What do you think?
Rate this book
On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission & Destiny, & the Christian's Relation to It
What relationship should the Christian have with government and politics? Can the child of God vote? Campaign for candidates? Run for office? And at what cost? Does Scripture mandate a separation of church and state?Formerly a supporter of American democracy, David Lipscomb became an outspoken opponent of a Christian's involvement in civil government, due primarily to the bitterness and rancor of the American Civil War. Lipscomb's book, On Civil Government, originated as a series of articles on the subject.
This new edition is prayerfully offered to Christians as a plea not to allow the American political process to rob the church of her love and compassion for others, to tempt her to place her trust in man, nor distract her from the Great Commission.
This new edition is prayerfully offered to Christians as a plea not to allow the American political process to rob the church of her love and compassion for others, to tempt her to place her trust in man, nor distract her from the Great Commission.
- GenresChristian
130 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1889
20 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
David Lipscomb
73 books5 followersDavid Lipscomb was a minister, editor and leader in the American Restoration Movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 4, 2021
I kinda just read this book because my dad wouldn’t shut up about it & I needed to know what was being discussed. The things we do to keep the white men in our lives appeased. He’s a never-Trumper conservative who has decided that David Lipscomb holds the keys to victory!
All jokes aside, this book is interesting! I don’t know why you would read it unless you’re a CofC and/or middle Tennessee history dork, but if you are, you’ll love it. Lipscomb was a really good biblical theologian! He then takes his good biblical theology & becomes like a radical libertarian & I don’t know about that, but I guess I give him points for taking an honest aim at intellectual consistency.
Most important, Lipscomb holds a strong view that the church shouldn’t expect the government or any other institution to do their bidding for them. The church does their own bidding by acting like the church—see the Sermon on the Mount for some ideas. I don’t think we’d be in the mess of evangelicalism we are if the Lipscomb viewpoint had prevailed. In that vein, I think I agree with my dad: more Lipscomb, less Trump.
All jokes aside, this book is interesting! I don’t know why you would read it unless you’re a CofC and/or middle Tennessee history dork, but if you are, you’ll love it. Lipscomb was a really good biblical theologian! He then takes his good biblical theology & becomes like a radical libertarian & I don’t know about that, but I guess I give him points for taking an honest aim at intellectual consistency.
Most important, Lipscomb holds a strong view that the church shouldn’t expect the government or any other institution to do their bidding for them. The church does their own bidding by acting like the church—see the Sermon on the Mount for some ideas. I don’t think we’d be in the mess of evangelicalism we are if the Lipscomb viewpoint had prevailed. In that vein, I think I agree with my dad: more Lipscomb, less Trump.
February 26, 2012
In this book David Lipscomb shows why Christians should not support, or rely upon, civil government. Lipscomb is a Christian pacifist who believes that war is the result of human government, as he explains:
"All the wars and strifes between tribes, races, nations, from the beginning until now, have been the result of man's effort to govern himself and the world, rather than to submit to the government of God." (page 14)
He believes that governments are ruled by Satan, executing wrath and vengeance, and thus Christians should have nothing to do with them.
"Every one who honors and serves the human government and relies upon it, for good, more than he does upon the Divine government, worships and serves the creature more than he does the Creator." (page 50)
Although Lipscomb does concede that human government is necessary and has a place in God's plan, in the same way there is a place called Hell.
"Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by 'the prince of this world,' the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven." (page 72)
However he is also critical of Church institutions, believing they too have been corrupted by ambition and pride, just like civil governments. Lipscomb goes on to propose a Christian form of anarchism, where Christians should neither support human government nor use force to overthrow it.
"It is the duty of the Christian to submit to the human government in its office and work and to seek its destruction only by spreading the religion of Christ and so converting men from service to the earthly government to service to the heavenly one, and so, too, by removing the necessity for its existence and work. No violence, no sword, no bitterness or wrath can he use. The spread of the peaceful principles of the Savior, will draw men out of the kingdoms of earth into the kingdom of God." (pages 84-85)
This withdrawal of support for human government has been achieved by various Christian anarchists in the 20th century, including Ammon Hennacy who followed a lifestyle of simple living and voluntary poverty, thus reducing his taxable income.
