When you think of a Baptist church, you likely think of potlucks, people sitting in the back rows, and the large variety of people who gather under the name Baptist.

Unfortunately, the one thing you likely never think of is a robust political theology. 

For decades, leading Baptist theologians, ethicists, and pundits have maintained what’s effectively a “neutral view” of the public square, often refusing to engage in crucial political and cultural matters from an unapologetically Christian perspective. To make matters worse, when some of our leading Baptist political figures do get involved, they seem to cause more harm than good.

This lack of a political footprint is no coincidence. With the rise of easy-believism and the gospel-centered movement, teachings on the law have largely vanished, leaving generations of Baptists raised in churches that do not emphasize the law and the gospel. 

If the church does not understand the law of God, then how can we expect them to understand the law of man? 

Or to put it another way, if you do not understand how the law and gospel work together, then you likely will never understand the relationship between the church and the state. 

In Matthew 22:21, Jesus instructs the Pharisees to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. This phrase, spoken by our Lord in response to paying taxes, has been a staple of Christian political thought for centuries. Any time a conflict between the church and the state arises, this passage is cited. While Scripture is our ultimate authority, this passage does not answer every question regarding political theology. Questions such as “When is it no longer biblical to submit to Caesar?” or “At what point is a nation, money, law, or society no longer Caesar’s?” are left unanswered. 

To best address these questions, Christians need to consider the entirety of Scripture and the extensive history of Protestant political thought. 

It is clear from Scripture that Christ commissioned the church to carry out His mission of calling all people to repentance (Matthew 28). Additionally, Paul explains in Romans 13 that the state is both ordained and authorized by God. There is little doubt that, since God establishes both institutions, they should (and must) exist and be for our good. 

It is less clear how these two institutions operate together. Does the church have authority over the state? Does the state have authority over the church? Do they have differing degrees of authority in different realms? Christians have asked these questions for years, yet sound answers seem scarce in modern Baptist publishing, as both the church and evangelicalism have failed to establish a robust, thoroughly biblical political theology. As a result, the political nature of America has worsened, and the church has quickly found itself disorganized and disunited in the political arena.

Recent battles over hot-button issues such as transgenderism, abortion, and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted how important it is for Christians, and particularly Baptists, to recover a robust and biblical political theology. 

While the “pandemic” may not really qualify as a pandemic, it served (and still serves) as a powerful case study of the problems with the church’s current political theology. Until the “pandemic”, the line between church and state was seldom crossed.  That was until, out of fear of causing widespread sickness and death, numerous governing agencies recommended the closure of businesses, churches, and all gatherings of more than ten people. While the majority of government entities strongly recommend closing, others went as far as to demand that churches close their doors and refrain from gathering their congregations. 

These regulations placed the church’s obedience to Christ into direct conflict with the state’s orders. 

Pastors across the nation were forced to decide: either close their churches and meet online, or disobey the state. Some Christians argued that the government was operating within its bounds and encouraged submission to the state and compliance with lockdown orders that prohibited gatherings for church. Others believed that such demands were unmerited and fell outside the scope of the government’s authority. 

As a result of these debates, churches and pastors were forced to address the issues surrounding political theology in ways they hadn’t before. Pastors who had largely neglected politics quickly found themselves becoming civics students and teachers. In the aftermath of this pandemic, an interest in political theology has grown, and the debate between submission and rebellion remains. 

Due to the ongoing debate, an examination of Biblical principles and historical Protestant political thought is needed. The church remains at the forefront of the culture, and despite its best efforts, it cannot avoid interaction with the state. However, the scope and extent of its interaction must be clearly articulated for future generations. Perhaps the best way to think about the relationship between the church and the state is the same way Christians think about the law and the gospel. 

The Law 

According to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Old Testament Law can be divided into three sections.¹ 

The first is the ceremonial, or the law governing how ceremonies and religious events were conducted. The second is the civil law, which establishes guidelines for punishments and judicial responses to wrongdoing. The last division is known as the moral law, which encompasses God’s objective moral standard codified in the Ten Commandments. 

Theologian John Calvin explained that the moral law is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their lives agreeably to the will of God.²

Each of these divisions served a specific role in Israel’s orderly operations. The king or ruler of the nation enforced the civil law, and the Priest oversaw the ceremonial laws. Both of these divisions were based on the moral law and remained active until the death of Christ, after which they were fulfilled. Despite being fulfilled by Christ, these divisions still exist. However, instead of applying directly to the nation of Israel, the general equity of these laws now applies to every nation. Since the New Covenant is a universal covenant comprising the elect (Hebrews 8:10) from every nation, the specifics of these divisions have evolved. 

Now, under the New Covenant, each nation establishes and governs its people by a particular set of civil laws. Similarly, with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), the ceremonial law is now governed by individual churches as they institute the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Although the ceremonial and civil laws are no longer binding, the moral law remains in effect. 

It is God’s moral law that serves as the basis for how the church and state govern their specific spheres. 

The church is to carry out Christ’s mission by planting churches in every nation. Similarly, the state is ordained to wield the sword by punishing those who disobey its laws. While the church governs spiritual matters, the state governs judicial and public matters. 

The state’s role as a sword wielder is vitally crucial, as not every man in a nation is regenerate and possesses a different level of understanding of God’s Law.

