AMOS, CHRISTIANITY AND THE SECULAR STATE

 My take on their relationship for the 2015 ULBRA Theological Forum in Canoas, Brazil

 _________________

 

AMOS, CHRISTIANITY AND THE SECULAR STATE [1]

Lucas André Albrecht[2]

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

Conversations and debates about the relationship between the Secular State and the Church have been constant, and even fierce in the Brazilian public sphere in recent decades. Especially, with the rise of neo-Pentecostal Protestantism and the consolidation of the evangelical block in the Congress. In this context, different opinions have emerged in the socio-political and religious context of the nation.

Looking carefully, it is possible to perceive a certain duality, perhaps even contradiction regarding the perception of the Church's beliefs and values in its relationship with the modern secular state. On the one hand, from a conceptual and normative point of view, political and intellectual voices affirm that the complete separation between Church and State is imperative, with the Church's values and beliefs having no relation to the constitution of the State, its ethics, and laws. On the other hand, in the practical interfaces there is constant appeal to the practice of consolidated Christian values when it comes such as tolerance, justice, equality, capitalist exploitation, excess of individualism, and love of neighbor, notably in cases where Christian values are invoked to denounce the lack of ethics.

The objective of this essay is to verify aspects of this dynamic between Christian values and the modern secular state. Also, to verify some level of ideologically motivated contradiction in these interlocutions. Initially, the exegesis of the book of Amos will explore how biblical values are inserted in the appeal to justice and ethics in the people of Israel. Then, points of dialogue as well as of tension involved will be investigated in the relationship between The Church and the Secular State.

 2 AMOS 5

 The Ministry of Amos took place under Jeroboam II (765-750 BC approximately).[3] Amos was not a man of means but a shepherd who had a flock and a plantation of sycamore trees, as some rabbis suggest. (Keil and Delitzsch, 2015). As he says, he was not a prophet. He was not trained in any school, but rather, he was called from where he was by the Lord. (Keil and Delitzsch, 2015). He was probably a contemporary of Hosea. Amos' work must have attracted attention in both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms for its uniqueness. A shepherd who was untrained as a prophet, which came from Judah to prophesy within the Northern Kingdom and, by the power of the Spirit, proved himself to be sent by God. This is something that had probably never happened before (Keil and Delitzsch, 2015).

The language of Amos also demonstrates aspects of a shepherd's dialect, not the refined speech of a scholar. for example, בּושׁס in place of  בּוסס ( 5:11 ) "to lay a burden, trample on" the poor.[4] This in addition to other rural figures. But he also demonstrates a great deal of knowledge of the Mosaic law and the history of Israel.

Amos preached in the Northern Kingdom in an era of economic boom with luxurious living, open moral corruption, and idolatry (UNGER, p.407). It was at this time of economic stability, national security, and a careless sinful life, that Amos is sent with the terrible, even violent, message of divine judgment on the Northern Kingdom. Although it was very beautiful on the outside, Amos' message shows how deteriorated the kingdom was on the inside. Amos' statements are in the context of the chosen people of God falling and drifting away. The virgin who ceases to be (ch.2). Thus, Yahweh's charge is even greater.

The prophet's message is for a people who should be following divine laws and statutes. Thus, all the demands made – justice, oppression, idolatry, etc. – are addressed to people, and not necessarily to “social classes” as currently conceived. Idolatry and oppression, for example, can be caused and practiced by anyone, in any position. There was a general degree of self-confidence, both because of the comfortable situation in which the kingdom lived and because they knew themselves to be God's chosen people. However, Amos announces that none of this will be a reason to be safe. The only way is to 'seek the Lord and live'. Even pointing out “for three transgressions... and for four”, the text of the prophet indicates the essence of what God will punish: “I abhor the pride of Jacob and I hate his castles” (6.8). Therefore, the book is a great call to repentance. The nations that stand against the kingdom of God, have no way, in the last analysis, to subsist. And this is even true of Judah and Israel, with their gross idolatry and, consequently, estrangement from Yahweh. (Keil and Delitzsch, 2015)

“For three or four sins” – Luther demonstrates that, in fact, it is only one: rebellion against God. Three and four add up to seven, a whole number, and that leads to the beginning again. (The Lutheran Bible Study, p.1456) The people had departed from the covenant, that was their sin.