First published in 1866 and nearly 30 years before Leo Tolstoy's great Christian anarchist book, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, On Civil Government is ground breaking and a must read.
"All the wars and strifes between tribes, races, nations, from the beginning until now, have been the result of man's effort to govern himself and the world, rather than to submit to the government of God." (page 14)
He believes that governments are ruled by Satan, executing wrath and vengeance, and thus Christians should have nothing to do with them.
"Every one who honors and serves the human government and relies upon it, for good, more than he does upon the Divine government, worships and serves the creature more than he does the Creator." (page 50)
Although Lipscomb does concede that human government is necessary and has a place in God's plan, in the same way there is a place called Hell.
"Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by 'the prince of this world,' the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven." (page 72)
However he is also critical of Church institutions, believing they too have been corrupted by ambition and pride, just like civil governments. Lipscomb goes on to propose a Christian form of anarchism, where Christians should neither support human government nor use force to overthrow it.
"It is the duty of the Christian to submit to the human government in its office and work and to seek its destruction only by spreading the religion of Christ and so converting men from service to the earthly government to service to the heavenly one, and so, too, by removing the necessity for its existence and work. No violence, no sword, no bitterness or wrath can he use. The spread of the peaceful principles of the Savior, will draw men out of the kingdoms of earth into the kingdom of God." (pages 84-85)
This withdrawal of support for human government has been achieved by various Christian anarchists in the 20th century, including Ammon Hennacy who followed a lifestyle of simple living and voluntary poverty, thus reducing his taxable income.
First published in 1866 and nearly 30 years before Leo Tolstoy's great Christian anarchist book, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, On Civil Government is ground breaking and a must read.
November 7, 2018
Easily the most cogent and biblical defense of Christian anarchism in existence. (This in spite of the fact the author disavows anarchy on page 88)
I’m an infantry officer of 8 years in the US Army. In fall of 2018 I resigned my commission and applied for conscientious objector status, for which I was approved.
I place Lipscomb’s book as at least equal to Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”, Lawrence Vance’s “Christianity and War”, and James Redford’s “Jesus Was an Anarchist”.
If you’ve enjoyed and been edified by those books, you’ll derive great value from this one.
I’m an infantry officer of 8 years in the US Army. In fall of 2018 I resigned my commission and applied for conscientious objector status, for which I was approved.
I place Lipscomb’s book as at least equal to Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”, Lawrence Vance’s “Christianity and War”, and James Redford’s “Jesus Was an Anarchist”.
If you’ve enjoyed and been edified by those books, you’ll derive great value from this one.
March 26, 2025
On Civil Government is a small book on a big topic—the (il)legitimacy of human government and the Christian’s relationship to it—compiled from articles David Lipscomb published in his Gospel Advocate in the years after the Civil War (1866-67). Like many Americans of his day—particularly in the South—Lipscomb was disillusioned with his government in the aftermath of a brutal and bitter war. Yet, Lipscomb dates his own convictions regarding government and pacifism to his youth (Loc 96-111) and his criticisms go beyond typical debates surrounding specific policies and the role of government to attacking the very foundations of civil (human) government itself. Lipscomb’s position is that only God has legitimate authority to rule over man and that the family is the only legitimate human government created by Him (Loc 172). Non-familial (civil) government originated among fallen man as an act of rebellion against God by Nimrod (Gen 10:8), like the first sin when Adam asserted his own will against God in the garden (Loc 155). Thus, founded as they are for the purpose of rebellion, human governments will always be self-seeking and tyrannical (Loc 397) until they are finally destroyed by God in the eschaton (Loc 495). As Lipscomb puts it, “If the world is not under the rule and dominion of the devil the mission of Christ is meaningless. He came to rescue and redeem the world and to destroy the Devil and all his works” (Loc 962). The Christian then, as a citizen of Christ’s kingdom, should refuse to serve or support the government (Loc 705). How far this passive resistance should extend is unclear, since Lipscomb concedes that Christians should pay taxes after the example of Jesus (Loc 1134). Lipscomb does highlight examples of civic resistance in scripture, respond to potential counterexamples such as Joseph and Cornelius, and invoke the pacifistic texts of the church fathers to defend his assertions. Yet, his reading of scripture remains narrow and frustratingly lacking engagement with alternative points of view.
