RSSDoes Anyone Really Read the WCF?
In another string of comments, one correspondent (I’ll withhold the name to protect the guilty) writes that the kingdom of Christ is broader than the church. That may be good 20th-century Dutch Reformed biblical theology, but it makes hay of the actual words of the Westminster Divines.
25.2 reads: “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
Unless I missed something, the WCF teaches that the kingdom of Christ is not broader than the visible church. And yet, I find that most advocates of a faith-based politics justify their view by trying to broaden the kingdom of Christ beyond the church. Nice work if you can get it.
And while I’m at it, I’d like to bring to the wider blog readership’s attention a quotation from Calvin I used in another discussion thread that deserves some consideration from those who might consider A Secular Faith to be outside the Reformed tradition. It is from book 4, ch. 20 of the Institutes and is very un-Kuyperian:
“We have established that there are two governments to which mankind is subject, and we have already said enough about the first of these, which rules over the soul or the inner man, and concerns itself with eternal life. Our order of presentation now demands that we say something about the second, whose province is the establishment of merely civil or external justice, a justice in conduct. . . . In the first place, before we go any further in this matter, we must hold fast to the distinction we drew earlier. For if we do not, we will be led into a thoughtless confusion of the two things we distinguished, which are of quite different character. . . . But anyone who knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present transitory life and the eternal life to come, will not find it difficult to understand that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things far removed from one another. It is a Judaic folly to look for the kingdom of Christ among the things that make up this world, and to shut it up among them; our opinion, which is supported by the plainest teaching of Scripture, is that on the contrary, the fruit we reap from grace is spiritual fruit.”
Did I miss something or was Calvin arguing for the spirituality of the church?
ChristianTrader
April 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Dr. Hart,
How do you understand Ch. 23, if you wish to say that God’s Kingdom is only the church?
W.H. Chellis
April 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
You don’t make me blink! I am with you on the Confession… the Church is the Kingdom of God (Christ’s mediatorial rule over does not turn the nations into the eschatological already of the Kingdom of God. (They are part of the kingdom of His power but that is not the same things).
Calvin’s quotes does make him a defender of the spirituality of the Church. So was Melville, all the Covenanters (of the original Scottish variety), and the Southern Presbyterians (do a search on the blog for Thornwell to find his comment’s about the mediatorial kingship over the nations).
So, at least my side of the discussion finds much that is attractive in a clear seperation between church and state, a church that is silent about matters purely secular, a state that is silent about matters purely sacred.
So where do we disagree? I cannot give up the fact that Christ is Lord over both sacred and secular, holy and common, law and gospel. As Andrew Melville told King James VI of Scotland:
“Sirrah, ye are God’s silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is king James, the head of the commonwealth; and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, not a lord, not a head, but a member.”
What say ye friend Hart?
Anthony Cowley
April 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Being one of Dr. Hart’s guilty parties, I thought I’d rejoin with another little Calvin Quote:
“Hence it ought to be observed that something remarkable is here demanded from princes, besides an ordinary profession of faith; for the Lord has bestowed on them authority and power to defend the Church and to promote the glory of God. This is indeed the duty of all; but kings, in proportion as their power is greater, ought to devote themselves to it more earnestly, and to labor in it more diligently.” —John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah (1550).
And, what does the Confession mean 25.2 where it reads: “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law)….â€
So, I’ll buy that the Church is the kingdom, as long as you buy that the nations may join in in a way parallel to Israel “as a body politick” did. There was separation of Church and State in Israel. The body Politic of Israel participated in the Kingdom. So may nations today, as bodies political.
Isaiah 33:22. For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.
Isaiah 9:6. And the Government shall be upon his shoulders.
So, the Westminster Confession goes further and says:
23:4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.
20:4. 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.
23:3. 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 be according to the mind of God.
Sounds like he’s part of a Constantinian Christian order of external ‘bishops’, eh?
Further, Concerning Synods and Councils:
2. 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.
5. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude, nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth; unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
So, Dr. Hart, if GWB called for a Synod to advise the Congress respecting Medical Ethics, or Church/State relations (pretend he had the power to do so), would you go?
PS: Loved your book on Nevin.
BLessings,
Tony
D Hart
April 7th, 2007 at 8:52 am
The better question for Tony is whether he’d go to GA if Hilary called it. That’s the scenario envisioned in the original WCF. American Presbyterians — sorry, I know Covenanters live in America but they always had trouble with the U.S. political order — had the good sense to revise the Westminster Standards on the civil magistrate. They perceived the problem as early as the Adopting Act of 1729. Why would any self-respecting churchman want to give the state, whether run by Bloody Mary or Healthy Hillary, the power to convene and preside over church councils? And I thought Presbyterians were concerned about the independence of the church.
