Original Meaning
PETER’S COMMENTS ABOUT the Christian communities’ relationship to the Roman emperor and to local governors is his first application of the principle, enunciated in 2:11–12, of living a holy life regardless of the response they find in their social setting. He will go on to apply the same principle to slaves’ relationship to their masters (2:18–25) and to the relationship of husbands and wives (3:1–7), before turning to general remarks of the church community itself (3:8–12). In all of this, Peter keeps in view the important impact holy living has on those who observe believers and the value lifestyle has for maintaining good relations with society at large.
This passage expresses a common form of early Christian ethical instruction, known as “Household Codes” (such instructions are also found, in one form or another, at Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Tim. 2:8–15; 6:1–2). This form of instruction addresses specific “classes” of people in the church and provides for them specific kinds of ethical direction. Scholars have disputed the origin of this form (other than from the obvious need to instruct certain kinds of people with role-related behavior) and have come to little consensus, other than that both the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds expressed concerns in a similar manner. As will become evident in the Bridging Contexts section, study of one “Code” (e.g., 1 Peter 2:11–3:12) in comparison to similar codes (e.g., Eph. 5:22–6:9 and Col. 3:18–4:1) can yield penetrating insights for understanding specific codes and for applying them to Christian living today.
Peter’s code is concerned with the themes of Christians’ avoiding sin and living a holy life, in the context of being persecuted by those who may end up admitting to God that such behavior is pleasing to him. The specific topic of this section is the relationship of the churches to governing authorities. Peter begins with an exhortation of submission (2:13–14), explains why believers should be doing good, includes a pattern of submission (2:15), cites a condition for submission (2:16), and then repeats his exhortation in both general and specific categories (2:17).
We begin with Peter’s exhortation to submit to the governing authorities (2:13–14). Whatever “submit” means, it is important for us to recall that such submission is a form of abstaining from fleshly desires and of good behavior that will influence those observing. This connection of “submission” to 2:11–12 is the natural implication of understanding 2:13–17 as an application of the principles found in those thematic verses.
The word “submit” is a compound verb from the Greek words hypo (meaning “under”) and tasso (meaning “to order, place, appoint”). While it is often inaccurate to determine meaning from the roots of a word,1 the roots here do give an adequate determination of the meaning of the verb: “to order oneself under, or according to, a given relationship,” or “to live according to the governmental order.”2 Clearly here the notion of “submitting” to the government is secondary to obeying God (1:2, 14, 22) and to doing his will (2:15), because this group of subjects (the church) is “free” (2:16).3 That is, even though the Christians are “aliens and strangers” (2:11), they are to live in the order that God has ordained.
Furthermore, for Peter and the entire church, “submit” does not imply total obedience, for the Israelites and the early Christians participated in civil disobedience when the demands of society overrode the demands of the Lord (e.g., Ex. 1:17; Dan. 3:13–18; Acts 4:18–20; Heb. 11:23).4 Wolfgang Schrage has expressed it well: “They are free with respect to the authorities, and normally this freedom manifests itself in respect and loyalty, submission and honor.”5
Finally, the word “submit” is carried forward in the different kinds of submission found in the master-slave relationship (2:18) and in the wife-husband relationship (3:1, 5; cf. 3:22; 5:5). The exhortation to husbands to live honorably with their wives (3:7) as well the church’s need to live together in love (3:8–12) are related to this notion of “live under the order.” Thus, as L. Goppelt states, “New Testament social ethics … began with the directive that those called to faith ought to enlist themselves in the social orders in which they found themselves and to conduct themselves in accord with their ‘rules for playing the game’ (cf. 1 Cor. 7:17, 20, 24).”6
Peter exhorts the believers to live in submission “to every authority instituted among men.” What he has in mind is either the “institution” itself (government as a human arrangement or, as in Rom. 13:1–7, as a divinely appointed human arrangement) or the person so instituted.7 The odd combination of “creation” and “human”8 leads one to suspect that Peter sees the institution of government as supervised and appointed by God at some level. His exhortation, then, is that Christians, in spite of their relative freedom, are nevertheless to live according to every sort9 of governmental order. The alternative is chaos. To be sure, an excluded minority is tempted to chaotic rebellion, but Peter exhorts believers to good conduct that honors God. He is following Jesus here, who exhorted his disciples to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9).
