Lord’s Library contributor Nate Myers writes on Christian nationalism, offering a Pauline example of civil disobedience for the American Church. Check out Nathaniel’s YouTube channel and podcast called Fortitude in Truth. Lord’s Library’s Ministry Leaders Series is a collection of contributed articles written by ministry leaders on key Christian topics.
The Apostle Paul was no stranger to conflict throughout his lifetime. What is more, he seemed to welcome it for the sake of the Gospel. His response to conflict was not one of object resistance, but rather peace, if peace were possible. Even further, in the face of a pagan government, Paul was not an outspoken Jewish-Christian evangelist who was at odds with the Roman government at every turn. Instead, he chose to fight only the battles that were worthy of His cause.
Flash forward to 21st-century America, where Christians are often faced with decisions regarding a hostile pagan government with little care for God or the Gospel. That begs the question, what is one to do? On the one hand, the Christian Nationalists would seek to influence the policies and procedures of the pagan government, often by any means necessary, including violent resistance and disobedience. On the other hand, others might seek to hide themselves completely from the government for the sake of being able to live peacefully.
Both viewpoints are opposed and neither fully aligns with the testimony of Scripture. Christ is always the perfect example and epitome of what every Christian should want to be. Paul, while falling short of Christ, can serve, through his life and writings, as an example of Biblical and non-violent civil disobedience that is primarily concerned with Christ and the spread of the Gospel for all Christians, but especially those of 21st century America in the wake of the rise of Christian Nationalism.
[/col]
A Pauline Example of Civil Disobedience for the American Church
The Life of Paul
To fully develop this theology of non-violent civil disobedience, it would first seem fitting to dive into the life of Paul, the Roman citizen and Jewish Christian. For what teacher is worth anything if they do not themselves practice what they preach? Paul is no exception to this rule. While it might be fair to say that no one today knows the full extent of the testimony of Paul’s life, the Book of Acts, written by his companion Luke, provides, at least in this case, an excellent picture that Paul did practice what he preached.
While many examples tend to start with teaching and then examine life in-depth, this article will do the converse. That is, to examine the life of Paul first and then compare his life to that of what he taught in the written letters that make up part of the New Testament canon.
However, before beginning with the text of Acts, it might be best to begin with an understanding of who Paul was, primarily based on his Roman Citizenship. By his own testimony, Paul was first a Jew. See Acts 22:3: “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.”
Secondarily, Paul was a Roman citizen, which he claimed to suit his purposes. See Acts 16:35-39, Acts 22:22-29, and Acts 25:6-12:
- Acts 16:35-39: “And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go. And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.”
- Acts 22:22-29: “And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.”
- Acts 25:6-12: “And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.”
This citizenship was attained at birth, and not through secondary means, according to Acts 22:28. The most likely reason for this is that his father was also a Roman citizen. For the sake of brevity, the examination of Paul’s life as a Roman citizen will focus on the three instances in which he claims such citizenship.
The first such claim is made in Acts 16, while Paul is in Phillipi (a Roman colony, of which the citizens were also considered citizens). In this context, Paul and Silas have been jailed and flogged for healing a demon-possessed girl. On the surface, it seems clear that this could be rightfully classified as wrongful imprisonment. However, there is more to this story.
Remember that the owners of the demon-possessed slave girl were Roman citizens. They seemed greatly concerned that the practice of the Jews (Paul and Silas) was contrary to that of Rome and its citizens. See Acts 16:20-21: “And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.”
This is a serious charge. Darrel L. Bock states in his exegetical evangelical Bible commentary on Acts: “Since the Romans emphasized tolerance of such differences and allowed each ethnic and religious group to observe their own customs, the charge of trying to get Romans to do what they do not normally do is serious, since Paul would be seen as challenging a person’s livelihood and the economic well-being of the city.”
