CMU home

P. Gilbert home

This article was originally published in Out of the Strange Silence. Kindred Productions, 2005.

The Challenge of “Dual-Citizenship”
in the 21^st Century

by Pierre Gilbert
September 10, 2004

Christians normally think of themselves as citizens of the Kingdom of God.  As such, they are expected to act and live as Kingdom citizens and to give it their primary allegiance. But Christians are also citizens of nations here on earth and are expected to grant at least some degree of allegiance to their country. In a very real and concrete way, for better or for worse, Christians hold “dual citizenship”. To pretend it is not so, simply does not reflect reality. What are the implications of such “dual-citizenship” for Christians who live in democratic systems such as found in the United States and Canada?  Since this article is written in the context of the 50^th anniversary of the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, I will initially focus this discussion on those who identify with the Mennonite tradition, and then I will expand it to include the broader Christian community.

Traditionally, Mennonites in Canada and the United States have shied away from political involvement. Until the early 1960s, Mennonites generally shunned public service and law in favor of farming, education, and the medical professions. More recently, Mennonites have become much less queasy about politics and political activism. There are at least three reasons behind this trend. First, Mennonites have to a great extent left the rural context and become urban and more mainstream. Second, intellectuals in the Mennonite Church have espoused, mainly throughout the 60’s and early 70’s, an ideology that in fact encourages a much greater degree of political activism. John Howard Yoder[1] has been very instrumental in effecting this trend. Third, such political activism is now perceived as essential to help promote the peace and justice agenda that is considered by many Mennonites as one of the fundamental expressions of the Anabaptist faith.[2]

Like Christians of other traditions in Canada and the United States, the political activism of Mennonites most often tends to reside in one or the other side of the political spectrum. It would be a serious mistake to assume that Mennonites constitute a massive unanimous political block. Mennonites tend to identify with either the liberal left or the conservative right otherwise found in the broader society. I would go so far as to state that the Mennonite community reflects the culture war that has increasingly characterized North American politics since 9/11, and even more acutely since the war in Iraq in March 2003.[3] Although the discourse generally remains polite, the tone is unambiguous. Mennonites on either side of the divide cannot fathom how anyone can hold a contrary opinion to their own. The left-wing Mennonites ceaselessly accuse their right-wing counterparts of siding with the evangelicals in confusing their conservative right-wing political agenda with their Christian faith, particularly when it comes to the role of the military, US foreign policy and the place of civil religion in society. On the other hand, lest we think this is a one-sided sin, left-wing Mennonites, in an eerily mirror image fashion, seem to suffer from the same affliction. Politically engaged Mennonites who do not wish to identify with the conservative American evangelicals usually espouse views that are most consistent with the left-wing political agenda. In fact, I have observed that in some circles, the distinction between of the Mennonite/Anabaptist faith and the left-wing political agenda is at best tenuous.

These two groups are similar in one way. At the extreme ends of the spectrum, both are tempted to view their respective stance as the natural default position for good-thinking Christians. It is not something unique to conservative Christians. While the left-wing Mennonites may rant about the evangelicals’ confusion of religion and politics, they, in the end, do not fare much better. If Jesus were to appear today, they assume he would sit at their table. He would be a strident supporter of Green Peace. He would be present at all the anti-war demonstrations. He would drive an environmentally friendly Honda Hybrid.

Liberal left-wing Mennonites usually use the language of “faithfulness” (“Let the Church be the Church”)[4] when dealing with the issues of the day and tend to deal with them according to a list of priorities starting with peace and justice, which usually entails a good dose of anti-Americanism or a radical and systematic denunciation of American foreign policy. The recent war against Iraq is an excellent case in point. When it comes to the peace issue, these Mennonites do not hesitate, either individually or through various Mennonite agencies, to publicly express their disapproval. The other issues that get some attention is the so-called social justice agenda (gender issues, aboriginal rights, gay and lesbian rights), the environment and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On other morality issues, left-wing Mennonites tend to be less vocal: abortion, same-sex marriage, the rise of “religious” secularism and the corresponding mounting public dismissal of conservative Christianity receive less attention. Abortion is sometimes addressed, but not nearly as vigorously as some of the other issues I spelled out earlier. A good illustration of this mitigated approach can be found on the Peace and Justice Support Network website of Mennonite Church USA where, after voicing a clear opposition to abortion, in agreement with the Assembly 75 statement, the document then proceeds to qualify that stance. The following excerpt articulates the rationale behind the hesitation to back a forceful anti abortion stance and is quite representative of the position held by a significant number of left-wing Mennonite intellectuals across Mennonite denominations.

