Church and Politics: What Bible States and Historical Examples

Church and politics reflect a long history of mutual influence and occasional tension. The church has been society’s moral compass, helping to make political choices, fighting for social justice, and keeping the government from going too far. The role comes from a biblical view that stresses the value of fairness, helping the less fortunate, and being a good steward of power. Problems surface when church and state work together, such as conflicts of interest, imposing certain religious rules on people from different backgrounds, and threats to religious freedom.

God orchestrates politics and places leaders for a cause. Romans 13:1-3 “Submit to authorities. For all authority derives from God, and God places people in authority. Revolting against authority is revolting against God, hence they will be punished. The authorities dread the wrongdoers, not the righteous. Want to live without government threat? Do properly, and they’ll respect you.” People are taught in the Bible to respect leaders and authority. Politics in the Bible is not directly addressed but stresses the role of governance.

The church played a key role in the civil rights movement in the United States in the past, with religious leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. using spiritual principles to push for political change. The church’s power, however, was used to support oppressive governments. A debate is still being discussed on how much the church must be involved in politics and how it does so without losing sight of its spiritual purpose or alienating its members.  Church and politics are still a delicate balance between being involved in politics to show Christian values and keeping a clear separation that keeps the church’s primary focus on spiritual issues.

What does the Bible Say About Politics?

The Bible’s say about politics is a nuanced perspective and affirms the importance of political engagement and Christians’ responsibility to get involved in and pray for their governments. The Bible teaches that God appoints political leaders and uses them for His purposes, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Joseph, Moses, Mordecai, and Daniel are examples of individuals called to political service, through which God preserved His people and advanced His kingdom. Scripture demonstrates that God uses leaders who oppose Him, highlighting His sovereignty over all human authority. 

The Bible encourages Christians to be active in politics, not just through voting, but by engaging with legislators, serving in public office, and interceding for their leaders. It establishes a clear hierarchy of authority, emphasizing that human’s ultimate allegiance is to God. One bible verse about politics is, “When conflict arises between obeying God and earthly authorities, Christians must choose to obey God rather than men,” as exemplified by the apostles’ declaration in Acts 5:29. The biblical framework suggests that while Christians are to respect and partake in the political process, their loyalty must lie with God, and their actions in the political arena must reflect their commitment to His kingdom values. The concept of “politics in the Bible” extends beyond mere governance, emphasizing the importance of justice, mercy, and righteousness in societal structures.

What is the Relationship Between Church and Politics?

The relationship between church and politics has been a complex and nuanced issue throughout American history, reflecting the foundational principle of the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The principle ensures that the government neither prefers a particular religion nor restricts individuals’ ability to exercise their religion freely. The separation of church and state is a crucial concept, as articulated by Senator James Lankford and Dr. Russell Moore, often misunderstood as a tool for silencing religious voices in the public square. It must be seen as a guarantee of religious freedom, allowing for the free expression of faith, even in public, without government coercion or the church’s governance over the state. 

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause were revolutionary at their inception and remain vital in upholding the right to practice any faith or to have no faith. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the understanding, recognizing that the government must not coerce citizens into supporting or participating in religion and must not exclude religious acts from the public domain solely based on their religious identity. The balance ensures that religion informs public debate and personal convictions without becoming a state-imposed doctrine or a political tool stripped of its eternal significance. The relationship between church and politics is not about merging religious institutions with government power but about safeguarding the space for faith to flourish freely and contribute to the moral and ethical debates that shape public life, embodying Jefferson’s vision of a “wall of separation” that facilitates, rather than inhibits, religious expression and dialogue in the democratic process.

Are Churches Political?

Yes, churches are political. Churches primarily focus on spiritual guidance and religious practices as religious institutions. Churches, however, have been involved in political matters throughout history and contemporary times. The involvement varies widely depending on the denomination, the geographical location, and the historical context.

Churches have played a significant role in political activism, advocating for social justice issues, human rights, and moral governance based on their religious teachings in some cases. For example, many churches were at the forefront of the civil rights movement in the United States, advocating for racial equality and social justice. Devoted religious leaders and the church ministry have been involved in peace movements, anti-poverty campaigns, and efforts to address climate change.