It seems as though those who brought charges were not aware of Paul’s status as a Roman citizen. Although, even if they were, they may have still brought charges against him, they would have likely handled things differently. In simple terms, Paul was charged with disturbing the peace by healing a girl who was possessed by a demon. Rather than claim Roman citizenship immediately, Paul (and Silas) chose to accept their punishment willingly.
It is only after the ordeal has subsided and they have won the jailer to the Lord that the claim of Roman citizenship is made. There is no clear reason why, but Bock tends to think that it is likely because Paul did not want to confuse the people of his loyalty. It is not explicitly stated, but it will be made clear, that Paul clearly views his heavenly citizenship and loyalty to the Lord as primary to his Roman citizenship.
The next passage in Acts that directly deals with Paul as a Roman citizen is in Acts 22:22-29. As aforementioned, it is in this passage that Paul is revealed to have been a Roman citizen since birth. This passage bears remarkable similarities to that of Acts 16. Paul again does not claim his citizenship until after he has been seized, this time though before he is flogged. Paul gave his testimony before being arrested, and consequently before making known his Roman citizenship.
Following the pattern of Acts 16, it seems to fit that this was Paul’s primary purpose, to share his testimony with those in Jerusalem. It was only behind closed doors, in a less public setting that he claimed Roman citizenship. Even with the announcement of his Roman citizenship, he was able to continue preaching the Gospel until escaping Jerusalem and being sent to the governor, Felix. See Acts 22:30-23:25 for more.
In a research article entitled Paul the Roman Citizen for the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Peter van Minnen suggests that the reason for such favorable treatment by the Roman Tribune (Claudias Lysanias) was because of his Roman citizenship. This passage shows that Paul, in obedience to the Lord, valued his status as a citizen of heaven first and of Rome second.
The third and final passage in which Paul claims himself to be a Roman Citizen is Paul’s appeal to Caesar. See Acts 25:10-12: “Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.”
In light of a new Governor on the scene, the Jews tried to jump on the opportunity to try Paul again, but his appeal to Ceaser stood in their way. Only Roman citizens could appeal to Caesar; had Paul not been a Roman citizen, this appeal would have died as quickly as it was made. Paul was able to sail to Rome, stay there (under house arrest), preach the Gospel, write to other churches, and accomplish the purposes of God. In this case, the charges against Paul were likely dropped, as he left Rome (only to find himself imprisoned there a second time before being martyred for the Gospel).
While the life of Paul as testified by Acts could all be included in this essay, these three serve as a fitting example. First and foremost, Paul was concerned with following the will of the Lord and serving Him, as a citizen of heaven. Secondarily, Paul was concerned with his Roman citizenship. It would not be fair to say that Paul saw no value in his Roman citizenship, only that it was submissive to his heavenly citizenship.
Two things can be seen from the testimony of Paul’s life. First, Paul never chose to raise arms against the Romans and was seemingly submissive to the Roman government (following its legal procedures in appealing to Caesar) and its ways, as long as they were not contrary to the Gospel. Secondly, Paul did not use his status as a Roman citizen to further the Gospel, nor did he tout his Roman citizenship for personal gain, only for the sake of survival and for the sake of the Gospel (as led by the Lord).
Paul’s quest to preach the Gospel was primary and often did not even directly interact with the Roman government. When it did, Paul responded accordingly, to the glory of God, to whom his primary allegiance belonged.
The Writings of Paul
In addition to his life, as told by Luke in the book of Acts, the writings of Paul speak directly to the issue of how to deal with the issue of dual citizenship. While much has been said about the primacy of heavenly citizenship over earthly citizenship. Paul’s teaching goes further to provide instruction on when and how to operate in a hostile world with a government that is hostile to the one true God. Furthermore, the Pauline teachings of peace and non-violent civil disobedience are not just a view on their own, but directly related to his teachings on being a true citizen of heaven.