The situation in both the Mennonite Church and society has changed, however. Anna Bowman, one of two women on the committee, explained that the 1975 statement was written, "prior to the pro-life, pro-choice polarization. We weren't as aware that the members of our churches were in a privileged position." As a social worker, Bowman is aware that many women seeking abortions have not been taught to make responsible choices independent of the men in their lives and do not have support when caught in an unplanned pregnancy. "As a denomination, we still know what we believe, but face a new, different question: Do we have the right to make our beliefs the law of the land, especially when others aren't so privileged?"[5]

The critical question is not so much what the denomination believes, but whether its members have the right to make “our beliefs the law of the land…” In this particular piece, which is fairly characteristic of a broad spectrum of the Mennonite church, to attempt to weigh in on such issues is seen as coercion, domination, and control; “the violent assertion of our rights.” While those identifying with conservative evangelicalism would not describe their political activism as some attempt at imposing Christian beliefs, they would tend to be less equivocal on the appropriateness of using political levers to bring about the outcome they seek.

In that respect, left-wing Mennonites often accuse American evangelicals and Mennonites who identify with them of not showing proper concern for peace and social justice and to be too strident in using their political clout to impose their moral values on the rest of society.

As I pointed out earlier, this great divide amongst Mennonites is not unique. It reflects a much wider and vigorous culture war that is presently being waged in the United States and Canada.

Since the question I identify does not only concern Mennonites, but Christians of all stripes, I will now broaden the discussion to include all Christians. So how do we approach the issue of dual-citizenship for Christians? Do we look for a balanced approach between what is perceived as two extremes? In theory, perhaps. In practice, the so-called “balanced” position often turns out to be as elusive as a desert mirage. Rather than attempt to resolve the problem by somehow adding the two and dividing by two, I would like to attempt to provide a framework for Christian social/political activism that I hope will set out a model that reconciles the Christian’s twofold identity without necessarily identifying with one side or the other of the political spectrum.

At this point, I need to point out that this article aims at discussing the situation Christians find themselves in democratic countries that uphold individual rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. More specifically, it targets the situations of Christians in the United States and Canada. Though it is not my intent to exclude Western Europe, Australia, and other democratic countries, I focus particularly on the US and Canada, because this is the context with which I am most familiar and because there is in fact a significant Christian population that would be concerned by such a discussion. In other words, it is primarily in the United States and, and to a lesser extent, in Canada, that the issue is most pertinent and most controversial.

The Search for Universal Values

Though Christians generally believe that the Bible is to be their primary source in the search to develop appropriate models of behavior, they may not be unanimous on where that search should begin. The Old Testament would seem to be a logical place to begin our exploration, but one needs to be careful not to compare oranges and bananas, as the saying goes. Ancient Israel was, to all intents and purposes, a sort of theocracy, a religious state. Though Israel had a king, he was to be Yahweh’s representative, and the Sinai covenant, with its laws and stipulations, Israel’s basic constitution. The king of Israel, unlike his Egyptian or Mesopotamian counterparts, was no law unto himself; he was responsible to uphold God’s law and was, in theory, subject to it. So, when the prophets of Israel condemn the king and the ruling classes, the appeals are based on a failure to observe the basic demands of the law. One of the crispest expressions of that principle is found in Micah 6:8: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”[6] Micah summarizes the entire law in three commands: to act justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with your God. In the context of Israel, those three injunctions make perfect sense. Israel’s identity was intimately linked with a particular God. Justice and mercy were not perceived as autonomous concepts; they were the natural expressions of an exclusive allegiance to Yahweh.

