The Four-Fold Foundation of National Confessionali…

24 Responses to “The Four-Fold Foundation of National Confessionali…”

1. Deleted Blog

   July 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm

   Thanks for a fine introduction to this topic. Looking forward to what you have to say in future installments.

2. Joe

   July 6th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

   Hello Bill,

   I found your article interesting and think that it went well with Mr. Edgars comments also. I have a question. You ask a series of questions about the duty of a Christ-honoring civil authority, why is the answer maybe and not yes? What would be the cons? Also you propose consideration of “the proper relationship between these important institutions”. Where do the considerations begin?

   I am trying to figure out how to link to the site here.

3. Andrew Matthews

   July 6th, 2006 at 9:55 pm

   Thanks for your wonderful article, Dr. Chellis.

   For me, it’s hard to see how it is appropriate to distinguish between church and state in terms of a “common” kingdom and a “holy” kingdom. The only lawful kingdom I am aware of is the Messianic Kingdom of God which is characteristically redemptive and sanctifying. This appears to be the same error Drs. Hart and VanDrunen have fallen into, and is an invitation for secularism to devour all non-ecclesiastical spheres of life.

   The Church may be ecclesiastical and the state civil, but must one be sanctified and not the other? If the family is an institution common to elect and non-elect (and so is the Church btw), how does it follow that it is not holy? Are not the children and spouses of believers sanctified?

   My theory is that the New Covenant is a universal order, world-wide in scope. This is because the whole world has been purchased by the redemptive work of Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). Even the unclean creation has been purified (Acts 10:14-16). I realize these are controversial claims to make in Reformed circles, but I think we need to distinguish between the redemption of the world (an accomplished and progressive reality) and persons (not all individuals will be saved). Any Reformed thinker who fails to make this distinction has misunderstood the doctrines of grace, in my estimation, misusing predestination to put limits on what God is capable of doing.

   If the New Covenant is the present universal administration of God’s Kingdom, then it encompasses Church, nation, and family. In this order of things, all things are holy to the Lord (Zech. 14:20,21), the Church acting as the legitimizing institution. All particular institutions not blessed by the Church have not achieved the perfection of their purpose, which is to glorify God to the greatest degree possible.

   I wish that those Reformed who currently agitate for secularism in non-ecclesiastical matters would also agitate to liberate the family from church oversight. Since the family is a common institution, how is it that ministers of the Gospel can rightfully solemnize the marriage covenant? I am unaware of any New Testament license for this practice. Is this not a hold-over from medieval sacerdotalism? Why should the Church be any more involved in family than, say, business matters?

   Contrary to such a slippery slope (we have fallen so far), it must be asserted that the New Covenant is a meta-covenant that includes all lesser covenants (like marriage covenants & national covenants) within its scope. Because of Christ’s work, all things are holy and it is the work of the Church of God to work to progressively sanctify the world. As God, in Christ, reconciled the world to himself and entrusted the ministry of reconciliation to the Church (2 Cor. 5:18-21), so it is no contradiction to say that something may be holy and also increasing in holiness. The secularist predestinarians say that nations are already under the dominion of Christ and so somehow kings are not responsible to “kiss the Son.” But to argue this way, that there needn’t be further dedication of governmental authority to Christ, is to disallow any degrees of sanctification/legitimacy whatsoever.

   A genuine already/not yet eschatology will recognize the total redemption that has taken place. Christ’s redemption does not stop at some arbitrary line we’ve drawn between sacred and secular. There is nothing in principle that does not already belong to Christ and nothing now that may not be claimed as his. It is the Church’s privilege and ordeal to bring the Kingdom to fruition, reconciling the world to God.

4. Joe

   July 7th, 2006 at 7:26 am

   Well said. I am a member of the Constitution Party of New York which gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence. The goal of the Constitution Party of New York is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

5. D Hart

   July 9th, 2006 at 9:31 am

   Truth or dare. I appreciate Bill’s effort to make sense of the contemporary relevance of the National Covenant. I’m still not persuaded, though willing to listen. Maybe I can help the Covenanters by asking some questions that might sharpen the case.