No article on this topic would be fitting without some reference to Romans 13:1-7: “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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
While Paul deals with the issue of living in a pagan world and under civil governments elsewhere (some of which will be covered here), this text is the most explicit in nature. Paul’s words could be summarized by simply reading verse 1: “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.”
The remainder of the passage expounds on this simplistic idea. In light of the present discussion, it is important to understand what Paul meant by “the governing authorities.” Arguments have arisen in which some believe that Paul’s statement here is counter to the Roman Empire in some veiled or ironic way. However, the immediate context of Romans prohibits this understanding.
Schreiner, in his commentary on Romans, states: “Certainly, heavenly citizenship receives priority, but earthly citizenship could legitimately occupy a subordinate place. Anti-imperial readings fail because they contravene the evident meaning of the text and rely on clever and between-the-lines readings that are implausible.”
It is important to note that Romans 13 is surrounded by chapter 12 in which Paul deals with the transformation of the believer and the outward marks of what a believer looks like and chapter 14 which also addresses the concept of loving one another and not causing one another to stumble. Paul’s words are plain, and there is little reason to even look for a veiled message in this text.
Another possible issue that arises from the reading of Romans 13:1-7 is that of dichotomies. Simply put, if Paul is endorsing Rome in this passage, then he must be forsaking his heavenly citizenship. As aforementioned, Paul was consistent with his view of heavenly citizenship as primary. However, to better understand Romans 13:1-7, perhaps it is best to look at with keeping Philippians 3:17-21 in mind: “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”
Firstly, it is clear that Paul nowhere explicitly endorses Rome. While in Romans, he does call for submission; submission and endorsement are not the same thing. One could hardly see a slave in the pre-Civil War Deep South as endorsing the rights and authority of their masters, while at the same time they were submissive. This may not be a perfect analogy, but it fits, nonetheless.
In an article in The Covenant Quarterly, Erik Borggren calls for: “Rejecting these binary categories and drawing upon the themes of true citizenship” In Philippians 3:17-21, Paul offers a stark reminder that the believer’s citizenship lies in heaven and not with earthly power. This does not mean, however, that they are to fully forsake and rebel against the earthly authorities.
In fact, at the beginning of his letter to the Philippians, Paul exhorts his readers in Philippians 1:27: “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;”
This only after telling them that he, while in prison had been able to advance the Gospel. See Philippians 1:12-13: “But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places;”
Paul’s words confirm that heavenly citizenship is primary, and that part of being a citizen of heaven means being a “good citizen” on earth. Paul Edwards agrees in his study article of Philippians 1:27: “The logic is that since Philippians know what being a good citizen entails, and since they also know that their true citizenship is in heaven, they are to live out heaven’s values using the template of their citizenship in the earthly polis.”
Being a citizen and a citizen of the earth are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they are intimately tied together.
To close this section on Paul’s writings, it is fitting to look at 1 Corinthians 1:10-18: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
In these passages, Paul is dealing with divisions that had arisen in the Corinthian Church. The quintessential question that is asked, is “Is Christ divided?” The simple answer is no. But what of the active response? What does it mean for the Corinthians, and the Church at large that Christ is not divided? Reading the context, Paul chastises the Corinthians for siding with one leader/preacher over another, even going as far as to lump Christ into the equation.
If this is true of the Church (that the body of Christ should be united under Christ and not any one leader or preacher) in its own body, then how much truer is it when relating the Church to secular governments? No secular government should fully hold loyalty, as does loyalty to Christ.
Erin M. Keys puts it best in an article entitled Where Loyalties Lie: “Of course, I know that when people say politics and religion don’t mix, what they mean is that faith is not, and should not be, aligned with a political agenda. This is true because no party platform could ever hope to fully embody the standards of our faith and no candidate could ever hope to represent that faith and be voted into office.”
While she is directly addressing the American political arena, the same could be said of any secular government. Being a citizen of heaven (under Christ) is primary, and no other citizenship or loyalty is to trump that. Furthermore, acting as a proper citizen of heaven means that earthly citizenship is still something to be taken seriously, as it has been ordained by God.
