V The Proper Political Attitude for an American Christian

1. Peculiar Responsibilities of an American Citizen

Like Locke, Montesquieu was very influential on the political thought of the Founding Fathers. His most important work, the Spirit of the Laws, distinguishes three forms of government: republics, monarchies, and despotisms. Of republics, there are two kinds: democracies and aristocracies. Each of these types of government operates on separate principles. For democracies, the principle is “… political virtue, by which Montesquieu means ‘the love of the laws and of our country’ (SL 4.5), including its democratic constitution” (Bok). According to Montesquieu’s taxonomy, America would be classified as a democracy. The reality is somewhat more nuanced, for we are technically a constitutional republic which makes use of many democratic mechanisms, but for our purposes here, we can content ourselves with calling America a democracy. If Montesquieu is right, and it seems that he mostly is, then we should expect that the continuance of our republic depends upon our own political virtue, which includes a love and even a jealousy for our democratic constitution. 

It is generally agreed among Christians that Christianity obliges us to be good citizens of whichever country we find ourselves a citizen. In our case – presuming my audience are Americans – we find ourselves citizens of a democracy. Our responsibility as good citizens of a democracy such as ours means loving our constitution and the rights it seeks to protect. It could be said that it is our virtue to be vigilant in the protection of our own liberties. Although this may seem to imply selfishness at first glance, since these liberties benefit all, it is really a public service.

2. Dual Citizenship as a Christian

As American citizens, we see that our responsibility lies in defending our rights. Of course, in life, we have many competing responsibilities. Some responsibilities are stronger, and some are weaker. For instance, our responsibilities to a friendship are weaker than our responsibilities to our family. In a sense, there is no absolute responsibility except to God only. So, our responsibility to our earthly citizenship, though strong, is not absolute. In places like Hebrews 11:16 and 12:22, it is clear that we as Christians have a higher citizenship: a heavenly citizenship. You could say that we are dual citizens. 

Not surprisingly, our two citizenships each come with their own set of responsibilities. Typically, these two sets of responsibilities perfectly align or, at the very least, are not opposed. However, it is not inconceivable that an irresolvable conflict should arise between them. In this case, the hierarchy of responsibility must be invoked. Between our earthly citizenship and our heavenly citizenship, the responsibilities incumbent on the latter are of much higher rank. In Matthew 6:33 we are told to “seek first the kingdom of God” and in Acts 5:29 we see how the Apostles said, “we must obey God rather than men.” So, the priority between these two citizenships is clear. However, in the absence of any conflicting responsibilities, this theory is easy to accept. It is only when such a conflict exists, that the theory is put to the test. 

3. The Competing Virtues of our Citizenships

As established earlier, the virtue required in being a good citizen of the United States is to guard one’s own rights and liberties with the utmost vigilance. This is our responsibility towards our earthly citizenship. However, what is our responsibility towards our heavenly citizenship? What is the virtue required in being a good citizen of heaven? The answer to this last question could come in many different forms, but what is most relevant here are the virtues that relate to our obligations towards government. Our political virtue as Americans is one thing, but what is our political virtue as Christians? 

The Scriptures are far from silent on this subject. There are at least two passages that speak very clearly on the subject of a Christian’s political virtue. One is from the pen of Paul in Romans 13, and one is from Peter in 1 Peter 2. Before we jump into these passages directly, it may be helpful to look at what could be considered a cornerstone passage into which these two passages fit. This passage has been so foundational for Christians through the ages that it has been given its own name: The Carmen Christi or the Song of Christ. It may have even been a hymn fragment from the first century Church. We have it in Philippians 2:5-11.  

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11 ESV

Note what kind of mind we are to have among ourselves. It is not one that grasps at what is rightfully ours, as Jesus did not grasp the glory that He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). Instead He emptied Himself and became a servant. This involved the most ignominious humility and radical obedience: the sinless savior taking the full punishment for all the sins of His people on the Cross. Of course, the story doesn’t end there: God then exalts Him to the highest place. So, the Christological chiasmus is complete: from great glory to great humility to greater humility to even greater glory. If we as Christians hope to be raised with Christ at the last day, we should not be surprised that we must live and think in a manner that follows this same pattern. In this life, that means a life and mind of submission and self-denial. How different this mind is from the inclinations of our natural mind. And what is relevant here, how different a mind this is from the one that our American political virtue naturally leads to.  