Christians are not to submit to the governmental authorities because of the native authority of government or because governmental officials are particularly charismatic. Rather, they are to submit “for the Lord’s10 sake.” As has been seen in 2:12, such an idea includes the impact of observers seeing the justice and holiness of God in their behavior and giving praise to the Lord (cf. 2:15 and 3:1, where proper behavior leads to an opportunity to speak of the grace of God; 3:15–16). Alternatively, “for the Lord’s sake” could (but less likely) refer to the example of Jesus (2:18–25).
Peter specifies two kinds of human institutions under which the Christians should order their lives: the emperor (“whether to the king, as the supreme authority”) and the local governor. If the early dating of 1 Peter is correct (early 60s), then the emperor to whom Peter is referring is none other than the rascal Nero. Hort tartly remarks that “there could be few rulers indeed whose claims on loyalty would be sustained by less personal merit” than Nero.11 Such a setting, which seems reasonable not only for 1 Peter but for much of early Christian teaching, has significant implications for the Christian attitude to the state, for it demonstrates that Christians are expected to be good citizens even in extreme situations.
The local governor is one who has been “sent by him [the emperor] to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” That is, the local governor has derived authority and exercises it in a moral direction. Governors had more responsibilities than these two concerns (obviously), but Peter’s concern is with the need for Christians to be good people so that the judicial arm of the governor is not raised over the churches. They must remember not only that their governor has authority to punish, but also that he can honor them for their good deeds. Thus, “What starts off, then, as apparently a lesson in political passivity culminates in an injunction to take an active role in society.”12
A second part of Peter’s discussion of the relationship to the state concerns the explanation for doing good (2:15): “For it is13 God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” The opening word, “For,”14 can be interpreted as introducing the cause of their submission: They should submit to the various levels of governing authorities because in so doing their behavior will silence their accusing ignorance. More likely it introduces an explanation of 2:14: “for, as for this doing good business, it is God’s will that in doing good….” The good conduct exhorted in 2:12 provides an opportunity for Christians to be approved by the governors, whose task it is to approve of good behavior. Furthermore, their good behavior “should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men” in that it will both demonstrate in their eyes the good behavior of this socially excluded group and thereby prevent the development of persecution. In addition, their behavior will provide God with an objective measure for assessing them at the final judgment (2:12).
Just what does Peter have had in mind here in his idea of doing good? If Bruce Winter is correct, he may have in mind the large donations Christians made to the good of society in the form of benefactions. He describes them as follows:
Benefactions included supplying grain in times of necessity by diverting the grain-carrying ships to the city, forcing down the price by selling it in the market below the asking rate, erecting public buildings or adorning old buildings with marble revetments such as in Corinth, refurbishing the theatre, widening roads, helping in the construction of public utilities, going on embassies to gain privileges for the city, and helping in the city in times of civil upheaval.15
While it is naive to think that Christians will always be saved from social pressure or outright persecution just because they live holy lives, it is not naive to think that such behavior will sometimes have the desired affect on their opponents so that they will back off their foolish accusations and baseless persecutions.16
Next, Peter adds a condition for submitting to the authorities (2:16). These socially excluded Christians are to submit to the authorities (2:13), not only because they are driven to it by their social location, but also because they are ultimately free from the jurisdiction of these authorities. Christians live under the governing order as free people, not as its slaves,17 for they are slaves of God, not Caesar. But they are not to use this freedom from human authorities as an excuse18 for living in chaos and insubordination. That kind of life will only hurt the church and will give ample justification to the persecuting powers that now threaten them. What we must realize is that it was this passionate temptation to break free from the governing authorities that forced Peter to make these remarks.
The key here is the Christian perception that those who were followers of Jesus Christ were, like their master, independent of and free from the ruling governmental powers.19 But that freedom and liberty were not to be used negatively, either to create political chaos or moral irresponsibility. While the Pauline letters emphasize freedom from the law, sin, and evil powers, Peter’s emphasis is a development of the statement of Jesus that the sons of the kingdom are free (Matt. 17:26). Christians ought to choose to be orderly.
This theme emerged from a Jewish strand of thought that developed, quite naturally, when the people of the Land found themselves in subjection to foreign powers.20 While such a condition may have come about as a result of sin and punishment, true members of the covenant knew that their ultimate allegiance was only to the God of the covenant. Consequently, while submission was required, it was not the relationship that sustained and protected them. They were servants of God alone. This theme became a natural setting for understanding early Christian persecution, and Peter’s words here are to be interpreted in that setting.