Lipscomb’s unwillingness to be tainted by or to compromise with human governments is admirable and adds an important voice to contemporary conversations surrounding the Christian’s relationship to government. In some ways, his condemnation of civil governments is especially prescient for our time in which more and more evangelical Christians in America are seeking governmental power as a solution to the travails of a fallen world and are often willing to compromise the ethics of Jesus to attain it. However, his confidence in the Christian’s ability to remain in the world but not of the world is naïve (1 Cor 5:10) and his myopic view of civil government is the result of a neglect of theology—in this case, anthropological and covenant theology—which is typical of the wider restoration movement, if not typically applied to considerations of governmental power. First, Lipscomb overestimates the degree to which Christians can separate from the world and remain holy and untainted by its compromises because he does not accept the Reformation doctrine that fallen men—even men redeemed by Christ—can be both sinful and righteous (“simul iustus et peccator,” to use Luther’s phrase) at the same time (1 Jn 1:8-10). Man is a mixture of both good and evil and thus God bestows common grace upon all because of the reality of their sinful nature (Gen 8:21). Second, out of this common grace arises an obligation, duty, and ability on the part of all men to establish justice for his fellow men, an obligation that flows out of the Noahic covenant made in Genesis 8:21-9:17. This covenant, its obligations, its ethics, its duration, and its purpose are fundamentally different from the Mosaic covenant for a holy nation in the OT and the new covenant for the redeemed in Christ (Heb 8). Briefly, the Noahic covenant is made with all creation (Gen 9:17), contains limited ethical obligations and guidelines (Gen 9:1-7), lasts until Christ’s second coming and the earth is ended (Gen 8:22), and is not salvific like the new covenant but is preservative in nature (Gen 9:8-17). Thus, man has authority to set up governments which will be judged according to the standards of the Noahic—not the new—covenant. Lipscomb, however, does not distinguish between good and bad human governments, viewing them all of one piece and equally under the judgment of God (Loc 204). Lipscomb also does not allow for the possibility that because of God’s common grace to all men, unredeemed man can practice justice and accomplish good for his fellow man: “A depraved human nature can produce only corrupt and sinful institutions” (Loc 1582). This lack of an anthropological theology is a problem with restoration theology in general, though it manifests itself in different areas. For example, restorationists resist church activity not explicitly attested in the NT by claiming that any human invention or tradition in worship pollutes God’s design for the church. Yet the record of God’s dealings with man show that He works alongside them, even in matters of religion (Exod 32:12-14). Thus, Lipscomb’s erroneous understanding of the origins of government arise from a restorationist mindset that rejects common grace and has no developed theology of man or the Bible’s covenants. His text is an example of how drawing from a wider Christian tradition could have aided his inquiry. Instead, he makes the error of many restorationists since the Campbells of relying too confidently upon his own isolated reasoning powers: “[that] these things are true is beyond successful dispute” (Loc 1720).