While we may completely echo the prophet’s call of justice and mercy, it would not be quite appropriate, in a secular state, to call for an unconditional allegiance to Yahweh or Jesus on the part of our government officials. We do, however, believe that all the calls to justice in the prophetic literature, which echo, to a great extent, the core of the Ten commandments, are valid. There are two reasons why Christians would believe in the legitimacy of extending the prophet’s call to their contemporaries. First, it reflects a certain understanding of who God is. Second, we believe that the injunctions to do justice and to show mercy are universally valid concepts regardless of the social or cultural context we may be in. Most Christians would also believe, even if we don’t constantly emphasize it, that the only way to sustain these values in any society, is if they are tied to, linked with, or embedded in the belief in a personal and moral God who demands justice and mercy, and holds all men and women accountable. In the end, we may recognize that in a secular and pluralistic society, we can’t demand, require or legislate belief in the Christian God. Even then, those of us who work for and promote justice and mercy will recognize deep down in our hearts that we do so because we understand that these values derive from the moral nature of God himself and thus represent universals that should be sought at all times and in all places.

The following example illustrates well what I mean. While it is commonplace to vilify the British for their involvement in India in the 19^th century, it is interesting to note that until British rule, a widow was required to mount the funeral pyre of her husband and be cremated along with him. The rite of sati that had been prevalent in India for thousands of years was finally prohibited when the British put an end to it in 1829. The members of the British parliament who enacted the law and those officers who enforced it in the field did not for one second believe that such a practice could be defended on the basis of the type of post-modern multicultural mush we now find in most Western countries, and which holds every culture, irrespective of practice and belief, in equal esteem. Although the Orthodox Hindus vehemently protested the measure and appealed to the Privy Council in England, fortunately for the widows, the council rejected the appeal. The British knew the practice was wrong and did their best to stamp it out. The issue, here, is not whether the British could or should impose the Christian faith, but whether they would sanction practices they felt went against a moral standard they regarded as absolute and universal.

From the Old Testament, we derive a number of fundamental values that we hold as universal, and consequently as good and appropriate in any context. The intrinsic value of each individual human being as made in the image of God, the notion of human dignity, the defense of the poor and compassion for the weak, the rejection of magic and superstition would rank very high.

In regards to moral behavior, the New Testament presents a contextualization of the most fundamental moral precepts found in the Old Testament. It is commonly advocated that these precepts apply primarily if not exclusively to the Church. In that respect, we interpret the Sermon on the Mount, for example, as the charter for the people of God. I would strongly support the notion that the New Testament precepts are primarily for the community of believers; they are not meant to be law for all. But I would also make the point that if the New Testament moral injunctions in great part reflect the heart of the Old Testament covenant, and if we accept that the most fundamental object of the law is to promote life,[7] it follows then that the most fundamental elements of Old and New Testament moral prescriptions will work for the benefit of the community that adopts them.

In other words, we believe that if a society adopts the most basic moral premises attested in Scripture, it will thrive as a just and compassionate society where individuals enjoy personal freedom and dignity. At least, that is the theory. If, on the other hand, a community does not hold to these beliefs and values we believe are essential to the maintenance of a healthy society, it will decay and people will bear the price of the moral corrosion that will result. This is where the point of the dilemma appears. Does knowing what may be best for our society give us some right to impose our beliefs? While some Christians would balk at the notion of “imposing” beliefs, most would agree that we do have some kind of obligation to intervene in one form or another to shape the community we are part of. The question, of course, is how can we do so with biblical integrity?

Biblical Precedents

There are two passages that I think can provide some direction in regards to Christian political/social involvement. The first one is found in Jeremiah 29:5-28, the second in Romans 13:1.