Churches become entangled in political controversies, especially when explicitly supporting or opposing political parties or candidates. It leads to criticisms that they are overstepping their religious boundaries or violating the principle of separation of church and state, particularly in countries where such a separation is constitutionally mandated.

The degree of political involvement differs within a single religious tradition, with some congregations or leaders choosing to be more politically active than others. Churches engage in the political sphere to apply their moral and ethical teachings to broader social issues, even though they are religious institutions.

What Are the Historical Examples of Church Involvement in Politics?

The historical examples of Church involvement in Politics are listed below.

• The Constantine Shift (4th Century): The term “Constantinian shift” pertains to the incorporation of the Christian church into the Roman Imperial government during the 4th century. Emperor Constantine initiated Integration I after converting to Christianity after the triumphant Battle of Milvian Bridge in 3112. The Edict of Milan in 313 legalized Christianity, and the First Council of Nicaea in 325 consolidated Christian orthodoxy, but theological controversies like the Arian controversy prevented a unified church-state synergy. Critics say such a move led to Caesaropapism, where Christianity became a state weapon for power rather than a personal faith decision. The Constantine era introduced theological justifications for violence against heresies, which aligned church membership with Roman citizenship and influenced civil religion, particularly in the US, according to theologian Stanley Hauerwas.
• The Moral Majority and the Religious Right (Late 20th Century): The Moral Majority and Religious Right in the US were evangelical Christians’ efforts to influence politics, particularly on abortion, family values, and education. The popular belief that the religious right originated primarily in response to Roe v. Wade in 1973 is a historical simplification. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich‘s strategic interests in opposing President Jimmy Carter’s reelection and defending segregated schools threatened by the IRS’s civil rights enforcement, such as Bob Jones University, fueled the movement in the late 1970s. Abortion became a more appealing rallying cry than segregation for Christian leaders who were once neutral or even supportive of Roe. Evangelical Christians gained significant political influence over the next several decades, anchored more in education and race issues than abortion politics. It was part of a larger effort to unite conservatives on moral and social issues.
• Papal States (8th – 19th centuries): The Papal States, areas under the Pope’s legal and spiritual power before Italy’s unification in 1870, shaped Italy and the Catholic Church. Post-Constantine property acquisitions by the early Christian Church, such as the Lateran Palace, and territorial expansions like the Donation of Pepin led to a complex relationship with the Holy Roman Empire and other European powers. The Papal States fought the Lombards in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, aligned with the Frankish Empire, and faced the French Revolution and Napoleon’s conquests, challenging their sovereignty. The Papal States were annexed into the Kingdom of Italy in the 19th century due to Italian nationalism, fueled by Garibaldi and the strategic political maneuvers of the Kingdom of Sardinia and Napoleon III. The Pope now solely controls the Vatican City. The shift marked a pivotal shift for the Papacy from temporal sovereignty to spiritual leadership within Vatican City, established formally in 1929 through the Lateran Treaty, which recognized its sovereignty and continued the Papal States’ legacy. 
• Catholic Emancipation (19th century): The Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 transformed British history by removing old obstacles to Roman Catholic civic participation. The legislative success was mainly due to Daniel O’Connell‘s tireless campaign, which emphasized Ireland’s Catholic majority’s plight under Anglo-Irish rule. Wellington was convinced by O’Connell’s County Clare electoral triumph that compromise was necessary to manage Ireland without military intervention. English Catholics played little role in the battle, but it changed British constitutional and religious landscapes. It split the Tory Party because “ultra Tories” saw Wellington and Peel‘s support as betrayal, paving the ground for the Whig Party’s 1830 victory and reform. The measure enabled Catholics to hold most public jobs and parliamentary seats, though it banned Catholic clergy from parliamentary seats and banned clerical dress and religious orders outside churches. The act challenged the idea of Britain as a Protestant nation despite the limitations, paving the way for a more inclusive parliamentary system that struggled with its authority over the Church of England due to its greater religious diversity.