Amos is a prophet sent by God who prophesies in his name (7:15), even though there is a high priest, Amaziah (7:10). Amos is a man of God, speaking the Word of God to God's people and their leaders. The concepts involved, therefore, need to be looked at carefully, so that they are not confused in the present as one defends principles and values of the modern Secular State. A superficial reading and, equally, an anachronistic application of the prophet's message can generate theological and practical problems. The alternative for the moral, ethical, and procedural situation of the people is not in enacting more laws, establishing legislative assemblies, strengthening the legal system or in anti-corruption campaigns. It is not in a generic fight against social injustice and in the increase of inspection and punishment. Nor is it in fighting a specific proposal based on a secular ideology that intends to synthesize the aspirations of the Gospel, which could be a path in a Secular State as understood today. The central alternative indicated by the prophet is: “Seek the Lord and live” (5:6); “Seek good and not evil, that you may live, and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you say. Hate evil and love good, and set judgment at the gate.” (5.14-15)

 

2.1. Exegetical considerations: 5.6-7; 10-15

Chapter 5 leaves no hope for sinful people and people who are separated from God to maintain their foundations of trust and hope, which were primarily in their national security. The word of God destroys this foundation, setting before them the demands of the Law of Yahweh, which are not fulfilled. And he points out the only way to have, in fact, security for his people: “Seek the Lord and live”.

v.6 – The indication of the way against injustice, oppression, and punishment: seek the Lord. For it is not possible to live apart from Yahweh.

 חיה - not only to remain alive , not to perish , but to have the possession of true life. God can only be sought after, however, in His revelation, the way He chose to be sought after and worshiped (“from the top down”, in contrast to 'bottom up” religions[5]). A clear contrast to the idolatry prevailing in the country, where Bethel and Gilgal were the most sought-after places of worship. Bethel, house of God, getting to be changed to Beth-Aven , house of idols. It was the main place of idolatry in Israel.

v.7 – As it is in the third person ( hinnı̄chū ), not the second, the participle in Amos 5.7 is not addressed to anyone. In turn, hahōphekhı̄m (who ye convert) cannot be in apposition to Beth-el, since in a later passage it is referring to the houses, not the inhabitants. Amos is very fond of using participles (cf. Amos 2:7 ; Amos 4:13 ), so he likes to present ideas one after the other, without a logical link or connection. In fact, hahōphekhı̄m is connected with bēth-yōsēph (the house of Joseph). Instead of making the connection, “Seek the Lord, ye of the house of Joseph, that turn what is right into wrong;”; simply describes "They are changing." etc...

La‛ănâh , alosna, is a bitter plant. According to Deuteronomy 29:17, a man's actions are regarded as the fruit of his state of mind. (Keil and Delitzsch)[6]

v.10 to 12 – Verse 10 begins with a third person plural “they hate” ( שָׂנְא֥וּ). Perhaps, for a moment, the prophet's audience was tempted to think, “Okay, Amos is finally speaking to those other people. It's about time!” But in Amos 5:11 he switches to second person plural verbs "you all". The "they" becomes "you," and because of this, Amos becomes one of the reprovers at the gate, whom the judges hated. (Concordia Theology, Access 2015)

The mention of the city gates clearly alludes to a court case. References to legal procedures are reminiscent of the way the less fortunate had to seek some right - at the gates of the city, in the Hebrew court. And here God condemns the way justice and judgments are being conducted among his people.

Mōkhı̄ăch - is not merely the judge who strikes down unjust accusers, but anyone who raises his voice in a court against acts of injustice (as in Isaiah 29:21 ) (Keil and Delitzsch, access 2015)

Taxes - were the way in which the poor, instead of being protected, were exploited. (Lutheran Bible Study, p.1465) The unjust, in addition to taking advantage of the work of others, also imposed heavy taxes.

the participles צררי and לקחי are attached to suffixes פּשׁעיכם  and חטּאתיכם : his sins, which oppress the righteous, attack him and take a bribe, contrary to the express command of the law in Numbers 35:31, not to receive any kō pher for the soul of a murderer

The text also exposes the people's resistance to change, by remaining in idolatry, going to the wrong places of worship, doing wrong things.

