A government that knows its limits is often safer than one that believes itself a savior. A government that believes itself a savior will not remain a servant for long.

It may seem like a strange title, and it is, but these things do have a strange correlation. I speak as one who has had Christian Nationalist-adjacent ideas and tendencies before it had a name, though the problem today is that no one seems able to say exactly what Christian Nationalism (CN) is. I have also been somewhat sympathetic to the storyline that Constantine the Great was a blessing for the church, though I now suspect that what has often been called a blessing may, in fact, be the root of some of our deepest confusions.

Now, the Barbary Pirates—what has this to do with any of the above? I am referring, of course, to the conflict remembered in the United States Marine Corps Anthem: “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” In that era, the early United States had a piracy problem off the Barbary coast. American ships were being attacked, and the United States sought to defend the right of its citizens to freedom of passage on the seas and the right to engage in commerce.

Personal Note

By way of background, I went to Knox Theological Seminary and graduated with a Master of Arts in General Theological Studies in 2001. I was also a member of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in the 90’s when D. James Kennedy (DJK) was senior pastor. At that time, Coral Ridge Ministries (CRM) was very much involved in “kingdom politics” and had an annual Reclaiming America conference promoting the idea that America was a Christian nation.

The seminary that DJK started was called Knox Seminary, after the Scottish reformer John Knox, who was known to have had very strong political views about church-state relations and who was zealous in his views concerning the relation of civil authority and religion. Some church historians have even referred to Knox as “Calvin with a sword.”

I look back at those years at Knox and Coral Ridge as deeply formative for me, and I remain grateful for the instruction I received there. I learned Old Testament from O. Palmer Robertson, Systematics from Robert Reymond and R. C. Sproul, and Church History from Jonathan Gerstner.

Having said all this, some may place me in one of two camps. First, some may see me as sympathetic to Christian Nationalism because of my background. Others, after reading this article, may conclude that I am not altogether in favor of Christian Nationalism. Since no one seems able to define exactly what Christian Nationalism is, perhaps both judgments would be understandable. It must be said, however, that it would be inaccurate to say that CRM and Knox Seminary were promoting anything that resembles today’s CN.

What I am actually attempting to do is draw from my own background and experience to offer a few needed clarifications. There is no simple formula for how church and state ought to relate in the gospel age. This brief article is simply an effort to think through that question at the most basic level. I will begin by the curious event in the early days of the republic.

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797)

Before the First Barbary War, the Treaty of Tripoli said some interesting things about the new American republic:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen… no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This treaty has caused no small debate among advocates of the view that America was founded as a Christian nation. Some have even gone so far as to question its authenticity. If the statement is read in its diplomatic context, however, it appears less a declaration of national identity and more an attempt to define the limited scope of the treaty.

Some observations:

1. America was distinguishing itself from the older patterns of Christendom and crusader politics. The United States was not fighting a holy war against Islam. The treaty concerned commerce and freedom of passage on the seas.
2. It made it possible for a Muslim state to enter into a treaty without appearing to be in league with an infidel nation.
3. The United States was declaring its neutrality in religious wars.

This treaty shows remarkable wisdom in limiting the scope of the conflict. It was not about religion. That many of the founders of the new republic were deists or influenced by the Age of Enlightenment did not mean they were without a Christian worldview. Their public world had been shaped by Christian principles, and they often said as much. John Adams, though not an orthodox Christian, wrote:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The government of the republic, then, was not opposed to Christianity, but was the product of a broad Christian consensus. By both design and necessity, however, it was not an establishmentarian government. Several states maintained their own religious establishments, especially in New England, but the federal government could not do so. Had it established a national religion, the states could scarcely have entered the union on equal terms, since a federal establishment would have held preeminence over differing state settlements.

The No Establishment Clause and Constantine

It is almost as though, by an accident of history, the new republic altered the course of more than a thousand years of Western political order. Since the age of Constantine the Great, civil government in the West had largely operated under some form of established Christianity, in which political authority and religious identity were joined together.

With the absence of a national establishment, the American republic marked not merely a minor constitutional adjustment, but a significant civilizational departure—one that in important respects reached back beyond the Constantinian settlement itself. In that sense, it looked less toward Constantine the Great and more toward Cyrus the Great.

Cyrus was no modern secular ruler, nor was his empire religiously neutral in the contemporary sense. Yet he is remembered for governing a diverse realm with prudence, permitting subject peoples a measure of local order and religious life, and in Scripture for allowing the Jews to return to Judea and rebuild. He did not rule through a confessional establishment of one universal faith imposed upon all peoples. He even used public funds to support the rebuilding of the temple.

America was not consciously imitating Cyrus, and the comparison should not be pressed too far. Yet as a contrast it remains suggestive: not Constantine, where throne and altar were joined, but Cyrus, where civil order could exist without a national church.

Common Law Republic

The new republic was not irreligious or without a concept of God, but it was not an enforcer of religion. When Thomas Jefferson helped write the United States Declaration of Independence, he used the phrase “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” to refer to a body of law derived not from Scripture, but from general revelation—the common law.

This law is the same in all times, in all places, and for all peoples. It substantially corresponds to the moral law revealed in Scripture, though not as complete, nor does it contain the good news of the gospel. Essentially, it is best described as the second table of the law—man’s duty toward his neighbor.

No matter where you go, everyone knows that murder, stealing, lying, and disrespect of authority are wrong. It is the law written on the heart, and everyone knows it, even if he does not obey it. Paul the Apostle explains this in the book of Romans.

Romans 2:14–15
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

This is a source of law not obtained from Scripture, yet binding upon all men. It is written on their hearts, and they know it. It was this law to which the Declaration of Independence appealed when the colonies charged George III with injustice.

Breaking Constantine

The non-establishmentarian nature of the Federal Government meant that the jurisdiction of the government was limitedand not all-encompassing. It was not going to intervene in religious disputes but only be concerned with the second table of the law—duties toward our neighbor.

Read More