• Liberation Theology (20th Century): Liberation theology, which emerged in Latin America in the mid-20th century, reinterpreted Christian teachings to promote social justice and empower oppressed groups. Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez led the movement and challenged the Church’s historical alliance with the aristocracy by addressing structural inequities and poverty in the region. Liberation theology initially mobilized the poor and created grassroots Christian Base Communities (CEBs) and Theological Reflection Workshops that encouraged political activism among the disenfranchised, but the Vatican opposed it due to its radical leanings and potential to undermine Church authority. The movement’s Marxist affiliation hampered its acceptability despite its spiritual roots. Liberation theology reshaped Latin American society and the global Church, redefining the relationship between faith, the Church, and social activism and incorporating a commitment to the poor and oppressed into Catholic social teaching. It eventually declined due to changing economic and social landscapes and Vatican resistance.
• Protestant Reformation (16th Century): Martin Luther’s 1517 95 Theses sparked the Protestant Reformation, questioning the Catholic Church’s teachings and practices, particularly the indulgence system. The movement promoted direct contact between believers and God and the Bible’s authority, swept Europe, influencing John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli and spawning the Anabaptists. The Reformation in England took a distinctive turn with Henry VIII‘s founding of the Church of England and a violent period of religious reform under successive rulers. In the early 17th century, English Separatists (Pilgrims) and Puritans came to New England to establish religious freedom and churches that shared their ideas. The pivotal period in religious history promoted personal religious empowerment and diversity, which shaped the American ethos and was enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights, reflecting the Reformation’s legacy of religious freedom.
• Spanish rule (1521-1899): Ferdinand Magellan‘s quick but momentous journey in 1521 introduced the Mariana Islands to Europe. The Spanish crown claimed the islands, which they mockingly called Islas de los Ladrones or Islands of Thieves, in 1565 and used them to resupply galleons traveling between Acapulco and Manila. Jesuit monks founded a mission on Guam in 1668 and christened the islands Mariana de Austria to begin formal Spanish colonization. The priests and a tiny garrison of troops tried to convert animistic Chamorros to Catholicism for 30 years. They resettled Chamorros from other Marianas islands into mission settlements in Guam by the early 1700s. Rota had a permanent population during Spanish rule. Chamorro culture and oral histories were lost due to intermittent conflict, exotic diseases, and forced religious conversion. Carolinian colonists from the Central Caroline Islands south of the Marianas founded a settlement on Saipan that had been abandoned for almost a century in the early 19th century. Carolinians’ lifestyle and culture were unaffected by Spanish colonialism, unlike Chamorros. They used a sophisticated navigating system with stars, waves, and wildlife to reach landfalls hundreds of miles distant in robust trans-oceanic sailing canoes. The Spanish used the Carolinians to transport passengers and merchandise between Guam, the Spanish capital, and the other islands due to their sailing and navigational talents. Chamorros from Guam moved to Saipan in the mid-1800s, and the community became San Isidro de Garapan after a Catholic Church was built in 1858.
• English Civil Wars (1642-1651): Civil conflicts erupted in England, Scotland, and Ireland between 1642 and 1651 over religious freedom and government, mainly between King Charles I‘s supporters and Parliamentarians. The struggle resulted in Charles I’s execution, a brief republican reign, and Britain’s first national army. The conflicts began after considerable resistance to Charles I’s religious uniformity and Parliament bypass. The New Model Army and strategic ties between Parliamentarians and Scotland helped Parliament overcome early Royalist victories. The republican regime under Oliver Cromwell faced problems like retaking Ireland and opposition from Scotland, which had crowned Charles II. Charles II restored the monarchy after Cromwell died in 1660, ending the chaotic period and beginning the Restoration. 
• Polish Solidarity Movement (1980s): The Solidarity movement was founded in August 1980 after three decades of civil resistance against the authoritarian communist regime in Poland. Workers, intellectuals, students, and the Catholic Church united to challenge the regime’s legitimacy, using peaceful discipline and tactics to create an autonomous political space for alternative institutions and ideologies. The Catholic Church’s moral and organizational support, particularly Pope John Paul II‘s, helped the broad coalition gradually diminish the communist state’s control, resulting in a national agreement and the peaceful 1989 power transfer. The shift marked Poland‘s successful democratization and showed the lasting impact of civic resistance on the country’s political and social fabric, demonstrating the capacity of unified, nonviolent opposition to change systems.
• Martial Law and the People Power Revolution Philippines (1986): One of the most notable instances of Church involvement in Philippine politics was during the Martial Law period under Ferdinand Marcos. The Catholic Church, led by Jaime Cardinal Sin, was crucial in mobilizing opposition against the dictatorship. Cardinal Sin’s call to the Filipino people to gather at EDSA and support defected military officers led to the peaceful People Power Revolution in 1986, which resulted in Marcos’s ousting.