The theoretical situation posed in the last section seems to have crystallized into a reality now. Our American virtue is to keep a firm grasp upon our rights, but our Christian virtue is to let go of our rights: a seemingly irresolvable tension. Some might seek to resolve this tension by merely saying that the submission required in the Christian life only applies to our submission to God and to our brothers and sisters in Christ, not to ‘godless governments.’ However, this is too simplistic because Paul and Peter apply this mindset directly to the evil Roman authorities in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 respectively. We have already visited Romans 13 a few times, but it is directly relevant again. It starts out with “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (verse 1). This statement is clearly categorical and is not relative to a peculiar form of government. If it applied to the Roman authorities, does it apply any less to democratic authorities? Should we not be even more willing to submit to the authorities our own neighbors selected than to complete despots as was the case in Paul’s day? 

Peter says much the same in 1 Peter 2. In verse 13 and 14 he says, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” Then in verse 15 he ties this subjection to our Christian witness, “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” Perhaps these ‘foolish people’ were accusing Christians of being rebellious to authority. Unfortunately, given certain trends in American Christian conservativism, this charge may become true. However, if we listen to Peter here, and that is what I am urging, we can silence these charges. 

Therefore, we are left with the tension between our Christian virtue and our political virtue. We cannot dismiss the tension by saying that the Christian virtues of submission and self-denial do not apply to government, for Paul and Peter flatly contradict such a notion. Furthermore, their commands to submit to authority are not predicated on the form that those authorities come in. Earlier, it was established that if an irresolvable conflict arose between the responsibilities of our earthly citizenship and the responsibilities of our heavenly citizenship, then we would have to give priority to our heavenly responsibilities. However, is the conflict truly irresolvable? If it is resolvable, it must be in such a way that Christians may still witness to the world our Christlike submission to our authorities. 

4. Resolving the Tension

In order to resolve this tension, we must get at the heart of the matter; as it turns out, the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart. What is essential in carrying out our political virtue involves the use of permissible means of guarding our freedom. That is to say, political virtue essentially consists of actions. The thought process that leads to taking these actions naturally lends itself to certain attitudes. However, these attitudes are not necessitated by taking the actions, but are only associated in our natural (as opposed to spiritual) thought processes. Christian virtue on the other hand is essentially an attitude that necessitates actions. If a person goes through the motions of submission and self-denial, but their heart is not in it, then it is of no worth in the sight of God. What is required by Christian virtue is a heart of submission and self-denial. From these attitudes, actions will necessarily follow. 

The actions of our American political virtue are not, in and of themselves, opposed to Christian virtue. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Christians acting according to their political virtue. The problem arises when we allow our hearts to be turned towards rebellious and ungrateful attitudes. In many ways, we have it easy being Christians in America, but in another sense, we must be extra careful in guarding our hearts against attitudes that are expressly opposed to the attitude, or mind, that is ours in Christ Jesus.  

The political actions that are permissible for a Christian to participate in are numerous. It is perfectly fine if we should vote for candidates that we believe will be best in protecting our constitutional rights. It is even fine if we should participate in political movements and organizations that are supportive of our liberties. Furthermore, even participation in lawsuits and peaceful protests are within the realm of permissible activities. In the most extreme cases, which will be touched on in the next section, it is even allowed to participate in revolutions. However, the attitudes that we must guard against in all these things are disrespect for authority and ingratitude for the liberties we still possess. As Christians, we must never think to ourselves that verses like Ecclesiastes 10:20 which says, “Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king [or whatever ruler you may be under]…,” do not apply to us.  

Bibliography

Bok, Hilary. Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. 21 December 2018. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). May 2020. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/montesquieu/&gt;.