   1) Bill writes: “Every nation ought to recognize the Divine institution of civil government, the sovereignty of God exercised by Jesus Christ, and its duty to rule the civil affairs of men in accordance with the will of God.” He goes on to talk about possible problems, the separation of church and state, and potential forms of religious establishment. But he has dodged the biggest problem — unbelief, idolatry and blasphemy. If the state has an obligation to rule in accordance with the will of God, then it has a duty to enforce the first table of the law. Do the Covenanters really want to give the state that kind of power? Think back to the persecution of the Covenanters by Cromwell and the monarchy. Even Christian states make mistakes. I don’t think the state is capable of interpreting God’s revealed will. The church is. So maybe the religious freedom provided by liberal democracy isn’t so bad after all.

   2) Bill has a very high view of constitutionalism, and I share this with him. He writes that the way to make explicit a state’s acknowledgement of Christ is through such constitutions: “Such public confessions are most appropriately asserted through organic constitutional and legal declarations.” But I wonder, who says? As I’ve already suggested somewhere else in this blog, a constitution, its drafting and ratification, is a far different process from the head of a family or a tribe being baptized and then saying, “as for me and my house we will serve the lord.” Maybe the mediatorial kingship of Christ works best then with a monarchy, not with a republic. Yes, there are constitutional monarchies. But I think some attention needs to be paid to the difference between asserting Christ’s kingship in a law, and doing so with one’s tongue and on bent knees.

   3) The last question concerns the word “nation.” I don’t think the modern nation-state is what Matthew had in mind in the Great Commission. If so, he might have used the word empire. So I think it is not the fairest form of hermeneutical justice to elide so effortlessly from the word “nation” in either the Old or New Testaments to the modern construction of nation in either Scotland or the U.S.

   While I’m at it, let me respond briefly to Mr. Matthews’ concerns. He appeals to the institution of marriage in order to argue that even common institutions (i.e. civil ones) can and should be sanctified. He also appeals to the practice of ministers performing marriage ceremonies as an indication that marriage is a common institution that should be and is sanctified by the oversight of the church.

   Here’s the rub, when ministers introduce the happy couple to friends and family, they do so saying, “by the power invested in me by the state of (insert your state government here).” In their civil capacities they are acting as agents of the state, not of the church. And they do so with the weight of the Reformation behind them, since Protestantism removed sacramental holiness from the institution of marriage when it limited the sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. So marriage is actually an example that seems to work more for folks like me who argue NOT for secularism but for secular government. It is a common institution in which believers and non-believers participate. And its legitimacy, even when practiced by non-believers, would seem to overturn Mr. Matthews’ conviction that the only legitimate kingdom is a Messianic one. The reason is that Christians recognize all the time the legitimacy of non-Christian marriages; we don’t try to separate the couple because they are not Christians. So in this little kingdom of the family, we have precedent for not making the head of the home recognize Christ for the union to be legitimate. If we can do that for families (something closer to what the apostle Matthew seems to have had in mind in the Great Commission than the modern nation-state), why not for states?

   By the way, I still think Christ is king over non-Christian families. His kingship does not depend on his creatures’ recognizing it. It is real and will one day be evident. It seems to me, as Caleb has already suggested in several posts, that the desire for Christ’s kingship being evident now is a form of premature immanentizing of the eschaton.

6. Andrew Matthews

   July 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pm

   Thanks for the engaging response, Dr. Hart. With your permission I’d like to republish your entire response over on my blog. This is not to move the discussion somewhere else, but to deal with some of the points you raise in a way that might not be the focus of the discussion here at DRC,. Thanks in advance.

7. W.H. Chellis

   July 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

   Ok… great questions. In my own mind, these are the things to be answered. Hope I dont have to answer them alone.

