The following was the notes from a Seminar I lead on October 19th 2024, addressing the history of the Christian church's political engagement as well as the Biblical view of government. 

Introduction: 

Welcome to our seminar on the relationship between the Church and politics. We’re glad you’re here. Today, we’ll begin with a foundational truth: God is in control. In a world where political landscapes can seem chaotic, it’s easy to lose sight of this. While the connection between politics and the Bible is complex, we find peace in knowing that God reigns over governments, leaders, and nations. As Proverbs 21:1 reminds us, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”

When we think of politics, we often associate it with conflict and partisanship. But politics is more than debates or elections. At its heart, it’s about how we come together as a community to organize our lives around shared values and justice. God calls us to create order in society for the good of all creation, and political engagement is one way we live out that calling. Everyday concerns, like safe roads and fair laws, are part of this, and in that sense, we are all political.

Disagreements on how to structure society are natural, but healthy political engagement means persuading others and working toward justice that benefits everyone. The Bible offers a model for this through the fruit of the Spirit (love, peace, patience, and self-control) qualities that should guide our actions, even when we disagree.

Consider Israel’s time in Babylon. God didn’t call them to rebel against their political situation but to seek the welfare of the city through faithful, everyday living, building homes, planting gardens, and raising families (Jeremiah 29:4-7). Their engagement was about seeking the common good, a principle that remains relevant for us today.

As Christians, we are citizens of both God’s Kingdom and our earthly nations. Like Israel, we are called to engage with our society while remembering that all authority rests under God’s dominion. Jesus emphasized this balance when He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Politics affects real lives and communities. Our engagement is an opportunity to express love for our neighbors and our nation, always guided by the fruit of the Spirit. Yet, we should avoid extremes, neither obsessing over politics nor completely withdrawing. Our aim is faithful political discipleship, where we prioritize God’s Kingdom while seeking peace, justice, and unity.

In this seminar, we will explore how the Church’s relationship with the state has evolved over time. We’ll discuss what the Bible teaches about government and how to apply these lessons today. We’ll also address common questions about faith and politics. 

---

PART 1 – The History of Church and Politics

The relationship between the Christian Church and secular governments is both long and complex. In this overview, we will focus on the path from the early Christian Church in the first century Roman Empire to modern-day Baptists in America. While Church history in places like Asia, Africa, and South America is important, we won’t explore those regions here. This isn’t because they aren’t important, but simply because covering the Church’s relationship with governments around the world would be too broad for our scope. Instead, we will focus on the most relevant events in this specific historical thread.

This overview will not cover everything but will highlight key moments and significant shifts. The purpose of this section of the seminar is to help us see beyond our current political moment and realize that the Church has always been working to understand its role in politics throughout history.

From Persecuted Minority to State-Sponsored Religion

In the first century of the Roman Empire, Christians were seen as subversive and dangerous. Their refusal to worship the Roman gods and the emperor was viewed not only as a religious offense but also as a violation of Roman civic duty. Religion and politics were deeply intertwined in Roman society, and loyalty to the emperor and the empire was often expressed through participation in state-sanctioned religious practices. By rejecting these rituals, Christians were seen as undermining the social order, and their beliefs were considered a threat to the unity and stability of the empire.

Faced with this hostility, early Christian leaders debated how best to engage with the surrounding culture. Two contrasting views emerged. Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist of the second century, argued that elements of truth could be found in Greco-Roman philosophy. He believed that these philosophical ideas, particularly those of Plato and the Stoics, contained seeds of divine wisdom. According to Justin, these insights could serve as a bridge to the Christian faith, helping to explain the gospel in terms familiar to the pagan world. Justin saw no contradiction in engaging with secular culture to further the spread of Christianity, emphasizing common ground where possible.

In stark contrast, Tertullian, an early Christian writer from North Africa, took a much more separatist stance. He famously asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” to underscore his belief that Greco-Roman culture and philosophy were fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Tertullian saw the surrounding culture as irredeemably corrupt, filled with idolatry and moral decay. He urged Christians to remain separate, pure, and untainted by the influence of the pagan world. For Tertullian, any engagement with secular culture risked compromising the integrity of the faith.

Despite the intellectual debates within the Church, external pressures remained severe. Christians faced periodic waves of persecution, often driven by political leaders who feared their growing influence. The most brutal of these persecutions occurred under Emperor Nero in the first century and Emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century. Nero famously scapegoated Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, leading to widespread executions, including the martyrdom of key figures like Peter and Paul. Diocletian’s persecution, which began in 303 AD, aimed to completely eradicate Christianity from the empire. Churches were destroyed, scriptures were burned, and Christians were imprisoned, tortured, and executed.

Yet, in the face of such relentless persecution, Christianity did not only survive. It flourished. Its message of hope, salvation, and eternal life resonated with a growing number of people across the empire, particularly among the poor and marginalized. By the early fourth century, Christianity had spread so widely that it could no longer be ignored by Roman political leaders.

The turning point came in 312 AD, with Emperor Constantine and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to historical accounts, Constantine had a vision before the battle in which he saw a symbol of the Christian cross accompanied by the words “In this sign, conquer.” After his victory, Constantine credited the Christian God for his success and soon after converted to Christianity. In 313, he issued the Edict of Milan, which granted religious tolerance across the Roman Empire. For the first time, Christians were allowed to practice their faith openly without fear of persecution.

The Edict of Milan represented a monumental shift in the relationship between Christianity and the state. Christianity, once a persecuted minority religion, now gained legitimacy and protection under Roman law. Constantine’s conversion also gave the Church new political clout, as it became aligned with imperial authority. Christian leaders were invited to imperial councils, and the emperor himself played a role in settling theological disputes, most notably at the Council of Nicaea in 325, which sought to address divisions within the Church over the nature of Christ.

This newfound status dramatically transformed the Church’s role in society. By the end of the fourth century, under Emperor Theodosius I, the change was complete. In 380 AD, Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Paganism was gradually outlawed, and the once persecuted Christian Church now stood at the heart of imperial power.

With this shift, the era of “Christendom” began, in which church and state were no longer adversaries but allies. Christianity moved from the fringes of society to a position of immense political influence. Bishops and church leaders found themselves wielding significant power, often advising emperors on matters of state. This new partnership brought opportunities, such as the ability to spread the faith more widely and shape public policy according to Christian values.

However, it also brought challenges. As the Church became more intertwined with the state, it had to navigate the risks of political compromise and corruption. Questions arose about how much influence the state should have in Church affairs and vice versa. The balance between maintaining the spiritual purity of the Church and wielding political power would continue to be a tension throughout the centuries, influencing future debates about the proper relationship between church and state.

Challenges to Christendom

The unity between church and state, which had seemed so strong in the era of Christendom, soon faced a severe test. In 410 AD, a catastrophic event shook the foundation of the Roman Empire and the Christian world: Alaric and his Visigothic forces sacked Rome. This was an unthinkable humiliation for the empire that had long been considered invincible. For many Christians, this event triggered a profound crisis of faith. They had come to see the strength of the Roman Church as inseparable from the power and stability of the Roman Empire. As Rome fell into disarray, so too did the sense of security and permanence that many Christians associated with their faith’s place in the world.

This period of turmoil forced Christians to reconsider the relationship between their faith and the political powers they had come to rely on. It was in the midst of this crisis that Augustine of Hippo penned one of the most influential works in Christian history, “The City of God.” In this book, Augustine redefined the Christian worldview, introducing the concept of two cities: the “City of Man” and the “City of God.” The “City of Man” represented the transient, fragile nature of earthly kingdoms, like Rome, subject to the rise and fall of political fortunes. In contrast, the “City of God” symbolized the eternal, spiritual community of believers, which was not dependent on any earthly power. This vision helped Christians make sense of the chaos around them, especially as the Western Roman Empire continued to decline and eventually fell in 476 AD. As the empire crumbled, its vast territories splintered into a patchwork of feudal kingdoms, city-states, and principalities, each ruled by local lords or warlords. Political power became decentralized, and Europe entered a period of fragmentation and instability.

