EDITOR’S NOTE: The Study Committee on Civil Government was formed in 2025 at the 142nd Conference and instructed to review Article 104-3 Civil Government and prepare a statement on the issue of Christ’s church and national politics. The 143rd Conference in 2026 accepted the study committee paper, but no legislation was proposed. The committee was dissolved after the report of the committee.

Abstract

            The relationship between the church and the state has been, at times, tumultuous or peaceful, but the two have always been deeply intertwined—that is, until you get to the American Revolution. How the Founding Fathers of America separated the church and the state was radical and a first in human history. In our day, there is an idea being pushed by some called “Christian Nationalism.” That term, however, is ambiguous, and the term “Christian Nationalism” finds its strength in being nebulous. But the church is not left without help concerning the topic. Within the pages of Scripture, we are given many principles that govern our thoughts, words, and actions. Simply put, if Christians were to live out these biblical principles within their respective society, without binding the conscious of any other Christian, then we would see a society that flourishes.

Although the Church or any local church should not become political, i.e. endorsing candidates, holding rallies for a specific party, attempting to enact political laws, etc., individual Christians who are citizens of the state should be involved in the state and should “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” The committee does not believe that our Articles of Faith or Biblical Principles for Living need to be adjusted, corrected, amended, or changed. The committee hopes that this paper brings clarity to individuals and will be helpful to churches as we seek to honor Christ within our nation.

Introduction

            In this report, we will explore the relationship between the church and the state by looking at two specific areas of interest. First, how does nationalism/patriotism function in view of Christ’s love for the world and His present/coming kingdom? Second, how can leaders in Christ’s church address and promote biblical conduct regarding political issues without polarizing the body of Christ?

History of Government^[1]

            Much of the early church is defined by its relationship with Rome. Although the Roman civil and political system allowed for the expansion of Christianity in the beginning, the relationship was defined by the Romans, who considered the early church as a sect of Judaism and treated it as such.

Christianity began in a cultural setting defined by three circles of influence: 1) Roman culture—law, government, infrastructure, and the Latin language; 2) Greek culture—the Greek language, teaching methods, and philosophy, primarily developed and taught by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and 3) Jewish religion—the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, the Septuagint, synagogues, and other central theological convictions. With the church’s expansion from Jerusalem, traditions about the work of particular apostles became associated with specific locales by the end of the first century, most notably James (the brother of Jesus, often called “James the Just”) in Jerusalem Peter and Paul in Rome, John in Ephesus, and Thomas in Syria.

Early Christianity was not uniform, yet a common faith in Jesus and a common core of apostolic traditions helped shape a specifically Christian set of doctrinal commitments, worship practices, and ethical expectations^[2] such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, visiting widows and orphans, Sunday assemblies, and moral emphases.

Roman persecution of the church prior to the mid-3^rd century was sporadic and localized, not systematic. Emperors at this time included Nero, who blamed the Great Fire in Rome on the Christians, and Domitian. Partly in response to internal and external pressures, the early church developed a three-fold defense of what is apostolic: the episcopate, the rule of faith and creed, and the canon. Due to leadership, size, location, and role in the controversies of the age, the church at Rome rose in prominence to become the chief church by about the end of the second century. The church was known for advocating high standards of personal morality, including sexual behavior and charity.

During a period of imperial reform in the late third and early fourth centuries, Emperor Diocletian created districts and tried to set up magistrates throughout the Roman Empire. At this time, Christians underwent the most severe and widespread persecution yet. Christian buildings were leveled and Scriptures were burned. Bishops were imprisoned but could be released if they sacrificed to pagan gods. Sacrifice to the gods was obligatory. Civil war ensued. Though the person and motives of Emperor Constantine the Great are complex and somewhat mysterious, he achieved sole authority in the Roman Empire. He ended the persecutions, favored Christianity, and ushered in Christendom throughout the Empire. The church and the state were essentially one. In AD 312, Constantine had his famous vision to put a Chi-Rho^[3] on his soldiers’ shields. The church was largely unprepared for the many challenges accompanying the change in church-state relations. Many see this as the decline or “the fall of the church,” citing such factors as a decline of commitment among church members.

The growth of the church in the third century had already brought accommodation with Roman society, and entanglements with the state steadily increased after Constantine’s time. The Church started to have bishops appointed by the emperor. The church began to get paid by the government. The church and the state became much more entwined. Monks emerged at this time in response to the new linking of the church with social status.

In the fourth century, the Donatist controversy characterized the dangers of entwining the church and state by the way in which the state’s involvement could affect church affairs, as opposing factions faced off in North Africa and experienced the impact of imperial intervention. The bishop of Alexandria began to be called “Pope” at this time.

In the period following the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, and after Constantine’s death, the Roman Empire was divided into three parts: one piece to each of Constantine’s sons Constantine II (Spain, the Gauls, Britain), Constant (Africa, Italy, Illyricum), and Constantius II (the East). Magnus Magnentius, known as Magnentius the Usurper, assumed power in AD 353 and united the Empire again. He was an Arian sympathizer; the Arian controversy continued to create disunity in the fourth century church, which saw many councils and at least four different major positions on the relationship of the Father to the Son.

