Any of us who watch television or stream on our phones are confronted daily with scenes of danger—danger to individuals and danger to our country. Reports of violence, the winds of war, and attacks on individuals and ethnic groups dominate the media. Commentators debate what is being done and what should be done. We see people in need, yet we also see genuine threats that cannot be ignored. For many Christians, this creates deep uneasiness and an inward sense of conflict.

What are we as Christians to think about all of this? What should Christians think when our nation, or other nations, face danger? Where should our deepest loyalty reside? We live with a real dilemma. We are material beings, living in this created world, yet we are also citizens of a spiritual kingdom that is not of this world. In that sense, we belong to two kingdoms: the nation in which we live and the Kingdom of God. Because of this dual citizenship, we often feel a genuine tension between the two.

As citizens of a nation, it is right to be concerned about national and personal security. It is right to respect governing authorities. It is right to desire justice and protection. But as Christians, we are also bound to obey the teachings of Christ. We are called to pray for our enemies and to long for peace. At the same time, we are aware of the cost and complexity of trying to enact justice in a fallen world.

Perhaps, then, our posture should not be to align ourselves too quickly with any particular party or leader. For Christians, the issues run much deeper. Instead of asking first who is right, we should ask what a Christian ought to think and how a Christian ought to respond when nations or individuals face danger. In a participatory democracy, these questions become even more difficult. We have a voice through elections and freedom of speech, and we may choose to make our views known. That makes the responsibility to think carefully, and Christianly, even greater.

These same pressures to make wise judgments and determine proper actions have existed for centuries. At their core lies a basic reality: the nation-state and the Christian individual have different missions to fulfill. The state and its governing authorities operate within the temporal order of society. Their responsibilities, as outlined in Scripture, include maintaining order, restraining wrongdoing, administering justice, and protecting the community from internal disorder and external threats. Without these functions, society would collapse into chaos and instability.

The mission of the Christian is also clear. Christ came to reconcile people to God and to one another through His sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection. Christians are called to proclaim this gospel as citizens of the Kingdom of God and to live under the authority of divine revelation. Their mission includes obedience to God, proclamation of the gospel, sacrificial love expressed through service to others, and the embodiment of the moral life taught by Christ.

Because these missions are different, Christians have long struggled to discern how to honor the state without compromising obedience to Christ, how to value justice without abandoning mercy, and how to live faithfully when loyalty to nation and loyalty to Christ seem to pull in different directions.

On the personal level, when we have family overseas, as we do, we are concerned for their safety. Many of our friends have served in the military. There is a natural concern for soldiers and their families. Bringing this closer to home, perhaps you have been called, as I have, to serve on a death penalty case on a jury. In our own country, and here in our metropolitan area, violence has taken the lives both of wrongdoers and of those enforcing our laws. Some moral confusion is not surprising. Here is the real dilemma. There are three distinct categories of conflict: (1) direct contradiction, in which the state commands what God explicitly forbids; (2) prohibition of obedience, in which the state forbids what God commands; and (3) competing legitimate missions, in which both the state and the Christian pursue morally defensible goals, but the means or implications conflict. Both (1) and (2) are easily illustrated in biblical texts. When King Nebuchadnezzar commanded the worship of a golden image, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to do so. Daniel himself refused a command forbidding prayer to God.

The tension arises in the third case. When public officials must act, how should Christians respond? Throughout the centuries, renowned theologians have struggled to answer this question. In our modern age, there seem to have been two extremes: (1) withdrawal from all civic duties and keeping quiet individually, and (2) adopting public actions themselves, resulting in movements like the social justice movement. Faithful Christian citizenship in both kingdoms requires more than this.

The questions become these: (1) What are the limits of state power? (2) What are the limits of Christians’ involvement in the mission of the state? (3) When the nation and Christians have competing legitimate missions, is there a biblical framework that can help guide our thinking on how we should react? I submit that how Christians respond to these questions affects us personally and our Christian witness to others. I will address these questions in the following Commentary.