The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum King of Kings

Three Critics of King of Kings

I would like to push back a little on some of Baird’s arguments. I commend much in the book, and I applaud Baird for writing a short, accessible book that, in my estimation, adheres well to Scriptural principles. However, I disagree with the thesis that the government should promote Christianity.

Baird’s False Dilemma
Baird, like many others, seems to put forward only two options: (1) our society could be run by secular degenerates who only lead us towards implosion, or (2) our society could be ruled by Christian leaders who lead us towards another Christendom. While I share many popular criticisms about secularism, it would be wrong to assume these are our only two options. It is possible for unbelieving rulers to act in ways that honor the Lord. In Genesis 20, Abimelech is angry with Abraham because Abraham offered Sarah as his sister, almost causing Abimelech to commit adultery. In Exodus 18, Jethro offers Moses advice on judging the people by appointing judges “who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe…” Even unbelieving rulers can recognize the wisdom of our God through the created order and apply it in ways to maintain justice and order.

Baird’s Category Error
Baird argues that the government must promote the public good, but I think he fails to correctly identify the boundaries within which the government is to operate. When Paul says that government is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom 13:4), he seems to be addressing how to avoid the wrath of government. Paul’s answer is to do what is good, and you will have nothing to fear. Why? Because the government does not wield the sword in vain. It seems then that the action of government is to punish evil in the civil realm, and that is how it serves for the good of the people.
The question must then be asked: what realm does the government operate in? Baird argues that government operates in the external realm. He writes, “God designed government to deal with the external things of man, not the internal things.” There is some debate over the reformed view of two kingdoms. Some would like to see categories of internal vs external. While others would use categories of civic vs spiritual. I do not think Baird wants the state to regulate the church’s worship. He makes a strong distinction between the church and state, with which I agree. So, while he uses categories of internal vs external, I think he would also agree that the government is to operate in the civic realm. The very nature of the term “civil magistrate” suggests this. I would agree that the government is to operate in the civil realm. That looks like maintaining order and justice across a society to protect the people and their God-given rights. It follows then that the government should not wield the sword against other religions, which would be a redemptive realm issue. So then, why does the government’s duty, when stated positively as the promotion of good, include religious aspects? It seems that if we give over the power to promote religion to the government, we must also give over the sword to promote religion, a step I think few are willing to take. And one the Bible does not call for. Government exists for the good of all people inasmuch as it wields the sword not to be a “terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom 13:3).
It would then be in the government’s best interest to allow religions that promote morality to have free rein to cultivate a just and ordered society. Religious liberty could serve the government in promoting morality, leading to a more ordered society. Of course, the government should in no way punish what God has called good. It should not put up roadblocks to the advance of the gospel and building of Christ’s church. But it is another thing entirely to argue that the government must advance the church.

Baird’s Underestimation of the Scope of Civil Laws
Baird argues that Christianity is in the best interest of all people because through it comes morality and righteousness. I would respond with two thoughts. Firstly, Christendom does not have an outstanding track record of acting in the public’s best interest. It seems inevitable that those who wield the sword to promote Christianity will one day wield the sword to punish non-Christians. But secondly—and more importantly —I think views that argue for promoting Christianity through the government underestimate the scope of natural and civil laws. Consider the issue of homosexuality, which is a crime of a civic nature. It is a distortion of marriage. If you have attended any wedding recently, you likely heard the words “By the power vested in me by the state of [name your state].” When a pastor performs a wedding, he is acting as an agent of the state. Marriage was instituted by God before the fall, so it follows that marriage/family issues are within the realm of civic life. So, it would be within the government’s scope to protect civic life and its foundational elements, namely, the family. So, a government that outlaws homosexual marriage would be well within the purview of what Paul lays out in Romans 13. Why? Because homosexuality is a violation of the law of Christ? Well, it is, but that would be grounds for not allowing it in your church. The government should outlaw it, because it is a violation of the natural law, of which Paul says all people “have written on their heart” (Rom 2:15).1

In sum, the government exists as the servant of God to maintain order in the civil realm and has been given the necessary tools in natural law and the sword to accomplish its mission without mixing the civil and redemptive administrations of God during the church age.
More can be said about natural law, but that is beyond the scope of this post. I would define natural law as God’s will for the created order as revealed in creation