Yet amid the collapse of the Roman political order, the Roman Catholic Church emerged as a source of continuity and unity. In a world where political authority was fractured, the church became a stabilizing force, offering structure and leadership in an otherwise chaotic landscape. Bishops and other church leaders often acted as intermediaries between local rulers, and the church provided not only spiritual guidance but also administrative organization, education, and even legal authority.

During this time, the church wielded significant political power in addition to its spiritual authority. With no strong central government in the West, the church became an informal political power, influencing kings and rulers across Europe. In many cases, the church had more influence than any single monarch or feudal lord. Popes often acted as political leaders in their own right, balancing the church’s spiritual mission with the growing secular responsibilities it had taken on. 

This entanglement of faith and power created new challenges for the church. The church’s increasing involvement in secular affairs opened the door to corruption and abuse of authority. Wealth and power attracted individuals more interested in personal gain than in serving God. Throughout the Middle Ages, the church amassed vast landholdings and riches, often behaving as a political entity rather than a purely religious institution. The luxurious lifestyles of some church leaders and their involvement in political intrigues fueled resentment among ordinary Christians.

Moreover, the church’s close ties to secular rulers often compromised its spiritual mission. Popes and bishops became embroiled in political struggles, and the practice of simony (the buying and selling of church offices) became a common problem. Church leaders were often more concerned with maintaining their political power and wealth than with shepherding the spiritual lives of their flocks. The heavy-handed enforcement of church doctrines, as well as the perceived moral decay within the hierarchy, led to growing disillusionment among many believers. By the late Middle Ages, these issues had become so widespread that they set the stage for a major upheaval in Christian history: the Protestant Reformation. 

The Reformation: Redefining Church-State Relations

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was the culmination of longstanding theological, social, and political tensions that had been brewing for centuries. Dissatisfaction with widespread corruption in the Roman Catholic Church was a key factor driving the Reformation. Practices like the sale of indulgences, where people could supposedly purchase forgiveness for their sins, and the luxurious lifestyles of many church leaders, including popes, fueled resentment among the faithful. Many believers felt that the Church had drifted away from its spiritual mission, becoming more concerned with political power and wealth than with the souls of its followers.

At the same time, the Renaissance had sparked a renewed interest in literacy and classical learning, which included reading the Bible. Renaissance scholars like Erasmus began to critically examine the Church’s teachings and practices, calling for reform and a return to the simplicity of the early Christian faith. This intellectual movement laid the groundwork for reformers who would later challenge the Church’s authority directly.

The invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century played a crucial role in the Reformation’s success. Before the printing press, access to the Bible and theological works was limited to the elite few who could read Latin and afford expensive, hand-copied manuscripts. But with the press, books and pamphlets could be produced cheaply and in large quantities, reaching a much broader audience. Reformers, especially Martin Luther, took full advantage of this new technology to spread their ideas rapidly. Luther’s writings, along with vernacular translations of the Bible, were disseminated across Europe, allowing ordinary people to engage with Scripture for the first time.

Political factors also contributed to the weakening of the Catholic Church’s authority. The decline of feudalism and the rise of nation-states in Europe shifted power away from local lords and toward monarchs who sought greater independence from papal control. The pope had long been a significant political figure in European affairs, often mediating disputes between kings and asserting authority over secular rulers. But as the influence of centralized monarchies grew, rulers like Henry VIII in England and the German princes in the Holy Roman Empire began to see the Reformation as an opportunity to break free from the Church’s political dominance and consolidate their own power.

The spark that ignited the Reformation came in 1517 when Martin Luther, a German monk and professor of theology, nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. His theses were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, particularly its practice of selling indulgences and its claims of papal authority. Luther’s theology was based on two key principles: sola fide (faith alone) and sola scriptura (Scripture alone). He argued that salvation came through faith in Christ, not through good works or the purchase of indulgences, and that Scripture, not the pope or church tradition, was the ultimate authority in matters of faith.

Luther’s challenge struck at the heart of the Church’s spiritual and institutional power. If salvation was by faith alone, there was no need for the complex system of penance, indulgences, and church intercession that the Catholic Church had built over centuries. And if Scripture was the ultimate authority, then the pope’s role as the spiritual leader of Christendom was undermined. Luther was quickly excommunicated in 1521, but by then, the Reformation had gained too much momentum to be stopped.

A major reason for the Reformation’s rapid spread was the political support it received, particularly in Germany. Many German princes, like Frederick the Wise of Saxony, saw the Reformation as a way to assert their own independence from the Holy Roman Emperor and the pope. Supporting Luther’s reforms allowed them to break away from the Catholic Church’s control and gain more autonomy over their territories. This support not only protected Luther from arrest and execution but also helped establish Protestantism as a legitimate alternative to Catholicism in many parts of Europe.

The Reformation was not limited to Germany, however. It spread throughout Europe, taking on different forms in different regions. In Switzerland, the Reformation was shaped by Huldrych Zwingli, who emphasized the sovereignty of God and the importance of a disciplined, morally pure Christian life. Meanwhile, John Calvin’s teachings on a more decentralized church structure influenced Protestant movements across Europe, including the Puritans in England and the Huguenots in France.

In England, the break from the Roman Catholic Church was initiated by King Henry VIII, who sought an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which the pope refused to grant. In response, Henry passed the Act of Supremacy in 1534, declaring himself the supreme head of the Church of England. While Henry’s motives were largely political, he wanted to control the church’s wealth and ensure the continuation of his dynasty, the break with Rome opened the door to Protestant reforms. 

Under Henry’s son, Edward VI, England adopted more radical Protestant changes, such as the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer and the removal of many Catholic practices from the English church. However, when Henry’s daughter, Mary I, took the throne, she sought to restore Catholicism and persecuted Protestants, earning the nickname “Bloody Mary.” After her death, Elizabeth I ascended to the throne and implemented what became known as the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, a “middle way” between Protestant and Catholic practices that sought to unify the country under one national church. While Elizabeth’s compromise created a relatively stable religious environment, it left more radical Protestants, known as Puritans, dissatisfied. They wanted further reforms to remove all traces of Catholicism from the Church of England, which sowed the seeds of future religious conflicts, including the English Civil War in the 17th century.

The Reformation had far-reaching consequences for the relationship between church and state. By challenging the Catholic Church’s authority, Protestant reformers paved the way for the development of churches independent from papal control. This shift in power allowed monarchs to assert greater control over religious affairs within their own territories, often resulting in a close alliance between church and state. In some cases, this led to the establishment of state-sponsored churches, such as the Lutheran Church in Germany and Scandinavia, and the Church of England. 

The Reformation also planted the seeds for the later development of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Over time, the fracturing of the church into many denominations across Europe contributed to the idea that religious belief should be a matter of personal conscience rather than something imposed by the state. This concept would become central to the Enlightenment and the formation of modern democracies.

The Rise of the Baptists and the Call for Religious Liberty

The rise of the Baptists in the 17th century represented a significant shift in the relationship between the church and political authority. Emerging from the Puritan and Separatist movements in England, the Baptists distinguished themselves by their rejection of a state church and their insistence on the autonomy of local congregations. At a time when most Protestant groups accepted some form of state involvement in church matters, Baptists were unique in their radical call for the complete independence of the church from state control. This separation of church and state, along with their theological commitment to believer’s baptism, the idea that only individuals who made a personal profession of faith should be baptized, set them apart from other denominations that practiced infant baptism and embraced closer ties to the state.

In 1644, seven Baptist churches in London published “A Confession of Faith,” a significant document that clarified their core beliefs and helped define Baptist identity. This confession was a bold statement, particularly in its strong emphasis on religious liberty. At a time when many Protestant reformers were aligning with the state to secure their influence, the Baptists took the radical position that the church should remain entirely independent of governmental authority. Their view was that true faith could not be coerced by the state and that individuals should have the freedom to choose and practice their religion without interference from political powers. This belief in the separation of church and state was foundational to Baptist theology and set the stage for their political engagement in the centuries to come.

