Good Christians, Good Citizens?
Rodney Nelson July/August 2000 What Is a Good Citizen?The continuing American cultural debate on what is good and bad in the body politic again brings up the question that the first Christians asked in their totally different and hostile milieu. The great early American statesman and orator Daniel Webster once stated that "whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens." This declaration poses the key question-Is Christianity essential to a good and just society? Does a free society depend on the influence of Christianity? Ironically, many in contemporary America charge conservative Christians as being an influence that would deny some people their rights as citizens. In essence, many Americans see Christians as a negative influence upon society, if not a threat.
Because many Christians stand for prenatal life and campaign for its preservation, a majority of Americans (many Christians included) counter that this is against a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses. Because many Christians stand against euthanasia, an increasing number of Americans see this as a violation of a citizen's right to die if they choose. Because many Christians wish to express their faith in the public arena, many Americans are offended because this violates the rights of those individuals holding contrary beliefs. Because many Christians believe that gay rights are special rights, they are labeled as homophobic and discriminatory. Because Christians believe in a traditional family of one husband, one wife, and children, some Americans view this as a biased and narrow definition of family. Many women's groups see traditional Christian belief as not only a hindrance to but the instigator of historic chauvinism against women. And the list goes on.
But let us turn the situation around to where Christianity is a newcomer on the scene and the society is pluralistic (like today), yet exhibiting values completely contrary to Judeo-Christian values and ethics. Let's look at how the early church handled itself amid accusations, exclusivity, and misunderstanding in a pagan culture.
As Christianity began to impact the larger Roman world it found itself at odds with prevailing culture and opinion in its earliest years of existence. Roman officials and society at large began to take note of this new system of belief in a Jewish Messiah. Christianity gradually became seen as distinct from Judaism. Judaism, though satirized and belittled by many Romans, was respected as an ancient tradition, thereby gaining some status within the empire as a legal religion. Christianity did not have such status for a long time.
Rome tended to see Christianity not as a religion but as an atheistic superstition (superstitio). The Romans saw themselves as religious (religiosus) and pious (pius), and considered Christianity an offshoot superstition. A superstition was seen as any belief or practice that deviated from Roman custom. They viewed Christianity as vulgar and exclusive, since Christians refused to participate in state celebrations and festivals. Later Christians would be charged with the greatest offense-refusing to pay tribute to the emperor.
Christian beliefs and practices were misunderstood, with rumors spreading that they were cannibalistic ("Take and eat; this is my body broken for you" = Eucharist), incestuous (believers greeting each other as brothers and sisters with a "holy kiss"), secretive (closed Eucharist services), sexually perverted (confused with Gnosticism), ignorant and poor (most converts were of the lower classes), philosophically bankrupt (compared to classical Greek-Roman philosophy), and fanatical (martyrdom by choice). Christianity had a huge public-relations problem.
Christian Apologists to the Rescue
Beginning with the apostles, Christians sought to answer the charges brought against them by the surrounding culture. The word apologetics (apologeo) came into vogue. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (apologian) for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15, NIV). "I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3, NIV). Christians would take this concept and expand it to a very sophisticated defense of their faith in the succeeding centuries.
What did the apostles tell their readers and hearers about relating to the empire? This is a crucial question insofar as Christians today are confronted with similar issues. Not coincidentally, they took their cue from their Saviour. This fact demonstrates the continuity between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles.
Jesus laid the groundwork with His famous and provocative statement in Matthew 22:21 (cf. Mark 12:17), "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (NIV).* The reaction to this statement by the religious establishment was amazement, because in the Jewish and Roman world the religious and civil authority were one. To separate obligation to one and then to the other was truly without precedent.
This groundbreaking teaching provided the impetus for later apostolic declarations of loyalty to God first and then to the state. "But Peter and John replied, 'Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God" (Acts 4:19, NIV). This view was unanimous among the other apostles. "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29, NIV). This was a truly revolutionary statement.