To be sure, the early Christians did not see their persecution and social exclusion as a result of sin, but they did find analogies for understanding in previous Jewish experience. The governing authorities were there and had to be obeyed (to a certain degree), but such allegiance was secondary to their submission to the Lord. Far from an endorsement of Roman authority, Peter’s perspective was one that put Neronic authority in its place. “They are free with respect to the authorities, and normally this freedom manifests itself in respect and loyalty, submission and honor.”21 In the words of Goppelt, when Christians perceived this and lived in the freedom to serve God, they “broke through to God’s will for preservation in terms of the original and ultimate destiny of man.”22 But it is especially the words of Martin Luther that have crystallized Peter’s point the best: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”23
Finally, Peter repeats his exhortation (2:17), doing so in both general and specific terms. Beginning with a general command to “show proper respect to everyone,” Peter then details three specific manifestations of this “proper respect.”24 Their holy living, their abstinence from fleshly inspired passions, is to be manifested in respect for all people, whether that means the church, God, or the emperor. Such conduct is thus orderly (under the order of the day) and will prevent the gospel from disrepute and stave off some of the persecution that may be imminent.
In sum, Peter’s first application of the principle of holy living in the midst of persecution concerns how Christians ought to relate to governing authorities. Here for the first time he addresses the issue of the church and the state. But this theme is critical to the entire letter because it was this tense relationship that formed the context for everything he wrote to these beleaguered churches. It took him some time to get down to specific behaviors because he first had to establish his theological points. In spite of a tyrant for an emperor, Peter exhorts Christians to live under the orders of the day, as free men, for the sake of the Lord and their security. Such an angle on the Christian’s relationship to the state has many implications for Christian living in our world.
Bridging Contexts
THE IMPLICATIONS OF this passage cannot be brought to the fore until we examine how the ethics taught here were to be lived out in the first-century world and how that same kind of ethics can be manifested in our world. This is not as simple a matter as one might think. For example, we might simply consider the difference between an ancient “noncitizen” and a modern citizen, or we might think of the emperor and his modern analogs. Are a Roman emperor and our country’s leader equivalent positions in society? Most of my readers can hardly maintain that, for the Roman emperor was far more dictatorial and more of a tyrant than any Western leader can possibly be (with tragic exceptions). Thus, the American president’s hands are tied by the American body politic; he can only get done what his people (through their representatives in Washington, D.C.) permit. The same can be said in comparing the emperor with a British prime minister, the queen of England, or the German chancellor.
What is more germane to our discussion, then, is what such a difference makes for the notion of submitting to governing authorities. In other words, is submission more in order for a Christian to a Roman emperor (where the alternative, from disagreement to revolt, put one’s life in immediate jeopardy) than for a Christian voting citizen to the American president or the Canadian prime minister? This is not only an academic query, for it hits at the essence of what it means to apply the Bible to our world. While it may be fairly easy to apply the injunction to “show proper respect to everyone,” since any kind of cultural condition seems to be transcended here, it is not so easy to contend that “submitting to your specific leader’s political agenda” is a necessary or even a natural extension of the principle of submitting to the Roman emperor. In the Untied States, for example, Christians seem divided over every election; this division has an impact on what submission means for the next four years, in that some like it and some do not.
Furthermore, the more important issue is whether noncitizens in the Roman empire had any options. Did noncitizens, which is precisely what these Christians were, have any choice but to submit? Of course not. Too often almost every kind of public “nonsubmission” met with some kind of immediate punishment. Any strategy other than compliance (submission) was foolish. Thus, in bringing this text into our context, we are dealing with light years of changes.
The issue then becomes: Is the commandment to submit so culturally specific that its application to our world is completely different? In that case, do we have to find “noncitizen aliens” in our world for a comparable group for whom this injunction might apply? Or do we simply have to admit that “submission” is only a general principle (Christians should be good citizens and not chaotic rabble-rousers) and that in specific situations the Western citizen (United States, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Bahamas, etc.) makes up his or her mind on how to respond to a given bit of legislation? In this latter case, “submission” can legally involve civil disobedience25 as well as overt opposition to the government as part of what it means to live “within and under the order” as duly established in a country’s institutionalized laws.
