Vassell Kerr, Contributor

Who is better able to serve Jamaica as governor general than Dr Patrick Allen, one who will not make a distinction between private and public morality! Menno Simons, a Mennonite leader advocated that the Church was "an assembly of the righteous, at odds with the world". The reality is that the dichotomy between the sacred and the secular is a flawed argument and not pragmatic.

Martin Luther (the 16th-century reformer) taught the doctrine of two kingdoms or two states, temporal and the spiritual; that the clergy belonged to the spiritual estate and the laity to the temporal estate. These two estates or realms or spheres of authority were quite distinct.

Medieval Catholicism recognised a fundamental distinction between the 'spiritual' estate and the 'temporal' estate. Although Luther distinguished these realms of authority, in terms of both their scope and their source, he insisted that they were not in opposition to one another, but merely different aspects of the same thing, or God's rule over his fallen and sinful world.

Political theology

Christians need to have a political theology that is pragmatic. Recognising the political realities of his situation at Wittenburg and his reliance on the political support of the German princes, Luther reinforced their political authority by grounding it in divine providence. In other words, God governs the world, including the church, through the princes and magistrates. The church is in the world, and so must submit itself to the order of the world.

The logical question to ask is: What if the state becomes tyrannical? Have Christians the right to intervene and actively oppose the state? Luther said no! Luther criticised the German lords for their tyranny over the peasant, but upbraided the peasants for even contemplating revolt against the magistrates. Luther preferred oppression to revolution. Luther's political theology or social ethic was inadequate, the peasants were supposed to live in keeping with the 'Sermon on the Mount' by turning the other cheek to their oppressors. However, were the princes justified in using violent and coercive means to establish social order? The failure of the German church to oppose Hitler in the 1930s is a reflection of the inadequacies of Luther's political theology. In some minds, Hitler was an instrument of God. Perish the thought! Here is where Romans 13 comes to our aid.

Notoriously controversial

Throughout the Christian centuries, relations between the Church and the State have been notoriously controversial. Four models have been tried: Erastianism (the State controls the Church), theocracy (the Church controls the State), Constantinianism (the compromise in which the state favours the church and the church accommodates to the state in order to retain its favour), and partnership (the church and the state recognise and encourage each other's distinctive God-given responsibilities in a spirit of constructive collaboration). The fourth model accords best with Paul's teaching in Romans 13.

In the first seven verses of Romans 13, Paul discusses the duty of Christians to civil government. In fact, the Christian's duties both to God and the state was clearly implied in Jesus' enigmatic epigram, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark 12:17). The apostle makes the point that no power, no magistrate, no civil rule, exist but through God. Governments exist by the arrangements of His providence; through Him rulers obtain their powers.

In fact, God often claims and asserts that He 'sets up one, and puts down another (Daniel 2:21; 4:17, 25, 34, 35). In other words, God sets them in order, assigns them their locations, changes and directs them as He pleases. God does not originate or cause the evil dispositions of rulers (like the Caligulas, Herods, Neros, Hitlers, Stalins, Amins, Saddams, etc.), but He directs and controls their appointment. And if governments are ordained by God, it would seem reasonable that they have no authority contrary to God's commands.

In Paul's time, thrones had been usurped by reigning emperors, and there was a disposition to rebel against tyrannical government. The emperor Claudius was poisoned; the emperor Caligula died in a violent manner; the tyrant Nero perished in disgrace at age 30. Amidst these agitations, crimes and revolutions, Paul wished to guard Christians from such fanatical political activities. Paul counsels Christians to obey the laws of the land, not only from fear of civil penalties, but chiefly for conscience toward God. The employment of the "sword" ( penalties of disobedience, capital punishment, and war as well) and the collection of taxes are some legitimate functions of governments. And speaking about taxes, the Government is responsible to spend these tax dollars honestly, for example, "not allowing the same roads to remain in the pot holes".

Civic responsibility

James 1 of England and other absolute monarchs have argued for the divine rights of kings. Calvin and John Knox, on the contrary, pointed out that rulers also have obligations, and when they fail to discharge their obligations, they may be disobeyed (Acts 5:29) and even displaced by legitimate means; by the ballot box and not the bullet. The midwives of Egypt also (Exodus 1:17) and Moses' parents (Exodus. 2:3) disobeyed Pharaoh. The three Hebrew boys refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar's golden image (Daniel 3). When King Darius made a decree that for 30 days nobody should pray 'to any god or man' except himself, Daniel refused to obey (Daniel 6).

Again, let us consider the appointment of the governor general. All Christians have a civic responsibility. Some Christians may discharge these responsibilities by holding public office.

Best suited for the job

There is the danger among people in public office to be involved in political compromises which corrupt one's integrity. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that a Christian is more likely to exercise power responsibly and charitably than anyone else, and therefore should be encouraged to gain public office for the benefit of the nation. And as Dr Patrick Allen has said, "His faith won't conflict with State duties." Without the fear of God, a leader, or ruler could become a despot. Where the philosopher Plato wished kings to be philosophers, the reformer Zwingle wished his aristocrats to be Christians.

Wendell Wilkins had an interesting editorial piece in the Jamaica Observer of January 18. However, maybe Wilkins is not aware of Joseph in Egypt, the Israelite slave girl in the Syrian kingdom of Damascus, Daniel and the three Hebrew boys in Babylon, Nehemiah, Mordecai and Esther in the Persian Empire. And what of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Protestant theologian in Nazi Germany (read his The Cost of Discipleship) and the hundreds and thousands of ordinary Christians who have not and will not allow "the world to squeeze them into a mould!" (Romans 12:2). Remember Wilkins that Christians are change agents; they are the salt and light of the earth (Matthew. 5:13-16).

I think I know Dr Patrick Allen enough to say that he will pay special attention to the declaration of Martin Luther at the council of Worms: "My conscience has been taken captive by the word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen." I am of the firm opinion that Dr Patrick Allen will not make a distinction between his private and public morality.