Dr. Lillback interviewed Dr. Edgar and Dr. Gaffin on the topic of Christian citizenship for Westminster Magazine. This interview took place on Monday, July 22, 2024. The following has been compressed and condensed for clarity.
Peter A. Lillback (PAL): Dr. Gaffin, I would like to ask you this question. Citizenship is an idea that’s external to the Scriptures but enters into the Scriptures. How do you put those two together in your mind?
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (RBG): Peter, in fact, the Bible speaks pointedly to the issue of Christian citizenship. In Philippians 3:20, Paul addresses the church—the church, we should understand, not just in his day but for any and all times until Jesus returns—and he says, “our citizenship is in heaven.” So, Christians have a heavenly citizenship that comes as they are united to Christ by faith and are concerned to serve him. This is the Christian’s primary and ultimate citizenship. So, the question is, how does this heavenly citizenship manifest itself in the various earthly citizenships there are? I take it that was the direction of your question, a question the Bible leaves considerable scope for in terms of how we address it.
PAL: Dr. Edgar, as you think about the ethics of citizenship, obviously there was a sense in which Israel had a unique boundary for members within it, and Paul was a Roman and appealed to his citizenship. Do those biblical principles or historical facts give us any guidance for our own understanding of citizenship in the secular state that we’re members of?
William Edgar (WE): I think they do. As Dick said, our primary citizenship is in heaven. And we look forward to the fulfillment of that at the end of time when we will be citizens and have our primary identity with that reality. Now, God has placed us on this earth. He gave Adam and Eve and their progeny a cultural mandate. Culture includes citizenship as was suggested. It varies a great deal with the type of government we have. But it’s not negligible to think of our citizenship here on earth. You mentioned Paul’s appeals to Rome. That’s one scenario. You know, in China you have to be very cautious about getting involved with politics because of the dangers there. In a modern democracy . . . well, the way I like to put it is: “How do you render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s when you are Caesar?” I think the implication is that God’s imprint is everywhere, whereas Caesar’s imprint is on the coin. And that coin looks different from age to age. But
we have an allegiance or responsibility to honor Caesar, whatever form it takes. That is not in competition with—it’s a complement to—the heavenly comprehensive
citizenship of God over all things.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, since you’ve emphasized our heavenly citizenship, how does our citizenship in heaven compare or contrast with our citizenship in the earthly state? The word is used in both senses, obviously. What are your thoughts on comparing and contrasting the use of the word?
RBG: If I may, I’d like to back up and make the important point that in answering your question we need to be careful in using the Old Testament. To give an example,
I’ve been struck in the aftermath of last October 7th how often comments and discussions about the war refer to Israel-Palestine as “the Holy Land”; even some secular
reporters use that language. If I were to write an article, I would entitle it, “It’s No Longer the Holy Land.” The citizenship of the people of God now, in light of the coming
of Christ, is no longer identified with or confined to one geopolitical order, as was the case with Old Testament Israel. The church in the Old Testament was ethnically
limited; God’s people were one nation, holy in distinction from all others. Now the New Testament church is made up of not just Jews but non-Jews as well, Jews and Gentiles found in every ethnicity, present in every earthly political order. So the question becomes how Christians function given the state of affairs that has arrived in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, where now he is, as Paul says, “head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). How does that universal Lordship work out on earth?
PAL: Let’s zero in this way and say Christ is the Lord of everything, and we’re in a divine monarchy in the church, but in the American context we’re not in a monarchy;
we’re in some sort of a constitutional democratic republic. In that setting, what does it mean to be a citizen of heaven? How is it different than being a citizen on earth?
