The relationship between the Christian and government has, throughout history, been a matter of much debate. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 13: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been appointed by God.” These words show that authority itself is an institution of God. Whoever resists authority resists God’s ordinance. The government’s task is to reward good and punish evil; it does not bear the sword in vain. Therefore obedience is required not only out of fear of punishment, but above all for conscience’s sake.
In Philippians 3:20 the believer’s position is described: “Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be conformed to His glorious body.” This text emphasizes the heavenly orientation of the Christian. His true homeland is not on earth but in heaven. Hence arises the question how a believer should relate to the political and social order in which he lives.
Political Activism?
Scripture does not state clearly whether we should or should not vote, nor does it offer any political program or preference. It only shows in principle how the believer, as a stranger in the world, lives under a government ordained by God. From that perspective we may derive guidelines, but not a ready-made system for political involvement.
Throughout history people have repeatedly tried to use Jesus Christ as justification for political or revolutionary movements. During the medieval peasant uprisings, in the liberation theology of the twentieth century, and in modern political trends, He has been portrayed as an activist who fought injustice. But when Jesus drove the traders out of the temple, He did so not as a political reformer but as the Son of God cleansing His Father’s house. His act was religious, not social.
Anyone who cites that event to justify political revolution misses the essence of the gospel. Within the church of Christ, evil and impurity must indeed be excluded; discipline is required there. But in society the church has no divine mandate to ignite revolution or seize power.
Likewise the idea that Jesus identified Himself with a specific ethnic or social group is false. He did not take on the role of the oppressed to bring political liberation, but of the sinner to grant redemption. His mission was spiritual in nature: to glorify God and save sinners.
Relationship to the Government
On the cross Christ accomplished a twofold reconciliation. First, He bore our sins so that whoever believes in Him may live righteously. Second, He was made sin Himself, so that the believer might become the righteousness of God in Him. The core of the gospel is not social reform but reconciliation with God.
Those who see sin merely as injustice between people forget that the first sin was rebellion against God. The rupture between man and Creator is the root of all other injustice. Therefore restoration of the vertical relationship is the condition for healing of the horizontal one. Whoever ignores this and seeks only to improve social structures is mopping while the tap remains open.
Scripture teaches, as already noted, that God appoints governments and that the believer must acknowledge them as servants of God. Even a pagan or unjust ruler falls within that general order. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was called “My servant” by God, though he sinned in his pride. Government is thus an instrument in God’s hand, whether or not it realizes it.
Therefore the Christian’s basic attitude is one of obedience and respect. Only when the government demands something that directly contradicts God’s will does a boundary arise. In that case, as Peter and John said, “We must obey God rather than men.”
The Bible, however, contains no call to civil disobedience. Christians are not summoned to take to the barricades. They always have the duty of obedience—either to God or, when consistent with His order, to the authorities.
Relationship to Democracy
Modern democracy raises a new question: no longer whether we must obey the government—that is clear—but whether Christians are also called to take part in forming that government. Should we make use of our right to vote, or refrain from it?
In a democracy every citizen can exert influence through elections. That influence may seem small but is fundamental: to vote is to share responsibility for the policy that elected representatives will later pursue.
Passive suffrage is the right to be elected, active suffrage the right to vote. Whoever holds political office participates directly in decision-making. Whoever votes implicitly grants a mandate and thus shares moral responsibility. The voter cannot hide behind the notion that his single vote makes no difference. Each participant bears responsibility for the consequences of his choice.
The Inevitable Compromise
When someone votes for a party or candidate, he identifies himself with that program, including the compromises that the elected person will inevitably have to make. In practice, a vote may help bring about policies that contradict biblical standards, for example regarding abortion or moral legislation. Anyone who votes must ask himself whether he can take responsibility for those results.
Democracy forces compromise. A government functions only through coalitions in which people must yield to one another. As a result, absolute standards are easily lost from view. Christian parties, despite good intentions, have never been able to end sin in public life. They have always had to make concessions.
History shows how dangerous it is when believers mix their spiritual calling with political power. In 1930s Germany, many Christians—including those from previously apolitical movements such as the Brethren assemblies—voted for Hitler, believing he would restore order, family, and moral values. Yet their votes helped bring to power a regime that murdered millions and perverted the gospel. The “German Christian” movement openly supported Hitler and even glorified him as sent by God. The testimony of Christ was deeply disgraced.
In South Africa, white Reformed believers voted for parties that upheld apartheid for decades. They justified this with appeals to biblical order but became complicit in oppression and injustice. In Latin America, evangelical churches supported authoritarian leaders in hope of protecting religious freedom, and thus became partners in corruption and violence.
A similar development is taking place in the United States. Large parts of the evangelical movement link their faith with party politics and nationalism. They defend leaders who act immorally as long as those leaders promise to uphold “Christian values.” In doing so, faith becomes entangled with power and loses its moral authority. The cross then more and more turns into a party logo, so to speak.
Primary Calling
The core question for the Christian is this: is he called to exercise power over others? The Bible teaches that government is instituted by God to maintain order, but nowhere that believers are commanded to form the state themselves. Israel knew a theocracy in which the king was directly appointed by God; that model does not apply to the church. Since Pentecost, the people of God are no longer a nation but a spiritual community living scattered among the nations.
Principle or Pragmatism
Two attitudes remain. The first is pragmatic: one votes to promote the lesser evil, believing that not voting only leaves room for worse forces. The second is principled: one abstains from participation, viewing the present political system as a human order governed by power rather than righteousness. Both choices have consequences. The Bible prescribes neither. Each must decide before God what he considers right, with a clear conscience and without condemning others (Romans 14:5, 23; Colossians 3:17).
Separation of Church and State
The New Testament draws a clear line between the role of government and that of the church. Government maintains order and punishes wrongdoing; the church proclaims reconciliation and righteousness through Christ. When the church tries to take over the functions of the state, she loses her spiritual calling. When the state tries to regulate faith, it exceeds its authority.
The separation of church and state is therefore not hostile but necessary. The government can promote justice but cannot create faith. The church can renew hearts but cannot enforce laws. The Christian lives at the intersection of these two realities: he respects government, yet his deepest loyalty belongs to Christ.
The Position of a Christian
The believer lives within a temporary world order. His citizenship is in heaven; his stay here is that of a stranger and sojourner. He awaits the return of the King who will one day judge the earth in righteousness. Until then, he bears witness through his manner of life, not through political power.
When Christ returns, He will establish a kingdom in which justice and righteousness reign perfectly. Then there will be no compromise or division. Until that moment, the Christian’s calling is to live in obedience, humility, and love amid an imperfect world.
Summary
Government is ordained by God; obedience to it belongs to the Christian life as long as its commands do not conflict with God’s will. Civil disobedience has no basis in Scripture. Only when obedience to God and obedience to men exclude each other does the believer choose God. Political participation is not a command but a matter of conscience. Whoever takes part must realize that power corrupts and that in a secular system one always makes concessions. The church’s testimony lies not in legislation or social reform but in proclaiming the gospel. The believer’s hope is set on the coming of Christ, not on the improvement of earthly systems. The Christian is called to remain faithful in small things, to pray for those in authority, and to show by his conduct that he belongs to the King who is coming.