Perhaps the clearest strand of the Reformed tradition has been saying "yes" both to government as a human institution and to participation in government. The biblical basis is found in Romans: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1). The forms of governance that humans develop are seen as extensions of God's governance of the world. While the authority of government is clearly derivative, it is at the same time necessary. The role of government, according to Paul's argument, is the punishment of bad conduct and the promotion of good. The Christian citizen or subject should thus respect, support and obey governmental authority.

The time of the Reformation was an era of turmoil for governments as well as for the church. As the church in Western Europe broke apart, questions about the relationship of church and state and of the Christian as citizen became important theological and ethical issues. A variety of approaches were taken. Some held to the belief that God had established both state and church in such a way that loyalty to one was loyalty to the other: the monarch was God's agent on earth, and it was the monarch's duty to enforce true religion as well as civil order. Others came to think that state and church were separate entities which existed in two very different spheres and that Christians, of necessity, lived in two rather distinct worlds simultaneously. Yet others believed that the call to be Christian entailed a call to live apart from the world and the evil that was so prevalent in it. Thus, Christians should refuse public (and especially military) service.

Reformed Christians differed from each of these alternatives. It is noteworthy that each of the three Reformation-era confessions in the Book of Confessions has a section devoted to the "civil magistrate." Each begins with the theme of Romans 13:1 (in the words of the Scots Confession): "We confess and acknowledge that empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities are appointed and ordained by God; the powers and authorities in them ... are ordained by God's holy ordinance for the manifestation of his own glory and for the good and well-being of all men" (C-3.24). Government and those in authority are seen as part of God's own presence for order (and thus for good) in human society. The first duty of Christians is the loyal support of both the institution and persons in office.

Saying 'Yes'

As forms of government began to evolve in the seventeenth century, the Westminster Confession went a step further. Not only was it a Christian duty to support government, it could also be a Christian calling to serve in government: "It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth ... (C-6.18). It is from this statement that the notion of public service as a calling from God arises. Here, also, is the root of any participation in the political process.

The first thing that the Reformed tradition has to say is "yes" to the institution of government and to involvement in public life. The Christian faith cares about what happens in the communities and nations because it is precisely through human organizations and institutions that God is at work for God's purposes. Christians are called to serve those purposes of justice and peace (what the "Great Ends of the Church" call "social righteousness") by participation in public life.

Support for government is not unqualified, however. The traditional "yes" to public life and to the institutional forms of governance is qualified by a distinctive "no." Here the Reformed tradition differs both from Christians who would never criticize legal authority and from those who would absent themselves from public participation entirely.

Saying 'No'

The grounds for "saying no" (or being critical of governmental policies or specific leaders) begins at the same place as for "saying yes." Political institutions derive their authority from God's authority. But precisely because they are derivative, they remain subject to God's purposes and designs. The Reformed tradition does not simply support rule for the sake of rule. Governments and governance are accountable to God and are to be judged by their adherence to the standards God sets for the well-being of society.

Although the Reformation-era confessions are adamant in condemning rebellion and sedition (since as "protestors" in religion they were often accused of being disloyal to various monarchs), they leave the door open for criticism of and even disobedience to government. For example, the Scots Confession's paragraph on the magistrate concludes with these words: "We further state that so long as princes and rulers vigilantly fulfill their office, anyone who denies them aid, counsel, or service, denies it to God ..." (C-3.24; emphasis added). While the purpose of the sentence is to condemn disloyalty the qualifying clause has vast consequences. The "yes" to government is given so long as government does the job God calls it to do.

The root of this notion that rulers are accountable to God for the right conduct of their office is amply attested in the Hebrew scriptures. Again and again, the prophets took on monarchs and religious authorities when they violated the terms of the covenant God made with Israel. Sometimes the accusation is personal--that is, against an individual action of the monarch--such as Nathan's confrontation of David for the sins of adultery and murder (cf.2 Sam.12). Sometimes the prophet issues a general critique of both society and its rulers: "Thus says the Lord: for three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals--they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way ..." (Amos 2:6-7).