Lipscomb’s unwillingness to be tainted by or to compromise with human governments is admirable and adds an important voice to contemporary conversations surrounding the Christian’s relationship to government. In some ways, his condemnation of civil governments is especially prescient for our time in which more and more evangelical Christians in America are seeking governmental power as a solution to the travails of a fallen world and are often willing to compromise the ethics of Jesus to attain it. However, his confidence in the Christian’s ability to remain in the world but not of the world is naïve (1 Cor 5:10) and his myopic view of civil government is the result of a neglect of theology—in this case, anthropological and covenant theology—which is typical of the wider restoration movement, if not typically applied to considerations of governmental power. First, Lipscomb overestimates the degree to which Christians can separate from the world and remain holy and untainted by its compromises because he does not accept the Reformation doctrine that fallen men—even men redeemed by Christ—can be both sinful and righteous (“simul iustus et peccator,” to use Luther’s phrase) at the same time (1 Jn 1:8-10). Man is a mixture of both good and evil and thus God bestows common grace upon all because of the reality of their sinful nature (Gen 8:21). Second, out of this common grace arises an obligation, duty, and ability on the part of all men to establish justice for his fellow men, an obligation that flows out of the Noahic covenant made in Genesis 8:21-9:17. This covenant, its obligations, its ethics, its duration, and its purpose are fundamentally different from the Mosaic covenant for a holy nation in the OT and the new covenant for the redeemed in Christ (Heb 8). Briefly, the Noahic covenant is made with all creation (Gen 9:17), contains limited ethical obligations and guidelines (Gen 9:1-7), lasts until Christ’s second coming and the earth is ended (Gen 8:22), and is not salvific like the new covenant but is preservative in nature (Gen 9:8-17). Thus, man has authority to set up governments which will be judged according to the standards of the Noahic—not the new—covenant. Lipscomb, however, does not distinguish between good and bad human governments, viewing them all of one piece and equally under the judgment of God (Loc 204). Lipscomb also does not allow for the possibility that because of God’s common grace to all men, unredeemed man can practice justice and accomplish good for his fellow man: “A depraved human nature can produce only corrupt and sinful institutions” (Loc 1582). This lack of an anthropological theology is a problem with restoration theology in general, though it manifests itself in different areas. For example, restorationists resist church activity not explicitly attested in the NT by claiming that any human invention or tradition in worship pollutes God’s design for the church. Yet the record of God’s dealings with man show that He works alongside them, even in matters of religion (Exod 32:12-14). Thus, Lipscomb’s erroneous understanding of the origins of government arise from a restorationist mindset that rejects common grace and has no developed theology of man or the Bible’s covenants. His text is an example of how drawing from a wider Christian tradition could have aided his inquiry. Instead, he makes the error of many restorationists since the Campbells of relying too confidently upon his own isolated reasoning powers: “[that] these things are true is beyond successful dispute” (Loc 1720).
January 15, 2026
Remember that time when, for about its first three hundred years, Christianity was near universally pacifistic? No? Yeah, well neither do I, I wasn’t born yet. What about when, for the greater part of the first century after its birth, the restoration movement of churches of Christ were too? Yeah, I still wasn’t born either, but Lipscomb is evidence of the latter’s reality. Questionable exegesis and complexity flattening aside, it’s surprisingly not bad, and sometimes even surprisingly good.
July 27, 2020
Some of the argumentation was weak, and it's awful dry by nature, but the overall point was well made and a few sections packed a real punch.
October 30, 2020
The first two chapters were a bit tedious, but they laid the groundwork for some great thoughts in the last two chapters.
Hard to push back against the author’s argument.
Hard to push back against the author’s argument.
July 26, 2021
A must read for all Christians!
July 11, 2012
A very repetitive book with a narrow, idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture. Useful in that it makes you think about if we are too comfortable with using the government for our own ends.
The argument of the book is at follows.
1. God intended us to be ruled totally by him, with Him as the head and no real organized political structure.
2. We didn't want that.
3. So God allows human self-government as a punishment for our sins. If we are governed by humans, it's judgment for falling away from him.
4. When Jesus came, His kingdom was to destroy the human self-government intro the Kingdom of Heaven, which is sort of a anarchy that comprises of people to follow God.
5. Therefore, Christians should at best passively support government by rendering duties to it that don't make it stronger, and refusing activities that do unto death.
Honestly, I can't really get this argument. I understand his reasoning, but he's essentially arguing for a repeat of the book of Judges, which was a cycle of Israel sinning, God sending people to conquer them until they repented, and then a deliverer arising. Except the deliverer this time wont arise, and Christians would just get martyred. He believes that when men truly seek God's kingdom, God will end human government completely, but this is far too perfect for fallen man this side of of the book of Revelation.
