Audio Transcript

Happy Monday, and welcome back to the podcast with us. We appreciate that you listen along each week. On this Monday, Pastor John, I want to look at Psalm 111. There we find a great promise for life: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10). I suspect this is a line that a lot of us know well — we know by heart, likely. A lot of listeners have memorized this verse over the years. Many of us have underlined or highlighted it in our Bibles, tweeted it or shared it online at some point. I’ve seen it on coffee mugs and wall hangings. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

But there’s a Christian Hedonist spin to this text I hadn’t noticed until I saw something you said about it a few years back. You quoted the text and then you said, “As so often in Scripture, what happens in the heart governs what happens in the mind.” So here, fear in the heart leads to wisdom in the mind. We so often approach things the other way around: from our head into our heart, getting things from our head into our heart. Explain how this works in the other direction — how our hearts govern what happens in our minds.

When I say that the heart governs the mind, I don’t mean that when our minds are renewed by the Holy Spirit, they can’t exert good influence upon our heart. I don’t mean to exclude that. They do. Renewed thinking helps renewed feeling. That’s true. All through the Bible, right knowing has the purpose of producing right feeling as well as right acting. We know God in order to love God.

Ten times in 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “Do you not know?” (1 Corinthians 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24) — with the implication, “If you knew rightly, then you’d think differently, feel differently, act differently about what you’re about to do.” And in 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Paul says to not give yourself over to “the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God,” implying that a right knowledge of God would have a subduing effect upon the passions of our heart. So, I’m not denying that God has given us renewed, Bible-formed reason as one way of shaping the emotions of our heart.

Power of the Heart

Where do I get the idea that it works the other way around as well — namely, that a heart whose desires go after evil will be blinded from seeing the truth about God in his ways and works, and a heart that desires to go after God and what is good will see the truth more easily? In other words, the condition of the heart and its desires have a huge effect on whether or not we will be able to see God and his ways and his works for what they really are.

Let me just give some Bible passages that point to this power of our hearts — our desires over our mind’s thoughts.

Darkened Love

In John 3:19, Jesus says, “This is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light.” They don’t come to the light. They reject the truth. They don’t embrace the truth with their minds. And the reason Jesus gives is not that they don’t have sufficient light or sufficient evidence or knowledge. The reason he gives is this: they love the darkness. Why don’t they see the light? Because they love the dark. It’s a love issue, right? It’s a heart issue. This is what I mean when I say the heart governs the mind. What the heart loves can blind the mind to the light, the truth.

Hardened Heart

Here’s the way Paul gets at the same thing. He describes the Gentiles who reject the gospel like this: “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Ephesians 4:18). He moves toward the bottom of our problem, passing through four layers. Where does it end? What’s at the bottom of our problem, our darkness?

He says darkened, alienated, ignorant, hard. The bottom of our problem is not ignorance. There’s something beneath ignorance that brings about culpable ignorance and holds us in the dark prison of ignorance — namely, hardness of heart. That’s not primarily an intellectual problem; that’s a desire problem. Hardness of heart is stiff-necked resistance to God because we love our independence from God. We hate the idea of being under absolute authority. We love our autonomy, our self-sufficiency, our self-direction, our self-exaltation. We bristle with hardness, stiffness against any suggestion of absolute dependence on another, especially God.

Paul says that the effect of this hardness of heart is ignorance and alienation and darkness. But the root issue is not intellectual. It’s a love issue. It’s a desire issue.

Bent Will

Or consider this amazing word from Jesus in John 7:17: “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” This is one of the clearest statements in the Bible that right-willing precedes and enables right-knowing.

“Since proud hardness of heart is the root problem, God-given humility is the remedy.”

I remember hearing that for the first time in a chapel message at Wheaton College. I think it was 1966. I remember thinking, “That’s amazing.” I remember walking out thinking, “That’s amazing that my willing has to be changed in order for me to know the truth.” It’s not just the other way around. My whole mindset was that it’s the other way around. Knowing will change my will. “I’ve got to know. I’ve got to know.” Well, actually, no. Right-willing will enable right-knowing.

It was two years later, Tony — it was two years until my first year in seminary, where all the pieces fell together, and I realized we have to be born again. We have to have a new will, a new heart. Something has to happen to us to change us from the inside so that we can know things the way we ought to know them, which means God is sovereignly in control over rescuing me from my sinful heart, my bent will. I cannot will myself out of willing the wrong thing. It’s not going to work. My will is bent by nature. It’s called original sin. I love the wrong things, and I need God to intervene to change my will so that I can know God rightly.

Gift of Humility

So, the lesson is: apart from God’s Spirit, all of us have sinful hearts that are prone to take our minds captive and make them produce arguments that justify the sinful behaviors that we love. That’s the kind of control I’m talking about. We are all prone to self-justification — all of us. I really, really want to do something that’s sinful, so my desires exert a powerful influence on my mind to create arguments that show me it’s not sinful; it’s okay. That’s the way it works. That’s the way it’s working all through our culture today.

And since proud hardness of heart is the root problem, God-given humility is the remedy. Psalm 25:9 says, “He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.” So, we ask God to break our hardness and replace our pride with humility, and in that way make it possible for us to see God — to see his ways and his works for what they really are. When God changes our hearts, then our hearts serve the mind rather than blinding the mind.

What is the difference between patriarchy and complementarity — and which is the better term for capturing the full vision of Christian manhood and womanhood? Most complementarians steadfastly avoid the word patriarchy, wanting to distance themselves from any associations with oppression and prejudice. On the other hand, critics of complementarianism are eager to saddle their opponents with the charge of defending patriarchy. The terms often function as a way of communicating, “I’m not that kind of conservative Christian” — to which the reply is, “Oh yes, you are!” So what is the most accurate term for those who want to recapture a lost vision of sexual differentiation and order?

Defining, to everyone’s satisfaction, terms like patriarchy and complementarity is nearly impossible. I’ll do some definitional work in a moment, but I don’t want this article to become a tedious, academic inquiry into the usage and history of these terms. I also don’t want to define the terms so that complementarity becomes a convenient gloss for “good male leadership” and patriarchy ends up meaning “bad male leadership.” To be sure, that distinction isn’t totally misguided, but if that’s all I said, my argument would be entirely predictable.

And a bit superficial. As I’ll argue in a moment, there is nothing to be gained by Christians reclaiming the term patriarchy in itself. In fact, reclaim is not even the right word, because I’m not sure Christians have ever argued for something called “patriarchy.” Complementarity is a better, safer term, with fewer negative connotations (though that is quickly changing). I’ve described myself as a complementarian hundreds of times; I’ve never called myself a patriarchalist.

Yet there is something in the broader idea of patriarchy — no matter how sinister the word itself has become — that is worth claiming. If the vision of male-female complementarity is to be more than a seemingly arbitrary commitment to men leading in the home and being pastors in the church, we cannot settle for a proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. Of course, careful exegesis is absolutely critical. But we need more than the right conclusions. We need to help people see that our exegetical conclusions do not just fit with the best hermeneutical principles; they fit with the way the world is and the way God made men and women.

Complementarity and Patriarchy

The idea of complementarity — that men and women were designed with a special fittedness, each for the other — is not new. The term complementarianism, however, is relatively recent. In their seminal 1991 work Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem deliberately termed their recovery mission “a vision of biblical ‘complementarity’” because they wanted to both correct the “selfish and hurtful practices” of the traditionalist view and avoid the opposite mistakes coming from evangelical feminists (14).

No one committed to intellectual honesty and fairness should treat traditionalist, hierarchicalist, or patriarchalist as synonyms for complementarianism. In coining the term complementarian, Piper and Grudem explicitly rejected the first two terms, while the third term (patriarchalist or patriarchy or patriarchal) is never used in a positive sense in the book. “If one word must be used to describe our position,” they wrote, “we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women” (14). Thirty years later, this vision of complementarity is still worth carefully defining and gladly defending.

The term patriarchy is much harder to define. Strictly speaking, patriarchy is simply the Greek word meaning “father rule.” There is nothing in its etymology to make the term an epithet of abuse. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are often called “the patriarchs” (Romans 9:5, for example). The spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. In a generic sense, every Christian believes in patriarchy because we affirm the rule and authority of God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

Despite these positive associations, as a sociological and historical category, patriarchy is almost always used in a pejorative sense. Here, for example, is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on patriarchy.

Patriarchy is an institutionalized social system in which men dominate over others, but can also refer to dominance over women specifically; it can also extend to a variety of manifestations in which men have social privileges over others to cause exploitation or oppression, such as through male dominance of moral authority and control of property.

In this one (long) sentence, we have a host of pejorative words: dominate, dominance (2x), exploitation, and oppression. No one is expected to read this definition and think of patriarchy as something good, or even something that could possibly be good.

In a recent longform article in The Guardian, Charlotte Higgins argues that at its simplest, patriarchy “conveys the existence of a societal structure of male supremacy that operates at the expense of women.” Higgins admits the patriarchy is virtually dead as an academic idea — too blunt and monolithic a concept to be useful — but in popular usage the term has experienced an unprecedented revival, one Higgins supports. “Only ‘patriarchy’ seems to capture the peculiar elusiveness of gendered power,” she writes. Higgins’s street-level definition is helpful insofar as it reveals that for most people, including most Christians (I suspect), patriarchy is shorthand for all the ways our world promotes male supremacy and encourages female oppression.

If that’s patriarchy, the world can have it. It’s not a term you’ll find in Christian confessional statements from the past. It’s not a term you’ll find employed frequently (or at all) in the tradition of the church as it defends biblical views of the family, the church, and society. As a conservative, Reformed, evangelical Christian, I applaud the vision of “equality with beneficial differences” and stand resolutely opposed to all forms of domination, exploitation, and oppression.

Cost of Dismantling Patriarchy

Why not end the article right here? Complementarianism is good; patriarchy is bad. Case closed. Enough said, right?

Not quite. We should be careful not to banish patriarchy to the ash heap of history too quickly. For starters, we should question the notion that patriarchy equals oppression. In his book Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe, Steven Ozment argues that family life, even in the patriarchal past, is not wholly different from our own age. Parents loved their children, husbands performed household duties, and most women preferred marriage and homemaking to other arrangements.

History is complex and rarely allows for meta-theories and monocausal explanations. If women had fewer opportunities and rights in the past (almost everyone had fewer opportunities and fewer rights), women also lived enmeshed in stronger communities, and their roles as wife and mother were more highly honored. Accounting for differences in economic prosperity, it is entirely debatable (and, perhaps, ultimately unknowable) whether women are happier in the present than they were in the past. As Ozment puts it, “For every historian who believes that the modern family is a recent, superior evolution, there is another who is ready to expose it as a fallen archetype” (45).

Second, we should question the unstated assumptions that hold together the pejorative understanding of patriarchy. If sexual differentiation, subordination, and role distinctions are prima facie evidence of exploitation, then patriarchy, of any sort at any point in history, is going to be undesirable. Writing over forty years ago, Stephen B. Clark noted that feminist social scientists “apply liberally such terms as ‘dominance,’ ‘oppression,’ ‘repression,’ ‘inferiority,’ and ‘subservience’ to men’s and women’s roles.” These terms did not come from dispassionate historical observation. As Clark puts it, “This terminology, based on a political power model of social analysis derived from modern political ideologies, is designed to make all social role differences appear repulsive” (Man and Woman in Christ, 475).

The rhetorical deck has been stacked. To defend patriarchy, as presently and popularly understood, is to defend the indefensible. And yet, most complementarians do not realize that in rejecting patriarchy, they have, according to the contemporary rules of the game, rejected the very reality they thought they could reclaim by an appeal to complementarity.

Most importantly, and along the lines of the last point, we should be careful that in dismantling patriarchy we don’t end up kicking out the cultural ladder from underneath us and then hoping that people can reach the right conclusions by jumping to extraordinary heights.

One of my great concerns — which, sadly, seems to be coming more and more true with each passing year — is that complementarianism, for many Christians, amounts to little more than a couple of narrow conclusions about wives submitting to husbands in the home and ordination in the church being reserved for men. If that’s all we have in our vision for men and women, it’s not a vision we will hold on to for long. We need to help church members (especially the younger generations) see that God didn’t create the world with one or two arbitrary commands called “complementarianism” to test our obedience in the home and in the church. God created the world with sexual differentiation at the heart of what it means to be human beings made in his image. We cannot understand the created order as we should until we understand that God made us male and female.

Like and Unlike Adam

The creation story is so familiar to most of us that we overlook the obvious. God could have created human beings to reproduce on their own. God could have created every subsequent human being out of the ground, just as he created Adam. God could have created a group of male companions to hang out in Adam’s man cave so that Adam wouldn’t be alone. God could have given Adam a golden retriever or a gaggle of little Adams to keep him company.

But God created Eve. God made someone from Adam to be like Adam, and God made that same someone from Adam to be unlike Adam. According to God’s biological design, only Eve (not another Adam) was a suitable helper because only Eve (together with Adam) could obey the creation mandate. That’s why she was “a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). Only as a complementarian pair could Adam and Eve fill the earth and subdue it. Different languages and cultures and peoples will come later in Genesis — and these differences will be, in part, because of sin (Genesis 11). But the differences between men and women were God’s idea from the beginning. To ignore, minimize, or repudiate the differences between men and women is to reject our creational design and the God who designed it.

“To ignore, minimize, or repudiate the differences between men and women is to reject our creational design.”

At the level of common sense, most people know to be true what social-science research and biology tell us is true: sex differences are real and they matter. There is a reason that humor regarding men and women has often been a staple of comedy — whether in sitcoms, in standup, or in informal conversation. Most people know by intuition and by experience that a host of patterns and stereotypes are generally true of men and women.

In his book Taking Sex Difference Seriously, Steven Rhoades argues that traditional patterns of male initiative and female domesticity have been constant throughout history because the most fundamental human passions — sex, nurturing, and aggression — manifest themselves differently in men and women (5). One-day-old female infants, for example, respond more strongly to the sound of a human in distress than one-day-old male infants. Unlike their male counterparts, one-week-old baby girls can distinguish an infant’s cry from other noise (25).

According to Leonard Sax, a medical doctor and PhD, no amount of nurture can change the nature of our sexual differentiation. In his book Why Gender Matters, he writes that girls can see better, hear better, and smell better than boys. Conversely, boys are hardwired to be more aggressive, to take more risks, and to be drawn to violent stories.

Sax — who is not a Christian (that I can tell) or even particularly conservative when it comes to insisting on traditional moral behavior — criticizes those who think sex differences are simply the result of prejudice. Sax chides gender theorist Judith Butler and her followers for showing no awareness of sex differences in vision, sex differences in hearing, sex differences in risk-taking, or sex differences in sex itself (283).

Moreover, these differences cannot be laid at the feet of environment and social engineering. “The biggest sex differences in expression of genes in the human brain occurs not in adulthood, nor in puberty, but in the prenatal period before the baby is born” (208). Or as Moses put it, “Male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Embracing Reality

Everyone can see that, on average, men are taller and physically stronger than women. Most everyone agrees that men and women have occupied different roles in the home, in religion, and in the world for most (if not all) of human history. Virtually everyone would also agree that boys and girls don’t play the same or develop in the same ways. And nearly everyone would agree that men and women — taken as a whole — tend to form friendships differently, talk to their peers differently, and manifest different instincts related to children, sex, and career. Almost everyone sees these things.

What we don’t see in the same way is how to interpret these phenomena. The question is whether we view these distinctions as reflecting innate differences between men and women — differences not to be exploited or eradicated — or whether the distinctions we see are the result of centuries of oppression and ongoing prejudice. This brief article is written in hope that Christians might consider the former to be truer than latter.

In 1973, Steven Goldberg published The Inevitability of Patriarchy, a book he claims was listed as a world record in Guinness for the book rejected by the most publishers before final acceptance (69 rejections by 55 publishers). Building off that earlier work, Goldberg released Why Men Rule in 1993, arguing that given the physiological differentiation between the sexes, men have always occupied the overwhelming number of high-status positions and roles in every society (44). In other words, patriarchy is inevitable. Decades later, Rhoades said the same thing: “Matriarchies — societies where women have more political, economic and social power than men — do not exist; in fact, there is no evidence that they have ever existed” (Taking Sex Differences Seriously, 151).

We are told that dismantling patriarchy is one of the chief concerns of our time. Surely, Voltaire’s battle cry Écrasez l’infâme! (Crush the infamy!) is no less suitable for the ancient regime of father rule. Except that where patriarchy is already absent, dysfunction and desperation have multiplied. That’s because patriarchy, rightly conceived, is not about the subjugation of women as much as it is about the subjugation of the male aggression and male irresponsibility that runs wild when women are forced to be in charge because the men are nowhere to be found. What school or church or city center or rural hamlet is better off when fathers no longer rule? Where communities of women and children can no longer depend upon men to protect and provide, the result is not freedom and independence. Fifty years of social science research confirms what common sense and natural law never forgot: as go the men, so goes the health of families and neighborhoods. The choice is not between patriarchy and enlightened democracy, but between patriarchy and anarchy.

Observations like these sound offensive to almost everyone, but they don’t have to be. If patriarchy (as a descriptive rather than a pejorative term) reflects innate differences between the sexes, then we would do well to embrace what is — while fighting the natural effects of sin in the way things are — rather than pursuing what never will be. You can sand a piece of wood in any direction you like, but the experience will be more enjoyable — and the end product more beautiful — if you go with the grain. As Goldberg puts it, “If [a woman] believes that it is preferable to have her sex associated with authority and leadership rather than with the creation of life, then she is doomed to perpetual disappointment” (Why Men Rule, 32).

“Women were made to be women, not a different kind of man.”

Women were made to be women, not a different kind of man. The stubborn fact of nature, almost never mentioned, is that men cannot do the one thing most necessary and most miraculous in our existence: they will not nurture life in the womb; they will not give birth to the propagation of the species; they will not nurse an infant from their own flesh.

Deep down, men are aware of these limitations of manhood, which is why they feel the urge to protect women and children and why in every society, Goldberg writes, “they look to women for gentleness, kindness, and love, for refuge from a world of pain and force, for safety from their own excesses” (229). When a woman sacrifices all this to meet men on male terms, it is to everyone’s detriment, especially her own. Men and women are not the same, and if we want to acknowledge that in the home and in the church, we need to acknowledge it in all of life and in all of history. The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.

The thesis of this essay is that Jesus Christ, the absolutely supreme Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe, intends to accomplish his saving purposes in the world without reliance on the powers of civil government to teach, defend, or spread the Christian religion as such. Followers of Christ should not use the sword of civil government to enact, enforce, or spread any idea or behavior as explicitly Christian — as part of the Christian religion as such.

It is critical to understand what I mean by the phrases “explicitly Christian” and “the Christian religion as such.” The state may indeed teach, defend, and spread ideas and behaviors that Christians support — and support for explicitly Christian reasons (and that non-Christians may support for different reasons). But that is not the same as the state’s taking on the role of advocacy for the Christian faith as such. It’s the latter, not the former, that the New Testament opposes.

The civil government may rightly pass laws that make the spread of the Christian faith (and other faiths) easier (for example, laws protecting free speech and free assembly). That is not what the New Testament opposes. The New Testament opposes Christians looking to the state to teach, defend, or spread ideas or behaviors as explicitly Christian. The sword is not to be the agent of the Christian religion as such — that is, as a religion.

Focused on Christianity, Not the Church

This essay is not mainly about church-state relations. I am concerned here with the Christian religion as such, not with any particular institutional manifestations. I say this partly because I know some join me in rejecting the notion of any given Christian denomination being established as a state church, but who still advocate for the state’s enforcement of the Christian religion, such as including the Apostles’ Creed in the US Constitution. To turn Christian creeds into civil statutes transforms them into legal codes enforceable by the sword. I will argue that this is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. It is disobedience to the lordship of Christ.

I will argue that it is precisely our supreme allegiance to the lordship of Christ that obliges us not to use the God-given sword of civil government to threaten the punishment, or withhold the freedoms, of persons who do not confess Christ as Lord. There is no warrant in the New Testament for the church or the state to use force against non-Christian beliefs or against outward expressions of such beliefs that are not crimes on other counts.

This renunciation of reliance on state powers to establish the Christian religion as such is not in the service of so-called secular neutrality (which does not exist). It is in obedience to God’s word and in celebration of the Christ-exalting way he intends to rule the world without the weapons of the world until Christ’s return.

What the Government Does

This essay is mainly about what Christians should not look to the government to do. It is not about what we should look to the government to do. That is another essay (which many have already written). If I were to write an essay on that issue, it might begin with 1 Timothy 2:1–2:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

The principle here is that the government uses its civil authority to provide a society of peace and justice where Christians (and others) are free to live out their faith without physical resistance. This passage does not warrant the view that other religions may legitimately be oppressed by government force. The principle is peace and stability and justice, not that any one religion be supported or restrained rather than another.

Christians as Influencers

Christians may serve in civil roles of authority and may be guided in those roles by their own Christian faith and biblical understanding of what is good for a society. This essay is not against Christians serving Christ through a role in government; it is against the government presuming to use its sword in the explicit aim of advancing the spiritual rule of Christ.

Christians should openly say that Christ is Lord of all, and that their Christian faith informs their political views. They may gladly say publicly which particular laws they support and oppose for Christian reasons. But that is not the same as saying that a law should be passed as an explicitly Christian act of government in support of the Christian religion as such. In other words, Christian influence in shaping a society’s conception of a just social order is not the same as Christians using state power to establish policies or laws precisely because they are part of the Christian religion.

For example, Christians rightly oppose, on biblical grounds, laws defending the killing of unborn children. And they rightly pursue, because of Christian convictions, laws protecting the lives of the unborn. And since immorality and illegality are not the same, they may also rightly debate and propose what measures of illegality, if any, should attach to the immorality of any number of perverse practices, such as sodomy, child pornography, or amputating and/or installing male and female sexual organs. Speaking biblical truth into the public square as Christians is what disciples of Jesus do. We declare the excellencies of God and his ways. Such advocacy for truth and righteousness is not what the New Testament opposes. It is against using the state to reward or punish acts because they are part of the Christian religion as such.

Christians may be involved in the political process from top to bottom as an expression of allegiance to the lordship of Christ, as they seek to “do good to everyone” (Galatians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15) in the hope that some might “see [their] good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12). But seeking to serve in government as a fruit of Christian faith is not the same as using the powers of civil government as an advocate of the Christian faith as such.

We turn now to the exegetical reflections that support the preceding claims. I will focus on eight clusters of texts that lead to the thesis that Christ intends to accomplish his saving purposes in the world without using the sword of government to support the Christian religion as such — or any religion.

1. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.

Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18:33–38)

Jesus speaks the words of verse 36 (“my kingdom is not of this world”) to clarify for Pilate that the kingly rule he does indeed bring into the world (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 6:10) is not the kind Pilate would have in mind. He distinguishes his kingly rule from what Pilate would understand. He does so by saying that his kingdom is not “of this world” (verse 36). John uses this exact phrase thirteen times in his Gospel and twice in his letters.

“Of [or from] the world” carries a double meaning for John. On the one hand, it speaks of origin. Jesus’s kingdom does not originate from the world. He makes that explicit with the Greek word enteuthen — his kingdom is not “from here” (verse 36). But that would be a pointless observation if it did not carry the second meaning — namely, that his kingdom is not of the nature of this world. Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom unlike — not the same as — the kingdoms of this world.

We can see this meaning in John 15:19. Jesus says to the disciples, “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” Similarly, in 1 John 4:5–6, John says of the false teachers, “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us.” From these texts, one can see that to be “from the world” is to be like the world — to act in a way that the world understands and approves of.

Then Jesus gives a specific example of how his kingly rule is not like the kingdoms of this world: “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (verse 36). Thus Henry Alford explains that Christ’s kingdom in this world is “not springing from, arising out of this world; — and therefore not to be supported by this world’s weapons.”1 Similarly, Colin Kruse explains, “His kingdom is active in this world, and will one day come with power, but its power is not of this world; it is of God.”2

“Christ conquers his enemies by the gospel, not by the sword.”

When Christ says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would have been fighting to keep him from being killed, he shows that his kingdom comes not by the power of the sword but by the power of the blood he is about to shed. He conquers his enemies by the gospel, not by the sword. “They have conquered [the accuser] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Revelation 12:11).

I conclude, therefore, that the words of Jesus in John 18:36 are a warning to all his followers to resist the temptation to treat the sword of civil government as a Christian agent to advance the saving rule of Christ.

2. Christ’s kingdom is invisible and spiritual in nature.

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13–14)

In Paul’s letters, the primary use of the word kingdom is in reference to the future “kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:5). But here in Colossians 1:13, Paul makes clear that before that final consummation of the kingdom (which he can call “the kingdom of Christ and God,” Ephesians 5:5), there is a present kingdom. This kingdom is the kingly rule of Christ that a person enters by God’s “deliverance” and “transferring”: “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13). In other words, this kingdom is populated by people whom God has brought into fellowship with his Son (1 Corinthians 1:9). In this relationship, there is “redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).

The kingdom of Christ is the invisible rule of Christ over all those who are spiritually transferred from darkness into that rule. Therefore, neither the means of entrance nor the present reality of this kingdom should be thought of as looking to the civil government for advocacy or enforcement.

The invisible and spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom between his two comings fits with the words of Jesus in John 18:36, “my kingdom is not of this world,” from which Jesus draws out the implication, “My disciples are not taking up arms to free me.” The weapons of the state are not to be the Christian means by which the kingdom of Christ advances in this world.

Christ’s saving rule advances by the sovereign act of God, who transfers people from the authority of darkness to the authority of Christ. The enlistment of the powers of civil government as Christian teacher, defender, or spreader of this kingdom of Christ inevitably obscures the spiritual nature of the kingdom and creates a false impression of Christ’s true mission in the world.

3. Followers of Christ are sojourners and exiles on earth.

You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:9–12)

If you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:17–19)

Many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Philippians 3:18–21)

The people of Christ are those whom God has “called out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). This group corresponds to the people who have been “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred . . . to the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13). Thus, the people within Christ’s kingly rule are the same as the people called “a chosen race . . . a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). These are also the ones called “sojourners and exiles” (1 Peter 2:11). And their time in this age between Christ’s two comings is called “the time of your exile” (1 Peter 1:17). This group of people is said to have its “citizenship . . . in heaven” (Philippians 3:20), over against those whose minds are “set on earthly things” (Philippians 3:19). This is a remarkable list of distinctives that set Christ’s people off from the world:

delivered from the domain of darkness
transferred to the kingdom of Christ
called out of darkness
called into Christ’s marvelous light
constituted as a chosen race
constituted as a holy nation
having their citizenship in heaven
being sojourners and exiles
living in a time of exile

Between the two comings of Christ is a “time of . . . exile” for the people of Christ. During this time, they are themselves “sojourners and exiles.” That is, their “citizenship is in heaven,” not first or mainly or decisively in this world. This heavenly citizenship constitutes them as a “holy nation.” To quote the standard Greek lexicon, “Our home is in heaven, and here on earth we are a colony of heavenly citizens.”3 This colony in exile on earth is marked by two spiritual realities: “marvelous light” and the rule of Christ.

“Our defining citizenship, across all nations and ethnicities and races, is not an earthly citizenship.”

The depiction of Christ’s people with these dramatic distinctives is designed to distance them from the earthly structures of this age insofar as those structures would define, control, or be identified as the spiritual realities of Christ’s rule. These descriptions are designed to loosen allegiances to earthly nations and tighten allegiances to Christ’s people among all nations. Our defining citizenship, across all nations and ethnicities and races, is not an earthly citizenship (like citizenship in America, or any other earthly state) or an earthly ethnicity or race.

Until Christ comes, the vagaries and fragile existence of earthly nations do not correspond to the indestructible kingdom of Christ and his people. They have no necessary connection. Earthly nations come and go. Christ’s “holy nation” does not. It would be inconsistent with the radical distinction between the exile-reality of Christ’s people, on the one hand, and the citizenship of any earthly government, on the other hand, to think of the powers of that earthly government functioning as an explicitly Christian agent of Christ’s transnational “holy nation.” This is true regardless of how many people or leaders in an earthly nation are Christians.

4. Christians wield spiritual weapons, not earthly ones.

I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ — I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away! — I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:1–6)

There is no question of whether Christians are engaged in warfare in this world. The question is, What are the weapons and strategies we should use in combatting the anti-Christian forces and in exalting Christ? Paul admits that Christians share ordinary physical bodies and other human and cultural commonalities with non-Christians in this world (food, clothing, language, social structures, etc.). That is what he means when he says, “We walk in the flesh” (verse 3). The word flesh refers to what is merely human, merely natural, apart from the transforming effects of the Holy Spirit (see Romans 1:3; 4:1; 9:3, 5; 1 Corinthians 1:26; Galatians 4:23, 29). Christians share this world with unbelievers.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the battles of defending and spreading the Christian faith, Paul draws a line. We may “walk” in the flesh, but we do not “[wage] war according to the flesh” (verse 3). Or to say it another way, “The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (verse 4). Even though Paul is not talking about the power of civil government in this text, the principle holds: we do not seek to defeat explicitly anti-Christian teaching by using the weapons of the flesh — namely, by wielding the sword of the civil government.

This is virtually the same as Jesus saying, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting [with the sword]” (John 18:36). In other words, “My kingdom is not of the flesh. If my kingdom were of the flesh, my servants would have been using the weapons of the flesh.” If in our efforts to advance Christ’s saving kingdom we look to the civil sword of the flesh instead of the spiritual sword of the Spirit, we disobey Christ, and miscommunicate the nature of Christianity.

“There is a great battle to be fought in this world, and Christians are to use the weapons of the Spirit-anointed word.”

So Paul says that the weapons of our warfare are not “fleshly” (sarkika) but are rather “powerful by God” (dunata tō theō). He appears to have in mind the Spirit-anointed preaching of Christian truth, which would “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (verse 5).

Therefore, 2 Corinthians 10:3–5 stands against the temptation to use the powers of civil government to destroy opinions raised against the true God. For example, this text would stand in the way of using civil authority to punish blasphemy. There is a great battle to be fought in this world, and Christians are to use the weapons of the Spirit-anointed word, not the weapons of the state.

5. The kingdom was taken from a nation and given to the church.

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation [ethnei] producing its fruits. (Matthew 21:43)

You are . . . a holy nation [ethnos hagion] . . . that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:11)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

The coming of Christ brought about a change in the way the visible people of God are constituted in this world. No longer are God’s visible people the political and ethnic people of Israel. Instead, God’s special saving action was taken away from Israel as a group and focused on the church.

This is the meaning of Matthew 21:43. Jesus interprets the parable of the vineyard as a parable of Israel’s fruitlessness and consequent loss of the saving rule of God: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation [ethnei] producing its fruits.” This “nation” is the church of Jesus Christ. As Robert Gundry puts it, “The church is called ‘a nation’ because it will replace the nation of Israel with disciples from all nations, blended together into a new people of God.”4 Hence Peter calls the church “a holy nation [ethnos hagion]” (1 Peter 2:9).

The changes in the kingdom moving from Israel to the church are many.

The church is made up of all nations not just one (Matthew 28:19–20; Colossians 3:11; Romans 4:10–11; 9:24–25; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:6).
All believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10).
The sacrificial system ends with the perfect and final sin-bearing sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).
The food laws give way to Christian freedom (Mark 7:19).
Circumcision is no longer required as the mark of belonging to the people of God (Galatians 2:3).

And the theocratic warrant for the civil punishment of execution for unrepentant idolaters, adulterers, and homosexuals, for example, is replaced with excommunication from the church. The hoped-for aim of excommunication is repentance and restoration, and therefore it does not look to the state to complete capital punishment for the sake of the church.

Here are texts showing the legitimacy of capital punishment for idolaters, adulterers, and active homosexuals in the old theocratic regime of Israel:

Joash said to all who stood against him, “Will you contend for Baal? Or will you save him? Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by morning.” (Judges 6:31; see also Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 17:2–5)

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Under the spiritual reign of Christ in the New Testament, idolatry is made more serious not by greater punishments but by being identified with the condition of the heart expressed in sins like covetousness. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5).

The seriousness of adultery is intensified by being identified with the lust of the heart. “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Homosexual practice was classed with these sins of the “unrighteous.” And all three (idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, in addition to others) were seen as serious enough to keep one out of the kingdom of God:

Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality . . . will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)5

Under the new-covenant reign of Christ, the way the people of God deal with the sins of idolatry, adultery, and homosexual behavior is first to seek repentance. When this happens, there is restoration. We see this in the gracious statement “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11). But if the idolaters, adulterers, and active homosexuals are unrepentant, the path forward is church discipline leading, if necessary, to excommunication.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. . . . You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:1–2, 5)

Excommunication had in view either repentance leading to salvation and, if possible, restoration (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2:6–10; 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15), or Christ’s capital punishment on the last day.

As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8; see also 2 Thessalonians 1:8)

The fact that murderers, for example, are rightly punished by the state in this present age does not contradict the point here, because in punishing murderers the state is not functioning as an explicitly Christian agent of the Christian faith. This action of the state is not an aspect of Christ’s rule over his church. When the state punishes a murderer, it should not do so in the explicit advancement of religious faith — Christian or otherwise.

Jesus did not teach that the kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the civil government of each nation. He said it was taken from Israel and given to the church (Matthew 21:43). And in the process, he put in place a new way that God now rules his people until the second coming of Christ. So there can be no straight line drawn from the Old Testament laws and punishments to the present day. The state is not in continuity with Israel. And the people of Christ — the new holy nation — is a differently constituted “Israel.”

6. A ‘Christian state’ obscures the true nature of Christianity.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:27–28)

Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

Christ hates hypocrisy. He pronounces woes on those who think outward conformity to religious tradition without the inward reality of faith is a Christian aim. It misses the point to observe that hypocritical, law-abiding neighborhoods are preferable to deadly anarchy. Christians don’t operate with those options. We live and die to proclaim, “First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean” (Matthew 23:26). “Put away all . . . hypocrisy” (1 Peter 2:1). It is good when governments restrain the harm humans do to other humans. But that is not the Christian message, nor is it a strategy for advancing the Christian faith.

When the state encourages external forms of righteousness in the name of Christ and as an expression of the “Christian” way, it obscures the true nature of Christianity, and does harm to the cause of Christ. It gives the impression that such an ethic is “Christian” when the essentials of vital faith and love to Christ are missing (without which there is no truly Christian ethic, Romans 14:23). This implies that Christians should seek ways of minimizing, rather than cultivating, a cultural Christianity, which may restrain some outward evil with a veneer of Christianity, but also may lead millions into the false assurance that they are in God’s favor when they are not.

7. The sword of government is not for establishing true religion.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1–7)

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13–17)

In view of all we have seen about the new way that Christ governs his people under the new covenant, it would be unwarranted to infer from these passages that the civil government is intended by God to use its sword (Romans 13:4) in the explicitly Christian service of establishing or advancing the Christian religion.

It is an unwarranted leap to jump from the statement that governments are “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14; cf. Romans 13:3–4) to the conclusion that the “good” in view refers to explicit expressions of Christian faith, and the “evil” in view refers to explicit expressions of being non-Christian. In other words, the following syllogism is invalid:

Premise 1: Civil government is to reward the good and punish the bad.

Premise 2: Explicit expressions of Christian faith are good, and explicit expressions of being non-Christian are bad.

Conclusion: Therefore, the civil government should take up its Christian duty for Christ’s sake and reward deeds because they express Christianity, and punish deeds because they do not.

That is not a valid syllogism. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is not at all clear that the good and evil in premise 1 are the same as the good and evil in premise 2. Nor is it clear that the rewards and punishments should be bestowed as acts of Christian advocacy.

We have seen in the previous six sections that there are numerous reasons why we should not infer from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 that governments are ordained by God to be an arm of Christianity to establish God’s kingdom with the sword. There are also pointers in these texts themselves that the good that governments are to praise does not imply they must be expressions of Christian faith. Rather, it is likely that in Romans 13:1–7 the “good work” (tō agathō ergō) in verse 3a and the “doing good” (to agothon poiei) in verse 3b refer to civic good deeds that were widely respected by non-Christians. I say this for several reasons:

These good deeds get the praise of pagan rulers (verse 3, hexeis epainon), who care nothing for Christian, spiritual reality.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:15 “doing good” (agathopoiountas) is designed to silence foolish pagan criticism, presumably by appealing not to their respect for Christian faith, but to their respect for civic good deeds.
These good deeds are part of the summons to be subject to pagan rulers (see the “therefore” at the beginning of Romans 13:5, dio), who would not care if the deeds were expressions of Christianity, but only that they were beneficial according to their own pagan standards.
The term “good works” (Romans 13:3) is regularly a reference to practical acts of mercy for those in need (Acts 9:36; 1 Timothy 2:10; 5:10; etc.), which the rulers would approve of as the same kind of practical helpfulness unbelievers are capable of and admire.
Submission and good behavior are fleshed out in the particulars of verse 7 (taxes, revenue, fear, honor), which from the standpoint of the pagan rulers would simply have been ordinary acts of civic responsibility, not acts of obedience to the Christian God.

For these reasons, together with the other points in this essay, it is not warranted to claim that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 teach that civil government is ordained by God to use its sword for the establishment or advance of the Christian religion as such.

8. Christ himself will punish blasphemy and idolatry in the last day.

God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:6–10)

The mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (2 Thessalonians 2:7–8)

I include this section only to make explicit that the Christian renunciation of magisterial punishments for idolatry and blasphemy does not mean such punishments will never happen. They will be performed by the one Person who has the proper right and wisdom to do so, Jesus Christ, at his second coming.

There will be capital punishment for non-Christian beliefs. The prerogative to perform such punishment belongs to Christ. There is no warrant in the New Testament for the church or the state to use force against non-Christian beliefs or against outward expressions of such beliefs that are not crimes on other counts.

Conclusion: God’s New Administration

Jesus is Lord. In his providence, he rules all that comes to pass — from gnats to nations to nebulae. In his saving power, he rules his people by his Spirit through his word. With the coming of the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, into the world, the kingdom of God was taken from Israel and given to the church (Matthew 21:43). In that transition, a new “administration” of God’s saving rule in the world was put in place.

Paul describes his purpose as an apostle this way:

To me . . . this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan [or administration, oikonomia] of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 3:8–10)

This new administration of God’s reign would not pursue the manifestation of God’s wisdom by using the powers of civil government as Christian enforcement of biblical faith. Rulers and authorities, in heaven and on earth, would be confronted with the spiritual power of Christ’s kingdom. But the faithful subjects of Christ’s kingdom would not look to the powers of civil government to give explicit Christian defense of or support to the Christian faith as such.6

This commitment to renounce reliance on state advocacy for the Christian faith is not in the service of so-called secular neutrality. It is in obedience to God’s word and in celebration of the Christ-exalting way he intends to rule the world without the weapons of the world, but for the glory of his name.