity directly supports a particular political ideology or philosophy. Along these lines, various thinkers have argued forChristian communism,Christian socialism,Christian nationalism,Christian anarchism,Christian libertarianism,Christian democracy, thedivine right of kings, ortsarist autocracy. Others believe that Christians should have little interest or participation in politics or government, or none at all.
Early Christianity was most prominent in theRoman Empire, where it was illegal to practice Christianity andpersecution of Christians took place. The first state to recognize Christianity as its official religion was theKingdom of Armenia in 301.[1] Christianity gained prominence in Roman politics during the reign ofConstantine the Great, whofavored Christianity andlegalized its practice in the empire in 313.[2] Christians were also appointed to government positions at this time.[3] In 380,Trinitarian Christianity wasmade the official religion of the Roman Empire byTheodosius I.[4] The first major instance of Christianity wielding power in politics took place in 390. After theMassacre of Thessalonica, thebishop of Milan forbade Emperor Theodosius theEucharist until he repented, and Theodosius complied.[5]
Early Christians were described byCelsus as those who refused military service and would not accept public office, nor assume any responsibility for the governing of cities.[6]Origen confirms this description and adds that Christians do more for the good of the empire by forming an "army of piety" that prays for the well-being of the emperor and the safety of the empire.[7] It has been argued that Christianity made a significant positive contribution to the development of modern democracy.[8][9][10]
Christianity dominated European politics in the Middle Ages. During thefall of the Western Roman Empire, the Pope effectively served as the political leader of the region.[11] TheByzantine Empire continued to be the center of the church in the East. In 800,Charlemagne wascrowned byPope Leo III as the Emperor of the Romans, establishing a precedent of interdependence of the church with theCarolingian Empire, and eventually, theHoly Roman Empire.
The church also maintained strong influence over the other kingdoms of Europe. Secular rulers would support missionary efforts in order to enlarge their realms. Bishops and abbots were not only church leaders, but often also large land-owning princes and thus vassals of secular feudal lords. The line dividing church and state interests was not always clear.[12] The church also ruled its own territory directly in the form of thePapal States.[citation needed]
The most notable instances of the church exercising influence over the kingdoms were theCrusades, when it called the Christian kingdoms to arms to fightreligious wars. Some Crusades aimed to recover and secureJerusalem and theHoly Land from theMuslims (1095-1291); other Crusades attacked theCathari (1209-1229), and theTeutonic Knights and their supportersfought against non-Catholics (includingEastern Orthodox Christians) in theBaltic Sea area (1147-1410). InSpain, the Crusader mindset continued for several centuries after the last crusade in the Middle East, in the form of theReconquista, a series of wars (711-1492) fought to recover theIberian Peninsula from the MuslimMoors.
The Reformation caused a political backlash in the Holy Roman Empire. In response, theDiet of Worms was assembled, and promotion ofLutheranism was made illegal.[13] TheEnglish Reformation was deeply influenced byEnglish politics. When the church refused to grant an annulment to the marriage ofHenry VIII, he formed theAnglican tradition through theChurch of England under the political rule of the crown.[citation needed]
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Politics is addressed directly or indirectly in several parts of the Bible. Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 say that all should follow the authority of government, as government authority is instituted by the authority of God.
TheHebrew Bible contains a complexchronicle of theKings of Israel andJudah, written over the course of many generations by authors whose relationships and intimacy with the rulers of the several kingdoms fluctuated widely in both intimacy and respect. Some historical passages of the Hebrew Bible contain intimate portrayals of the inner workings of the royal households ofSaul,David andSolomon. The accounts of subsequent monarchs are frequently more distanced and less detailed and frequently begin with the judgment that the monarch "did evil in the sight of the Lord". The ChristianNew Testament instead begins with the story ofJesus,crucified as a criminal who had offended both theJewish priesthood and theRoman imperial authorities. At least to outward appearances, Jesus was at the periphery of political life and power in theRoman province of Judea.[citation needed]
The Catholic Church is deeply intertwined with the history of European politics. It developed alongside the status of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and persisted through the Middle Ages as one of the most powerful political forces in Europe. In 2015,Pope Francis stated that Catholics have a duty to participate in politics to improve the world.[14] The Catholic Church does not officially take political stances and encourages followers to come to their own political decisions, but it also states that these decisions must be made in accordance withnatural law.[15]
TheCatholic Church in the United States has sought to discipline Catholic politicians that take pro-choice stances onabortion, most notably PresidentJoe Biden.[16] Conservative, moderate, and liberal Catholics all have a major presence in the United States.[17]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Catholics historically have had a wide variety of positions on issues of war and peace. The historicalpeace churches are now the chief exponents ofChristian pacifism, but this was an issue that first came to light during the Roman Empire.
Soldiers in the Roman military who converted to Roman Catholicism were among the first who had to face these issues. Catholics in the Roman military had to confront a number of issues, that go beyond the obvious one about whether war could be reconciled with the Christian religion.Paganism saturated Roman military institutions.Idols of the Greco-Roman gods appeared on the legionary standards. Military service involvedoaths of loyalty that might contradict Catholic teachings even if they did not invoke pagan gods. The duties of Roman military personnel included law enforcement as well as defense, and as such Roman soldiers were sometimes obliged to participate in the persecution of Christians themselves. Sexual licentiousness was considered to be a moral hazard to which military personnel were exposed. SeeImperial cult (ancient Rome).