The Church was one of the principal institutions in Western Europe to survive the collapse of the ancient Roman Empire, a collapse that came about when largely Germanic peoples started invading and eventually sacked Rome. There are many political reasons and theories for what happened but suffice it to say, Rome was finished as four great waves of migration and invasion carried into the old Roman Empire: first the Germans, especially in the fifth century; second, the Mongol Avars and Slavs, who moved into the Balkans in the beginning of the sixth century; third, the Muslim Arabs beginning in the seventh century; and fourth, the Northmen and Vikings from Scandinavia in the eighth and 10^th centuries.

In AD 410 Alaric, leader of the western Goths, attacked and sacked Rome. In AD 430 Augustine died, and Hippo in North Africa fell to the Vandals. In AD 451 Attila and the Huns swept through western Europe but were persuaded by Pope Leo to turn back from Rome. This was also the same year as The Council of Chalcedon. In AD 455, Rome was sacked again by the Vandals, a Germanic people from modern-day Poland.

A combination of circumstances and strong leadership contributed to the elevation of the role of the Roman bishop (the pope) to a status of primacy among Western bishops. Pope Leo I carried authority over councils and over emperors, and was hailed as the successor of the apostle Peter, thus becoming “the first pope” as we know that role today. Leo I argued that the bishop in Rome now stands between Christ and all other bishops; that he is the Chief Priest of Rome, “Pontifex Maximus.” Leo is the first bishop buried in Rome. So we see that the church had authority over kings. This was the primary view held throughout the Middle Ages. The West now regarded the kingdom of Jesus Christ as embodied by the church, whereas the East persisted in the Eusebian ideal of a Christianized empire, embodied in the rule of Justinian.

The rise of Islam and its dramatic spread in the seventh and eighth centuries transformed the shape of the empire and posed significant challenges to the church, prompting a series of Christian responses. In the end, the church lost three strategic locations to Islam: Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. This created the need for the Frankish kingdom to look north and west for political support. When Muslims came saying “Muhammed was the last of the prophets,” people accepted the new religion. Much of Christianity at that time was bound up with former pagan beliefs and practices, prayers to the saints, reverence for Mary, and the use of amulets and other features of magic. The purified ethical monotheism and opposition to superstitious practices and pictorial representations seemed to represent a higher religious ideal.

The reign of Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire marked a season of relative peace and stability for much of Western Europe, with significant developments in Christian expansion and church-state relations, Benedictine monasticism, scholarship, theology, and church organization. During this time, private papal lands and the “Patrimony of Peter” were turned into papal civil jurisdiction. “The Republic of St. Peter” had been taking shape for some time and was now given larger legal recognition.

Charlemagne came to power in AD 771 and sought to create a Frankish-Roman Empire inspired by Augustine’s City of God. It was at that time (AD 754) that the pope officially aligned himself with the west, both militarily and politically. Charlemagne snatched western Europe from decline and brought a brief cultural revival. He expanded lands. He fought many battles with Saxony. And during his reign, the baptism of infants under one year of age became a law. If you hid a child from the church and did not baptize your infant, you were guilty of a crime punishable by death. Charlemagne saw his role as using the state to submit the world to the church. Baptism was seen as “christening” (making one a Christian) and included giving the child a “Christian” name under the sponsorship of godparents. Music became a bigger part of the Church. Schools were opened in every monastery and diocese.

On Christmas Day, AD 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned Charlemagne as emperor, beginning what is often referred to as “The Holy Roman Empire.” Archbishops emerged as bishops of metropolitan areas.

From the seventh to the ninth centuries, the papacy moved decisively toward papal monarchy and the groundwork was laid for the medieval synthesis of church and state. This was done by the collecting of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a collection of canons, papers, and letters supposedly written by popes. What came from this was the understanding that the pope is the supreme ruler over all rulers, even above the Roman emperor.

Although the First Crusade contributed to the deterioration of many relationships, the capture of select targets brought western military rule to the Holy Land for a period of time under the protection of the Lord Protector Godfrey. Knightly monastic orders arose to protect conquered lands and to safeguard pilgrims, such as the Knights Templar founded in AD 1118 under Hugh de Payens. Although taking the common vows of monks—among them vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience—the plunder of warfare did not highlight poverty. In fact, the Templars were envied for their wealth.

Fast forward to the Reformation, when the Church’s control was waning and the state was becoming more autonomous and powerful. Martin Luther did not initially intend to break from the Catholic Church when he posted his Ninety-Five Theses in AD 1517; he merely wanted to begin a discussion over the practice of selling indulgences. Luther’s distinctive theology, including his doctrine of justification by faith alone, developed over time and his opposition to Rome hardened as he was provoked by the Catholic Church and refused to recant what he believed to be the Bible’s clear teaching. While the Reformation centered on theological convictions, it also involved cultural, socioeconomic, and political factors that enabled Luther’s ideas to spread, take hold, and divide Europe in the 16th century.