WE: Since Pentecost, there has been no such thing as a Christian nation per se. There might be nations that come closer to putting biblical ideals into the law. But this whole discussion of, for example, America as a Christian nation is misguided. As Dick suggested, the present expression of nationality is in the church. And the church
has an ambiguous or paradoxical relationship to the surrounding system of government. We may be in a more or less free country where we get to decide and vote and
set policy. Or we may be in a highly oppressive situation where we don’t get to make such decisions, and we may even have to resist. But there is no Christian nation
today, and all this discussion of the Christian origins of America is often misguided because while there may have been a Christian influence in the Founding Fathers,
you don’t want to call this a Christian nation. Instead, we should say that Christian principles were at work, but not necessarily [that we have a] Christian nationality.
Anyway, yes, the citizenship is different. But of course, our heavenly citizenship not only does not preclude earthly responsibility, but it demands that we
participate fully in the creation that God has given us, which means politics, as well as culture and the arts, science, business, and so forth.
PAL: Let me give an interesting historical test case for both of you to respond to. There was in 1892, perhaps you’ll remember, the Holy Trinity case that went all the
way to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Brewer wrote, and a unanimous Supreme Court declared, by the organic utterances and many other evidences, “This
is a Christian nation.” So at the end of the 19th century, there was a sense in our highest court that we could call the legacy of America Christian, that we were a
Christian nation. Were they misguided? Were they onto something? What were they trying to get across? The Supreme Court is generally a lagging indicator of the
beliefs of a country. At least historically, they tend to be indicating this is where we’ve come from. Maybe they’re going to change, but right now this is what we think. So
I’d love to hear how you’d evaluate that both historically and perhaps theologically.
RBG: Tying into what Bill was emphasizing, I wonder if the Justice meant anything more than that there was a pervasive Christian influence which gave rise to the birth
of our nation. Also, what did he mean by “Christian”? How do you become a Christian? What makes you a Christian? Those are questions that need clarification.
I wonder, speaking at the end of the 19th century, if he wasn’t reflecting in that language what Bill was pointing out, not that we are a Christian geopolitical entity but
that undeniably there has been a significant Christian influence, for instance, on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
WE: Glenn Scrivener, the British theologian, says that we’ve never been Christian, but there has been Christendom. And so, we shouldn’t talk today about being
post-Christian because we never were a Christian nation in the sense that Israel was a believing nation. We had Christian influence, yet we were in Christendom. And
even today as we get further and further from a Christian consciousness, we’re walking away from Christendom rather than Christianity. And I think that means
that, as Dick was suggesting, there are undoubted Christian influences in our government. Just the separation of powers, for example, you can trace that back to
the Puritan notion that you can’t trust one person or one group with all the authority. You’ve got to have checks and balances. The idea of the Constitution is somewhat
rooted in the Covenant idea. Although there’s a lot as well of Enlightenment principles that are at work, not just Christian principles. So, it seems to me it’s a helpful
distinction to say that we are abandoning Christendom, not Christianity, because we never were Christian.
PAL: Let’s put it this way. Is it good to abandon Christendom and become just totally a secular state or let’s say a quasi-Marxist state? Or is preserving Christendom a
valuable thing because of the benefits that flow from it culturally?
RBG: You’re asking a fairly theoretical question, and I’m not a political scientist. I don’t know how helpful this will be to our conversation, but I do think it gets at what
you were asking about initially, Peter. What shapes my thinking is a passage like 1 Timothy 2:2, where in the context of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul has in view not only
the immediate circumstances of the church in Ephesus but the entire post-apostolic future of the church and what should be the outlook and conduct of Christians
looking toward Christ’s return. There he makes the point that we are to pray for governing authorities “that we [the church, Christians] may lead a peaceful and quiet
life, ….” While that was written in the context of submission to the autocratic governance of the Roman Empire, whereas we have the democratic advantage of having a
say in government by voting for or even participating in government, Paul’s exhortation still stipulates an agenda for us: what we are to pray for is what we are to be concerned to work for, as we are able and have opportunity. And that goal is a political order that promotes peace and ordered, quiet living as that would be not only for
the good of believers and the well-being of the church, but also for all citizens.