v. 11 – The “poor” (דָּ֗ל), in this verse he is compared to “little Jacob” (Am 7:2, 5), also called “needy” (Am 2:6; 4:1; 5:12; 8:4, 6), “oppressed” (Am 2:7; 8:4), and "the righteous"" (Amos 2:6; 5:12). People in this group were being abused sexually (Am 2.7), physically (Am 2.8; 5.11), judicially (Am 5.10), spiritually (Am 2:12), and vocationally (Am 4.1; 5.11). This is the remnant of Joseph (Amos 5:15). (Concordia Theology, Access 2015)

v.13 – Emphasis on the fact that the sages ended up staying silent, because seeking justice seemed to be in vain, and even dangerous. However, it is possible, perhaps, to infer here an irony of Amos, since he himself does not omit to express his opinion, even at the risk of his life. Perhaps the message is sarcastic, saying, “Do you expect the wise to keep quiet, just because it's a dangerous time? This is not what will happen.”

v.15 – Literary structure: seek the good, not the evil/hate the evil, love the good. Instead of changing and ending justice and correction (Am 5:7), judges are called to rectify the situation by “loving what is good” and “establishing justice at the gate,[7] where public transactions of business were carried out. the noun שְׁאֵרִ֥ית , “remnant,” denotes what is left after an invasion of enemies. Joseph's "leftovers" were Yahweh's main concern. (Concordia Theology, Access 2015)

The commandment to seek and love the good is practically the same as that of seeking the Lord, mentioned earlier. Hence the promise is the same, "that ye may live." This happens, however, only in communion with God.

The truth is that the Israelites were based on their heredity as God's people, that is, on external matters. Communion with God would be given in virtue of the covenant with Abraham. All that judgment, therefore, would never reach them. God had eventually delivered his people when Gentile oppression arrived ( cf. Micah 3.11 ; Jeremiah 7.10 ) .

Amos deals with this illusion by saying, "that Yahweh may be with us, as you say." It cannot be translated "if you do this" (as in Rashi and Baur), nor "if you strive to do good" (Hitzig). None of these meanings can be established, because כּן corresponds to כּאשׁר Following. It means nothing more than “as you say” (Keil and Delitzsch, access 2015 ).[8] In other words, the good and the life are not in the people, but in Yahweh, who must be sought.

Since Amos has such a violent and catastrophic message, Luther's record of verse 16 is still valid: "So great will be the punishment that there will be none who will not be sad to be alive." (Lutheran Bible Study, p.1465)

 3. AMOS, CHRISTIANITY, AND THE SECULAR STATE

 The main concepts of Amos for Christians are seen in a proleptic and eschatological perspective, in the vision of the Kingdom of God realized in Christ. Amos announces the judgment (Law) of God, whose consequence cannot be removed by the mere “belonging to the chosen people”, or by “establishing justice and right”, without looking at the Gospel as justice and right incarnate – Jesus Christ. Christianity has in Jesus Christ the one who took upon himself the violence and punishment that were destined for the people of God. He is the Remnant, the Righteous One, who took upon himself the pride, idolatry, corruption, and alienation of God's people, nailing them to the cross and bringing the new reality of faith and life. Transformed by Christ in the sanctified life then justice, law, defense of the less favored are practiced. In short, faith goes into practice in the world not by an external demand or simply by established laws, but as the fruit of a forgiven and renewed heart, which desires to practice God's will toward others.

This perspective becomes fundamental to avoid converting the message of Amos into an anachronistic event, merging it with ideologies and doctrines that emerged much later. Those, if used as an hermeneutical key to the Sacred text will lead to conclusions that move away from the Word. These landmarks are important when approaching, for example, concepts evoked in the public sphere such as inequality, social injustice, oppression, and human misery. Especially, to point out to contexts where “social injustice” predominates, where “the rich rob the poor,” where “taxes are constantly increased,” and “judgments are dishonest.”, invoking Amos to be the denouncer of oppression and social misery of the Secular State.