The conversion of Constantine I transformed the relationship of the Christian churches with the Roman military even as it transformed the relationship of the churches with the Roman state. A strongly contrary idea, sometimes called "caesaropapism", identified the now Catholic Empire with theChurch militant. TheLatin wordChristianitas originally meant the body of all Christians conceived as a political body, or the territory of the globe occupied by Christians, something akin to the English wordChristendom. Apocalyptic texts were reinterpreted. The idea of a Christian empire continued to play a powerful role in Western Europe even after the collapse of Roman rule there; the name of the Holy Roman Empire bears witness to its claims to sanctity as well as to universal rule. Anapocryphal apocalypse ofPseudo-Methodius, written during the seventh century, depicts a saintlyLast Roman Emperor who holds his earthly kingdom in anticipation of Christ's return. According to Pseudo-Methodius, the Last Emperor will wage war in thelast days against God's enemies, includingGog and Magog and theAntichrist.
Anglicanism was developed when King Henry VIII established the Church of England as the state church of the Kingdom of England.[citation needed] The Church of England is still closely involved in British politics and disputes sometimes take place over its role.[18] TheHawaiian Kingdom also had an Anglican church as its official state church, theChurch of Hawaii in the late 19th century.[citation needed]
Southern Baptism leans heavily conservative and is involved with the politics of theRepublican Party in the United States.[19][20]Lutheranism is influential in the politics of theNordic countries. TheChurch of Denmark, theChurch of Iceland, and theChurch of Norway are all Lutheran state churches, while theChurch of Sweden was a state church until 2000.Calvinism was the official religion of theNetherlands while theDutch Reformed Church was the state church.[citation needed] TheUnited Methodist Church advocates political activism among Methodists.[21] Methodists in the United States tend to lean conservative or moderate.[22]
Anabaptism adheres to a two kingdom concept. This is the belief that the kingdom of heaven or of Christ (the Church) is different and distinct from the kingdoms of this world. It essentially means the separation of church and state but differs from other Protestant approaches in their belief that the separation is absolute and the church has no right to interfere in the affairs of the state any more than the state in the church. This viewpoint is still held by the most religiously conservative Anabaptist groups, such as theAmish,Old Order Mennonites,Conservative Mennonites, andOld Order River Brethren.[citation needed] Not all Anabaptist churches subscribe to anarchist ideologies. TheHutterite church traces its roots back to theRadical Reformation and Jacoub Hutter, but respect and adhere to government authority.[23] TheBruderhof, another church community in the Anabaptist tradition, respects the god-given authority of the state, while acknowledging that their ultimate allegiance is to God.[24][25]
Separation of church and state is a prominent idea inliberalism, so direct influence of Christianity in liberal politics is typically limited.[citation needed]
Conservatism in Europe and the Americas is heavily influenced by Christianity. TheChristian right withinevangelical Christianity has formed many of its political views on social issues such asabortion,homosexuality andpublic education from passages in both theOld Testament and theNew Testament.[26] In theEpistle to the Romans, chapter 13:1-7, Paul instructs Roman Christians to submit to government. See also1 Peter 2:13-17 andTitus 3:1 for parallels. Mainstream theologians and theChristian right have interpreted Romans 13:1–7 to mean Christians should support the state and wield the sword when necessary, as God has instituted the idea of governments to be his main tool to preserve social order.[27]
The firstJewish Christian communities, as described in theActs of the Apostles, were organized along a principle of communal ownership of goods.[28][29] Some expressions of theChristian left have interpreted passages in Acts to mean that an ideal society would be based onChristian socialism orChristian communism. However, passages that have far greater influence for Christians who actively care for the poor are the words of Jesus, usually found in red in most bibles, which appear to give priority to the poor as a Christian obligation.[30]
There are some intentional Christian communities that, inspired by the first Christian church as described in Acts 2 and 4, share all their possessions in an effort to put into action Christ's command to love God and neighbour. TheSimple Way,[31] theBruderhof communities,[25] and theHutterites are all inspired, to some degree, by the model of church community described in Acts.[32] More common expressions of Christian love and commitment to the poor are churches of all denominations that fund localised soup kitchens, charity shops and shelters for the homeless as well as mission programs overseas.[33][34] In Roman Catholic circles the doctrine of preference for the poor has been important since 1979 and it still drives the church's practice of hospitality to those in any kind of need.[35]
Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law (not written in books but in the hearts of men, and binding on every one) its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency.
