The term “salvation by allegiance” is a recent attempt to recover what its advocates regard as the fuller New Testament meaning of the notion of faith. Associated especially with American theologian Matthew Bates, it argues that saving faith (pistis) should not be reduced to intellectual assent or inward trust. In the context of salvation, Bates proposes allegiance as a particularly useful overarching category, encompassing mental affirmation, professed loyalty and embodied fidelity to Jesus as the crucified and risen King.[1]
Is “salvation by allegiance” essentially another form of what American pastor and author John MacArthur and others earlier called “Lordship salvation”?[2] I suggest that the two approaches substantially overlap but are not identical. Both reject a conception of Christian faith that separates belief in Christ from obedience to Christ. Their principal difference lies in how they understand the relationship between faith and obedience, and more broadly in how they locate salvation within the identity and reign of Christ.
Lordship salvation
Lordship salvation arose primarily within an evangelical debate about conversion. MacArthur objected to approaches that appeared to separate receiving Jesus as Saviour from submitting to him as Lord. Against the suggestion that someone might possess genuine saving faith while persistently repudiating Christ’s authority, Lordship salvation insists that authentic faith entails repentance, submission and a transformed life.
Its controlling question is largely soteriological and pastoral: what characterises genuinely saving faith? Within this framework, salvation remains entirely the work of divine grace. MacArthur expressly rejects salvation by works. Acts of obedience are not preconditions by which salvation is earned; rather, repentance, willingness to obey and transformed conduct characterise those whom God has genuinely saved.
Lordship salvation therefore does not simply identify saving faith with moral obedience. Its characteristic claim is that genuine saving faith cannot remain barren. Obedience is the necessary fruit and evidence of authentic conversion.
Salvation by allegiance
Salvation by allegiance begins somewhat differently. Bates’s argument is primarily exegetical, linguistic and narrative. He asks whether conventional Christian language has sometimes narrowed the significance of pistis when describing the appropriate response to Jesus.
Care is needed here. It would be misleading to claim that pistis simply means “allegiance,” or that every New Testament occurrence should be translated that way. The semantic field includes faith, belief, trust, faithfulness and fidelity, with meaning determined by context. Indeed, scholarly debate over expressions such as pistis Christou demonstrates that the language resists reduction to a single English equivalent.
Bates’s more particular claim is that, with respect to saving response to Jesus the King, “allegiance” captures dimensions of pistis that the English words “faith” and “belief” may obscure. His proposal therefore includes intellectual affirmation and trust but places them within a larger pattern of loyalty and embodied fidelity.
Christology before soteriology
One strength of allegiance theology is its insistence that the question “How am I saved?” should be situated within the more fundamental question, “Who is Jesus, and what has God accomplished through him?” The New Testament gospel announces that Jesus, the crucified Messiah, has been raised, vindicated and exalted as Lord. Bates accordingly seeks to frame salvation around the gospel of Jesus the King rather than treating Christ’s practical kingship as an implication added after an account of individual salvation.
In this sense, Christology precedes soteriology. Salvation is intelligible because of who Jesus is. If the gospel announces the reign of the crucified and risen Messiah, the appropriate response cannot be reduced to accepting a mechanism of forgiveness. It involves entrusting oneself to the person whom God has exalted.
To believe the gospel is more than believing that certain events occurred or being convinced that certain benefits are available. To express faith in this sense is to personally respond to the risen Christ. Allegiance theology emphasises Jesus as Messiah and King because it regards his identity, rather than an abstract theory of salvation, as the organising centre of the gospel.
Justification and allegiance
This emphasis creates an important theological difficulty. If allegiance belongs within saving pistis, how should justification by faith apart from works be understood? Bates presses traditional Protestant formulations concerning faith, works and final salvation; critics have challenged whether his proposal preserves the classical distinction between faith and works adequately.
A theologically coherent formulation must therefore distinguish allegiance from meritorious achievement. If allegiance means sufficient moral performance, sustained obedience or successful discipleship, salvation would depend upon the quality of human fidelity. But if allegiance describes the relational orientation of faith toward Jesus as King, the matter looks different. The believer does not purchase divine acceptance through loyalty. Rather, saving faith is directed toward a Lord, and therefore possesses an inherently loyal orientation expressed in fidelity.
Justification remains grounded in divine grace and Christ’s saving work. Allegiance describes the character of the human response, not an accomplishment that obliges God to justify. The tension should nevertheless remain visible rather than being resolved too easily. One of the central questions raised by Bates is precisely how embodied fidelity, works, justification and final salvation are related.
Union with Christ
There is another biblical dimension to soteriology that Lordship salvation nor allegiance language should not obscure. New Testament salvation is not merely submission to an external ruler but also participation in Christ. This is central to Pauline theology. Paul repeatedly describes believers as being “in Christ”; they are united with him in death and resurrection, incorporated into his body and given an identity derived from sharing in his life. Salvation therefore involves more than a changed legal status or acceptance of Christ’s authority. It includes real communion with the crucified and risen Christ.
Apart from an understanding of the biblical doctrine of union with Christ, allegiance language may sound overly political or voluntaristic, as though Jesus stands at a distance demanding loyalty from his subjects. The New Testament offers something richer. The one to whom Christians owe allegiance is also the one in whom they live. A Christian does not simply obey an external king but is drawn into the pattern of Christ’s death and resurrection. Union with Christ thus deepens allegiance: loyalty is the lived expression of belonging.
The essential difference
Lordship salvation claims that genuine saving faith necessarily issues in obedient submission to Christ. Salvation by allegiance claims that loyal, embodied fidelity belongs within the character of saving faith itself.
MacArthur’s concern is principally to preserve the integrity of conversion. One cannot genuinely profess Christ while permanently repudiating his lordship. Repentance and obedience are therefore indispensable marks of authentic salvation. Bates asks a more fundamental question about the nature of saving pistis. Rather than beginning with faith as belief or trust and then explaining why obedience must follow, he argues that fidelity and allegiance belong within the saving response itself.
The relationship is best described as one of family resemblance rather than identity. Both reject mere intellectual assent and resist forms of Christianity in which obedience becomes optional but reach that conclusion through different theological routes. Lordship salvation largely operates within an established evangelical and Reformed account of conversion, justification and regeneration. Salvation by allegiance attempts a broader reframing around the biblical proclamation of Jesus as crucified, risen and enthroned King. Its characteristic question is therefore not simply whether someone has experienced genuine conversion, but to whom that person now belongs.
Allegiance more than obedience
Allegiance should not, however, be equated with obedience. Obedience concerns actions. A command is given and someone complies. Such compliance may arise from love, fear, habit, social pressure or self-interest. It is therefore possible to obey without offering one’s deepest loyalty.
Allegiance is more comprehensive. It concerns trust, fidelity, identity, hope and belonging. It describes the fundamental orientation of a person rather than conformity to isolated commands. Christian faith therefore cannot be reduced to accumulating acts of obedience. It is relational commitment in which believers entrust themselves to Christ, receive identity from Christ and increasingly order their conduct and hopes around Christ.
The notion of obedience is indispensable to salvation, but embodies allegiance rather than exhausting its meaning. Someone who professes loyalty to Christ while consistently rejecting Christ’s way gives us reason to question that profession. Yet Christian discipleship aims at more than compliance; its proper form is fidelity arising from trust and love. This also prevents allegiance theology from being reduced to “salvation by obedience.” Its central claim is that saving faith has a loyal and embodied character because its object is not merely a doctrine or proposition but Jesus Christ himself.
Faith, loyalty and the kingship of Christ
Allegiance consequently directs attention beyond isolated religious obligations. Christian life is organised around a belonging that is prior to obedience. A person may satisfy particular obligations while remaining fundamentally loyal elsewhere. Allegiance asks the deeper question: who ultimately governs my daily life? This gives theological weight to the confession “Jesus is Lord.” Such words do more than affirm correct doctrine. They name a new centre of identity and authority.
Yet Christian allegiance is not allegiance to arbitrary power. The Lord to whom Christians belong is the crucified Lord, whose sovereignty is disclosed through self-giving love. Loyalty to Christ must therefore assume the moral character of Christ: humility, mercy, justice, reconciliation and service.
The distinction may be illustrated by Christian marriage. A spouse may fulfil numerous obligations—sharing responsibilities, contributing financially and avoiding obvious betrayal—yet marriage cannot adequately be described as the successful discharge of duties. It involves covenantal fidelity, enduring loyalty and mutual belonging. The obligations matter because they arise from the relationship.
So too with discipleship. Christian obedience matters, but it arises within the more comprehensive reality of belonging to Christ. This is perhaps the deepest contribution of allegiance language. Salvation is not merely the cancellation of guilt, acceptance of doctrines or fulfilment of religious obligations. It is reconciliation with God through Christ that establishes a new centre of identity and loyalty.
Failure, repentance and perseverance
Any theology of allegiance must nevertheless account for Christian failure. If saving faith is allegiance, what happens when believers become inconsistent, compromised or sinful? The New Testament does not portray fidelity as uninterrupted moral success. Peter confesses Jesus and later denies him. Pauline congregations display division, immaturity and serious ethical failure. Repentance belongs to Christian existence precisely because allegiance may be compromised.
Saving allegiance therefore cannot mean flawless performance. Its characteristic movement is persevering return. Faithfulness includes repentance, renewed trust and repeated reorientation toward Christ. This distinction also protects allegiance from becoming another measure of spiritual achievement. A theology in which salvation depended upon maintaining a sufficient level of loyalty would become both pastorally oppressive and theologically unstable. In my view, Christian perseverance is better understood as genuine but imperfect fidelity sustained by grace. Repentance may then be understood as renewed allegiance: the disciple returns because Christ remains the one to whom the disciple belongs.
Lordship salvation insists that genuine saving faith cannot finally be reconciled with the repudiation of the authority of Christ. Salvation by allegiance presses further by locating fidelity within faith itself. Lordship salvation claims that true faith necessarily produces obedient submission, whereas salvation by allegiance claims that loyal, embodied fidelity belongs to the essential character of saving faith. The distinction is subtle but important.
Rev Dr Rod Benson is General Secretary of the NSW Ecumenical Council and a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia serving at North Rocks Community Church in Sydney.
References
[1] Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017); and Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2019).
[2] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? (fourth edition; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008 [1988]).
Image source: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, Conversion of St. Paul the Apostle (17th Century).
All Told 