As a starting point, is worth noting that in those cases the emphasis tends to fall on the abstract collective “society” rather than the defined individual who is the true agent of evil. Amos' diagnosis, and the Word of God, are more accurate than “men are born good, but society corrupts them”. Human beings are born evil, and society is corrupted because of this evil. The righteousness of God reveals itself from faith to faith. The faithfulness of Christ that generates the possibility of faith and, thus, righteousness before God (Romans 1). Amos makes it clear that the way to live is to seek the Lord. Not because there is any strength in us (Hosea 13:9), but because Yahweh himself has made himself known in Jesus Christ He is our righteousness, our peace. He generates equality (Galatians 3) before God. From the Christological point of view equality, justice, and peace are not sought. They are generated by the action of Deus revelatus who, by his grace, generates the equality of faith that ends the injustice of sin, produces forgiveness of sins that generates peace and takes us out of spiritual misery. Christianity despairs of the human society and its power for a better distribution of income, an absolute equality, a justice that produces peace, or another world possible.

Here we see that if one approaches Amos to learn of Yahweh's concern for the remnant because they were poor and oppressed in the contemporary social sense that these terms acquired it will lead away from appropriate Biblical exegesis. In the text, we see that the essence of life with Him was broken– faithfulness to His Word. The leadership and those considered as oppressors had already abandoned His Law and purpose. In the prophetic text Yahweh makes no distinction by social class in His call to faithfulness to His Word. Where the Word is, there is the remnant. This happens, therefore, only in communion with God, which the modern conception and ethics of the Secular State tends to avoid, since the State is supposed to no have a religion as the guide of its ethics and principles.

Therefore, some concepts from the Secular State are tackled here from a different perspective. Seeking only one definition that encompasses all their plurality may inevitably end up on imposition of one vision on others. For example, inequality and the narrative about income distribution. Generally, it is assumed that economics is a zero-sum game, where, for someone to win, someone else must lose. Some economic schools have shown, however, alternatives for a different understanding.[9] Another theme would be “social injustice.” How can one determine the amount of justice that would satisfy every individual? Would there be one?[10] From a Christian point of view, therefore, the phrase “Peace comes from justice” must be understood from the new reality brought about by Christ, the justice of God, attributed by faith, which brings peace to the heart. When this Christian vision is transported to a secular environment, destitute of the Biblical context, it is emptied it of its exegetical and theological premises. The result can end up being a systematic mismatch, a transfer of the semantic field that will result in the use of the word as a pretext to sustain a utopia -which may result in dystopia.

Another important aspect to be noted is that all the social problems of the Northern Kingdom at that time stemmed from a spiritual problem according to the biblical account: the breaking of the covenant and estrangement from Yahweh. The New Testament will confirm this, by showing that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Hence, injustice and wickedness run amok in the world. The concepts demanded, and lamented, by Yahweh are theological, which have social reflexes. Justice is so violated because there is no fear of Yahweh. There is oppression because the commandment to love one's neighbor is neglected. A bribe is accepted because there is no observance of the rectitude prescribed by the Law. In short, everything that is denounced by the prophet is the result of sin

This helps us to deepen our understanding about social justice and inequality in Amos. It helps also to avoid what happens when he is used as a basis for stimulating the fight against oppression, social justice and inequality, recurrent terms relevant to the secular state. There are several individual exponents^[11] and Christian denominations that appropriate specific terminology to direct social care and the vision of justice and equality in society, not always in a way that the biblical-exegetic basis is clear and correct. For example, in Amos, in the topic justice (tsedeq), we see that he calls for justice at the gates (v.15). All who work in the public sphere should be fair in everything they do, and institutions should be properly managed. (DITAT, p.1879). In the forensic aspect, justice applies to everyone, rich and poor. But it is also important to point out that, in Israel, it was not the responsibility of the judge to verify the righteousness of the person before the human law, but rather, the divine status. “

Today one can transgress a secular statute yet be innocent before God. In OT law, being innocent and being just were the same thing. The idea of maintaining righteousness is often expressed by the hiphil degree. This construction designates the action of making righteous or declaring righteous. (DITAT, p.1879)

Being against the law in the secular state not always equals being against God’s Law.