The Baptists’ opposition to state involvement in religious affairs was not merely theoretical. In England, where Anglicanism was the established state religion, Baptists faced persecution for their refusal to conform to the Church of England. Their rejection of infant baptism, in particular, was seen as both a theological heresy and a direct challenge to the state’s authority, as baptism was considered a social marker of citizenship and loyalty to the state church. Baptist communities were often marginalized, fined, or imprisoned for their dissent, yet they remained committed to their belief in religious autonomy.

As persecution mounted in England, many Baptists migrated to the American colonies, where they hoped to find greater religious freedom. However, upon their arrival, they encountered a similar intertwining of church and state, as many colonies had established churches, such as the Congregational Church in Massachusetts and the Anglican Church in Virginia. Despite these challenges, Baptists continued to advocate for the freedom of all people to worship according to their conscience, independent of government interference. 

One of the most significant catalysts for the growth of the Baptist movement in America was the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s, a series of religious revivals that swept through the colonies. The Great Awakening emphasized personal conversion experiences and a direct, emotional relationship with God, bypassing the formal rituals and hierarchy of the established churches. The movement led to the formation of new congregations, many of which aligned with Baptist principles due to their emphasis on individual faith and local church governance. However, the rise of these new Baptist communities was not without conflict. In many colonies, established churches wielded political power, and Baptists faced legal challenges and persecution for their refusal to conform to the dominant religious institutions. Colonial laws often required citizens to pay taxes to support the established church, even if they were members of dissenting congregations like the Baptists. Baptists also faced restrictions on holding public office and gathering for worship, but they remained steadfast in their defense of religious liberty. Their persistence in advocating for the separation of church and state set them apart as champions of freedom in an era when such ideas were still radical.

The American Revolution provided Baptists with a unique opportunity to further their cause. The Revolution was not only a political rebellion against British rule but also a moment of reevaluation of the relationship between religion and government. For Baptists, the Revolution represented a chance to dismantle the system of state-supported churches that had long oppressed religious minorities. Key Baptist figures, such as Isaac Backus, became vocal advocates for the disestablishment of state churches and the protection of individual religious freedoms. Backus, a Baptist pastor and leading figure in the movement for religious liberty, argued that true freedom could only be achieved if the government stayed out of religious matters entirely.

Backus and other Baptist leaders played an instrumental role in shaping the debate over religious freedom during the formation of the new American government. Their efforts were particularly influential in securing the religious clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed the free exercise of religion and prohibited the establishment of a state church. This was a groundbreaking moment in the history of church-state relations, as it marked the first time a national government formally recognized the right of individuals to worship according to their conscience without interference from the state. The Bill of Rights thus enshrined the Baptist vision of religious liberty into American law, setting a precedent that would shape the future of church-state relations in the United States.

Slavery, The Civil War, and Civil Rights

The nineteenth century posed profound challenges to Baptist political theology, particularly surrounding the divisive issue of slavery. As the United States expanded westward, debates over whether slavery should be permitted in new territories and states split the nation, and this rift deeply affected the Baptist community. These debates were not just about political and economic interests but also about theological interpretations and the church’s role in addressing moral and social issues. The division over slavery became a defining moment in the history of Baptist political engagement, revealing how deeply intertwined theological convictions and political issues could be.

Many Baptists in the American South argued that slavery was biblically justified. They cited passages from both the Old and New Testaments to support their position, arguing that the Bible provided guidelines for the just and humane treatment of slaves, and that slavery was a part of the divinely ordained social order. Southern Baptists believed that God had sanctioned the institution of slavery, and as such, it was not inherently sinful. For them, the Bible’s silence on the outright condemnation of slavery was evidence that the institution could exist within a Christian framework, provided that masters treated their slaves with a level of care and responsibility outlined in Scripture.

In contrast, many Northern Baptists viewed slavery as incompatible with Christian principles of liberty, equality, and the inherent dignity of all people. They increasingly aligned themselves with the broader abolitionist movement, which sought to end slavery based on moral and theological grounds. Northern Baptists argued that the gospel’s message of freedom in Christ and the inherent worth of every human being made slavery untenable. They joined with other abolitionists to push for legislative action to end slavery, seeing it as a gross violation of Christian ethics and the principle of religious liberty that Baptists had long championed. This moral and theological divide grew increasingly sharp as the national debate over slavery intensified.

The theological split over slavery became formalized in 1845 with the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Southern Baptists, feeling alienated by the abolitionist sentiments in the North, sought to create a separate Baptist body that would defend the Southern way of life, including the institution of slavery. The formation of the SBC marked a major moment in the politicization of Baptist theology in the United States. It was an explicit acknowledgment that issues of theology and church governance were deeply tied to the social and political realities of the day. 

In the North, Baptists increasingly supported abolitionist causes. Many Northern Baptist congregations and associations became active in advocating for the end of slavery through moral persuasion, political advocacy, and, in some cases, direct action. Baptist preachers in the North used their pulpits to denounce slavery as a moral evil and to call on their congregations to support the abolitionist cause. They believed that the church had a responsibility to engage with the pressing social and political issues of the day, particularly when those issues involved questions of justice and human dignity. For Northern Baptists, the fight against slavery was not just a political struggle but a theological imperative rooted in the gospel.

The growing national tension over slavery and the broader question of state sovereignty eventually culminated in the American Civil War (1861–1865). The war further divided Baptists along regional and ideological lines, with Southern Baptists continuing to defend slavery and the Southern cause, while Northern Baptists largely supported the Union and the abolition of slavery. The war was a defining moment in Baptist political engagement, as the question of how the church should relate to issues of justice, freedom, and state power was thrust into the forefront of religious discourse.

The end of the Civil War and the gradual abolition of slavery marked a turning point in both American and Baptist history. For African American Baptists, emancipation provided a long-awaited opportunity to establish their own religious communities, free from the control of white-dominated churches. African American Baptists formed their own independent congregations, which quickly became not only spiritual havens but also centers of social, political, and economic leadership. In the post-war years, African American Baptists organized district associations and state conventions, which gave rise to national bodies like the National Baptist Convention (NBC), founded in 1895. The NBC became the largest African American religious organization in the country, playing a vital role in the social, political, and economic empowerment of Black communities.

These churches, associations, and conventions were places for community organizing, education, and political activism. African American Baptist leaders used their religious platforms to challenge racial injustice and to advocate for the full inclusion of African Americans in American political and social life. Baptist churches provided both the moral and organizational framework for the growing civil rights movement, positioning themselves as key players in the fight for equality.

One of the most notable Baptist leaders in the civil rights movement was Martin Luther King Jr., a pastor in the National Baptist Convention who later co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). King drew deeply from the Baptist tradition of political engagement, using his theological training and religious platform to guide the civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century. In his sermons and speeches, King invoked biblical themes of justice, liberation, and equality, framing the struggle for civil rights as a continuation of the biblical call to “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

King, along with other African American Baptist leaders, saw the church not only as a spiritual community but as an engine for political and social transformation. The Baptist emphasis on individual conscience and personal liberty provided a theological basis for challenging segregation, discrimination, and racial violence, while the Baptist tradition of local church autonomy empowered congregations to take bold action in their own communities.

Modernism and Its Impact on Christian Political Thought

As the nineteenth century transitioned into the twentieth, “modernist” philosophy immerged questioning long-held religious beliefs and institutions. Intellectual movements during this period began to embrace the idea that humanity had outgrown the need for religious explanations of the world, and this cultural shift dramatically altered how Christians engaged with political and social life.

One of the most popular expressions of this shift came from Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher who famously declared that “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s statement wasn’t a literal proclamation of the death of God but rather an assertion that modern society no longer relied on religious frameworks to explain reality. He believed that reason and science had rendered religious faith obsolete. Nietzsche’s nihilism, the belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose beyond what individuals create for themselves, rejected the existence of any transcendent moral order. 

Nietzsche’s ideas led many to question foundational realities. If there was no universal moral truth, then Christian ideas of justice, morality, law, and governance, that were based on the divine authority of God’s Word, were all called into question. Nietzsche’s philosophy challenged the moral foundations of Western civilization, which had been built upon largely Judeo-Christian values. In his view, these values were no longer relevant to the modern world, and he encouraged a re-evaluation of ethics based on personal power and will, rather than divine revelation.

