Godly Riot?

The recent dramatic events in Syria will have gripped most if not all who read this.  We will have seen the enormous crowds that gathered on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria.  We will have seen the response of the President and those who have supported him.  We will have then seen the intervention of the army and the steps that have followed.  We may have formed an opinion as to whether what has happened is right or wrong.  I have been trying to reflect on whether scripture casts light upon the situation.

There are a number of questions to consider.

• Does democracy have a theological basis as the preferred form of government?

• What does the Bible have to say about submission to secular authorities?

• If there is bad government are there any constraints on the actions of those who would protest?

There is no single expression of democracy.  Even countries that have had this form of government for centuries vary in the way it is practised.  In my opinion there is something disturbing where majority Christian countries with democracy so associate the two together that they then perceive democracy as the only right way to govern.  But there has been a trend to seek to impose democracy onto other nations replacing other historic forms of government.  It always seems to be an exercise that produces pain and bloodshed.

Both history and scripture reveal that there are other forms of government that could be benign or malignant.  Before Israel insisted on appointing a king to rule over them they appear to be constituted federally and from time to time appropriate leadership would emerge from among them.  Behind this, at the best of times, there was a sense of theocracy - an acknowledgement that God is ultimately head of state.

God's hand is seen in the appointment of some national leaders such as Moses, the Judges, King Saul and King David.  Clearly, later kings usually presumed a 'divine right' to rule in the place of their father.  But this is not prescribed in scripture. Nations prospered or failed often because of the moral character of their king.  Most kings seem to be autocratic in their leadership style, though they may have had advisers.

Perhaps we could draw lessons from how various kings and leaders understood their roles.  Some clearly were despotic and sought power for what it could do for them.  Others, saw it as a responsibility, a duty of care for others.  These are sometimes described as 'shepherd kings'; those who exercised authority for the good of others.  Scripture declares God's approbation of those who led the nation of Israel in good and godly ways, but that is not the same as approving the form of government.

There is, therefore, no pattern for secular government beyond the importance of it being righteous and for the common good.  But the kingdom of God stands in marked contrast with this.

Jesus called [his disciples]together and said, 

‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials 

exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become 

great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first 

must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, 

but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Matthew 20: 25-28)

I would like to think that those who are Christians followed this guidance within their church life and within Christian organisations.  But how would it work within a secular context?  I know of |a restaurant set up by a Christian businessman as a service to his local community and as a place where people could make contact with the Christian faith through literature that he made available.  After a few months of chaos he had to appoint a non-Christian manager to introduce greater authority over the work of the staff.  Only then did it succeed!

Good secular leaders should always provide a good example and govern for the good of others, but there is no prescribed style or framework authorised by scripture.

The Christian/secular boundary is addressed in scripture.  Matthew 17:27 and Matthew 22:15-22 tell us about the attitude of Jesus regarding taxation.  Jesus does not challenge the authority of Herod and Pilate when he is being judged by them.  Paul writes to the church at Rome "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. ".  To Titus looking after the church in Crete he writes, "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,".  Peter also comments on this, "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.".

But all the passages from the epistles are about how Christians are to conduct themselves in the world and there is a presumption of good governance.  Early Christians chose to disobey the authority of Caesar where this was in conflict with their faith in Christ.  Many of them paid for this with their lives.  But this was passive resistance.  In the Old Testament Elijah stands as one who confronted and challenged the authority of the king on the grounds that he was acting contrary to God's will for God's people.  David, before he was enthroned but after he had been anointed, refused to raise his hand against the person of King Saul but was prepared to defend himself.

In England we trace our journey to democracy back to 1215 and the Magna Carta.  King John was not believed to be good.  He may have murdered another possible candidate to the throne.  He was in a serious argument with the Church and had lost significant land to the kingdom.  The Magna Carta limited the kings authority and to some extent made him accountable to a committee of barons. John's later rejection of the Magna Carta led to a civil war.  

The relation between King and Parliament was often uncomfortable and ultimately led to the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) and the execution of King Charles I.  The Civil War was a national uprising and the conflict between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians cost many lives.

Against this background I am not sure that we are in a position to judge what has been happening in the Arab nations, and especially in Egypt at this time.  While we might look back to the 17th Century and disapprove of some of the things done by Christian men who pertained to be acting for the common good, we treasure our democracy and long that others under despotic regimes might enjoy the same.

It is my hope that what has happened in Egypt that has led to overthrowing their first elected President may prove to be growing pains as the nation seeks to create a just society with good and fair government. Only time will tell.