Toward a Christian Government
Three perspectives on a Christian state
This post is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it merely lays out three understandings of Christian government, accompanied by some clarifications on terms and differences. Don’t worry—prescriptive posts are coming! For now, my modest goal is to succinctly provide the lay of the land in anticipation of further discussion.
As such, I provide the highlights of each view in bullet point form and without scriptural citations. Of course, more could be said of each.
Christian Establishmentarianism – A denominational state church
The head of state is also, in some way, the head of the church
(e.g., King Charles III is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England; the Archbishop of Canterbury is the chief cleric)The state church is a specific denomination—it does not promote “mere Christianity”
(e.g., the Evangelical-Lutheran Church is the state church of Denmark)At least at a formal level, there is no clear separation of church and state
The state may fund the church or promote denominational teaching in public schools
(e.g., instruction in Catholicism is required in all state schools of Malta, though students can opt out)In certain cases, the magistrate may enter into ecclesiastical disputes and controversies
Does not necessarily entail restrictions on religious liberty, nor does it require particularly Christian legislation
(e.g., England and Denmark both enjoy robust religious liberty and have no distinctively Christian laws—e.g., legislation regarding false worship)
Christian Nationalism – A Christian legislative state
A state that explicitly acknowledges a Christian foundation, despite (in most formulations) being non-denominational, with something like the Apostles’ Creed at the core of its constitution
Facilitates and encourages the development of particularly Christian legislation
(e.g., outlawing fornication and public worship of other gods) enforced through coercive means—fines, imprisonment, or the death penaltyIn its mature expression, political officeholders must be professing Christians
Non-Christians have no chance of fulfilling the divinely intended purpose of government: to administer biblical righteousness and justice
The state has no authority over denominations or congregations, but does have authority to determine whether an ecclesiastical body qualifies as genuinely Christian for certain purposes (e.g., electoral politics)
(e.g., Bethel Church members would not be eligible to hold political office)
Christian Structuralism – A state informed and limited by a Christian theology of civil government
Like Christian nationalism and establishmentarianism, the state is seen as a divinely ordained minister of public justice, protecting and promoting peace, order, and the common good
The state’s authority and legal monopoly on coercive force is not derived from institutional monarchy or social contracts
At most, such arrangements help us identify states from other hierarchical structures (e.g., families, school systems, criminal syndicates) but do not confer legitimacy on the institution itself
Holds that punishing ‘crimes against God’ (i.e., crimes without social injustice—such as fornication or blasphemy) is outside the state’s purview according to Scripture
Such sins await either future judgment or forgiveness through the justice achieved by the cross of Christ
Acknowledges entrenched value pluralism and seeks to pass legislation that enjoys religiously overlapping consensus (e.g., murder, rape, and bearing false witness in court are illegal) through public reason and a politics of moral engagement
Entrenched value pluralism: People deeply disagree about what constitutes the ‘right’ and the ‘good’, and that disagreement—contra postmillennialism—isn’t going away
Religiously overlapping consensus: There is no neutral ground. “Do not murder” isn’t neutral; it’s religiously or worldview-popular
Public reason: Reasoning that does not appeal to uniquely Christian principles and thus, does not prematurely shutdown conversation with non-Christians
E.g., “Pornography is wrong because it demeans women and facilitates human trafficking” vs. “Pornography is wrong because it induces lust, which the Bible condemns.”
Politics of moral engagement: Politicians should openly defend the ethical foundations of their legislation to avoid fruitless, “ships-passing-in-the-night” dialogue
Legislators are not encouraged to abandon their worldview in the legislative process
When no religously overlapping consensus can be found (e.g., abortion), legislators should advocate for the law that best represents their own value system (or perhaps that of their constituents). No one is to pretend worldview neutrality
Summary and Contrasts
The “Christian” element of each model is different, but all can be considered robustly Christian in contrast to secular models:
In Christian establishmentarianism, the state is denominationally Christian by formal constitution, a titular (if not robust) state head and possibly, denominational public norms (e.g., Catholic education in Malta, historical infant baptism)
In Christian nationalism, the state is Christian primarily because it passes and enforces Christian legislation (e.g., outlawing fornication and/or public blasphemy) in order to develop and nurture a Christian society
In Christian structuralism, the state is Christian because it does what Christian Scripture prescribes—and no more (e.g., it does not legislate against ‘crimes against God’ in which no communal injustice is involved). The state is Christian in virtue of its operational structure
In the American idiom, Christian establishmentarianism actually allows more First Amendment rights—particularly freedom of religion, speech, and press—than a Christian legislative state
Historically, the church has often been wed to the state in some form, even in the absence of First Amendment rights
Among other reasons, Christian structuralism objects to Christian nationalism, holding that the latter is unbiblical because it misunderstands the scope of state authority according to Scripture
Among other reasons, Christian nationalism objects to Christian structuralism, holding that the latter is theologically and ethically confused on account of believing that certain sins bring about societal injustice while others do not. There are no private sins, says the Christian nationalist—they all, at one level or another, harm others and contribute to injustice and collective unrighteousness (Gr. adikia)
Christian nationalism as a political theology is not wed to race or ‘whiteness’
None of the three models suggest that legislators—or voters—should pretend worldview neutrality, which is, in fact, impossible
Conclusion
There you have it: the three dominant views of the Christian state in recent history. Despite their overlap, all are “Christian” in different ways.
Which is correct? Is there a singular, “correct” model, or is the model for which Christians should advocate a matter of historical and circumstantial wisdom? Has word count betrayed my convictions?
These are fine questions, which I hope to address in the future.
But understanding the lay of the land in Christian political theology should help Christians pump the brakes on pretending that only one model of the state is viable for serious believers. Indeed, church history, in conjunction with Scripture, has not left us with political parochialism as an option.