Politics is a necessary evil and yet the root of all evil. It is a concern that religion exists with the permission of the state and its politicians. It has members who are actively involved in politics. It is a concern that religion is so widespread because it used to be actively supported by the political system. The state today often funds faith schools, gives religion and its charities tax exemption, allows religion to deny abortion and gender affirming surgery and on and on it goes. The religion I am most concerned about here is Christianity.
Politics is notoriously corrupt and always has been. The Bible says of God, "And he shall cast the mighty down from their thrones." If politics and the state really thought God had the power to do this, if people of faith would be his instruments in doing it, would they really be so tolerant and accepting of religion? Yet presidents often take their oath of office on a Bible!
To what extent though is the Bible political?
THE WHOLE BIBLE IS POLITICAL
In the ancient Near East, religion and politics were not separate spheres. To “be Israel” was both a political and religious identity — covenant and kingship were two sides of the same coin... an ancient worldview where the political was theological. So the scriptures, Old and New Testaments are political. The Old is more obviously so than the New. But all the praying and all the spiritual teaching is tied to the political and is meant to sustain it and vice versa.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU CONFINE THE QUESTION TO POLITICAL HISTORY?
Roughly a third to two-fifths of the Old Testament centers on political history — kings, wars, and national affairs.
SO?
It is very wrong to commit anyone, especially a child, to Christianity which claims the Bible is God's word. Politics needs to be a deeply personal decision. People died. Blood spurts from that political entity, the Bible. It is obscene to put a child through christening, communion and public worship. It is bad enough to trample on the victims of the political weapon of the Bible for religious reasons. But if it is about the parties and tradition that is an utter disgrace.
HOW SECULARISM SHOWS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS MANIPULATIVE
The Bible God and bible history reject any difference between church and state. So has Christianity the right to accept secular separation of church and state or any government apart from theocracy? The notion of separation, to any degree, is a modern creation so it would seem it does not.
1. The Biblical Context: No Explicit Separation
The Bible doesn’t articulate a doctrine of “separation of church and state” in any sense - never mind the modern, secular sense.
In both the Old and New Testaments:
• In Israel’s theocracy, religion and governance were intertwined — laws, rituals, and kingship all rested on divine authority (e.g., Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel).
• In the New Testament, while Jesus does distinguish between God’s and Caesar’s realms (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” Mark 12:17), that’s not a full endorsement of secularism — it’s more a recognition that political authority has a limited but legitimate domain under God.
So, biblically speaking, there’s no mandate for secular separation; rather, there’s a sense that all authority — civil or religious — is ultimately accountable to God (Romans 13:1–4).
2. Historical Christianity: Integration, Not Separation
For most of Christian history, church and state were seen as two aspects of one divinely ordered society:
• Constantine onward: After Christianity became legal (4th century), the church often worked alongside or within the state.
• Medieval Christendom: The Pope and Christian monarchs saw themselves as partners (and sometimes rivals) in governing a Christian people.
• Reformation era: Even Protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin didn’t promote modern secularism — they argued for the independence of conscience but still assumed the state should uphold Christian morality.
So historically, Christianity functioned as a public religion, not a private one separated from political life.
3. Modern Shift: Enlightenment and Liberal Democracies
The “separation of church and state” as we know it is indeed a modern creation,
rooted in Enlightenment political thought and post-Reformation pluralism.
It arose from two pressures:
• Religious wars (16th–17th centuries) showed that state-enforced religion produced violence and tyranny.
• Philosophical liberalism (Locke, Jefferson) proposed that faith must be free to be genuine — and that the state should not enforce doctrine.
This secular arrangement wasn’t originally “Christian,” but over time many Christians adopted it as a prudential principle — not as divine law, but as the best way to ensure freedom of conscience and protect the church from corruption by political power.
4. Theological Justifications for Acceptance
Modern Christian theologians justify accepting the separation of church and state on several grounds:
• Free Will and Conscience: True faith cannot be coerced; separating state power from church authority protects freedom of belief (Romans 14:5, John 18:36).
• Two Kingdoms Doctrine: Some traditions (esp. Lutherans) teach that God rules the world in two ways — through the church by the gospel, and through the state by law and order.
• Mission Focus: The church’s mission is spiritual transformation, not political dominance (John 18:36 again).
• Historical Wisdom: When the church has controlled the state, corruption often followed; thus, separation serves the gospel’s integrity.
5. Conclusion:
So has Christianity the theological right to accept secular separation of church and state? No.
Otherwise, yes — but not as a divine command, but as a legitimate and prudent adaptation to historical and cultural realities.
Christianity’s core claim is that Christ is Lord over all — but how that lordship is expressed in social order has always varied. Accepting secular separation does not deny God’s sovereignty; it merely limits the state’s claim to represent God directly.
Given that theology is worship, and the state is asked to respect religion, a tension arises. What if people think any separation is too much based on what man says, when the Bible does not authorise any separation at all? There is no inspiration in it as to how a healthy but distinct religion and state relationship should look.