The related concept of tsdq is mishpat. Although translated as 'justice' more than 400 times in the OT, it is a somewhat deficient translation, as we live in an age of clear distinction between legislative, executive and judiciary. Thus, the verb shapot, from which mishpat derives, which refers to all functions of government, is often limited to the sphere of the judiciary. But the verb and the noun cover all these functions (DITAT, p.2443). In democratic states of law, we use to think about constitutions and the nature of man, that is, natural rights. But according to the Hebrew Scriptures, all authority is divine (Deut. 1:17); every true mishpat has its source in God himself. This is not a concept that evokes only ethical and religious ideals, but it needs to be understood in the context of God’s covenant with His people. As Hummel puts it,

“Justice” is solely a result of God’s forensic judgement and the response  determines whether the ultimate judgement is salvatory or damnatory. “Salvation plus response” or “both justification and sanctification” would be better translations if possible. (HUMMEL, 1979)

The most adequate meaning for mishpat is not political or sociological, but rather Theological.

From this biblical conception of authority and governability, it would be paradoxical to propose a secular, almost anti-religious State, and, at the same time, to appeal to biblical and theological concepts to call the individual to the practice of citizenship and social responsibility. The connection between the biblical text and the secular state as known in our time becomes a very hard task, since the concept of the secular state, as understood today, is about 300 years old, perhaps having its first great expression in the French Revolution.[12] Amos lived in a Theocratic State, where the laws, the concept of justice, peace, harmony, and conviviality came from the Torah. In that reality, Christianity rejects the understanding that there are groups that are more sinful than others, or that social classes are a given in the current sense of the term. Oppression and injustice are not characteristic of certain groups, especially when defined by materialistic-dialectical issues, examples of which can be found in daily life.[13] Corruption does not reside in a specific social class, delineated by sociological definitions. It permeates humankind in whichever social condition a person is. Amos denounces the evil present in the idolatrous human being. Dividing society into classes in which each seeks to leverage its “victim” aspect to fight among themselves for special “rights” is exactly the opposite of the evangelical spirit preached by Jesus Christ, especially in Luke 6.

It needs to be noted too that the defense of the Secular State in its most recent version (approximately 300 years) may take on characteristics of an anti-religious struggle sometimes. For example, the Brazilian Congressman who compared evangelical churches to drug trafficking,[14] and the laws for the removal of religious symbols /cultural activities of public offices which tend to be a selective action.[15] The fact to be highlighted here is the sharp contrast between the fight for banishing Christian opinions from the public sphere and, on the other hand, the appeal to Christian and evangelical values and principles when it comes to combating social illnesses.[16]

From this discussion, one question needs to be answered: should the state be secular, anti-religious or atheist? These issues will certainly be under serious debate in this Forum. What this study proposes is that Christians, as new creatures, cannot omit themselves, from the righteousness of Christ that produces peace in their hearts, to love their neighbor as themselves and to be salt of the earth and light of the world. (Matthew 5). In this way they can seek to preserve spaces for expression of opinion, whenever it is in favour of justice and civil law - without, however, confusing the semantic fields and theological concepts involved. It is difficult to find, in the history of civilization, a State completely without religion. Therefore, it is possible to think of a secular State that maintains an open space for opinions of all religious roots. Whether they come from Christianity, materialism, scientism, atheism, or secularism.

In this connection, the Brazilian author Sandro Cerveira points out the contribution of Protestant denominations to secularism, and consequently, the secular State: “We generally think of freedom of religion as one among the many types of freedom, of human rights, declared during the European Enlightenment, which have had repercussions around the world ever since. However, Georg Jellinek, Weber's friend and teacher in these matters, published a book in 1895 entitled Die Erklärung der Menschen-und Bürgerrechte, translated into English in 1901 under the title The declaration of the rights of man and of citizens (New York: Holt, 1901), in which he argued that the fundamental source of all modern notions of human rights lies in the radical sects of the Protestant Reformation (Souza, 1999: 299).” (Oak, 2008)

Thus, Cerveira states:

The implications of denominationalism, with its explicit fragmentation and need for mutual tolerance, for the pluralization of the Brazilian religious field is evident, and, we want to emphasize, very important. Although the formal secularization of the Brazilian State, especially after the proclamation of the Republic, is a necessary condition for the pluralization and creation of a religious market, this process would be at least anemic if there were no religious groups vying intensely within this market. In other words, the freedom of the market does not per se prevent the possibility of monopolies, it is only the increase in the valid offer that gives reality to the freedom of choice. In this sense, the denominational form of Brazilian Protestantism, common, as I have already pointed out, to all branches, even neo-Pentecostals, has been a determining factor in the pluralization of the Brazilian religious field with consequences for the secularization of Brazilian society. (CERVEIRA, 2008)[17]

The Churches contributed to the establishment of the secular state, it was not the state who generated liberty and autonomy to Churches.