   I am afraid they are way to much to take on this Lord’s Day afternoon so I will have to say I will go with the dare (now remember I am an RP so nothing that will get me defrocked ok?).

8. David Reese

   July 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pm

   Dr. Hart,

   I think that you ask some good questions as well…

   Let me ask you on the issue of the parallel between civil government and marraige…could we not say, that a civil government is legitimate since it derives its authority from God (WCF 23.1), but would be better if it acknowleged Christ and His Kingship over the nation? Historically, did not the Reformed understand this as a super-added obligation? Just because the head of a marraige does not acknowledge Christ, this does not make the marraige illegitimate, but that marraige is not going to be as good as it can potentially be and its children will not be “holy”. Desiring Christ’s rule and reign to have some tangible manifestation over my marraige is not a form of premature immanentizing of the eschaton is it? Why should my desiring His rule and reign to have tangible manifestation over my nation be any different in that regard?

   I do appreciate your help here on the blog…I am being forced to think more carefully because of it (not that the above reflects that!). a

9. Chris Rhoades

   July 13th, 2006 at 11:50 am

   D. Hart commented:
   “But he has dodged the biggest problem — unbelief, idolatry and blasphemy. If the state has an obligation to rule in accordance with the will of God, then it has a duty to enforce the first table of the law.”

   For a discussion on the magistrates role in enforcing the first table of the decalogue check out this link. I’ve compiled from various sources- around 23 pages of quotes from:

   Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Beza, Martyr, Knox, Wollebius, A’Brakel, Voetius, Turretin, Bucanus, Zanchius, Gerhard, Ussher, Durham, Perkins, Cartwright, Dickson, Rutherford, Gillespie, Nye, Palmer, Burroughs, Thornwell, et.al. as well as the WCF (original), 2nd Helvetic, Belgic, Scots Confession, French Confession etc.

   http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16910

   I realize this is merely nose-counting but I would venture to say that the historic reformed position is that the magistrate is God’s minister and should uphold the 1st table. Now how that looks and is carried out is another discussion altogether…

   Great site btw. Eager to see the conversations develop.

10. D Hart

    July 14th, 2006 at 11:01 am

    David Reese is probably right, that it is better for a marriage if Christ is acknowledged as head than if not. Certainly, it is appropriate for heads of homes and families to acknowledge Christ. The question is whether it is appropriate for the magistrate or constitution of a nation-state, or even a local community. I know from my own experience that work environments are much less complicated when professional standards apply rather than assumed religious convictions.

    But while I’m at it, let me explain why I say that a marriage will probably be better with Christ as head. It is likely better to say a marriage will ultimately be better, though proximately it may be worse with Christ as head. After all, the NT is clear in calling Christians to a life of hardship, suffering, antagonism, and difficulty. And this is an important point in these discussions because I sense that many who want a Christian or religion friendly politics, or even a constitutional amendment, are convinced that such getting religion will improve society and the nation. It suggests that things go better with God. But this view has no room for a theology of the cross, whether learned from Luther or Calvin. And this was Dick Gaffin’s great point against theonomy in the WTS volume on the subject — those who want to establish Christ’s rule don’t know what to do with suffering and the meaning and value that God attaches to it. It’s a broken record by now, but once a Covenanter can explain to me how Christ was victor at the very moment of his apparent defeat — on the cross — then maybe I’ll have a better appreciation for affirmations of the mediatorial kingship of Christ.

11. MarkPele

    July 14th, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    D Hart, I think that there are two issues that you are merging into one. The first is the acknowledgement of Christ and His mediatorial reign, and the second is the assumption that a religious entity is self-governing.

    I think that David Reese (hi!) has done a good job of covering the first point. Now to the second. I sensed hints of this in my discussion and understanding of the recent RPCNA synod decision on session meetings.

