Some political theorists take the view that coming up with the right laws and enforcing them are keys to constructing a just society. Others lean more toward appealing to peoples’ conscience and use moral teachings to accomplish the same goal.
As early as fourth century BC, Kautilya, the chief political advisor of the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta, held the view that people are basically bad and have only very little capacity for doing good voluntarily. As such, they have to be controlled and contained through the use of social institutions and the strict enforcement of laws. This is very apparent in his writings called Arthasastra (“the Science of Polity”) which goes to great length to talk about institutional features as major factors to successful governance and good economic performance. Although he certainly acknowledged the usefulness of economic incentives, he put much more emphasis on restraints and punishments as the way to control the behavior of people. His political philosophy made a huge impact on many ancient Indian rulers who, by following his wisdom, did enjoy strong and successful rule. The drawback, however, was his creation of a double standard: Though the kings were allowed a free rein, the citizens were subject to a rigid set of rules. The common people, especially the slaves and those from lower castes, were not given much freedom of any sort. They had much to fear about their government.
In contrast to Kautilya’s focus on institutions, Emperor Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, wanted to establish a more just and spiritual society through the use of moral teachings. Although he started as a stern ruler, Ashoka underwent a major moral and political conversion after he saw over 100,000 dead in the battle at Kalinga, what is today’s Orissa. So he decided to renounce violence and embrace the teachings of Gautama Buddha. He gradually disbanded his army. He also went about freeing the slaves and helping the poor. He basically took on the role of a moral teacher rather than that of a strong ruler. His conviction was that behavioral reform could be best achieved by persuasion. So he used religion as the means of building up a better society. And throughout his kingdom, people began to taste a new sense of justice and equality. He ushered in a more peaceful society. Indeed, the people experienced greater freedom and had more happiness under his rule. But sadly, Ashoka’s vast empire dissolved into fragments not long after his death. The reasons for this collapse could be traced to his over-reliance on religion and the excessive neglect of the Kautilyan institutional system of disciplined rule.
From the observations mentioned above, it is possible to argue that the approaches of both Kautilya and Ashoka are not mutually exclusive, that is, one is incomplete without the other. In other words, both institutional features and moral teachings must go hand-in-hand if we want to create a just society. Good behaviors are birthed and nurtured when they become part of the belief system of the citizens. This is where religion comes in by providing education and motivation for people to respond positively and to do so themselves voluntarily. On the other hand, the institutions, especially of the state, can apply force and use mandatory laws to restrain social problems and limit behavioral licenses. It also can serve to protect individual rights, including the right to property ownership and freedom of religion.
Similarly, this is also how God wanted the human society to be governed and cared for. For example, in the early history of Genesis, just after the flood, when Noah and his family came out of the ark, God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” In speaking these words to Noah, God was granting the authority to “human government” to punish the crime of murder. This command has relevance for the whole human race of all time as it was given to Noah, the father of the nations, at the beginning of the reestablishment of human society after the flood. And once this principle in carrying out the most severe punishment for the most horrible crime was established, then the imposition of lesser penalties for lesser crime was also validated. Many other sections of the Old Testament further reinforce this need for government to restrain evil. This is why both Paul and Peter said that God gives authority to human government to “bear the sword” and punish those who do evil.
Obviously, God does not want anarchy, a situation where there is no government or it is too weak to enforce its own laws. The Old Testament gives ample examples that evil simply increases and dreadful things happen when there is an ineffective government. According to the Bible, a good government is possible when its rulers are righteous; a strong government is built on the character strength of its citizens, and not necessarily on military power or economic prosperity. So whenever rulers and citizens forget their morals, they lose their strength of character, which often lead to the fall of their civilization or the dead of their nation altogether.
These are some reasons why God raised prophets throughout most of biblical history to serve as his mouthpiece to kings, judges, civil leaders, and community members. For example, when King David was covering up the identity of the one who committed the crime of adultery and murder, the prophet Nathan pointed to him and said, “You are the man!” Similarly, John the Baptist confronted Herod Antipas, a ruler under Rome, with these hard words: “It is not lawful for you to take her.” While correcting the rulers from going astray, these prophets were also trying to protect their communities from moral degradation. The prophet Amos rebuked those who acquired splendid houses, expensive furniture…by cheating. He rebuked rulers and judges for perverting justice and crushing the poor. Other prophets like Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah also served as “watchmen” for their own communities. Often their messages were attacks on socio-economic problems such as corruption, bribes, extortion, oppression, and injustices. And sometimes they spoke on political issues like what the rulers should do, especially in the face of enemies’ threats.
Now the question for us is this: Should believers today assume the role of prophetic voices and serve as “watchmen” for their own communities or government? My answer is an emphatic “yes.” They must pray for, offer godly advices to, and issue God’s warnings against their government. In other words, God expects the church to complement the work of government in building a better and more just society.