More than any other Bible source, theSermon on the Mount is used as the basis forChristian anarchism.[36] The foundation of Christian anarchism is a rejection of violence, withLeo Tolstoy'sThe Kingdom of God Is Within You regarded as a key text.[37][38] Tolstoy takes the viewpoint that all governments who wage war, and churches who in turn support those governments, are an affront to the Christian principles ofnonviolence andnonresistance.[citation needed]
Christians have interpreted Romans 13:1–7 to mean they should support the state and wield the sword when requested, as God has sanctified the state to be his main tool to preserve social order.[27] Christian anarchists do not share this interpretation of Romans 13 but given Paul's declaration to submit to authorities they do not attempt to overthrow the state.[39] However anarchists still describe the state as an evil power executingwrath andvengeance.[40] As wrath and vengeance are opposite to the Christian values ofreturning good for evil, Christian anarchists neither support, nor participate in, the state.[39][41]
Christian eschatology and various Christian anarchists, such asJacques Ellul, have identified the State andpolitical power as theBeast in theBook of Revelation.[42] Apocalyptic texts frequently coach radical criticism of existing regimes under the form ofallegory; this, at least, is a frequently mentioned interpretation of theBook of Daniel, frequently interpreted by secular scholars as a second-century diatribe againstAntiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews and provoked the revolt of theMaccabees.[citation needed] The Book of Revelation contains even more vehement imagery, which many secular scholars believe was directed against the Roman empire. The empire, or the city ofRome itself, are identified by these scholars as theWhore of Babylon, and theRoman emperor becomes theBeast orAntichrist. Both divine punishment and economic and military catastrophe are prophesied against "Babylon", which most scholars agree is John's code name for Rome.[citation needed]
No call to arms is contained within the Christian apocalypse. Instead, the calamities that doom the oppressive regime represented by these allegorical figures are expected from divine intervention alone. Nevertheless, if the books are properly read in this way, they seem to evidence deep hostility to the Roman government, no doubt a reaction to thepersecution of Christians by the Roman state.[citation needed]
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
An emerging tradition of political thought, Christian libertarians maintain that state intervention to promote piety or generosity can beunethical and counterproductive. Coercion by threat of violence robs otherwise moral acts of their virtue, inspires resentment and disrespect even for just laws on the part of the coerced, and has a spiritually deleterious effect upon the coercers. AsJohn Chrysostom, late 4th-centuryChurch Father andArchbishop of Constantinople, writes in his workOn the Priesthood (Book II, Section 3),
For Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. For neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity. Consequently much skill is required that our patients may be induced to submit willingly to the treatment prescribed by the physicians, and not only this, but that they may be grateful also for the cure. For if any one when he is bound becomes restive (which it is in his power to be), he makes the mischief worse; and if he should pay no heed to the words which cut like steel, he inflicts another wound by means of this contempt, and the intention to heal only becomes the occasion of a worse disorder. For it is not possible for any one to cure a man by compulsion against his will.
While Christian libertarians disagree over whether and to what extent agents of the state possess themoral authority to intervene in the lives of citizens, government involvement is generally viewed with skepticism and suspicion. As with the Christian left,war andnation-building are common targets of ethical scrutiny from Christians espousing thelibertarian philosophy.
The governing maxim for manynatural-rights libertarians, including those of faith, is thenon-aggression principle, which forbids the initiation of force but does not preclude the restrained, proportional use of defensive or disciplinary violence against the initiator. It has been compared to theGolden Rule and its converse, theSilver Rule. Christian libertarians often defend the institution of private property by pointing to the many Biblical injunctions against theft, to the voluntary nature of faith and the sharing of goods in early Christian communities, and to the fact that Jesus never advocated theredistribution of income and wealth by political means.
According to Christian libertarianism, to seize the life, liberty, or legitimately acquired property of an individual by coercion, even for that person's well-being or for the benefit of others, constitutes a violation of his or her human dignity as animage-bearer of God. Thus, most forms of taxation and all laws that prevent or distortfree and nonviolent exchange are unacceptable. The classical doctrine oforiginal orancestral sin furthermore suggests to Christian libertarians that political (and for someleft-libertarians, economic) power ought to bedemocratically distributed anddecentralized to guard against government oppression and the natural human tendency to corruption. In opposition to centralized political authority, Christian libertarians frequently cite the eighth chapter of the Biblical book of1 Samuel (1 KingsLXX), in which God tells the prophet Samuel that the children of Israel have rejected Him by demanding a king to reign over them, and He describes the many ways such a king will oppress the people.
While one of the Church's societal roles may be to promote righteousness in service and humble obedience to God,equal liberty is the highest or only political value. The state'sraison d'être is to prevent rights violations, to quarantine or punish justly, and ideally to restore offenders so they can again peaceably dwell and participate incivil society.
After the onset of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, several fascist movements adopted Christian ideas. Notable Christian fascist movements include theFatherland Front in Austria, theIron Guard in Romania, and theRexist Party in Belgium.[citation needed]
Christian Radicalism
Paul's letter to Roman Christians, chapter 13
The Sermon on the Mount: A manifesto for Christian anarchism
Leo Tolstoy
The Interpretation of Romans 13:1-2
Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by 'the prince of this world,' the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven
This higher power is a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. The Christian has been clearly forbidden to take vengeance or execute wrath, but he is to live peaceably with all men, to do good for evil. Then a Christian cannot be an officer or executor of this higher power
Revelation
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