    Here, the implicit assumption is that the local session, being elders called by God and duly ordained, under the oversight of the church courts, will act in the best interests of all involved, whether the meetings are open or closed.

    The problem here is trust. Ronald Reagan stated it well when he said, “Trust, but verify.”

    On this side of heaven, any institution will be inherently sinful and in need of mechanisms to restrain and deal with that sin. That’s why we need government, but even a Christian government, governing citizens who are all members of the visible church still needs laws, checks and balances. The power of the state needs to be restrained so that it does not encroach on the spheres of the family and church.

    To your point, I wholeheartedly agree. A company is foolish that bases its code of conduct on unwritten “Christian” principles. Israel was to be an example to the nations because of its legal structure.

12. Tom

    July 15th, 2006 at 1:34 am

    While nose counting can be helpful, what about the exegetical argument for the magistrates enforcing of the first table of the law?

    What would be the NT scriptural argument? What examples are there in the NT of covenanting nations? Any examples of Magistrates enforcing the first table of the law?

    Also, I think it is important to remember that Isaiah 49:23 is an indicative passage. God is telling what will happen. That does not necessarily constitute a mandate for the church to see that it happens, nor does it constitute a mandate for the state to intervene in first table issues. The Lord often uses nations, providentially, to accomplish various purposes of his, for the benefit of the Church. Those providential uses do not constitute mandates for states to take such actions, or to fulfill such functions, as a matter of duty.

13. D Hart

    July 15th, 2006 at 9:22 am

    Thanks Chris Rhoades for that compilation of Reformed worthies who would probably have me hanged. I am aware that a two-kingdom or separationist position is relatively novel. One read through Cochrane’s anthology of 16th century creeds let me know that.

    Still, my view is not mine but that of American Presbyterianism, and also why I can say it is relatively novel. In 1787 the American church (not including the Covenanter or Seceders) revised the WCF on the civil magistrate, a revision hanging in the balance ever since the Adopting Act of 1729 when ministers took issue with the Westminster Divines understanding of the civil magistrate (would you really want George Bush to have the power to call Synod? How does Hilary Clinton strike you?). So I do have some confessional warrant.

    Let me add that the older Reformed view of the magistrate was, I believe, the legacy of Constantinianism. Without the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the state/empire, I’m not sure we’d be having this debate.

14. Brent

    July 17th, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    Here’s a plug from a web site advertising DG’s latest book:

    Darryl Hart, the highly regarded historian of religion, contends that appeals to Christianity for social and political well-being fundamentally misconstrue the meaning of the Christian religion. His book weaves together historical narratives of American Protestantism’s influence on the nation’s politics, and commentary on recent writing about religion and public life, with expositions of Christian teaching. The tapestry that emerges is a compelling faith-based argument for keeping Christianity out of politics.

    Ooohhhh…

    And here’s the site; it’s just a tiny url:

    http://tinyurl.com/p4qrj

15. Ryan S.

    July 19th, 2006 at 2:55 am

    I wonder if this Mr. D Hart is the same guy who wrote The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, which I am presently reading right now.

    

16. Andrew Matthews

    July 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Because Dr. Hart’s arguments reflect standard objections against establishment of Christianity to be found in Reformed circles today, he deserves a worthy response. I hope the comments below are helpful.

    I have made the point that the “sphere” of the family is overseen by both church and state. As an example, I cited the solemnization of marriage performed by Church ministers. I also meant by this the on-going oversight that the church provides such as marriage counseling, arbitration and discipline. Until the sphere sovereignty people grapple with this messy reality, I think their views are more suitable for classroom theorizing than the real world.

    The partitioning off of authority to various spheres can get pretty complex, especially on the Dooyeweerdian scheme. Ought decisions having widespread ramification be solely determined by the sphere authority of the “most characteristic modality”? According to Dooyeweerd, there are fifteen different modalities! Who is going to practically arbitrate all this? Dr. Chellis’ theses 56 & 57 say there are matters entirely secular and entirely holy. However, people are not permitted to assemble anywhere they please. Churches require property for buildings. Cities and surrounding neighborhoods have a say as to what kind of activities may take place in their vicinities. Churches need tax identification numbers to account for revenues. All kinds of laws apply, limiting churches’ activities in real ways.