If so, is the Church in Nagaland fulfilling her role toward our civil government? That, I would let you answer.
As early as fourth century BC, Kautilya, the chief political advisor of the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta, held the view that people are basically bad and have only very little capacity for doing good voluntarily. As such, they have to be controlled and contained through the use of social institutions and the strict enforcement of laws. This is very apparent in his writings called Arthasastra (“the Science of Polity”) which goes to great length to talk about institutional features as major factors to successful governance and good economic performance. Although he certainly acknowledged the usefulness of economic incentives, he put much more emphasis on restraints and punishments as the way to control the behavior of people. His political philosophy made a huge impact on many ancient Indian rulers who, by following his wisdom, did enjoy strong and successful rule. The drawback, however, was his creation of a double standard: Though the kings were allowed a free rein, the citizens were subject to a rigid set of rules. The common people, especially the slaves and those from lower castes, were not given much freedom of any sort. They had much to fear about their government.
In contrast to Kautilya’s focus on institutions, Emperor Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, wanted to establish a more just and spiritual society through the use of moral teachings. Although he started as a stern ruler, Ashoka underwent a major moral and political conversion after he saw over 100,000 dead in the battle at Kalinga, what is today’s Orissa. So he decided to renounce violence and embrace the teachings of Gautama Buddha. He gradually disbanded his army. He also went about freeing the slaves and helping the poor. He basically took on the role of a moral teacher rather than that of a strong ruler. His conviction was that behavioral reform could be best achieved by persuasion. So he used religion as the means of building up a better society. And throughout his kingdom, people began to taste a new sense of justice and equality. He ushered in a more peaceful society. Indeed, the people experienced greater freedom and had more happiness under his rule. But sadly, Ashoka’s vast empire dissolved into fragments not long after his death. The reasons for this collapse could be traced to his over-reliance on religion and the excessive neglect of the Kautilyan institutional system of disciplined rule.
From the observations mentioned above, it is possible to argue that the approaches of both Kautilya and Ashoka are not mutually exclusive, that is, one is incomplete without the other. In other words, both institutional features and moral teachings must go hand-in-hand if we want to create a just society. Good behaviors are birthed and nurtured when they become part of the belief system of the citizens. This is where religion comes in by providing education and motivation for people to respond positively and to do so themselves voluntarily. On the other hand, the institutions, especially of the state, can apply force and use mandatory laws to restrain social problems and limit behavioral licenses. It also can serve to protect individual rights, including the right to property ownership and freedom of religion.
Similarly, this is also how God wanted the human society to be governed and cared for. For example, in the early history of Genesis, just after the flood, when Noah and his family came out of the ark, God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” In speaking these words to Noah, God was granting the authority to “human government” to punish the crime of murder. This command has relevance for the whole human race of all time as it was given to Noah, the father of the nations, at the beginning of the reestablishment of human society after the flood. And once this principle in carrying out the most severe punishment for the most horrible crime was established, then the imposition of lesser penalties for lesser crime was also validated. Many other sections of the Old Testament further reinforce this need for government to restrain evil. This is why both Paul and Peter said that God gives authority to human government to “bear the sword” and punish those who do evil.
Obviously, God does not want anarchy, a situation where there is no government or it is too weak to enforce its own laws. The Old Testament gives ample examples that evil simply increases and dreadful things happen when there is an ineffective government. According to the Bible, a good government is possible when its rulers are righteous; a strong government is built on the character strength of its citizens, and not necessarily on military power or economic prosperity. So whenever rulers and citizens forget their morals, they lose their strength of character, which often lead to the fall of their civilization or the dead of their nation altogether.
These are some reasons why God raised prophets throughout most of biblical history to serve as his mouthpiece to kings, judges, civil leaders, and community members. For example, when King David was covering up the identity of the one who committed the crime of adultery and murder, the prophet Nathan pointed to him and said, “You are the man!” Similarly, John the Baptist confronted Herod Antipas, a ruler under Rome, with these hard words: “It is not lawful for you to take her.” While correcting the rulers from going astray, these prophets were also trying to protect their communities from moral degradation. The prophet Amos rebuked those who acquired splendid houses, expensive furniture…by cheating. He rebuked rulers and judges for perverting justice and crushing the poor. Other prophets like Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah also served as “watchmen” for their own communities. Often their messages were attacks on socio-economic problems such as corruption, bribes, extortion, oppression, and injustices. And sometimes they spoke on political issues like what the rulers should do, especially in the face of enemies’ threats.
Now the question for us is this: Should believers today assume the role of prophetic voices and serve as “watchmen” for their own communities or government? My answer is an emphatic “yes.” They must pray for, offer godly advices to, and issue God’s warnings against their government. In other words, God expects the church to complement the work of government in building a better and more just society.
If so, is the Church in Nagaland fulfilling her role toward our civil government? That, I would let you answer.
