Letters on the way

Towards the end of the Book of Judges there’s a phrase that occurs four times to put that history into perspective, to prepare readers for the next step in Israel’s history and to a certain extent to pass judgment. It is the phrase: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” It sits alongside the narrative of the increasingly destructive ways in which the various tribes tried to do justice, and which every time results in even more injustice. In a society that gave such prominence to tribal allegiance, dealing with individual justice quickly blew out to major conflicts. In addition, cultic activity had become infused with idolatry and tribes were fighting each other for land. Also, there were some powerful enemies along the borders of the alliance of the tribes of Israel. By fighting amongst themselves, Israel had no way to respond to any external threat, and one tribe could even be manipulated to work against another by those external parties. Clearly, no peaceful existence between the tribes could exist in such a society. They needed someone to unite the tribes, to set rules and to bring justice. They needed a government of some form. And the primary model of government available to Israel at that time was kingship. That’s what other more peaceful people around them had. Therefore, the need to have a king also became obvious for Israel.

This focus on justice and unity became a hallmark of kingship in Israel. It is still an essential part of the role of government: governments need to protect individuals from violence in particularly by enforcing justice. Not only does such justice deter people from harming their neighbour, but possibly more importantly, it removes a sense of grievance and revenge that can quickly spiral from one harmful action to involve not just a few people to continuous conflict between families and whole groups of people.

In today’s world, tribalism is less based on kinship and more on ideologies and identities. Such division into competing groups that feel aggrieved has grown significantly. It is the role of government to bring unity, rather than increasing such division. Unfortunately, in our time many governments have tried to bring justice and unity in ways that have caused reactions, which in turn only increased the divisions and generated a sense of grievance.

The importance of the role to administer justice can be seen in a slightly controversial example from New Zealand’s history. There is evidence that Māori rangatira (chiefs) accepted colonial government to bring unity amidst tribal conflict and justice in a tribal landscape that was rife with injustice and in which one misdeed could quickly spread to hostility between iwi (tribes) and hapu (clans).

Many Māori expected the government to provide lawcodes that addressed Māori custom, and laws that provided for clearer interaction between Māori and settlers. In addition, they expected justice to be done. The failure by the government to provide for clear Māori law and to bring justice was seen as one of the key reasons for the beginning of hostilities between Māori and settlers and were at least in part at the root of the land wars.

As Māori saw that justice was not done, in particular that often settlers got away with violence towards Māori, they turned against the government and sought their own structures, such as the kingitanga.

If a government does not administer justice, does not provide for some unity between rival groups in society, then it has failed. Of course, a government will never be perfect. There will always be mistakes and shortcomings, but these are some of the basics.

In Israel the role of the king was closely joined with ensuring covenant faithfulness and leading the people of God. That is not the case in the modern world, not even from a Christian viewpoint.

According to Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 13:1-6), these core functions of government to provide justice and to protect against violence have not changed, whether that government is carried out by a king from amidst God’s people or a government established not on covenantal principles, but by the custom or law of the people, even when it is guaranteed by such an exploitative empire as the Roman Empire.

It is still God who establishes that authority, who has brought down rulers from their thrones and has lifted up the humble. God is at work in establishing rulers, even when those rulers have corrupted their duty, even when they abuse the role they have been called to. There is no perfect government, none that administers justice fully, none that brings peace as it should.

And yet, we need to remember that the role of government still is to ensure justice, and to protect people from violence. It is there to hinder evil and to bring external peace to the inhabitants. And for that the government can threaten violence – carries the sword. In other words, punishment such as imprisonment and restraint and even in extreme cases immobilization and injury are justified if they are done by the state in order to keep the peace. Of course, Paul implies that such state violence should be proportionate and related to the threat. That is clearly the case in Old Testament description of royal power and continues to be the case with regard to a Christian position on the role of the state.

I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that these are some of the primary roles of government. After all, we argue so much about other things that we may forget about some of those core functions and even be grateful for them.

Remembering that justice is one of the key roles of government, Christians should respect it and abide by its laws. This is not only because breaking laws may have severe consequences, but also because our conscience demands it and our obedience to God.

Of course, that is the default position, and in extreme circumstances disobedience to the government may be the more Christian thing to do, not as rebels, but rather as dissenters in specific situations. An example may be a dictatorial government commanding spying on one’s neighbour or compelling actions that indicate that the government is Lord of our lives and not Jesus. Obedience to the law and the government should be the default position, but doing something else after clear reflection and in obedience to God always is part of Christian life.

That respect for the government also involves paying our taxes. Of course, there will always be government expenditure that goes against God’s will; but that does not absolve us from the general rule to pay taxes. And yes, the tax system itself may be grossly unjust. That does not absolve us from paying our taxes. There may be situations in which a Christian should not pay taxes, for example, if the government is disputed or if those taxes would threaten the survival of the family, or if taxes have clearly been demanded by mistake. But not paying tax is an extreme situation and in our current society it normally involves resorting to the relevant dispute resolution bodies first.

Now, all that does not mean that we can’t disagree with government decisions and the direction of government. As Christians we can be politically involved and I think that it even is the role of some Christians to do that. We do need to ensure that in some way the laws that govern our society are closer to God’s commands. And we are called to bring our unique perspective to the governing of the nation. We cannot leave the area to those who do not know God. But this is not the role of all Christians. Those who are called to this role, hopefully will do it in a way that is faithful and discerning. Unfortunately, we all know that too often Christians have not been involved with grace in the political process and have come to grief as they entered the political sphere.

Any engagement in the political sphere requires deep anchoring in prayer and a Christian community, constant reflection and humility, as well as a willingness to both stand apart from the world and at the same time cooperate with others to work for the common good.