At the Christianity and National Security Conference, John Scott Redd Jr. spoke about the Reformed tradition’s views on statecraft. The following is a transcript of the lecture. 

Thank you, Mark. It’s an honor to be here with you all this afternoon. To manage expectations, I am a biblical theologian, trained in ancient languages and texts, and will approach this topic from a reformed biblical theological perspective. I’ll discuss not national security per se but rather the idea of national integrity or legitimacy as a foundation for national security. Though not a stranger to national security, I was raised in a military family. My father, a flag officer, was part of the group that negotiated Saudi Arabia’s protection from Iraq during the first Gulf War, alongside figures like Secretary Wolfowitz. Discussions about the legitimacy of such actions were common in my household, especially considering our Christian faith. This background has informed my studies as a biblical theologian, prompting me to explore the theological or biblical foundation for matters like national security.

In this space, Christians often start with policy platforms and find Bible verses to support their conclusions. As a biblical theologian, I ask: if we begin with scripture, what foundational teachings inform our understanding of statecraft, religious liberty, and national security? I want to start with a quote from Arthur Schlesinger in The Vital Center (1949): 

“We look upon our epoch as a time of troubles, an age of anxiety. The grounds of our civilization, of our certitude, are breaking up under our feet, and familiar ideas and institutions vanish as we reach for them, like shadows in the failing dusk.” 

Written in 1949, we might find it quaint that he thought things were slipping away then, but it prompts us to examine the institutions we grasp. What is our rootedness, particularly as Christians? What foundational ideas inform these institutions? Are they truly vanishing, or can they endure?

I’ll focus on four major issues: divine kingship and the image of God, creation theology, the final judgment, and the commandment to love God and neighbor. For Christians, every ethical question begins with the character of God. Christian ethics—whether Deuteronomy 6’s “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength,” the Ten Commandments, or the idea of disadvantaging oneself for the sake of others—flows from God’s character. Scripture teaches that God’s character calls for human response. Genesis 1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This act of creation is a kingly task. In the ancient world, kings built and established dominion, as seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Nebuchadnezzar’s building campaigns. Similarly, God builds His palace—the heavens and the earth—and places His image, humanity, within it. The Bible forbids graven images because God has already provided His image in humanity.

After creating humans in His image, God commands them to fill the earth and subdue it, using kingly language. Imago Dei often emphasizes human dignity, but it’s more than that. Imago Dei encompasses humanity’s vocation to rule and steward creation, from children building with blocks to statecraft. The work of national security, therefore, is not merely about protecting interests but fulfilling the kingly duty to bring life-giving order to the world. John Calvin said, “We are not to consider that men merit of themselves, but to look upon the image of God in all men, to which we owe all honor and love.” This applies not only to fellow citizens but to all nations. Herman Bavinck noted that humans don’t merely bear the image of God—they are the image of God. Being human means embodying God’s image. The complexities of national security reflect the complexity of humanity, yet this work is a high calling, reflecting the divine king.

Now, creation theology. Over the past 50 years, theologians have reaffirmed the connection between creation and redemption. British theologian Gordon McConville asserts that salvation is not separate from creation but its restoration. Paul refers to salvation as “new creation,” indicating a restoration of how things ought to be. In the Bible, creation is infused with God’s character and values. Wisdom literature, such as Proverbs, illustrates that creation reveals God’s wisdom. Proverbs advises learning from creation: “Go to the ant, you sluggard.” Creation reflects God’s goodness and remains good, even under the burden of sin. God’s mighty works of judgment and redemption often impact creation, as seen in earthquakes, a darkened sky at the crucifixion, and the resurrection of saints.

Paul states in Romans 1 that God’s invisible attributes are evident in creation, which longs for redemption. Creation reflects divine harmony, providing a framework for statecraft. Our role is not to bend creation to our will but to steward it according to God’s design.

Third, the final judgment. For Christians, the certainty of final judgment shapes how we engage in statecraft. This is not merely about evildoers receiving punishment but about God’s justice prevailing. At Sinai, when Moses asks to see God, God reveals the “after part” of His goodness. He proclaims Himself as merciful and gracious, abounding in mercy but also just. God’s justice ensures protection for the oppressed, as seen in His response to the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah. Rebellion against God leads to oppression, but God’s justice protects the vulnerable. In statecraft, this means our actions must align with God’s justice, knowing we will be held accountable.

