Reflecting on the Moral Imperative of Loving our Neighbor and State Sovereignty
Summary
If there is a moral imperative for government officials to ensure that the State is properly fulfilling its role as an“authority…instituted by God,” then Christians serving and leading in government must consider their responsibility to restrain evil from occurring to their neighbors.
Scriptural role of the State outside the Davidic Church-State nexus
As we consider Scripture’s guidance to us on the issue of sovereign nation-states offering foreign aid, it is critical to start that conversation with the understanding that the Kingdom of God on earth as a political entity ended with the deportation of the people of the Southern Kingdom to Babylon. Since that time, no nation on earth has enjoyed the covenantal distinction that Israel had when they entered the Promised Land.
Yet, regardless of their country of residence, Christians are not without guidance.
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.1 Peter 2:13–1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Romans 13:1-5
First, these verses speak to the state’s governance authority [1] in opposing evil and praising (not forming) good. In this role alone, the State acts on God’s behalf and requires proper moral categories under which the government discerns good and evil, which cannot occur with Christians serving and leading in the public square.
Second, these verses are intended for application by those within the State, not the State itself. Peter and Paul are writing to Christians and not the general public. However, both authors would have had a properly functioning state in mind.
Scriptural Role of Christians within the State
Just as with Joseph and Pharaoh, Samuel and David, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, God calls people into roles as servants and leaders in governments that seek to honor God and those that do not. For those who find themselves in such a position, they are guided by the same instruction from Jesus regarding their daily lives,
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 26:36-40 (see also Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28)
Jesus is fusing two separate imperatives from the Book of the Law, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. The first is given as a directive of worship and injunction against idolatry. The second is to ensure proper worship is always understood in terms of outward action for the blessing of others.
Once again, placing these passages outside the Davidic church-state nexus is essential. However, the hearers of both Matthew (the Jews) and Mark (the Gentiles) would have placed the Deuteronomy reference within the three sermons given by Moses to the people of God before entering the Promised Land. These sermons included Deut. 4:4-8,
But you who held fast to the Lord your God are all alive today. 5 See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ 7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? 8 And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today.
Through Moses, the God of steadfast love and faithfulness intended to make clear that obedience to the Moral Law of God, including Leviticus, was a means to a missional end.
Further, referencing “the Prophets” would have called to mind their indictments for the failure of the nation of Israel to practice these ordinances, thereby failing “to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness and into his marvelous light.” 1 Peter 2:9-12.
The nettling question of “Who is my neighbor?” was anticipated and answered by Jesus with the conclusion of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10,
But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” Luke 10:33–37.
Guidance for Application
None of these verses are explicit directions for sovereign states to offer foreign aid to other countries. As we have already stated, the intersection of every “human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors,” with “the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” with the moral imperative of God seems limited to the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil-doers. Neither Peter or Paul, nor James, John, Matthew, Mark, or Luke had in mind a theocracy or Christian nation charged with the moral formation of its citizens. That is the role of the Church.
Some members of Christ’s church are called into the public square. Based on the above criteria, servants and leaders in every facet of the government should discern policy, including that of foreign aid, through the application of the following questions:[2]
What is good that requires encouragement?
What is broken that needs restoration (repair)?
What is missing that awaits creation (development)?
What is evil that demands opposition?
If the State has a moral obligation to economic justice in stewarding the tax dollars of its own citizens efficiently in all endeavors, advisors must ask the following questions:
How much more will it cost to wait until this foreign problem is in the United States?
What is the best delivery vehicle for this aid?
Are subsidiarity-focused[3] NGOs available to adequately meet this need?
If the State has a moral obligation to oppose evil occurring to foreign citizens (neighbors) in another sovereign state, especially when that state lacks the capacity to stop the evil occurring to their citizens, advisors might ask the following question:
Is there evil happening that the foreign State is unable or unwilling to oppose (sex trafficking, disease, natural disasters, genocide)?
Intervention driven by the moral imperative to oppose evil is not the same as promoting virtue, which is the role of government only with the people's consent. This intervention could include diplomatic, financial, or military interventions or the development of systems and structures for the country to rectify the situation itself.
While an assessment of outcome is appropriate, acting solely based on likely success implies a truncated anthropology of human value and moves towards adopting the utilitarian approach Peter Singer advocates as “effective altruism” but on a state-sponsored scale.[2]
Using the limitation on governance authority from above does not negate or invalidate the state acting on determinations from the first three questions. However, it would place that authority to act as part of the “social contract” or authority from the people.
Finally, foreign aid must also come from a nation that has the capacity to provide it without undue economic damage to its own proper flourishing.
Conclusion
Christians serving and leading in the public square, especially those with the capacity to influence policy, must balance the interests of the State (in both economic and human capital) with the call for loving our neighbor through the restraint of evil.
As Pope John Paul II said of foreign policy, “It is vital to note that the independence of States can no longer be understood apart from the concept of interdependence. All States are interconnected both for better and for worse. For this reason, and rightly so, we must be able to distinguish good from evil and call them by their proper names. As history has taught us time and time again, it is when doubt or confusion about what is right and wrong prevails that the greatest evils are to be feared.”[3]
End notes
[1] This phrase is taken from Nicholas Woltersdorff’s “The Mighty and the Almighty: An Essay in Political Theology” (2014), in an expansion on the nature of the state’s de jure authority (p. 65-66). Woltersdorff connects the concept of governance authority to moral authority (p.78) and then the limiting of that “authority from above” to restraining evil rather than extending their governance authority to the promotion of flourishing (p.114).
[2] Peter Singer, “The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically,” 2015.
[3] Subsidiarity is an economic principle based on resolving an issue at the lowest possible level of jurisdiction in order to achieve the most effective response. For example, the causes of homelessness in Iowa City are different than the causes of homelessness in Detroit. Therefore, the most effective response will come from the jurisdiction closest to the issue. Conversely, a universalized response would prove inefficient and even cause unintended harm to parties not impacted initially.
[4] “Address of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II to the Diplomatic Corp Assigned to the Holy See,” January 13, 2003.
The vision of Faithful Presence is to equip servants and leaders working in our nation’s capital to flourish as they participate in Christ’s mission of making all things new. Support this ministry and receive additional resources with a supporting subscription.