There is nothing godly or unifying about ignoring character flaws and dismissing complaints from people wounded within toxic leadership environments as “distractions.” If the example of Mars Hill has taught us anything, it’s that we need more conversations about good and bad leadership, not less.

Today, I’m kicking off a series of articles on the extraordinarily popular podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, hosted by my friend Mike Cosper and produced by Christianity Today. The show follows the story of Mars Hill Church, founded in Seattle in 1996 by Mark Driscoll. The episodes chronicle the rise of Driscoll and his church’s influence within conservative evangelicalism, describing patterns of unhealthy leadership that resulted in the diminishment of Driscoll’s credibility and the dissolution of the church (in its original form).
A Word About Quality
Whenever The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill comes up in conversation, people mention the production quality. There has never been a narrative-style Christian podcast that matches the quality of this one. Mike Cosper’s skills as host, writer, and storyteller are on full display. For years to come, Christian podcasts in the journalism genre will stand in the shadow of this one, much like Serial changed the game for narrative podcasts nationwide. Kudos to Cosper and the team at CT for raising the bar and setting a new standard!
Critiques of Rise and Fall 
Through social media and on various blogs, people have offered constructive critiques of the storytelling decisions and the interview format Cosper has employed throughout the series.

Some worry that the critique of the distinctive culture of Mars Hill will be conflated with the theological positions Driscoll held: a complementarian view of gender roles, Reformed theology, a high view of Scriptural authority, the reality of the demonic, etc. Will podcast listeners be able to untangle the unhealthy leadership culture of Mars Hill from the mainstream Christian beliefs professed by its leaders?
Others express frustration at the inclusion of guests whose doctrinal and ethical views put them outside the boundaries of evangelicalism. Does the podcast’s occasional reliance on voices from outside traditional Christian orthodoxy imply that the answers to concerns about Mars Hill will be found in progressive or post-evangelical theology and practice?
Still others criticize the podcast for centering on Driscoll, making him “the star,” a move that pushes the testimonies of the wounded to the periphery. Does the show, because of its framing, unwittingly reinforce our focus on the “gifted, charismatic leader” at center stage?

I find these critiques intriguing, but I’m going to approach this series from a different angle, not focusing on the podcast or the strengths and weaknesses in how Cosper has told the story, but on the context that made Driscoll’s meteoric rise possible and the likely influence this podcast will have on evangelical church leaders in the coming years.
Read More

