What Does It Mean for Christians to Submit to Government?

Published On: November 4, 2025

What do we do when governments demand something that makes our conscience uneasy? Perhaps it’s a law that seems unjust, a mandate that feels like overreach, or a policy that contradicts biblical values. Do we comply? Resist? Protest respectfully or disobey outright?

In our polarised moment, Christians are more confused than ever about our relationship to civil authority. Some baptise their political party as God’s instrument. Others treat any government action with suspicion bordering on paranoia. The Reformed tradition offers us a better way—a framework that’s both biblically grounded and remarkably balanced.

GOVERNMENT: GOD’S APPOINTED SERVANT

Let’s start where Scripture starts. Romans 13:1 couldn’t be clearer: Paul isn’t describing an ideal government or endorsing specific policies. He’s making a universal claim: all legitimate government authority comes from God.

This is foundational to Reformed thinking. As theologian Herman Bavinck explained, government is part of God’s “common grace”—his kindness in preserving order and restraining evil in a fallen world. Without civil authority, we’d have chaos. Government punishes wrongdoing and protects the innocent (Romans 13:3-4). That’s a divine calling.

Kevin DeYoung puts it plainly: submission to governing authorities should be our default posture, not the exception. This means paying taxes, obeying traffic laws, following business regulations, and showing respect to officials—even when we didn’t vote for them and don’t like their decisions. Peter reinforces this: “Honour the emperor” (1 Peter 2:17), written when Nero was on the throne.

But here’s what makes the Reformed view distinct: while we affirm government is ordained by God, we insist the government’s authority is derivative, not ultimate. Notice Paul’s language: officials are “God’s servants” (Romans 13:4). Servants answer to someone. Government doesn’t possess inherent sovereignty—it exercises borrowed authority, accountable to the God who granted it.

THE CRUCIAL LIMIT: WHEN OBEDIENCE TO GOD REQUIRES DISOBEDIENCE TO CAESAR

If Romans 13 were the only passage on government, we might conclude Christians must obey every law without exception. But Scripture gives us another essential principle in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.”

This is where Reformed theology parts ways with some interpretations that grant government nearly absolute authority. The Reformed tradition, from Calvin to Abraham Kuyper to contemporary scholars like David VanDrunen, insists on limited government. Kuyper’s concept of “sphere sovereignty” teaches God has established different spheres of authority—family, church, state—each with legitimate but bounded jurisdiction. The state cannot rightfully command what belongs to God alone.

The Westminster Confession makes this explicit: civil authorities may not “command anything forbidden in the word of God, or forbid anything that God hath commanded.” When government exceeds its God-given bounds and commands sin or forbids righteousness, the Christian’s duty shifts. Obedience to God takes priority.

Theologian James KA Smith offers a helpful distinction: there’s a difference between “submission” (recognising legitimate authority exists) and “obedience” (complying with every command). We can maintain a posture of submission to governmental authority while refusing specific unjust commands.

What does this look like practically?

Biblical examples guide us.

The Hebrew midwives defied Pharaoh’s order to kill baby boys (Exodus 1:15-17).
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (Daniel 3:11-29).
Daniel prayed to God despite the king’s prohibition (Daniel 6:10).

In each case, these faithful believers disobeyed specific commands that directly violated God’s law, yet they didn’t organise rebellions or treat authority with contempt. They accepted consequences rather than taking up arms.

Contemporary examples might include: refusing to deny Christ or worship false gods, declining to participate in clear moral evils, or maintaining religious practice when governments attempt to eliminate it entirely. As Michael Horton reminds us, the state has legitimate authority in its sphere, but it is not the Kingdom of God and cannot make ultimate claims on our conscience.

THE REFORMED BALANCE: NEITHER REVOLUTION NOR SERVILITY

Some Christians embrace a nationalist vision that effectively merges God’s kingdom with earthly government. They expect the state to establish Christian society by force. The Reformed view rejects this. Government is an instrument of common grace, not the advancing Kingdom of God. Its purpose is limited: restraining evil and promoting basic justice, not converting hearts or building the New Jerusalem.

Others adopt a libertarian suspicion of all authority or a withdrawal from civic life altogether. The Reformed view rejects this too. We can’t simply opt out. God ordained government for our good, and faithful submission honours him.

Instead, Scripture calls us to active, engaged citizenship. As Al Mohler argues, Christians should advocate, vote, and persuade within legitimate political channels. In democratic systems, this isn’t rebellion—it’s participating in the very structures of authority God has established. “Governing authorities” in a constitutional democracy include the rights and processes the constitution grants citizens.

When circumstances require disobedience, we’re to do so with grace and courage. Carl Trueman wisely notes our manner of resistance must reflect Christ. We speak truth respectfully. We accept legal consequences rather than evading them. We aim not to overthrow but to remain faithful and bear witness. Think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from Birmingham Jail—civil disobedience that honoured the concept of law even while breaking unjust laws, willingly accepting punishment to expose injustice.

LIVING AS CITIZENS OF TWO KINGDOMS

The Reformed answer to “Should Christians submit to government?” is both simpler and more complex than we might want. Yes, submit—that’s the clear biblical command and our default posture. Government is God’s servant for our good.

But no, not always—when government commands evil or forbids good, loyalty to the King of kings must prevail. We recognise governmental authority while denying it ultimate authority.

This requires wisdom, discernment, and humility. Before we disobey, we should ask: Is the government commanding me to sin or preventing me from obeying God? Or am I simply uncomfortable, inconvenienced, or politically opposed? The bar for disobedience must be high precisely because God takes governmental authority seriously.

That’s the narrow path of faithful citizenship—and it’s exactly where Christ calls us to walk.

RELATED FAQs

Did the Reformers themselves ever support resisting tyrannical governments? Absolutely, and this is a crucial part of Reformed history. John Calvin argued that while private citizens shouldn’t rebel, “lesser magistrates” (lower-ranking officials) have a duty to resist tyrant rulers who violate God’s law. John Knox went further, arguing tyrannical rule forfeits legitimacy and can be actively resisted. The Reformed tradition produced the Huguenots in France and the Dutch Revolt against Spain—both rooted in the conviction that civil authorities who systematically violate God’s justice can be opposed through constitutional means. This wasn’t anarchism but a carefully developed doctrine of legitimate resistance through proper channels.

How does the Reformed view differ from the Lutheran “two kingdoms” approach? Lutheran theology, especially in its German form, historically emphasised sharp separation between the spiritual realm (church) and temporal realm (state), often leading to quietism and reluctance to challenge state power. The Reformed view, by contrast, insists God’s moral law applies to both kingdoms. As theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff argues, Christians must work for justice in the public square because God cares about righteousness everywhere, not just in church. This explains why Reformed Christians have historically been more involved in political reform movements, from abolition to civil rights.
What about Romans 13:1’s claim that all authorities are “instituted by God”—does that include obviously evil regimes? Yes, but “instituted by God” doesn’t mean “approved by God.” Reformed scholar Douglas Kelly explains God’s ordaining of government is like his ordaining of marriage—the institution itself is good and divinely appointed, but specific manifestations can become corrupted and evil. God ordains government as a structure for order, but particular governments can become so wicked they operate against their divine purpose. Think of it like parents: God ordains parental authority, but abusive parents violate that calling. Francis Schaeffer made this point powerfully: we honor the office while recognising that officeholders can become tyrants who must be resisted.

Can Christians ever participate in revolution or violent resistance against government? This is where Reformed thinkers show careful nuance. Most argue private revolution is never justified, but resistance through constitutional structures is legitimate. Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex (1644) argued that when rulers become tyrants, the people’s representatives can constitutionally remove them—a view that influenced both the American Revolution and the Scottish Covenanters. Contemporary apologist Nancy Pearcey notes America’s founding wasn’t mob rebellion but action through colonial assemblies, appealing to established rights. The key Reformed principle: exhaust all legal remedies first, and any resistance must be systemic and constitutional, not individual vigilantism.

How should Christians respond when different levels of government conflict—like federal vs. state mandates? This is increasingly relevant today. David VanDrunen suggests we should recognise that in federal systems, multiple legitimate authorities exist simultaneously, each with defined jurisdictions. When they conflict, Christians should discern which authority has constitutional jurisdiction over the matter at hand. Os Guinness adds that in such conflicts, we should advocate loudly through proper channels while maintaining respect for the process itself. The goal isn’t finding loopholes to avoid submission but seeking clarity about which authority legitimately governs which sphere—and sometimes that requires courts to decide.
What’s the difference between civil disobedience and just breaking laws we don’t like? Ethicist David Jones distinguishes crucial elements of legitimate civil disobedience: it must address laws that clearly violate God’s moral law (not just our preferences), it must be public (not sneaky), it must be nonviolent, and we must willingly accept legal consequences. Breaking laws we merely dislike—tax evasion, ignoring regulations we find annoying—isn’t principled resistance; it’s lawlessness. Tim Keller emphasised that civil disobedience is costly witness, not convenient escape. When Daniel prayed despite the king’s edict, he didn’t hide—he prayed openly and accepted the lions’ den. Our disobedience must demonstrate that we take law seriously even as we obey God supremely.

How can Christians honour leaders whose character or policies they find deeply troubling? This challenges us, but it’s precisely what Peter commanded when he wrote “honor the emperor” under Nero. John Piper helpfully distinguishes between honouring the office and endorsing the person’s character or policies. We can show respect for the position, pray for leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2), and speak of them without contempt while firmly opposing unjust policies. RC Sproul noted that honouring authority means we critique respectfully rather than with mockery or demonization. It’s the posture of Daniel, who honoured pagan kings, spoke truth to them courageously, yet never treated their authority with contempt. Our disagreement should be principled, not personal, and our tone should reflect the character of Christ.

OUR RELATED POSTS