For various reasons all that I had seen of the facts convinced me that the Remain vote was the way to go, but a friend published a video from a Catholic debate by the speaker for Brexit and it made me think was I right? Was I, in fact, positing cultural values as Christian? What would be a truly Christian approach to Brexit/Remain, indeed is there a Christian approach to this?
For Evangelicals the Bible and frequently ‘sola scriptura’ is the reference for all decision making. As a starting point that is interesting for multiple reasons. Firstly some of the words translated from the Hebrew and Greek into English have different understanding today than when they were originally written. Secondly while some of Scripture is prescriptive, some is descriptive, some uniquely for a bunch of tribes functioning as a people group, some for all people everywhere.
Forms and levels of government
Looking at the Old Testament we see this bunch of tribes, who were some of the children of Abraham, having a unique position within the recorded history in the Bible. They went through various forms of government, theocracy, single God ordained leader, judges, kings, Sanhedrin and so forth. Some God ordained, some (like the kings) while not God ordained, at least God permitted. We read of God’s involvement with the leaders of other people groups who lived around them, sometimes good, sometimes evil. It’s a complex story, and difficult to understand exactly what God was doing in different communities in the surrounding areas. Take Akhenaten as an example. As Pharaoh of Egypt he was unique in that he was a monotheist and some have argued that he worshipped the same God as the Israelites.
Jesus was born in a time when the people group he was part of was under the rule of the Romain Empire. An Empire very different to the democratic Greek/Athenian states where the rule of law was not only absolute but was based upon the assumption of a complex polytheistic approach that was very distant to that we read about from the people of God in the Old Testament. The only political statement that can really be attributed to Jesus would be the one in response to paying taxes to this oppressive empire… and his comment was to give to the empire what was owing to the empire but to give to God was was owing to Him.
So there are three things coming out of this
- There is no clear form of government prescribed by God in Scripture
- There is no clear prescription of structure of nation, empire, affiliation of nations etc in Scripture
- There is no clear prescription of functioning as a nation in Scripture
Church governance as a model?
The early church didn’t have the hierarchy we see today. To start with they had elders, who were more like mentors than we would recognise as pastors today. The word ‘poimen’ or pastor only occurs once in Scripture in Ephesians 4:11. From reading Scripture we see elders as someone radically different to the modern day pastor or priest. That role has evolved over the centuries and through the various church councils. The structure rose above the elders to have overseers (also called Bishops) who, for many churches, were part of the apostolic succession. This was not a clean and easy step, indeed Ignatius of Antioch wrote to offer strategies to pressurise churches in a city to recognise a single bishop of that city. Some cities, however, had a plurality of leadership.
As the church grew so efficiency, mirroring the Roman empire, became something to be desired. However, in general, that arose alongside the secular geopolitical. In other words the rising nation states and empires were separate from the structures and hierarchy of the churches. Though at times there were ‘Christian’ countries, unlike Islam and unlike Judaism, the church functioned by influence rather than direct control.
Culture and the modern nation state, and 'Christian' countries
Something to think about too is the difference between nation and people group (ethnous). It is the word ethous or people group that is mentioned in Scripture rather than nation. Nation comes from a latin derived word which incorporates a sense of place where you are born, whereas people group is a cultural identifier without relationship to geographic place of birth.
So part of what I now look at is whether the nationstate of the the UK (or any other nationstate for that matter) is ipso facto God ordained and I cannot see any Scriptural evidence for that. I must therefore conclude that though it may be within the permissive will of God we don’t intrinsically have to accept it as a ‘yesterday, today, forever’ structure, merely something to serve the needs of the time.
For about 30 years I have not voted, though I have a preference for libertarian republicanism I don’t have a feeling of desire for political involvement. Why? Well, that does come from my reading of Scripture. Jesus talked about being ‘salt and light’ within the community. That implied that those who are followers of Jesus were not the entire community but an influencer within the community. A meal of meat lightly flavoured with salt or meat preserved with salt is tasty; a meal of exclusively salt would make you vomit. The idea of creating a exclusively Christian community is non-scriptural.
