Christianity + The American State

From the founding of the nation, the United States of America has had a complicated and  intertwined relationship with religion, specifically Christianity. Considering the Quakers who established Pennsylvania, one of the original thirteen colonies, to Benjamin Franklin petitioning George Washington to open each day of the Constitutional Convention with prayer to “our Powerful Friend” Christianity is found firmly at the foundation of the nation. However, the establishment of the first amendment created a clear boundary separating the State from the Church, limiting the federal government from infringing the rights of any religious group or establishing a national religion. Eleven years later, Thomas Jefferson explained that the first amendment was to act as a wall between the Church and State. He stated, “ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.” He believed that it was not the role of the government to interfere in the spiritual lives of the individual, but that the spiritual lives of the individuals would, however, impact the moral center of the nation—as did many of the founding fathers.

Theologians Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan state that in the establishment of the nation, even of the first amendment, “it is clear that the prevailing consensus of a religiously based, biblical ethic was viewed as essential to the success of the fledgling experiment in democracy.”  Furthermore, President John Adams theorized that the Constitution “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” How do all of these ideas coincide and how should modern American Christians interact with issues of the Church and of the State? That is the question that we must be willing to ask and struggle through.

The vast majority of American Christians have chosen one of two extremes: to be Christian Nationalists who believe the government should be run solely on Christian beliefs or to completely disengage from politics altogether. Human nature draws us away from tension and towards absolution—we are not typically comfortable with allowing ourselves to hold onto two ideas that create tension between one another. Realistically, however, there is incredible tension in how American Christians ought to engage in the political realm and neither extreme is biblical or helpful. 

In the Old Testament, there is a very clear need for biblical governmental leadership. In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam to subdue the Earth—the first commandment ever given (Gen 1:28). There is no caveat anywhere in Scripture implying that those who follow God should not subdue the political arena. There are countless examples, however, of God raising up governmental leaders who feared Him and His laws to cause a nation to flourish (Dan 2:21; Prov 29:2). Although God pleaded with Israel not to install a king (1 Sam 8:6–9), once they did, God desired that their king be a man of obedience to Himself first and foremost (Deut 17:18–20). Scripture states several times that when there is godly leadership, a nation thrives (Prov 29:2; 2 Sam 23:3–4). When a governmental leader is not obedient to the rules and ways of God, the nation suffers (Prov 28:2; Isa 3:12).

However, the New Testament seems to shift in its perspective of the worldly structures of government and politics. While everyone was looking for the Messiah to be a dynastic ruler who would slay those that opposed God’s chosen people, Jesus came in humility and did little to nothing to stop the Romans who were occupying Israel at the time. When asked about paying taxes, an incredibly sensitive point of contention for the Jewish people at the time, Jesus shocked the masses by saying in Matthew 22:21 to, “give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to give to God what is God’s.” Paul later used his Roman citizenship to his advantage—not distancing himself from ungodly leadership but using it for the advancement of the Gospel and his ministry, not seeking to influence or overthrow it through governmental pipelines or systems. The Early Church did not prioritize political reform but instead focused on advancing the Kingdom of Heaven through proclamation and discipleship. They had “a specific commission to evangelize the Gentiles, not to reform the Roman Empire.” 

Do the Old and New Testament contradict each other in their approach to governmental systems and the believers? Of course not! There is simply a healthy balance required in order for all of these biblical principles to be applied and lived out. 

There are several methods that can be applied in the relationship between church and state, applying them properly is the greatest challenge that American Christians currently face. Some models attempt to privilege religion in government, while others attempt to remove it entirely from public life. Remembering that America is not Ancient Israel and is not God’s chosen nation, the answer is not to apply the Old Testament commandment for an absolute religious governmental takeover. A much healthier balance would be found in the application of a Civil Public Square model of government. In this model, “citizens of any faith—or no faith—can engage in public life within the framework of the Constitution.” This model is built upon the principles of the citizens’ rights, responsibility, and respect. It ensures that citizens are free to hold their individual beliefs, obligated to respect the beliefs of others, and still able to engage in civil discourse when disagreements arise. This method would yield a “benevolent cooperation between church and state in which the state is frankly open to religiously inspired moral influences and the church does not seek special privileges, confining its prophetic pronouncements to moral issues rather than focusing on politicians or political parties.” The key phrase being, “religiously inspired moral influences.” This is not a religious takeover but a religious influence. In a perfect world, untouched by sin, we would be able to have a government totally built on biblical principles, but in the fallen world in which we live, we actually do not want that as man historically perverts the application of it. If we did try and do this, stateside, we would then need to allow other religions to fuse their beliefs into governmental structures as well instead of simply allowing inspiration of morals. The major world religions, if fused together into one religiously dominated state would collapse into utter chaos as they do not coincide or agree with one another in a functional way. There is still danger, even in a balanced civil public square model, that the believer may still idolize the political sector and allow its role to supersede their desire for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

If America plans on remaining a melting pot of different world cultures and people groups, it must also continue to allow individual religious practices. When someone gives their heart and soul to a religion, namely to Jesus, it impacts every single sphere of their life including the way they lean politically. It will also influence their platforms if they decide to engage in the political sector professionally. That is undeniable and should not be stopped. It should, however, be balanced as the Constitution, the First Amendment, and the writers of the New Testament and Jesus Himself, instruct. Practically, this should look like believers who care deeply about the welfare of their nation, vote according to their biblical convictions, while refusing to weaponize their religious beliefs to force religious conformity. The Gospel will go forward through love and the preaching of the Word, not through governmental force or endorsement.

Bibliography

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

Franklin, Benjamin. “Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention,” June 28, 1787. In
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, edited by Max Farrand, 1:451–52. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911.

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. January 1, 1802. Accessed April
18, 2026. https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html.