In light of the upcoming election, with its whirlwind of debates, promises, lies and controversies, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and disillusioned. As a Christian, navigating the political landscape can be particularly challenging. This article aims to outline ten key points regarding the Christian and government. These points will provide a thoughtful perspective on how we can engage with politics without compromising our beliefs. Let’s dive in and explore how we can make a positive impact in these turbulent times.
The first government was a divine government
In the beginning, God created Adam and granted him dominion and rights over the land (Gen 1:26-28). Adam’s authority was directly subordinate to God, contingent upon his obedience to tend the Garden of Eden and avoid eating from the forbidden tree. When he instead submitted to Satan’s temptation and sinned against God, his dominion became altogether corrupted. It would only be salvageable by a future Second Adam, the King Jesus Christ.
All human governments are fallen, deceptive, and doomed to destruction
God’s mistrust of human kings was clear from that point forward. During the periods of Moses and the Judges, He ruled Israel as a theocracy, meaning that He was the supreme ruler and the source of law and order. When Israel demanded a king, He warned them about the dangers of monarchical government – exploitation, extreme taxation, and servitude (1 Sam 8:7-18). In Psalm 2, God observes the nations conspiring against Him and His Anointed One, plotting to escape His authority. Yet, He laughs at their schemes, reasserts His sovereignty, and warns them to fear Him and honor His Son. Acknowledging that such submission will never ultimately occur, Daniel prophesies that all earthly kingdoms will eventually be crushed by God’s kingdom (Dan 2:44).
The last government will be a divine government
According to Biblical prophecy, the coming kingdom of God will be supreme over all the earth. It is depicted as a divine realm where God’s rule is absolute, characterized by peace, righteousness, and justice. In Daniel 7:13-14, it’s described as an everlasting dominion given to “one like a son of man,” which will never be destroyed. Similarly, in Revelation 11:15, it’s proclaimed, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.” At that time, God “will be exalted among the nations” (Ps. 46:10), for the nations in the consummated kingdom will consist only of glorified believers.
The church is not the state (yet)
While there is a spiritual sense in which the church represents God’s kingdom on earth right now (Col 1:13, Rom 14:17), we will not experience the complete fulfillment of that kingdom until Jesus returns and the will of God is done on Earth as it is in Heaven (Mt 25:34, 2 Pet 1:11, Mt 6:10). While we await its arrival, we are called to influence society through love, service, and personal witness, not by using governmental force to legislate Christian belief and behavior. Jesus told His disciples, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you” (Mt 20:25-26). Christianizing the world is not through “God and country”, it’s through “God and Gospel”.
The church’s primary citizenship is in heaven
Christians are often described as having their primary citizenship in heaven. In Philippians 3:20, Paul writes, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” This indicates that the Christian’s ultimate allegiance and identity is rooted in the coming (and already spiritually present) kingdom of God. This doesn’t mean Christians disregard their earthly responsibilities. Instead, they engage with their temporal communities, respecting laws and contributing to society, but with a mindset that they are “foreigners and exiles” awaiting their true home with God (1 Pet 2:11).
The church is to bless the nation in which it is exiled, as well as its government
Examples abound in the Bible where God caused His people to thrive in and even bless ungodly kingdoms. One notable example is Joseph. He became Pharaoh’s right-hand man, unleashing God’s temporal blessings upon Egypt during a severe famine. Another is Daniel, whose integrity, wisdom, and ability to interpret dreams earned him favor with King Nebuchadnezzar, who promoted him to a high-ranking position in Babylon. His example was the epitome of what God instructed the Israelites to do in exile; to seek the peace and prosperity of their captor, Babylon (Jer 29:7).
Blessing the worldly kingdom we reside in also occurs by sharing our convictions with government leaders. David cried out, “Kings of the earth … you princes and all rulers on earth … praise the name of the Lord” (Psa 148:11-13). Paul engaged respectfully with leaders like Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, sharing the message of Christ with courage and tact. John the Baptist confronted Herod about his unlawful marriage, standing firm in his convictions despite personal risk. In no way is this an attempt to convert leaders for the purpose of enforcing a state religion. Nevertheless, converted leaders would naturally influence their followers by their example, apart from “policy”.