World War I seemed to confirm Nietzsche’s pessimistic view of the world. The war, with its unprecedented scale of devastation, loss of life, all for reasons that few understood, shook the confidence of many Europeans in the moral and political foundations of their society.The horrors of trench warfare, the use of chemical weapons, and the collapse of empires led many to seek spiritual answers, only to find that traditional religious explanations for suffering and order no longer seemed adequate.

In the aftermath of World War I, some Christian thinkers began to push back against the secularizing trends of modernism, critiquing the direction Western culture had taken. They argued that the abandonment of Christian values had led to the alienation and moral confusion that seemed to define modern life. Evangelical thinkers like Francis Schaeffer argued that Western society’s rejection of absolute truth, rooted in the Christian worldview, had resulted in a culture adrift, unable to find meaning or purpose. In his influential writings and lectures, Schaeffer contended that the breakdown of moral and social order was the direct result of abandoning the biblical foundations that had previously undergirded Western civilization. Similarly, C. S. Lewis, an influential Christian apologist and author, critiqued modern society’s embrace of scientific and technological progress without moral constraints, arguing that such a world would ultimately lead to tyranny and the erosion of human dignity. 

There were, however, some good things that came from modernism. The rise of modernism made it clear to many Christians that their was a need to return to the core message of the gospel as the true source of hope and transformation. This period saw a renewed emphasis on missionary work, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as Christians saw a renewed emphasis to share the message of Christ beyond the borders of Europe and North America.

This resulted in a shift in Christian political thought: the realization that evangelism and discipleship, rather than political influence, was the true answer for human sinfulness and that the Word of God was the true foundation for unity among believers across the world. Theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr, argued that Christians should remain engaged in politics but with the recognition that sin corrupts all human institutions, including political ones. His famous assertion that “man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary” highlighted the need for Christians to balance political engagement with a deep awareness of human fallibility. This “Christian realism” encouraged a more cautious and humble approach to political activism, acknowledging that no political system could fully embody the kingdom of God on earth. In essence, while modernism shook the foundations of the Christian faith in Europe and North America, it also served as a catalyst for Christians to rediscover the Christian faith as a good-news preaching religion that included every tribe, nation, and tongue. 

Fundamentalism, Neo-Evangelicalism, and the Christian Right

The rise of modernism and secularism in the early 20th century led to the fundamentalist movement, which sought to defend key Christian beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the resurrection of Christ. As modernist ideas began to influence theologians, who then shaped seminaries and pastors, fundamentalists saw this as a threat to the core of Christian faith. In response, they chose to withdraw from broader society, avoiding political engagement and instead focusing on personal holiness and evangelism. Their priority was saving souls and maintaining spiritual purity, rather than getting involved in social or political reform, which they saw as distractions from the Church’s mission.

By the mid-20th century, however, leaders like Carl F. H. Henry began to challenge this retreat from public life, helping to launch the neo-evangelical movement. Henry argued that Christians had a responsibility to engage with society, not only by sharing the gospel but also by addressing social and political issues through a biblical lens. In his book, “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism“, Henry criticized fundamentalists for abandoning their role as moral leaders and emphasized the need for Christians to speak on issues of justice, human dignity, and social responsibility. He called for active involvement in promoting righteousness and fighting injustice, grounded in God’s sovereignty over all aspects of creation.

Neo-evangelicals believed that the Church’s mission included engaging with politics to reflect God’s kingdom on Earth. They sought to bridge the gap between faith and culture, seeing the gospel as a transformative power not just for individuals but for society as a whole.

In the 1970s, American evangelicalism underwent a major shift with the rise of the Christian Right. This movement emerged in response to social and political changes in the United States, particularly the sexual revolution, the legalization of abortion through the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and challenges to traditional family values. These developments, coupled with the rising influence of secularism, alarmed many conservative Christians who felt that American society was losing its moral foundation.

Initially, leaders like Jerry Falwell Sr., a prominent Baptist pastor, remained focused on evangelism and church growth, staying out of politics. However, by the late 1970s, Falwell and others recognized the need for Christians to take a more active role in politics to combat what they saw as the moral decline of society. In 1979, Falwell founded the Moral Majority, an organization aimed at mobilizing evangelical Christians around social and political issues. The Moral Majority rallied conservative Christians, particularly Baptists and other evangelicals, to become a powerful voting bloc that could shape the nation’s political landscape.

The Christian Right championed issues like traditional family values, opposition to abortion, and the defense of religious liberty. These concerns were framed as part of a broader “culture war” between secular, progressive ideologies and a Christian, conservative vision for America. By aligning with the Republican Party, the Christian Right became a significant political force, advocating for policies that reflected their moral and religious convictions. Falwell and other leaders argued that Christians had a duty to influence the political system, believing that a morally upright nation was crucial for the country’s survival and prosperity. Political engagement became a way to protect religious freedoms, defend the sanctity of life, and uphold biblical values around marriage and family.

The success of the Christian Right was particularly evident in the 1980s and 1990s, as they helped shape public policy and played a key role in electing Ronald Reagan as president in 1980. Reagan’s conservative stance and his promise to reduce government influence resonated with evangelical voters, who became a crucial part of his electoral base. Throughout the 1980s, the Christian Right successfully advocated for policies like opposition to abortion and efforts to reinstate school prayer, cementing their influence in American politics.

Although the Moral Majority officially disbanded in 1989, the Christian Right remained a powerful political force, particularly within the Republican Party. Leaders like Pat Robertson and James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, continued to shape conservative politics, focusing on issues like family values, opposition to same-sex marriage, and the defense of religious freedom. Their influence extended beyond politics, driving grassroots organizing, media outreach, and legal advocacy to promote a Christian conservative vision of society.

By the late 1990s, the cultural influence of the Christian Right began to decline. While they had achieved significant political victories, they faced challenges from a rapidly changing culture. Additionally, younger evangelicals became more critical of the Christian Right’s close ties to the Republican Party, leading to internal divisions about how Christians should engage in politics.

The Progressive Baptist Minority

While the majority of Baptists in America have historically aligned with moderate or conservative political and theological positions, a significant minority of progressive Baptist denominations exist and have played a role in shaping the political landscape. As we have already discused, the progressive Baptist movement emerged in the 19th century as Northern Baptists, influenced by abolitionist ideals, questioned the morality of slavery and emphasized individual conscience, social justice, and the responsibility of Christians to address societal injustices, laying the foundation for a socially conscious Baptist theology.

In the 20th century, progressive Baptists became increasingly active in various social justice movements, including the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and efforts to promote theological openness within the church. One of the most significant organizations in this tradition is the American Baptist Churches USA (ABCUSA), formerly known as the Northern Baptist Convention. This denomination has long embraced progressive stances on issues such as racial equality, gender roles, and interfaith dialogue. Throughout its history, the ABCUSA has been committed to the idea that the church should play a leading role in promoting social change and addressing systemic injustices.

One of the most influential figures in this progressive Baptist tradition was Walter Rauschenbusch, a key leader of the Social Gospel movement. Rauschenbusch believed that the church’s primary mission was to apply Christian ethics to address social problems like poverty, inequality, and exploitation. He argued that Christianity should be concerned not only with individual salvation but also with the transformation of society. Rauschenbusch’s theology emphasized that the kingdom of God should be reflected in the structures of society, advocating for economic justice, workers’ rights, and better living conditions for the poor. His work had a profound impact on progressive Baptists, who embraced the idea that their faith required them to engage with political and economic issues in the pursuit of justice.

The late 20th century saw further developments in progressive Baptist political and social engagement, particularly with the formation of new organizations like the Alliance of Baptists in 1987 and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) in 1991. These groups emerged partly in response to the conservative theological shifts within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which had undergone a conservative resurgence in the 1980s. As the SBC reaffirmed its commitment to biblical inerrancy and traditional values, many Baptists who valued theological diversity and inclusivity felt alienated and sought to create new spaces for progressive thought and activism.