A Brief Theology of Civil Disobedience
After consideration of the life and works of Paul, it is best to form a brief theology of civil disobedience based on the life and writings of Paul. Once this theology has been formed, it will be put to the test against the rising movement of American Christian Nationalism. Many have devoted their lives to studying Paul and developing comprehensive works on the theologies of Paul. The center of Paul (his life, writings, and theology) is Christ.
Everything else stems from the preeminence and centrality of Christ.
It must not be forgotten that Paul lived in the time of a Roman government that was extremely hostile both toward Christianity as well as any form of religion or religious ethics that was contrary to the will and whims of the emperor. The Roman government was hostile to God.
This did not make Paul, however, hostile towards the Roman government. Paul sought to preach the Gospel at all times, but what did this mean for his status as a Roman citizen? Did Paul seek to change the principles and practices of the Roman government by overt defiance, or did he simply use other means?
Copan and McQuilken present the problem thusly in their Introduction to Biblical Ethics: “The problem is not whether to disobey the government when it demands disobedience to God, but whether the Christian citizen is obligated to force the government itself to stop disobeying God.”
It seems clear that Paul, when faced with the issue of either obeying God or obeying man, would obey God, in line with Peter’s testimony. See Acts 5:29: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
There is little evidence to support that Paul was in any way a political activist or supported overt civil disobedience for the sake of changing the government’s policies and practices. Any civil disobedience Paul engaged in was only for the sake of the Gospel. Based on the testimony of Scripture, this disobedience was also non-violent (There is no doubt that Paul would not get in the way of anyone called by God to “fight the power” but this would not and has not been commonplace and has been at best an exception to what should be seen as a general rule).
Another important issue in this discussion is the holistic nature of being a citizen of heaven. As it has already been stated, Paul saw his heavenly citizenship as primary and superseding his earthly Roman citizenship. This principle seems simple enough, but the practice of such may have drifted far from reality.
James D. G. Dunn makes a case for this while speaking of the context of Romans 12 and 13 in The Theology of Paul the Apostle: “First, in 12:9–13:10 Paul makes no attempt to distinguish ethical behaviour within the church as different from that without. The same principle governs relations among believers and relations of believers with those among whom they lived.”
The upward call, as Paul would call it, should be one that transforms a whole life, not just one social context or small aspect.
Furthermore, not only should Paul’s view of his dual citizenship be one that guides the journey of Christ’s followers, but it should also be seen in the light of spreading the Gospel. For, not only did Paul live for Christ, but his life goal was to spread the Gospel according to the call of the Lord.
Dunn adds, “Overall, Paul of all people will have been well aware that good citizenship was also a missionary strategy which commended the gospel to those of good will.”
This can be seen clearly in the mistreatment and false imprisonment of Paul. Consider again the mistreatment he suffered in Philippi. Yet, Paul did not choose to fight back even though he knew he had been wronged. What’s more, even when the cell doors sprung open, he chose to stay, for the sake of leading the jailer and his family to Christ.
See Acts 16:25-40: “And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go. And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city. And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.”
In summary, Paul’s view on the role of citizenship is centered wholly on Christ and the spread of His Gospel. While this could mean, in some extenuating circumstances and the violence and direct defiance of civil government is necessary for the sake of the Gospel, it seems that this is not commonplace. Even in the face of an extremely hostile Roman government, Paul never took up arms or sought to be overtly civilly disobedient for the sake of changing the practices of the Roman government.
There is no doubt that Paul likely disagreed with much of what the Roman government practiced and the beliefs and principles behind those practices. Rather than be violently disobedient, Paul took another road, less traveled. Paul seemed to think that violence and overt disobedience would likely detract from his witness and the spread of the Gospel, rather he let his false imprisonment serve as the fulcrum for furthering the spread of the Gospel. See Philippians 1:12-14: “But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.”
