Would you be brave enough to mail a declaration of the separation of church and state straight to Adolf Hitler’s mailbox?
Karl Barth, a 20th-century Swiss Protestant theologian, did just that. Barth’s work on the relationship between church and state was the topic of a panel discussion hosted by Baylor University’s Institute for Faith and Learning on February 25.
For Barth, the divide between church and state goes beyond mere institutions; it reflects a fundamental gap in knowledge and a clear separation of roles. One of the three panelists, Gerald McKenny, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, explained, “The state has no knowledge of the fact that it’s a kind of proleptic anticipation of the kingdom of God. … The state is ignorant, and the state does all that it does in entire ignorance of the message of the gospel.”
In other words, the church possesses knowledge of the Gospel and Scripture which the state does not understand on its own. This gives the church the distinct role of proclaiming the truths of God to the state, a role analogous to teaching. But the church can only educate the state properly if the church itself is living in line with God’s word. Matthew Lee Anderson, an assistant professor in the Baylor Honors College, said, “The state really can learn something from the church so long as the church … has integrity. The church has to learn to live beneath the word of God because if it doesn’t do that, then, as it speaks to the state, it’s going to be vain and fruitless and actually bring defamation on the church.”
The church can only educate the state properly if the church itself is living in line with God’s word.
The distinct roles of church and state must prevent one from collapsing into the other. In the lead-up to World War II, Barth opposed the Third Reich’s totalitarian overreach into the church. The Barmen Declaration, which Barth largely authored and personally mailed to Hitler, decried totalitarian states and their attempts to usurp the church’s role. Likewise, the Declaration rejected church bids to overtake the state’s functions. Either way, to Barth, the church’s prerogative to the declare the Gospel and the state’s duty to secure peace and justice preserve the separateness of each.
While institutionally distanced, Barth stressed that both church and state are underneath Christ’s reign. Kimlyn Bender, a professor of theology at the George W. Truett Theological Seminary, explained that Barth focused on the relationships between the state, the church, and Christ. Indeed, Christ sits in judgment over the state, but He also created the world for His own glory. This means that God has a positive relationship with the state, not just one of judgment. Yet, state and church alike can be made into idols by sinful human hearts. “[Barth] doesn’t want to divinize the state, [and] he doesn’t want to demonize the state,” Bender said.
Thus, when it comes to Christian involvement in government, Barth proceeded with care. Bender said that a relational understanding of Christ, church, and state “means that Christians can never be entirely reconciled to everything in the state, but it also cannot be entirely oppositional between them and the state.”
Barth further warned against conflating theology with a particular political ideology. Barth was dismayed to see his teachers and peers rally behind national identity rather than the Gospel during World War II. And, when controversy later arose between countries on either side of the Iron Curtain, Barth urged unity around the supremacy of the Gospel.
As Bender elaborated, Barth opposed the baptism of any specific political order. No program should be deemed uncontestably “Christian” or placed above criticism. “There has to be a transcendence to the gospel such that it stands over any politics of any side and gives the ability to judge it,” Bender said.
“There has to be a transcendence to the gospel such that it stands over any politics of any side and gives the ability to judge it.”
Paul Taussig, a freshman from Mokena, Illinois, appreciated that the panel discussion brought together different viewpoints on Barth’s work. “We’re all dealing with Barth, but you can read Barth in different ways, apply him in different ways. … They all approach him a little differently, but the message can still be applied,” Taussig said.
Taussig said the panel highlighted the important and distinct roles of church and state. Barth’s work centered the church’s duty to engage with the state wisely, which means picking its battles rather than devolving into white noise, Taussig reflected. The Institute for Faith and Learning hosts events like the “Barth, Church, and State” panel regularly, which are usually open to undergraduates. More information can be found on the Institute for Faith and Learning’s website.
