Were the Covenanters Right? Should Christians Participate in Politics?
This is an interesting article from Gary Scott Smith from Grove City College.
Should Christians Participate in Politics?
by Dr. Gary Scott Smith
(EP News)–The next presidential election is one year away. In 2004 evangelicals voted for George W. Bush by a ratio of nearly 4-to-1 and seemed poised to have a major impact on Bush’s second administration. However, except for Bush’s Supreme Court nominees and opposition to stem-cell research, evangelicals have gotten little of what they desired. Disillusioned by recent political developments, especially the war in Iraq and Bush’s meager domestic accomplishments, as well as the seeming lack of an electable conservative Christian presidential candidate, many evangelicals are now tempted to retreat from political engagement.
The standard excuses for Christians ignoring politics are that Christ’s kingdom is not of this earth, politics is dirty, morality cannot be legislated, the separation of church and state prevents Christians from bringing their religious commitments in politics, Christians take opposite positions on many political issues and thereby cancel each other out, and Christians should invest their time, energy and money in more important tasks such as evangelism, spiritual growth and safeguarding orthodoxy.
When Jesus said that His kingdom was not an earthly one, He meant that, in contrast to the expectations of many Jews of His day, He had not come to earth to establish and rule over a political kingdom. Jesus repeatedly declared, however, that He was building a spiritual kingdom on earth. He also instructed His followers to be light, salt and leaven—to have an enlightening, preserving, uplifting effect on their societies. Moreover, His teachings, coupled with those of various Old and New Testament writers, supply guidelines and norms for political and social life. They command His disciples to work to produce nations that insure fairness, justice and civility and promote compassion and peace.
While some have been corrupted or at least tarnished through their participation in politics, many others have maintained their character and political integrity. Politics is no more inherently dirty or corrupting than business or social relationships.
In reality, all laws are based on moral principles. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion laws were grounded upon a set of moral assumptions; Roe v. Wade and other subsequent decisions rest upon very different moral presuppositions. The failed Prohibition experiment of the 1920s and early 1930s is often cited to prove that we cannot force people to act in certain ways by passing laws. In the 1960s, however, our nation adopted civil rights laws that clashed with the racist attitudes many Americans held. Being compelled by law to treat African Americans justly appears to have helped diminish racial prejudice in the United States.
Almost all of our founders, whether they were Christians, deists or theistic rationalists, believed that religious values and traditional Christian morality were essential to the success of the republic they created. In the First Amendment they prohibited the establishment of a national church and insured freedom of worship. The much quoted phrase “the separation of church and state†is not in the Constitution but instead stems from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the third president did not mean by its use that individuals must leave their religious values at the door when they enter political life. Indeed, he did not do so himself. In a democracy, all citizens have the privilege of arguing for policies based on their personal philosophical and religious commitments.
Although promoting evangelism, spiritual formation and sound doctrine are essential parts of the Christian mission, weighty issues are at stake in the political arena. The character, leadership and policies of our presidents and members of Congress have a significant effect on our domestic life and our relations with other nations. While we can tackle many important issues—global and domestic poverty, hunger, homelessness, AIDS, environmental destruction, the sanctity of human life, the oppression of women including sexual slavery, genocide, racial and ethnic conflict—in part through private organizations and individual actions, our government has a large role to play in helping alleviate these problems. Refusing to participate in determining our nation’s priorities, shaping its policies, and directing its expenditures robs Christians of a great opportunity (and obligation) to advance Christ’s true kingdom on earth.
Political leaders will always disappoint us in some ways. Their character will not be as exemplary as we desire. They will not deliver on some (or many) of their promises. They will compromise on issues when we think they should stand strong. It’s been that way from George Washington to George W. Bush.
We need, therefore, to have modest expectations about what can be accomplished through government. We will never achieve heaven on earth. Nevertheless, let’s continue to participate in politics, by campaigning and voting for candidates whose positions we support and whose character we admire, by studying issues, and by supporting organizations whose political stances and lobbying activities we value. Through doing so we can help, as Christians have done for centuries, make our nation and our world more righteous, just and peaceable.
