Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 7
The lesson claims early Christians “strongly believed in separation of church and state” and that Patrick did not build a state church; what do you think God is protecting when the church refuses political entanglement, and what current Christian political instincts come under suspicion if this early-Christian assumption is true?
Another way to ask: If early Christians wanted the church separate from the state and Patrick didn’t build a state church, what might God be protecting the church from? What political habits among Christians today should we question if that’s true?

Direct Answer According to Bercot’s framing, separation of church and state protects the church from mixing “the things of this world” with God’s kingdom and from relying on state power to accomplish spiritual ends. If that assumption is true, political instincts aimed at building Christian dominance or using government to advance the church become suspect.

Support from Transcript:

  • “Another characteristic of the early Christians is that they strongly believed in separation of church and state.”
  • They “didn’t try to mix the things of this world with the things of the kingdom of God.”
  • “Similarly, Patrick did not establish a state church in Ireland, nor did he try to blend Christianity with the affairs of this world.”
  • The early Christians “obeyed Caesar” only when laws didn’t conflict with God, but “obeyed God rather than man” when they did.
  • Patrick showed deference to rulers (including paying tribute) but kept spiritual boundaries, even excommunicating rulers.
Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like for Christians to be respectful citizens while refusing the state’s tools for “kingdom work”? Which political goals might be revealed as attempts to blend kingdoms?