Jeremiah 29:5-28 is set in the context of the Judean community exiled in Babylon. At that time, the Judeans still entertained some hope that their stay in Babylon would be temporary and that God would soon return them to the Promised Land. Against all expectations, Jeremiah gave them a difficult and expected directive. There would be no immediate return to the land of Israel. Those who had been taken to Babylon would remain in that foreign land for at least 70 years. The Judeans were to embrace the future God was giving to them in their adoptive country and establish themselves in their new surroundings. Moreover, the exiles were to make this new place their home and seek the welfare of the city they lived in. “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” (29:7). This text states explicitly that the exiles should seek the “peace and prosperity” of their new home. The reason offered is very pragmatic: “if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

Leaders involved in Christian community development and inner city pastors often refer to this passage to motivate Christians to get involved in the urban context. In this case, however, the motivation is not quite as “self-serving” as the Jeremiah text would appear to be. Christian community development leaders sincerely encourage Christians to get involved in the city, not simply to ensure that Christians will have a comfortable place to live in, but because they deeply believe that it is a concrete manifestation of Christ’s love.

Christian community development seeks to work within the social structures of a neighborhood in order to bring social healing. While the ultimate goal of Christian community development is to present the person of Jesus Christ, the social and political work done by these people is usually in no way contingent on anyone joining their church. It is important to note here that such work will involve much more than charity, mentoring, or coaching. It often involves very aggressive political work on behalf of the community. Even if some might disagree with the underlying evangelistic agenda that is intrinsic to Christian community development, most would affirm this kind of Christian social action.[8]

The second text I wish to draw the reader’s attention to is Romans 13:1: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God”. In this passage, Paul does not primarily intend to provide a basis for Christian social activism. Romans 13:1 is set in the context of a series of injunctions aimed at providing basic instructions for Christian behavior. Paul is basically advocating that Christians live as law-abiding citizens rather than criminals. Paul is being very pragmatic. If Christians must suffer persecution, it should not be because of thievery or murder, but because of their witness to Christ.

It is obvious, however, that submission to authorities in the context of First- Century Rome and in 21^st Century North America are, to put it mildly, not quite the same thing. In contrast to ancient Rome, where citizens had little say in the politics of the land, residents of the United States and Canada play a crucial role in the creation of their government and the policies it creates. Citizens are called upon to actively shape the society in which they live. Whether Paul could foresee the implications of 13:1 for a society such as ours is certainly open for debate, but at the very least, we can safely assume that the injunction to submit to authorities in the context of a democratic system does imply the obligation for Christians to contribute to shaping the society they live in to the best of their knowledge and abilities, since this is what the political system expects of its citizens. This extrapolation would also be perfectly compatible with the principle of partnership that is an intrinsic component of Biblical theology. From the very beginning, God mandated human beings to work in cooperation with God in the accomplishment of his designs for the world (Gn 2:15-17).

What do these two passages mean for Christians today? I would like to propose a preliminary answer to this question by outlining the position of the Canadian sociologist, Fernand Dumont, in regards to the relationship between the Christian and society.

Fernand Dumont

Fernand Dumont, who passed away in 1997, was one of the most prolific and admired sociologists in Canada. Author of numerous books and articles on topics ranging from epistemology, economics, sociology, history, literature, to philosophy of religions, he was also a committed and vocal Christian. This may seem like a trivial observation, but not in the context of the Quebec context where most intellectuals feel that one cannot simultaneously be a committed Christian and a scientist. Although such a personal commitment could conceivably be a liability in some circles in the rest of Canada and the United States, the situation is much worse in Quebec, which has, in the last 40 years, experienced both an extremely rapid rate of secularization and nurtured a profound suspicion, if not an outright hostility, towards traditional and conservative Christianity. Because of this situation, Fernand Dumont spoke and wrote at length in order to reconcile science and the Christian faith.

In a remarkable article in which Dumont discusses how the Christian can relate to the world,[9] he prefaces his main thesis by reminding the reader that the Western world has changed in radical ways in the last century. For example, we no longer live in a conceptual universe where religious and profane categories are mixed and confused; we distinguish, as a matter of course, gospel and clericalism, the state and the church, science and God. Belief in the God of the gaps is obsolete. We no longer live in a world that demands that we revert to God’s intervention to explain natural phenomena (thunder, earthquakes, disease, etc.). The scientific method presupposes that natural phenomena can be investigated without ever resorting to God’s action to explain their mechanisms. At first sight, such a conceptual model would seem to relegate the Christian faith to the realm of folklore and popular culture, but Dumont sees it differently. He uses the image of a three-storied house to explain how we can legitimately define the relationship between faith and culture. He emphasizes the fact that though he is referring to three stories, there is still only one house.

