Reformed Presbyterians maintain a tradition of strong theological distinctives. Those distinctives include psalm singing and the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ. This article will focus on the second distinctive, Christ’s lordship over all of life, with a specific focus on sovereignty in the political sphere. A simple statement from our secondary standards is sufficient to demonstrate its importance.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 26:1 says, “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good; and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.” Scripture references are Romans 13:1–4 and 1 Peter 2:13–14.

Practical Implications of That Distinctive

Governmental Failure. Too often we do not see our government “punishing evildoers” or “defending and encouraging them that are good.” It fails on both counts. Instead of punishing evildoers, sodomy and slaughtering of unborn children are legally protected. The US government is not defending and encouraging the good. Laws are good when they are in accord with Scripture. Scripture despises polytheism, atheism, false religions, and cults, yet our government protects them all.

There are a number of reasons why US citizens find themselves in this situation. Principally, our government was mistaken at its founding when it failed to recognize Christ’s lordship in its constitutional documents. But instead of laying blame on people who lived hundreds of years ago, I want to focus on present and future challenges to help the church walk in faithfulness to Christ in the years to come.

Evangelism Is Not Enough. Evangelism is the key to a nation embracing Christ’s mediatorial kingship. On their own, men and women hate righteousness and love wickedness. Individuals cannot rightly punish evildoers or encourage the good before they are converted.

Our own church and other Presbyterian churches strongly emphasize the importance of evangelism, which is great. But individual conversion is insufficient when it comes to this vitally important distinctive. It is insufficient because the new convert must learn of Christ’s lordship over every aspect of their lives. Christ reigns over the new believer as an individual, but also over his or her family life, as well as life relative to social and political issues. Such discipling is oftentimes a slow process and is probably the most difficult part of pastoral leadership.

This article assumes three givens that are not proven but simply assumed: that the Bible teaches Christ’s mediatorial kingship, that massive evangelism and ongoing discipleship are integral to the implementation of Christ’s mediatorial kingship, and that the US government has failed miserably in its God-given responsibilities to Christ.

Purpose. Given our present situation, the purpose of this article is to offer a way forward if and when the US government begins to truncate the church’s rights that are given to us in the flawed Constitution that we have. I am no prophet, but I believe it wise for the church to consider some possible defenses in case of governmental attempts at intrusion. The first step is to know that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We must understand both parts of this single sentence.

Establishment of Religion

History makes crystal clear what the founders meant by the establishment of religion. Nine of the thirteen original colonies had an established religion. An established religion included laws that restricted public office to members of the religious group, required church membership, attendance, and/or financial support, and prohibited dissenting forms of worship. It was the promotion of a common set of beliefs through the authority of the government.

While Reformed Presbyterians supported the establishment of religion for theological reasons, even Anglicans like George Washington believed that religion and morality were absolute supports for habits that lead to political prosperity. No one at the time disputed that religion was the foundation for virtue, and virtue was necessary for proper government. Nevertheless, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were against establishment and, sadly, Jefferson argued for a wall of separation between the church and state.

The First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and, even after its adoption in 1791, about half the states kept their established religion. The last established state church was abolished in 1833.

A century after the First Amendment, the Supreme Court began to decide cases about an establishment of religion. Its research during that time was historically truncated, and the court declared the animating principle of the clause to be the separation of church and state. This was an overly simplistic notion that was more hostile to religion than anyone in the founding generation could have imagined.

Since then, decisions by the court have been radically incomplete and often misleading. No other constitutional provision has experienced such interpretative confusion. Today, there is a widespread idea that the point of the Establishment Clause was to protect the secular public sphere from the dangerously divisive impulses of religion. In this view, the clause’s purpose is to reduce the public influence of religion and to consign it to the private realm of individual, family, and church.

That view is incorrect. The First Amendment does not require exclusion of religion from the public sphere, nor does it give secularism a privileged place. However, since none of this article’s readers sit on the Supreme Court, how can we as a church proceed if the prevailing wicked view triumphs?

Accommodation in the Past and Potential Future

It is historically undeniable that there were accommodations made for religion at the dawn of the nation. The first and easiest example was for religious exemption from compulsory military service. The Continental Congress, including General Washington, supported it during the Revolution, and it was incorporated in every federal conscription statute throughout our history. Another accommodation was military chaplains and legislative chaplains.

Religious accommodation always has some cost. There was a cost in time and peril to life and limb to 170,000 young men who were sent to fight in Vietnam during that conflict in the place of conscientious objectors. There is a cost to an employer who permits Reformed Presbyterians to not work on the Christian Sabbath—a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court in 1984.

In the future, the federal government may mandate abortion at any time in pregnancy as a right for all women and pass a law that all obstetricians must provide abortions. An argument will be made that to permit sincere religious accommodation for physicians who refuse to perform murder will force women to go elsewhere, would be inconvenient for them, and might even increase their risks with the procedure. The 2005 decision Cutter v. Wilkinson gives the legislature opportunity to provide the accommodation by considering the burden on conscientious anti-abortion physicians. The secular benefit of abortion for some costs others who want to exercise their religion freely. In other words, proponents of abortion will never admit that our view—that abortion is murder—is true. Neither reasoning nor arguing with them will warm their hearts. But there is plenty of legal precedent to grant religious accommodation. In this potential future case and others that may be like it, the government can and should carve out a religious accommodation for believers who stand against wicked laws.

From 1986 (Witters) to 2002 (Zelman), the court has determined that aid programs that treat religion neutrally and allow individual choice do not violate the Establishment Clause. In fact, in 2017, the Court determined that a church-run daycare program qualified for rubberized playground surfaces at state expense. Furthermore, a 2022 decision (Carson) determined that when a state aids secular private schools it may not discriminate against Christian schools because they are religious. The Establishment Clause, properly understood, ensures private choice and diversity and should not be a thumb on the scale against religion.

Christ is the Lord of heaven and earth, even if wicked men and women do their best to stifle the church’s influence in the public sphere. We must always do the good and the right and, when possible, work from within the political system to protect Christ’s beautiful bride. No one should have to tell a Covenanter that Christ’s bride must be protected whatever the cost.