At the same time, I understood that I was giving red meat to the readers who really do read the Standards since the original version does undermine my position. Even so, I believe that Calvin and the Divines held an inconsistent view, on the one hand, giving lots of power and Christian duties to the magistrate, on the other hand recognizing the spiritual nature and independence of church power. I blame it on the Constantinian hangover. (Always easier to use the Eastern Church as the whipping boy.)
This response also applies to Bill’s quote from Melville. What do you do when the president or king is not a Covenanter? I agree I need to think through what would happen if an Orthodox Presbyterian ever became president (I can imagine snow falling in hades). But the situation in Scotland in the late 16th century, to which I aluded in another comment, seems a long way from 21st-century America or even 16th-century France. Finding a king who is a Presbyterian is nice work if you can get it. But in the meantime I’ll see what we OP’s can do to sing more psalms and administer the supper each week.
Also, let me be clear. I’ve never denied that Christ is lord over the secular. I don’t see why my book or comments would be read that way. Christ was as much lord over Saddam Hussein as he was over James 1. Where we seem to differ is in the evidence of lordship we will admit. For Bill and others, the evidence of Christ’s lordship is a Christian magistrate or a body of law that recognizes Christ as king. For me it is simply that God exists and providentially controls all things whether we can tell what he’s up to or not. What I’m having trouble understanding is why faith-based advocates can’t recognize that Christ is lord even of Hilary, Obama, or Edwards (John that is, not Jonathan).
Rusty O.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I would be grateful for a clarification on the visible/invisible church distinction. It seems to me that while American Presbyterians would describe the visible church as a collection of denominations within a nation, the divines writing under the Puritan Commonwealth would tend to draw the lines around the visible church in a way similar to national boundaries, today. In other words, the visible church was almost synonymous with England, given the “hangover” of constantinianism. This would obviously blur visible church/kingdom of God dichotomies. Defining the visible church in terms of English nationhood or English society would necessitate an invisible church within the English borders (as it did in every “nation” through the 17th century). Incidentally, this complicates the Am. Presbyterian tendency to impute the Westminsterian and constantinian view of visible church as something that occurs within a nation. We draw three boundaries- national, visible church, and invisible church- while the divines, at least practically, blur the first two boundaries and end up with just two at the end of the day. Their invisible church concept would look an awful lot like our visible church concept.
Thanks.
D Hart
April 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
If the WCF meant visible/invisible church in such parochial terms, then its claims about state and church power are even more circumscribed than most will admit. If it is simply a product of English politics, then we should all give it up.
On the other hand, I bet they had more in view than the English situation since the Divines were writing during the Civil War and had in view not just England but the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, not to mention those persnicketty colonists in New England. So my money is with three boundaries of visible, invisible church and state. This also allows me to remain a Presbyterian in good conscience.
W.H. Chellis
April 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Yes, Darryl, but Scotland also enjoyed a parrish system so that the visible church technically included all within the parish, right? Which should be fine as long as we remember that the the visible church includes both regenerate and unregenerate. You would heartily affirm that all that is necessary for inclusion in the covenant is a “credible profession of historical faith.”
Yet, I think that the Hooker version of the Church and State being two sides of one coin does not accurately describe the Scot Kirk model of the 2nd Book of Discipline.
A Mother Kirk man should find something to like about the parish system, especially as a means of evangelism, no?
BC
Anthony Cowley
April 7th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Darryl (may I?):
Thanks for the red meat. You are probably aware that the American RPs have modified the statements most offensive to any confusion of Church and State:
WCF 23:3. 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 be according to the mind of God.
RP TESTIMONY (1980)(set in a parallel column to the WCF)
23:18. We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon.
THEN THEY EXPLAIN:
RPT 23:19. Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God. Though distinct and independent of each other, they both owe supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. The governments of church and state differ in sphere of authority in that due submission to the government of the visible church is the obligation of members thereof, while due submission to civil government is the obligation of all men. The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The means of enforcement of the civil government are physical, while those of church government are not. Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other. They should cooperate to the honor and glory of God, while maintaining their separate jurisdictions.
Rom. 13:1; Matt. 22:21; Col. 1:18; Acts 15:10; Ezra 7:10, 25-26; 2 Chron. 26:18-19; Matt. 5:25; 1 Cor. 5:12-13.
23:20. Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the use of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction.