Submission to earthly kingdoms stems from God’s sovereign appointment
Throughout history, God used wicked empires like Babylon, Assyria, and Rome as instruments of discipline for His people, even though they would later be judged for their own bad motives (Hab 1:5-11, Isa 10:5-19, Jer 25:8-14). Notwithstanding, Christians are called to submit to these governing authorities, recognizing them — even the very wicked ones — as such divine instruments (Rom 13:1-7). In fact, not only are they to submit, but they are to seek the welfare of these nations during their exile there (Jer 29:7), understanding that the exile is God’s will.
Submission to earthly kingdoms should be motivated by evangelism not patriotism
When Jesus told the inquiring Pharisees – “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt 22:21) – He was actually employing His usual Jesus Juke. The truth is, everything is God’s, even the things you “give” to Caesar. Christians are to acknowledge this fact, and always obey God’s commands before the laws of the land. Blind submission out of patriotic allegiance was never God’s intention for us.
1 Peter 2:13-14 commands, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority…for it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.” Our submission isn’t about blind patriotism but about living out an evangelical witness. It’s about reflecting Christ’s humility and obedience, thus not bringing shame to His name by being seen as rebellious or unruly to the public. So, obedience to earthly kingdoms should be evangelical in its intent—to bear witness to Christ.
Submission to earthly kingdoms is secondary
It must not be understated that our allegiance to earthly governments is contingent on our ability to exercise our faith. This means disobeying governing authorities when their laws contradict divine commands. Long before the Exodus, the Hebrew midwives flatly defied Pharaoh’s decree to execute newborn boys; they chose to protect innocent life, and God explicitly blessed them for their civil disobedience (Ex 1:17-21). Daniel thrived in Babylon, directly serving their government, yet refused orders that prevented him from praying to his God. Peter also disobeyed civil authorities when they tried to silence his preaching about Jesus. He boldly asserted, “We must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29). God’s commands always take precedence over man’s.
Freedom is the primary moral ethic to be legislated by earthly kingdoms
As citizens of a heavenly kingdom living as exiles among the kingdoms of this world, Christians are instructed to pray that civil authorities would permit us to live “quiet and peaceable lives” in all godliness and dignity (1 Tim. 2:2). Such a condition is of utmost necessity in a pluralistic society where the commonwealth is not composed of Christians. The state must not be authorized to impose or dispose of any religion, but rather to preserve the freedom necessary for Christianity––and the nation it influences––to flourish.
This principle is reflected throughout Scripture. God actively showered Gentile nations with temporal blessings simply for letting His people prosper in their land (e.g. Joseph in Genesis 39:5), keeping His ancient promise to Abraham to “bless those who bless you” (Gen 12:3).
Conversely, when God judged the nations, His accusations were not centered on their failure to obey Israel’s covenant laws. Rather, He condemned them for violence, oppression, exploitation, and hostility toward His people. Egypt was judged because Pharaoh refused to release Israel (Ex. 7–12). Assyria was condemned for its cruelty and violence (Jon. 3:8; Nah. 3). Babylon fell because of its arrogance and oppression (Isa. 13–14; Jer. 50–51). Edom was judged for violence against its brother Israel (Obad. 1), and Tyre for exploitative pride and injustice (Ezek. 26–28).
Prophetic charges extended beyond the mistreatment of Israel alone. God repeatedly condemns nations who exploit the weak, pervert justice, and oppress the poor (Ps. 72:4, 12–13; 82:3–4; 94:6); especially the “poor in spirit” of the New Testament age (Mt 5:3; 25:35-46). These themes reveal a consistent expectation for earthly rulers: they are to restrain violence and protect those under their authority––especially Christians––rather than wield power for oppression.
One might ask, is such a national obligation rooted in a covenantal relationship? Not exactly. Scripture distinguishes between God’s covenant nation and the surrounding kingdoms:
“He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules.” (Psa 147:19-20)
And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deut. 4:8)
Israel alone received the covenantal civil ordinances that governed its unique role as God’s holy nation. However, while the Gentile nations were never commanded to become Israel or to follow Israel’s civil laws, they were accountable to the universal civil law revealed in the created order, reflected in the Decalogue’s prohibitions against murder, theft, judicial false witness, enacted coveting, forced overworking, and breaching parental authority––All which ultimately concern violations of freedom.
This distinction is evident throughout Israel’s periods of exile. Moses did not demand that Egypt adopt Israel’s covenant laws; he demanded freedom for God’s people to worship. Daniel never sought to impose Mosaic legislation upon Babylon. Esther did not attempt to transform Persia into a Jewish state. In each case, the concern was not the religious conquest of pagan governments but the preservation of the covenant community within them.
