The relationship between Christianity and the state is not just an academic issue. It is something every believer has to wrestle with. We live in earthly nations, under earthly governments, with real civic obligations. We vote, pay taxes, pray for our leaders, obey laws, and care about what happens in our communities. At the same time, our highest allegiance belongs to Christ and His kingdom. The kingdom of God is here, but not yet in its fullness, and Christians live in that tension between earthly responsibility and eternal hope. That tension creates both duty and danger. The duty is that we cannot retreat from public life as though government, justice, law, and the common good do not matter. The danger is that we can become so attached to political power that the gospel gets confused with a party, platform, nation, or ideology. Therefore, Christians should engage the state faithfully, humbly, and courageously, while also remembering that politics can never accomplish what only the gospel can do.

Kevin Vanhoozer helps define the task of public theology when he calls it “theologically informed discourse aimed at the general public.”[1] This means Christians are not called to speak only to ourselves. Biblical truth should always serve as the lens through which Christians view justice, human dignity, religious liberty, law, poverty, life, marriage, family, and moral responsibility. The church does not speak publicly because a political party needs religious support; the church speaks publicly because Christ is Lord.

Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan argue that neutrality is not an option, writing: “we cannot be neutral about the issue.”[2] This is an important statement because even silence or withdrawal is still a position. While Christians may not all agree on the best way to engage political life, we cannot pretend that government, justice, law, and the common good are irrelevant to discipleship. The real question is not whether Christians will take a position in public life, but what will shape that position. Will it be Christ and His kingdom, or will it be fear, anger, party loyalty, and cultural pressure?

This distinction matters when thinking about the sacred and the secular. Christians should not act as if God only belongs in church. Christ is Lord over every part of life, including worship, family, work, government, justice, and culture. At the same time, the church and the state do not have the same job. The church should not try to become the government, and the government should not try to control the church. Faithful public theology means Christians bring their faith into public life without letting political power take over the mission of the church.

Matthew 22:17–22 is especially important here because Jesus refuses the trap of giving either Caesar or the religious leaders ultimate authority. McQuilkin and Copan explain that Jesus was not saying, “Caesar gets his share, and God gets His.”[3] Their point is that the coin may bear Caesar’s image, but human beings bear God’s image. This helps me see that government has a real claim, but never an ultimate claim. Caesar may receive taxes, but Caesar does not own the human soul. Government is accountable to God because even Caesar belongs to God.

The state does have a real purpose. Romans 13 teaches that governing authorities have a responsibility to restrain evil and promote public order. Government exists to protect people from violence, injustice, and disorder, so Christians should be grateful when lawful authority protects the vulnerable, punishes wrongdoing, preserves peace, and allows people to live freely and responsibly. First Peter 2 also calls believers to honor governing authorities and live as honorable witnesses among the nations. This means Christians should not automatically be anti-government. A truly free society depends on citizens who act with moral responsibility, civic concern, and respect for the rule of law.

At the same time, Scripture warns us not to place our hope in political authority. In 1 Samuel 8, Israel demanded a king so they could be “like all the other nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). God permitted their request, but He also warned them that centralized power would come with serious consequences. A king would take their sons, daughters, fields, servants, livestock, and produce for his own purposes (1 Sam. 8:10–18). This passage does not teach that government is inherently evil, but it does expose the danger of looking to political power for the kind of security, identity, and deliverance that only God can provide.

Scripture also makes clear that the state is not ultimate. When the governing authorities commanded the apostles to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This establishes an important boundary. Christians should obey the government unless doing so would contradict God’s Word. Our obedience to the state is real, but it is not ultimate. When the government commands something that God forbids, or forbids something that God commands, Christians must obey God first. This does not mean believers should be rebellious, disrespectful, or careless. It means our highest loyalty belongs to Christ, and our conscience must be shaped by His lordship before it is shaped by the laws of man.

This also guards against the danger of civil religion. Growing up in a military family, I learned to love my country, honor those who serve, and give thanks for the freedoms we enjoy. But Christians must also remember that patriotism has to stay in its proper place. We can be grateful for our nation without confusing America with the kingdom of God. However, McQuilkin and Copan warn that “America is not a theocracy like ancient Israel.”[4] Caution is needed here because patriotism can be healthy when it is rightly ordered, but it becomes spiritually dangerous when one’s love of country begins to look like trust and worship of country. The church in America is not the same thing as the American nation, and the kingdom of God does not rise or fall with politics. Ultimately, God is the One Who “removes kings and sets up kings” (Dan. 2:21), so Christians can honor their nation without placing their final hope in it.

Augustine’s insight into the two cities is helpful here. In The City of God, Augustine writes, “Two loves have made two cities.”[5] The earthly city is shaped by disordered love, especially love of self and earthly glory. The city of God is shaped by love for God. This framework helps Christians avoid two opposite errors. The first is political idolatry, where Christians place messianic hope in a nation, party, candidate, court decision, or political movement. The second is political withdrawal, where Christians refuse to seek the welfare of their neighbors because this world is not their final home. Augustine helps the church understand that we should be involved in public life, but we should never put our ultimate hope in political power.

James K. A. Smith’s work on political theology also helps explain why politics cannot be treated as a neutral side issue. Smith argues, “Politics, then, both forms us and requires formation.”[6] That statement means political life does more than organize laws, elections, and policies. It shapes what people love, fear, defend, and trust. This is one of the greatest dangers for Christians in America. We may think we are simply watching the news, following current events, or supporting a party, but those habits can quietly disciple our hearts. If the church is not forming believers through Scripture, worship, prayer, and Christian community, then politics will gladly form them through outrage, fear, resentment, and misplaced hope.

