Get Renew.org Weekly Emails

Want fresh teachings and disciple making content? Sign up to receive a weekly newsletters highlighting our resources and new content to help equip you in your disciple making journey. We’ll also send you emails with other equipping resources from time to time.

13 minutes
Download

Church and State: 4 Ways of Church-State Interaction in History

First, some bad news. The bad news is that, historically, churches haven’t always resisted the allure of false, prepackaged gospels. Sometimes churches have traded their call to be the people of God for the prospect of being a branch of the government. In this way, they give the government a stamp of spiritual legitimacy, but in the process they lose their voice of truth and prophetic critique.

The good news is that there have been other, more biblical, ways that churches have interacted with governments throughout history. Before we briefly describe four models of church-state interaction, it will be helpful to quickly review the story of church history.

The church has had over 2,000 years of history, and it can be difficult to keep the highlights clear in one’s mind. One way to help people remember some of the major events of church history (with an emphasis on the church in the Western world) is to use game board pieces:

  1. Thimble: The Monopoly thimble represents the early church up against Roman persecution—think sharp metal objects like needles—and yet standing strong under the opposition.
  2. King: The chess king represents the church under Emperor Constantine, who ended the persecution against the church and gave it special privileges.
  3. Iron: The Monopoly iron is for when the church brought together its leaders to iron out some core theology through church councils.
  4. Knight: The chess knight symbolizes the invasion of barbarians (e.g., picture the Huns on horseback) which brought down the Western half of the empire and initiated the Dark Ages.
  5. Bishop: The chess bishop is the pope, the bishop of the church in Rome, who stepped up to lead during the chaos of the Dark Ages. Already perceived as one of the premier leaders of the church, these years grew the bishop’s leadership over the church as a whole.
  6. Checker: The checker is the “Holy Roman Empire,” initiated when the pope crowned Charlemagne as emperor (“King me.”).
  7. Rook: The chess rook, which can only go two directions, represents the two directions the church split in A.D. 1054, when West (Roman Catholic) and East (Eastern Orthodox) finally separated in the “Great Schism.”
  8. Top Hat: The Monopoly top hat stands for the growing prominence, pride, and pragmatism of the Roman Catholic church hierarchy.
  9. Pawn: The chess pawn symbolizes the Protestant Reformation which ordained the common Christian as a priest (the “priesthood of all believers”).
  10. Ship: The Monopoly ship stands for the discoveries of the New World, a world which Catholic and Protestant missionaries would largely convert.
  11. Dice: Dice symbolize the emergence of new philosophies of chance, like Darwinism, which cast doubt on there being a divine purpose behind everything.
  12. Shoe: Finally, the Monopoly shoe stands for the church, which continues to march on.

“Pawn: The chess pawn symbolizes the Protestant Reformation which ordained the common Christian as a priest (the “priesthood of all believers”).”


The problem with the simplicity of these twelve steps is that numbers 6–9 in this list actually happen twice. The first time, pope crowns emperor (checker), church splits in two (rook), pope enjoys prestige (top hat), and Reformation champions common man (pawn). The second time follows on the heels of the first, rushing through them more quickly. The Protestant Reformers soon began “kinging” their own alliances with princes and city councils (checker). Meanwhile, the Protestants split into their own divisions (rook). For example, Martin Luther allied with German princes, John Calvin was invited to bring reform to the city of Geneva, Switzerland, as was Ulrich Zwingli for Zurich, Switzerland. Such civic alliances invited new Protestant prestige (top hat).

Not surprisingly, the new powers made for new pawns. Protestants proudly remember the German Diet of Speyer in 1529 as when Protestant princes boldly stood up to the Holy Roman Emperor and successfully protested the religious persecution against them. That is the Diet from which the movement derived its name, “Protestant.” Yet it is also the Diet at which both Catholic powers and new Protestant powers joined together against a new band of pawns, a group called the Anabaptists.[1]

The Reformation had successfully fortified itself with political alliances, as had the church under Constantine, and, yet again, a formerly persecuted minority all too quickly forgot what it had felt like to be persecuted. Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians removed their “pawn” labels and hung them around the necks of the Anabaptists.


Church and State: “Yet again, a formerly persecuted minority all too quickly forgot what it had felt like to be persecuted.”


Who were the Anabaptists? The Anabaptists insisted on baptizing only those who were old enough to make that decision themselves. They were convinced that to join the church should be a choice, and a weighty one at that. So, in 1524, when the Conrad Grebel family was blessed with a baby boy, they had a somber decision to make. Should they follow the custom of their Swiss town, Zurich, and baptize their infant? Seeing infant baptism nowhere in Scripture, the Grebels refused, their stance emboldening other families to do the same.