Any disobedience of Paul was a reflection of his view towards his heavenly citizenship. God is sovereign over everything, the civil government (Rome) is only as sovereign insofar as it does not require disobedience to God. Interestingly enough, its Paul’s status as a Roman citizen that is able to place him in such a position that he finds himself gaining audiences not only with other Roman citizens (Romans and Philippians), but also with Festus, Felix, and ultimately to stand before Caesar.
Perhaps if Paul were not such a “good” earthly citizen, he would not have been able to gain such audiences, or even worse his Roman citizenship would have been stripped from him. Paul saw his heavenly citizenship not as something extra or different but one that was meant to influence his entire life. Paul was not trying to lead a rebellion or overthrow the Roman government; Paul was simply doing the Lord’s bidding by preaching the Gospel and winning lost souls.
Defining Christian Nationalism
Before appropriately responding to modern Christian Nationalism, it is important to have a proper understanding of what it is. There are many different takes on Christian Nationalism, some less violent and problematic than others. Nationalism is simply defined as an individual’s pride and confidence in their given nation, one to which they predominantly yield their support. It could be fair to define Christian Nationalism, then, as a Christian’s pride in their nation.
This, while perhaps an ideal, is not what has arisen in 21st-century America. In attempting to define Christian Nationalism, the major marker that arises is where a believer ultimately submits. Christians, even ones with a sense of national pride, still submit wholly to God and His Word. Christians Nationalism, while possibly claiming full submission to God, also touts a dangerous idolatry of the government, one that may be closely associated with political idolatry.
Drew J. Strait states in an article for Brethern in Christ Historical Society entitled: What is Christian Nationalism and Why is It a Problem: “In short, I think Christian nationalism is best summarized as a movement where theological imagination is co-opted by state power.”
Perhaps it would be fair to state that in the life of the Christian Nationalist, the quest to control and wield state power, for the name of Christ is the ultimate goal. This goal often tends to be played out in violent and overtly disobedient ways that are not simply due to a conflict with the mandates of Scripture. While Strait goes on to define Christian Nationalism as “white,” there seems to be growing diversity among those who are among the ranks of Christian Nationalists. The identifying features of a Christian Nationalist need not be tied to racial boundaries. Not all nationalism is bad, however.
Corwin Smidt makes a Principled Pluralist Response in Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views: “A certain level of nationalism in terms of pride of place is normal and perhaps even healthy.” Smidt, however, also sees the dangers of having an American civil religion (one in which the Church and State and intimately conjoined).
For the sake of this paper, Christian Nationalism is best defined as an ideology that places the national identity (American) on par with, or even over the religious identity (Christian). While Christian Nationalism is continuing to grow, it seems that many are still caught in the middle, and find themselves indecisive on whether to buy into the views of Christian Nationalism.
The following Biblical response is a call to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture based on the aforementioned life and works of Paul, who provides an example of Christian living in the face of a pagan nation.
A Pauline Response to Christian Nationalism
While Paul never explicitly stated or taught the words that Christ spoke to Peter it seems evident that he did indeed live by this mantra. See Matthew 26:52: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
There are two major responses that Paul has to offer to this discussion on Christian Nationalism. The first and primary issue the Paul’s notion of living as a citizen of Heaven first and of this world secondarily, contrary to the dualistic view of Christianity and national government that is held by Christian Nationalism. The second issue is that of non-violence, which, while directly related to the first issue, is a subpoint worth discussing.
Firstly, there is the issue of loyalty and submission, and living in a pagan/hostile world and nation that is counter to God. In Romans 12-14, Paul is chiefly concerned with how Christians should live, as members of the body of Christ, including the short section on submission to governing authorities.
It is clear from this larger section of Romans that the emphasis is on Christians living as members of the body of Christ, which is synonymous with living as citizens of Heaven. This theme is also found in Philippians 3, with the explicit reminder that the flesh is nothing, that all Christians have is Christ, and that they are citizens of heaven. This of course aimed firstly at the Philippian believers who felt a deep sense of national pride as Roman citizens in the colony of Philippi.
