The concept of a state church, where a particular Christian denomination or church is officially endorsed and supported by the government, has been practiced in various forms throughout history. However, there are differing views among Christians as to whether this model is biblical or not. Here is an overview of the key biblical considerations around state churches.
Arguments in Favor of State Churches
Some of the main biblical arguments used to defend state churches include:
- Israel as a theocracy – In the Old Testament, Israel functioned as a theocratic state where church and state were essentially one. This sets a precedent for church-state integration.
- Support from civil authorities – There are examples in the New Testament of civil authorities supporting the early church – for example, Zenas the lawyer (Titus 3:13) and Erastus the city treasurer (Romans 16:23).
- Submission to governing authorities – Passages like Romans 13:1 instruct believers to “be subject to the governing authorities” which could be interpreted to mean the church submitting to state oversight.
Based on these points, some argue that an official state church is permissible and even potentially beneficial for promoting faith and morality within a nation.
Concerns and Arguments Against State Churches
However, there are also strong biblical concerns about state churches, including:
- No direct command – There is no clear, explicit biblical command either for or against a state church model.
- Distinction between Israel and church – Drawing direct parallels between Old Testament Israel and New Testament Christianity can be problematic.
- Threat of state interference – A state church risks state control and interference which can threaten religious freedom and purity.
- Conversion by compulsion – Having a state church may promote an unhealthy nominal faith, as citizens feel compelled by law to belong to the state church.
- Nationalism over faith – State churches may foster a merging of nationalism and faith, blurring the lines between the kingdom of God and earthly political systems.
Based on these concerns, critics of state churches argue that there needs to be an appropriate distinction between church and state to preserve the integrity of both.
Key Biblical Principles
There are some key biblical principles that seem to argue for distinction and even separation between church and state:
- Different spheres of authority – Jesus distinguished between spiritual and civil authority when He said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).
- Different ends and means – The state uses earthly power and force to maintain order, while the church’s authority is spiritual and focused on conversion through the Gospel (John 18:36).
- Avoiding idolatry – Israel’s example shows the temptation of state-endorsed religion becoming idolatrous as allegiance shifts from God to the state.
At a minimum, these principles seem to argue against the state appointing church leaders or interfering in church governance and doctrine. There clearly needs to be some demarcation between the respective roles and jurisdiction of church and state.
Practical Considerations
In considering state churches, there are several important practical issues that arise:
- Can dissenting faith groups get fair treatment? A state church risks marginalizing or disadvantaging those who do not belong to the endorsed denomination.
- Is it coercive? Does having an official state church lead to compulsory religious adherence for political rights and citizenship?
- Does it distort the mission? Becoming dependent on state support and policy may constrain the church from speaking prophetically or addressing issues in ways that challenge the status quo.
- Does it promote Gospel values? The church’s priority is growing God’s Kingdom. A state church may overly entangle it with secular political agendas.
These practical considerations may undermine the church’s witness and Kingdom priorities.
Considerations for Modern Democracies
Most modern democratic nations have moved away from state church models on the basis of principles like religious freedom and separation of church and state. However, residual state church systems remain in places like the UK and the Scandinavian countries.
Supporters argue these state churches can still function appropriately in a pluralistic democracy by supporting faith while allowing freedom for other groups. Critics counter that they still privilege one group in ways that undermine true equality and freedom.
This remains an area of lively debate. But the general trend seems to be away from formal state churches, even if churches still enjoy friendly ties with government in many nations.
Conclusions
In summary, while the biblical witness does not definitively forbid state churches, there are significant concerns about such an approach. There is a basic distinction between the spheres of church and state that must be maintained. At a minimum, the state appointing church leaders or dictating doctrine seems to undermine biblical principles.
Modern democracies have favored separation of church and state in the interests of religious freedom and avoiding the abuses of power that can arise from institutional overlap. However, there are still thoughtful Christians on both sides of this complex issue.
Ultimately, Christians can thoughtfully engage this issue while still affirming that their core citizenship lies in Christ’s Kingdom. How the church interacts with the state in any time and place must be guided by overarching Kingdom values and purposes.