The Reformation’s establishment in 16^th century Switzerland was influenced by the region’s unique political situation as a confederation of autonomous “cantons” or states, as well as by Geneva’s history as an independent city with close ties to the Swiss Confederation. Huldrich Zwingli’s leadership in Zurich embraced a “magisterial reformation” that helped establish Protestantism in the Swiss territories, and was a key precursor to the Reformed tradition. John Calvin first arrived in Geneva in AD 1536. When he arrived, he didn’t intend to become the church leader that he became, let alone the foremost theologian and reformer for future Protestants. In fact, his stay in Geneva was supposed to be temporary, but the local reformer, William Farel, implored (or threatened) Calvin to stay and help with the Reformation in Geneva.

Calvin’s first attempt at reform ended in conflict, especially in matters of church discipline and liturgy. Less than three years after his arrival, he was exiled by the Genevan council in AD 1538 and went to Strasbourg, France, ut the governing authorities who ran Calvin out of Geneva realized the city was in sharp moral decline in his absence. By AD 1541, the Genevan council invited Calvin back—not just to preach but to help shape the spiritual and legal (church and state) foundations of the city. The same secular authorities who removed Calvin now empowered him to establish a system of church governance, education, and worship grounded in Scripture.

Calvin returned in humility, courage, and conviction, knowing that God opened this door in an unexpected way and through unexpected people. Calvin’s work in Geneva would become one of the most influential movements in church history, laying foundations not only for theology but also for the state. Calvin’s leadership in Geneva contributed to the consolidation and expansion of the Reformed branch of Protestantism, of which Calvin himself emerged as an important theological source among several early leaders, among them Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bollinger, and Peter Vermigli.

The English Reformation emerged from both native developments and the influence of the wider continental Reformation. King Henry VIII broke from Rome in AD 1534 largely for pragmatic and political reasons, but also appointed reform-minded officials who facilitated England’s embrace of Protestantism. He wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon (the mother of Queen Mary) by annulment so he could marry Anne Boleyn (the future mother of Elizabeth I). Two factions emerged in Henry’s court: conservatives who favored the ways of the old church and staunch Catholics, and progressives who leaned toward Protestant beliefs.

The English Reformation proceeded to ebb and flow until it was finalized during the long reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), who established both a Protestant settlement in England and English power abroad through her skillful leadership over both political and religious affairs. Her reign firmly restored Protestantism to England via the Act of Supremacy (AD 1559) and the Act of Uniformity (AD 1559)—the so-called Elizabethan settlement. This was Parliament’s attempt at a middle-of-the-road approach. Out of these acts came a group of dissenters who wished to hold more tightly to the preaching of the Word. The Puritans arose and wanted to purify the Elizabethan settlement of all Catholic semblance.

The relationship between the church and the state has been marked by many variations over the last 2,000 years. There were some peaceful times and some violent times, but the issues always boiled down to the relationship between the church and the state, and so when people started travelling to the New World in search of religious freedom within Christianity, the Founding Fathers of America knew that they had to get the relationship between church and state right.

History of America and the Constitution

            The American Constitution, like any man-forged document, is fallible and incomplete. Even so, it does stand as a unique framework for government at its inception. The Founding Fathers set forth to establish a mixed government, with a limited monarch (the Executive branch), courts to interpret the law (the Judicial), and a representative republic to make laws (the Legislative). These three branches act as a “checks and balances” system and provide the framework for political and religious freedom. The addition of the amendments, particularly the First Amendment, established true freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from naming a state-sanctioned religion. It guards against the creation of a Church of America or the United States Church, as was witnessed in the Church of England. This clause, along with the Free Exercise clause allows each citizen to exercise their own religious beliefs and not face government sanctioned persecution or interference. This clause also protects against persecution faced by fellow citizens on the basis of religion.

As important as it was to the Founding Fathers to allow for this level of separation of church and state, it must also be noted that they were aware of the importance and necessity of strong morals to uphold the application of this precious document. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, wrote, “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities to a higher degree than any other form.”^[4] “Madison understood the inclination of the human heart toward depravity, declares Peter Lillback. “Left to our own devices, without the influence of morals, the constitution and the nation cannot stand.”^[5]

The Founding Fathers understood that the church is from God. They agreed with Calvin that the magistrate should be kept out of the church. Philip Schaff says, “The United States furnishes the first example in history of a government deliberately depriving itself of all legislative control over religion.” The First Amendment is quite radical in the history of the world. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”^[6] When Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (CT) Baptists on January 1, 1802, he basically encouraged them that they need not worry about government interference because the First Amendment acts like a wall of separation. Jefferson did not tell them that the church could not speak about the Bible or encourage the government to act in a biblical manner. Jefferson even handed out Bibles to the schools of Washington, DC with government money, and he worshipped on Sundays in the Supreme Court chambers that were used to hold Sunday Morning church services. Clearly, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers recognized that the government needed the influence of the Church.[7]

