Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 4
The chapter presents separation of church and state as an Anabaptist “revolutionary” teaching that most Christians in the 1500s assumed would lead to anarchy; what assumptions about God, order, and human power are exposed when Christians feel the church must be propped up by the state (or vice versa)?
Another way to ask: When Christians think the church needs the government to survive (or the government needs the church), what does that show they believe about God, order, and power? What fears or assumptions are underneath that belief?

Direct Answer The transcript implies that when Christians feel church and state must be joined to prevent chaos, they assume true order depends on political power rather than on Christ’s kingdom shaping a distinct people. That instinct reveals a lack of confidence that Jesus’ non-worldly kingdom can sustain faithful Christian life without state support.

Support from Transcript:

  • Anabaptists taught “the church should be separate from the state,” which Bercot calls “extremely revolutionary and radical.”
  • He says since Constantine, church and state had been “married,” and “practically nobody” questioned it—not even Luther or Calvin.
  • The “entire structure of medieval society” rested on this union.
  • Therefore, “most people thought that the Anabaptist teachings would lead to utter anarchy.”
  • Bercot’s broader framework: “His kingdom is not of this world,” and Christians cannot be “embroiled” in the political machinery and remain fully committed.
Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of “anarchy” do Christians fear most—moral collapse, loss of influence, persecution—and what does that fear show about where we expect security to come from?