Historically Christian values have influenced Europe and the UK and to some degree they became what some people call ‘Christian countries’ and I hear people wanting to return to these values. The trouble is, if it was never in God’s prescriptive will that the UK or Europe became ‘Christianised’ in the way these people look back towards then looking forwards to that again may not be the best way forward. The body of Christ grew under USSR communism, it’s growing under Chinese communism, it’s growing in Islamic countries… and waning in ‘Christian’ countries. Did we get it wrong trying to create these Christian countries? This week I watched Nik Ripken’s new film ‘The Insanity of God’, which I highly recommend. Persecution is horrid, it’s evil, and I don’t want it. And under persecution the church flourishes.
So I’m not sure that we can argue from a Christian nation state point of view that countries should be independent. Indeed when I read Scripture I see more about interdependence than independence as the way of Christ. I’m not sure we should be targeting a Christian state either. Our aim as Christians is not structural but relational.
So I’m not sure that we can argue from a Christian nation state point of view that countries should be independent. Indeed when I read Scripture I see more about interdependence than independence as the way of Christ. I’m not sure we should be targeting a Christian state either. Our aim as Christians is not structural but relational.
So there are three things coming out of this
- Scripture prescribes interdependence not independence
- Scripture doesn’t prescribe or describe ‘Christian’ countries
- Scripture implies that Christians will be in the minority not the majority
Do the church councils give us any indications of the way forward?
The first council of Nicea was called by Emperor Constantine the Great (unelected), a secular rather than church leader, who assembled the overseers or bishops (also unelected) to discuss a number of procedures.’Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself.’ Obviously not a sign of Christian humility! Anyway, the council primarily met to discuss the Arian controversy and they took a month over that. The result was that all bar two of these bishops signed the new Nicene Creed. The way forward was not by a simple majority vote but by seeking God and building consensus till almost all agreed.
If we look at the EU and at the UK Parliament we see the EU as in an overwhelming number of cases (I believe it is more than 80% of the time) building consensus till almost all agree and only majority voting on those small number of cases. Whereas UK Parliament as a functional representative government votes on the the majority of issues. There is an exception to that though, because there will be 40 years worth of legislation, which is too many laws to disentangle from the EU within a very short time frame if the UK votes to leave the EU then that will become a government not a parliamentary issue. Secondly the referendum is based on a simple majority vote rather than building consensus or an overwhelming majority vote. I would therefore argue that the very method of deciding IN/OUT is in itself non the Christian way. I would further argue that because the EU requires consensus more often than not, it follows a more Christian path than British Parliament!
When I look at the percentages for the vote, I see very close numbers being predicted… possibly coming down to a few thousand votes on a population of 64 million. When the UK joined the EU (then the EEC) 44% of those who could vote were in favour of joining and 21% against. There was not even a clear majority of the country in favour of joining. Whichever way the vote goes it’s highly likely to be less than a majority vote again. And on something serious like this I think it should be significantly more than a mere majority of 1. We, as Christians, should thus be arguing not whether to vote in or out but how we should build consensus rather than division.
If we look at the EU and at the UK Parliament we see the EU as in an overwhelming number of cases (I believe it is more than 80% of the time) building consensus till almost all agree and only majority voting on those small number of cases. Whereas UK Parliament as a functional representative government votes on the the majority of issues. There is an exception to that though, because there will be 40 years worth of legislation, which is too many laws to disentangle from the EU within a very short time frame if the UK votes to leave the EU then that will become a government not a parliamentary issue. Secondly the referendum is based on a simple majority vote rather than building consensus or an overwhelming majority vote. I would therefore argue that the very method of deciding IN/OUT is in itself non the Christian way. I would further argue that because the EU requires consensus more often than not, it follows a more Christian path than British Parliament!
When I look at the percentages for the vote, I see very close numbers being predicted… possibly coming down to a few thousand votes on a population of 64 million. When the UK joined the EU (then the EEC) 44% of those who could vote were in favour of joining and 21% against. There was not even a clear majority of the country in favour of joining. Whichever way the vote goes it’s highly likely to be less than a majority vote again. And on something serious like this I think it should be significantly more than a mere majority of 1. We, as Christians, should thus be arguing not whether to vote in or out but how we should build consensus rather than division.