Gary Scott Smith chairs the History Department at Grove City College and is the author of “Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush.â€
Copyright to the preceding content is held by World Newspaper Publishing, except where noted. Copyrighted stories for which the copyright is held by others must be printed with copyright information. These stories may not be reprinted, broadcast, made available through electronic retrieval systems, or put to any commercial use except by paying subscribers of the EP News Service. EP News is delivered every Thursday – except Christmas week — via e-mail to subscribers. EP Extra, containing commentaries and features, is delivered every Tuesday. For information on becoming a licensed subscriber, write to: EP News Service, 201 South College Street, Suite 100, Charlotte, NC 28244. You can reach us by phone at (704) 661-9137 (USA), or by e-mail: warren.smith@thecharlotteworld.com.
CBrown
November 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Why aren’t Geneva College profs producing articles like this one?
Anthony Cowley
November 19th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Well, Bill - I’m not sure how the article relates to your title. Covenanters never believed that it was meaningless to participate in Politics, nor that it was impossible to attain a meaningfully Christian government. So, they participated on steriods - one way that they particpated was by warfare - in the Scots participation with the Westminster DIvines in their Civil war against King Charles; they participated in the American Civil War. And, those who could voted when in positions to do so in Scotland, as Lairds and Bugesses and such. But, when they transplanted to America, by that time, they had opened up a controversy with the Crown in Great Britian, and *would not* ‘homologate’ with the extant British governmental authorities. THey paid taxes, sometimes were willing to serve in the armies, but they would not “incorporate” with the Brits. When the War of Independence freed them from British Tyrrany the vast majority of American Covenanters felt free to have some part in the new States and COmmonwealths which emerged from the COlonies. But, there was a small minority that believed that it was still necessary to dissent until the various States established true Blue Covenanting States. But, none of the pastors felt this strongly, so they merged with the majority of the Associate Presbyterians in the new USA (1782) and formed the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. However, when the new US Constitution was formed, and it had no “religous” test for congress, did not recognize God in any explict way, nor the Lord Jesus Christ (except in dating the document), this shot some vigour into the dissenters, and the Reformed Presbytery re-emerged from the few Praying Society people who were - with a few elders - without pastors. Hence the Irish sent a few pastors over and the Reformed Presbytery was eventually reorganized.
THe New American Covenanter Church bore witness against the ‘godless’ nature of the “fundamental law” of the US COnstitution, and would not incorporate by any act with this new GOvernment. They differed on how harshly they felt towards the new Federal organization - but Samuel B. Wylie was critical not only of the US COnstitution, but even of the PA Commenwealth’s constitutional documents (see his “Two Sons of Oil”).
But, this is certainly NOT NOT participating in “government” - rather it was pariticipating by way of dissent.
The RPs continued this until the split of 1833, when the “new Lights” started voting. Interestingly, S.B. Wylie himself and his sons became New Light. M’Leod, a leading American Covenanter (who had been offered to be president of Princeton Seminary, IIRC), would have gone in to the new lights (as did his sons) but died prior to the split in 1833. It is alleged that he had been voting since after the War of 1812. SOmething to do with a change in the nature of the Slavery portion of the Constitution kicked in at this point.
The Old Light RPs continued to dissent. They covenanted in 1871in these terms:
3. Persuaded that God is the source of all legitimate power; that He has instituted civil government for His own glory and the good of man; that He has appointed His Son, the Mediator, to headship over the nations; and that
the Bible is the supreme law and rule in national as in all other things, we will maintain the responsibility of nations to God, the rightful dominion of Jesus Christ over the commonwealth, and the obligation of nations to legislate in conformity with the written Word. We take ourselves sacredly bound to regulate all our civil relations, attachments, professions and deportment, by our allegiance and loyalty to the Lord, our King, Lawgiver and Judge; and by this, our oath, we are pledged to promote the interests of public order and justice,to support cheerfully whatever is for the good of the commonwealth in which we dwell, and to pursue this object in all things not forbidden by the law of God, or inconsistent with public dissent from an unscriptural and immoral civil power.
We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recognition of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule, and of the true Christian religion; and we will continue to refuse to incorporate by any act, with the political body, until this blessed reformation has been secured.
END OF QUOTE from RP Covenant of 1871.
The members of the Old Light Covenanters (RPCNA) did not vote until about 1967, when the substance of the RP position on political dissent was modified to something like its present statement in the TESTIMONY, which runs in parallel columns to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Under Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate, the Covenanters add to the Westminster COnfession’s statements, the following:
1. We reject the belief that civil government
is unnecessary or essentially
evil.