Setting Limits

In modern times, the question of Christian response to and support of government has again come to the fore with the rise of totalitarian governments and with the serious moral issues presented by modern warfare. When the "Confessing Christians" in Germany wrote the Theological Declaration of Barmen, they were not addressing the government or governors directly. They were addressing the church and warning that the church was in danger of "becoming an organ of the State" (C8.24). The foundation of Barmen is once again the idea of God's sovereignty (here stated as the Lordship of Christ). Not only does the state err when it claims ultimate allegiance or absolute obedience; the church errs when it gives such allegiance to any but God.

The Confession of 1967 also addresses the church and not "the magistrate," but in so doing it sets out significant guidelines for how Christians should act as citizens in the political process. Here the theological foundation is the concept of the "ministry of reconciliation." One issue is warfare and global violence. C-67 urges the church to "practice forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace. This search requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding" (C-9.45). Many will recall the strenuous debate surrounding the words "even at risk to national security." Such ethical guidance when the Cold War was still a prominent factor in international politics was a bold statement.

In both examples, the "yes" of the Christian to government is qualified by claims about how Christians should understand the limits of government and how governments and citizens should act in the world. Support of government or public policies is and must be weighed by ethical commitments that grow out of our understanding of the biblical tradition. Sometimes this will mean criticizing a specific public action or policy. Sometimes it may mean "saying no" to government when it requires or permits behavior contrary to Christian principles.

Seeking Common Ground

A third way of understanding the approach of Reformed Christians to government, governance and participation in political life is the search for "common ground." The belief that government is part of the good ordering of human life (even though a particular government might be unjust or oppressive) and that Christians should respond to God's call to public service lays the foundation for the notion that Christians are to work with fellow citizens (even those who differ from them in basic faith) for the common good.

The confessional base for this is found in the Brief Statement of Faith. The third main section describes the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers and the church. It states that the Spirit "gives us courage" (along with "unmasking idolatries in church and culture") to "work with others for justice, freedom and peace" (C-10.4). The use of the word "others" is quite intentional and was discussed at length by the drafting committees. It does not say "other Christians" or others who may be like-minded, but simply "others." This suggests that Reformed Christians should be actively seeking out any and all who can come together around the things that make for a whole society. We should be bridge- builders and architects of common ground.

Such a stance is in stark contrast to those who are dedicated to single-issue politics, whether the issue be gun control or the right to bear arms, abortion rights or criminalization of abortion. Issues need strong advocates, and lobbyists (whether professional or citizen-based) often need to specialize. But complete dedication to one issue makes it difficult to see larger pictures and difficult to find within various issues ways toward common ground.

The search for common ground is not simply the search for compromise as a means to end conflict. For the Christian, common ground will have a certain content to it. We are called to seek the good of all because of our conviction that part of God's vision for God's human creatures is life in community that builds up, sustains and enhances human life. Therefore, our search for common ground will include the search for those things that make human life more humane.

Our Baseline Commitment

Christians (among others) will probably suggest that the goodness of a society can and should be judged by how that society cares for its more vulnerable members, including children, the elderly and especially the poor. Reformed Christians may advocate that the care of such persons is not simply a matter for personal or even ecclesiastical philanthropy, although it certainly is that. Our tradition would suggest that care for those in need is something the society as a whole should provide through its civic structures. For us, this is an outgrowth of the vocation of "magistrate" (or politician or public servant) to build up the "commonwealth"--the common good of society.

The approach of Reformed Christians is not a simple matter. Although the base of our response is affirmation of government, the work of governance and participation in public life, the question of a specific response will depend on the context. It will depend on the nature of the governmental system itself (whether it is a democratic or totalitarian system) as well as the nature of the issues. New occasions often do teach new duties. The task of both individuals and the church corporately is to seek together to discern God's call in the midst of pressing issues of the day. For Reformed Christians, the challenge is to hold fast to our traditional claim that it is precisely in the midst of intense debate and even political maneuvering that God is at work on God's designs.