RSSHodge, Cromwell, Church and State
Hodge, Cromwell, Church and State
Caleb Stegall
“That, while no distinction should be made between various Christian denominations, and perfect liberty of conscience and worship be allowed to all men, nevertheless the Christian magistrate should seek to promote piety as well as civil order”
This leaves all too much unsaid. While I am not generally sympathetic to Roundheads, I find Cromwell both more succinct and more honest on this point: “As to freedom of conscience, I meddle with no man’s conscience; but if you mean by that, liberty to celebrate the Mass, I would have you understand that in no place where the power of the Parliament of England prevails shall that be permitted.”
On a related point, see that the CRC is trying to tone down the Heidleberg Confession on the matter of the mass.
And for a good introduction to the judicial innerworkings of church/state relations, see this decision rendered by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
W.H. Chellis
June 17th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Hi Caleb,
Context is king. Hodge makes a tremendous sense when placed in the friendly confines of 19th Century Protestant America.
Hodge might have spoken more pointedly in the midst of our present circumstances.
BC
David McCrory
June 17th, 2006 at 9:39 am
You’ve heard it said “You can’t legislate morality”. You can’t NOT legislate it. Man is a moral being, likewise those laws enforced by the State always carry moral consequences. Should the State promote religious piety? You’d be hard pressed to find a time when it didn’t try.
Baus
June 17th, 2006 at 9:40 am
I take it that Stegall’s point here is that if one says “freedom of worship” then this includes freedom of idolatry or it doesn’t, and one should be specific and clear about which is intended.
Then of course one should also be clear and specific about what constitutes idolatry.
Or is there some other point?
I’m not sure what Stegall’s point might be with regard to the eagle feather issue and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps he would like to draw out the implications relevant to our discussion.
Caleb Stegall
June 17th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Yes, Greg has it right. Freedom of conscience does not exactly jive with Hodge’s, Cromwell’s, or anyone elses idea of “Christian law.” This is one of the contradictions at the heart of this discussion and every discussion on the matter since at least Locke.
Eagle feathers are irrelevant, but the decision is a good primer into how our nation’s judiciary has twisted itself into knots trying to resolve this very tension.
Caleb Stegall
June 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Bill,
Would you really be happy with one county commission imposing the mass, one mandating the prayer book, and another abolishing infant baptism?
W.H. Chellis
June 17th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Well, I think it is to be preferred over the civil magistrate trying to answer questions that are not within his purview. He is a minister of the sword and must defend the Church not dominate her.
The division of the Church must be healed by the Church. Thus, a kind of local establishmentarianism is, in my opinion, the best hope.
It seemed to work pretty well during the colonial period and early republic (it was at least more successful than the short lived Scottish Second Reformation).
Besides, is there an alternative?
Caleb Stegall
June 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Local establishmentarianism is an interesting idea. What happens when the Catholic county next to the teatolaling county starts sells beer on Sundays? Is there a list of constitutionally approved religious expressions which can be established? Or perhaps we need a federal Ministry of Religion to sort out those complexities.
W.H. Chellis
June 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
It would depend if there were state laws regulating the Sabbath which I would assume.
If not, I would say that they must take the mind your own business approach and do not travel there.
Caleb Stegall
June 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
What if they did go? How might there be a state law regulating the Sabbath without destroying local establishmentarianism? Wouldn’t it then be State establishment? What about laws prohibiting proselytizing? What about punitive measures against non-members of the established church? I am just scratching the surface here of the magnitude of difficulty which will flow from this.
Moreover, we are really putting the cart before the horse. Law is an expression of power, and as Mao noted, power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
It is possible to conceive of a political entity small enough to be infiltrated and taken over with the intent of seceding from the Union. Short of that, I’m not sure what the point is.
The broader point I wanted to make is that it will not do to continue to speak of “freedom of conscience” if one really means what he says when he seeks some form of establishmentarian government.
W.H. Chellis
June 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Liberty of conscience is inviolable but freedom of action is a different matter.
I am not sure that these difficulties are all that staggering. In fact, they were part of the organic framework of things are originally experienced during our colonial experience and the early republic.
New York’s colonial establishments were county based. New England established Congregationalism, ect. The U.S. Constitution prevented a Federal Establishement from preempting the state establishments. Federalism at its best.
Even when there was not legal establishment, defacto establishments existed all over the place up until recent years.
Horse before the cart may be accurate…but all that we are talking about awaits a rather large movement of the Holy Spirit. The question is… when it comes… what should it look like?