Logic of the State vs. The Logic of the Kingdom
The subtle allure of the reductive gospel of the state
The logic of the state is alluring. ‘Might makes right’ is the way of the world around us, especially in escalating geopolitical conflict. In conversations we appeal to self defense, to justified hostility and violence against enemies who are always evil, we always righteous. But is this the logic of the Kingdom Jesus inaugurated? Is giving into the natural pull of force, hostility and coercive power a justified response from a theological perspective? Is this consistent with the Jesus ethic?
I find in nearly every conversation with Christians about politics, the war in Gaza, culture war issues or other conflicts that the default logic is that of the state, not of the Messiah’s Kingdom. We have some work to do.
The state exists on the logic of coercive power. It ensures security and obedience through punitive consequence through centralized military strength. Crush the enemy, enforce the law, make them pay. Relationships in this logic are solely based on the dynamics of power. It is what Robert Farrar Capon calls “Right-handed power.1”
American Christians like state logic it seems: power, might, guns, masculine braggadocio and bravado are comfortable for us. The Middle East too… culture there is rife with honor displays, extremism and power plays.
Pacifism is weakness to the world but we scarcely consider Jesus’ silence, submission and death as a model. The Kingdom Jesus inaugurated is quite different. It operates in the weakness of the ‘left hand.’ It believes in a world of super-abundance and so can share resources instead of horde them. It finds fulfillment through service of others generosity and brotherly love, not one-upmanship and puffed chest. Mutual submission, love of enemy and love of neighbor are its logic and code not protect, defend and eliminate the adversary.
The King who sits on the throne of the universe rules with absolute sovereignty but rules with loving, patient persuasion. Violence, retribution and revenge are against his law. The ethics of his kingdom are justice, righteousness, equity, kindness, humility, peace and meekness, among other fruits that God looks for in his people (Psalm 89:14, Prov 2:1-15, James 3). He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works, not a dictatorial, vengeful, power-hungry autocrat. And we are called to the same.
The first 300 years of the church unanimously espoused a peaceful, non-violent orientation. They created a contrast community that patiently challenged the ways of Rome and distinctly modeled the ways of the Kingdom as small minority.
The Mennonite and Quaker traditions bear witness to this way (among many others) and remind us that violence and hostility cannot be married to the way of Jesus. Grismund says:
“That the Messiah’s victory involves his own suffering confounds people’s expectations… Jesus, the Messiah, does not stand for power over others [but for] consistent, persevering love and compassion and openness—even in the face of violence from those who resent that kind of love.”
Quakers preach the precious nature of all life and strive “to live in the virtue of that life and power which takes away the occasion of all wars". Their witness to power in 17th century England after the preceding centuries of colonial power expansion, slavery and war was laudable. In a Declaration made to Charles II in 1660 they said:
“We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fighting with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever."
These ‘peace church’ traditions, similar to the early church, disavow military combat service, and instead opt for humanitarian or medical work during conflict. They campaign for non-violent conflict resolution, and are an important moral voice in a world filled with violence, war and the logic of the state.
The church is called to point to the Kingdom that Jesus brought into this world and is yet to be fully fulfilled in the future where “they will learn the ways of war no more” and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation” and “they shall beat their swords into plowshares” and “lions will lay with lambs” (Micah 4, Is 2:4).
The contrast could not be more stark. As Christians we are called by Jesus (who is King) to operate according to a different logic, that of his Kingdom. We are ambassadors of this new order that has come and is coming, growing, slowly working its way into the dough of humanity through time.
The church is the implementation plan for this kingdom. As NT Wright says God’s people, saved and redeemed, “are designed to be a sign and foretaste of what God wants to do for the entire cosmos... and a part of the means by which God makes this happen…2” When the church succumbs to the logic of the state, it fails its ambassadorial duties.
To this Kingdom we belong and are citizens.
Capon, Robert Farrar. Kingdom, Grace, Judgment: Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus. Combined edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. Reprint edition. New York: HarperOne, 2018.