An example here clearly puts the issue into context. The book of Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief, is a provocative treatise that challenges American society and its legal procedures with respect to how “religionists”26 have been treated in public discourse and legal decisions. At one level this book is an obvious act of insubordination and lack of submission to the “order that exists,” which he frequently labels as “liberal”; at another this book functions as a truly American way of protesting against the orders that be. It is irenic while critical. But had Carter written his book under Nero, directly challenging the essence of political power and process (which Carter’s book does do), it may well have been seen as a lack of submission and therefore condemned by the Petrine commandment (not to mention what Nero would have done!). What we see here, then, is a change of circumstances that leads to a change of how we are to apply the Petrine injunction. So the questions we asked in the preceding paragraphs are important as we seek to apply this text to our world.
To answer these kinds of questions involves more than simple yes and no answers. It requires an awareness of the relations of Roman citizens and noncitizens to the emperor and a solid grasp of what relationship such groups have to our specific form of government. Such issues are not simple, but neither are they so beyond our reach that we should despair of trying to resolve them. Instead, we recognize that application is in some sense immediate for many people, and we seek to be as faithful to the will and revelation of God as we can.
In my judgment, the change of circumstances that can be found in moving from a Roman emperor like Nero to life under a British prime minister or an American president is so cataclysmic that major changes in the ethical directives must also be made. That is, “living under the order” no longer means “submission” in the way it did in the first century. What we do now is to live decently and as good citizens, but we can still be good citizens in vehement protests and civil disobedience in a way that was completely outside the capacity for first-century citizens (and noncitizens). We ought to respect our leaders, but we do not for a minute think we have to obey their every wish—out of a fear of serious punishment.
Another feature of interpreting and applying our specific text is to see it in its larger, early Christian context—the so-called Household Codes that were the normal context for instructing the churches in how they were to live within the order of the society.27 The standard hypothesis is that as the church settled in (if an expression like that can be used for the churches addressed by 1 Peter!), leaders found it necessary to instruct members on how to live within the normal social categories. That is, for example, how should Christian wives behave, and how are a Christian’s children to conduct themselves? The early Christian teachers fell back on the instructions typical in Diaspora Judaism, instructions rooted in the “Two Ways” tradition and containing specific injunctions for various stations in life (master, slave, husband, wife, etc.). It is then inferred that the early Christian “Household Codes” reflect those ethics (cf. Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1).28
This is a reasonable hypothesis, though the parallel evidence from Judaism is not as strong as some have proposed. Nonetheless, this hypothesis helps us understand what Peter and Paul were doing. Like other early Christian pastor-teachers, they were providing their churches with a set of principles by which believers could live as Christians in a non-Christian world. To recall our discussion at 2:11–12, Peter was providing some “defensive structuring” for his churches so they could cope with the pressures of the outside world.
Furthermore, a comparison of Peter’s concerns with those of Paul reveals some interesting emphases for Peter that help us discern the intent of his instructions. (1) Peter includes a special section on the relationship to the emperor and the government (2:13–17). This relationship appears particularly important for Peter and his churches (probably because of the [sudden] rise of tension in Nero’s regime over the Christians), and so he includes it first.29 (2) While each of the early Christian household codes that survives in the New Testament emphasizes “reciprocal submission,” only Peter gives special emphasis to the motivation of doing so: in order to please God and to have a special impact upon one’s society (2:12; 3:1). (3) Peter apparently sees such a lifestyle as especially important for those who are second-class citizens, that is, for those who are socially excluded (2:11). (4) It may be a clue to Peter’s churches that he addresses slaves (2:18–25) rather than masters (as does Paul; but cf. Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; Philemon) and that he addresses wives so much more completely than husbands. This suggests that Peter’s churches were composed mainly of slaves and women, with few (if any) masters and only a few believing husbands. In other words, Peter’s “emphasis throughout is on those points at which the Christian community faces outward to confront Roman society.”30
Accordingly, when reading Peter’s household code, we are to understand that his concern to instruct in ethics is dominated by his social concern with how Christians are to live within the Roman empire when that empire in part turned against them. These are not timeless exhortations but timely words of advice for a community under serious threat. This is not to say that Peter’s advice is merely advice; rather, it is to say that Peter is concerned with a special context for Christian living, and this context must be considered before one begins to apply it to our world. In particular, this context means that the first angle we pursue is the one that concerns Christian living in a modern society, rather than personal ethics.