George Washington said that the necessity of what government seeks to accomplish will only succeed with the presence of religion and morality. Religion and morality are indispensable supports for our political prosperity, and Washington disagreed with the deist idea that you can have moral people without the influence of religion. At the end of the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote 13 letters, one to each state’s governor, stressing that it was his “earnest prayer that you would do justice, love mercy,” quoting Micah 6:8. However, instead of finishing that verse (“…and walk humbly with your God”) Washington concluded, “and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” For Washington, what Americans needed to do was to imitate Christ in humility, love, and a commitment to peace, and if those Christian characteristics are absent, the new nation was never going to succeed.^[8]

If the separation of church and state was established to keep the state in check and to ensure the free exercise of religion, what is the role of the church? Or more specifically, Christians in the nation? The government is to remain out of the affairs of the church, only to support and recognize the church. The church, as an entity, is to remain out of the state: to not endorse political candidates or parties or form any political parties of its own. The individual Christian is to be “salt and light”^[9] and to be a positive influence on the morals of society. The church is to focus on spiritual formation within people and, as people become more godly and more Christlike, their actions within society will promote a healthy and upright society. To focus on effecting societal changes before developing spiritual formation within a heart is to put the cart before the horse. Gospel transformation will lead to cultural transformation; it is never the other way around. This is similar to God’s call to the exiles to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”^[10] The reason exiles can seek the welfare of the city is because they already have the spiritual formation as revealed by their action to pray for the city.

A fine line is debated as to how much a church should influence the affairs of the state. Lillback notes, “John Murrayspoke on the imperatives in which the church ought not to remain quiet. If the Bible speaks on it, then it should be spoken of from the pulpit.”^[11] The Bible says much about good government, about the formation and direction of the family, and about how a moral, God-glorifying society ought to look and act. The church cannot and should not remain silent on issues of the state when God speaks clearly for or against them. The key is speaking for them and not mandating or trying to control them. Part of our role as Christians is to pray for our leaders in all spheres of government. The church should lift up in prayer those who are in authority because God has placed them there for His purposes and for His glory.

Define Christian Nationalism

            The following questions were to be matters for consideration by this study committee:

Question # 1: How does nationalism/patriotism function in view of Christ’s love for the world and His present/coming kingdom?

            Defining the term “Christian nationalism” is not an easy task. Since there is no widely accepted definition, it is often used to promote or denigrate an ideological stance that may be more associated with political viewpoints. In particular, it is often meant to show how Christians relate to this nation and to undermine any engagement Christians may take in the public sphere. According to Lillback, “It is a phrase that has been invented so that an opprobrium can be cast upon believers. No one knows what it is and that’s its advantage… I think Christian nationalism was designed to be a confusing term right from the beginning.”^[12]

Nonetheless, underlying any definition entails how one views the role of the church and government. Andrew Naselli’s taxonomy of seven views on religion and government is helpful in order for us to see the different viewpoints, however, it may seem like there are only two options available rather than the seven Naselli mentions.^[13] As Patrick Schreiner states, “With all the frustration and confusion, we are tempted to turn toward one of two extremes in terms of political engagement: nationalism or nonconformity. Either we combine our Christian hope with the state, or we avoid politics altogether.”^[14]

With such an ambiguous term that is left to various interpretations, is it even possible to offer a definition or a more concrete description of Christian nationalism? Perhaps, as Jonathan Leeman does, we may offer a way to describe it by using two qualifying words: identify and influence.^[15] If in some manner we define Christian nationalism in terms of the word “identify,” we would say that a nation identifies with a particular worldview or religion. For those who would prefer the term “identify,” at its core, Christianity would be the identified or established religion by the government. This identity greatly affects all public policies and affairs, much like we might say Iran is greatly affected by its ties to or identity in Islam. However, even within an “identify” camp, there are, of course, nuances that may not go as far as wanting the government to establish a religion. They may simply be far more pessimistic that the current system can be changed and thus seek more significant philosophical changes.

To use the term “influence,” to say that America is influenced by Christianity is different than saying it is identified by Christianity. Our nation was heavily influenced by men who many identified as Christian and who espoused a Christian worldview, which influenced the way they drafted our Constitution and public policy. Similarly, there are those today who would hold to an influential role of Christianity upon a nation. Leeman describes advocates of this view as those who “have in mind Christians opening their Bibles; doing their best to understand what God requires of a nation; and then stepping into the public square and seeking to pass laws, establish practices, and encourage traditions in keeping with a biblical view of justice and righteousness.”^[16] The desire is not to bring change by dominance or power but by influence or persuasion.