How can Churches Influence Politics?

Churches can influence politics by using their unique societal position and moral authority among their adherents. Churches influence political discourse and policy through historical and contemporary actions and intellectual underpinnings. Churches contribute moral and ethical perspectives on social and political concerns by debating publicly. Religious justifications have historically supported democratic societies, as the inclusivist viewpoint shows, such as in the abolitionist and civil rights campaigns, which used Christian values to improve society. It argues that churches campaign for policies and legislation that reflect their values and ethics by expressing their views publicly and using universally accessible arguments.

Civic religion, which uses religious notions in public rituals and discourses without favoring any religious organization, allows churches to indirectly influence politics by contributing to a shared cultural and moral framework. Political stability and collective decision-making require community and social cohesion, which such involvement develops.

Churches rally their members for civic action. Religious communities increase their political influence by urging followers to vote, attend political rallies, or engage in civil discourse. The participatory paradigm of democracy, which promotes public deliberation and consensus, allows religious viewpoints to be heard and considered.

Church involvement in politics must be handled carefully to protect church-state separation and ensure political inclusion. Churches must express their political activity without compulsion or imposing their religious views on others in a democratic society. It is challenging to balance religious perspectives’ contribution to the common good with the need to preserve a pluralistic and inclusive public arena where all individuals feel their rights and beliefs are respected.

Churches influence politics by engaging in public discussion for universally comprehensible reasons, organizing their congregations for civic engagement, and contributing to a shared moral and cultural framework. Church involvement deepens democratic discussion and addresses moral and ethical challenges, making politics more engaged and deliberate when done respectfully and inclusively. 

Politics influence the church. Religious freedom and political actions directly affect the church’s ability to exercise and spread its views, proving that politics influence the church. Political decisions affecting life, marriage, and morality demonstrate how political actions affect religious liberties and customs. Political pressure on the church’s operational and doctrinal freedom is shown by government mandates that conflict with religious beliefs, such as insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. Church tax exemptions, zoning rules, and freedom of speech show how political policies affect the church’s finances, freedom to gather, and ability to communicate. Churches must adapt as political landscapes change, highlighting the dynamic and sometimes controversial relationship between politics and the church. The relationship between politics and the church influences its internal governance and social influence, showing how political actions affect religious institutions and their fundamental liberties.

Is Jesus a Political Liberator?

Yes, Jesus is a Political Liberator. Jesus was a tremendous liberating force in various settings and contexts. He defended and confirmed the dignity and worth of people who were denigrated or oppressed, individuals who were regarded as “less than” women, people suffering from leprosy and other diseases or deformities, people of different religions (Samaritans), strangers, and immigrants. Think about His interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well who was regarded as a loathed outsider from another religion by Jews. Social conventions dictate that He must not have spoken to a woman alone. The Samaritan woman had been married several times and cohabited with an unmarried man. Jesus persuaded the woman to become His ambassador even so, a testimony that inspired many others to follow Him.

Many Christians view Jesus as a liberator, challenging His time’s political and religious authorities and positioning Himself against the prevailing power structures. Jesus’ critiques were mainly focused on the religious authorities, with the Pharisees bearing the brunt of criticisms. The political liberator took issue with the broader societal values and behaviors beyond the religious elite, advocating for a shift towards principles rooted in compassion, justice, and humility. Jesus’ ministry underscores His role as a spiritual leader and a transformative figure seeking to liberate individuals from the social and spiritual constraints of the day. The discussion of “Jesus and politics” often leads to lively debates on how religious beliefs must intersect with governmental policies. Many theologians and scholars have examined the question, “What did Jesus say about politics?” to understand His teachings’ implications on modern governance and societal duties.

What are the Dangers of Churches Being Involved in Politics?

The dangers of churches being involved in politics are listed below.