A clash between a conservative Senator and progressive law professor has served as a Rorschach test for culture warriors, with each side convinced it has coasted to victory on the strength of a few devastating sentences. Professor Khiara Bridges of Berkeley Law and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) gave the pretense of speaking only for themselves at a July 12 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ostensibly about abortion policy after Dobbs. Still, the reception of their tête-à-tête shows how our public discourse on the issue of gender theory and transgenderism is bogged down in shallow soundbites, with emotion substituted for argument. Both sides of the debate have vast incentives to stay stuck in the rhetorical mud, but it does our public discourse no favors. And it is a particularly bad strategy for gender theory’s opponents.
Both combatants in the Bridges-Hawley affair have reached the pinnacle of their fields, and serve as fitting captains of warring cultural teams. Both were well-suited to represent their sides, reflecting the deeper phenomenon at play, which is the widening chasm between Americans who cannot believe there is anyone who subscribes to gender theory, and those who cannot believe that anyone cannot believe it. It is a shallow debate for our shallow times.
You could not have picked more perfect figures to distill the argument into a few pointed soundbites. Bridges has made a career off of arguments exactly befitting most Americans’ idea of a Berkeley Law professor. She has made a career off of academic papers whose goals include “defending and rehabilitating the concept of white privilege by identifying poor white people’s race-based advantages,” and advocating a narrow understanding of what constitutes “life” to the point that “protecting  fetal  ‘life’ is no longer an interest that the state may legitimately pursue.”
Senator Hawley (R-MO) has made his fair share of waves by adopting the Nationalist Conservative mantle (and embracing the NatCons’ industrial-policy-and-trustbusting agenda), cosplaying a defiant revolutionary with raised fist during the January 6th, 2021 riot at the Capitol, and subsequently basking in the martyrdom of cancellation when his publisher dropped his book. (“A direct assault on the First Amendment,” he called it.)
On July 12, Hawley opened his remarks by asking Bridges to clarify what she meant by “people with the capacity for pregnancy” in her previous work.
Of course, he knew exactly what she meant: Female human beings with child-bearing capacities. But he also understood the emotions that gender ideology stirs. The fringe but increasingly popular idea that females can be men, males can be women, and people of both sexes can be any number of non-binary genders, still sounds ridiculous to most Americans. He wanted to hear Bridges repeat it.
Bridges was all too happy to oblige. “Many women, cis women, have the capacity for pregnancy,” she answered. “There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.”
Media, social and mainstream alike, lit up. Conservatives touted the incident as proof that the left is so wrapped up in Orwellian jargon that it has lost its grasp of basic concepts. Progressives applauded Bridges for putting a man they see as a bigot in his place, with simple facts and logic. Within each group’s philosophical framework, they are right.
Another day at the theater. But we have seen this show before—many times, in fact. It is precisely the same as now—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson saying she does not know what a woman is during her Senate confirmation hearing. It’s the same as Apple rolling out its pregnant man emoji, or the NCAA allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. It is assuredly not a referendum on anything new—not even close.
For the umpteenth time, some viral moment revolves around whether transgender people are meant to be defined by their biological sex or by the gender with which they identify. That is all. If a biological female is properly understood as a man, then there is no novel inference to say that men can become pregnant and bear children. If a biological female is and can only be a woman, then only women can do so. And if one accepts the former proposition, the language of “people with the capacity for pregnancy” is simply an accurate term, however clunky.
Read More

At this moment in my American context, I think it is wise for Christians not to prematurely separate from each other based on different political theologies. The reason is that the orcs are not just at the gates; they are infiltrating the city as citizens and magistrates. While a sexual revolution is rapidly transforming our culture, I don’t think fellow Christians should divide right now over the hypothetical scenario—which might occur decades in the future—of how to govern a nation if the vast majority of its citizens are Christians. There are more pressing matters to band together to address—evils such as abortion and wokeness and LGBT ideology and socialism.[69] The strategy for faithful Christians right now involves basics that we should be able to agree on—such as be a good egg, love your wife, stay in fellowship, worship every week, teach your kids, work patiently, and keep politics in perspective.[70]

Christians have increasingly discussed political theology over the past several years—at least in my conservative evangelical circles. A lot of Christians are both interested and confused. They are fascinated by the topic, but they are having trouble thinking clearly about it because it is so complicated. This article is my attempt to add some clarity by framing a debated topic. I proceed in three parts: (1) I start by briefly defining religion, politics, and political theology; (2) then I propose seven views on religion and government; (3) and I conclude with seven reflections.[1]
Part 1. Starting with Definitions: Religion, Politics, and Political Theology
Let’s start by defining three basic terms: religion, politics, and political theology.

Religion is “an organized system of beliefs that answers ultimate questions and commends certain actions or behaviors based on the answers to those questions.”[2] Those questions concern ultimate reality (i.e., God), the nature of the universe, the nature of mankind, what happens to a man at death, and how we know right and wrong.[3] As a Christian, I believe that the religious institution God has ordained is Christ’s church.
Politics is the science and art of governing men (to paraphrase Aristotle).[4] In this article I’m referring specifically to politics at the civil level of the government or the governing authorities or the state.[5]
Political theology is a theology of politics—particularly how religion and politics should relate. So a particular view of political theology is a philosophy or system of ideas that attempts to explain how religion and politics should relate.[6]

Throughout this article I typically refer to the broader categories of religion and government instead of the narrower categories of church and state.