In his analysis of Christian nationalism, Josh Daws, like Leeman, describes two similar categories of Christian nationalists: Practical Christian Nationalists and Theoretical Christian Nationalists:^[17] the Practical Christian Nationalist would draw similarities to Leeman’s “influencers” while the Theoretical Christian Nationalist would roughly compare to Leeman’s “identifiers.” Daws concludes, “That’s the Christian Nationalism debate in very broad strokes. Most folks aren’t going to fit neatly into any one of the aforementioned categories.”[18] This is why Christian nationalism is hard to define and why, as Lillback has stated, it is a confusing term. It is not that nationalism or patriotism are bad terms, for that matter, and should not be mentioned by any Christian; that should not be our position. However, when taken to an extreme, they can elevate one’s nation and its values above God’s Kingdom and His values.

As followers of Jesus Christ, we take to heart Jesus’ words about being salt and light in this world. Like Paul wrote in Philippians 3:20, believers realize that their citizenship is in heaven. The goal is not to spread America’s values and ideals in this world, as if America is God’s chosen nation, but rather to spread the good news of Jesus Christ as citizens of His kingdom. In the words of John Piper, “In every nation, we are exiles! … God does not endorse or encourage any kind of nationalistic or ethnocentric focus in his people. We belong to his kingdom first and foremost. That shapes everything… I want my life to count for the world, not just for my national or ethnic or geographic or cultural tribe. That shapes everything.”^[19]

Question # 2: How can leaders in Christ’s church address and promote biblical conduct regarding political issues without polarizing the body of Christ?

            It is interesting that the common thought in our nation is that there are two issues that a polite society does not discuss: religion and politics. Here we have been tasked with tackling both of those issues in one question. How do we as believers deal with those issues that we often hold close to our hearts and yet may disagree with others who share our same faith perspective? This is not a new issue within the body of Christ. As the body of Christ expanded from only a Jewish sect to a faith system that also included Gentiles, there were numerous points of conflict that needed to be worked out between this new organization known as the church.

Gentiles had many different ideas, about how God should be worshipped and followed, that either were not included in God’s law or were seemingly in contradiction to the law of God. How do you deal with these matters? The Apostle Paul wrote to numerous churches about how they ought to deal with these types of matters. In Paul’s day, some of these issues included which day was the right day to worship, eating meat sacrificed to idols, whether or not to be circumcised, and other issues. Our topics are a bit different today but no less heartfelt. We believe it all comes down to what Paul wrote to the churches in Corinth and Rome, two bodies of believers that were known to be made up of a mix of Jews and Gentiles. In Romans 12, Paul states that we ought to offer our bodies as living sacrifices and be transformed by renewing our minds and not conforming to the pattern of this world; in the rest of the chapter, he explains a bit about what this looks like: that our love for one another ought to be genuine, that we should strive to outdo one another in showing love to each other, and that believers are to live in harmony with one another. In Romans 12:18, he says that, if possible, as it depends on us, we ought to live peaceably with one another. He stresses the importance of peace both within and outside the body of Christ.

Later, in Romans 14, Paul deals with some of the issues the congregation in Rome was facing: the eating of meat sacrificed to idols and the proper day to worship: Saturday or Sunday. We who are strong, he says, ought to bear with those whose faith is weaker. For this to take place, we need to view one another with true humility. Paul also addresses similar issues in his letter to a divided church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul writes, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” He appeals to the Corinthian believers to live in unity and not division. Then, after dealing with many issues the Corinthian church was facing, Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 defines what it means to truly love one another.

There are hints in some of Paul’s other epistles that the churches to whom he was writing were also dealing with division. For instance, in Philippians 2:3-4, he writes, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” In Colossians 3:12-14 he adds, “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”

Paul commends each church to set aside its differences and strive to live at peace with one another. James also writes, in James 1:19-20, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” This attitude helps to end disputes between brothers and sisters in Christ. All this flows from the instructions that Christ gave to the disciples in the Upper Room prior to His crucifixion in John 15:12-13—“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” These Scriptures serve as a background as we strive to live in a highly polarized world.

So how do we, as leaders in Christ’s body, help encourage those under our care to live and think biblically in these areas? It begins with doing what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:1, where he writes, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” We need to set the standard in humility and unity. There will always be issues that strive to divide the body of Christ, but if we focus on prayer and humbly loving one another, we can lead our churches in true Christian unity. There may be times when we need to admit that we don’t have all the answers and so we must seek to learn more about the other person’s position in these polarizing issues. It takes humility to open yourself up to the possibility that you might not be right. We then need to continue to bring our people back to the Word of God in order to show them how God desires for us to set aside those matters that might be close to our hearts and strive to love each other as Christ loved us.

Current BPL – Examination

Article 23-1, Civil Government

Our BFC Article of Faith 23-1 reads, “God ordained and instituted civil government for the welfare of society, to promote and to protect the good and restrain and punish the evil. It is the duty of Christians to pray for those in authority, to render due loyalty, respect, and obedience to them, and to pay taxes and customs demanded of them. Where demands of civil law militate against the supreme and higher law of God, Christians should obey God rather than man.”