McQuilkin and Copan also argue that “church and state have distinct spheres of responsibility” and that both function best with “mutual respect.”[7] This means the most balanced model is not state control of the church, church control of the state, or a public square where faith is treated as purely private. The best model protects both religious liberty and public responsibility. The church should not become the state, and the state should not control the church. At the same time, the church should not be silent when moral issues affect real people made in the image of God.

Christians should also participate responsibly as citizens. McQuilkin and Copan note that Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship when doing so helped ensure “that the gospel could be proclaimed freely” and that his “right to due process” was upheld.[8] Paul did not treat citizenship as ultimate, but he did use it when it served justice, protected life, and advanced the gospel. If Paul could use the protections of citizenship in an empire, Christians in a democracy should not neglect the responsibilities that come with citizenship. That includes voting, understanding issues, praying for leaders, advocating for justice, and serving when called.

For that reason, I believe persuasion is the most faithful way for Christians to engage a pluralistic society. McQuilkin and Copan agree with this stance, stating: “A wiser course is to engage in principled persuasion.”[9] I agree with this because laws can limit certain behaviors, but they cannot change a person’s heart. Christians should be able to explain our convictions in ways people can understand, using reason, conscience, real-life experience, and evidence when possible. That does not mean we are hiding Scripture or backing away from our faith. It means we are trying to love our neighbors well by speaking truth in a way they can hear, consider, and wrestle with honestly.

The church’s public role must begin with its primary calling. As McQuilkin and Copan write, “The church’s primary responsibility involves proclaiming the good news of the gospel and making disciples.”[10] That statement keeps the church’s priorities in order. Social concern and political involvement matter, but they are not the gospel itself. The church loses its way when it becomes mainly a political action committee. However, the church also becomes disobedient when it ignores its neighbors. The church must preach Christ, form disciples, and then send those disciples into the world as salt and light.

McQuilkin and Copan also argue that believers should be “biblically informed” and knowledgeable about the needs of their communities.[11] This is where the church’s teaching ministry becomes public theology. Christians should not be shaped only by headlines, algorithms, or outrage. We should know Scripture deeply and also understand the wounds, injustices, needs, and moral questions facing our communities. In that sense, public theology is not just about making statements. It is about forming believers who can think biblically, live faithfully, and represent Christ well in public life.

This means the church must speak clearly, but it must also speak wisely. McQuilkin and Copan write, “The church should not simply speak in generalities but specifically.”[12] They point to John the Baptist, who did not merely tell Herod that adultery was wrong, but said, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matt. 14:4).[13] That example matters because prophetic ministry cannot always remain vague. There are times when the church must speak clearly about abortion, abuse, sexual exploitation, poverty, racism, religious liberty, family breakdown, and other moral issues. At the same time, speaking clearly does not mean the church should become political or partisan. The church must speak as the church, not as the mouthpiece of a political party.

The church must also evaluate methods, not only goals. McQuilkin and Copan write, “But it should also speak to means.”[14] This is an important correction for Christian public witness. A righteous cause does not automatically sanctify every strategy used to pursue it. Christians cannot fight evil by adopting evil’s weapons. The church should care about justice, life, and mercy, but it must also ask whether its methods reflect the character of Christ. A good end does not justify an unchristian method.

Christians should also practice respectful but truthful speech. Public theology should be clear and courageous, but it should not be cruel. The tone of Christian political engagement should reflect the fruit of the Spirit, not the spirit of the age. Christians should be willing to cooperate with others for the common good without surrendering theological conviction. There are also places where Christians can work with people who do not share our faith, especially when the goal is to help people and serve the common good. This could include caring for the poor, supporting adoption and foster care, serving in prison ministry, helping people in addiction recovery, responding to disasters, fighting human trafficking, and protecting children. Working with others does not mean we are compromising our beliefs. It means we are using wisdom to love our neighbors well.

Christians must also be prepared to resist the state when necessary. Civil disobedience should never be casual, selfish, or performative. It should be rare, peaceful when possible, and rooted in obedience to God. The examples of Daniel, the Hebrew midwives, the apostles, and the early church show that faithful believers may sometimes have to disobey earthly authorities in order to obey God. Even then, Christian resistance should look different from worldly rebellion. It should be marked by courage, humility, willingness to suffer, and confidence in God’s final justice.

Christians should be present and engaged in public life, but we should never let politics control our faith or become our highest loyalty. McQuilkin and Copan conclude that the best arrangement is “a benevolent cooperation between church and state.”[15] Christians must recover this balance today. The church cannot afford silence, but politics cannot carry the weight of the kingdom. We should honor authorities where possible, confront injustice courageously, and give our allegiance to Christ. The church is called neither to control, imitate, nor retreat from the state, but to bear faithful witness while seeking the good of the earthly city, all for Christ alone.

Bibliography

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

McQuilkin, Robertson, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom. 3rd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Smith, James K. A. “The Pastor Theologian as Political Theologian: Ministry Amidst the Earthly City.” In Becoming a Pastor Theologian: New Possibilities for Church Leadership, edited by Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Introduction: Pastors, Theologians, and Other Public Figures.” In The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan, 1–25. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

---

[1] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Introduction: Pastors, Theologians, and Other Public Figures,” in The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 19.

[2] Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 517.

[3] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 519.

[4] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 520.

[5] Augustine, The City of God, trans. HenryBettenson (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 14.28, 632.

[6] James K. A. Smith, “The Pastor Theologian as Political Theologian: Ministry Amidst the Earthly City,” in Becoming a Pastor Theologian: New Possibilities for Church Leadership, ed. Todd Wilson and Gerald Hiestand (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 24.

[7] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 534.

[8] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 538.

[9] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 540.

[10] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 545.

[11] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 545.

[12] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 546.

[13] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 546.

[14] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 547.

[15] McQuilkin and Copan, Biblical Ethics, 541.