I use the label religion instead of church because religion is broader than the Christian church. Religion encompasses organized institutions like Islam. In a sense, religion also includes less formal belief systems like secularism (i.e., the view that the state must be separate from religious institutions), but secularism is not an organized religion.
I use the label government instead of state because government can be broader than state. For many people the word state refers to a modern nation-state, but the term government broadly encompasses all sorts of civic rule.[7]

It is challenging to use terms for political theology that apply equally well in all historical settings. In the ancient world, religion and politics are fitting terms. In the Middle Ages and magisterial Protestantism (which includes Christendom), ecclesiastical government and civil government are fitting terms. In early modern political thought, church and state (and the separation of church of state) are fitting terms.
Part 2. Seven Views on Religion and Government
In this article I propose a taxonomy of seven views on religion and government. In other words, people have held at least seven distinct major views on political theology. (I am including both Christians and non-Christians for breadth.) I am proposing a taxonomy in the form of a spectrum that moves from views that separate religion from the government to views that combine religion and the government. I concisely describe each view and then conclude with some reflections.[9]
Introductory Qualification
My concluding reflections include some qualifications, but I should mention one upfront: The people and groups I list to illustrate a view—both historic examples and modern examples—do not necessarily share the exact same political theology. There is a spectrum of views within each view, and those I list within a particular view may be different in significant ways. But they share some similarities given the criteria I lay out. This article is simply my attempt to sketch a spectrum of views on political theology—both historically and currently—in order to gain clarity on a complicated topic so that we better understand before we evaluate.
View 1. Secular Suppression: The secular government suppresses religion.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that the government should be secular because God does not exist. The government should not merely separate from religion but should suppress religion. (A militantly atheist government does not consider its belief system to be a religion.)
Historic example: Karl Marx[10]
Modern examples: the former Soviet Union (Marxist-Leninist atheism), North Korea (officially an atheist government); secular progressivism

For view 1, the government affirms secularism in a way that I would call religious, but I contrast secularism with religion in the heading because secularism is not an organized religion in the same sense as Christianity or Judaism or Islam.[11] In the headings for views 1–7, the term religion refers to organized religion.
For view 1, the government protects itself from being contaminated by religion. For view 2, religion protects itself from being contaminated by the government.
View 2. Religious Separation: Religion must radically separate from the government.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that they are distinct spheres that must not overlap because the government is worldly. Consequently, individual Christians must separate from the government by not wielding the sword as combatants or as magistrates because to do so would be to cooperate with a sinful institution.
Historic example: Anabaptists[12]
Modern examples: traditional Mennonites,[13] Stanley Hauerwas,[14] Greg Boyd[15]

Views 1 and 2 see hostility between the government and religion. View 3 envisions neutrality with no intermingling.
View 3. Religious Neutrality: The government must be religiously neutral.

Position: The government and religion should be separate in the sense that the government should be religiously neutral and particular religions should not influence the government. The government may be religiously neutral in one of two ways: (1) by promoting no religion—that is, a pluralistic secularism that does not necessarily deny God’s existence but wants to keep the peace between opposing religions—or (2) by promoting a civil religion, which is “a set of practices, symbols and beliefs distinct from traditional religion, yet providing a universal values paradigm around which the citizenry can unite.”[16] Either way, the public square should be religiously neutral; religious people should publicly argue based on natural law and not their particular religion.
Historic examples: classical liberalism (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc.; emphasis on a free market; to some degree America had a Protestant civil religion until the 1950s),[17] libertarianism (emphasis on individual autonomy),[18] progressive liberalism (emphasis on the welfare state and freedom from traditional sexual ethics)[19]
Modern examples: John Rawls, who emphasizes religious neutrality in the government;[20] Darryl Hart, who emphasizes political neutrality in the church[21]

For view 4 (in contrast to view 3), the public square should not be religiously neutral.
View 4. Religious Influence: The government should not promote only one particular religion, yet religion may influence the government within limited parameters.