1 Tim. 2:1 4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13:4; Ezra 7:26; Neh. 13:17-21.
So, That should partially warm the cockles of your heart!
But, as an ARP, I’ll throw in my own present denomination’s version of Chapter 23, which seems to enshrine the same good modified Covenanting theology:
ARP-WCF23:III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;(e) yet, as the gospel revelation lays indispensable obligations upon all classes of people who are favored with it, magistrates as such, are bound to execute their respective offices in a subserviency thereunto, administering government on Christian principles, and ruling in the fear of God, according to the directions of his word; as those who shall give an account to the Lord Jesus, whom God hath appointed to be the judge of the world.(f) Hence, magistrates, as such, in a Christian country, are bound to promote the Christian religion, as the most valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil rights; and do not imply an interference with the policy of the church, which is the free and independent kingdom of the Redeemer; nor an assumption of dominion over conscience.(g)
———
e. II Chron. 26:18; with Matt. 18:17; and Matt. 16:19; Eph. 4:11-12; I Cor. 4:1-2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
f. Isa. 49:7, 23; Rev. 21:24; Col. 3:17; II Sam. 23:3; II Cor. 5:10; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 27-28; Rom. 13:3-4, 6.
g. Ps. 2:10-12; John 18:36-37; James 4:12; Rom. 14:4; [See also letters "e" and "f"].
So, the independence of the Church is assured as well as the Christinity of the State. Of course, the State may be Christian. The Church must be.
Tony
(Raised Swedenborgian - converted to Evangelical at 15, though confused for about five years - baptized by a Conservative Baptist at 18; Attended RCC for a while at 20, couldn’t go over to Rome so I Joined the RPCNA at 21, became an RPCNA pastor at 30 and an ARP pastor at 44.)
Anthony Cowley
April 7th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Oh…and, yes, I’d go if Hillary called for a Synod. I’d labor and pray that her day not come, but if she were elected, and called for a Synod (under the conditions given in WCF!), I’d go.
Thanks,
Tony
J. Schoe
April 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“American Presbyterians…had the good sense to revise the Westminster Standards on the civil magistrate”
Castrating the confession with the first amendment is not good sense.
Mr. Hart, it is your political theory that is “American” Christianity gone to seed - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Hmm…inalienable rights? What are those? Rather, which are those? Life, perhaps, but liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
“Even so, I believe that Calvin and the Divines held an inconsistent view, on the one hand, giving lots of power and Christian duties to the magistrate, on the other hand recognizing the spiritual nature and independence of church power.”
Theirs was the perfectly consistent view, not yours. The spiritual has ALWAYS had implications for the duties of man ON EARTH. Confessional Covenant Theology grounded the Covenant of Works in natural duty not visa versa. Yours is a full fledged drunkenness on Enlightenment autonomism.
D Hart
April 7th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
To J. Schoe: I’ve hid behind J. Gresham Machen’s skirt before, I’m coward enough to do so again. Do you really think that the greatest American Presbyterian of the twentieth-century (arguable) was drunk on Enlightenment autonomism? If so, then I am too. But please explain to me how this separation of church and state jazz and spirituality of the church tune led Machen to be able to distinguish the gospel, not just the Bible, but the GOSPEL, from the social gospel nonsense that built on such bromides as “the spiritual has ALWAYS had implications for the duties of man ON EARTH.” As I see it, every effort to Christianize the state, to make the magistrate realize his duties to protect the church, has resulted in an impoverished understanding of the sufficiency of Christ. Think Christendom and the works righteousness of Rome. Think the state churches of Europe and the liberal theology that came from them. Think the American Protestant establishment denominations and the Social Gospel that came from them.
The record on your side isn’t very good. The record on mine is — Jesus, Paul, and Machen. (okay, maybe a bit overdone.) But before making an adhominem half-cocked attempt to discredit my views you might want to look in the historical mirror.
Rusty O.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:59 am
“Finding a king who is a Presbyterian is nice work if you can get it. But in the meantime I’ll see what we OP’s can do to sing more psalms and administer the supper each week.”
If the American church did these two things faithfully we would soon find this debate irrelevant.
P.S.
The first amendment guarded against the establishment of a national religion, but had no restriction upon the establishment of state religions (9 of 13 had established religions at ratification).
P.P.S
Again, establishment of state churches blurs visible church/state borders leading to absurdities like the half-way covenant. In my opinion, we should hope and pray that the church impacts politics and law. But it won’t happen by trying to impact politics and law. When the magistrate comes begging for wisdom from a church marked by the paradox of strength and mercy we can lend this temporary order a hand, if we have time.