This is the second installment of a two-part series on whether Christians should seek to establish a Christian government. Part one critiqued the modern Reformed two kingdoms scheme. Here part two provides a positive case for a government based on the teachings of the Bible.

Historical Views of Church-State Relations

The Reformed two kingdoms (R2K) view makes a sharp divide between the church and state, based on their division of the redemptive and common kingdoms. R2K proponents claim to follow the position of the Reformers, but they have instead adopted something more akin to the Anabaptist view of church-state relations. They desire a complete separation of church and state, with the state guided merely by natural law. They seem to favor the modern American version of “separation of church and state,” where religion is kept out entirely of the civil sphere (the position of radical secularism). While R2K advocates still want just and moral laws, it is unclear how natural revelation alone will get them there, especially considering the direction of the experiment of modern secular government.

However, it should be noted that the current practice of American “separation of church and state” is not even the American tradition, for it is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the First Amendment. (The phrase “separation between church and state” was used by Justice Black in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education.) The First Amendment only prohibited a national church, not a state church. Hence, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious.” It says nothing of state constitutions and state legislatures.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began erroneously applying the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) to the states in what is known as the incorporation doctrine (on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment). This is an error, as the Bill of Rights was only supposed to apply to the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to change this. However, in applying the First Amendment to the states, the Court went well beyond the intention of the amendment in regards to Congress. The secularists highjacked the court system and began banning all religion from government. Instead of the separation of church and state, the Court now sought to separate God and religion from the state.

Like many Christians today, R2K proponents are concerned about “theocracy,” which merely refers to “the rule of God.” However, all societies are theocratic in some sense—it is only a question of which god they serve. It is not whether we will have a theocracy, but rather which theocracy we will have. The modern secular West claims to have no religion and no god, but man is a religious being and the secularist objects of worship have become quite apparent (e.g. “equality”). It is impossible for civil government to be religiously neutral.

If we recognize the deficiencies of the R2K position, this does not leave many options to choose from regarding church-state relations. Historically, there have been three other varieties of the relationship of the authority of the church to the state:

The church holds final authority over the state (ultramontane Jesuits),
The state holds final authority over the church (Erastianism),
The spheres of state and church function in their limited capacity according to God’s design (Kuyperian sphere sovereignty).

Scripture seems to teach something akin to the third option, that God has designed the state and church for different purposes. The church is to preach the Word and administer the sacraments (Matthew 28:18-20), while the state is to protect life and property (Romans 13:1-7). This view is consistent with Westminster Confession of Faith 23.3. (Though note the differences between the original and American revision here. Both say the “civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments.” But the original says the magistrate has the “duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.”)

The Necessity of Theocracy—Christian Government

However, in adopting a form of sphere sovereignty, this does not mean that the state is exempt from the Lordship of Christ. If Christ is king over the civil realm (and He is), then we must have a Christian government.

This is not to say we must (or should) have an official state church. While the United States began with state churches (most of the colonies were Anglican or congregational), every state disestablished its state church by 1833 and adopted a practice of “separation of church and state.” Understood properly, this separation means there is no official state church but religion is still applied to the state—not the radical anti-religion version imposed by the Supreme Court in the 1940s.

The separation of church and state does not mean we have a “neutral” state (often called “secular”). Man always worships something, and “secular” government has become code word for atheism and an anti-Christian state. Modern secularist policies in the West have demonstrated to all that neutrality is impossible when it comes to the state’s relationship towards the church.

Yet apart from an official state church, we can still have a Christian government (a theocracy—the rule of God). Doug Wilson has argued for “mere Christendom,” where a state recognizes and submits to the Lordship of Christ but does not have an official state church. In other words, we can have a Christian government without officially endorsing a particular church or denomination (such as Presbyterianism).

Mere Christendom would fit with the historic beliefs of Christians, as a secular state was considered preposterous by most. Prior to the Reformation, the church everywhere sought to influence the civil realm. After the Reformation, the Reformed all believed in some form of theocracy to varying degrees, as did the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics. Only (some of) the Anabaptists rejected theocracy. The Reformed and Lutherans held to a form of two kingdom theology (referring to “this age” and “the age to come”), yet they still advocated theocracy. There has been diversity in practice, but as we have seen, John Calvin wanted a Christian government that enforced the Ten Commandments on citizens.