The argument isn't done that well either. There's far too much repetition in the book, and it could have easily been made into a slender pamphlet. He doesn't really put any positive form of Christianity into the book either: all you get is the sense that Christians are supposed to pay taxes, stay apart from the world, and if challenged by it, refuse and die if need be. He talks about focusing on the maintenance of the human government corrupting Christians, but nothing on what such a detached form of Christianity might do, or even the dangers inherent in this. Nor does he address any real collective action that requires human government as opposed to Divine: you have to have large-scale collective action for things like building roads, or even as simple as having a town. For it to work under a theocracy, everyone would need to perfectly understand God's will.
There is some good to the book. I found the message that "people who spend too much time in the human government soon reflect that government's desires." It is possible to spend so much time in the world that you ape the world's ways, and treat Christianity like you do your political party. But I didn't find the core arguments satisfying enough or complete enough to consider the book beyond that. It's too narrow and too local to really be convincing, in the same way the ideas of small communities and heretic offshoots of Christians put forth their own narrow, idiosyncratic ideas of the faith. A good book for starting discussions, but not one for ending them.
The argument of the book is at follows.
1. God intended us to be ruled totally by him, with Him as the head and no real organized political structure.
2. We didn't want that.
3. So God allows human self-government as a punishment for our sins. If we are governed by humans, it's judgment for falling away from him.
4. When Jesus came, His kingdom was to destroy the human self-government intro the Kingdom of Heaven, which is sort of a anarchy that comprises of people to follow God.
5. Therefore, Christians should at best passively support government by rendering duties to it that don't make it stronger, and refusing activities that do unto death.
Honestly, I can't really get this argument. I understand his reasoning, but he's essentially arguing for a repeat of the book of Judges, which was a cycle of Israel sinning, God sending people to conquer them until they repented, and then a deliverer arising. Except the deliverer this time wont arise, and Christians would just get martyred. He believes that when men truly seek God's kingdom, God will end human government completely, but this is far too perfect for fallen man this side of of the book of Revelation.
The argument isn't done that well either. There's far too much repetition in the book, and it could have easily been made into a slender pamphlet. He doesn't really put any positive form of Christianity into the book either: all you get is the sense that Christians are supposed to pay taxes, stay apart from the world, and if challenged by it, refuse and die if need be. He talks about focusing on the maintenance of the human government corrupting Christians, but nothing on what such a detached form of Christianity might do, or even the dangers inherent in this. Nor does he address any real collective action that requires human government as opposed to Divine: you have to have large-scale collective action for things like building roads, or even as simple as having a town. For it to work under a theocracy, everyone would need to perfectly understand God's will.
There is some good to the book. I found the message that "people who spend too much time in the human government soon reflect that government's desires." It is possible to spend so much time in the world that you ape the world's ways, and treat Christianity like you do your political party. But I didn't find the core arguments satisfying enough or complete enough to consider the book beyond that. It's too narrow and too local to really be convincing, in the same way the ideas of small communities and heretic offshoots of Christians put forth their own narrow, idiosyncratic ideas of the faith. A good book for starting discussions, but not one for ending them.
November 29, 2016
Having lived through the horrors of the civil war David Lipscomb wrote this book arguing that the Kingdom of God can have nothing to do with the kingdoms of this world. Such kingdoms lead to division and war and idolatry and pull from the energies of those who desire to serve both.
This book still has relevance 150 years after it was written, especially in a time in which many Christians seek to live out their faith by steering public policy. While Lipscomb may not be wholly correct in his extreme views, he does deserve an audience today when it comes to the griefs frustrations many Christians feel when their leaders do not win and their ideology does not become government policy.
Consider these quotes: "It is God's will that human government shall exist so long as man or any considerable portion of the human family refuses to be governed by God. He ordained human government as a punishment for rejecting his government." (p. 51-52)
-"Men who introduce, operate, and support human additions to the government of God, soon come to so magnify these human additions, that they esteem them of more importance to the well-being of the servants of God, than any of the God-ordained appointments of his institution. This is but the working of human nature." (p.40)
-"The mission of the kingdom of God is to break into pieces and consume all these kingdoms, take their place, fill the whole earth, and stand forever." (p.28)
This book still has relevance 150 years after it was written, especially in a time in which many Christians seek to live out their faith by steering public policy. While Lipscomb may not be wholly correct in his extreme views, he does deserve an audience today when it comes to the griefs frustrations many Christians feel when their leaders do not win and their ideology does not become government policy.