Where Are We Now?

While progressive and conservative Baptists often differ on many political issues, there are areas where they tend to find common ground, particularly when rooted in shared Christian values.  Both groups strongly support the protection of religious liberty, advocating for the right to worship freely without government interference. Baptists, generally agree on the importance of addressing poverty and helping the marginalized. While they may differ on the methods or policies to achieve this, both groups often promote social programs, charitable efforts, and advocacy aimed at alleviating poverty and serving those in need.

Although they may approach specific life issues differently, both progressive and conservative Baptists emphasize the inherent dignity of human life. This often includes opposition to human trafficking, support for adoption and foster care, opposition to racism, and concern for refugees and immigrants. These shared concerns reflect a common theological commitment to compassion, justice, and service, even though the political expressions of these values may vary between the two groups.

---

PART 2 – A Biblical View of Government and Citizenship:

What Does The Bible Say About Government: 

The Bible presents a multifaceted view of government, affirming that all governing authorities are ultimately established by God, but it also holds them accountable to divine standards of justice, morality, and truth. Understanding this nuanced perspective is crucial for Christians seeking to navigate the complex relationship between their faith and political engagement. 

1. God as the Ultimate Authority – The Bible consistently teaches that God is the sovereign ruler over all creation, including earthly governments. This foundational truth establishes that no human authority operates outside of God’s providential control. In Psalm 22:28, we read, “For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations.” This verse underscores that ultimate authority resides with God alone. Similarly, Daniel 2:21 states, “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings.” This passage highlights that God orchestrates the rise and fall of leaders and nations according to His divine purposes. Recognizing God’s sovereignty provides Christians with the assurance that, regardless of political turmoil or leadership changes, God’s plan remains steadfast and unthwarted.

2. The Purpose of Government – According to Romans 13:1-7, government is ordained by God to maintain order and justice in society. The apostle Paul writes, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1). This passage emphasizes that governmental structures are part of God’s design for promoting the common good. Paul further explains that rulers are “God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4). The government’s role includes punishing wrongdoers and commending those who do right. By maintaining law and order, governments help create a stable environment where people can live peaceful and productive lives. For Christians, this understanding calls for a respectful attitude toward governmental institutions, acknowledging their legitimate role in God’s plan.

3. Government’s Moral Responsibility – While the Bible commands obedience to governing authorities, it also teaches that government leaders must act justly and morally. Proverbs 29:2 declares, “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.” This proverb reflects the impact of leadership on the well-being of a nation. Governments are expected to reflect God’s character of justice, protecting the innocent and punishing wrongdoers. Isaiah 10:1-2 warns against oppressive rulers: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees… to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right.” When governments fail in their moral responsibilities, they are subject to divine judgment.  This moral accountability means that Christians have a role in advocating for justice and righteousness within their societies. It challenges believers to hold leaders accountable and to work towards systems that align with God’s standards of morality and justice.

4. Obedience to Government (With Limits) – The Bible calls for Christians to obey lawful government, but it also establishes clear limits to this obedience. In Acts 5:29, when the apostles were ordered by the authorities to stop teaching in Jesus’ name, Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men.” This principle highlights that obedience to God takes precedence over human authority when the two are in conflict. This boundary means that Christians are not expected to comply with laws or directives that directly contradict God’s commands. For instance, if a government mandates actions that violate biblical teachings, believers are called to respectfully dissent. This stance requires wisdom and courage, balancing respect for authority with unwavering commitment to God’s higher law.

5. Christ and Government – Jesus acknowledged the role of government but made it clear that His kingdom is not of this world. In John 18:36, Jesus tells Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest… but now my kingdom is from another place.” This statement delineates the spiritual nature of Christ’s reign, distinguishing it from earthly political systems. When questioned about paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). This response affirms the legitimacy of governmental authority in secular matters while emphasizing that ultimate allegiance belongs to God. It encourages believers to fulfill their civic duties without compromising their commitment to God’s commands.

6. The Christian’s Role in Government – The Bible encourages believers to be salt and light in every area of life, including politics and government. In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus tells His followers, “You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world.” This metaphor suggests that Christians should influence society positively, preserving moral values and illuminating truth. While Christians are called to respect and obey authorities, they are also called to advocate for justice, mercy, and truth. Throughout history, faithful believers have worked within governmental frameworks to effect change. For example, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian and British parliamentarian, dedicated his life to abolishing the slave trade. His faith motivated his political activism, demonstrating how Christian convictions can lead to societal transformation. Today, believers are encouraged to engage in the political process (voting, holding office, or participating in advocacy) to promote policies that reflect biblical values. This engagement should be characterized by the fruits of the Spirit, such as love, patience, and self-control, offering a countercultural model of political involvement.

7. Prayer for Leaders – In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul instructs Christians to pray for those in authority: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all those in authority.” The purpose of these prayers is “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” Praying for leaders is a practical way Christians can contribute to the well-being of their nation. It acknowledges that God can guide the hearts and decisions of those in power. By interceding for wisdom, justice, and righteousness in leadership, believers play a vital role in the spiritual health of their country.

8. Keeping The End In View – Finally, the Bible points toward a future time when all human governments will give way to the perfect reign of Christ. Revelation 11:15 proclaims, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” This eschatological hope reminds believers that earthly governments are temporary and imperfect. This future perspective encourages Christians to prioritize God’s eternal kingdom over temporal political systems. While engagement in politics is important, it should not overshadow the ultimate hope and mission of the Church. Believers are called to live as citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20), anticipating the day when God’s perfect justice and peace will be fully realized.

Understanding these biblical principles provides a foundation for how Christians can approach politics today. As we navigate a polarized political environment, these teachings offer guidance on maintaining our spiritual identity while participating in public life. By recognizing God’s sovereignty, respecting governmental roles, holding leaders accountable to moral standards, and prioritizing obedience to God, we can engage in politics in a manner that honors God.

Applying God’s Word To Political Engagement:

The intersection of faith and politics has always been a complex terrain, especially in today’s highly polarized environment. Yet, the Bible provides timeless wisdom that speaks directly to the challenges of public engagement, political discourse, and social justice. As Christians, we are called to live out the teachings of Scripture in every aspect of life, including our political interactions. This involves embodying the fruit of the Spirit, maintaining our kingdom identity, and engaging with the world in a Christ-centered manner. The challenge at hand is to navigate the political realm while upholding a Christ-centered witness.

The Fruit of the Spirit in Political Engagement

James 3:17 offers a critical framework for how Christians should engage in politics: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” This heavenly wisdom is deeply connected to the fruit of the Spirit outlined in Galatians 5:22-23: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” These virtues are not merely personal attributes but are meant to be displayed publicly, including in our political engagements.

In contrast, Galatians 5:19-21 lists the acts of the flesh: “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy.” These negative traits often manifest in the political arena, evident in hostility, divisiveness, and the pursuit of power at the expense of integrity.

The Bible consistently presents a tension between living according to the Spirit and succumbing to the desires of the flesh. In the realm of politics, this tension becomes particularly pronounced. The acts of the flesh (hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy) are frequently observed in contemporary political discourse. Social media platforms amplify these tendencies, fostering environments where rage-filled posts, divisive rhetoric, and personal attacks become the norm.

As Christians, we are called to rise above these fleshly tendencies. The fruit of the Spirit offers a radically different approach to political engagement. We must ask ourselves: To what extent are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control evident in our political interactions? Our engagement should reflect the character of Christ, demonstrating these virtues even when faced with opposition or hostility.