 Political theologian Johannes Althusius put it this way: “There are different degrees of this knowledge and inclination. For law is not inscribed equally on the hearts of all. The knowledge of it is communicated more abundantly to some and more sparingly to others, according to the will and judgement of God. Whence it is that the knowledge of this law may be greater in some than others. Nor does God urge or excite all persons to obedience of this law in the same manner and to an equal degree. Some men exert themselves more strongly, others less so, in their desire for it.”³

Since God has sovereignly chosen to restrain the evil of man in differing ways, the state needs to wield the sword when necessary. At the same time, the church is pointing people to Christ, instructing believers and unbelievers in the moral law of God, and urging its people to be active in the state. 

Although the mission of the state and the church differ, this does not mean they should be separate. God ordains both to carry out His plan of redemption.

The Use of the Law

Before exploring the relationship between the church and the state in further detail, it is essential to examine how the law is applied in society. Again, according to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, the moral law has three primary uses. 

First, it exposes the sinfulness of man. Second, it restrains man’s innate desire to sin. Lastly, the law reveals the character of God and serves as a guide in man’s life. As man fails to live up to God’s standards, the law points them to the only man to ever keep the law, the God-man himself.⁴

Understanding the threefold use of the law is valuable not only for presenting the gospel and pointing people to Christ. It can also help Christians understand the relationship between the church and the state. By viewing the law as the state and the gospel as the church, Christians can see how both spheres work together to bring about God’s glory. 

The church is given the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:19, and the state is said to have the authority to wield the sword in Romans 13. Due to these distinct roles, Christians have often argued that a clear separation exists between each sphere. 

In speaking on the role of the state, John Calvin stated, “The magistrate is God’s vice regent, the father of his country, the guardian of the laws, the administer of justice, the defender of the church.”⁵ Calvin further explains, “But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the civil government are things very widely separated.”⁶

Calvin’s statements are often used to argue that the church should avoid matters involving the culture and the state. This has led to some Christians arguing for a radical separation in which neither entity is involved in any way with the other. 

Though popular, proponents of this view seem to misunderstand Calvin. A few pages after writing about this separation, Calvin wrote, “Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men.”⁷ 

After arguing for a separation between the spiritual kingdom of God and the physical kingdom of man, Calvin asserts that no government can be successful unless it is established on religion. 

Although Calvin sees a clear distinction between the roles of the state and the church, he does not envision a separation of God and the state. In other words, Calvin believes that a working relationship between the church and the state is necessary. Although the state wields the sword and punishes wrongdoers, it is God who establishes what is right and wrong. Therefore, any law enforced by the state must not conflict with God’s moral law. 

In the same way that the law points man to the gospel, the state points people to the church. The laws of an individual country are used in the same manner as God’s law. When a country establishes laws, it dictates certain morals to its citizens. By restricting the evil of man, revealing wrongdoings, and guiding the citizens in what the state deems a proper life. 

Like God’s law, the law of the state is insufficient to restore a person to a right relationship with their Creator. Though the law may restrain the evilness of man, it does not change man. A citizen who chooses not to murder in fear of repercussions still desires to murder. These wicked desires are still present and, unless dealt with, will fester and grow. 

This is where the use of the church is vital, although the state cannot address these spiritual matters, Scripture can. The church can offer counsel, provide witness, and offer hope to those dealing with spiritual turmoil. Instead of looking to the government for spiritual hope, citizens should be directed to the gospel, and there is no better place to be introduced to it than through the preaching and teaching of the local church.

Furthermore, the church acts as a buffer between the state and its citizens. Since the law of God dictates what is right and wrong, it is the church’s job to instruct the state. As the state creates laws, the church should chastise what is evil and praise what is good. 

A great example of this is abortion; the church cannot and should not stand by while the state authorizes the slaughtering of unborn human beings. The church should utilize its status and God-given authority to rebuke wicked leaders and collaborate with other churches to remove corrupt individuals from political offices. 

Conclusion

As a Baptist, I have no problem arguing that all of the state’s laws should be based on the moral law of God. This means that political engagement is a necessity for all Christians. For if a nation’s laws are not based on the law of God, the church must stand up and denounce them as unjust laws. 

Althusius put it this way, “For there is no civil law, nor can there be any, in which something of natural and divine immutable equity has not been mixed. If it departs entirely from the judgment of natural and divine law, it is not to be called law.”⁸ 

In other words, it is the duty of the state to create laws that remind man that everyone is subject to God’s law. And it is the duty of the church to guide the state and its citizens into a proper understanding of God’s law, how they fall short, and how they need the grace and forgiveness offered in the gospel.

The church and the state are not enemies; although they have different roles, both should work together in society to uphold God’s laws and to glorify Him in everything. 

The laws of a nation should drive its citizens to the knowledge of God. The church in every nation should teach its members how to honor, respect, and, when necessary, rebuke the state. God ordained that both exist in society; he gave each a role, and they must fulfill that role to the best of their abilities.

1. Stan Reeves, The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English, (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2017), 43-44. ↩︎
2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 979. ↩︎
3. Johannes Althusius, Politica, (Carmel, Indiana: Liberty Fund, 1995), 140. ↩︎
4. Reeves, The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English, 44. ↩︎
5. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1001. ↩︎
6. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 970. ↩︎
7.  Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 975. ↩︎
8. Althusius, Politica, 72. ↩︎