Finally, Deuteronomy 6 commands us to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and strength. This encompasses our entire existence—our inner self, body, and estate. Our political, military, intellectual, and relational capital should serve God’s glory. As Christians in statecraft, we must use these gifts to honor God and those made in His image. Our faith shapes every aspect of life, including our work in national security. Hermann Bavinck writes, “Scripture is the book of the kingdom of God, not for one people or individual alone, but for all nations and humanity. It is not for one age but for all times. Scripture must be brought into relationship with all human living.”

Thank you.

Q&A

What’s the rule? Do you just ask from where you are? Go ahead. That’s okay; I’ll repeat it.

Question: [Undetected]  

Answer: At every point you’re reading scripture, you have to be mindful. Let me add another part. The question was, do we look merely at current history or also at ancient history, or the history in which the text was written? Let me add, there are three spheres you’re always looking at—at any text, but especially with scripture. You can’t just read it and say, “I’m going to apply this right into the first Gulf War,” without thinking through some adjustments. This is a good question. I teach at a seminary overseas with students from the Mediterranean base, including Egyptian students. We were working through Noah’s cursing of Canaan, the son of Ham, and suddenly, all these hands fly up. Usually, this is a boring part of the class, but now everyone’s engaged. It raised the question: what do you do if you live in countries mentioned in these curses or blessings? Isaiah has a list of curses about Egypt, naming neighborhoods where my students lived. They asked, “What do we do with this?” You’re right—you can’t just take that and say, “If Thebes is cursed in Isaiah, it must be cursed today,” or Alexandria.  

When you’re looking at any text, including biblical text, remember when reading a story—like Moses on the mountain with the cleft—there are several layers. First, there’s the event described in the book. Then, there’s the writing about the event. In this case, it’s in Exodus. Depending on your view of Exodus’s authorship, I argue for essential Mosaic authorship. It’s being written for an Exodus community, explaining God’s nature to those wandering in the desert or preparing for conquest. So, you have the content of the story—whether Abraham and Sarah or Moses. Then, you consider how that content is used in its story. Finally, you ask, “What does this mean for me now?”  

One of my professors used a great image: the Bible is a window, a painting, and a mirror. It’s a window into the events of the story. It’s a painting, where you can examine texture and authorship. And it’s a mirror, reflecting on us. A full reading of scripture engages all three levels. You must make adjustments; don’t just pull scripture out of the ancient world and apply it without consideration of your time.

Question: When you look at scripture, from what I understand, the specific context involves a fairly isolationist, homogenous group. How do you apply that from a Reformed perspective to a culture like ours, which is very different and values diversity, not separateness?  

Answer: The question is, when dealing with ancient Israel, particularly, you’re dealing with a very isolationist, separatist group. The word “holy” means “set apart.” Israel was a special, internally focused community protecting its purity. How do we apply that to today, where the goal isn’t to isolate but engage?  

First, you’re right—context matters. That’s why you can’t apply Old Testament civil law directly today. Christ and Paul make adjustments. Paul, for example, applies Old Testament capital punishment crimes to excommunication from the church. That’s important to consider in interpretation.  

I’d add this: a close reading of the Old Testament reveals Israel as isolationist in specific contexts, like during the conquest. During the conquest, those in the land were under the “ban” decreed in Genesis 15, where God delayed giving Israel the land because the Amorites’ sin wasn’t yet full. When the conquest happened, it was a just act for that time.  

But if you examine Israel’s interaction with nations outside the land—bordering nations like Edom and others—the instructions are more diplomatic. Deuteronomy (I think Deuteronomy 20, but I’d have to check) outlines rules for nations outside the land. You start with diplomacy. If diplomacy fails and aggression continues, only then is force considered.  

I’d argue that Israel was called to friendly diplomatic relations with surrounding nations and even to expand its influence through diplomacy. The “ban” during the conquest is unique, but most Old Testament rules for Israel’s international conduct are reasonable and offer principles for today.  

Thank you all.