I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
‘Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land
So ends William Blake’s hymn “Jerusalem.” Set to Parry’s wonderfully stirring tune, it has become a favourite patriotic song in these shores (you will find a clue in my spelling of “favourite” that it is none other than England’s green and pleasant land). An invariable part of the national flag-waving festival that is the last night at the Proms, it has become the anthem of the fanatical travelling band of English cricket supporters, the Barmy Army. It is still sung regularly at meetings of the Women’s Institute up and down the land, and it stokes up the fervour of many a young rugby team in school assemblies on match days. Thankfully, the one place it is seldom heard is in church, because, if it can be called a hymn, it is one of very dubious pedigree. The apocryphal legend behind its opening, about Jesus having been brought to England by Joseph of Arimathea, need not detain us. Nor shall we dwell on what might be implied by the reference to “dark satanic mills.” The lines included above lay out the issue. The subjects of the verbs, in the first person, indicate that it is we who will build Jerusalem. Surely there is a confusion of ideas here. It might be possible for us, by the grace of God, to build a better England, or a better America, even a better world. But to give it the name “Jerusalem” suggests something more; a spiritual realm perhaps, the heavenly city that comes down from God out of heaven. Such architecture is beyond human capabilities.
The Role of the Church as Distinct from the Role of the Christian in Society
I want to suggest that it is the Christian’s duty to build a better nation and a better world, but this is quite distinct from the church’s work. There are dangerous errors on either side, which sit equally uncomfortably with the New Testament model of church. On the one side, the church might discourage her members from being socially or politically active, reasoning either that the material world is transient and unimportant or that the Christian should forsake involvement with it for fear of its contamination. On the other side, the visible church may redefine her own mission in social and political terms, eclipsing the gospel message by giving up preaching the Word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2).
One of the legacies of the Reformation is a view of the Christian as living simultaneously in two realms. Luther taught that every Christian belongs to two realms. Under the rule of God’s left hand, as the image goes, he or she is to be a conscientious citizen-a Christian, yes, but a Christian in society. But under the rule of God’s right hand, within the kingdom of grace, the Christian is to be nourished in the fellowship of the church with the gifts of God’s grace. According to this scheme, social and political activity is the responsibility of the Christian, but not the distinctive work of the church.
Some will feel uncomfortable about the distinction that is being made between the role of the church and that of the Christian. A readiness to accept it will probably hinge upon ecclesiological definition. If the church is seen as an aggregation of Christians, then the duties of the church might well be the sum of the duties of Christians. The catechetical materials used within my own denomination may well encourage such a view. In examining the third article of the Apostles’ Creed, the edition of Luther’s Small Catechism that many of us use answers the question “What is the holy Christian church?” in this way: “The holy Christian church is the communion of saints, the total number of those who believe in Christ. All believers in Christ, but only believers, are members of the church (invisible church).” The difficulty with this answer is not that it is untrue, but rather that it seems to invert the relationship between Christian and church. It suggests that the church comes about because there are Christians, which is rather akin to saying that a mother exists because her children exist. The church gives rise to Christians, rather than vice versa. The kingdom of God gives birth by water and the Spirit, and so believers are incorporated into it. The kingdom does not come into being because Christians happen to assemble. This much is presupposed by the images of the church in the New Testament. St. Paul uses the image of the body, not a random collection of members, but one in which “we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4:15ff.). Jesus portrayed himself as the vine and his people as branches who will wither apart from the vine (John 15:5-6). The church, then, functions with respect to Christians to nourish them and build them up and not merely as Christians collectively going about their disciple business.
The Christian in Society
The Christian is in the world and in society. The Fourth Gospel abounds in warnings about the world, which Jesus presents as opposed to him and to his by its very nature. To be in worldly society was so inconvenient for the ascetics that they withdrew from it as far as they could. The place of the Christian is, however, in the world, to be its salt, its leaven, and its light. Some governments make this easier than others, and it is the latter that make it more necessary. The challenge for the Christian is to make his or her course with one eye on Romans 13 and the other on Revelation 13. To oppose the rule of government is to ignore the warning of Romans that “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.” On the other hand, to comply with the wrongdoing of an evil or corrupt government is to join with those who follow the beast of Revelation. It is sometimes suggested that the theology of the Reformation, distinguishing the two realms of the Christian’s loyalty, for example, allowed the collaboration of churches and Christians with the horrors of the Third Reich. The reasoning is that Christians too readily submitted to the abhorrent regime out of a misguided sense of duty. An alternative view, however, is that the success of such a regime arose rather from a confounding of the two realms than from a clear distinction between them. Again, if the church is merely the sum of its members, her witness must be the duty of the Christian writ large, to be subject to the governing authorities. But if the church belongs to a parallel realm, as the custodian of divine grace, she is in a position to expose the evil of those who exercise authority in the world.
