Christocracy

There seems to be something of a calculated misinformation campaign going on in certain putatively Reformed circles regarding the Reformed tradition of law and politics. Any appeal to political activism on the part of Evangelicals is met with the anachronistic label of “theonomic.” Hence, it appears necessary to correct this ruthless exercise in historical revisionism.

Calvin is best remembered as a theologian. However, Calvin didn’t train to be a theologian. Rather, he trained to be a lawyer. Calvin was both a political theorist and a political activist.

This was a practical necessity. The break with Rome was not merely a break with Roman Catholicism, but with a whole culture built around Roman Catholicism.

As one leading Calvin scholar points out, “the very title of his major work, Institutio Religionis Christianae, reflects a legal background, since Institutiones were usually expositions of law, particularly of Roman jurisprudence,” W. Sandford Reid, “John Calvin, Lawyer & Legal Reformer,” Through Christ’s Word, W. Godfrey & J. Boyd, eds. (P&R 1985), 149-50.

Regarding the duty of the magistrate, Calvin had the following to say:

***QUOTE***

Hence if follows that this is the object of political government, that God’s tribunal should be erected on earth, wherein he may exercise the judge’s office, to the end that judges and magistrates should not arrogate to themselves a power uncontrolled by any laws, nor allow themselves to decide anything arbitrarily or wantonly, nor, in a word, assumes to themselves what belongs to God. Then, and then only, will magistrates acquit themselves properly, when they remember that they are the representatives (vicarious) of God.

Calvin’s Commentaries (Baker 2005), 2:304.

***END-QUOTE***

Notice that in making the magistrate the vicar of God, Calvin’s purpose is not inculcate the supremacy of the state, but--on the contrary--to subordinate the state to the law of God. Both the government and the governed are subject to a higher authority.

Those who reject the principle of a Christian magistrate are not, in fact, opposing Christian liberty to theocracy, but rather, are offering a recipe for a totalitarian state--a state unconstrained by the authority of God’s word.

Calvin goes on to offer a much more specific job description for the magistrate:

***QUOTE***

The civil government…also prevents idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other republic offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed, it provides that each man may keep his property safe and sound; and that men may carry on blameless intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modest may b e preserved among men. It short, it provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians, and that humanity be maintained among them. Let no man be disturbed that I now commit to civil government the duty of rightly establishing religion.

Institutes 4.20.3

***END-QUOTE***

Calvin takes the Decalogue as his point of reference, and argues that we ought to extend the Ten Commandments consistent to their logical ramifications:

***QUOTE***

The commandments and prohibitions always contain more than is expressed in words…Obviously, in almost all the commandments there are such manifest synecdoches that he who would confine his understanding of the law within the narrowness of the words deserved to be laughed at. Therefore, plainly a sober interpretation of the law goes beyond the words; but just how far remains obscure unless some measure be set. Now, I think this would be the best rule, of attention be direct to the reason of the commandment; that is, in each commandment to ponder why it was given to us.

Institutes 2.8.8.

***END-QUOTE**

In addition, Calvin put theory into practice with his Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Cf. F. Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought Baker 1997), 73-80.

Calvin’s views regarding the duty of the magistrate became Reformed orthodoxy:

***QUOTE***

We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates, so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors, but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.

French Confession, art. 39.

**********************

Its office is not merely to attend to and watch over the police, but also to uphold the sacred ministry of the church: in order to ward off and root out all idolatry and false worship, in order to overthrow the realm of antichrist and to advance the kingdom of Christ, to have the word of the Gospel preached everywhere, that God be honored and served by everyone, as he commands in his word.

Belgic Confession, art. 36.

******************************************

As the office of the Christian rulers is in all ways to promote holy worship, to recommend it to their subjects by their example and to aid (the preachers, elders and deacons) in every kind of need and to protect them by their good order: so the preachers, elders and deacons are responsible diligently and sincerely to sharpen the obedience, love and respect which the whole congregation owes the magistrates; and all church persons should set an example in these things for the congregation and seek to inspire and maintain the favor of the rulers for the church.

Dort, art. 28.

**************************************

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

WCF 20.4

It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them is according to the mind of God.

WCF 23.2-3.

As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so if magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

WCF 31:2.

**************************

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I.CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 36 Blasphemy

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

***END-QUOTE***

Although Reformed Baptists do not believe in national churches, the LBCF does say that a Christian can be civil magistrate (24.1), and it also equates the moral law with the Decalogue (19.1-3,5).

One of the little quirks in this debate is that we have a band of self-styled Vossians or—more properly--Klineans who claim that redemptive-historical theology has supplanted the Reformed tradition of Biblical law and church/state relations.

