“The church is spiritual, it shouldn’t be concerned with things like politics, public policy, and government!” I’ve heard variations of this argument from congregants, unbelievers, and even fellow pastors. Many Christians believe the church should be solely concerned with ‘spiritual’ things (i.e., immaterial things). According to such thinking, crossing the line into politics is considered “unclean,” and even a betrayal of the gospel. Sadly, some believe the church’s sweet spot is for her to be so heavenly-minded that she’s of no earthly good. Thus, whenever a pastor, theologian, or Christian addresses this area of life, they inevitably are accused of making it an idol. Ironically, it is when politics and government are severed from God’s authority that they become autonomous and untouchable. Politics becomes a god unto itself—an idol.
Others grant that Christians can have at least a passing interest in the public square, but such matters are not really “gospel issues,” whatever that means. For such people, politics and public life are regrettable but necessary diversions from gospel ministry. If these objections are true, should churches support organizations like the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC)? And if such organizations must exist, how should their work relate to the gospel?
I believe the gospel contains within it an inherently public and political message. Consequently, if the church refuses to speak into this area of life, our gospel message remains incomplete. In what follows, I will examine the inherent political message of the gospel by considering three issues. First, how the secular/sacred divide undermines the Christian faith. Second, by turning to Christ’s commission of the Apostle Paul to a gospel ministry that included preaching the gospel to political rulers. Finally, I introduce a basic philosophy for faithful engagement within the political sphere.
Rejecting the Secular Versus Sacred Divide
Many Christians have swallowed a fundamentally secularist view of life.[1] Secularism is marked by a secular/sacred divide, or what Francis Schaeffer calls the upper versus lower story view of life.[2] This divide separates life into two conflicting areas. On the lower story, there are the secular and public spaces of life. In this area, facts, reason, and science reign—no religion is allowed. In the upper story, we find the private and religious, or sacred, area of life. Individuals reach this upper story through a leap of faith. In the upper story, reason, science, and facts don’t matter. Thus, what reigns supreme in the upper story are feelings, experience, and ultimately relativism.
1. This section is adapted from Levi Secord “The Failures of Secularism and the Biblical Alternative,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 28, no. 2 (Summer 2024): 20–39.
2. Nancy Pearcey, in summarizing Schaeffer’s work, demonstrates how secularism is built on this upper vs. lower story view of reality. Nancy R. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, Study Guide ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 17–121.
How do these two spheres relate? In a secular world, the lower story of reason, science, and facts is considered more important than the upper story. Religion is allowed to exist, as long as it doesn’t make any claims upon the secular parts of life. Sadly, many Christians have unwittingly embraced this secular/sacred worldview. Such Christians are happy to live most of their life in the sacred sphere while only reluctantly visiting the secular area of life. After occasionally dipping their toes in the secular water, they quickly retreat to the safety of the upper story.
Ironically, these evangelicals and their secular neighbors share the same basic worldview, for both accept the secular/sacred split. The only real difference between the two camps is which sphere they view as most important. Secularists believe the lower story is supreme, while many evangelicals favor the upper story. Thus, secularism and evangelicalism have coexisted under a fake peace.
This embrace of secularism runs contrary to the plain testimony of Scripture. Christ possesses a universal authority that covers both heaven and earth, everything visible and invisible, in this age and the next (Col. 1:15–20; Eph. 1:20–23). Moreover, it is Christ’s universal authority that is the very foundation of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). Without such a unified authority, the gospel cannot go forward. To embrace the secular/sacred divide is to neuter Christianity and short-circuit the good news. All of life is spiritual, and all of life is under Christ’s authority. Schaeffer elaborates:
True spirituality covers all of reality . . . the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.[3]
3. Francis Schaeffer, “A Christian Manifesto,” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, Volume Five, A Christian View of the West (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 424.
Christ is every bit as much the head of the public square as he is of the private sphere. He is head of the church and of the state because he is the head of all things unto the church (Eph. 1:20–23). Therefore, Christians must reject the secular/sacred divide and see the world as a unified whole under the lordship of Christ.
The Gospel’s Politics (Acts 9:15)
Rejecting secularism is one thing, but does the gospel address the political sphere of life? Yes, the gospel has an inherent political message—Christ is the King of kings. [4] In Acts 9:15, Christ explains to Ananias why he must go to Paul, despite Paul’s persecution of the church. Christ says to Ananias, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” Paul is Christ’s chosen instrument to carry Christ’s name to the world. Notice how the message is not just Christ’s work, but his identity, or name. The gospel message includes Jesus as the Christ, Savior, Lord, King, etc. We must remember that the title of Christ has royal overtones. To call Jesus the Christ is to identify him as the long-awaited Davidic king who is ultimately the King of kings (Psalm 2). It is this name that Paul is to bring to the world—the King of kings has come. Christ’s identity is the good news.
4. This section is adapted from chapter in my forthcoming book, Levi Secord, “The Gospel’s Politics Proclaiming Christ’s Authority to Kings and Nations,” in Servant Not Savior: An Introduction to the Bible’s Teaching about the Government.
Thus, Christ instructs Paul not just to go to Jews and Gentiles, but to kings. By singling out kings, Christ targets them in their role as rulers. To conduct faithful gospel ministry, Paul must testify to the name of Christ before political rulers. The term Christ uses, “kings,” includes political rulers of varying ranks.[5] By listing these three groups together (Jews, Gentiles, and kings), Christ tightly binds them as the aim of Paul’s mission.[6] The gospel message must go out to the Jews, Gentiles, and their rulers as rulers.
5. Steve Walton, Acts 1–9:42, World Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 587.
6. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 361.
Christ’s words in Acts 9:15 echo a similar statement he gave to his disciples in Matthew 10:18, “And you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.” Christ’s followers are to be witnesses of him, even to rulers. This message includes an offer of salvation if the rulers submit to Christ.[7] Moreover, as Christ said these words, Galilee had no governor or king and the disciples had not yet attracted persecution from the state.[8] This means Christ was looking forward to a future reality. Christ’s words here describe the broader mission of the church, not the present reality of the apostles. The mission of the church includes testifying about Christ to political rulers in their role as political rulers. This becomes a persistent theme throughout the rest of Paul’s ministry (Acts 13:6–12; 17:16–34, 18:12–18, 24:1–16, 25:13–14, 26:1–29).
7. D. A. Carson, Matthew: Chapters 1–12, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 246.
8. France, Matthew, 392.
Paul’s ministry to the nations and their kings “reflect[s] the ultimate intent of Jesus’s work.”[9] The message of the gospel necessarily includes preaching to political rulers in their respective roles. Thus, Christ’s mission irreducibly includes preaching his identity and work to Jews, Gentiles, and political rulers. This type of preaching is gospel ministry.
9. Bock, Acts, 361.
Today, how many churches actively seek to preach the gospel to our rulers? Or, do we view such a ministry as beneath the gospel? If we do, we are out of step with Christ as he envisioned preaching to rulers as essential to the declaration of the gospel. While this may sound strange to us, it fits into a larger biblical theology around Christ’s kingship and the inclusion of earthly rulers in his kingdom (Ps. 2; Isa. 60:3; Rev. 21:24–26). In short, to testify before kings is not an obscure biblical doctrine, but a repeated theme found throughout the Bible. It is something we are charged with doing till Christ returns.
Toward A Biblical Public Witness
How, then, should Christians declare the gospel’s political message? Consider three basic principles that should guide our political engagement. First, we need to think of a total worldview instead of bits and pieces. Again, Schaeffer hits the target:
The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.[10]
10. Schaeffer, “A Christian Manifesto,” 423.
We must not think of individual issues in bits and pieces but as a part of totalizing systems of thought. For example, modern progressivism may, on the surface, appear to align with the Bible’s concerns for the poor, immigrants, and downtrodden. But progressivism is a holistic worldview that also redefines these terms through the revolutionary spirit of Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Marcuse, and others. Accepting the progressive framework of the oppressed vs. oppressor does not fit God’s definition of justice as identity does not equal being oppressed and justice requires impartiality toward both great and small alike (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19–20). Leftist political philosophy is wholly anti-Christian and seeks to destroy the remnants of Christendom.[11] It is another gospel with a fundamentally different view of morality, God, justice, and the state. When we think of issues in bits and pieces instead of totals, we are easily deceived and steered into supporting a system that in total is anti-Christian. Leftism as a whole is a wicked system that neither cares for the poor and the immigrant nor supports the gospel.
11. In classic fashion, there is an overcorrection against the Leftist drift in evangelicalism that also imbibes sub-biblical worldviews, just as in the other direction. This has led to evil distortions of ideas like natural law/theology being used in defense of things like racist partiality, antisemitism, and Kinism. While that is not the main focus of this article, the principles addressed here should prevent errors in either direction.
By aligning with the total anti-Christian worldview of the left (in the name of the ‘bits and pieces’ progressives toss at naïve Christians), organizations like the ERLC can become “useful idiots” for the leftist revolution. We cannot, for example, use bits of a totalistic worldview merely as an “analytic tool,” and expect it not to affect the whole worldview, as many Southern Baptists did with the infamous Resolution 9 on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. What is a worldview but a way to analyze, categorize, and understand life? Christian cannot use the analytic tools of a hostile worldview without imbibing other parts of that system. By imbibing critical theory, evangelicals have welcomed in a corrosive acid into its ranks. Christians must think in totals, not in bits and pieces.
Second, our political witness must be shaped by Scripture. As Doug Wilson notes, “If you don’t learn how to look at the entire world with a biblical eye, you will soon find yourself looking at the entire Bible with a worldly eye.”[12] If we use the world as the lens to understand Scripture, then we’ve supplanted God and replaced him with culture. Instead, we must train ourselves, and our people, to use the Bible as both the highest authority and the filter to understand all of life. Scripture, not culture, must be our standard. Otherwise, we will use cultural whims to distort Scripture.
12. Douglas Wilson, “In Defense of Worldview Thinking,” Blog and Mablog, February 10, 2025.
Third, Christian ministries in the public sphere must ultimately fear God and not man. They must preach Christ’s name to the rulers of this age. We do not serve Republicans or Democrats, but Christ as the King of kings. We are to declare that he is the head of all things, including the state (Ps. 2:8–12). Therefore, rulers are commanded to serve God by submitting to Christ’s kingship. Christians are to go to kings, presidents, senators, governors, etc., and call them to repentance. Such repentance is marked by submitting to God through Christ as his anointed king (Ps. 2:12). Such repentance will necessarily include enacting laws and policies that align with God’s standards. Ultimately, ministry to those in the political sphere calls our leaders to bend the knee publicly to Christ as king, and for them to serve him.