Extending this observation, I also contend that we should not apply this text simply to our world when our world is completely different. As I will argue when I get to 3:1–6, a Christian woman’s response to, and toleration of, her unbelieving husband (whom she is trying to win over to faith) is considerably different than the Christian wife’s response, toleration, and expectations of a believing, godly husband. That is, these texts were generated within a specific concern of living under pressure in an unbelieving world and concerned the entire problem of the Christian in society. They are much less interested in personal ethics in a neutral or positive context, though they do have some things to say in those contexts as well.
A final observation here, though difficult to demonstrate, concerns Peter’s reason for including such material. It can be easily established that his ideas here are typical. Why, then, did he have to state that Christians needed to submit to the order of the day if his audience already assumed that? Many have argued that he had to do so because the early Christians found, like never before, a freedom in Christ that led them to think they were an entirely free group. That is, the freedom they found in the church inevitably led them to think in terms of a social revolution that was neither workable nor wise. Thus, Peter urged them to remain good citizens even if they sensed a mind-boggling freedom.
I contend that such a conjecture, though hard to prove as a predominant sense on the part of the church, has foundations. In particular, it seems to be precisely what Peter is battling against in our section. While believers are free (2:16), he says, they must also be respectable citizens, since this is God’s will and is the only way they will be able to win outsiders to the gospel. One must take this point into consideration before applying the notion of submission to our world. That is, submission is not some blanket commandment but is a principle, particularly for those who sense their freedom in Christ and who think social revolution is what God wants.
Contemporary Significance
IN WHAT FOLLOWS I assume that, in light of the differences between our world and the world of 1 Peter, submission, while it remains a fundamental principle for Christian living in society, can now be understood to include obedience, protest, and at times even civil disobedience. What do I mean by this? The Christian is to be obedient to the structures of society and to live within those structures, but such obedience at times may involve a justifiable disobedience that remains within that governmental structure. As when Stephen Carter protests the liberal tendencies to trivialize religious devotion in law and politics in America, so also Christians at times must speak out against the government. But this has to be done in a way that remains submissive in the sense that Christians protest in ways permitted by society.
To be specific, Christians may protest at abortion clinics (and the Constitution gives them that right), but they may not protest in a way contrary to the policies governing such behavior (as when a self-proclaimed justice freak murders a doctor as a form of protest). Civil disobedience remains a right within the governmental policies of most Western democracies as legitimate social behavior. Some acts of civil disobedience are even perceived by society as a “good thing,” enabling the Christian to be both “insubordinate” yet within the parameters of “good behavior.”
In fact, a good many of modern conventions of social expectation were originally established as law (in the United States) through the actions of those who acted in some kind of civil disobedience. One can think of women’s suffrage and rights to vote, of the elimination of many barriers to racial equality, and of the compulsory education of children. The impulse of these movements was largely the result of Christian disappointment and actions.
Take the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose actions have recently been imitated by the Christian conservative right. We need only consider one of his speeches, perhaps his greatest: “I Have a Dream.” Delivered before the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, this speech electrified the American public, solidified support for the civil rights movement, and helped change American (and Western) society for the good. But my focus here is not on civic pride and change but on the anchoring that King gave to his speech: From front to back it was a biblically based vendetta against injustice and a plea for justice, so that society would be better.
But his mechanism for getting this material out was a massive act of civil disobedience in the face of a government that had turned its moral head away from the entrenched racial inequality that stood against that government’s own Constitution, guaranteeing equal rights to all. In disobeying, King acted both biblically (he eschewed violence) and counterculturally, while he sought to establish biblical values in society. While it may be true that today such an overt appeal to biblical themes and verses would be accused by the left as imposing religion on the state,31 it is nonetheless a part of our history that the civil rights movement was inspired, in part, by a biblically grounded sense of justice and love.
I would contend that such activity is permitted by Peter, though he never had such activity in mind (nor could he have). Peter demands that believers live holy lives and that such lives involve orderly activity with respect to the emperor and local authorities. Peter preaches submission in order to prevent the government from turning against the church as well as to encourage others to follow Christ through the church. And as long as church members live within the order of society and do not live recklessly outside of that society’s standards, and as long as the government does not turn against them for this kind of action, then social acts of civil disobedience will be perceived as “citizen-like behavior.” In this sense, actions of this sort will not harm the cause of the gospel.