    Whether one favors the complicated Dooyeweerdian system or Kuyper’s three spheres or Kline’s cult/culture distinction, their logical compartmentalization of human life slams against the brick wall of our interconnected social reality.

    Dr. Hart points to present practice to argue that ministers act as “agents of the state” in their “civil capacities” when officiating at marriage ceremonies. So, ministers of the Gospel have civil capacities? Or, more likely, are the ministers acting as private citizens? When doing so, are they wearing their robes of office and conducting ceremonies in sacred houses of worship? Oh, I forgot… there are no sacred places since the Reformation. Perhaps couples may opt to have marriage ceremonies that only appear to be religiously sanctioned.

    Some states require religious ceremonies to be separate from civil. In the State of California, the ceremonies are combined. Marriage may not be sacraments per se, but do we want to cede all oversight of marriage to the civil realm? I agree that states have a legal interest in ensuring that marriages are lawfully entered into, but the Church has an interest as well. It’s hard for me to accept Dr. Hart’s qualification that he promotes secular government and not secularism, when he yields all authority over marriage to the state, a purely secular realm in his view.

    Dr. Hart made the remark that he has found from his own experience that work environments are more congenial when they are governed by “professional standards” rather than “assumed religious convictions.” However, it should be recognized that modern day professional standards mask utilitarian and scientistic ethical approaches to life. We should also recognize that these standards arose in a particular historical and cultural environment (inherited Christian morality, the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution). Professional standards are evolving at a rapid pace under the strong influences of our therapeutic culture and multiculturalism, and already hardly resemble their original shape. Unless counteracting measures are taken now, with ethics and institutions that are vigorously informed by biblical morality, the future condition of a thoroughly secular, technologically advanced society will be nightmarish beyond comprehension. (Just a little hyperbole here!) Prudence dictates that the Church ought to take some collective measure in the interest of preserving even what we enjoy today.

    To set the matter straight, I do not contend that the only legitimate kingdom is the Messianic Kingdom of Christ. Even nations that do not formally recognize the rule of Jesus are “legitimate.” The Roman Church, which views marriage between baptized persons as a sacrament, views other marriages as legitimate in some sense. My brief response is that particular social institutions may be legitimate but irregular. And there are and have been illegitimate states, quite apart from the fact that God is sovereign.

    God’s sovereignty does not justify or endorse all particular states that have ever existed. To argue this way appears to smack not a little of hypercalvinism, a sort of fatalistic reliance on God’s sovereignty to justify inaction.

    Concluding, Dr. Hart claims that a desire to see the rule of Christ more evident is prematurely immanentizing the eschaton, and incompatible with a theology of the cross. I am undisturbed by these objections. The Messianic Kingdom has been fully consummated, but is only veiled to our sight. The resurrection of Christ was a victory in which he was publicly vindicated, accompanied by legally compelling miraculous testimony here on earth. The ministry of the Church is to carry on Christ’s reconciliatory work. The generation that saw the conversion of Constantine had just passed through years of persecution and did not shirk their public responsibility when a Christian order was established (presumably under God’s sovereign control). The Church continues to suffer in all parts of the world, except, notably, where Christians have reached a comfortable accommodation with post-Christendom secularity.

    Jesus himself confronted the powers, and Paul was sent to kings (Acts 9:15). The church that retreats to a sacred realm of the spirit is not the Church of the Bible or of history, not to mention that such is entirely impracticable for life in an embodied world.

17. D Hart

    July 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 am

    First, thanks Brent for leaking news of my forthcoming book. Now the RPs will never have me speak again.