In all these debates and conversations, we are reminded that Christianity has in its essence the driving force for individuals and their social behavior: active faith in love. The Church can be a factor of great influence in society when it announces the Gospel, the true transforming force, encouraging its members to live this faith in daily life, putting and practicing the teachings, without false moralism or hypocrisy, but with the honesty that the Word recommends - saints and sinners.

However, due to a series of factors, including anthropological and cultural, in some contexts the Church ends up closing in on itself, in a feedback process. She may enter in entropy and its condition deteriorates before society, becoming invisible to it, since it may use codes, systems, and methods that, in many cases, are completely anachronistic. Therein lies the first difficulty: the Church sees itself from the outside and seeks to understand how someone from the outside can understand her. Another point the Church in general needs to work on is its overemphasis on law and good behavior. It needs to help society to deconstruct the idea that “perfect people” are expected from Churches. For they are not and, when they fall and make mistakes, they end up causing even greater damage to society.

Still, the Church can contribute to society by maintaining the notion of individuals reached by the love of God and who are responsible to him and to the world. In some contexts, collectivist values may prevail, whereby the individual disappears in the crowd and is called to accept any means in the name of a noble end. There, the Church may send its members to be responsible individuals in the world, for which means and ends are one and the same, working so that each person is treated as important, thus valuing relationships in the social fabric. With its multi-secular and rich history, the Church can bring this anti-materialist notion to society. She points to the past is also to a future, and the history and strength of the Church can help individuals and the social group to have a sense of meaning, belonging and action.

 5 CONCLUSION

 “If you were arrested, accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” (David O. Fuller)

The call of Yahweh, through Amos, is a call to constantly witness Whom we belong to, in the social context in which we are inserted. "Seek the Lord and live." Live fully here, by the grace of Christ, Live perfectly with him, in the life to come.

 

---

[1] This is a revised version of an essay produced for the ULBRA Theology Forum, October 07, 2015

[2]Theologian and Journalist, Master of Theology (STM), student of the Doctor of Ministry Program at Concordia Seminary St. Louis, USA 

[3] Under these kings the two kingdoms stood at the summit of their prosperity. Uzziah had completely subdued the Edomites, had subjugated the Philistines, and had even made the Ammonites tributary. He had also fortified Jerusalem strongly and had raised a powerful army; so that his name reached as far as Egypt (2 Chronicles 26). And Jeroboam had completely overcome the Syrians, and restored the original borders of the kingdom from the country of Hamath to the Dead Sea (2 Kings 14:25-28). After the power of the Syrians had been broken, Israel had no longer any foe to fear, for Assyria had not yet arisen as a conquering power. The supposition that Calneh or Ctesiphon is represented in Amos 6:2 as having already been taken (by the Assyrians), rests upon an incorrect interpretation, and is just as erroneous as the inference, also drawn from the same passage, that Hamath was conquered and Gath destroyed. Amos does not mention the Assyrians at all; although in Amos 1:5 he threatens the Syrians with transportation to Kir, and in Amos 5:27 predicts that the Israelites will be carried into captivity beyond Damascus. In the existing state of things, the idea of the approaching fall or destruction of the kingdom of Israel was, according to human judgment, a very improbable one indeed. The inhabitants of Samaria and Zion felt themselves perfectly secure in the consciousness of their might (Amos 6:1). The rulers of the kingdom trusted in the strength of their military resources (Amos 6:13), and were only concerned to increase their wealth by oppressing the poor, and to revel in earthly luxuries and pleasures (Amos 2:6-8; Amos 5:11-12; Amos 6:4-6); so that the prophet denounces woes upon those who are in security upon Zion and without care upon the mountain of Samaria (Amos 6:1), and utters the threat that the Lord will cause the sun to set at noon, and bring darkness over the land in broad daylight (Amos 8:9).(Keil e Delitzsch, 2015)

[4] Another examples: מתאב in place of מתעבמ ( Amos 6:8 ); מסרף in place of משׂרף ( Amos 6:10 ); ישׂחק in place of יצחק ( Amos 7:9 , Amos 7:16 ); נשׁקה in place of נשׁקעה ( Amos 8:8 ).