On the other hand, while some may justify the bombing of abortion clinics as a tragic mistake born in a moment of “holy impatience,” I find such actions to be what Peter prohibits here. He wants actions conducive to others seeing the glory of God, and I find it impossible (even ridiculous) to think that non-Christians will see the glory of God in such atrocious actions.
But what happens when the government demands something that a Christian, in good conscience, cannot give? Sometimes Christians find that they must disobey, and on such occasions they must suffer the consequences, for the sake of God, in the light of God’s will, and in order to bring the message of God’s kingdom to others. I use here what is certainly a controversial example, partly because noncontroversial examples do not exist for this kind of disobedience. I also take this example because I am unclear myself where Christians ought to stand and what they ought to do. The example concerns protesting nuclear weapons facilities. It is a fact that within the church universal many Christians are pacifist or at least against the notion of a nuclear war being possibly just. It is for this group that I speak, confessing that while I sympathize with their stance, I am unable to answer all of my own objections to their position.
In 1987, Jim Wallis, founder and director of the Sojourners Community in Washington, D.C., edited and published a book on the recent developments in Christian conscience over social issues.32 One of the chapters, recorded by Jim Douglass, concerns the actions of numerous Christians who protested the so-called “White Train,” a freight train that arrived at the Trident submarine base in Bangor, Washington.33 This train carried nuclear materials; if the group prevented it from moving, they would be able to prevent some of the worldwide build-up of nuclear weapons as well as witness to the peace call of the gospel. The community statement adopted by the Agape Community, which sought through nonviolent means to monitor and resist the nuclear train, was as follows: “We believe the spiritual force capable of both changing us and stopping the arms race is that of agape: the love of God operating in the human heart.”34
After months of garnering forces and devising plans, the Agape Community began a series of vigils to protest the White Train. Some were arrested for getting too close to the train (an understandable law), others for kneeling on the tracks to prevent the train’s progress (another understandable law), and others for sitting in front of the gates at the Bangor plant (again, understandable). The story is a moving testimony to the faith and vigilance of a group of Christians who believed that nuclear build-up destroys lives. Christians who sit by, without at least reflecting on the morality of this kind of governmental activity, are not fulfilling their duty to live according to God’s will. And it just may be that many Christians sit idly by, without reflection, because they refuse to live first for the kingdom and instead choose first to live according to their social agenda. Whatever one thinks of nuclear pacifism, the work of these Christians represents in my mind a clear example of civil disobedience, with serious consequences, for the sake of the gospel.35
So far I have focused on the “disobedience” side of submission. What about the “obedience” side? First, I reiterate that many social organizations and many “goods” of our society are the result of Christian activity and of Christian obedience to governmental authorities. As a rule, Christians today are good citizens, and I know of few accusations today that Christians are prone to being bad citizens. While the first-century Christians may have keenly felt the temptation to turn the tables over and pursue a revolution, that is hardly the accusation made against Christians in the Western world today.
Second, Christians ought to be known for their respect and evenhanded work in governmental and political actions. Sadly, this is not how they are always known today. Many Christians who are candid about their faith and political action are also known for being obstreperous in their political action. Too often the Christian right is disrespectful of the left. I have heard far too many nasty, even unchristian, remarks about political parties in power that differ with the Christian right wing. And I suppose that the same kind of remarks are made about politicians of the other variety by those on the opposite side. We must remember that Peter’s remarks were in the context of showing respect for all people, regardless of their partisan politics (2:17). I regret my connections with both sides of this moral flaw: We as Christians ought to be known for our respect of the government, even when we disagree.
I call to our attention once again the work of Stephen Carter, who as a moderate liberal (I think that description fits his platform) is praised for his evenhandedness, irenicism, and respect. His approach ought to characterize all Christian political activity.36 In fact, we ought to recall that Peter’s remarks for respect came out of a situation very unlike ours: His churches were being hounded at times because of their faith. To be respectful in that context only puts our lack of respect toward governmental authority and process in bolder relief.
Third, our motivation for political activity needs to be set in the context of our mission as a church. Too often political activity by Christians seems to have so little Christian motivation that it betrays what we are all about. Our first task is to glorify God by bringing the good news of the gospel of the kingdom to bear on our world. If our political activity is not drenched in that motivation and is instead only slightly stained (work as hard as possible to appear nonreligious and acceptable) by the message of the kingdom, then we are denying the purpose of our existence. Peter motivated the churches to good actions in their world so that they would declare forth the good news of God and demonstrate his goodness and glory, in the hope that others would want to become Christians. He did not exhort them to do good for some altruistic motive. Far too often Christians are involved, or at least get involved, to protect their own investments or to accumulate more power for themselves. These are not worthy motives for those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ and the pattern of the apostles.