• Compromising religious values: The potential consequence of churches engaging extensively in political affairs is the erosion of secular governance, founded on universal principles that transcend religious affiliations and benefit all citizens. It compromises fairness and equality by favoring one religious group over others through the enactment of laws and policies.
• Polarization and Social Division: Churches’ political viewpoints have the power to deepen societal differences, particularly in highly diverse cultures with various religious beliefs. Participation in political processes fosters polarization among communities and congregations, which results in societal fragmentation along religious lines.
• Secular governance erosion: Secular government, founded on universal principles applicable to all individuals regardless of religious convictions, risks being undermined when religions become politically active. Laws and policies that give preference to one religious group over another, which is unfair and compromises equality, must be enacted.
• Legal and Financial Implications: Religious groups are granted tax-exempt status on the condition that they refrain from engaging in partisan political activities in many nations. Engaging in excessive political activity jeopardizes such a status, resulting in legal challenges and financial penalties.
• Distraction from Spiritual Mission: Participating in political activism redirects the church’s resources and attention from its fundamental spiritual objectives, including pastoral care, community service, and liturgy. Congregation members who seek spiritual guidance from their religious community rather than political leadership become estranged by such a change in emphasis. The church is to engage society by providing moral guidance and community support, fostering a space where spiritual and social welfare intersect. 

What does the Bible Say About Changing Churches?

The Bible’s say about changing churches is indirect. The Bible does not explicitly address changing churches, leaving much of the interpretation to the principles of Christian freedom, spiritual growth, and community life as outlined in Scripture. Unity among believers and submission to spiritual leadership upholds the value of individual conscience and the direct relationship between the believer and God, while the Bible emphasizes the importance of fellowship.

A church change is necessary for continued faith growth in situations where teachings become unbiblical, when the spiritual well-being of the individual or family is at risk, or where church leadership is not accountable. Scripture does not support the idea that leaving a church for legitimate reasons constitutes a sin. The decision must be guided by prayer, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the principles of love, freedom in Christ, and the pursuit of enlightenment within the body of Christ. 

The Bible calls for believers to be in a community where they grow in their faith, serve effectively, and experience fellowship with other believers in alignment with Biblical teachings. Pastors and other church leaders must encourage church members to stay in on church through various efforts. It is the Pastor’s job to deliver sermons that are relevant to daily living but Biblical at the same time. Church leaders must foster a welcoming environment by being attentive to the needs of its members.

How does Church Involvement in Politics affect Democracy and Pluralism?

The church’s involvement in politics affects democracy and pluralism based on the factors listed below.