A. The Upper Story: The Rational Organization of the World.

The upper story represents the place where scientists live; it is the sphere of rational thought, science, technology and rational organization. Because of the nature of his profession, Dumont mentions that this is where he spends most of his time. “To attempt to explain the coherence of the universe is an ambition without limits,” he writes. What cannot be explained is not simply a mystery to leave in the hands of God but an area of further and endless investigation.

B. The Main Floor: The Human Condition

At this level, Dumont describes a kind of human intervention whose main objective is fundamentally the improvement of the human condition. Dumont is careful to point out that we are not simply referring to the general condition of laborers, women, or the poor. Working at organizing the world according to principles of justice, truth and compassion is valid, because it aims at improving the lives of real individuals. To clarify what Dumont means, we cannot pretend that we are working for the good of humanity and, at the same time, oppress specific groups. If, on the one hand, our society actively seeks the coherence of the universe, it also seeks with the same zeal to enhance the quality of life of humans everywhere. At this level, the believer shares both the concern but also the uncertainty of the solutions needed to improve the condition of men and women in our world. It is not, however, a mere intellectual problem. It is because of our concern for specific individuals that we work to that end.

C. The Basement: In the Heart of Man

Dumont states that we move from the main floor to the basement, which represents the depths of the human heart itself. It is there, he notes, that we find what he calls the “mal fondamental” (a basic evil, a fundamental flaw), something radically insufficient in human nature: a fundamental “vice in our loves and fidelities,” an “evil from which the Christian faith springs and which is common to us all.”

Dumont expresses a reality, felt both by believers and non-believers, that something is not right in the very core of the human heart. As if humanity was stuck or paralyzed by a primeval choice; a choice no one is free to erase. There is a “mortgage” we cannot lift. In Christian tradition, it is called original sin, and when we say that, we do not pretend to explain what it is. We observe that it is there, that is all. We clumsily attempt to describe it. We confess its existence. We see it first as a challenge towards God himself. But to have faith, is more than simply raising  our fist to God; it is to go further. It is to believe in the Christ/God, in his death, in his resurrection, in our redemption. It is to believe that men and women are saved in the deepest recesses of their loves and their fidelities, i.e., in what most profoundly defines them. The Christian message of salvation is most vitally important, specific and relevant in this sphere.

While I cannot hope to offer, in these few pages, a comprehensive response to the dilemma of Christian “dual citizenship,” the following observations are in order.

• Christians have been given, through divine revelation, a set of universal truths that reflect ultimate reality in regards to God, human nature and the essence of the physical universe. Because these truths reflect ultimate reality, Christians believe that they will ultimately promote life in cultures that adopt them.
• The community of faith must and should seek the welfare of those around, not only to ensure its own survival but as an expression of God’s love for all human beings.
• According to Fernand Dumont’s model, Christian interaction with the world can occur at three different levels.

1. In the “upper story,” the Christian scholar  (Pierre, is this more broad – does it include any Christian dedicated to learning/investigation?) attempts to discover the coherence of the world for its own sake. In that respect,  he or she is no different from the non-Christian scientist. Both pursue the same goal and use the same methods. It is interesting to note that the believer and the atheist, the Christian and the non-Christian pursue their profession in the context of a Judeo-Christian cosmological framework that assumes that the universe is an object of investigation and that this object has intrinsic coherence.
2. On the “main floor,” Christians and non-Christians alike pursue objectives that go beyond the mere search for coherence. At this level, human action aims at something deeper and more fundamental: the improvement of human life. Cancer researchers, for instance, do not simply seek the most efficient way to destroy cancer cells; they ultimately seek a cure for a disease that destroys real persons.
3. In the “basement,” there is, however, an area of endeavor that is unique to the Christian. This is what Dumont calls the mal fondamental. There is a critical and terminal sickness in the deepest recesses of the human soul, a cancer of the soul. The Bible refers to it as Sin, a fundamental flaw brought about by a primordial act of disobedience committed by the first humans. The cure for this cancer is infinitely beyond modern science, medicine, psychology, or sociology. The only cure for this condition is found in a personal, free and willing encounter with the person of Jesus Christ. The reason as to why Dumont states that this third sphere is specifically and exclusively the realm of the Christian is tied to the fact that the diagnosis of the alleged disease and its cure are derived from special revelation, the biblical text, and not from nature. It is a confessional affirmation and not something that can be verified either through philosophy or empirical science.

The evangelistic and mission enterprise belongs most appropriately and relevantly to this third sphere. This is where individual Christians, churches and para-church organizations operate. It is an exercise in telling the Good News of friendship with God, ultimate healing and eternal salvation. The act of evangelism is by definition a-political. It is non-coercive. One cannot enact laws to force men and women to accept the Gospel. Because choosing to love God and to accept the lordship of Jesus Christ is the greatest act of self-determination, one cannot therefore, by definition, legislate that act; one cannot dictate people into the Kingdom. The evangelistic or missiological enterprise belongs to the realm of loving, even if urgent, persuasion, as when Paul writes: “We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God” (1 Cor 5:20).

The responsibility of sharing the Good News with those around us is clearly an implication of our status as citizens of heaven. It is something Christians must be actively engaged in whether the State approves of it or not. In cases where the State’s injunctions conflict with this demand of the Kingdom, our allegiance to the Kingdom of God must supersede our allegiance to the earthly one.

Where Christians most sharply differ is on the character of their intervention in the second sphere of human action: the social sphere (the “main floor”). First, we have a responsibility, both as citizens and Christians, to participate fully in that sphere of action. For Christians, this involvement may take various forms, and the issues that will be addressed may differ from one denomination to another. But regardless of the ideological differences that may exist between various groups, any action that seeks the improvement of real human beings should be welcomed. At this level, there is no intrinsic conflict between our two citizenships.

It is extremely important to be clear in regards to the legitimacy of Christian action at the second level. Christians may disagree with each other about ideology and strategies, but as long as there is no attempt at using political levers to impose allegiance to a particular religion, I would tend to say that the range of legitimacy is very broad. If left-wing Mennonites wish to lobby against military action and US foreign policy, so be it. If conservative evangelicals wish to use their political clout to restrict access to abortion and lobby against same-sex marriage, why not? Morally, philosophically, and theologically, I do not see any problem whatsoever with aggressive political activism, as long as there is a clear distinction between that which is appropriate to the “main floor” and what is appropriate to the “basement.” To suggest that the use of generally-accepted political and social levers to promote “Christian” values is tantamount to coercion, abuse of power, or a return to Constantinianism, is sheer nonsense. As “aliens” in the city and “dual citizens,” it is both our mandate and responsibility to seek the good of everyone. This involves more than doing charity or taking up some social cause; it also, and perhaps even more importantly, implies the necessity to defend and uphold those values we consider best: for if we fail to promote truth, the foundation on which everything rests will slowly but inexorably erode, leaving in its wake a trail of untold suffering for generations to come.

While all Christians, regardless of religious or political persuasions will subscribe to the necessity to do good around them, they will not necessarily agree on what constitutes the good, the degree of political activism they should engage in, and the methods that should be used. Some will identify with the liberal left and others with the conservative right. What is most desperately needed is not so much to question each other’s right to act in society, but to accept, first of all, the fundamental legitimacy to defend and promote values that Christians believe are best for our society and the legitimacy to use the most effective methods to do so. The approach I advocate is not without its difficulties and its pitfalls, but nothing in this world is clean and risk-free. Every choice or non-choice we make impacts for good or evil the world in which we live. For that reason, Christians should enter into vigorous debate with each other on what constitutes the good and how it can be upheld in our world. It may be a naïve wish, an unrealistic aspiration, but a challenge that nevertheless deserves serious consideration, if not for our own sake, at least, for the sake of the generations to come.

Endnotes

Canadian Mennonite University
500 Shaftesbury Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada  R3P 2N2
Ph. 204.487.3300
Fax 204.831.5675