 |
| The Criminal-in-Chief on his last day in court. |
“Did the early church fathers call for
violent revolution against Rome?” (I note that not all regime changes require "violent revolution," even when some of the consequences include a season of chaos and anarchy. But to be clear: I do advocate for chaos and anarchy to be recognized as one possible means to motivating regime change.)
“Does the fact that they rejected violence
and political rebellion give you some pause?” (I also note that the absence of any mention of the topic is a different condition than a claim "that they rejected violence and political rebellion.")
Please forgive the fact that this is worded for those who read deeply and frequently in scripture, theology, and church history. But also feel free to contact me for clarifications, explanations, or even vocabulary helps. It is a very important and timely discussion as questions of what is and is not legal are raised at and by the highest levels of our socio-political systems and structures – many of them with alarming answers.
Here's the reply:
By
definition the ante-Nicenes (the “early church fathers” prior to The Council of
Nicea, A.D./C.E. 325) were never faced with an environment in which the ruling
powers identified themselves heretically as "Christian." The
necessity of resistance, conflict, and even revolution occurs, among other
times, when the distinctions of church and state are not merely blurred, but
erased. Christian Nationalism, especially in its authoritarian forms, and
especially when enacting class warfare against whole populations identified
prejudicially on the basis of stereotypes for the profit of oligarchs and
corporations, is (to paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer) a wheel through which a
spoke should be driven (stopping it from damaging others any further).
Somewhat less than uniformly
"uniformed law enforcement officials."
Just
as Jesus, Paul, and others acted in rebellious conflict against the established
religious, civil, and commercial authorities, other early church fathers and
other leaders throughout the centuries following A.D./C.E. 325 have advocated
an activist approach to confronting the sins of the state (e.g., Bonhoeffer's progression
of actions toward the heresies of the Christian Nationalist state he faced*). Debatably
stipulating my friend’s point that advocating such corrective action appears
absent among the ante-Nicenes (“debatably” since I'm admittedly not among the
experts in that field of study), I leapt ahead to investigate my assumption
that with his The City of God Augustine would have something to say
about the issue. Surprisingly, my unfortunately brief investment there did not
yield the specifics I thought would be easier to find in just that one work.
Instead, looking elsewhere, I found John Chrysostom's sermon on Romans 13:1ff.
to be a well-balanced presentation of the earliest (that I could find) position
setting boundaries and circumstances under which these actions should be taken.
Again, I’m not an expert in the writings of the church “fathers.” And Chrysostom’s
advocacies would surely afoul of MAGA sensibilities, as well as any nominal
Christian’s desire to peacefully acquiesce within the current circumstances. But
my time is limited and his perspective on the passage intrigued me, as you’ll
see.
Chrysostom
opens his Homily 23 on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans with these
statements (after quoting Romans 13:1 as saying, “Let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers.), “Of this subject he [the Apostle Paul] makes much
account in other epistles also, setting subjects under their rulers as
household servants are under their masters. And this he does to show that it
was not for the subversion of the commonwealth that Christ introduced His laws,
but for the better ordering of it, and to teach men not to be taking up
unnecessary and unprofitable wars.”
 |
| Removing another so-called "drug dealer, criminal, and rapist" while "just following orders." |
My
question, give the current discussion about church and state, chaos and
anarchy, tyranny or revolution, was whether “the better ordering” of “the
commonwealth” might include active efforts toward regime change, or whether I
was reading into his specification about “unnecessary and unprofitable wars” the
possibility that Chrysostom would consider some violent conflicts to be
necessary and/or profitable.
Correcting
those who would object to the perception that he was advocating for maintaining
the status quo despite rulers who do not fulfill their appropriate functions, he
adds that “lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and
despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under
subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that
he makes them subject in doing this.” Are leaders who are acting outside the
proper boundaries of their duties to be considered dispensable, then? For Chrysostom,
the answer was “Yes.” He describes those rulers who ignore (much less
contradict) the godly purposes of governing as “a duller sort, whom things to
come have not such a hold upon as things present.” Does God still use such
leaders? Yes. Do they still serve His purposes? Again, “Yes.” But not by being
allowed to retain their hold on power. “He then who by fear and rewards gives
the soul of the majority a preparatory turn towards its becoming more suited
for the word of doctrine, is with good reason called ‘the Minister of God.’” I
would understand Chrysostom’s “turn towards . . . becoming more suited for the
word of doctrine” as denoting a regime’s repentance, or its replacement in the
course of a regime change, which in the interim between rulers/systems is by
definition “anarchy” and can predictably result in “chaos.” Further, a regime
may be so egregiously damaging that seeking chaos and anarchy is a better
choice than allowing the state’s damage to continue.
Godly purposes are served, even by those ruling in ungodly ways, because activism toward anarchy (i.e., contradicting, confronting, correcting, or even replacing faulty systems and structures, even when those actions result in chaos) is a contributing means of honoring God’s calling and movement that is just as worthy of being “called ‘the Minister of God’” as are those who faithfully maintain and support the state’s unique responsibilities when that is the circumstance.
At present, it is not.
*
According to Bonhoeffer, “. . . there are three possible ways in which the
church can act toward the state” [either when it “is sometimes extraordinarily
difficult to distinguish real lawlessness from a formally permitted minimum of
law” or when “The state which endangers the Christian proclamation negates
itself.” He describes those three stages in an essay published in April, 1933
entitled “The Church and the Jewish Question.”
In the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its
actions are legitimate and in accordance with its character as state, i.e., it
can throw the state back on its responsibilities. Second, it can aid the
victims of state action. The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims
of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian
community. ‘Do good to all people.’ In both these courses of action, the church
serves the free state in its free way, and at times whe laws are changed the
church may in o way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility
is not just to bandage the victims under the whell, but to jam a spoke in the
wheel itself. Such action would be direct political action, and is only
possible and desirable when the church sees the state fail in its function of
creating law and order, i.e., when it sees the state unrestrainedly bring about
too much or too little law and order. In both these cases it must see the
existence of the state, and with it its own existence threatened. There would
be too little law if any group of subjects were deprived of their rights too
much where the state intervened in the character of the church and its
proclamation.
With friends like these?
It is this writer’s observation that the current authoritarian trends (whether through the party leaning toward advantaging oligarchs or that sustaining a broader status quo by promoting corporations’ advantages) fulfill both of the state’s characterizations above as simultaneously excusing lawlessness while capriciously enacting prejudicial oppression toward particular groups within the population.
