Community, State, and Church. Karl Barth

Rechtfertigung und Recht, Barth argues that the state serves the church by giving it freedom to witness, but by proposing an allegorical or analogical relationship between these two communities, he finds more specific ways to link them together. Avoiding both the demonic and divine temptations, the “just state” (Rechtsstadt), even in its true secularity, seeks to safeguard “both the external, relative, and provisional freedom of the individuals and the external and relative peace of their community” (150). The constitutional democratic state, as guardian, is preserved through its agencies or “forms,” namely “legislation” or the making of laws; the “government and administration” which applies the legislation; and the “administration of justice” which practically applies these laws to particular cases of apparent injustice (150). This threefold system, Barth admits, is most consistent with constitutional democracy and the just state. Politically speaking, he admits “that the Christian line that emerges from the Gospel betrays a striking tendency to the side of what is generally called the democratic state” (181). Nonetheless, although democracy is preferred, there is nothing sacrosanct about its governmental form, as it is possible for even a just state to incorporate any governmental political system from monarchy, aristocracy, and even dictatorship. Still, without the safeguard of a balance of power legally sanctioned within a constitution, it is much easier for these autocratic systems to become a totalitarian state (Totalstaat). There is nothing that presumes that a democracy will always seek order over chaos, justice over injustice, and peace over violent conflict. Yet, it is naïve to assume that all government systems are the same, and they all reflect the purposes of the “just constitutional state” (Rechsstaat).

      Therefore, Barth repeats earlier themes when he insists that governmental systems are part of God’s providential plan, in that they preserve order, peace, and justice within the human community by protecting it from various forms of social disorder, violence, and injustice. The threat of political coercion provides the justification for benevolent use of political power and the establishment of civil law within a particular community. The task of the just state should seek to balance the power of individual rights and responsibilities with community rights and responsibilities. The power of the state should not be concentrated either in individualism or collectivism; Barth dialectically opposes the extremes of anarchy and individualism on one hand, and totalitarian and collectivism on the other, because they both deny the ‘law’ that both limits and establishes human freedom. This “two-fold law,” of limiting and establishing, of “no exemption from and full protection by the law,” is what makes a constitutional state just and legitimate and preferable to other forms of political government (172). A constitutional state grounds its authority, not in arbitrary judgments or whimsical power plays, but seeks to base its authority on principles of justice that transcend mere social convention. As a moral realist, Barth assumes that once the state seeks to ground its civil law in the moral law, it seeks to obey the command of God, even though it may not completely understand this command, as a gracious command. For this knowledge, it must seek to rely upon the witness of the Christian community. So even though the state is ignorant of its true center and calling, it desperately needs the church to remind it of its true purposes, functions, and goals. The church stands as a humane reminder that the task of the state is to preserve and defend human freedom, hope, and justice.

      However much human error and human tyranny may be involved in it, the State is not a product of sin but one of the constants of the divine Providence and government of the world in its action against human sin: it is there an instrument of divine grace. The civil community shares both a common origin and a common center with the Christian community.… Its existence is not separate from the Kingdom of Jesus Christ; its foundations and its influence are not autonomous. It is outside the Church but not outside the range of Christ’s domination—it is an exponent of His kingdom.… [This] makes one thing quite impossible, however: a Christian decision to be indifferent; a non-political Christianity. The Church can in no case be indifferent or neutral towards this manifestation of an order so clearly related to its own mission. Such indifference would be equivalent to the opposition of which it is said in Romans 13:2 that it is a rebellion against the ordinance of God—and rebels secure their own condemnation. (156–57)

      The church stands neither absolutely against the state, nor does it stand always uncritically for the state, but its stands dialectically with the state. The state is genuinely secular, and for it to be otherwise would be to deny its distinction from the church. Since the church encourages the state to be the state in all its secularity, there can be no such thing as a Christian state or Christian political party. The church cannot promote a particular form of government or party to the exclusion of others, without seeking to be itself the state. In fact, the church cannot speak for the state at all, but only individual Christians can speak anonymously for the state. Nevertheless, the church community still remains “the model and prototype of the real state” by serving as “a source of renewal for the state and the power by which the state is preserved.” Indeed the “church can in no case be indifferent or neutral towards this manifestation of an order so clearly related to its mission” (157). As members of the inner circle, Christians “are also automatically members of the wider circle. They cannot halt at the boundary where the inner in our circles meet, though the work of faith, love and hope which they are under orders to perform will assume different forms on either side of the boundary” (158–59). Simply put, it is not possible for the church to be indifferent to the political order because the state’s power is explicitly intertwined with the mission of the church. In this way, the church always remains part of the order of creation just as the state remains part of the order of redemption.

      Whereas Barth uses the language of “intercession” in Rechtfertigung und Recht, here he reverts back to Barmen’s language of “reminder.” The church reminds the state of its true purpose, which is to bring honor to God. Although Barth continues the line of thinking established earlier, calling for the ‘priestly role’ of the church, he places a greater activist responsibly upon the church in calling the state to a particular political direction. The church continues to be the church through its intercessory role of being a witness to the gospel, praying and working for the good of the state, making distinctions between just and unjust governments, and declaring firmly that the state falls under God’s rule. However, by “reminding” the state of its function, purpose, and hope, the church becomes more aware of its own political task. Through its own moral deliberation, the church “will choose and desire whichever seems to be the better political system in any particular situation, and in accordance with this choice and desire it will offer its support here and its resistance there.” “It is in the making of such distinctions, judgments, and choices from its own centre, and in the practical decision which necessarily flows from that centre, Barth continues, that the Christian community expresses its ‘subordination’ to the civil community and fulfills its share of political responsibility” (162–63).

      In his most concrete example of this analogous relationship between the inner circle and the outer circle, Barth develops twelve analogies between the two communities. The cornerstone of these analogies is the one Barth mentions first, namely because of the incarnation in which God stands with humanity, so too the civil community should defend the dignity and rights of humanity before serving any cause that apparently serves humanity. Humanity should not serve causes, but “causes have to serve man” (172). On this point hangs all the other analogies. Just as church gives witness to God’s gracious justification, so too the civil community, along with the church, will support governments, most clearly embodied in constitutional democracies, of impartial justice. Just as Christ came to the poor and lost, so too the church should support civil governments that seek to address the needs of the poor. Just as God gives freedom to the church and state through God’s gracious covenant, so too the church should reject totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Just as the church is primarily a responsible community of individuals, so too the church should reject radical political individualism and collectivism. Just as the equality of Christians is established in baptism, so too it provides the basis for a political doctrine of equality of all its citizens. Just as the multiplicity of spiritual gifts within the church provide the basis for diversity, so too it provides for an understanding separation of powers in government. Just as the Word of God should be freely proclaimed in the church, so too the