The same line of reasoning carried over to apostolic teaching toward the Roman authority. Paul urged Timothy to offer prayers, intercession, thanksgiving, and requests for all individuals in authority, including the Roman authority (1 Timothy 2:1, 2). The objective was that Christians would be able to "live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (verse 2, NIV). Paul told Titus that believers should be prepared at all times to "be ready to do whatever is good . . . to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men" (Titus 3:1, 2, NIV). Peter admonished his readers to submit to the king "as the supreme authority," because by doing so they would "silence the ignorant talk of foolish men" (1 Peter 2:13, 15, NIV).
The preeminent statement in apostolic writing on church-state relations is Romans 13:1-7. Suffice it to say the believer in Christ is to be submissive to the civil authority because it has been appointed to rule by God. To resist is tantamount to resisting God. Christians are to show submission to the state by paying their taxes and doing good works. These general statements provided a matrix by which Christians were to avoid punishment by the state (verse 5), giving the civil authorities no reason to think ill of Christians.
Christians were instructed by Jesus and the apostles to be good citizens, contributing to their society through good works, and to show humility and cooperation (even paying taxes, something that the Jews hated). Did this pattern change in the postapostolic church?
Post-Apostolic Apologetics
Though some early Christian apologists did criticize to some degree their pagan adversaries, they nevertheless demonstrated great fidelity to their apostolic forebears. Examples abound of these apologists defending their faith through attempts to demonstrate good citizenship.
Polycarp (A.D. 70-155?), a disciple of the apostle John, when faced with martyrdom, declared emphatically while under intense interrogation by the Roman consul, "To thee I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God" (Martyrdom of Polycarp, chap. 10).
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), the greatest apologist of the second century, was a former pagan. In his First Apology (chap. 2), he challenged the Romans to investigate rumors of Christian misbehavior mentioned earlier. He reiterated the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 22:21 regarding paying taxes, as well as noting that Christians pray for the emperor (chap. 17). Finally, he maintained that once the facts were in, the Christians would be found to be "moral, upright, and law-abiding citizens who are the empire's 'best allies in securing good order'" (J. David Cassell, "Defending the Cannibals," Christian History 17, No. 1: 15).
Irenaeus (d. A.D. 195), disciple of Polycarp, quoted Romans 13:1-7 in Against Heresies. "Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all . . . but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wickedness among the nations . . .(they) are 'God's ministers, serving for this very purpose'" (chap. 24).
Tertullian (A.D. 160/170-215/220) stated, "We offer prayer for the safety of our princes to the eternal" (Apology, chap. 30). He also declared that prayer was given ". . . for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general . . . we are lending our aid (through prayer) to Rome's duration" (chap. 32). Rather than worship the emperor, Christians "swear by their safety." Finally, Tertullian was even so bold as to maintain that "Caesar is more ours than yours, for our God has appointed him," and Christians "do more than you (Romans) for his welfare" (chap. 33).
Contemporary Applications
Parallels between the time of the early church and modern society are not so dissimilar as one might think. First, the Roman Empire was religiously pluralistic. Second, it was philosophically pluralistic. Third, it was more religiously and culturally tolerant than is often thought. Difficulty arose when one religious belief system refused to give homage to the image of the emperor or respect Roman tradition. Fourth, many of the same social ills beset Roman society as afflict our society. Despite the many differences between Roman and contemporary culture, enough similarity exists to draw certain parallels.
Historically, the church has always been at tension with the culture, even during the era of medieval Christianity. The primary reason Christianity finds itself at odds with culture is its exclusivity. Christianity dares to tell the world there is only one way to salvation and one standard of morality stemming from one God. In a world increasingly pluralistic, this job description doesn't go over well.
Christianity has always been a religion of life. Jesus came to give life, and give it more abundantly (John 10:10). He came to give eternal life to those who believe (John 3:16). Christianity upholds the sanctity of human life at all levels. In a Roman world in which abortion and infanticide were practiced liberally, Christians stood out for their compassion and respect for all human life. This tradition was carried over into the postapostolic church (see the Didache 1:1; 2:2; Epistle of Barnabas 19:5; Athenagoras' A Plea for the Christians 35:6; Clement of Alexandria's Paedogogus 2. 10. 96; Tertullian's Apology 8:6; 9:4).