            The committee believes that our existing Article of Faith aligns with Scripture and so no revisions, alterations, or changes need to be made. There are several key reasons why we believe this. First, the Article states that civil government was ordained and instituted by God. Throughout history, God is the one who raises up kings and brings down kings,^[20] even if that “king” is a constitutional federal republic. Second, our Article highlights the fact that government is to promote and protect the good and restrain evil, which is what Paul teaches in Romans 13:1-3. Third, as Christians, we are to pray for our leaders—whether you voted for them or not. Fourth, we are to be patriots. Patriotism comes from the Latin word pater, and we understand in Scripture that we are to honor our father and mother. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, His answer was “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”^[21] One way we love God and love our neighbor is by honoring them. The first tablet of the Ten Commandments speaks to God’s children honoring God as their father; the second tablet speaks to us honoring one another and begins with “Honor your father and mother.”

            As Christians, we are commanded by God to be honorable citizens of the country we call home. This means that we “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”^[22] It also includes paying taxes, obeying the speed limit, voting in elections, serving on jury duty, etc. We honor God when we honor our civic duties. However, as our Article states, when the civil laws militate against God’s law, then we must honor the greater authority. God’s law always surpasses man’s law, but so long as man’s law does not violate God’s law or cause us to sin, then we must obey man’s law.

BPL 104-3, 104-4 – Civil Government, Christian Liberty & Servanthood

            The committee believes that our Biblical Principles for Living 104-3 is thorough in helping believers understand and navigate the Christian life and our responsibilities in society. But we would also like to highlight Article 104-4 on Christian Liberty and Servanthood. Throughout Paul’s writing, he speaks often about a person’s conscience.^[23] We understand that within theology there is what is called “theological triage.” For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity is of greater importance to salvation than, say, the doctrines of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. The same triage should be applied to issues of public policy. When we come to issues of public policy where we believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear and we are compelled to speak, we must establish a position decently and in order^[24] and communicate that position to our congregation. Some current examples of this would be same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. But will there be issues that are neither right nor wrong, issues that do not touch doctrinal integrity: issues of minor importance where believers can disagree and keep the unity of peace? Absolutely. For example, one believer may think that we should remove all speed limits while another believer thinks that speed limits should be lowered. In such cases, we have the liberty and freedom to hold our opinion without it affecting the unity of the church.

Conclusion

The late Harry Reeder, in his book 3D Leadership, while speaking to the responsibilities of a pastor leading his local congregation, says, “Genuine leaders exercise leadership to exalt the Lord and shepherd their families and the church while thoughtfully committing to influence the world for Christ and reproduce leaders who will shake the world.”^[25] This quote gets at the heart of how the church and state ought to relate to one another. As Christians, our first priority is God, His Word, His Kingdom, the edification of the saints, and the evangelism of the world. This is the greatest commandment: to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Second, we seek to honor the authority that God has put over us by loving our neighbor as ourselves. As long as we have the proper order of addressing spiritual formation first, then our spiritual formation will begin to have a positive influence on society and culture.

The church, the state, and the family all have their own spheres of sovereignty and authority and no other sphere can or should have control of another. The church cannot mandate or dictate public policy; nor should the church replace the role of husbands and wives, or fathers and mothers. The state cannot mandate church doctrine or policy, nor can the state usurp the role of fathers and mothers or redefine the family and its roles. Likewise, the family cannot determine the doctrine or policies of the church, nor can the family carry out the duties and responsibilities of the state. Each sphere has authority to handle its God-given responsibilities. However, each sphere will interact with one another, and when each sphere is fulfilling its God-designed function, all three spheres flourish. Trouble occurs when one sphere relinquishes its duties or another sphere attempts a hostile takeover. May we be a denomination that honors the Lord in how we speak and interact with the world around us.

Resolutions

The committee met four times throughout the year. After reviewing Article 23 and BPL 104-3, the committee believes that our current verbiage is sufficient and does not need to be revised, altered, or changed.

Appendix – Ezra 7:25-26

Ezra the priest was God’s chosen man (as was Artaxerxes) to bring revitalization to the people of God in Jerusalem 80 years after the first remnant group returned under King Cyrus. Ezra’s main purpose in returning to Jerusalem is revealed in Ezra 7:25-26. “And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God that is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God. And those who do not know them, you shall teach. Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.”

            Ezra was tasked with appointing magistrates and judges in the province Beyond the River—that is, the land west of the Jordan River under Persian control. Ezra was acting governor of Judah, although he never held that official title. But like Joseph in Egypt, Ezra was working for a foreign government and was given the authority to enact sanctions upon the people for non-compliance. But notice the punishments that Ezra was allowed to impose: the death penalty, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment. Those are matters of Persian jurisprudence. Israel, for instance, had no penalty of imprisonment. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that the punishment for a crime is imprisonment. Dungeons were used, but they were primarily used to hold someone awaiting trial. So in this we are seeing that Ezra is calling the people to live under God and under the state. God has authority over you, and the state has authority over you.