[5]A very recent example can be given with the idea of Deboism. “Deboismo is a neologism that emerged on the internet as a philosophical current, where the main rule is “to live well and easy”. ( www.significados.com.br . Accessed on September 29, 2015). A “religion” that perfectly unites the spirit of the time: emerged on a social network (https://www.facebook.com/Deboismo), with its emphasis on personalized religion whose redemptive center is in worldview and personal action: “good humor, relaxation, patience and respect for the opinions of others.” (Ibid)

[6] Theodoret has provided a correct explanation (though without fully exhausting the force of the words): “It is easy for Him to turn even the greatest dangers into happiness. By the shadow of death he means great dangers. And it is easy also to bring calamity on those who are in prosperity.” (Keil and Delitzsch, access 2015)

[7] An alternative nuance of translation for “establish” is presented by the Hypertext Bible Commentary: “The verb (ytsg) usually suggests that its object is being displayed in some way. Usual translations such as "establish justice, maintain justice" etc. do not seem to catch this nuance. The gate is above all a public place, so rendering "set up justice in the gate" or "display justice in the gate" seems better. (Hypertext Bible Commentary, access 2015)

^[8]The thought is the following: “Seek good, and not evil: then will Jehovah the God of the heavenly hosts be with you as a helper in distress, so as ye say.” This implied that in their present condition, so long as they sought good, they ought not to comfort themselves with the certainty of Yahwe's help. Seeking good is explained in v. 15 as loving good, and this is still further defined as setting up justice in the gate, i.e., maintaining a righteous administration of justice at the place of judgment; and to this the hope, so humiliating to carnal security, is attached: perhaps God will then show favour to the remnant of the people. The emphasis in these words is laid as much upon perhaps as upon the remnant of Joseph. The expression “perhaps He will show favour” indicates that the measure of Israel's sins was full, and no deliverance could be hoped for if God were to proceed to act according to His righteousness (Keil e Delitzsch, 2015)

 [9]For example, the text: “Economics in a single lesson”. Available at: http://www.mises.org.br/Ebook.aspx?id=25 Access: 2015

[10]Hayek discusses the topic at: http://jus.com.br/artigos/30334/justica-social-na-concepcao-de-friedrich-august-von-hayek Accessed: 2015

[11]For example, Boff: “The first force constellates itself around the self and the individual and gives rise to individualism. The second is articulated around the species, the we and gives rise to the community and the societal. The first is on the basis of capitalism, the second of socialism in its best expression.
Where does the genius of capitalism reside? In exasperation of the self to the maximum extent possible, of the individual and self-affirmation, disdaining the greater whole, the integration in the species and the we. In this way, it unbalanced all human existence, due to the excess of one of the forces, ignoring the other. In this natural fact resides the force of perpetuation of the culture of capital, as it is based on something true but materialized in an exacerbated unilateral and pathological way.

How to overcome this secular situation? Fundamentally in rescuing the balance of these two natural forces that make up our reality. Perhaps it is the endless democracy, that institution that does justice, simultaneously, to the individual (I) but inserted within a greater whole (us, society) of which it is a part. We will return to the theme because it is not enough to criticize this evil culture, as Paulo Freire called it; It is important to contrast it with another type of culture that cultivates life and creates spaces for love, cooperation, creativity and transcendence.” (BOFF, access 2015)

[12] According to Benjamin Morris, in “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States”, even the USA, which is cited in its constitution that seeks to separate Church and State, has the foundational basis of its State in Christian philosophy. The separation of the State from the Church would be due to the fact that there are many Protestant denominations, not being possible to choose one as the reference. Available at: https://archive.org/details/ChristianLifeAndCharacterOfTheCivilInstitutionsOfTheUnitedStates

[13]For example: “Adolescent detained in the harpooner says he acted for pleasure”. Available at: http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/adolescente-detido-no-arpoador-diz-que-agiu-por-prazer-17612789 .

"Poor". Available at: http://toquedevida.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/pobre.html

[14]“ Jean Wyllys compares evangelical churches to drug trafficking and says that “religious fundamentalists” threaten the secular state”. Available at: http://noticias.gospelmais.com.br/estado-laico-jean-wyllys-compara-igrejas-evangelicas-narcotrafico-59503.html Accessed: September 25, 2015.