2. God has given the exercise of all
authority to the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ
is the Divine Lawgiver, Governor and
Judge. His will concerning the purpose
of civil government and the principles
regarding its functions and operation
are revealed in the written Word of
God. The Holy Spirit enables even
unregenerate rulers to fulfill their
proper functions. A true recognition
of the authority and law of Christ in
national life can only be the fruit of
the Spirit’s regenerating power in the
lives of individuals.
Deut. 4:39; Dan. 4:25, 32, 35; Matt.
28:18; Phil. 2:10; Eph. 1:22; Isa. 33:
22; Deut. 17:18-19; Isa. 45:1-7; Ezek.
36:27.
3. God has assigned to people, both
individually and collectively, the
responsibility for establishing and
maintaining civil government, and
the people are accountable to Jesus
Christ for the proper exercise of this
responsibility.
Deut. 1:13-14; Deut. 17:15; 1 Sam. 8:
22; 2 Sam. 5:3; Hos. 8:1, 4; Eccl. 10:
16-17.
4. 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. It should enter into
covenant with Christ and serve to
advance His Kingdom on earth. The
negligence of civil government in any
of these particulars is sinful, makes the
nation liable to the wrath of God, and
threatens the continued existence of
the government and nation.
15. The Christian, when such action
involves no disloyalty to Christ, ought
to be involved in the selection of and
to vote for civil rulers who fear God,
love truth and justice, hate evil, and
are publicly committed to scriptural
principles of civil government.
Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:18; 2 Sam. 23:3;
Rom. 13:3.
16. It is sinful for a Christian to take
an oath which compromises his supreme
allegiance to Jesus Christ. It is
also sinful to vote for officials who
are required to take an oath which
a Christian himself could not take
in good conscience. Voting involves
the voter in responsibility for any act
required of the official as a condition
of holding his office.
Deut. 10:20; Isa. 45:22-23; 2 John 1:
11; 1 Tim. 5:22.
17. The Christian must profess publicly
and the Church must witness, that
Christ is the Ruler of every nation.
Whatever the official action of the
civil government of a nation may be,
the Christian in his civil actions must
always exhibit his loyalty to Christ. The
Christian must relinquish every right or
privilege of citizenship which involves
him in silence about, or denial of the
supreme authority of Jesus Christ.
Matt. 5:13-14; Prov. 3:5-6; Ps. 37:7; Matt.
22:21; John 17:14-15; Mark 13:9.
23. The failure of a civil government,
through negligence, ignorance, or
rebellion, to recognize the authority
of Jesus Christ does not cancel its just
authority. A civil government, though
guilty of many sins, still has authority
in so far as it furthers some of the
scriptural ends of civil government.
Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1; Rom. 2:14; Acts
23:5; Ex. 22:28.
24. Due submission of all persons,
cheerfully rendered, to civil officers
and to civil government in general, is
pleasing to God. No person, however,
is required by God to obey civil authority
when such authority demands
that the citizen or subject do that which
is clearly contrary to the law of God
as revealed in the Scriptures. In such
cases the duty of the Christian is to obey
God rather than men. The Christian
has a special obligation to render due
submission to civil authority in order
to express his loyalty to Jesus Christ,
to prove his concern for the welfare
of all men, and to bring honor to the
name of Christ.
1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13:5; Acts 5:29;
Titus 3:1.
25. The only submission which a
Christian may promise to any civil
government is due submission in the
Lord. Any promise of submission or
oath of allegiance beyond this is sinful.
If and when the civil government
of a nation requires, as a condition
of civil service or of holding office,
an oath which implies that civil allegiance
transcends the swearer’s convictions
of conscience and obedience
to God, it is the Christian’s duty to
refuse such an oath. It is within the
corporate power of the Church, acting
through its courts, to declare that facts
or circumstances which may exist in
a specific situation render the taking
of a civil oath sinful.
Gen. 25:33; Matt. 22:21; Eph. 6:12;
Matt. 4:10; Deut. 10:20.
26. It is the duty of the Christian to
ascertain whether any prescribed
oath of allegiance to the civil authority
involves acceptance of unchristian
principles stated or implied in its constitution
of government. If the oath of
allegiance to civil authority explicitly or
by clear implication requires support
of anti-Christian, atheistic, or secular
principles, then the Christian must
refuse on these grounds to take the
oath of allegiance.
Acts 5:29; Acts 4:18-20.