These ideals are found further in Paul’s writings. Nowhere does Paul promote a view in which he seeks to alter or change the views of the governing authorities, nor take over the government for the sake of his beliefs. Rather, Paul wanted to stand out, not through overt rebellion, but by exemplifying Christ. Any change Paul sought was for Christ and the sake of the Gospel.
Dunn states, “Paul of all people will have been well aware that good citizenship was also a missionary strategy which commended the gospel to those of good will.” Conversely, the Christian Nationalist missionary strategy is far more forceful in its motives and actions. From the outside, it seems that they believe that if they can gain influence and control in government people (possibly via force) will have to conform to the Christian way of life.
This too, is counter to Paul and his writings. Submission to God requires submission to the governing authorities (submission not endorsement). Dunn concludes, “Political realism for Paul meant living within the political system, even if it meant to a large extent living on the terms laid down by that system.”
To many this principle seems contradictory or oxymoronic. The testimony of Paul, and Scripture as a whole leads to a view in which God is supreme, He has set human governing authorities in place. Thankfully, the eternal ramifications end with the believers’ glorification, and the full sovereignty is realized in a New Heaven and New Earth.
See Revelation 21:1-8: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Within the issue of submitting to governing authorities is the necessity of disobedience in the case where the commands of God are directly contrary to that of the governing authorities. Christian Nationalism is often vocal and violent in these cases. Paul’s testimony, even in the face of physical persecution and confinement, is one of non-violence. Of non-violence, Striat states, “nonviolent civil resistance is a vital component of what it means to participate in God’s mission of reconciliation and the church’s disruption of idolatry, oppression, and sin in our world.”
The necessity of resistance is evident in America. With the continued political battles over issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and gender identity, to name a few, there is a need for Christians to take a stand for views that are contrary to the Word of God. This begs the question, what does it mean to take a stand, and what does that look like based on the biblical testimony of Paul? If Paul were alive today, it would seem fitting that first and foremost, Paul would be preaching the Gospel.
Paul’s method of Gospel preaching, in accordance with his life story, would have been within the confines of the governing authority (as best as it could be). Conversely, Paul would not be caught engaging in violent protests and a resistance that does not appear to be focused on turning the hearts of the lost towards God, but rather seeking to promote an agenda that parades itself as “True Christianity.”
Strait adds, “The perennial danger is the temptation to conflate the kingdom of God with the weaponized kingdoms of this world. This temptation is pervasive among White Christian nationalists.” Christian Nationalism has seemingly blurred the lines that exist between what it means to be a citizen of heaven and a citizen of this world.
The belief that one supersedes the other is fading into oblivion. While the specific applications are sometimes difficult to discern, Paul’s teachings, and ultimately the full teachings of Scripture offer clear direction on the principles of living under a pagan government.
Conclusion
The Apostle Paul lived his entire life as a Roman citizen under a government that was extremely hostile to Christians. During his life, the same government was found to promote paganism and persecute and exterminate dissenters, including Christians (and Paul himself). Paul’s dissension to this government was not one of extreme and overt disobedience or violent resistance.
Rather Paul chose to preach the Gospel, in resistance to the government. The rest of Paul’s life and teachings are marked by a Roman citizen who submitted to governmental authority and even went as far as appealing to Caesar in Roman courts, using their judicial/governmental system correctly to further his cause, the Gospel. In the wake of the rise of the Christian Nationalism movement across America, it seems fitting to consider a Pauline view of behavior, as his situation is not all that different from today.
Christianity as a whole should consider and mediate on Paul’s example as the evolution of the pagan government, society, and Christian Nationalism continues to challenge the truths of Scripture.
Lord's Library participates in affiliate programs. We may make a small commission from products purchased through this resource.