• Love: Love is perhaps the most radical of the fruits when applied to politics. Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:44, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” This directive challenges us to look beyond partisanship and see political opponents as fellow image-bearers of God. Loving our enemies does not mean we cannot disagree or advocate for justice; rather, it means that even in disagreement, our tone and posture should be characterized by love and respect.
• Patience: In an era of instant gratification, patience is often overlooked. Political processes can be slow, and meaningful change takes time. Christians are called to exhibit patience, trusting in God’s timing and sovereignty. Kindness, too, is a virtue that should permeate our political discourse. Ephesians 4:32 urges us, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Our interactions should aim to build bridges rather than walls, fostering constructive dialogue and seeking common ground where possible.
• Self-Control: James 3:5-6 highlights the power of the tongue: “Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire…” In the context of political engagement, especially on social media, exercising self-control over our words is crucial. Before we post or speak, we must consider whether our words are filled with love, kindness, and truth. Are we contributing to peace in the public square, or are we sowing seeds of division?

James 3:9-10 further emphasizes the inconsistency that can arise in our speech: “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.” This serves as a sobering reminder to align our words with our faith. We must avoid engaging in partisan or personal attacks that demean others, remembering that every person is created in the image of God.

An important distinction exists between the content of our political engagement and the manner in which we engage. It’s not only about what policies or causes we support but also about how we advocate for them. Romans 12:21 instructs us, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” This means resisting the temptation to adopt unethical methods, even in pursuit of righteous goals. Our advocacy should be marked by integrity, compassion, and a commitment to truth.

The Kingdom Identity vs. Partisan Identity

Our identity as Christians transcends any political affiliation. Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” When we allow partisan identities to overshadow our kingdom identity, we risk compromising our witness and fracturing the unity of the Body of Christ.

In today’s digital age, media consumption can significantly shape our perspectives. The phenomenon of echo chambers, where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs, can exacerbate polarization. Studies, such as those by the organization More in Common, have shown that Americans often have distorted views of those with opposing political beliefs.

To counteract this, Christians should intentionally diversify their sources of information and prioritize time spent in Scripture and prayer over media consumption. Philippians 4:8 advises, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure… think about such things.” By grounding ourselves in biblical truth, we can maintain our kingdom identity and engage more thoughtfully and compassionately in political discourse.

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:44 to love our enemies extends to our political adversaries. This means recognizing their inherent worth as individuals made in God’s image, even when we strongly disagree with their views. Romans 12:14 echoes this sentiment: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” Our engagement should be characterized by empathy, seeking to understand before seeking to be understood.

The Church is called to be a unified body, despite differences in background, culture, or political perspective. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 states, “Just as a body, though one, has many parts… so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body.” When we allow political divisions to create disunity within the Church, we undermine our collective witness. Our primary allegiance must be to Christ and His kingdom.

Fear vs. Hope in Political Engagement

In the arena of politics, fear is often wielded as a powerful motivator. It can be used to manipulate emotions, sow division, and drive people toward certain agendas. However, as Christians, we are called to a different standard. The Apostle John reminds us in 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear…” This passage underscores that our actions and engagements should be grounded in love, not fear.

When fear dominates our political involvement, it can lead to defensive postures, hostility toward others, and a diminished trust in God’s sovereignty. We may begin to see those with opposing views not as neighbors to love, but as enemies to overcome. This mindset is contrary to the teachings of Christ, who calls us to love our neighbors and even our enemies (Matthew 5:44).

Conversely, Romans 15:13 offers us profound encouragement: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” This hope is not a vague wish but is firmly rooted in the unchanging nature of God and the assurance that His purposes will ultimately prevail.

Hope empowers us to engage confidently and compassionately in the political sphere, even amidst uncertainty and turmoil. It allows us to advocate for justice, mercy, and righteousness without resorting to fear-based tactics. Trusting in God’s control frees us from anxiety and enables us to act with integrity and grace.

Moreover, a hope-filled approach encourages unity rather than division. It seeks common ground and mutual understanding, recognizing that every person is made in the image of God. By embodying hope, we become ambassadors of Christ’s love, demonstrating that true change is possible when we rely on His guidance. By doing so, we honor Him and contribute to a more compassionate and just society.

Models of Biblical Political Engagement

The Bible does not prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach to political engagement. Instead, it offers examples that guide believers in various contexts. These accounts illustrate that political engagement can take many forms. 

Esther: Proximity to Power for Good

Esther’s story is a compelling example of how God can use individuals placed in positions of influence to effect significant change. A Jewish woman who became queen of Persia, Esther found herself uniquely positioned to save her people from genocide. When a decree was issued to annihilate all Jews in the empire, her cousin Mordecai implored her:

“For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place… And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

Lessons from Esther:

• Leveraging Influence for Justice: Esther used her royal position to advocate for her people, risking her own life by approaching the king without being summoned, a breach of protocol punishable by death.
• Courage and Self-Sacrifice: Her willingness to say, “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16), exemplifies the courage needed to stand up for righteousness, even at personal cost.
• Divine Purpose in Placement: Esther’s story encourages believers to recognize that their positions, whether in government, business, or community, can be platforms ordained by God to bring about His purposes.

Application: Christians in positions of influence today can follow Esther’s example by using their roles to promote justice, protect the vulnerable, and effect positive societal change.

Obadiah: Strategic Prudence and Hidden Faithfulness

Obadiah served as the palace administrator under King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, one of the most corrupt regimes in Israel’s history. Despite his high-ranking position in a pagan court, Obadiah was a devout believer: “Obadiah was a devoted follower of the LORD. Once, when Jezebel had tried to kill all the LORD’s prophets, Obadiah had hidden one hundred of them in two caves” (1 Kings 18:3-4).

Lessons from Obadiah:

• Faithfulness in Adverse Environments: Obadiah maintained his devotion to God while working within a corrupt system, showing that believers can remain faithful even in challenging settings.  
• Strategic Action: By secretly protecting the prophets, he demonstrated wisdom and prudence, balancing his official duties with his commitment to God’s people.
• Influence from Within: His position allowed him to serve God’s purposes covertly, suggesting that working within secular or non-Christian institutions can still advance God’s kingdom.

Application: Christians serving in secular or even hostile environments can make a significant impact through integrity, wisdom, and strategic actions that honor God.

Nathan: Bold and Wise Confrontation

Nathan the prophet provides a powerful example of speaking truth to power. After King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated the death of her husband Uriah, God sent Nathan to confront the king. Nathan used a parable about a rich man who took a poor man’s only lamb to elicit David’s sense of justice. When David condemned the man in the story, Nathan declared: “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7)

Lessons from Nathan:

• Courage to Confront Injustice: Nathan risked his safety by holding the king accountable, emphasizing the prophetic role of challenging leaders when they stray from God’s commands.
• Wisdom in Communication: By using a parable, Nathan helped David see his own sin objectively, leading to genuine repentance rather than defensiveness. While we should always stand on biblical truth, we also need to strive to be winsome in our approach. 
• Restoration Focused: Nathan’s goal was to bring David back into right relationship with God, highlighting the redemptive purpose behind confronting wrongdoing.

Application: Believers today can follow Nathan’s example by addressing injustice and moral failings with courage and wisdom, aiming for restoration and alignment with God’s standards.

Nehemiah: Rebuilding and Reform

Nehemiah, a cupbearer to King Artaxerxes of Persia, was deeply moved by the plight of Jerusalem, whose walls lay in ruins. He sought and received the king’s permission to rebuild the city. Nehemiah’s leadership encompassed both physical reconstruction and social reform. He mobilized the people to rebuild the walls, assigning specific sections to families and groups, fostering unity and shared purpose. Nehemiah confronted the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy, demanding that nobles and officials stop charging interest and return property (Nehemiah 5:6-13). Despite threats and mockery from surrounding enemies, Nehemiah encouraged the people to trust in God and continue the work.

Lessons from Nehemiah:

• Prayerful Dependence: Nehemiah consistently sought God’s guidance, beginning and sustaining his mission through prayer (Nehemiah 1:4-11).
• Practical Leadership: He combined spiritual fervor with practical action, showing that faith and works go hand in hand.
• Community Engagement: His efforts highlight the importance of collective action in addressing societal issues.

Application: Christians can engage in community development and social justice initiatives, integrating prayer, leadership, and practical solutions to rebuild and reform society.

