Regardless of the differences over Kingdom Theology, or other theological issues, the Christian Church must be united and resolute in this: The Moral Law of God is not the State’s to define. This belongs exclusively to the Christian Church to teach powerfully and winsomely, in and out of church, exactly what the bible teaches so that hearers will learn to fear God more than man.

A proper understanding of Church/State relations actually hinges upon one question: Who defines morality: God or State?

If it is the State (one, or more than one, branch government), then morality is subjectively determined and can be whatever the State wants it to be. If it is God, who has given us His Holy, inerrant, and infallible Word, then the definition of morality is objective and independent of human understanding.

The State may reject the objective and independent evidence of God’s Moral Law, but it can never say that it doesn’t exist; just as I cannot say, because I despise its philosophy, that The Communist Manifesto doesn’t exist. It does exist. In fact, I own a copy. Likewise, the Church “can choose to look the other way, but it can never say it didn’t know” (William Wilberforce).

My defense of the Church speaking openly about the State’s violation of the Moral Law is not just academic exercise. For if in truth we believe that God alone defines morality, that we are commanded to teach all His truth (unlike Tomas Jefferson and his edited bible), then we must “Do our best to present ourselves to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, ESV). In other words, we have an obligation to interpret God’s Word correctly, especially during times when it is misinterpreted corporately by the State.

We also have an obligation to resist “disputing about words” (2 Tim. 2:14a). This causes the weightier matters to go unattended, thus obscuring the identity of the real enemy: an autonomous, arrogant, spiritually blind, and dangerous State, who declares its right, and not God’s, to define morality. Even so, some may still be confused about the meaning of “disputing about words.” So, I offer this simple illustration and brief commentary by Pastor Ray Stedman in order to focus on the real enemy:

As the Battle of Trafalgar was about to begin, Admiral Nelson came across two officers of his own flagship who were arguing hotly and about to take sword to each other. Nelson stepped between them and said, “Stop.” Then, pointing to the French fleet, he said, “There is the enemy.”

For whatever reason if the Church refuses to speak about the State’s usurpation of God’s Moral Law, and chooses to “dispute about words” instead, then by default it grants permission to the State to define morality for everyone. But even in the Church’s sinful silence, the Holy Spirit is relentless to communicate His truth to us by way of example and illustration, and spare us all the consequences of the corporate sin.

Consider Jesus and Paul, if you will, who harshly criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees (Jewish political and religious leaders) and Judaizers (Jewish Christian leaders) for misrepresenting and distorting the Moral Law. 2,000 years changes nothing. Oh course, the dominant focus of moral issues has changed (abortion, marriage, gender dysphoria, etc.); nevertheless, it is still corporate misrepresentation and distortion of the Moral Law, and the Church is morally obliged to respond to the State.

Consider also that the sins of the State have the net effect of becoming civil law, and often without the vote of lawmakers. The State, together with some non-State groups (including Theonomists who advance an idea that even judicial laws of the Old Testament should be observed) are responsible for making Divine Law into something it is not. One of my clients, Dr. Michael Milton, wrote in Silent No More (a book that I published in 2013), that he utterly rejected theonomy. I agree.

Who does the Church follow or imitate? Paul said “imitate me just as I imitate Christ.” When we do imitate Paul and Christ, this is what should happen; this is what we should see: church leaders becoming so convicted concerning State misrepresentations and distortions of the Moral Law, that they actually begin to preach and develop educational programs in this area, and for all age levels. This is especially important for children who are daily confronted with opposing views.

So, why does the Church still resist speaking to the State about its corporate violations of God’s Moral Law? From my research, I have found ten reasons (discussed in depth in the body of this work) for Church resistance to speaking out against the State when it overturns the Moral Law through its legislative power:

1. First, the Church resists because it does not see it their duty to speak about State violations of the Moral Law.
2. Second, the Church resists because it is in a state of denial.
3. Third, the Church resists because of a misunderstanding of separation of Church and State.
4. Fourth, the Church resists because it does not fully understand the doctrine of Common Grace.
5. Fifth, the Church resists because it lacks understanding of the corporate nature of sin.
6. Sixth, the Church resists because of confusion over Kingdom Theology.
7. Seventh, the Church resists because speaking to the State is not a priority.
8. Eight, the Church resists because of Traditionalism.
9. Nine, the Church resists because its focus has been blurred.
10. Ten, the Church resists because the older model it uses does not include a response from the Church when the State overturns the Moral Law.

From a human perspective, it is predictable, though not biblical, when the Church resists speaking to the State about its blatant contempt of God’s Moral Law. However, that fact does not make the consequences of silence any less serious–to the Church or to the general public. In the following paragraphs I give a brief commentary on a few examples of Church resistance in the hope that you will study this subject in depth.

Beginning with Common Grace, I show how these 10 reasons are all connected to the same problem–a lack of moral oversight by the Church! Common Grace is an extremely important Christian doctrine, and should be part of Church instruction at all age levels; however, most churches are only vaguely familiar with what the Bible teaches about how an orderly life is made possible, how the destructive power of sin is restrained, and many other blessings taught by this doctrine which benefit everyone.

Next is Corporate or National Sin, which is most egregiously committed by the State when it overturns God’s Moral Law. Government does this when it, rather than God, determines when life begins. Government does this when it, rather than God, defines gender. Government does this when it, rather than God, defines marriage.

If corporate or national sin is not a part of a church’s vocabulary and teaching, it should be. Throughout history there are very good reasons why God chooses to remove His restraining Grace (the work of the Holy Spirit in restraining human sin) from a whole nation. When this happens, this nation is no longer a safe place. Yes, there will always be individual sin that we will have to contend with in this life, and how it has affected nature. But Common Grace benefits everyone—believer and non-believer alike—by favoring mankind with kindness and love through law and order, protection, peace, and happiness. But Common Grace comes with a price: Government must never take the place of God; it must never overthrow God’s Moral Law; and it is the duty of the Church to teach the blessings of obedience and the tragedy of disobedience.

It is also important to understand how differing views of Kingdom Theology confuse the biblical view of church and state. For instance, if your pastor studied at Reformed Theological Seminary rather than Westminster Seminary California, there would definitely be a difference in the way this doctrine is taught, and how that affects the understanding of church/state relations. Gets confusing, doesn’t it? Actually, the difference hits at the heart of the issue I’m addressing: whether or not the Church should speak to the State about its violations of the Moral Law.

Finally, whether we realize it or not, most Christians are affected by both Traditionalism and Tradition. Traditionalism, as described by Charles Swindoll is “an attitude that resists change, adaptation, or alteration.” Tradition, although sharing an appreciation of the past, does not share that “resistance to change, adaptation, or alteration.” Put another way by historian Jaroslav Pelikan:

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”― Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities

What I propose to the Church and para-church organizations regarding the State’s corporate sin is: (1) a shift in focus, encompassing a broader view of Scripture (“teaching them to observe all things I have commanded”); and (2) a new model, radically different from the older church/state model, which never encouraged speaking directly to the State as a corporate body when it overturned the Moral Law.

To put it in context, the meaning of “speaking to the State” over the years was a very general Christian world and life view. What was unique in this is how united all these groups were, and still are, in defending their biblical and Constitutional rights against the misinterpretation of separation of church and state. What was sidelined in the process, though, was the moral authority of the Church, because the Church did not resist intrusion by the State—at least as a church body vs. individual response. Law and order in a civil society depend upon a correct biblical understanding of morality. According to the Bible, this is the way it’s supposed to work:  The magistrate (national, state, or local leader) exercises judicial authority in God’s Kingdom over good and just laws, and the Christian Church exercises spiritual authority in the same Kingdom over the definition of morality as given in God’s Word. Same God, same Kingdom, different roles.

Regardless of the differences over Kingdom Theology, or other theological issues, the Christian Church must be united and resolute in this: The Moral Law of God is not the State’s to define. This belongs exclusively to the Christian Church to teach powerfully and winsomely, in and out of church, exactly what the bible teaches so that hearers will learn to fear God more than man.

So, one of the first steps the Church should take to help remedy the State’s attempt to redefine morality is to reject traditionalism (adherence to traditional views which are not clearly biblical views) and routinely evaluate prioritization (order of importance can and does change) rather than seeing them as fixed institutions. I argue that if we do just one thing right regarding Church & State, it should be to speak forcefully with unity when the State violates God’s Moral Law. This action on the part of the Church will result in letting “justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

Charlie Rodriguez is a retired Minister in the PCA living in the Dallas, Texas area. This article is from the Preface of “Who Defines Morality: God or State?” due to be published November 2020.