    Second, a few comments in response to Andrew Matthews:

    1) I am not sure the state or the church is over the family (which is a somewhat different entity from marriage, though obviously linked). In classical sphere sovereignty, each sphere has its own legitimate authority. If the church were over the family, could it instruct parents when to send their children to bed? Clearly parents have some discretion that the church doesn’t in the home.

    2) When ministers marry men and women, they do so as agents of the state (”by the power vested in me . . .”). It may be an unwise entanglement and it would be interesting to see what the ACLU would do with it. The WCF says that marriage is fitting for all people and that Christians should marry Christians. As such, some power has to have jurisdiction over the non-Christians.

    3) If the church’s power is not merely spiritual then why did Christ tell Peter to put his sword away and why did Christ say his kingdom was not of this world. Sure, Christ and the apostles preached to the authorities of their day as do ministers today. But that didn’t give the church power over temporal or physical affairs of state. The OPC’s BCO says that “All church power is only ministerial and declarative . . .” and that “All church power is wholly moral and spiritual . . .” Granted, some Covenanters regard the OPC as a little loose in the loafers, but these affirmation of church power are consistent with older Presbyterian forms of government. Not to affirm these ideas is to risk forfeiting the task that only church can perform.

    4) Yes, modern codes of professional conduct in the workplace are products of the Enlightenment and scientific revolution. But so is a Krups coffee maker. Modernity has done somethings well. Let’s give the secularists their due.

18. W.H. Chellis

    July 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    Darryl,

    The man who wrote Recovering Mother Kirk, With Reverence and Awe, and John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist will always be welcome at my Church no matter what kind of crazy books you write about politics!

    But here is a serious question that I think might be illuminating. Could an OPC family allow a Free Methodist family to visit their home, spend a weekend, and on Sunday allow them to worship in the local Free Methodist congegation? Does the OP head of household violate the First Commandment by tolerating such a thing? What if their friends were Roman Catholics? Jews?

    The question does not settle the issue but it is an interesting analogy.

19. Andrew Matthews

    July 24th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Thanks for the interaction, Dr. Hart.

    1) I agree with sphere sovereigntists that the family has its own legitimate authority, but the reality of our situation is that both state and church have jurisdiction over the family.

    Sure, parents have their proper rights and responsibilities, but when they fail in these, they are held accountable by both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The state wants to ensure that marriages are legally valid, children are provided for and educated. The church wants to ensure that marriages occur between baptized persons, wives and children are cared for, and children are baptized and catechized. You will notice the overlap here.

    2) As for marriage solemnizations, I concede that ministers act on behalf of the state, but they do not do so alone. They also act on behalf of the Church. In my view, non-Christians should be married in whatever religion they belong to, and the state should legally recognize such by according them civil unions. Marriage is inherently a religious ceremony because it involves sacred vows. Marriages officiated by non-religious institutions are corrupt, and at best irregular.

    3) The Church’s power is legally binding in heaven and on earth. Its warfare is inherently spiritual (that is, converting hearts, engaging against the demonic powers) and its weapons are essentially spiritual and persuasive (faith, self-sacrificial love, sacraments, preaching the word) rather than carnal and compulsory. However, there are plenty of cases where the Church must appeal to the civil power for protection. The church as a social institution has legal rights that are recognized by the state.

    And though I don’t hold the “two swords” theory of Pope Gelasius, our Lord commanded his disciples to be armed to some purpose. This is surely another symbolic action by our Lord that is pregnant with significance for Christian practice in the present age.

    Christ told Peter to put his sword away because the victory he was about to accomplish was more fundamental than any that could be achieved by mere force of arms. Christian warfare is essentially spiritual but is manifest in the physical realm in various ways due to the variety of challenges we face. Sometimes circumstances call for the use of force, especially when the well-being of a whole community is at stake.

    Christ’s kingdom is not of this world precisely because his kingdom is above and over it. Jesus ascended to a higher kingship certainly, but his kingship is contiguous with earthly kingship. After all, he is King of kings.