• Threat to Separation of Church and State: Religion engagement in politics threatens the separation of religion and state, a cornerstone of democracy and pluralism. Religious entities directly participating in politics risk blurring the borders between religious and governmental authority and favoring specific religious viewpoints in public policy. It damages democracy by focusing on religious groups’ doctrines rather than different citizens’ wills. Integrating church and state marginalizes non-believers and minority faiths, restricting the diversity of beliefs and practices that enrich democratic countries. Distinguishing between religious and state activities safeguards democracy and ensures that all voices, regardless of religion, are heard in public.
• Reduced Pluralism: Church interference in politics limits pluralism, harming democracy and pluralism. Religious institutions that influence political decisions or align with political parties reduce a pluralistic society’s diversity of viewpoints and beliefs. The alignment favors one religious group over another, restricting political diversity. The scenario contradicts the democratic concept of equal representation for all residents, regardless of religion. It risks alienating the disadvantaged or underrepresented minorities in public and political discourse. Religious institutions’ active politics limit pluralism by limiting the various views and ideas that freely shape the democratic process.
• Potential for Religious Bias: Political church involvement leads to religious bias, which harms democracy and pluralism. Their beliefs and morals affect public policy and legislation when religious institutions directly influence politics. The involvement results in laws favoring one religious group over another, weakening democratic governance’s secular character. Politics that promote religious bias marginalize minority faiths, restrict freedoms, and reduce legal equality in pluralistic societies. Such bias undermines the democratic concept of separation between church and state and a healthy pluralistic society’s inclusion and variety. Churches’ political involvement skews democracy and destroys pluralism by favoring religious views above impartial administration and equitable representation.
• Undermining Civic Engagement: Church involvement in politics impedes civic engagement by promoting religious requirements over individual conscience or civic obligation. The involvement muddy the borders between religious and civic duties, deterring people from participating in politics that aligns with their views. Religious leaders who advocate specific political agendas or candidates persuade their congregations to vote a certain way, limiting the autonomy and diversity of political thinking necessary for a thriving democracy. It alienates people with unrepresented or unwelcomed political ideas in their religious organizations, reducing their engagement in religious and civic life. Limiting public discourse undermines democracy’s pluralistic base by lowering different voices and ideas impacting society.
• Polarization and Divisiveness: Church engagement in politics increases polarization and divisiveness in democracies, hurting pluralism. Churches that support political parties or ideologies widen ideological divisions. The alignment sometimes turns religious settings into echo chambers for political beliefs, restricting conversation and understanding between different views. Social discourse fragments as congregations become more politically homogenous. The divisiveness hurts democracy, which relies on varied perspectives and consensus. It creates an “us versus them” mentality, deepening divisions and making it harder to solve societal issues together when religious identification is linked to political allegiance. The divided environment hinders pluralism by reducing tolerance for difference and inclusive, democratic governance.
• Threat to Religious Freedom: Church engagement in politics threatens religious freedom, democracy, and pluralism. Churches that actively participate in politics and connect themselves with political parties or agendas risk promoting policies that benefit their religious beliefs. The involvement creates a religious biased environment, marginalizing and discriminating against minority faiths and non-believers. It violates religious freedom, which ensures the ability to practice any faith without government favoring or intervention. Healthy democracies have a diversified religious landscape, but religious freedom degradation reduces it. Religious bias in legislation and governance alienates citizens who disagree with the political agenda, undermining the democratic tenet of equality before the law. It undermines democracy’s inclusiveness and threatens religious and secular cooperation in a pluralistic society.

Should Religious Leaders Engage in Political Advocacy?

No, religious leaders should not engage in political advocacy. The Bible, while not explicitly addressing modern political campaigns, emphasizes the importance of focusing on spreading the Gospel and spiritual welfare rather than temporal political power. It suggests that religious leaders serve their communities most effectively by prioritizing their spiritual role over political advocacy, ensuring they remain a source of comfort, guidance, and unity in an increasingly divided world. 

Religious leaders must engage in political advocacy, which is complex, and perspectives on such an issue vary widely. Figures like Reverend Billy Graham exemplified spiritual leadership that transcended partisan politics. They counseled presidents across the political spectrum while maintaining a distance from direct political endorsements. The approach allowed religious leaders to serve as unifying figures who must speak truth to power and minister to all, regardless of their political affiliations. 

Some modern religious leaders, such as Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr., are trending towards overt political endorsements and advocacy, which departs from the precedent. The endorsements risk alienating congregation members with diverse political views, compromising the inclusivity and unity of their religious communities. They compromise their spiritual mission and diminish their moral authority by associating it too tightly with the fallible and often contentious realm of politics and when religious leaders align too closely with political parties or figures.

Should Churches Use Political Strategies to Grow the Church?

No, churches should not use political strategies to grow the church. Churches must prioritize their God-given mission of teaching the Word and making disciples over engaging in political strategies for growth. The church’s mission is distinct from getting entangled in political disputes, while the Christian worldview influences perspectives on justice and governance, and standing up for truth and justice is essential. The biblical example shows a time to speak against injustice, as seen in the prophets and figures like John the Baptist, who directly addressed moral and societal issues of their times. However, there is wisdom in the restraint shown by Jesus and Paul, who focused on the spiritual mission over political engagement.

The distinction between the church as an organism, where individual Christians are encouraged to influence society, and the church as an organization with a more defined mission is crucial. Churches must consider if the issue is so clear-cut that Christians do not conscientiously disagree and whether speaking out is essential for the church’s witness when deciding whether to make political statements. The approach helps maintain the church’s primary focus on its spiritual mission while avoiding division and ensuring the church is not co-opted for political ends. Church growth is seen as a sign of a vibrant and engaging community, attracting new members through its welcoming atmosphere and relevant preaching.