In this matter, the example of the apostles will be a guide. Besides Paul’s teaching to the Romans that we have already considered, the synoptic Gospels all recall Jesus’ injunction to render what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and St. Peter specifically instructs his readers to honor the emperor. In practice, this meant a respectful disposition toward earthly authority, as Paul showed to King Agrippa in Acts 25. When the demands of earthly authority contradicted the revealed will of God, however, a choice was to be made. That choice for the Christian is plainly stated in the apostles’ dictum: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). But such a choice also carried consequences, and in this case they were fortunate to get away with a beating. Nevertheless, they were not only prepared to live with the consequences of their stand, but they even rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name (5:41). They were mindful, I suppose, of the indignities that Christ had suffered for them.
For the most part, however, Christians can exercise their calling in the world without hindrance from government and often with the approval of society. For those who see the hungry and feed them, or the thirsty and give them drink, or strangers and welcome them, or the naked and clothe them, or the sick or in prison and visit them are doing it for Christ and to Christ. Such a way of life is motivated by compassion, not by the desire to appear Christ-like. Nevertheless, it gives witness to the one whose name the Christian bears.
The Church in Society
It does not necessarily follow that, because the Christian is called to the charitable works drawn in the last paragraph from Matthew 25, the church is also called to perform them. Rather, when the New Testament uses the term “church,” it is to describe a preaching, praying community, either in a particular location or in a more universal sense. In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul speaks of the Christians “coming together as church” when they are coming together for the Holy Supper. The same Epistle, three chapters later, refers to the church as being built up by the prophecy within it. The term is not used in connection with performing works of love toward people’s physical needs, although the duty to attend to those needs in one’s neighbor is clearly enjoined upon every Christian. It can therefore be seen as a matter of definition: if the institution we call “church” is engaging in that which is not its distinctive work, it is not the church in the sense of having the unique mandate and authority of God. It is, in these activities, the equal of any political, social, or charitable organization.
Of course, it is sometimes convenient for Christians to exercise their charitable activities, for example, collectively through the organization already set up for the work of the church proper. This organization brings together people who know each other, who have developed mechanisms for working together, and who share a common theological outlook that helps them act together without fear of compromised beliefs. But these activities do not define it as church. If it proclaims the gospel, distributes the Sacraments, and nurtures the spiritual life of its people, it is church. If it does not do these things, it does not become church by dispensing charity.
An interesting perspective is given by the experience of the apostles in their earliest attempts to define their roles. By the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, already they sensed that their essential work was being sidelined by charitable activity. Before looking at the solution they proposed, it would be helpful to understand the nature of the charitable work. It appears not to have been care for the needy in the wider community, but specifically for those in the church. This much is suggested by the use of the word “their” in Acts 6:1. It says “a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.” Most commentators understand from this that the distribution was to support widows within the Christian community, rather than to dispense alms to those outside. Be this as it may, the appointment of those who were to carry out the work might seem to place it at the heart of the infant church’s understanding of its mission. The rationale, however, for establishing an office to administer the distribution is precisely that the task was detracting from what the apostles saw as their priority. “It is not right,” they explained, “that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” The practical assistance rendered by the Christians collectively was to be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, the ministry of the Word.
For historical reasons, it must seem to many, especially in Europe, that to take the institution of the church out of the realm of public life is an abrogation of its duty. Within these “Christian countries,” the roles of church and state have been intertwined for centuries. In Britain, for example, the established church has long been involved in national government, with Church of England bishops sitting in the nation’s upper legislative house. Conversely, the instruments of state have been marshaled to support the mission of the church with, for instance, successive education acts requiring the teaching of religious education within maintained schools. Now that the country is said to have entered a “post-Christian” phase, these practices are called into question both by those outside the church and by those within it. Many cling to the little influence the Christian message can maintain through such mechanisms. Some see the institution as the conscience of the nation. Others consider that, with so small a proportion of the population presenting themselves at worship, the church has little opportunity to offer anything to the majority unless it engages in social action. But some still believe that what the church uniquely has to offer is the gospel, which remains supremely relevant even for those who have no time for it.
The Church and the Christian
The church and the Christian are distinct entities, but of course they are not unrelated. Rather than thinking of the church simply as the sum of Christians, we have tried to stress the maternal role of the church, in giving birth to her children and nurturing them in their faith and life. With this understanding, clearly the church plays a vital role in instructing and preparing her people to live out their sanctified life in their own civil and social situations. The church is equipped to guide her children in all areas of life. We have considered how Scripture repeatedly affirms the duty of Christians as citizens, especially in relation to the government. The teaching of Jesus details the responsibilities of each one in respect to neighbor. In his Ephesian letter, St. Paul spells out the principles of mutual submission in fulfilling family roles. In many instances, these teachings prescribe behaviors that are approved by wider society, perhaps because they accord with the law universally written on the human heart, and perhaps because the expectations of the society have been shaped by Christian teaching in the past.
The church, being faithful to divine revelation, also brings unique spiritual values to the Christian’s life in society-values that are not necessarily shared by the society at large. The Christian, for example, will be taught the absolute value of human life. Believing that life itself has a value that transcends the mere quality of life, the Christian is likely to oppose euthanasia and also to be disproportionally represented among those giving hospice care to the terminally ill.
Finally, the church’s defining message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, is what motivates her people to act in the world in a way befitting those for whom Christ also died. By uncompromisingly proclaiming her distinctive message, the church is acting for the good of the world, releasing Christians to serve in it.
