America is not the Kingdom of God. One of the reasons that self-identified evangelicals are so fevered about Trump (both pro and con) is that they do not seem to be able to distinguish between the United States as a civil entity and the Kingdom of God. The visible, institutional church is the embassy of the Kingdom of God to the world. The United States government is a glorious, exceptional experiment (judged by human history) but it is not the Kingdom.
Mark Galli, editor of Christianity Today has published an editorial calling for the removal from office of Donald Trump either by the Senate or at the ballot box. Of course this has provoked considerable reaction, not the least of which has been that of the President himself, whose tweets at the magazine mirror his mocking of the New York Times et al. Carl Trueman has weighed in by acknowledging Trump’s many and manifest moral failures, by praising Galli for his consistency on the matter, and by noting what he calls Galli’s “astounding claim” that it is a matter of “loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments” not to vote for Trump. Trueman writes, “[t]hat is an astounding claim for the editor of Christianity Today to make, for it involves him accusing every Trump voter of heinous sin, however reluctant or conflicted he may be.”
Calvin On The Twofold Government
You should read the editorial and Trueman’s response for yourself but this seems like a good time to point out the value of applying, in our late-modern, post-theocratic context, Calvin’s distinction between the two spheres in the Kingdom of God. He wrote:
Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority (Institutes, 3.19.15 (Battles edition).
When Calvin wrote these words he assumed the righteousness and necessity of a state-church and state-enforced religious orthodoxy. He was not alone. Virtually everyone did, including more than a few Anabaptists (contra the popular assumption). For a variety of reasons, by the late 18th century the American revolutionaries experimented with a different approach, a federal government without a state-church and without state-enforced religious orthodoxy. By the early 19th century the Supreme Court applied the principles of the constitution to the churches supported by some of the states too. For perhaps the first time since the early 4th century, here was a place where churches were free of state-funding and Christian orthodoxy free of civil enforcement.
The Duplex Regimen After Christendom
Since that time, however, lots of Christians have pined for a return to the “good old days.” How different would Christian theorizing and moralizing about politics be, however, if we considered that we live under a twofold government after Christendom? As Trueman writes, Trump’s “ record of infidelity, sleaze, and inappropriate attitudes is well-documented.” What did politics look like, however, when the Evangelicals had a “born-again” President, post-Nixon, of whom they could be proud? Jimmy Carter taught (and still teaches) a Sunday School class in his Baptist congregation in Plains, GA.1 He was presented as a clean-cut paragon of virtue and perhaps, in his personal life, he was. That Sunday School teacher, however, also supported abortion on demand. He is justly praised for his work with Habitat for Humanity. Who has done more for unborn humans? Carter or Trump? There is no population in America more vulnerable than the unborn and yet Carter implicitly denied their humanity even as he expressed his personal discomfort for abortion. When “born-again” Evangelicals voted for for Carter in 1976, were they electing a national Sunday School teacher or the chief executive of the Federal government?
Then, of course, there is the challenge of applying Romans 13:1–7 and related passages (e.g., 1 Peter 2:13, 17; 1 Tim 2:2) to an elected chief executive of a democratic republic. President Trump is not a king nor an emperor. His job is to support and defend the Constitution of the Unites States and to execute faithfully her laws. Still, some fundamental principles seem clear enough. We are to pray for him since, through the electoral process, the Lord has placed him in authority over all of us. We ought to pray for him and we ought to pray that we might be allowed to live quiet and godly lives (as Paul instructs). We ought to honor him in view of his office. We ought to submit to his office and pay taxes according to Romans 13. Both Peter and Paul instruct us to obey the civil laws.
Ross Douthat objects (via Twitter) that in a democratic republic, voters are responsible for the actions of their elected president. This is true to some extent but Americans did not cover up a “third-rate burglary” (Nixon), nor did we lie under oath (Clinton), nor did we make a problematic telephone call to the Ukraine. Our presidents did those things. This is just the thing. James Madison was right in Federalist 51: “ But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Perhaps more than in other forms of civil government, in a democratic republic the government does come to reflect its people. Americans complain (well, they once did) about the way government borrows money but they continue to elect the representatives to congress to continue borrowing money. If it is true that a democratic republic reflects its voters, then that means that, to some degree, we are Trump. We are also Obama and Clinton and Bush etc. It is also true, however, as Madison observed, that we do not have angels governing us. There are no angels on the ballot for whom to vote.