A City Set Upon a Hill
The failure of the foreign policies and actions of nations in the West has given Christianity a bad name. Yet the blame lies firmly with the idolatrous notions of the Enlightenment, which has elevated human rights to the status of an impersonal demigod. A far more consistent position for a Christian commonwealth (of which none now remain in the West) is a foreign policy based upon non-interference in the affairs of other nations.
With respect to other nations, the primary, if not exclusive duty, of the government of a Christian commonwealth is to protect its own citizens against any murderous acts of armed aggression from other nations. Thus, there is an aspect of the "laager" in a Christian foreign affairs policy. But, on another level, a Christian commonwealth would maintain a policy of extensive openness towards all other nations.
If the first fundamental principle of the foreign relations of Christendom is comprehensive armed neutrality as an application of the responsibility to punish murderers, then the second principle of a Christian doctrine of foreign relations is based on the government's responsibility to maintain the private property rights of citizens. This means that a government must completely remove itself from any laws or acts which seek to impede trade or the free exchange of goods and services on the part of its citizens. Its only concern in this regard is to ensure that contractual law and obligations are upheld, and the means of exchange are truthful and honest.
A necessary corollary of the duty of Christian government to recognise the rights of its people to own, employ, and deploy property is an equal obligation of the government not to impede its people in trading and doing business with anyone else in the world. The only policy on trade is that the government of a Christian commonwealth is scrupulously neutral, and has no policy.
Thus, all protection, subsidies, trade barriers, or attempts to give one group of citizens or property owners an advantage over others are wrong and would be forbidden by entrenched law or constitutional stipulation. Commercial or material “favouritism” of any kind is inimical to justice. Therefore, in a Christian commonwealth the government would be prohibited from picking "winners", erecting trade barriers, subsidising "worthy" or "strategic" commerce, or any other form of interference which would favour the property rights of some citizens at the expense of others. Impeachment would be required for any government official or respresentative or executive that even advocated it, let alone tried it.
Whatever else may be said about such a constitutional obligation, this one provision alone would do more to "clean up" government and remove corruption than anything else. Gone would be the modern armies of lobbyists suborning government and seeking favours at the expense of other citizens. Gone would be pork-barrel politics, "ear marks", and the mutual bribery between electorate and political candidate that makes "fragrant grease" the stock-in-trade of Western democracies. Gone would be the dead-weight of government bureaucrats administering an endlessly burgeoning legion of rules and regulations and plans.
Equally, the government in a Christian commonwealth would be prohibited from favouring its own citizens at the expense of others around the world. The upshot is that with a Christian commonwealth's foreign policy, citizens of a Christian nation would not be restricted from trading with anyone anywhere in the world. “Splendid isolation” does not apply to the commercial activities of its citizens. Trade would always be completely free—except for trade in technology and material which was deemed to be part of the Commonwealth's defensive military preparedness.
Moreover, foreign aid would be restricted to being a voluntary matter for citizens and their voluntary associations, not the government. If people wished to give to causes in other countries they considered worthy, it would be nothing to do with the government. But the government itself in a Christian commonwealth would never give aid or funds to anyone, least of all “worthy” international causes, for it has no mandate from God to take money from some of its subjects by force of law, to redistribute to someone or something else.
Now, we can understand how this would provoke modern philanthropic pressure groups and non-government organizations everywhere. They would appeal to the duties of so-called global citizenship. They would appeal to pity, pleading the plight of the less fortunate or the oppressed or those afflicted with catatrophes around the globe. But in a Christian commonwealth, such appeals would have to be made to owners of private property to secure their financial support--which would be an entirely legitimate and commendable activity. But the state would remain steadfastly deaf, blind, and dumb to such appeals and arguments, for it would be constitutionally prohibited from any involvement whatsoever.
Subjects in a Christian commonwealth would be free to travel wherever they chose. But they would fully bear the risks of travel and of international commerce, and would accept their responsibility to be subject to the laws of the countries to which they travelled. If they became victims of crime, or if they committed crimes, they would bear the consequences of the local jurisdiction. It would not be a duty of a government in a Christian commonwealth to defend them or bail them out. The authority and jurisdiction of a Christian government does not extend beyond the borders of its realm. It does not reach “through” its citizens to the governments of other nations, interfering in their jurisdictions.
If citizens overseas committed crimes outside the jurisdiction of the government of a Christian commonwealth, they would not be subject to the law courts of their home country. However, they would face fully whatever justice applied in the nation or realm in which they committed their criminal acts--including whatever penalties such crimes were subject to. This would ordinarily apply to the processes of extradition where the travelling citizen broke the laws of both jurisdictions. In other words, if a returned traveller was accused of a crime while abroad, and the act was considered a crime in both jurisdictions, a right of extradition would presumably exist. A Christian state would not be a place of refuge for its citizens who did things abroad which were proscribed as criminal acts within the commonwealth. For example, if a travelling citizen of a Christian commonwealth committed murder while abroad, he could not expect protection if he evaded capture and returned home.
In this fallen world sin and its attendant problems are inescapable. The objective is to see them minimised as much as possible. A more consistently Christian foreign policy being followed by a Christian commonwealth would have this effect more often than not. Moreover evil or unintended consequences would be far less. Commercially, international trade would likely explode. Commercial contracts with businesses in the Christian country would be intrinsically attractive because the legal system and courts would be known to enforce contractual obligations fairly and impartially. Trading rules would be simple and predictable, thereby reducing commercial risks. All the dissipated effort which currently goes into lobbying, bribing, and pressuring governments into favouring or supporting particular commercial activities of some at the expense of the many would disappear.
The likelihood of being respected by all nations would rise exponentially. Once it is evident that no other nation has anything to fear from a Christian state, mutually respectful relationships with all other nations would become a more probable prospect. Appeals and pressure to “help” would diminish; being drawn into the wars and conflicts of other nations, therefore, would becomes far less likely. Harridan-like hectoring of other nations would disappear from the lexicon of ambassadors of a Christian commonwealth. It is not that a Christian nation would be morally neutral or agnostic towards the activities and policies of other nations, but the demeanour would be one of reminding all nations that in the end they will face the consequences of their actions—destructive and terrible though they be. The fact that Christ the Lord is King of all kings and Governor of all governments makes this retribution infallible, implacable, and certain.
Finally, it is likely that a Christian nation would become a magnet for refugees and the oppressed. Maintaining a far more open immigration policy—or moving immigration policy back to where it was in previous decades—is difficult for modern socialistic humanistic governments, where every immigrant costs the taxpayer or at least brings an involuntary responsibility down on the shoulders of the tax payer. In a Christian commonwealth the constitution would prohibit all state funded welfare, state funded health, or state funded education. There would, of course, be multitudes of socially funded welfare, health, and educational facilities, but funded significantly out of private generosity and corporate charity of voluntary associations.
Thus society at large would be far more open to accept refugees and suffering peoples because they would not represent a cost to the nation as a whole.
Such a nation would truly be a “city set upon a hill.” What, then, is the likelihood of such a Christian commonwealth emerging? Next to none in our lifetime. But should there come a time that any particular nation in the world would have more than seventy-five percent of citizens truly Christian, the reformation and reformulation of government into a constitutional Christian commonwealth would be the most natural outcome in the world.
Impossible, we hear you say. Ah, yes, with man it is impossible. But with God . . . that's another story.
No comments:
Post a Comment