The same pattern continues in the New Testament. The church is now God’s holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9), entrusted with distinctly spiritual responsibilities: preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and exercising church discipline. These duties belong to the church alone. Civil government possesses neither the authority to perform them nor the competence to adjudicate spiritual matters. Its role is to protect the freedom necessary for the church to carry out its responsibilities,.
Accordingly, the state’s primary moral responsibility is not the enforcement of religious conformity but the protection of life, liberty, property, and justice. Governments best fulfill their God-ordained purpose when they restrain aggression, punish wrongdoing, and allow individuals, families, churches, and voluntary associations to flourish freely. The church advances not through the sword of the magistrate but through the proclamation of the gospel, awaiting the day when Christ’s kingdom alone will fill the earth (Dan. 2:44).
Paleolibertarianism
This view aligns with an old political label called “Paleolibertarian”. The “paleo” aspect of the title emphasizes that they believe in cultural conservatism, yet advocate that such conservatism should be maintained at the ecclesiastical and family level rather than through government enforcement. This means they advocate for individual freedom and limited government, while promoting traditional values through social and religious institutions rather than through laws and regulations. The “libertarian” aspect of the title emphasizes the belief that the government should be limited to enforce the moral virtue of freedom of property, including our possessions, our bodies, and our lives. Such freedom is universal and objective because it originates with a Creator who bestows intrinsic worth upon every human being. Even the Founding Fathers—though not all were Christians—recognized that such “inalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are grounded in a theistic (though not theocratic) constitution. Nearly every original state constitution included similar verbiage, attributing our freedom to “Almighty God,” “the Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” “Divine Providence,” or “the Author of all good government.”
Paleolibertarianism emphasizes the free market, opposing all forms of government-enforced wealth distribution. It maintains that collective “generosity” must be initiated voluntarily by individuals, families, churches, and social institutions, similar to what is seen in Acts 2:44-45 [1]. It advocates a much smaller federal government, focused primarily on providing national security and infrastructure, leaving unrelated matters to state and local governments, and free markets. The overarching mantra is – societal progress is always best managed by the masses of sinners rather than a few sinners empowered with a governmental sword.
Paleolibertarian Table Talk
Here is a smattering of what a paleolibertarian might say about key issues in politics:
Inflation: “Government should reduce regulations and promote free markets to stabilize prices.”
Federal Budget Deficit: “Advocate for fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending.”
Foreign Wars: “Avoid entangling alliances and unnecessary foreign conflicts; prioritize national defense and respect the sovereignty of other nations. Non-intervention keeps us from costly wars and rejects the idea that any nation has the right to attack another based on claims of superior morality, since such reasoning could just as easily be used against us. Unless intervention could be clearly framed as genuinely defensive—such as protecting the masses who voluntarily seek asylum from a corrupt regime—we should trust nations to resolve their own internal struggles. That does not mean silence or indifference: we can condemn injustice, encourage humanitarian aid and voluntary private defense efforts, and apply economic pressure (think tariffs) rather than taxpayer-funded military intervention.”
Healthcare: “Encourage market-based solutions and personal responsibility for healthcare. Don’t force people to pay taxes for other people’s procedures that violate their consciences.”
Drug Usage: “Support community-based programs and personal accountability over government intervention. Stop spending so many tax dollars on the pursuit of and incarceration of people who want to put chemicals in their own bodies, except for those pushing such chemicals onto minors who can’t make clear decisions for themselves.”
Immigration: “Don’t close the borders to everyone (All of our forefathers were immigrants!). Implement fair immigration policies that respect individual rights and national security, while offering hope to genuine refugees. Even ancient Israel balanced these objectives. The Law gave clear priority to Israelite citizens in a number of areas, including interest, debt release, Jubilee, land inheritance, and leadership positions. Some hostile groups were even restricted from entering the assembly.”
Israel policy: “Support peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians without treating any modern nation-state as beyond accountability or entitled to endless foreign subsidy. Christians should reject both antisemitism and the idea that the modern State of Israel is identical to the covenant people of God in a redemptive sense. In Reformed theology, the true Israel is fulfilled in Christ and includes all believers united to Him. Therefore, foreign policy should be guided by justice, non-aggression, religious liberty, and prudent stewardship rather than ethnic favoritism or end-times speculation.”