In saying this, however, I do not want to sound like I think every action has to have an evangelistic motive. Sometimes our decisions are made on the basis of what we think it means to be good citizens. We do not vote to witness; we vote because we care and because that it is what it means to be a citizen. There is a time for the Christian to “practice random acts of kindness,” and there is a time to witness. My concern is that, no matter what we do, we do all in the context of offering ourselves to God and in the context of attempting to bring glory to him.
Finally, Peter shows us that the Christian’s relationship to the government is ultimately not a final relationship. Christian are free because they have been redeemed. The state’s authority over the them is secondary, and their submission to the state is secondary to their submission to the Lord. Christians are to be good citizens because they are obedient to the Lord, not good Christians because they are obedient to the state.
Jonathan Edwards, long forgotten for his university presidency and his brilliant philosophical analysis, is mostly remembered for his famous sermon entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” In the midst of a busy intellectual life, Edwards fashioned a theory for the relationship of the Christian to public life. Gerald R. McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College (Salem, Virginia), summarizes six points of Edwards’ theology of public life for the Christian.37 In my judgment, Edwards clearly perceived how we are to operate today—a perception also consistent with Petrine teaching. His six points are as follows:
(1) Christians have a responsibility to society beyond the walls of the church. Christians must break through the tendency to isolationism that has at times characterized the church.
(2) Christians should not hesitate to join forces with non-Christians in the public square to work toward common moral goals. While I generally agree with Edwards here, we must also keep in mind the need to establish our principles and to refuse to compromise in areas that are fundamental to Christian truth. But cooperation is critical and isolationism is to be avoided.
(3) Christians should support their governments but be ready to criticize them when the occasion demands. Once again, we find here the cautious respect that Peter invites but also the willingness to speak against policies when conscience demands.
(4) Christians should remember that politics is comparatively unimportant in the long run. Many Western Christians have gotten off the path at this point. The Christian’s responsibility is first to his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and then, and only then, to his government. Too many have confused the two responsibilities. Peter looked forward to a day when Jesus Christ would return, and he knew at that time the Roman empire would dissolve into the kingdom of God and that final kingdom would not tolerate geographical or power distinctions. No matter how much we respect our government, we should respect the church even more.
(5) Christians should beware of national pride. In the history of the church there has never been a truly Christian nation. Until that does occur (and we have reason to doubt that it ever will), we are obliged to put our pride on the back burner and put our trust in the kingdom of God, which transcends national borders. I have taught with people from New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, and Great Britain; we have students who come from every corner of the globe. In such a context, to focus on national pride would be an affront to others’ consciences. The gospel of Christ levels us all into an international community of those who follow Christ, and that church deserves our allegiance. I believe in the “holy, catholic church,” and in so confessing I confess also that national pride is secondary.
(6) Christians should care for the poor. Such a point cannot be dismissed lightly, for it reveals an attitude of mercy toward those in need and encompasses more than financial help on bad days. It means that Christians ought to help, and ought to want to help, those who are in need, whatever those needs are. Furthermore, they ought to extend this desire into a plan for the government to help. If God is a God of compassion and mercy, then Christians ought to reveal that compassion and mercy to those they meet. Moreover, Christians ought to work for compassion and mercy to be written into the fabric of their society.
Jonathan Edwards died in 1758, over two hundred years ago. Although his ideas need adjustment because of changes (just as Peter’s ideas do), we can see in him a thoroughly biblical approach to the way Christians should live in society. Edwards himself was a sterling example of such a life, and, happily, many who follow his teachings have been noble witnesses to Christian citizenship. Christians who live in today’s world will need special insight, drawn from Peter and others, if they are to live before God faithfully and draw others to him.
Yet we should always remember that at times, the believing citizen and noncitizen may be able neither to obey nor to disobey. Instead, suffering is the only option, if indeed that can be called an option. The Christian is called to follow Jesus, and Jesus himself knew that his path was one that led to the cross. Those who follow him sometimes end up with him at the Golgotha of their own suffering. Peter’s next section incorporates suffering as one potential risk for Christians who live obediently in an alien society.