            In the above passage, Derek Thomas says six things may be observed:^[26]

One thing Ezra is not doing is turning Jerusalem into a theonomistic society, where God and His Word are the sole authority over the people. Although the people will be held accountable to the Word of God, they will also be held accountable to the laws of the king of Persia. The same was true in Jesus’ time, where the people were held accountable to the Word of God and to the laws of Rome. Today, we are held accountable to the Word of God but we are also accountable to the laws of the United States.

Second, we see that respect for civil law was important in Jewish society. The law of God has three categories: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. Civil law was meant to be a blueprint for a healthy society.

Third, we see that the office of civil magistrate is an honorable one. While at present it is difficult to look at our government and say there are honorable people in office, nonetheless, the office is honorable. Consider the office of judge: Why, when judges are introduced, do bailiffs declare, “All rise for the honorable judge so-and-so”? The office is honorable because the person holding that office is appointed as one who is responsible for appropriately implementing the sanctions and punishments of the legal code—a responsibility placed on the office by God. By extension, resisting the lawful authority of those in those offices is equivalent to resisting God, for Paul says in Romans 13, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” Christians are to honor appropriately those in authority over us, and the state has authority over its citizens.

Fourth, Christians should accept the office of civil magistrate in a secular society as an honorable office. Christians can and should serve in government. Joseph did, Daniel did, Ezra did, Nehemiah did, not to mention people like King David, King Solomon, Queen Esther: people who were the government. But you may say, those are all Old Testament characters. Well, in the New Testament we see that Zacchaeus and Cornelius, among others, held significant positions in the government. As John Calvin has remarked:

The Lord has not only testified that the office of magistrate is approved by and acceptable to him, but he also sets out its dignity with the most honorable titles and marvelously commends it to us.… It has not come about by human perversity that the authority over all things on earth is in the hands of kings and other rulers, but by divine providence and holy ordinance. For God was pleased so to rule the affairs of men, inasmuch as he is present with them and also presides over the making of laws and theexercising of equity in courts of justice.^[27]

Fifth, we must always remember that no amount of enforcing punishments for wrongdoing can change the human heart. The state cannot coerce men and women into the kingdom of God. For instance, what if the U.S. passed a law that said, “Everyone must attend church on Sunday or face severe punishment”? Would that law grow the kingdom? No. Because only the Spirit of God regenerates the heart.

Just like the state cannot grow the kingdom of God, so too should the church not become distracted in its mission of preaching the gospel to take on secular matters. John Murray wrote, “To put the matter bluntly, the church is not to engage in politics. Its members must do so, but only in their capacity as citizens of the state, not as members of the church. The church is not to create or foster political parties or blocs.” The church’s mission focuses on the gospel, not public policy. But individual Christians should be involved in matters of the state, as conscience allows. If the church aims for cultural transformation, we will miss gospel transformation. But if we aim at gospel transformation, we will also hit cultural transformation. The purpose and function of the state and of the church are different, and we must always keep this difference in mind. Great injury and strife are created when both the state and the church ignore or confuse their respective roles.

In the providence of God, God has created what is known as “sphere sovereignty,” a term originated by Abraham Kuyper. Simply put, the spheres of life, such as the family, the church, the state, industry, agriculture, etc. are distinct, yet each sphere will have influence upon the other.^[28]

For our purposes concerning Ezra 7, there is a rightful authority that the Word of God has over our lives, and there is a rightful authority that the state has over our lives. But all spheres of sovereignty are under the all-encompassing sovereignty of Christ. Remember Jesus’ famous line from Matthew 22:21—“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christians must honor and respect authority because God calls us to do so. But when the state requires something of us that breaks God’s laws, such as a law prohibiting our gathering for worship, then “We must obey God rather than men”—even if it leads to our arrest.

            The point is, biblically grounded Christians will be praying for those in government, will support the state, will not be rebellious, and will obey because our obedience to the state is an expression of our obedience to Christ. As long as laws are not sinful or opposed to God, then we must obey. Drive the speed limit. Pay your taxes. Vote in elections. Serve on jury duty. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars.

            Sixth and finally, it is important that we understand the nature of Ezra’s office. Ezra was being established as a new Moses; he was to enforce and teach the Law of God, just as Moses did before him. Ezra was to arrive in Jerusalem and appoint magistrates and judges—something Moses did at the advice of his father-in-law Jethro in Exodus 18. Although Ezra is a priest and a scribe, Ezra is also a diplomat who serves the people of God and the Persian monarchy.

Bibliography

1. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960.

2. Daws, Josh. “Christian Nationalism: A Primer for the Layman.” American Reformer. 14 Nov. 2025. https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/christian-nationalism-a-primer-for-the-layman/

3. Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

4. Kuyper, Abraham. Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto. Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.

