In the May issue of Ordained Servant, Dr. Hart reviewed my new book, King of Kings.[1] In that book, I argue that government must promote Christianity as the only true religion. Though perhaps startling to us today, this thesis is a classic principle of Old Princeton political theology. John Witherspoon saddled government with the duty to “promote true religion.”[2] Charles Hodge asserted that “it is absurd to say that civil governments have nothing to do with religion,” and that the “State is bound to see that the true religion is taught in all the schools under its control.”[3] Indeed, “The Bible everywhere recognizes the principle that nations, as such, should be under the control of the law of God, and that they should not forget or allow the knowledge of that law to fail from among the people.”[4] A. A. Hodge argued government must “promote piety,” and for this reason, he petitioned for the United States to establish Christianity in the Constitution.[5] John Murray asserted that “both church and state must promote the interests of the kingdom of God.”[6] With the possible exception of Witherspoon, none of these American Presbyterians advocated for an established church. However, in one form or another, they all argued that government must promote true religion, that is, Christian piety.

To prove my thesis, I provide a simple syllogism:

Premise 1: Government must promote the public good.
Premise 2: As the only true religion, Christianity is part of the public good.
Conclusion: Government must promote Christianity as the only true religion.[7]

Of course, the clear definition of terms is critical for any argument. I define “government” as “leaders who are called to hold offices of authority over civil matters.”[8] I define “Christianity” as “the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest” (quoting WCF 23.3).[9] I define “promote” as “the activity of encouraging, supporting, advancing, or furthering the progress of something.”[10] Lastly, I define “public good” as “piety, justice, and peace” (quoting WCF 23.2).[11]

In his review, Dr. Daryl Hart offers four kinds of objections to my thesis: logical, biblical, historical, and political. I will address each in turn.

Logical Objections

To disprove a syllogism, one must either successfully critique its logical form (showing it is invalid) or its premises (showing at least one of them is false). Hart does not seem to object to the validity of my syllogism. Instead, he appears to attack premise 2, namely, the assertion that Christianity is part of the public good. He states,

Baird’s sleight of hand in relying on “public good” avoids any discussion of demographics. Public is, after all, shorthand for the people in a community or society. What happens when the American public is religiously diverse? What then constitutes the general interest of a diverse public?

Hart seems to claim here that Christianity is not part of the public good because America is religiously diverse. We could formalize Hart’s counterargument this way:

Premise 1: If America is religiously diverse, then Christianity is not part of the public good.
Premise 2: America is religiously diverse.
Conclusion: Christianity is not part of the public good.

Of course, premise 2 is true. America is religiously diverse. But what about premise 1? I’m not sure of a good argument for it that stops short of subjectivism. One would need to admit that “public good” is determined by the viewpoints of the populace. However, as Bible-believing Christians, we hold that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective realities. They’re not determined by the various sentiments of fallen men. Peace is peace, justice is justice, and piety is piety, no matter what a diverse populace may believe about these topics.

In other words, we must guard against the modern temptation to collapse metaphysics into social psychology. God made humanity a certain way. Some things are good for mankind—and other things are bad. If many people believe that a bad thing is good, that does not make the bad thing good. It means, instead, that many people are woefully mistaken. They do not know what is good for them.

In short, for Hart’s critique to hold water, he must present an argument for premise 1 that does not veer into subjectivism.

Old Testament Objections

Hart also takes issue with my use of the Old Testament. In my book, I briefly outline a series of kings (both Israelite and Gentile) who promoted true religion. I show how each example explicates the meaning of 2 Samuel 23:3 and Psalm 2:10–11. Hart responds:

By another sleight of hand, Baird manufactures examples of good government from Old Testament kings, the pagan rulers, Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the Great. He does not stumble once over the anachronism of using ancient, divine-right monarchies as examples for modern republican government.

Hart is correct to point out that our form of government today is not the same as those of the Ancient Near East. However, the particular form of government does not change the fundamental duties that God places upon rulers. Let me explain.

In 1776, George Duffield wrote an essay in defense of religious tests for office. Duffield was a highly regarded Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia. He wrote this essay while Pennsylvania was deliberating over its new state constitution. Throughout this article, Duffield makes extensive use of the Old Testament, including passages I use (such as 2 Sam. 23:3). Yet, Duffield was no divine-right monarchist. Much the opposite! He was a chaplain to the Continental Congress—and John Adams’s pastor when the New Englander served in the Congress. How could Duffield explain his application of the Old Testament to America?

In his words, the Old Testament includes “some things of a particular nature and particularly designed” for the people of Israel. However, “whatever general directions were given to them” that are “founded in and consonant to the reason of things” are “equally obligatory on us.”[12] What was one of these “general directions” that obliged us today? Namely, that civil rulers ought to “promote” proper “piety towards God.”

What Duffield called “general directions” the Westminster Confession calls “general equity” (WCF 19.4). Like Duffield, the Confession states “maintain piety” as one of the duties that obliges civil rulers today (WCF 23.2). And what does it use as its prooftexts? It cites Psalm 2:10–12 and 2 Samuel 23:3. Moreover, these prooftexts were not only cited by early American Presbyterians but also evaluated by John Murray, E. J. Young, Ned B. Stonehouse, and John Skilton, and then approved by the OPC General Assembly.[13]

In short, Hart objects to my use of the Old Testament, but I am exegeting the OT passages used by early American Presbyterians during the Revolution, cited in our own Confession to support its principles, and later reaffirmed by the great theologians of the OPC itself.

New Testament Objections

Regarding the New Testament, Hart notes:

Unlike the Old Testament’s divine right monarchy, the New Testament presents a people, persevering and waiting for the return of their Lord. The only political instruction they receive is to honor the emperor, a Roman official who sometimes persecuted and killed Christians.

The New Testament offers more political instruction than mere obedience to civil rulers. It also describes the duty of rulers to serve God, promote the good, and wield the sword against evildoers (Romans 13). But how ought civil rulers to define good and evil? The Lord himself via his moral law. Moreover, in the Scriptures, true religion is an essential aspect of goodness. As John Murray notes,

[The civil ruler] is the minister of God for that which is good [Rom. 13:4]. And we may not tone down the import of the term “good” in this instance. Paul provides us with a virtual definition of the good we derive from the service of the civil authority when he requires that we pray for kings and all who are in authority ‘that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity’ (1 Tim. 2:2). The good the magistrate promotes is that which subserves the interest of piety.[14]

Again, the Confession itself charges civil rulers with “the public good” (23.1). It then defines the public good as including “piety” and charges civil rulers with maintaining it (23.2). And what proof text does the Confession use? Just as Murray, it uses 1 Timothy 2:2.

Hart, therefore, severely understates the political duties taught in the New Testament. In this sense, he is out of step with the confessional exegesis of the OPC’s brightest lights (recall it is Murray, Young, Stonehouse, and Skilton who reviewed the prooftexts).

Historical Objections

Hart next critiques my book for what it lacks, namely, a history of Christendom. In his words, “this fifteen-hundred-year-history is almost entirely absent from Baird’s book.” On this point, I must grant Hart’s observation. The book is eighty-five pages long, designed for the average person to read in one or two sittings. I did not attempt a complete history of government and Christianity because such a story cannot be told responsibly in such a short space—or, at least, not by me.

Hart also says:

Baird quotes Protestant sources freely from John Calvin and John Owen to Charles Spurgeon and John Murray with no regard to the political circumstances of sixteenth-century Geneva, seventeenth-century England, Victorian London, or 1960s Glenside, Pennsylvania.

This is true. I do not explicate the political circumstances of Calvin or Murray. Instead, I map the fundamental principles of political theology that Calvin and Murray both shared because of their exegesis of Scripture. Moreover, I do not believe the fundamentals of political theology change from age to age. To be sure, the application changes, but not the principles. Hence, when Calvin and Murray argue for their theological principles from the Scriptures, it is not necessary to contextualize their arguments within their political circumstances. In short, I am no historicist. People change, circumstances change, but God’s truth never changes. Indeed,

The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isa. 40:8)

Political Objections

Hart takes my thesis as a proposal for “big government.” However, I advocate for no such thing. The government does not need to be particularly large to promote true religion. Was the Continental Congress “big government”? And yet the Congress called for days of national repentance and thanksgiving. What about the early states? They enforced strict Sabbath laws and blasphemy laws. Libertarians often idealize early America—and yet, we see the government in early America promoting Christianity in all sorts of ways. Perhaps true libertarianism has never been tried.

I am not calling for big government. I am calling for good government. However, the two ideas are not unrelated. Unless our eyes deceive us, it seems clear that secular governments across the globe grow bigger and more evil each day. One cannot help but wonder whether it is a coincidence that liberal secularism and government overreach have grown together, hand-in-hand. Government secularization has also increased alongside the most horrific tyrannies over the family imaginable (see one mother’s testimony in the footnote).[15] Are these facts mere happenstance?

I am not too interested in continuing the secular experiment. My four boys, after all, are the test subjects. So far as it depends on me, I will not have my children subjected to secularism, as if they were Schrödinger’s cat, to satisfy the curiosities of the intelligentsia. I would suffer so that my sons may live free.

Lastly, Hart suggests that I make my case “simply and somewhat breezily.” He calls this “the heart of Baird’s deception” because “political change is difficult.” This charge of sin against me is ill founded. It ignores my last chapter, “The Way of Exile.” As I state at the end of the book,

Our modern society hates the idea. It’s repulsive to them at every level. They will deploy every ounce of power at their disposal to shut down the project. You can bet that they’ll play dirty. If you’re looking for suffering in America, there are few better places to find it.[16]

For this reason, we must eschew all theologies of glory. Instead,

Jesus calls us to walk in the way of the cross. We are to follow the pattern of His life: humiliation that leads to exaltation. . . . If we follow this calling, we will suffer, but all the suffering in the world is a small price to pay to hear Him speak these words on the last day: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ (Matt. 25:21)[17]

Endnotes

[1] James Baird, King of Kings: A Reformed Guide to Christian Government (Founders Press, 2025).

[2] John Witherspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 1912), 110.

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 3.342; and “The Education Question” The Princeton Review 3 (July 1853): 519.

[4] Hodge, “Education,” 518.

[5] A. A. Hodge, Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (Banner of Truth, 2017), 295. He was also an officer of the National Reform Association, which advocated for a Christian amendment to the US Constitution.

[6] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 2020), 1.254.

[7] Baird, Kings, 22.

[8] Baird, Kings, 2.

[9] Baird, Kings, 2.

[10] Baird, Kings, 3–4.

[11] Baird, Kings, 5–8.

[12] George Duffield II, “Who Should Be Our Rulers?,” 47. This essay is included as an appendix to George Duffield, Jr., “The God of Our Fathers: An Historical Sermon Preached in the Coates Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, on Fast Day, January 4, 1861, with Copious Notes, and an Appendix” (T. B. Pugh, 1861), 47.

[13] The Westminster Confession of Faith including the Larger Catechism and Shorter Catechism with Scripture Proofs (Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2007), ix.

[14] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Westminster Seminary Press, 2020), 473.

[15] Maia Poet, “When Parents Lose Custody for Refusing a Child’s Gender Transition,” Maia’s Substack, February 20, 2026, video, 1:42:42, https://maiapoet.substack.com/p/when-parents-lose-custody-for-refusing

[16] Baird, Kings, 84.

[17] Baird, Kings, 85.

James D. Baird is a pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Naples, Florida. Ordained Servant Online, June, 2026