[15]As, for example, in “Determined the removal of crucifixes from Rio Grande do Sul's justice buildings”. Available at: http://www.tjrs.jus.br/site/imprensa/noticias/#http://www.tjrs.jus.br/site/system/modules/com.br.workroom.tjrs/elements/ noticias_controller.jsp?acao=ler&idNoticia=172854 Accessed: September 25, 2015

^[16]As, for example, in Friar Betto: “Would the ideal reside in a system capable of bringing together social justice, predominant in socialism, with the individual freedom prevailing in capitalism? This question has been posed to me by friends for years. I opined that the dichotomy is inherent to capitalism. The practice of freedom that predominates in it does not match the principles of justice. Just remember that its paradigmatic assumptions - competitiveness, private appropriation of wealth and market sovereignty - are antagonistic to the socialist (and evangelical) principles of solidarity, sharing, defense of the rights of the poor and the sovereignty of life over material goods. , access 2015)

^[17] Cerveira concludes: “From these terms, contrary to the traditional idea that links the religious, especially evangelicals, to conservatism and anti-democratic postures, it is possible to propose that the pluralization of the religious field, the consequences of the propagation of an internalized religion to the strengthening of the notion of the individual and the secularization that also feeds on this process, are important factors in the democratization of society, a fundamental element for the construction of the institutional democratic arrangement.” (CERVEIRA, 2008)

 

REFERENCES

 

BARROSO, Luis Roberto. State must refrain from promoting or hindering the exercise of any religion . Available at: http://www.conjur.com.br/2015-jun-14/roberto-barroso-estado-abster-promover-qualquer-religiao Accessed: September 26, 2015.

 

BETTO, Frei. Freedom and social justice . Available at: http://amaivos.uol.com.br/amaivos2015/?pg=noticias&cod_canal=53&cod_noticia=13419 Accessed: 29 September 2015

 

Hebrew Bible Stuttgartensia. nineteen ninety.

 

Holy Bible with Reflections of Luther . São Paulo, Bible Society of Brazil. 2012

 

BOFF, Leonardo. Capital culture is anti-life and anti-happiness Available at:

https://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/a-cultura-do-capital-e-anti-vida-e-anti-felicidade/ Accessed: 28 September 2015

 

CERVEIRA, Sandro Amadeu. Tupiniquim Protestantism, Modernity and Democracy: limits and tensions of evangelical identity(ies) in contemporary Brazil. Available at: http://www.pucsp.br/rever/rv1_2 008/t_cerveira.htm Accessed: September 29, 2015

 

Amos. In: Bible Study Tools . Available at: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/amos/5.html

Access: September 29, 2015.

 

Amos. In: Concordia Theology . Available at:
http://concordiatheology.org/2012/10/proper-23-%E2%80%A2-amos-56-7-10-15-%E2%80%A2-october-14-2012/ Access on: September 28, 2015

 

Amos. In : Hypertext Bible Commentary . Available at: http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/lectionary/amos5_6.htm Access: September 28, 2015

 

HARRIS, R. Laird; ARCHER Jr. Gleason L.; WALTKE, Bruce K. International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology . Sao Paulo, New Life, 1998.

 

HUFF JR. Arnaldo Erico. Protestantism, Modernization and the Lay State: Lutherans

confessions between orthodoxy and secularism at the beginning of the Vargas era. In: Journal of Religious Studies. March / 2008 / pp. 1-26.

 

HUMMEL, Horace. The Word becoming Flesh. St Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1979.

 

Jean Wyllys compares evangelical churches to drug trafficking and says that “religious fundamentalists” threaten the secular state. Available at: http://noticias.gospelmais.com.br/estado-laico-jean-wyllys-compara-igrejas-evangelicas-narcotrafico-59503.html Accessed: September 25, 2015

 

KEIL, Karl F.; DELITZSCH, Franz. love . Available at: http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=29&ch=0 Accessed: September 29, 2015.

 

The Lutheran Study Bible . St Louis, CPH, 2009.

 

UNGER, MERRILL F. Unger's Bible Handbook . Chicago, Moody Press, 1967

 

WALTHER, CFW Law and Gospel . Porto Alegre: Concordia, 1998.