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

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

Eastern University
St. Davids, PA

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.