There are three and sometimes four layers of government with the EU being the top, Sovereign nation states under that, regional or national governments under that (eg Wales and Scotland), and counties or districts under that. There are apparently 33,000 ‘faceless bureaucrats’ in the EU for the whole continent and 400,000 at the sovereign nation state level. Countless more lower down. However, the figures are unclear. The video I watched that started this off suggested that the Catholic (Christian) way was for decisions to be taken as low in the ladder as possible. Looking at this and understanding the type of directives made by the EU it looks to me as if the problem is not with the EU but with the national governments.
Re-looking at the Christian and Scriptural principles has made me realise that the reality is a relational consensus driven EU is not merely beneficial to the population of the UK, but is in fact the Christian approach to organising things and that maybe what is needed if we are to follow as a Christian principle that decisions should be taken as low as possible is a review of national government with an aim to reduce that layer to something more appropriate!
Government spending
One thing however did surprise me. As an Christian pacifist I was expecting a huge lump of money to be able to be taken from the Armed forces if the UK was to follow Costa Rica and disband it’s army. I thought that might be a way of funding the NHS. What surprised me was that the armed forces only accounts for 6% of spending whereas Health accounts for 18% and Education for 13%. I know some people would disagree, but from my perspective encouraging more people to home educate and this reducing the education budget would be both good for the budget and a Christian way forward.
Immigration
One thing a lot has been made of is immigration. This overlaps with the concept of the modern nation state. The concept of passports is possibly early 15th century. Before that people travelled, I cannot say freely because one of the reasons for introducing passports was to facilitate travel. But in general the borders of nation states was not seen in the way it is today. This overlaps with the concept of nationality (where I was born) and ethous (my culture).
Scripture does give clear guidance on how to treat the sojourner… the foreigner in your country. Though intermarriage was something clearly against Old Testament principles, there was no rule to keep foreigners out or even limit how many came in. Those who did should be treated as guests. Welcomed. Indeed provided for the same as widows and orphans in the host people group.
Scripture does give clear guidance on how to treat the sojourner… the foreigner in your country. Though intermarriage was something clearly against Old Testament principles, there was no rule to keep foreigners out or even limit how many came in. Those who did should be treated as guests. Welcomed. Indeed provided for the same as widows and orphans in the host people group.
There are two separate things I see… one is immigrants from outside the EU into the EU and secondly migrants in both directions between EU countries. I can see nothing in Scripture to differentiate between them. They are not of the same nation… but then a Sussex guy in Cumbria is almost in a different nation, ie place where they were born, as centuries back those were different sovereign nations. The ethous is different too. I spent a weekend in Scotland with Protestants and a few months later a weekend in Paris staying with Catholic fathers. I felt more culture shock (different ethous) in Scotland than France. The same is true contrasting living in the USA and living in Cyprus… though they speak English in the USA culturally they are more different than Cypriots.
So I’m not sure how to categorise immigration. I’m very unhappy with the attitude of some people to immigrants, both EU and not EU, but I recognise the entire world population cannot live in the UK. Nor indeed would they want to! Scripture clearly teaches us to care for the sojourner, but doesn’t give guidance on numbers.
So I’m not sure how to categorise immigration. I’m very unhappy with the attitude of some people to immigrants, both EU and not EU, but I recognise the entire world population cannot live in the UK. Nor indeed would they want to! Scripture clearly teaches us to care for the sojourner, but doesn’t give guidance on numbers.
So what is my conclusion?
Mainly that regardless of the outcome the method by which that outcome will be derived is not a Christian approach. If you add to that the vitriolic and in some cases vindictive nature of both campaigns then even more so. In researching this I was shocked and horrified to see and hear Farage behaviour in the EU Parliament. He was downright and unnecessarily rude. That is certainly never the Christian way.
My conclusion is still that the UK being part of the EU is the Christian way forward. But instead of looking at it from being the most beneficial for the UK, I have now come to the conclusion it is Scripturally the Christian way.
My conclusion is still that the UK being part of the EU is the Christian way forward. But instead of looking at it from being the most beneficial for the UK, I have now come to the conclusion it is Scripturally the Christian way.
No comments:
Post a Comment