WE: To answer your question directly, it’s tragic to abandon Christendom-type principles. And we see that increasingly in the trends around us. We have to, as Dick
said, pray for peace and order that the gospel may run its full course. So our prayer for peace and order is not just for the good of humanity, but it’s also for the sake of the gospel going forward. It’s awful to see the country departing from Christendom. But the answer is not theocracy. The answer is to pray for order and peace and justice. Just as Paul in Romans 13 alludes to the fact that authority is legitimate, governmental authority is legitimate, and it contributes to rewarding the good as well as punishing the bad. Those are, I think, principles that transcend the different episodes of government.
PAL: Some time ago I was reflecting on the question, did our founders intend to create a Christian nation? And the answer became really clear to me when I was reading
the Constitution. In Article VI it says “the supreme law of the land” is this constitution. It doesn’t say it’s the Bible. It’s clear that they intended to have a standard that
was not the Bible. So it’s not making it a Christian nation, but they created a constitution, it seems to me, that has the ability to let consciences have freedom. And that
was obviously augmented by the First Amendment, the free exercise of religion and the government not having the right to establish it. So I think we have then, whether
we call it Christendom or Christian influence into a new form of government, the kind of peace that means that you have religious liberty and the freedom to make
influence for the good. So that brings me then to the classic text from Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, where he tells us that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. And Christians have often taken that to say that by our work, we are helping to preserve what is good and prevent decay, and also to dispel darkness. And it has that notion perhaps of cultural influence, of political impact. How do you look at that particular biblical text and its use in that way, in terms of our notions of citizenship?
RBG: Well, that has a nice aphoristic ring to it when it’s quoted by itself, but we are bound to see it in context, particularly as it flows directly out of the Beatitudes,
which mark the effects of the grace of God in bringing the kingdom as the rule and realm of the redemption accomplished by Christ. Among those effects mentioned is
seeking genuine peace. Then the issue becomes a matter of what that peace is and how you go about realizing it. I read something recently—an article for the 100th anniversary of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism—picking up on a quote of Machen concerning what Jesus says later in chapter six of Matthew, which is also part of the Sermon on the Mount, and so has to be related to your “salt of the earth” question. This is in a context where Jesus is noticing things in human life and society that create anxiety: concern about food, clothing, and, by implication, shelter (Matt. 6:25‒31); in view more broadly, we may say, is the economic aspect of our lives, those things that any just political order ought to be concerned about. Concerning these anxiety-producing matters Jesus makes a basic distinction. He says, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33‒34). “All these things,” the things that can cause anxiety, God is well aware of our need of them (verse 32) and will provide for them. Concerning this distinction of Jesus, Machen makes an observation that really struck me. He says, if you understand seeking the tkingdom of God as realized in bringing about all these added things or merely a means to the end of realizing them, then you will get neither the kingdom nor these things. But when you make seeking the kingdom of God primary—responding to the gospel of the kingdom by
faith in Christ for the salvation he provides from sin—then all these other things will be provided. And as they are provided for God’s people, then as we love neighbor
as well as self, we will have a concern for a just and quiet peaceful order for all citizens, whether confessing kingdom-followers of Christ or not, and will contribute as we
can to that political end.
WE: Going back to the Founding Fathers, I think the creation of our Constitution was a work of genius. It provided for freedom of conscience and not freedom
from religion, but freedom for religion. But it’s important to remember that the founders owned slaves. Some were nativists that resented Catholic immigration. There was
a lot of work to be done, and we had to go as far as the Civil War to resolve some of those problems.
PAL: Dr. Edgar, you’ve had a great exposure to the Huguenots in France, and they had an experience of losing their citizenship in France because of the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes, and many of them fled to America, where they became great defenders of the American experience, in fact the Declaration as well as the Constitution. Why did the Huguenots find the American expression of government such a blessing for them given their history?
WE: Well, because of what I said earlier about the freedom to express one’s faith without the oppressive constraint of government. Remember, they went to
Germany, they went to Holland, they went to England, they went to countries that had been influenced by the Reformation, and the Reformation with all of its
drawbacks promoted freedom through discussion and through dissent as opposed to freedom through revolution. And so I think the Huguenots were drawn to that.