That this represents a Klinean viewpoint is undoubtedly true. That this represents a Vossian viewpoint strikes me as undoubtedly false.

To my knowledge, Vos was a Kuyperian Calvinist. His father was a pastor in the denomination founded by Kuyper. Vos was originally ordained in the CRC, which was a daughter denomination of the Gereformeerde Kerk. Kuyper and Vos were personal friends and correspondents. Kuyper invited Vos to be the founding prof. of OT at the Free University of Amsterdam. Vos wanted the job, but turned it down out of deference to his parents.

Finally, Vos wrote a laudatory review of one of Kuyper’s books. Here’s a sample:

***QUOTE***

This does not mean, however, that there is a single sphere of life from which we should withdraw. On the contrary, Dr. Kuyper wishes a consistent application of his principle to every single department. “We should not rest until we have imparted our conviction to our children and grandchildren, supporting a Christian education in the home, by Christian schools.” Even this is not sufficient. “The Christian school calls for a Christian gymnasium, and believers cannot escape from the duty of founding their own university.”

De Verflauwing der Grenzen by Dr. A. Kuyper. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 4:330-332. [1893]

***END-QUOTE***

And what was Kuyper’s general position?

***QUOTE***

Magistrates are and remain—“God’s servants.” They have to recognized God as Supreme ruler, from whom they derive their power. They have to serve god, by ruling the people according to his ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it is directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God’s supremacy is to be recognized by confessing his name in the Constitution as the source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking his divine blessing.

Lectures on Calvinism (Eerdmans 1983), 103.

This right [compulsory force] is possessed by God, and by him alone. No man has the right to rule over another man, otherwise such a right necessarily, and immediately becomes the right of the strongest, as the tiger in the jungle rules over the defenceless antelope.

Ibid. 82.

***QUOTE***

Keep in mind that Kuyper, like Calvin, was not only a political theorist, but a politician—indeed, Prime Minister of Holland.

So even if you deem redemptive-historical theology to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, that doesn’t commit you to Kline’s secular statism. And Kline’s disciples admit that his eccentric version of common grace is a theological innovation.

http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv16n1a1.htm

My immediate aim in this brief essay is not to argue for or against any particular position, but to simply rectify the historical record against those who would hijack the Reformed tradition and eject its passengers out the airlock. But I will close by giving some excerpts of how one Reformed theologian fields a number of objections to the traditional position:

***QUOTE***

The fundamental thesis here presented is what William Cunningham termed “the lawfulness of some union or friendly connection between church and state” (Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, volume VI, number 1, p. 25). The thesis is a purely abstract one. To be realized in practice, there must be presupposed a Christian state, with Christian magistrates ruling over a substantially Christian body of subjects. Where such an ideal state does not exist, the question of the union of the state with the Christian church does not arise. This is obvious in the case of an anti Christian government that persecutes those who profess loyalty to Christ. It is also true that the principle in question does not mean that a nominally Christian state may establish a church, to be used as an instrument to further its secular purposes. Under such circumstances, faithful servants of the Head and King of the Church have preferred to operate as a Free Church, independent of the state. This does not imply a renunciation of the principle under discussion. In this matter Chalmers and Cunningham were wiser than Dr. Abraham Kuyper. Furthermore, in a truly Christian state, there need not be a preference granted to one denomination over others. In this matter I find the change made by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in the Confession’s chapter XXIII, article 3, to have been unnecessary. The modified form of the Confession adopted by several Presbyterian denominations in this country still maintains the fundamental principle of the right and duty of the civil magistrate in religious matters, and contemplates in fact a predominantly Evangelical Christian nation. The original Confession may, I believe, be fairly understood as applicable to that situation, although the Westminster Assembly in the nature of the case did not contemplate the plurality of denominations of Evangelical Christians. What is implied is that a Christian government will employ its legitimate authority in furthering the interests of Christianity, in restraining public blasphemy and Sabbath desecration, as well as gross evils by way of violation of the second table of the decalogue. The confessional doctrine does imply that the civil magistrate is the guardian of both tables of the law. The sense of the doctrine will be clarified by the removal of misunderstandings that prevail among many who maintain opposing views.

The charge has been brought against the Westminster Confession that its teaching on church and state is Erastian… The alleged contradiction is resolved by the distinction of the authority of the magistrate CIRCUM SACRA (“about sacred things”) and his authority IN SACRIS (“in sacred things”). The former is asserted and the latter denied. The magistrate may enact and enforce laws about religious practice, always subject to the teaching of the Word of God, but he may not in any way take to himself the authority of officially expounding the word or exercising church discipline. His authority in the matter is on the level with that of the Christian individual or head of a family, not the authority that Christ has delegated to his church.