Position: The government and the church are separate in the sense that they have distinct God-authorized jurisdictions. God authorizes the government to wield the sword (which a government may justly do against an individual Christian who has broken the law), and God authorizes the church to exercise the keys (which a church may rightly do by refusing to affirm that an individual person with governmental authority is a Christian). The government should not exclusively promote a particular religion (e.g., the government recognizes religious freedom and does not institute a state church or spread doctrine that is explicitly Christian), and the government should not restrict the spread of false religious beliefs (e.g., the government should not refuse to allow a Mosque to be built in the town square).[22] But religion may influence the government. An individual governmental authority (like a United States senator) may argue for a political position based on religion, and the government may adopt that position—but not on the basis of religion. The public square cannot be religiously neutral; it is a religious battleground. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government should not institutionalize Christianity (e.g., the government should not put the Apostle’s Creed in the constitution).
Historic examples: most Baptists[23]—e.g., the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689),[24] Isaac Backus;[25] English non-conformists/Separatists such as Congregationalists and Quakers
Modern examples: Wayne Grudem,[26] Jonathan Leeman,[27] John Piper,[28] Andrew Walker,[29] Scott Aniol,[30] David VanDrunen,[31] Robert George[32]

For view 5, religion should not merely influence the government. The government should identify as a Christian government.
View 5. Christian Government: The government and religion overlap.
By labeling view 5 as “Christian government,” I am using the specific adjective Christian instead of the more general adjective religious because this view is peculiar to Protestant Christianity.

Position: The government and the Christian church are two God-ordained institutions that have distinct and overlapping God-authorized jurisdictions, and they should work together under God’s ultimate authority. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples of all nations; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government may institutionalize Christianity to some degree (e.g., by putting God in the constitution and by having a religious test for office). The government should identify as a Christian government in the sense that the laws and customs it promotes derive from the ultimate authority of God. The governing authorities should know that they are accountable to God for how they rule (cf. Daniel 4:26), and it is fitting for the government to exhort citizens to fear the living God (cf. Daniel 6:26). The government should pursue justice by promoting the natural law (which the Ten Commandments summarize) as much as prudently possible. The government should (along with the church and society) help create cultural conditions conducive for conversion and for the common good.[33] While the government should promote and to some degree enforce a just social order based on a right understanding of God and man (e.g., the government should promote marriage and the family and demote no-fault divorce, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, and pornography), the government should not force citizens to follow Christianity since only the Spirit’s regeneration produces a heart change; the church’s weapon is not the sword but instead the word, water, bread, and wine. This model is not feasible long-term if many of the citizens are not genuine Christians.
Historic examples: magisterial Reformers (e.g., Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, Richard Hooker, Johannes Althusius),[34] the Reformed scholastics, the church of England,[35] John Gill,[36] American Puritans (e.g., John Winthrop, William Bradford, John Cotton, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards), the basic approach in various colonies and states at the time of America’s founding[37]
Modern examples: Brad Littlejohn,[38] Doug Wilson,[39] Joe Rigney,[40] Daniel Strand,[41] some versions of “Christian nationalism” (though many who hold this position do not prefer that label)[42]

For view 5, the government enforces a particular ethic that is tied to a religion. For view 6, religion controls the government to such a degree that the government enforces the religion itself.
View 6. Religion over Government: Religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce religion.

Position: A particular religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce that religion. Some call this view the doctrine of the two swords in which the sword of religion trumps the sword of the government. (For medieval Roman Catholics, both swords belong to the Pope, and the Pope directly wields the spiritual sword and indirectly wields the temporal sword by commanding government authorities.) God ordains the government to ensure peace in society, which includes to some extent governing church assemblies, ensuring that the church maintains orthodoxy, and punishing people who refuse to comply. The magistrate might say, “The Pope is telling me that John Doe is a heretic, so the government must punish him.”
Historic example: the two-swords view of medieval Roman Catholicism[43]
Modern example: I’m not sure what to suggest as a good modern example. Some might classify Rousas J. Rushdoony in this view, but Andrew Sandlin, a former colleague of Rushdoony, disagrees in his Christ Over All interview. Sandlin argues that Rushdoony, the basic architect of Christian reconstructionism (i.e., reconstruct America as a Christian republic by rebuilding it on the foundation of the Mosaic law’s moral and civil aspects), does not include governmental coercion of Christian religion in his political theology. Rather, Rushdoony advocates a principled application of the Mosaic law—something closer to what I propose as view 5 above. [44]

Read More
Related Posts: