By God’s providence, James Baird’s book, King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Government, was published mere days after my own book, Servant Not Savior: An Introduction to the Bible’s Teaching About Civil Government. Baird writes as a Presbyterian, while I do so as a Baptist. Despite this, we have significant areas of agreement—the necessity of Christianity for statecraft, a rejection of the lies of secularism, and a reliance on the Protestant and American traditions.
Last fall, I eagerly bought Baird’s book and read it carefully. He argues his main point clearly—the Government must promote Christianity. The appeal of his work is, in the best sense of the word, its simplicity. Nonetheless, how we define what it means for the state to “promote” Christianity matters. For example, the scope and limits of governmental promotion of Christianity, and the foundation for why the state must do so, set the trajectory for what type of Christian government we will have. On the one hand, my view of a Christianized state falls under Baird’s broad vision, but on the other hand, so would many other views that I would vehemently oppose. The foundation on which we build our political theology matters because it sets the direction for the entire project. While there is much to praise in Baird’s book, the more I read it, the more unsettled I became.
To be fair, Baird’s work is intentionally short. It deliberately avoids specifics. King of Kings may be a great tool for combating the secularism-lite that passes for Christian political theology, but it lacks a stable foundation on which to build a truly Christian government. Its brevity, broad definitions, and questionable foundation leave it open for both abuse and devastating critiques from its opponents. While I cannot address all its deficiencies here, I offer four friendly critiques as a brother who also believes Christianity is essential to righteous governing. These critiques include the weakness of his syllogism, a lack of restraint on governmental authority, an overly positive view of the state, and a myopic view of America’s founding.
A Flawed Syllogism
Baird uses a simple syllogism to prove his case. This argument is the heart of his book and thus functions as its foundation. At first glance, the syllogism appears undeniable, but a closer examination reveals its troubling flaws.
A syllogism is an argument based on premises that, if true, then the conclusion logically follows. Baird’s syllogism is straightforward:
First Premise: Government must promote the public good.
Second Premise: As the only true religion, Christianity is part of the public good.
Conclusion: Government must promote Christianity as the only true religion.1
1. James Baird, King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Government (Founders Press, 2025), 22.
This argument has initial rhetorical weight as it appears to force Christians to either deny that Christianity is a part of the public good or that the state must promote the public good. What Christian would reject either of those premises?
Yet, Baird’s syllogism requires that everything that contributes to the public good falls under the power and jurisdiction of the state. If that is not what Baird means, then his syllogism becomes meaningless. For example, if only some public goods fall under the state’s jurisdiction, then the state is not required to promote all parts of the public good. If that is true, we would need to determine which category of public good Christianity falls under to assess whether the state must promote it. Baird’s first premise inescapably demands that the government promote every single thing that can be rightly conceived, adding to the public good. Such an argument opens the door to the totalizing of the government’s “proper” jurisdiction. Baird hints at this elsewhere.2
2. Baird argues for a very broad view of governmental authority as over everything “good or evil.” He calls this the “broadest categories.” James Baird (@james_d_baird), “I often hear it said that…” X post, October 30, 2025, 9:13 PM.
Thus, Baird’s entire book hinges on defining the public good. He defines it as “that which leads to human flourishing and happiness among a society of people as they live life together in community.”3 Such a vision of the public good is breathtakingly wide. Anything that leads to human flourishing and happiness is part of the public good. All such things would then fall under the coercive jurisdiction of the state. Thus, Baird’s argument grants the state power over nearly every aspect of life. Following the entailment of his argument, all parts of the public good are then promoted by the guys with the guns, tanks, and bombs. Intentionally or not, Baird’s political theology opens the door to a very big government.
3. Baird, King of Kings, 5.
There is more we must consider. Does the public good include education, healthcare, and a universal basic income? Does the correct teaching on issues like baptism, the doctrines of grace, and the millennium lead to “human flourishing and happiness” for a society? If yes, then the state must promote them. These are not small questions. It is here that the simplicity of Baird’s argument works against him, as it opens the door for Big Brother to grow ever bigger.
Absent a more robust definition of the public good, Baird’s syllogism can be saved with some small, but important changes to his first premise:
Government must promote certain public goods.
If Baird disagrees with this adjustment that would, in effect, confirm my concerns. At the heart of my apprehension is our tendency to demand that the state save us from just about everything. The state makes a terrible savior. Truly, the state’s intrusion into all of life is at the very heart of many of our societal ills.
While Baird and I agree that the state should be Christian, I have a much smaller vision of the government that flows from Christ’s words that some things do not belong to Caesar (Matt. 22:15–22).4 This recognition should prevent Christians from embracing a broad view of the state’s power. Scripture and history teach us that if we don’t limit the power of the state, it will devour and tyrannize all of life.5 For a state to be truly Christian, it must be limited in its scope.
4. See Levi Secord, Servant Not Savior: An Introduction to the Bible’s Teaching About Civil Government (Center for Cultural Leadership, 2025), 57–66.
5. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 19–30, 80–90, 131–147.
An Unrestrained State
The second critique builds on the first. What, if any, restraint does Baird place on the scope of the state’s promotion of Christianity? In my book, I argue that the state should recognize the Triune God in its constitution to limit the state’s power. For Baird’s vision, if the state must promote Christianity, then the question becomes, “To what extent?”
The only practical limitation Baird places on the state’s promotion of Christianity is the way of wisdom/prudence.6 He recognizes that politics is about what is presently possible. Baird has no desire to return to the laws of colonial America overnight; that would be imprudent (and impossible). For Baird, what the state can do comes down to what citizens are currently ready for. He writes, “We must adapt to our circumstances and fellow citizens.”7
6. Baird, King of Kings, 75–80.
7. Baird, King of Kings, 79.
While this limitation is good, it does not go far enough. Is the state’s promotion of Christianity only limited by the present cultural mood? Are there any doctrines that are inherently beyond the bounds of the state to promote? Or is the scope of the government’s promotion of religion determined only by what the citizenry is “ready” for? Baird is unclear on this point. His explanation leaves the door open to ever greater governmental coercion as culture changes. He writes, “Not everything that should be done must be done at this very moment or in this particular circumstance.”8 His “way of wisdom” places no limits on what the state can do in the future, only what it is prudent for it to do right now.
8. Baird, King of Kings, 78.
This ambiguity leads to many natural questions. Baird, as he fills the gaps left by his book, has explained elsewhere that the government can use its coercive power to enforce a particular view of the Sabbath,9 limit the sizes of buildings in comparison to chapels,10 and to promote the proper practice of Baptism.11 As a Baptist, I can’t wait for the state to forbid the baptism of infants.12 Such a view of the state is overly powerful and intrusive. The question remains: Are there any inherent limits on the state’s promotion of Christianity?
9. James Baird (@james_d_baird), “Society when citizens enforce Sabbath observance by coercion…,” X post, November 21, 2025 6:45 PM.
10. John Harris (host), “King of Kings A Reformed Guide to Christian Government,” Conversations that Matter, YouTube video, 14:10–55.
11. George Sayour (host), “Post-War Consensus & Strong Gods, Kevin DeYoung – James Baird,” Grace at the Gates, podcast audio, 55:25–56:00, December 2, 2025.
12. This, of course, is sarcasm on my part. Yet, this view has been suggested by at least one modern politician.
An Overly Positive View of the State
Finally, it seems to me that Baird holds an overly optimistic view of the state. Kevin DeYoung explains our basic options:
Along these lines, I’ve said before that there are two ways we can conceive of civil government.
One way is to think of the best that government can (and should) accomplish if the right people are in charge—and then to design a government toward that grand end.
The other way is to think of all the worst that government can (and often does) pursue because human beings are selfish and corrupt—and then to design a government that will frustrate these inclinations.13
13. Kevin DeYoung, “6 Questions for Christian Nationalists,” Clearly Reformed, December 1, 2025.
A positive view of the state dreams of all the ways the state can fix society if we only get the right people and structures in place. In its most extreme versions, the state is treated like a savior that can fix all (or most) of our problems. Conversely, the negative view of government, though recognizing the necessity of the state in certain sectors,14 warns of the state’s proclivity to corruption and abuse. This view seeks to frustrate and cage the state in recognition of man’s depravity. In my reading of Baird, his approach errs in leaning toward an overly positive view of the state.
14. I believe the state is both good and necessary in its God ordained function as explained in Romans 13:1–7.
Baird writes from the Reformed position, but his book spends precious little time focusing on the implications of human depravity on our view of the state. In world history, good governments are the exception, not the rule. Across Scripture, the primary earthly enemy of God’s people is the state.15 For this reason, both Daniel and John picture the empires of this world as demonic beasts (Dan. 7; Rev. 13). Baird speaks of political power in a very uncritical way and seems to miss the truth that power possessed by sinful humans tends to corrupt.
15. See Secord, Servant Not Savior, 80–90.
The Reformed political tradition, as it developed, reached its pinnacle in the founding of America. The Founders were profoundly influenced by Calvinism and its view of sin.16 They did not have a positive view of the state; they had a negative one. Mark David Hall explains that the founders knew that political power tends toward corruption and that even if our magistrates were Christian, we must still be “wary of political corruption.”17 The doctrine of human depravity rightly directs us to a more negative view of the state. Therefore, the limitation of the state’s power must be central to a robust Christian political theology.
16. Mark David Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding? (Nelson Books, 2019), 36–41.
17. Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding?, 37.
Many of our ancestors came to this country fleeing the tyranny of Christian governments that fall under Baird’s broad vision. That should give us pause, as it reminds us that Baird’s vision is not enough. In the secular wasteland in which we live, I understand the appeal of making the state Christian, but this is not enough. Rather, we must define what it means for a government to be Christian. Does that not include a negative view of the state in light of the doctrine of total depravity?
A Myopic View of America’s Founding
Baird and I share an affinity for America’s founding. We both reject the secular revision of its history that posits America was founded primarily by modern-day secularists and Deists.18 We agree that our founding was unquestionably Christian, even Protestant.
18. See Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding?
Despite these agreements, I believe there are a couple of blind spots in Baird’s analysis and its application to his political theology. First, while I agree with him that the First Amendment was primarily aimed at the Federal Government, not the states, that reality has changed. Contrary to Baird’s point, it didn’t begin to change with the terrible 1947 Supreme Court ruling in the Emerson v. Board of Education case.19
19. Baird, King of Kings, 54–55.
At the founding, many states indeed had established churches. Such acts were not violations of the First Amendment. Yet these states disestablished their churches relatively quickly after the War of Independence. For example, Virginia disestablished its church in 1786, Connecticut in 1818, and the final state church (Massachusetts) was disestablished in 1833. While the Constitution did not prohibit the states from having official churches, the trajectory of the First Amendment and American belief in religious liberty was clearly set.
This brings up a related point. Some have suggested that the First Amendment should not be binding on state and local governments. This has led to open disdain for the Fourteenth Amendment, as it mandates that the Bill of Rights cannot be violated by local governments. Those making this argument should consider the present implications of such statements. Do we really want to empower state governments to violate the protections of free speech, religious liberty, the right to bear arms, jury trials, etc.? I minister in Minnesota, a red state governed by a deep blue metropolis (and a continual national embarrassment).20 For this reason, I’m extremely grateful for the Fourteenth Amendment. Without it, millions of Americans would have their fundamental liberties violated with everything from arrests for social media posts, seizure of firearms, and worse. Like the federal government, state governmental officials are prone to tyranny and need checks and balances. States do not have the right to infringe upon our God-given and inalienable rights.
20. See my article later this month with Tuezong Xiong for reflections on political engagement as a pastor in Minnesota.
Why did the early states move toward the disestablishment of their churches? There is much that can be said, but Baird is correct that it is not because they were secularists. One of the primary reasons the American people moved toward disestablishment hits at the very heart of the book—because it was the best way to promote Christianity. Baird seems to think the state is essential to advancing the Christian faith, but in doing so, he risks abandoning the American way. As Hall demonstrates through his extensive analysis of primary documents, disestablishmentarianism happened because Americans believed that Christianity is best promoted when it is free from the state.21 Early Americans believed Christianity flourishes more without the state’s “aid.” The founders believed this because their ancestors fled governments that would fit Baird’s vision, but whose promotion led to a decline in the faith. While secularism has wreaked havoc across the West, its damage has been far less under America’s religious liberty than in the nations where the state and church were married. This is not a historical coincidence.
21. Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding?, 125–130.
A Brief Defense of Servant not Savior
(This section is a response to Baird’s critique of my book Servant not Savior, also published today on Christ Over All).22
22. James Baird, “Too Small to Succeed: A Review and Response to Levi Secord’s Servant Not Savior,” Christ Over All, October 5, 2026.
Baird claims that my view of the state is “too small to succeed” and that it will inevitably lead to anarchy. Sadly, he fails to accurately represent my view.23 As I write in the book, “If there is no state to rein in evil, then evil goes unchecked. Anarchy, like tyranny, is objectively evil as it fosters the spread of wickedness. It is better to have a bad government than no government at all.”24 Because I hold that the state must punish evildoers, my view cannot be fairly understood as leading to anarchy. Small government does not equal anarchy.
23. Baird, “Too Small to Succeed.”
24. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 33–34.
Additionally, I spend several pages praising the goodness of righteous government,25 and I devote a whole chapter to arguing for how the church should seek a good relationship with the state.26 This reality must be tempered by recognizing that wicked government (not all government) has been the primary earthly enemy of God’s people.27
25. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 42–43.
26. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 119–128.
27. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 80–90.
Baird bases his accusation that my view of the state is too small on the incorrect belief that I limit the state to “securing the rights of its citizens by punishing evildoers.” He cites a passage of mine where I explicitly do not say this, “For the state, God has delegated it the power to accomplish its primary [emphasis added] ministry to execute God’s wrath upon the evildoer (Rom. 13:4).”28 I believe the ministry of justice is the state’s primary ministry, but not its only ministry.
28. Baird, “Too Small to Succeed.”
As I explain in the same chapter, “A faithful Christian witness to the state includes calling it to punish evil, protect the good, and serve God by serving its citizens . . . God designed government to restrain evil, promote righteousness, and maintain order.”29 Baird is correct that my emphasis in that chapter is on the state’s bearing of the sword. I focus on the state’s punitive role because, contrary to Baird’s assertions of eisegesis, this is the focus of Romans 13:1–7. While I do believe in a small government, I clearly reject anarchy. To believe, as Baird rightly admits that I do, in the power of the state to punish evildoers, eliminates all claims that my view endorses anarchy.
29. Secord, Servant Not Savior, 42.
Conclusion
While Baird and I share a similar rejection of secularism and a belief in the necessity of a Christianized state, we have some important disagreements. Baird asserts that the state’s responsibility to promote the public good means that it must be Christian. In part, this belief rests on a broad view of the state’s power. Conversely, I believe that the state must be Christian to limit its coercive power and to allow the church to be the primary way to advance true religion. Thus, I argue that a truly Christian state will be necessarily small, limited, and will not seek to usurp the job of the church.
The inherent problem with civil government is man’s sinfulness displayed in a lust for power. If our designs for the state do not adequately recognize this truth, we will increasingly look to the state to solve all our problems. The state makes a terrible savior, because it is designed to be God’s servant.
In short, Christianity does not need the state’s help to advance, but the state does need Christianity to submit to the one true God. No human government has authority over the Christian faith, but the truths of Christianity definitely hold authority over the state. I believe that an ideal society includes a state that is limited by its alignment with Christian truth and a free church that promotes and advances the Christian faith as the only true religion. In short, a small, Christian government and a free publicly engaged church.
Hopefully, this exchange draws the line clearly. We must ask what it truly means for a government to be Christian. Is it big or small? As a friend put it, “Baird’s view explains what the government could be in an ideal world, but no such world exists.”
Christian government must be limited because we know what is in man. I believe Baird’s broad view of governmental authority is more pagan than Christian. Moreover, his assertion that the state can promote religion without using its God-given sword is naive and historically oblivious. It is akin to communists saying, “This time it will be different.” I don’t share his optimism. So, which is the more pressing threat—a government that is so small that we end up in anarchy or a government that is so big that it dominates all of life? To me, the answer is obvious.