Then came 1525. On January 17, the Zurich city council decreed that all families with unbaptized children would baptize them within the week or be banished from Zurich. Four days later, the night of January 21, these families made their decision at Felix Manz’s house, where they decided it was time to sever themselves from the church of their city council.[2] Though sprinkled as infants, they walked to the city square under nightfall and baptized each other in the city square’s fountain. The Anabaptists went on to struggle to survive the brutal persecution they went on to face in both Protestant and Catholic lands. However, many of their beliefs, including their repudiation of church-state alliance, survive today (most noticeably in Mennonite, Amish, and Hutterite communities).


Church and State: “The Anabaptists went on to struggle to survive the brutal persecution they went on to face in both Protestant and Catholic lands.”


Against this church history backdrop, we can make better sense of the various kinds of church-state interaction we see throughout church history. We list them here, in order from greater to less church-state interaction. As you’ll notice, each level of interaction fits well with the reception given to the church at the time. Far more can be said about these models (we encourage you to check out the classic book, Christ and Culture, for a more in-depth description), but this will at least give some snapshots of how churches have interacted with the state[3]:

  • (S) Synthesis – An S has two semi-circles that look like each other and blend into each other. What we’re calling S-level interaction is close interaction between church and state, such that there is a synthesis of sorts between the two. Especially in its medieval years, the Roman Catholic Church experienced a synthesis of church and state. During these years, church and state were closely allied while each carried out an important, distinct role for society. This view was articulated by Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas.
  • (C) Conversion – The letter C helps us picture a change, a transformation. The shape of C suggests a turn ahead. Thus, the C stands for “conversion.” John Calvin taught that the state is a gift from God and that the church can help convert/transform it so that what is corrupted can be made godlier and more just. Abraham Kuyper, Calvinist and onetime Prime Minister of the Netherlands, famously said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”[4] Thus, the church can and should seek to transform all layers of society on behalf of Christ.
  • (T) Tension – In a T, you see two sides divided by a solid line. In a T, both sides kind of do their own thing, and there’s not a lot of interaction between them. A T-model church-state interaction is going to stand for the word “tension.” Martin Luther taught that there is a necessary, ongoing tension between the church and the state. God has given one set of ethics to the church (with priority given to grace) and another to the state (with priority given to justice). It is permissible for Christians to be involved in government, but the distinction between the two needs to be kept clear.
  • (O) Opposition – Notice how an O is sealed off from the outside. It suggests a strict separation between what’s inside and outside. In this way, Anabaptists emphasized a sharp, impassable division between the values of the church and the state. It is better for the church and its members not to get involved in governmental affairs (e.g., military service, state jobs, etc.); even voting may be discouraged.

Church and State: “Each level of interaction fits well with the reception given to the church at the time.”


The Bible teaches that the government’s primary purpose is praising right and punishing wrong (see Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:14). Keeping that purpose in mind, which model do you find the most legitimate way of church-state interaction? Are each of them valid depending on how much the church is invited to participate? At what points do the opportunities become temptations?

We want to suggest that, wherever you land when it comes to these models, it’s worth noting that, the closer a church gets to an S-model of interaction, the more temptation there will be for trying to let politics do the heavy lifting of expanding Christ’s kingdom (which is not how his kingdom expands). At the same time, the closer a church gets to an O-model of interaction, the greater the temptation to circle the wagons and not permeate society with the kinds of values our faith provides and which society needs.

A disciple of Jesus is in the world (not trying to escape it) but not of the world (not absorbing its selfish ambitions).


[1] George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Truman State University Press, 1992), 358359.

[2] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 250.

[3] In addition to Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture, you can find a popular-level explanation in a sermon preached by David Young at North Boulevard Church of Christ on July 23, 2023. See David Young, “Church and State 2,” July 23, 2023 https://www.northboulevard.com/sermon/church-and-state-2.

[4] James D. Bratt, Ed, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 461.


This is excerpted from a book by John Whittaker and Daniel McCoy called Following Jesus in a Politically Divided World.

Get Renew.org Weekly Emails

Want fresh teachings and disciple making content? Sign up to receive a weekly newsletters highlighting our resources and new content to help equip you in your disciple making journey. We’ll also send you emails with other equipping resources from time to time.

You Might Also Like

2024 Election Reflections

2024 Election Reflections

November 11, 2024 A week ago, Bobby Harrington wrote in a pre-election article for RENEW.org that an election is a reflection. He wrote, “More than anything, this election will tell us Americans where our nation is spiritually and morally.”[1] If an election functions as a reflection for us to ponder as much as a route […]

More