The key question is this—Does God want a secular government, or does He want a Christian government? The answer seems obvious. God wants people to acknowledge Him, and that includes princes and rulers. God does not want a government that ignores Him or, worse, outright rejects Him. God wants a Christian government.

Laws are Rooted in Religion

In support of the case for theocracy, we must critique the common phrase, “You cannot legislate morality.” Our response should be—what else would you legislate?

All civil laws are rooted in morality, and all morality is rooted in religion. Thus, laws are religious at their root. So why would we limit our moral application to the vague concept of natural law? Scripture speaks clearly on these issues, and it is foolish, if not downright anti-Christian, to leave Scripture out of the discussion.

Moreover, it is this very anti-Christian attitude that has ushered in immoral laws, such as legal abortion and same-sex marriage. Secularists have sought to separate not only church and state, but God and state (and thus religion and state). Religion has been discarded, and natural law along with it. If man can ignore God when it comes to his daily life, he is surely capable of ignoring God when it comes to passing legislation. Hence Paul spoke of man’s “suppression” of God’s revelation (Romans 1:18), which includes natural law and man’s knowledge of God’s law.

That all laws are religious means Christians should seek to apply biblical principles to the civil government. Should the state outlaw abortion? Of course, as abortion is a violation of the 6th commandment, and the state has a duty to protect life. Should the state outlaw theft? Of course, as theft is a violation of the 8th commandment, and the state has a duty to protect property.

The state should also not tax its citizens at exorbitant levels so as to redistribute their property, a violation of the 8th commandment. Should the state regulate marriage? Yes, as this upholds moral order and decency. Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24), and adultery should be punished as a violation of the 7th commandment. (At minimum, adultery should be taken into consideration in divorce proceedings, though courts are moving away from this practice.) This sets a proper example for citizens, as well as protecting spouses and children in cases of divorce, abandonment, and inheritance rights.

Those who want to limit the guide of the state to natural law want to come to biblical conclusions for the state through the use of reason alone. But while reason can aid Christian argumentation, it can also mislead. Hence God has given us the revelation of His Word. And if we have the clearer revelation of Scripture, why would we limit ourselves to reason and natural law?

Can the Church Speak to the State?

The biblical understanding of civil government lends itself towards the Kuyperian understanding of sphere sovereignty. There are different spheres in life (state, church, family), and they have different roles. However, these spheres also relate to each other and have obligations towards one another.

The state is to protect the church and the family, while the family is to submit to the church and state (when they exercise proper authority). When the state does not protect the church, it often turns on the church. Sadly, secular governments have proven historically to be the most dangerous persecutors of the church—Rome, Stalinist Russia, etc.

What about the role of the church? The church should of course instruct the family, at least from the pulpit. But should the church instruct the state? Can the pastor speak to issues of the state from the pulpit?

There have been differences here among Christians historically, with many pastors today avoiding issues of the state. Relevant here is the Reformed doctrine of the “spirituality of the church,” which says that the church is a spiritual entity and should be concerned primarily with that which is spiritual in nature. This teaching is often associated with 19th century Presbyterians such as Charles Hodge and James Henley Thornwell. (It is often dismissed as a doctrine that was used by Southern theologians to justify slavery as a political issue and to keep the church from interfering with the practice. However, some of these theologians actually used the Bible to defend slavery as a legitimate civil institution. They were not opposed to applying the Bible to society when they thought proper.)

Advocates of the spirituality of the church cite Westminster Confession of Faith 31.4:

Synods and councils are to handle, or concern nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

Thus, the spirituality of church teaches that the church (synods and councils) should not take official positions on political doctrines except in special cases. I think this is correct. There are challenges in determining what is “properly spiritual” and “purely political”[1] (phrases that are sometimes used to clarify the doctrine), and it is not spelled out completely as to what qualifies as an “extraordinary” case where a church council should take a stand on a civil issue.

However, there is an important thing that WCF 31.4 does not say. It does not say that individual Christians and even pastors cannot take political positions. And it does not say that a pastor cannot speak to the state. This is because Christians should seek to apply the Bible to all of life, including the political realm. And pastors, as heralds of God’s Word, should apply the Scriptures to the state when appropriate. This even fits Thornwell’s comments on the spirituality of the church—“Beyond the Bible she can never go, and apart from the Bible she can never speak.”[2] If the Bible has something to say about an issue in civil affairs, then the pastor should preach it.