And though they loved their mother country, they could be more salt and light in those new situations than they ever could in their own country.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, I believe it is Dr. Van Til in his book Christian Theistic Ethics who says the summum bonum ofthe Christian life is the pursuit of the kingdom of God.
So as a citizen on earth pursuing that summum bonum, how do we live that out as our highest goal, even as we go about our daily business, including engaging in political things? Is there a dialectic? Is there a commonality? How do we pursue that and then impact other aspects of our duties as a citizen?
RBG: That’s a very important question. Maybe, in responding, I could draw our attention again to Philippians 3:20, that our citizenship is in heaven. When we turnover to Colossians and the opening verses of chapter 3 (1‒4), we have an indication of how that heavenly citizenship originates and something of what marks
it. Christians are heavenly citizens because they havebeen united with Christ in his resurrection, so that for them, in union with Christ ascended and “seated at the
right hand of God,” nothing less than “your life” itself “is hidden with Christ in God.” Further, the citizens of heaven are to be active citizens. They are to “seek” and “set [their] minds on” “the things that are above.” Their aspiration is to be everything that pertains to the present life and rule of the ascended Christ. This is clearly a large
scale, comprehensive imperative for the church, this call for Christians to be heavenly-minded in all they do. But it should not be missed that the striking thing in Colossians 3 is that this heavenly-mindedness is not simply an otherworldly preoccupation but very much a down-to earth reality. The immediately following verses through 4:1 go on first to address the proper use of the body, then interpersonal relationships within the church, before moving on to how heavenly-minded seeking the things above plays out in marriage, in the home, family life, and beyond—most directly related to the question we’re dealing with—the economic concerns of life. A key aspect of seeking the things above is doing what pleases the Lord, and what pleases the Lord is keeping his commandments, in whatever ways that can apply. So then in our present situation, a just political order, and someone wanting to enter into the political process and seek office, will want to facilitate what will promote pleasing the Lord and be conducive to seeking his kingdom. Christians will be any earthly good only as they are heavenly-minded.
PAL: If you had young people who felt they had leadership gifts and were fascinated by the principles of politics and what earthly citizenship means, what would you advise them if they asked, “Should I enter into politics today given the realities that we’re facing?” What would be your council?
WE: Well, I’ve got some thoughts on that. First of all, I’m a great believer in the primacy of local politics over national politics. So if you’re called into the political
life, you should consider first your local responsibilities. Are you involved with the practices of neighborliness, of garbage disposal, or whatever. And for that matter, does
your participation reflect what Dick was saying, obedience to the commandments? Now, beyond that, there are a few who are called to more prominent leadership
in the world, including the highest offices. And I would say with cautious optimism, they should participate in political life as Christians—not thinking that legal
maneuvering is going to change the world but thinking that bringing the righteousness of the kingdom into the political process will be reflecting the heavenly citizenship
that is our primary place of consolation and of security. So one phrase I heard, which I think is helpful, is “Jesus is political, but he was not partisan.” So it’s a
big mistake to think that the only way to be a public leader is to align yourself with certain precepts and set positions about immigration and so forth. I think that
political involvement is crucial, but be very careful of the particular choices you make as a partisan because they tend to be tentative and relative. They might be helpful
and true, but they should be held with a light hand.
RBG: I would second the point that Bill was making; all politics is local. I think that’s been said, particularly for someone starting out, and that’s very good advice. That’s
likely the way a person would have to start out anyway. The increasing dominance of the way government has been centralized and consolidated in Washington presents
a formidable challenge for a Christian in politics at the national level.
PAL: Let me zero in on some of our duties as heavenly citizens, with a duty to honor King Jesus in all that we do, seeking his kingdom, seeking the common good through
prayer, through peace, through love, through obeying the commandments. We have duties then in our earthly task. So let’s start with the beginning. Should Christians pay taxes to a government they believe is unjust?