Christians became known for their compassion toward the young, the downtrodden, the unfortunate, and the old. Roman society was not unlike ours in the respect that it was a "throwaway" culture-far more so regarding the value of human life. Christians were noticed in Rome as they are today for standing for human life in all forms, prenatal, young, and old.
Another area of similarity regards the accusations that Christians face in the "culture wars." In a culture that values tolerance as a primary virtue, Christians who voice their opinion against a lifestyle or belief can be labeled as intolerant and judgmental. They can be abused in the public arena or vilified in the media. In Rome, Christians were vilified by philosophers and emperors of the period. They were belittled by the public through graffiti and fed to the lions periodically to feed the public thirst for blood. The society of ancient Rome was savage in many respects, and Christians suffered at the hands of that savagery.
However, I would suggest there is a major difference between the society of our day and that of Rome in this area. It is to be expected that as Christians stand for righteousness they will be vilified and accused in the public arena. Jesus warned His disciples that they would be persecuted for their confession of Him. However, to be abused in the culture for doing right is one thing; to be abused because you ask for it is quite another. Take the case of martyrdom. Early Christians believed martyrdom was the supreme witness for Jesus. But seeming to seek martyrdom because of belief in Christ troubled Roman society. Likewise, contemporary Christians who protest the darkness in our culture can easily be perceived as a threat to society.
Christians who are labeled as right-wing fundamentalists should not be surprised at the response their witness calls from some in the society they so care about. However, to be labeled because of their unloving attack on people who practice an ungodly lifestyle is another matter. Christians should be pointing to a better way and recognize that changing individual people will change the culture. Early Christianity ultimately did change the culture when it attained power within the culture, but with that came a loss of witness to the culture. Then Christianity was no longer the conscience of the culture, it had become the will of the culture.
In a postmodern society and culture Christians find themselves in the situation of their ancestors in ancient Rome. They confront a society that is pluralistic and in which the democratic inclusion of government is increasingly widening the market of ideas. Christian culture no longer has hegemony in Western or American society.
Christians would be wise to go back into their ancient history and rediscover the function of Christian civics in a pre-Christian culture. Indeed, Christians must learn Christian civics all over again to discern and witness in a society that is gradually losing perspective on civility and civic responsibility. While our postmodern society is a far cry from the savagery and inhumane culture of ancient Rome, it is fast becoming an environment in which there are no absolutes and in which secularism is creating a wasteland of conscience. Christians will have to recalibrate their moral compasses to confront this seemingly inevitable process.
In conclusion, whatever makes a person a good Christian does create a good citizen; arguably a better citizen than the average non-Christian. Why? Because Christians are concerned about what society often does not care about-love for the underprivileged, the unborn, the feeble, and the dying. Christianity is a humanitarian religion that seeks to secure life and liberty for all people. Most charities in the United States were either directly founded by Christians or indirectly influenced by Christians.
Christians get into trouble with the surrounding culture when they begin to condemn rather than redeem. The Christian message and example may cause tension and problems with the prevalent culture, but this is to be expected. Nevertheless, Christians must continue to do good and be good citizens. The early believers in Jesus were persecuted for their beliefs and commitment, yet they continued to be good citizens. Does our Lord expect anything less from us? Attempting to change people by changing the culture first is counterproductive to the Christian ethic of love and servanthood and doing good. Battle lines are drawn that will take decades to erase when Christians engage the culture in un-Christian ways.
Let us follow the example of our earliest forebears when we engage the culture. Let it be said of turn-of-the-millenium Christians that they joined hands with their redeemed ancestors to provide a turning point for their culture by emulating their Saviour, rather than correcting the culture. Our nation will be changed by it.
Rodney Nelson is a history teacher and freelance writer living in Richland, Washington.
*Texts credited to NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.