    I know of Billy Graham and various popes preaching to authorities. However, isn’t it true you think that they should do so only to convert the office holders to a personal, privatized faith? The Apostle Paul went boldly before thrones to proclaim the lordship of Jesus Christ. Your understanding of spiritual religion seems unable to account for this.

    4) Surely, the technical sophistication of our culture is marvelous, Dr. Hart, but do you not admit that professional standards today have no regard for righteousness, but are oriented solely for the material enrichment of the stockholder? Since when has the collective good only been fulfilled by material security and prosperity?

20. D Hart

    July 30th, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Bill asked whether I would allow a visiting Methodist family to worship in their church rather than at my local OP congregation during their stay? Of course, I would. I don’t see worshiping in the Free Methodist Church as violating the command to have no other gods. This is not the best example of the situation we face today since America and other societies are comprised of worse forms of belief or non-belief than Free Methodism.

    But to get to Bill’s question, would I allow non-Christians visiting my home not to worship on the Lord’s Day but remain in my home while I go with my wife to worship? My answer would be yes. If Bill’s answer is no, I appeal to 1 Cor. 8 to settle the difference. This is a matter of Christian liberty, that is, a sitution in which the Bible does not give a sufficient warrant to make all Christians act the same way. (BTW, Christian liberty has yet to rear its head in these discussions.)

    As far as Andrew Mathews’ comment that in some cases the church must appeal to physical force, I think we will simply have to disagree. I know of no Reformed church that has ever permitted the church to use the sword. Maybe they all were wrong. Of course, they sometimes relied on the civil magistrate to wield the sword on Christ’s behalf (which is what the mediatorial Kingship of Christ is trying to accomplish). But as far as the church using force herself, the closest we get are those police the Vatican still has (the pope also used to have an army to protect the papal lands).

21. W.H. Chellis

    July 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Darryl,

    As for a family interacting with guests, I am in agreement. Kind of. It is not as if the Bible has nothing to say… the 4th Commandment is addressed to heads of households and includes the stranger within your gates. This surely says something about the question at hand.

    Now, Since the family is the basic building block of civil government, and the level of government must responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of those under its authority, it would seem we have some analogical precident for the the problem you originally posed.

    Yet, I agree that the heads of a house might tolerate various confessions and even non-Christians to enjoy the blessings of his home. Thus, I do not think it is necessary for a Christian state to punish all those violating the first table of the law within their jurisdiction. This does not mean that the civil government cannot be properly called Christian or that they are failing to uphold both tables of the law.

    Would we say that a family was not Christian under similiar circumstances? Would we say that the first table of the law did not apply to the father as head of the family? No, rather we would simply say that the law demands different duties from the civil magistrate than it does a Kirk Session.

22. Thomas Muldoon

    August 6th, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    I quickly perused your blog. I
    would agree with the perspective
    of Dr. Gaffin, or whomever, that
    the theonomic position minimizes
    the effects of suffering in God’s
    plan to the point that the theono-
    mist might say “We’re like Osama
    bin Laden; only we’re Christians!

    Having been a member of the U. S.
    Army for years, and being a sinner
    and a product of Quaker education,
    it is hard for me to separate my
    affection for the U. S. A. as is
    from that which God calls us all
    to be. If you want me to share
    my Army experiences in detail, I
    can do so.

23. Kathryn Lee

    September 3rd, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Your blog readers might be interested in the article, “God’s Country?” by Walter Russell Mead in the Sept/Oct 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs. It’s not often that one finds a scholary article on foreign policy that mentions the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Scottish Covenanters.

    Dr. Kathryn A. Lee, Ph.D., J.D.
    Chair, Dept. of Political Science

    Eastern University
    St. Davids, PA

24. Kathryn Lee

    September 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Here is the link to the aforementioned article in Foreign Affairs.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faessay85504/walter-russell-mead/god-s-country.html