WE: They should, as long as at the same time they’re working to reform the system. In other words, yes, pay taxes. We don’t have a choice about that, but don’t stop
your activities there. You go on to try to change the system to make it more just. Christ is the great example of this. He, of course, paid taxes. He pulled the coin out
of the lake, but he also ministered to Zacchaeus, and Zacchaeus under his influence reformed his views. So as long as you’re working as best you can to change the system, yes, you should pay taxes even to an unjust government. I don’t want to lose track of what Dick was saying. [Even though it can be] very discouraging for good young people to go into the political arena, there’s got to be a way in which people of integrity can move forward in a limited way but in a forthright way to make changes. And right now it’s nearly impossible for a good person to do that, which is a very sad statement about American politics.
RBG: Romans 13 seems pretty clear in what was manifestly a situation where the autocratic functioning of the Roman empire could be quite unjust and abusive. Even though that passage is challenging exegetically at points, it is clear that however political or governmental power may be abused, it still is ordained by God. First Peter 2:13‒14 is another passage that makes that point. But then I would emphasize what Bill said, that when we have the political capacity, do everything we can to get rid of unjust taxation. Over the years, this became an issue for parents with children in Christian schools who were not willing to have their children in public schools because of the non-Christian influence there. I know of one case where a person took the amount of their school taxes, put it in a bank account, and told the government, “If you want it, you can go get it. I’m not going to pay you.”
PAL: Is it our duty of citizenship to volunteer to serve in the military to defend the land, or be willing to be drafted? Is that something that we ought to do.
WE: Of course. Each of these institutions is legitimate as a creation ordinance. That includes the defense of property and the defense of a country. So those are legitimate callings. Obviously, you can abuse them. I think pacifism is a romantic dream. But it’s like marriage or business or any of these spheres. They’re legitimate, but there’s going to be huge abuses and problems. We all know that marriage is good, but we also see terrible marriages. And the answer is not to abolish marriage. The answer is to work for the improvement of the institution. Now, it gets very complicated, but I think that’s the same set of answers to your first question: Should we be paying taxes? [Should we] go into the military? Yes. But as we do that, we need to work towards the biblically based improvement of these institutions.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, any further thoughts?
RBG: Well, that raises the issue of just war, which I think is to be affirmed biblically for various reasons, some of which Bill has indicated. So, if I were much younger and draftable, as a believer I could be faced with my government initiating an unjust war. I think, akin to the question about taxation, I would have to go along with the government unless, you know—the Third Reich comes to mind and people like Bonhoeffer taking the stand of opposition that he and others did, which, I certainly want to affirm. But it could be a difficult question under circumstances which are less stark than the rise of the Third Reich and Nazism taking over the entire political process. My default position would be that I have to go along with the government, right or wrong, like taxation, right or wrong.
WE: When I was younger, the big issue for us was the Vietnam War. And I had friends who paid their taxes except the part that they thought was going to supply the war effort. I chose to oppose the war, not by illegal measures such as refusing to pay taxes, but by persuasion. Now, sometimes persuasion is not possible. You mentioned Bonhoeffer. I don’t think persuasion was going to work for him, and for our Huguenot ancestors, persuasion wasn’t always possible. But I think it should be a very, very rare default position to resist in some sort of clearly physical way. Calvin has helpful teachings on this. He’s very reluctant to change the regime, Christian resistance or not. He does admit that there are cases when there has to be resistance to tyranny, but even there, it’s got to be in line with a secondary magistrate or with some legal entity. He’s totally against vigilante justice, and I think that’s biblical. There’s no call in Scripture to lash out as a Clint Eastwood type of rebellion against the system. You’ve got to work within the system, however unjust it might be.