Joseph: Administrative Excellence for the Common Good

Joseph’s journey from being sold into slavery by his brothers to becoming the second most powerful man in Egypt showcases God’s providence and the importance of righteous leadership. Interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph predicted seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine and proposed a plan to store surplus grain.

Lessons from Joseph:

• Integrity Amid Adversity: Despite betrayal, false accusations, and imprisonment, Joseph remained faithful to God, exemplifying integrity.
•  Strategic Planning: His administrative skills not only saved Egypt but also neighboring nations, highlighting the value of wise governance.
•  Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Joseph forgave his brothers, understanding that God used his circumstances for the greater good (Genesis 50:20). As we engage in politics we will inevitably encounter pushback, confrontations, and possibly persecution, yet we ought to be quick to forgive those who work against us just as Christ forgave us. 

Application: Christians in administrative or leadership roles can utilize their skills to serve the common good, exercising integrity and forgiveness in their interactions.

Daniel: Uncompromising Faith in Hostile Environments

Daniel served under several pagan kings in Babylon but remained steadfast in his commitment to God. When a decree prohibited prayer to any god except the king, Daniel continued his practice of praying three times a day, leading to his arrest and being thrown into the lions’ den.

Lessons from Daniel:

• Faithfulness Under Pressure: Daniel’s unwavering devotion serves as a model for maintaining one’s convictions despite external pressures.
• Respectful Engagement: He showed respect to the authorities, excelling in his duties, which earned him favor and influence.
• God’s Sovereignty Displayed: Daniel’s deliverance from the lions demonstrated God’s power, leading the king to acknowledge God’s greatness.

Application: Believers can navigate secular workplaces or societies by holding firm to their faith while respecting and contributing positively to their environments.

Common Themes and Applications

1. Recognize Divine Placement: Understand that your position (whether you have been placed in a position of influence or obscurity) is part of God’s plan. Consider how you might use your circumstances to serve God’s purposes.
2. Maintain Integrity and Faithfulness: No matter the political climate, remain steadfast in upholding God’s standards. While politics often involves compromise, we must never compromise to the point of sin, regardless of how politically advantageous it may appear.
3. Exercise Wisdom and Courage: Approach challenges with a balance of boldness and discernment, recognizing that both are biblical virtues. Boldness without wisdom risks becoming reckless, while wisdom without courage can lead to paralyzing inaction. True effectiveness comes from combining courage with sound judgment.
4. Prioritize God’s Kingdom: While engaging in earthly matters, maintain an eternal perspective. Christians must navigate political systems without losing sight of their ultimate mission and calling.

---

PART 3 – Addressing Common Questions and Concerns: 

Why Should I Be Politically Engaged?

Christians should engage in politics to glorify God in all aspects of life and promote justice for their neighbors. We are called to align society with God’s order for humanity’s flourishing (Psalm 24:1). While politics cannot save individuals, it is a tool to prevent moral decay and promote justice. At its core, political engagement is about loving our neighbors and seeking their well-being. By promoting Christian influence in society, we aim to remove obstacles that hinder the gospel’s spread and contribute to the common good.

What Is The Relationship Between The Gospel And Political Engagement?

Some Christians wrongly view the gospel as primarily political, while others make it irrelevant to politics. The truth lies in between: society may reject or be influenced by the gospel, but that doesn’t change its truth or the presence of sin in the world. As the gospel transforms a Christian’s heart and mind, it leads to a desire to shape society, government, and laws in line with God’s moral standards. As Baptist theologian Carl F. H. Henry wisely stated: “If the church fails to apply the central truth of Christianity to social problems correctly, someone else will do so incorrectly.” While politics can’t solve humanity’s deepest issue (sin) a born again believer should seek to reflect God’s righteousness in their public life and in their political engagement.

What Is “Biblical Justice?”

Justice begins by giving God what He is owed and giving people what is rightfully theirs (Psalm 45:6-7). It stems from God’s standards of righteousness, reflecting His perfect character. The term “justice” is often debated, and without a clear standard, human definitions can become inconsistent or distorted. Biblical justice, however, is grounded in God’s character and flows from the command to “love God and love others.” When we give God the honor He deserves and treat others with the love they are due, we act justly. Pursuing justice means seeking to align things with how God intends them to be. Justice is about rightly ordering relationships with God, others, and society. Injustice happens when we deny God or others what they are owed, such as when we act with bias, favoritism, or harm. Ultimately, the goal of political engagement is to pursue justice in alignment with God’s standards.

What Is “The Common Good?”

The common good refers to the conditions that allow individuals and institutions to thrive as God designed. Acting justly helps create these conditions. In Christian thought, the common good is a key concept in political responsibility, guiding Christians to engage in politics for the well-being of all. Just as a team works together to win, people in a community should work toward what is true and just, which is the goal of politics. Loving our neighbor includes caring for everyone in society, not just those we know personally. Pursuing the common good means ensuring everyone’s interests are protected, similar to God’s command to Israel to seek the welfare of their city (Jer. 29:7). Achieving the common good requires both personal responsibility and careful political involvement to support policies that help others reach their potential.

What Is The Goal Of Christian Political Engagement?

Our political engagement is not about creating an earthly utopia but promoting justice and human flourishing in line with God’s moral law.Christians should seek wisdom, justice, and righteousness for the common good, remembering that Christ is the ultimate King.  The Baptist Faith and Message (Article 15) emphasizes that Christians are called to make Christ’s will supreme in their lives and society. It stresses opposing injustice, helping the vulnerable, and defending the sanctity of life. True societal improvement comes from individuals being transformed by God’s saving grace. Christians should also exercise prudence in political discussions, knowing when and how to engage. While we hold firm on clear moral issues, we can have diverse views on more practical matters, like healthcare policy. Ultimately, our goal in politics is to honor Christ, pursue justice, and contribute to the common good, recognizing that lasting change comes through the gospel.

Should We Quote Scripture When Debating Politics?

Though some may claim religious arguments don’t belong in public debates, this is a flawed idea. Every worldview, religious or secular, makes moral claims that shape its political arguments. Christians should feel free to use biblical reasoning, as the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. However, in a diverse society, it’s also useful to make non-religious arguments that align with biblical truths to reach a wider audience.

For example, when speaking against abortion, Christians can reference biblical passages like Psalm 139:13-16 about the sanctity of life, but they can also use scientific and philosophical reasoning to show the humanity of the unborn. This helps support the moral claims of Scripture in ways that resonate with non-religious people.

The key is that truth is consistent across different areas of knowledge. Whether using biblical or non-biblical arguments, Christians can demonstrate that biblical morality is also grounded in objective truth that applies to everyone. In the public square, Christians should use all available tools to promote justice and righteousness, engaging those who don’t share their faith while staying true to biblical principles.

What About Political Issues Where The Bible Is Silent?

Wisdom helps Christians apply biblical teachings to modern political issues, especially when Scripture isn’t clear on certain topics. While some issues, like justice and the sanctity of life, are clearly addressed in the Bible, others (like healthcare or tax policies) require more discernment. For example, the Bible clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman, but it doesn’t provide specific guidance on economic policies, allowing for differing views among Christians. Wisdom also helps Christians navigate these differences, distinguishing between core biblical truths and issues where opinions can vary. This reduces unnecessary conflict and ensures that believers stay true to God’s Word while thoughtfully engaging in complex political matters.

What About Separation of Church and State?

The Church and government are distinct institutions with different roles, but they can complement each other when properly ordered. While the Church and state should remain institutionally separate, religious beliefs naturally influence political life, guiding moral and justice-oriented decisions. Baptists believe in “a free church in a free state,” where religion can inform public life, but the Church should not use state power to achieve its goals, nor should the state impose religion. Both institutions must respect their authority limits. The government’s role is to maintain peace, allowing the Church to fulfill its mission of spreading the gospel. When each respects the other, they can coexist without conflict.

How Much Authority Should The Government Have?

