For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. –– Philippians 3:20

The responsibility of a Christian toward his government raises many questions. How deeply should he be involved in the political processes of his country?

Should a Christian run for elective offices? Should he become involved in campaigning for a political candidate? How should a Christian make his positions known on the various issues that have religious conotations? Should a Christian vote?

The Bible

The Word of God is the only standard upon which any Christian should base conclusions to these questions. The Bible contains many teachings which can be grouped into three categories. It contains: (1) A record of principles of conduct by which one is to act; (2) An outline of the doctrines or elements of belief for a Christian’s faith; (3) A biographical record of the lives of men in ancient times.

The Bible is naturally separated into two segments: The larger segment is The Old Testament, and the much shorter, latter segment is The New Testament. Both segments, in addition to being treatises on ethics and morality and on doctrinal standards, are historical records. The Old Testament is a history of the nation of Israel. The New Testament is a history of the Christian Church.

Holy Men of Old

The Old Testament depicts the lives of many saintly men of God. These were often deeply involved politically. Moses is still known as the greatest of all lawgivers. Deborah was not only a judge but a woman directing the course of a nation. David and his son Solomon were mighty kings and empire-builders.

Lest we get the impression that ancient servants of God served only in the theocracy of Israel, we need but remember the activities of Joseph as grand vizier of Egypt, the service of Daniel as prime minister to the kings of both Babylon and Medo- Persia and Mordecai as counselor to the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes).

Scanning the Old Testament record, we see holy men conscientiously involved with the operations of the governements of their day.

New Testament

However, when we turn the pages of the Bible to the New Testament, we find a marked contrast. Though some were civil servants before they became Christians [such as the centurion Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and those of Caesar’s household (Philippians 4:22), and Matthew the tax-collector], and some may have kept their office afterward, there is no record of them seeking such office after becoming Christians.

There may be some natural reasons for this. The Christian church was chiefly selected from the poor and the outcasts of the earth, ones who would not have been likely to hold such office. Also, whereas the Old Testament covers a history of some 4000 years, the New Testament is limited to about 37 years; insufficient time to draw a solid conclusion.

Early Church Fathers

Following on in the history of the early church –– post New Testament –– we find further evidence that the Christian community disdained involvement in the governments around them. Two quotations may suffice to illustrate this point:

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) — “Now this age and the future are enemies. We cannot therefore be friends of both but must hold companionship with the one and bid farewell to the other. We reckon that it is better to hate the things that are here, for they are small, short-lived, and corruptible, and to love the things that are there, for they are good and incorruptible.”

Origenes (185-254) — “The reason why Christians avoid the public service of earthly life is not because they want to evade them, but because they are reserving themselves for the more divine and needful service of the church of God, taking the lead — at once needfully and righteously — in the salvation of men, and being concerned for all men.”

Otherworldliness

The premise in both of the above quotes is that of otherworldliness. The Christian claimed a heavenly citizenship and a consequent lack of interest and involvement in things of the present life. This is in marked contrast to the philosophy of the leading lights of the Old Testament and is in agreement with the words of Jesus in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were unto John: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.”

The promises taught by Jesus were radically different from those of Old Testament Judaism, though they complement each other in the teaching of a coming thou — one nation under God. The kingdom that Jesus taught was to be heavenly. “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). So different were these two concepts that the followers of Jesus could not divide their loyalties between them.

“No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13).

A New Kingdom Needed

Man has long felt the need for the stabilizing force of government. Great kingdoms of the past were not without their accomplishments. Consider the laws of Hammurabi, the splendor of ancient Babylon, the conquering might of Persia, the learning and culture of Greece, and the raw power of Rome with its Caesars. Yet these served more to heighten oppression than to bring true peace. Each gave way in its time to a new power.

It was just such a new kingdom that Jesus proposed — a kingdom not of this world. It was a kingdom with a platform of real social welfare (Isaiah 35), of real peace and domestic tranquility (Isaiah 2:4), and promising the ultimate freedom — the freedom from death itself (Revelation 21:4).

This would be a kingdom with a spiritual ruling power, Christ the King, and his Church –– or Cabinet –– (Matthew 19:28; 2 Timothy 2:12) and with billions of subjects — all who have ever lived returning from their graves (John 5:25- 29; Revelation 20:11-13).

This kingdom would be endowed with the necessary power to accomplish its aims. It would “rule with a rod of iron” (Revelation 2:26,27) and would conquer all forces opposed to its righteous rule (1 Corinthians 15:25,26).

With such a vision before them, it is no wonder that Jesus’ disciples cast their votes for him and his kingdom. But this kingdom was for some indistinct future time. It left the believer with hope but with no current alleviation from oppression. No wonder such activists as Karl Marx called such religious hopes “an opiate of the people” dulling their sensibilities to current injustices.

There is a partial truth in Marx’s observation. The kingdom is still for the future. We live in the present — in the “meantime” of anticipation. What is the Christian’s role now?

Citizens

“We, by contrast, are citizens of heaven, and from heaven we expect our deliverer to come, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20 NEB). The early Church took the position that not only was their kingdom of a different world, but that they were citizens of that kingdom. As foreigners on earth, they considered themselves to be aliens among their countrymen –– but they were aliens with a mission. They viewed themselves as ambassadors of the heavenly kingdom to which they belonged.

Ambassadors

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20); “For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak” (Ephesians 6:20).

An ambassador is a citizen of one country representing his government in a foreign land. While vitally interested in the affairs of his host country, his citizenship, and enfranchisement are in his native land. As a result, he is not eligible to vote or hold office in the country of his residence. These privileges and restrictions seem to define well the viewpoint of the early Christian church toward political involvement.

The role of the ambassador is well expressed in a 1955 critique of the American ambassadorial community, The Ugly American:

“What we need is a small force of well-trained, well-chosen, hard-working, and dedicated professionals. They must be willing to risk their comfort and — in some lands — their health. They must be equipped to apply a positive policy promulgated by a clear-thinking government. They must speak the language of their assignment, and they must be more expert in its problems than are the natives. If the only price we are willing to pay is the dollar price, then we might as well pull out before we’re thrown out. If we are not prepared to pay the human price, we had better retreat to our shores. We are trying money alone, instead of remembering that it was the quest for the dignity of freedom that was responsible for our own way of life” (pp. 239, 240).

This author suggests Six Specific Qualifications of an Ambassador:

1) Speak the language of the host country — even as Jesus spoke the language of the common people instead of the classical Greek of the scholars. Take time to learn the language instead of working through translators; identify with the culture.

2) Mingle with the people of the land — as Jesus and the disciples mingled in the marketplaces, seeking out the needy instead of the aristocracy rather than staying Know what are the needs of the people.

3) Give practical assistance — “Do good unto all men as you have opportunity” (Galatians 6:10). Give practical assistance, not just theoretical help.

4) Show no spirit of condescension — Not showing a “holier than thou” attitude but meet the people on a common level, as equals.

5) Represent the ideals of your native country — Live the Christian life so that others “may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

6) Assist toward dignity and not toward materialism — “For a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15).

The Christian also has Civic Responsiblities:

Obedience to the Laws of the Land:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1); “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (1 Peter 2:13,14; Titus 3:1).

Respect of the Government:

“Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17).

Payment of Taxes:

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Prayer:

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:1, 2; Jeremiah 29:7).

Conclusion

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).

The Christian is to live a life that, as a good ambassador, demonstrates Christ to the world around him, while at the same time not becoming involved with this world — an otherworldliness with concern for those around us.

“Pure religion and undefiled before God, even the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

–– Notes from his Discourse, “Church and State”