The Great Commission is an important passage for this issue, as Jesus told His disciples:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:18-20).

Jesus does not just claim authority over the church but over heaven and earth, which includes the state. The “nations” (including the state) are Jesus’ “heritage” and “possession” (Psalm 2:8). The question then is how He rules the state. Jesus instructed the Twelve to literally “disciple all the nations” (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) and to do so by “baptizing” and “teaching” (the two participles expounding upon the main verb “disciple”). The disciples were to teach “all” that Jesus commanded them. Whether explicit or implicit, Jesus’ teaching should guide Christians in running a civil government. Civil government falls under Jesus’ reign as king, and the state should be guided by His teachings.

This strikes at one of the significant problems of the R2K doctrine, as it seeks to keep the Bible out of politics and politics out of the pulpit. In contrast to the R2K position, the church has an important role in speaking to matters of the civil realm, particularly those on which the Bible speaks. Pastors today should preach against the injustices of abortion, same-sex marriage, oppressive taxation, unjust weights of government monetary inflation, harmful welfare programs, etc. And they should do so because the Bible has something to say about these matters. If pastors do not apply God’s Word to these issues and speak to the church (and state) about them, who will?

In doing so, pastors are not taking the place of public officials or running the civil government. They are not endorsing specific candidates. However, they are speaking prophetically to the issues of our age. They are instructing Christians how to view civil affairs and vote (including Christians holding civil office), and they are even speaking to those outside the church (just like the Old Testament prophets spoke to the foreign nations, condemning their injustices and calling them to repentance). The Bible has much to say about the wicked practices of our society, including those of civil government. And Christians and citizens will be ill informed if pastors neglect this important prophetic task, as is often the case today. The sheep need shepherds to teach and apply God’s Word, guiding them as they navigate this difficult world. The preaching of the Bible should transform all of life, including the political realm.

Conclusion

Not all of this is simple. Even Christians who agree with the overall thrust of this article will still have disagreements over how to apply the Bible to the civil government. Some think we should enforce the entire Ten Commandments, including blasphemy and adultery laws (this was Calvin’s position), though recognizing these cannot be put in place until we have a more Christianized society.

Others think a Christianized society should enforce the entire Mosaic law, understood in its new covenant context. Advocates of this view, known as theonomy, argue that while the New Testament teaches that ceremonial laws no longer have application for Christians, both the moral and civil laws are still binding and should be enforced. Calvin rejected this position by distinguishing between the moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments and the civil laws particularly situated for Old Testament Israel.[3]

Regardless, while we need not demand a state church, we should seek a civil government that honors Christ as Lord and enforces laws consistent with biblical morality. In other words, we should seek a Christian government. We should seek a theocracy.

If we reject the Reformed two kingdoms position and instead seek to apply the Bible to all of life, including the civil sphere, we will be in a much better place. The church and its leaders have an important role in upholding and demanding a godly civil government. One can only hope they better fulfill this role in the future.

[1] Alan Strange comments: “Here’s the rub: what is moral or ethical, and thus properly spiritual, cannot always readily be separated from what is “purely political.” So many moral issues—slavery being the primary example adduced in this thesis—have so many political ramifications that what is “properly spiritual” and what may be “purely political” is not easily distinguished. One might wonder, then, if the doctrine of the spirituality of the church is essentially useless, dying the death of a thousand qualifications. I believe that it need not: the principle that the church is a spiritual entity bearing spiritual concerns remains a valid concern and consideration. Every decision that the church as church takes needs to be justified in the light of the spirituality of the church, answering positively a question like—does this advance the true spiritual mission of the church?”

[2] James Henley Thornwell, “Relation of the Church to Slavery,” in Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, ed. B. M. Palmer and J. B. Adger, 4 vols. (reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1974), 4:382-4, as quoted in Thompson, Spirituality of the Church, 25. The quote was retrieved here.

[3] Calvin rejected theonomy: “For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain . . . For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere.” Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.16. Elsewhere Calvin says, “There are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is” (Institutes, 4.20.14).