Gun Violence: “Safeguard the right to bear arms while encouraging responsible gun ownership and community safety. Boost mental health awareness and actions to prevent senseless shootings. Disturbed individuals will find ways to harm, regardless of the weapon’s legality. Maybe regulate extremely dangerous weapons, like fully automatic firearms or nuclear bombs, due to their potential for mass harm. Historically, the 2nd Amendment envisioned an armed citizenry capable of forming local militias, not private ownership of weapons of mass destruction maintained by a modern military. In any serious resistance to tyranny today, success would certainly require support from military personnel, not civilians acting alone. Allowing unrestricted private ownership of nuclear or biological weapons would expose an entire nation to the actions of a single deranged individual.“
Abortion: “Until we develop a technology to safely evacuate and incubate unwanted pregnancies, we must uphold laws that protect the unborn, particularly when intercourse was consensual, knowing pregnancy was a possibility. Cases of rape or threats to the mother’s life are rare and more complex debates, potentially falling into the categories of trespassing [2] and self-defense, respectively.”
Homosexual Civil Union: “Protect individual rights and freedoms, including homosexual civil unions, while allowing Christians to hold their beliefs about Biblical marriage and to opt out of related commercial or ministerial activities, such as making wedding cakes or performing marriage ceremonies. Legal force is not the solution for enforcing biblical marriage, monogamy, or marital faithfulness. Nor should it be the mechanism to silence those who advocate such things.”
Welfare: “Welfare should be managed by communities, families, and churches to encourage personal responsibility and compassionate voluntary charity. Local communities have a better grasp on genuine needs than governmental systems that have a ton of overhead, loopholes, and inefficiencies.”
Social Security: “Social Security should be reformed to allow individuals more control over their own retirement planning, emphasizing personal responsibility and private savings. Give people their money back and let them invest it themselves. The national debt is a good indicator that the people could probably handle money better on their own.”
Education: “Education should be decentralized, with families and communities, and businesses having more control over curricula, fostering an environment that encourages personal responsibility, creativity and moral development. It shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter model of learning, nor a means of indoctrinating our children with society’s “morals” (or lack thereof).”
Christian Nationalism: “Christians should seek to make the nation more Christian through the gospel, not government force. America is not a covenant commonwealth made up primarily of Christians, so the state shouldn’t enforce distinctly Christian beliefs or practices beyond what is revealed in the created order— protecting life, liberty, property, and justice. Doing so would ‘lord it over’ our neighbors in the very way Jesus forbade. If our nation someday became overwhelmingly Christian, society would naturally look more Christian—not because laws required it, but because families, churches, businesses, and voluntary associations freely lived out Christian principles. Christ’s kingdom won’t come through legislation until the King Himself returns.”
Conclusion
In light of these key points, Christians must acknowledge the divine origin and ultimate fulfillment of government, and hold their primary allegiance to God’s eternal kingdom. Earthly governments, though necessary and authorized by God, are temporary and inherently flawed. Therefore, the church’s mission is to live out its heavenly citizenship by blessing these lands in which it is exiled and submitting to earthly authorities as a witness to Christ, rather than out of shear patriotism.
A paleolibertarian view aligns with this understanding, emphasizing that the primary moral ethic to be legislated by worldly kingdoms is freedom. This approach respects individual rights and reflects the image of God in every person, promoting a society where faith and moral values flourish organically through community and personal responsibility. By advocating for limited government intervention, we create space for the church to thrive in its true calling, unencumbered by the constraints of state-imposed morality. Thus, Christians can be both effective citizens and faithful ambassadors of God’s kingdom.
Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.
(Psa 20:7)
Endnotes:
[1] It should be noted that the church’s primary charitable responsibility is toward those within its own covenant community, while still showing compassion to all people as opportunities arise (Gal. 6:10; Jas. 2:1–6; 1 Tim. 5:3–16; Acts 4:34–35).
[2] Scripture itself records instances in which God judicially condemned offspring because of the illicit circumstances surrounding their conception (e.g., David and Bathsheba’s child, 2 Sam. 12:14–18), demonstrating that the death of an innocent child, while always tragic, is not categorically excluded from God’s righteous judgments. This does not by itself settle the abortion debate in cases of rape, but it does show why such cases involve far more difficult moral questions than pregnancies resulting from consensual intercourse.
The Middle Ground 