PAL: You have been very generous with your time. I should bring it to a close, but I do want to ask you about the issue of citizenship and voting and the context. What counsel do you give people at this moment? Does a Christian have an obligation to vote? If they vote, is there any legitimacy in voting for what you believe to be the lesser of two evils? Since we’re not voting for king Jesus in this context—we don’t vote for king Jesus anyway, who sovereignly chooses us. Given that we’re in a broken, fallen world, what are our duties as citizens . . . in a democratic republic, for exercising our right as a citizen to vote?
WE: Dick [laughs]?
RBG: I’m aware of various Christian bloggers and journalists who are telling me that I ought not to vote, that this election—particularly for president—is one that believers ought to sit out. I’m not persuaded by that. Peter, you put it in terms of the lesser of two evils. I do think the person, particularly the person of the president, is very important. I get that and I get the problems that can be raised about the candidates. Well, just as we’re talking this morning there’s going to be significant change on the one side. But the way I look at it—particularly as a federal election—is that I’m voting not only for a president, as significant and influential as that person undoubtedly is and will be if elected, but for an administration with the party platform it intends to implement. So, I need to determine what will be most conducive to what would be pleasing to the Lord between one administration or the other. And I need to vote that way. That’s my present thinking.
WE: I think that’s exactly right. All political decisions that we make are going to be challenged by things we don’t like, even the best of all candidates. We won’t agree with all their platforms. The difficulty is when you have a couple of candidates whose platforms and character are very dubious. And [...] you vote for what the administration might bring that’s a bit better than what already exists. [There are times when you may need to] vote your conscience. And I think sometimes you have to do that rather than think that your vote is going to change the world. You vote for what you think the administration might bring, and it’s all fallible, but you can’t retreat into political indifference, because Jesus was political, not partisan.
PAL: All right. As we conclude, I’ll just put this pointed question this way: In your quest to honor Christ, can a Christian simply choose in a democratic republic not to vote and not get involved? Is that an option? Or is that abandoning our duty as a Christian?
RBG: Well, I’ve mentioned blogs that I’m aware of that argue as a matter of principle that we ought not to vote, particularly for president. As I’ve said, I don’t agree with that. But if, as you put it very pointedly, Peter, I think not voting is a defensible position, although less defensible than what I’ve expressed. Is that too weaselly an answer?
PAL: That sounds like a pointed answer that doesn’t want to be too harsh. So that’s good [laughs].
WE: And don’t forget that not to vote is actually to vote for some default candidate or party. It’s not as if not voting gets you out of the process. So in a country where the vote is possible, you have to do it. But [it is] very challenging when none of the candidates is close to being biblically sound.
PAL: You’ve been very gracious. You have spoken as Christian gentlemen about touchy issues. Let me have the privilege of concluding us with a word of prayer if I might.
Lord, I thank you for these gentlemen who love you, who have given their lives for your glory and your service to advance the kingdom as the primary concern of their lives. They are role models and blessings in so many ways. We do pray, Lord, that readers would find, in the conversation we’ve had today, wisdom and truth that will bless your people, [who] will be seeking guidance and prayer and encouragement. Lord, we do pray for the crisis that’s before the world and before our nation. Lord, we pray for President Biden and his family as he’s made a massive decision. We do pray for the Democratic convention that will be meeting in Chicago, Lord, that you’ll [rule over] that according to your wise council and for the good of your people. We thank you for the Republican National Convention’s completion. We pray, in spite of all the challenges that are before everyone, that good might come through it. And Lord, regardless of our politics, we’re grateful that the attempt on the former president’s life was not successful, for Lord, that only makes us less a part of the Christendom that we’ve spoken of, of honoring those that lead even when we disagree with them. Lord, would you please let us find the kingdom of God advancing by our fidelity to your word, by the work of your Spirit? And as we’ve been reminded, we thank you that our citizenship is with the risen Christ. We appeal to your throne for your glory and the advance of your name and the completion of your kingdom. May this be a small step toward that. We thank you for the joy of serving you, and we pray for health and strength and blessing upon these brothers, and we ask it in Christ’s name. Amen.