How do we create a relational society

Introduction

The goal of society in biblical teaching is understood as ‘shalom’, which can be translated as social harmony, peace, prosperity, security and well-being, and is only achieved through right relationships. Such relationships are characterised by justice, truth, compassion, hope, faithfulness and forgiveness. The relationships the Bible is concerned about are not only those between individuals, but those between groups and organisations; between nations, regions, ethnic groups, cities and churches; between rich and poor, old and young, urban and rural interests; men and women; and between God and all these groups and individuals.

The question addressed in this paper is not how Christians should tackle the symptoms of relational breakdown and distress. There are numerous initiatives by churches, charities and the public services, such as those to resolve local or international conflict, to aid those without family support, and to provide financial help for the destitute. The question here is about prevention rather than cure. How is it possible to design a society’s institutions in a fallen world so as to maximise the likelihood of positive relational outcomes, and address the most fundamental causes of relational breakdown? Is it even worth pursuing such a vision in a fallen world?

Biblical teaching on institutional issues

Jesus teaches how the church, though often a minority, is to be ‘salt and light’ in society (Matthew 5:13–16), addressing in part its role in tackling social decay and darkness. However, Christ also points to the continuing significance of OT law (verses 17–19; see also Mark 7:9–13, Matthew 22:34–40) which has much to say about the institutional foundations of a just society.  Beyond this Jesus says relatively little new on these issues except to teach his disciples how they should respond at a personal level to Imperial Rome and Jewish national institutions (e.g. Mark 12:13–17). His extensive teaching on the Kingdom of God is addressed primarily to the community of believers to explain their place in the world, and only indirectly points to norms for the wider social order.

Although the apostles address the clash between Christ and the state for ultimate allegiance, they give little social teaching beyond the ordering of church life and the family life of believers. They do not set out a new vision for the political and social system. However, in NT times, the church undertook direct social action. Thus, Puritan commitment to limit the king’s arbitrary power, and the campaign by Wilberforce and his friends to stop the slave trade, were based on teaching from both Testaments.

Conclusions

1. Each of the great themes of biblical social teaching can be shown to impact directly or indirectly on whether and how citizens relate to each other. It is impossible to trace here all the relational outcomes if these laws were followed, but benefits would include strong and stable families, decentralised government and an absence of material and relational poverty.
2. Prosperity is a consequence, rather than a precondition, of relational well-being. So the focus of national Christians and those who seek to assist ‘development’ from outside should not be on producing wealth and then dealing with the symptoms of poverty, but on working to achieve an institutional framework which will help to prevent relational poverty, and contribute to bringing about right relationships.
3. The environment, like prosperity, is a derivative rather than a primary issue. That is not to underestimate its immense significance. However, it is only through following biblical teaching on family and love for neighbour that it will become possible to create the social solidarity required to persuade the complacent Western public, and ambitious Asian governments, to make the changes necessary to leave an inhabitable world to our children and distant neighbours.
4. Some might see technology as the major driver of social change. However, Mumford and others have argued that technology is driven by the institutional context of the day. [38] Large companies, for example, seek new technology for large factories and large markets rather than innovations for efficient small-scale production; an individualistic culture seeks new forms of entertainment that do not require a second ‘player’.
5. Christians have to weigh up tackling the symptoms of injustice and exploitation (e.g. hunger, ill-health, landlessness) with tackling the causes(e.g. skewed distribution of access to land, capital markets, concentration of political power, foreign debt). There is no single right solution. Each country needs a strategy for each of its regions, sectors and ethnic groups; each organisation needs its own package of relational reform proposals.
6. To concentrate attention on economic growth, or even on the growth and distribution of income, is not enough. Reform of the markets for resources (e.g. land reform or opening wider access to capital) is vital for promoting positive relationships between rich and poor, and between different sections of society. Equity must be built into the economic system through safeguards in markets for resources rather than relying on a redistribution mechanism after a polarising growth process.
7. Christians should prioritise evangelism, discipling and church planting to restore each person’s relationship with God, to build the Christian community, and to increase a right ‘fear of God’ across society as a whole. But about their priorities for the wider agenda of social change? While Christians should agree on the goals and strategies for social change, they can legitimately disagree about the priorities and timetable of institutional reform. Scripture is not definitive in these areas but gives guidelines. Factors to consider will include the history of the nation, international agreements, the nature of current political arrangements, and feasibility of intervention.
8. Christians need to develop new strategies, campaigns and initiatives to move their societies towards relational well-being; they also need to learn to evaluate them critically. This requires that they build up a body of knowledge drawn from international experience of interventions based on the biblical paradigm, and use it as a training resource for future generations of Christian reformers.

This is an extract from a Cambridge Paper called ‘How to create a relational society: foundations for a new social order’ to read the full article visit the Jubilee Centre website.