5. Lillback, Peter. Personal Interview. 15 July 2025 and 30 September 2025.

6. Leeman, Jonathan. “‘Christian Nationalism’ Misrepresents Jesus, So We Should Reject It.” 9Marks, 4 Nov 2025. https://www.9marks.org/article/christian-nationalism-as-influence-or-identity/

7. Madison, James. “Federalist No. 55.” The Federalist, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan, Liberty Fund, 2001.

8. Murray, John. “The Relation of Church of State.” Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 1: The Claims of Truth. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976, reprint 2001.

9. Naselli, Andy. “What Is the Spectrum of Major Views on Political Theology? A Proposed Taxonomy of Seven Views on Religion and Government” ChristOverall, 31 Oct. 2025. https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spectrum-of-major-views-on-political-theology-a-proposed-taxonomy-of-seven-views-on-religion-and-government/

10. Reeder, Harry. 3D Leadership. Geanies House, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2018.

11. Reinke, Tony. Ask Pastor John: 750 Bible Answers to Life’s Most Important Questions. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024.

12. Schreiner, Patrick. Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2022.

13. Thomas, Derek W. H. Ezra & Nehemiah. ed. Richard D. Phillips, Philip Graham Ryken, and Iain M. Duguid. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016.

14. Woodbridge, John D. and Frank A. James III. Church History Volume Two: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Additional Resources to the Bibliography

            Disclaimer: The committee does not endorse the ideas in every resource listed below. The purpose of this list is to help provide further reading on this topic from authors who hold different perspectives.

1. Callens, Blake. The Case Against Christian Nationalism.
2. DeYoung, Kevin. What to do with Christian Nationalism. https://clearlyreformed.org/what-to-do-with-christian-nationalism/
3. DeYoung, Kevin. 6 Questions for Christian Nationalists.

https://clearlyreformed.org/6-questions-for-christian-nationalists

• Edgar, William. Created and Creating.
• Kirkpatrick, Kevin. www.terrehillbfc.org. Sermon Recordings, Jan. 18, 2026.
• Malice, Michael. The New Right.
• McIlhenny, Ryan. Kingdoms Apart
• Torba, Andrew and Andrew Isker. Christian Nationalism.
• Walker, Andrew. What does “Christian Nationalism” even mean? https://wng.org/opinions/what-does-christian-nationalism-even-mean-1666700202
• Wilson, Douglas. Mere Christendom.
• Wolfe, Stephen. The Case For Christian Nationalism.

---

[1] This section referenced the following two books: Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformed (Zondervan, 2005), and John D. Woodbridge and Frank A. James III, Church History, Volume Two: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day (Zondervan, 2013).

[2] Woodbridge and James, Church History, Volume Two: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day, 1:27.

[3] ☧ – Formed from the letters χ and ρ in the Greek, the first two letters in χριστος—Christ

[4] James Madison, “Federalist No. 55,” in The Federalist, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan, Liberty Fund, 2001. Madison was greatly influenced by his studies at Princeton under John Witherspoon.

[5] Peter Lillback, personal interview, July 15, 2025.

[6] First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[7] Lillback, personal interview, July 15, 2025.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Matthew 5:13-18.

[10] Jeremiah 29:7.

[11] Lillback, interview. See also John Murray, “The Relation of Church and State,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 1: The Claims of Truth (Banner of Truth, 1976, reprint 2001) for a beautiful exposition on how a church ought to handle the political sphere.

[12] Lillback, personal interview, September 30, 2025.

[13] Andrew Naselli, “What is the Spectrum of Major Views on Political Theology? A Proposed Taxonomy of Seven Views on Religion and Government,” in ChristOverall, Oct. 31, 2025. https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-is-the-spectrum-of-major-views-on-political-theology-a-proposed-taxonomy-of-seven-views-on-religion-and-government/

[14] Patrick Schreiner, Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World (B & H Publishing, 2022), 55.

[15] Jonathan Leeman, “‘Christian Nationalism Misrepresents’ Jesus, so We Should Reject It,” in 9Marks, Nov. 4, 2025. https://www.9marks.org/article/christian-nationalism-as-influence-or-identity/

[16] Ibid.

[17] Daws, “Christian Nationalism: A Primer for the Layman,” in American Reformer, Nov. 14, 2025. https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/christian-nationalism-a-primer-for-the-layman/

[18] Ibid.

[19] Tony Reinke, Ask Pastor John: 750 Bible Answers to Life’s Most Important Questions (Crossway, 2024), 53.

[20] Daniel 2:21.

[21] Matthew 22:37-40.

[22] Matthew 22:21a.

[23] See Acts 23:1; 24:16; Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 13:5; 1 Cor. 10:25-29; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 2 Tim. 1:3. This is a partial list.

[24] 1 Corinthians 14:40.

[25] Harry Reeder, 3D Leadership (Christian Focus Publications, 2018), 49.

[26] Derek W. H. Thomas, Ezra and Nehemiah, Reformed Expository Commentary (P & R Publishing, 2016), 129-30.

[27] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. 4.20.4.

[28] Abraham , Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto, from Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology (Lexham Press, 2015), 70, 380-381.