The apparent contradiction between the magistrate’s duty toward the church, and the denial that he has jurisdiction in religious matters is dissolved when attention is paid to the language of the Confession of Faith. “He hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace is preserved in the church,” etc., simply states what he may and ought to aim at as an end. Every Christian ought to aim at the preservation of the unity and peace of the church. Hence this should also be the end envisaged by the Christian magistrate in the exercise of his office. The Confession of Faith says nothing at this point as to the means to be employed to accomplish this end, except for the previous denial of the specific functions of preaching, administering the sacraments, and exercising church discipline. The matter of calling synods will require separate consideration. It should be clear that, thus understood, chapter XXIII, article 3, is consistent with itself, and exemplifies the caution with which the Westminster divines skillfully avoided disputable points, while they firmly and clearly set forth the whole counsel of God in all things necessary.

A most serious charge against the confessional teaching is that it is guilty of propounding intolerant and persecuting principles. Before reply is given to the allegation, an observation should be made as to the character of the language commonly used. Here is an unhappy instance of emotive language being used to excite prejudice, rather than a serious cognitive formulation serving to clarify the difficult issues that are involved. It is necessary first of all to dispose of the ambiguity found in the charge of intolerance and persecution. These words call up frightful images of the Spanish Inquisition, the fires of Smithfield and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. It might be simply asked in reply where in the history of Scottish Presbyterianism has there been a parallel to such atrocities, except in the treatment of the Covenanters by the Prelatists? The doctrine of the Reformers and the Puritans has never borne such gruesome fruit. The substantial element underlying the charge concerns the principle that the civil magistrate may and should adopt the entire divine law as the norm to which he must conform in making and enforcing laws. His actions should be directed toward the public observance of the precepts in both tables of the decalogue. The specific means to be used are not prescribed by the general principle, but they must fall within the limited province of the authority delegated by the sovereign God to human governments. Laws with respect to the Sabbath involve nothing of intolerance or persecution more than laws prohibiting murder, adultery or theft. The limits of the authority of the civil magistrate require a restriction with respect to the second table of the law as well as the first. The government cannot enforce the tenth commandment, for the duties required and the sins forbidden are purely spiritual, being located in the inner recesses of the heart, over which no human government, not even the visible church has jurisdiction. It goes without saying that the spiritual or inward requirements of the first table of the law fall outside the province of the civil magistrate. But outward displays of idolatry, public blasphemy and Sabbath desecration may be subjects of legislation, and will be in a Protestant nation.

The Westminster Assembly was itself called by the English Parliament to consult and advise. And the exercise of lawful authority by the magistrate was instrumental in the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Westminster Confession simply acknowledges the conformity of such actions of civil government with the revealed will of God.

But it must be confessed that liberty of conscience is not that license to act contrary to the moral law. It is admitted that the civil magistrate may proceed against those who violate the prohibitions of murder, adultery and theft, and that there is no infringement of liberty of conscience in his doing so.

That the civil magistrate has a concern with religious matters is witnessed by nature itself. Not only is it a matter of fact that human governments have in all times and places exercised authority in religious matters, but it is inherent in the nature of the state that this should be the case. Since the persons over whom the civil magistrate has authority are also those who engage in religious activity, that authority is not relaxed when they perform acts of a religious nature. The thugs of India cannot justify robbery and murder on the ground that these acts are part of their religion. The civil magistrate must condemn their religion in condemning the crimes involved in it. Neither an atheistic government nor one professing religious neutrality is a counterexample. Atheistic governments plainly deal with religion in opposing it, while the government that professes a separation of church and state is either inconsistent, as our government was through the early decades of this century, or increasingly opposes the Christian Church while inculcating contrary religious views, as the present tendency is. Willy nilly the civil magistrate involves himself in matters covered by the first four commandments, and it is the part of wisdom to recognize the fact, while pointing out the limits of the magistrate’s authority—which he tends to ignore in a democracy as well as in a monarchy or aristocracy.

With respect to the New Testament it has been objected that the Scripture no longer teaches the close connection between church and state that is so pronounced a feature of the Mosaic economy. In reply, it may be pointed out that there is a good reason why this should be the case. In the first century the Christian church faced opposition to the point of persecution from hostile magistrates, both Jew and Gentile. Divine revelation has taken account of this and has given the church direction on this subject primarily in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

I would conclude with the mention of a conversation of Professor John Murray with a Mennonite student at Westminster Seminary. The student had stated that he held the Anabaptist position of the absolute separation of church and state. The two had nothing in common and nothing to do with one another! Prof. Murray then asked what room would there be for the state in a community where everybody held that view. The student replied: “In South Africa we Mennonites have such a community, and there the church is the state.”

http://www.presbyterianreformed.org/articlesbooksShow.phtml?articlesID=2

***END-QUOTE***