Consider these quotes: "It is God's will that human government shall exist so long as man or any considerable portion of the human family refuses to be governed by God. He ordained human government as a punishment for rejecting his government." (p. 51-52)
-"Men who introduce, operate, and support human additions to the government of God, soon come to so magnify these human additions, that they esteem them of more importance to the well-being of the servants of God, than any of the God-ordained appointments of his institution. This is but the working of human nature." (p.40)
-"The mission of the kingdom of God is to break into pieces and consume all these kingdoms, take their place, fill the whole earth, and stand forever." (p.28)
December 3, 2013
The kingdom of man without and the kingdom of God within mankind determines that the decisions we make in life are more to the latter. Hence Lipscomb takes a strong pacific view with the eyes of a mature Christian who has just witnessed the destruction of thousands upon thousands of good people, many of who belong to the church of Christ. This work deserves a good read from all within the kingdom today because of the strong war faction that has driven American politics and which BTW is quite unlike American history.
November 23, 2016
I think Lipscomb makes some good points and his is a voice that should be noted in the discussion about Christianity and politics. I believe that Lipscomb's conclusion that Christians cannot be involved in government or vote is a bit of an over-reach, though I do agree that the more people come under the lordship of Jesus, the less human government will be necessary. My greatest point of agreement with Lipscomb is that spiritual warfare cannot be fought using carnal weapons. That is a lesson sorely needed in the church today.m
April 17, 2020
Questions around how a Christian can be involved with the government are not new. David Lipscomb wrote this in 1889. Written by a church leader in the southern USA dealing with the aftermath of the US civil war. The bottom line for Lipscomb is that when a Christian looks to the government to be the way God wants things done, they will always be disappointed. This is hard to read, as it is written very differently than the way we would today.
July 24, 2011
READ OCT 2009
Lipscomb goes to extreme lengths to say "no participation in, no support of, no affinity with human government is found" in scripture (p. 103) to support his thesis that "friendship with the world means friendship to its institutions and governments" (p. 77). While I do not agree with his premise or conclusions, there are some interesting points to consider.
Lipscomb goes to extreme lengths to say "no participation in, no support of, no affinity with human government is found" in scripture (p. 103) to support his thesis that "friendship with the world means friendship to its institutions and governments" (p. 77). While I do not agree with his premise or conclusions, there are some interesting points to consider.
May 15, 2018
David Lipscomb sets forth a passionate argument for pacifism and non-engagement with politics as the only consistently faithful choice for people of God. I say people of God rather than Christians because he expands his argument to include Israel in the Old Testament. He insists that all human government derives from the desires of evil people - the institution of Israel's monarchy by God was a punishment for the people's rejection of God as King. He notes that Jesus resisted the temptation to pursue political power, and discounts reference to Erastus as City "Chamberlain" or treasurer as approved example of Christian participation in civil government. He reasons that Erastus must have been city-wide church treasurer since he could not have been City Chamberlain. That sort of circular reason continues as he maintains that Cornelius must have resigned.as a soldier. He encounters some awkwardness in describing the engagement of James Garfield with the church after his service as an Army officer and while he was President. He first denies Garfield public leadership in church matters, then concedes he has learned that Garfield presided at Communion and exhorted the church in Washington while President of the United States, but had not "entered the pulpit." He does not mention that then-General Garfield had preached at churches in the southern states when fighting nearby. However, Lipscomb does present biblical and historical arguments that sometimes are overlooked by those who assume freedom to engage as Christians in political or military affairs. He reminds that allegiance to God and his will should determine our activities and affiliations if we seek to follow Jesus faithfully. He demonstrates that the Christian politician or soldier at the very least will encounter significant challenges to his or her faithfulness.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews