Question: According to Scripture and Christian tradition, what is the appropriate relationship between church & state? Is it best for governments to be non-affiliated with any religion, while giving freedom of religion to all? Or is it better to aim for a “Christian nation”? Also, how should Christians act toward a government that is hostile to their faith? And, depending on what kind of government exists, should Christians seek to serve in political office? Should they serve in the military?
Of the three possibilities listed above (secular government, Christian government, and anti-Christian government), most nations in our world today, including our own, aim to be in the first category. Here in the US, we are in the odd position of being a country that has a distinctly Christian tradition while also holding to a non-religious government that allows freedom of religion for all. Thus, Christians often feel threatened on both sides: if we’re told that we can’t say prayers at school, we feel betrayed by a government that used to have strong Christian roots; however, if it were suggested that schools start using Christian prayers as well as Muslim and Buddhist prayers, we would feel just as uneasy about that. Even after 2000 years of Christian history, it’s hard to find a balance on this issue that feels right. Early Christians faced the same dilemma.
Church & State in the New Testament
- One of the difficulties when facing this question is that the NT only really deals with the third and final possibility—an anti-Christian government, which is what they were facing at the time. The NT gives no direct guidance on how to balance church & state under secular governments, nor even whether it would be a good idea to try to build a “Christian nation.” What it does say is simply to submit to the authorities (except where they transgress the law of God—Romans 13:1-5; Acts 5:29), to pay taxes and give respect to leaders (Rom. 13:6-7), and to pray for one’s rulers (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
- One of the difficulties when facing this question is that the NT only really deals with the third and final possibility—an anti-Christian government, which is what they were facing at the time. The NT gives no direct guidance on how to balance church & state under secular governments, nor even whether it would be a good idea to try to build a “Christian nation.” What it does say is simply to submit to the authorities (except where they transgress the law of God—Romans 13:1-5; Acts 5:29), to pay taxes and give respect to leaders (Rom. 13:6-7), and to pray for one’s rulers (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
Church and State in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries
- From the end of the NT period until the early 300s AD, Christianity flourished quietly. It grew mostly by word-of-mouth and the holy living of Christians, and it did this under an environment that was largely anti-Christian. The Roman Empire was extremely tolerant of other religions, with one exception: religions (like Christianity) that refused to acknowledge the validity of the other cults. (Jews mostly got a pass from the Romans because their religion was an old and deeply-rooted tradition.) Christians suffered severe bursts of persecution, especially in the 250s and early 300s. Those Christians living in Persia suffered a persecution in the 300s even more severe than anything that happened under the Romans.
- From the end of the NT period until the early 300s AD, Christianity flourished quietly. It grew mostly by word-of-mouth and the holy living of Christians, and it did this under an environment that was largely anti-Christian. The Roman Empire was extremely tolerant of other religions, with one exception: religions (like Christianity) that refused to acknowledge the validity of the other cults. (Jews mostly got a pass from the Romans because their religion was an old and deeply-rooted tradition.) Christians suffered severe bursts of persecution, especially in the 250s and early 300s. Those Christians living in Persia suffered a persecution in the 300s even more severe than anything that happened under the Romans.
The Constantinian Revolution (313 AD)
The Reaction of the 4th and 5th Centuries
- A few Christians watched these developments with caution. First, it was troubling how easily Constantine was able to bring imperial power to bear on church disputes. Later emperors would abuse this power, lobbying heavily for their own favorite theological positions. Second, many were not convinced that the wealth and safety that came from being the official church were a good thing for Christians—believers tended to become lax. Third, there was the question of whether Christians themselves should serve in government positions, when the teaching of the NT indicated that Christianity was a kingdom apart from the kingdoms of the world. Based on these concerns, a number of Christians began renouncing wealth and living lives of voluntary poverty, and others refused to serve in the military for fear that doing so would force them to break Christ’s command to love their enemies.
“The Two Swords”
- As time went on, a pattern developed in the middle ages favoring the alliance of powerful governments with the church. This was known as the doctrine of the two swords, taken from the disciples’ exchange with Christ in Luke 22:38. But there were troubling things about life as a “Christian nation”—on the one hand, the governments, being run by fallible humans, were constantly doing non-Christian things (like conquests, massacres, extortion, persecution of other religions, etc.), and on the other, the power and privilege that went with being a church official in such a position often led to severe laxity among clergy.
The Protestant (Anabaptist) Reaction
- By the 16th century, at least one major wing of the new Protestant churches—the Anabaptists—were questioning this union of church and state. They believed that the use of force which was inherent in government made the union of the two sides a mistake. In their eyes, the Constantinian revolution had been “the fall of the church.” They believed they as Christians were citizens of a separate kingdom, and, as a church of peace, that they ought not to serve as soldiers. Their influence helped to lead to the early Baptist position, one of the first groups in the world to promote “the separation of church and state.”
Reflection Questions
- This question is still good food for thought: Does being a soldier mean that you are breaking Christ’s command to love your enemies?
- Given the history of Christianity as a whole, do we really want America to be a “Christian nation” in anything but a majority-religion sense? Already, our way of talking about America as “Christian” has given Muslims a terrible misconception of how Christians live.
- Have we really taken to heart the NT picture of Christianity not just as a faith-choice, but as whole “kingdom” of its own here on earth, with its own distinct loyalties and values?
(Painting by Anthony Van Dyck, "Emperor Theodosius Forbidden by Saint Ambrose to Enter Milan Cathedral," Inset photo by Son of Groucho, statue of Constantine at York Minster, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license)