The government’s authority comes from God and is limited to the areas God has assigned it. Throughout history, there has been tension between government authority and individual or family rights. Totalitarian regimes that see all power as originating from the state tend to abuse that power, while theocratic states that overreach can also become oppressive. Both extremes lead to harmful control over individuals. The Bible teaches that government has legitimate, but limited, authority. Its purpose is to pursue justice and protect society, as outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and Matthew 22:15-22. Baptists support limited government, as Scripture does not grant the state total control over personal lives. Government authority must align with God’s law, and Christians are called to obey the government unless it conflicts with God’s commands.

What Is The Best Form of Government?

The Bible doesn’t specify an ideal form of government, leaving the structure to be a matter of wisdom. While there are biblical principles that should guide how governments function, Scripture doesn’t favor one specific system, like monarchy or democracy, over others. The key factor is whether a government recognizes its accountability to God’s moral law. Any government that honors God’s law, protects justice, and limits power to prevent abuse can align with biblical values. Regardless of the structure, those in power must understand their authority comes from God and should be exercised justly.

What If My Governing Authority Is Not A Christian?

While having God-fearing Christians in leadership would be ideal, a political authority doesn’t need to be a Christian to pursue justice. God’s moral law, revealed through creation (general revelation), is available to all people, including non-Christians (Romans 1:19-20). This moral understanding allows even non-Christian leaders to govern justly (Romans 13:1-4). Many non-Christian rulers have led wisely, while some Christian rulers have not. Ultimately, all political leaders are accountable to God’s moral law (Romans 2:14-15), which enables them to uphold justice, even without a personal faith in Christ.

Should The Government Promote Christianity?

No, the state should not promote Christianity, as Scripture indicates the government’s role is limited to earthly matters and should not interfere with religious affairs. The Baptist Faith and Message, Article 17, states: “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” Baptists believe in the autonomy of the church, separate from government promotion, reflecting the principle of “a free church in a free state.” This separation doesn’t mean religion can’t influence culture or law, but no religion should be formally tied to the state. Historically, when the state merges with a religious body, the faith often becomes weakened and nominal. The Baptist Faith and Message further affirms: “A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal… and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

How Much Hope Should We Put In Politics?

A Christian should have measured expectations about politics in this age. We are not promised complete victory or defeat until Christ ushers in His Kingdom. Two common temptations arise in political engagement: one is aiming for total conquest, believing politics can fully establish Christ’s Kingdom on earth. This overemphasizes the role of politics in advancing God’s Kingdom. The other temptation is to withdraw from politics altogether, thinking it’s futile because Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). This can lead to political apathy. Neither approach is biblical. Christians are called to be in the world, but not of it (John 17:11, 14-15), pursuing justice and truth, even if political success is limited. Our ultimate hope lies in Christ’s Kingdom, not in political victories. While we seek justice now, we know that God’s Kingdom will fully come only when Christ returns. 

Should Christians Be Patriotic?

“Patriotism” has many definitions, but a Christian should love their country by respecting its traditions, valuing fellow citizens, obeying just laws, honoring authorities, and actively participating in politics. Christians should pray for leaders (1 Tim. 2:1-2), love their neighbors (Mark 12:31), and obey authorities (Rom. 13:1-7), understanding that God has placed them in their country for a purpose (Acts 17:26). However, our love for our country should be guided by biblical justice and truth, with loyalty to Christ always coming first. Christians must avoid blindly supporting their country when the nation or her leaders are clearly in the wrong. This allows us to seek the nation’s welfare while holding it accountable to God’s moral law.

Is It Right For Christians To Legislate Christian Morality?

Yes, because all laws reflect some form of morality. The idea that “you can’t legislate morality” is misleading since every law promotes a sense of right and wrong. Laws against things like murder, theft, or fraud clearly enforce moral standards by declaring these actions harmful to society. Even laws that seem unrelated to morality, like subsidies, aim to promote human well-being, which has a moral basis. The real question is whose morality will shape the laws. Christians should confidently advocate for laws based on biblical principles, as they believe these lead to true justice and flourishing. By explaining how Christian values support a just and orderly society, Christians can show how these laws benefit everyone, not just believers.

Should Pastors Preach On Political Matters?

Yes, but only on issues that are clearly supported by Scripture or directly tied to the Church’s mission. While pastors should avoid turning their sermons into political stump speeches, completely avoiding political topics could mean neglecting the responsibility to apply biblical principles to important moral and societal concerns. It’s essential to strike a balance, addressing issues where faith and ethics intersect with public life, without reducing the gospel to partisan politics.

Should Pastors Endorse Political Candidates?

I believe it is unwise for pastors to endorse political candidates for three key reasons. 

First, no candidate is without flaws, and we’ve all seen politicians who fail to keep their promises or become entangled in scandals. When a pastor publicly aligns with a candidate, any wrongdoing by that candidate can damage the pastor’s reputation and, by extension, the church’s credibility.

Second, even if a pastor makes it clear they are speaking personally, their endorsement may still be perceived by the wider community as an official position of the church, leading to confusion or misrepresentation of the church’s stance.

Third, endorsing a candidate can create divisions. If a church member or someone in the broader community disagrees with the candidate the pastor supports, it can strain the pastor’s ability to minister to them effectively, potentially hindering the pastor’s relationship with those individuals.

How Much Political Compromise Should Christians Be Willing To Make?

Christians should work to promote as much good and prevent as much evil as possible in the political sphere. Christians should also recognize that negotiation and compromise are often necessary to achieve anything in modern politics. There are, however, times when compromise becomes sinful, and Christians must not bend, even for political gain. While Christians can compromise on issues where Scripture is less clear, they must never sacrifice core biblical principles. Upholding Biblical justice, truth, and righteousness must always come first, even if it means going against the prevailing political trends or limiting our political effectiveness for a season. 

Do Christians Have An Obligation To Vote?

Christians have a responsibility to be faithful citizens, which includes participating in the political process when their system allows. In a representative democracy, this typically involves voting to promote justice and the common good. Since government is ordained by God to uphold justice, it is generally wise for Christians to vote as a way of helping shape society and ensuring just policies. While it is not sinful to abstain if no candidate aligns with biblical values or if voting would violate one’s conscience, we must acknowledge that no candidate will be perfect. Christians may often need to vote for someone with whom they do not fully agree, as long as the candidate promotes justice. Voting provides an important opportunity for Christians to influence society for good, and opting out forfeits that chance. In rare cases, abstaining from voting may be the right choice if all candidates support policies that contradict essential biblical principles. However, in most situations, Christians should vote to advance justice and fulfill their role as responsible citizens.

Is Civil Disobedience Ever Justified?

Civil disobedience is justified when the government commands something that goes against Scripture or forbids something Scripture requires. Christians must obey God’s law above human law, so when government mandates contradict God’s commands, civil disobedience is necessary. The Bible provides examples of this:

1. Exodus 1:15-22 – The Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s order to kill male Hebrew infants, choosing to protect life.

2. Daniel 3 – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, even under threat of death.

3. Acts 5:29 – Peter and the apostles said, “We must obey God rather than men,” when told to stop preaching about Jesus.

These examples show that Christians must follow God’s law when human law contradicts it. However, civil disobedience should be a last resort, undertaken only after all legal options have been exhausted. It should be nonviolent, focused on justice, and done with a willingness to accept the consequences.

The goal is not rebellion but to uphold God’s higher law, reflecting Christ’s love and righteousness in the pursuit of justice.

---

Concluding Thoughts: 

As we come to the end of our seminar on the relationship between the Church and politics, I hope we’ve gained a deeper understanding of how our faith intersects with the complex world of governance. We’ve explored historical shifts, biblical teachings, and practical applications that demonstrate the delicate balance between being faithful Christians and responsible citizens.

As we move forward, let’s remember that our ultimate allegiance is to God’s Kingdom. While we engage with political systems, advocate for justice, and participate in civic life, we must always do so with grace, integrity, and love. Let us strive to embody the fruit of the Spirit, seeking peace, unity, and understanding, even when faced with disagreement. 

May we also remain prayerful, asking God for wisdom as we navigate the challenges of our times, and may our actions reflect Christ’s love for all people. Thank you for being a part of this important conversation. Let us continue to engage thoughtfully, courageously, and faithfully in all aspects of our society.