27. In the matter of taking oaths required
by civil authority, the Christian
should seek the guidance and support
of the Church.
28. It is the duty of the Christian
Church to testify to the authority of
Christ over the nations, against all
anti-Christian, atheistic, and secular
principles of civil government, and
against all sinful oaths of allegiance
to civil governments. When the Church
by orderly processes in her own courts
determines that the oath of allegiance
to a civil government compromises the
Christian’s loyalty to Christ or involves
the Christian in the support of sinful
principles of civil government, the
Church must require her members to
refuse such sinful oaths.
Acts 4:24-29; Eph. 5:11; Rev. 3:15-16;
Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:13-14.
29. When participating in political
elections, the Christian should support
and vote only for such men as
are publicly committed to scriptural
principles of civil government. Should
the Christian seek civil office by political
election, he must openly inform
those whose support he seeks of his
adherence to Christian principles of
civil government.
1 Chron. 16:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Chron.
19:6-7; Dan. 2:48; Eph. 4:25.
30. God alone is Lord of the conscience,
and the decisions of civil courts cannot
determine for the Christian what is morally
right and what is sinful. However,
since civil government is an institution
of God, it is within the legitimate province
of the civil courts of a nation to
determine what the nation’s laws and
required oaths of allegiance mean or
do not mean. A decision of a civil court
cannot legitimize sinful conduct, but it
can place before a Christian a factual
situation upon which a moral judgment
can be made. It cannot be proper for
the Christian to assume that an oath of
allegiance implies sinful requirements,
when the civil courts have explicitly
contradicted such implication. Every
oath must be understood in the sense
intended by the authority requiring
the oath. It is for the Christian and the
Church to decide whether this sense
involves sinful requirements.
Matt. 22:21b; Rom. 13:5; Eccl. 8:4; 1
Thess. 5:21.
31. We reject any inference that civil
government has jurisdiction over
conscience.
——————————–
As you can see, this is an elaborate perscription for how to PARTICIPATE in Civil Government. Detailed and difficult to apply, yes; but not a drop out position by any means!
Cowley out
Anthony Cowley
November 19th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
By the way, I think that the main substance of what is important about all these things is well put by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian version of the Westminster Confession, Chapter 23 “Of the Civil Magistrate,” paragraph III, to wit:
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"].
THis does not go into the detailed guidance of the RPCNA regarding for whom one may or may not vote, leaving that to the practical wisdom of the believer, which seems wise to me.
Cowley out II
A
November 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that the Covenanters would say that participation in politics is inherently wrong. Rather, the Covenanters said that taking an oath to support a constitution and government which opposed Christ by failing to recognize His authority compromised one’s allegiance to Jesus Christ. Participation in civil government that recognized Jesus Christ was not only allowable but very desirable. The Covenanter participated in politics by signing the covenants and by holding the king accountable when he broke those covenants.
I will argue that present day Covenanters can participate in politics without compromising their allegiance to Jesus Christ. Voting and holding political office are not necessary for political participation. Voting is actually one of the least influential ways to participate in politics. Writing letters to office holders is much more influential and gives every citizen a voice to honor Jesus Christ explicitly before the magistrate.
W.H. Chellis
November 20th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Uncle! The title was just an eye catcher.
stevez
November 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
The question, “Should we participate in politics?†seems very odd to me. When unpacked, it seems to suggest an underlying over-realization of the very nature of politics. Dropping out seems to be a function of a set of assumptions that I find odd in the first place, since most seem to justify their abstinence with seemingly noble reasons: evil continues, good gets buried. Well, who said it is the function of politics to reverse all that? I think the culprit lies in our very deep-seated American assumptions that make much more out of the body politic than was ever intended; this accounts for our predominant activist approach to politics.
Dropping out is just another expression of activist assumptions that over-load the function of politics and place stakes on it that over-realize its nature in the first place. Granted, it seems on the lesser-end-of-the-spectrum, but dropping out is certainly within the purview of what it means to be in a liberal democracy: you are free to not participate. It is just that I’d prefer the reason to be apathy rather than an adolescent over-realization in the first place that ends up taking its ball and going home simply because one lost his argument in the common sphere.
So while I agree with voices that are ostensibly critical of the “drop out†syndrome, I think I am for different reasons: I am because that is what one does as a member of this small quarter of the KoM called America. But voices like Smith’s seem to go on to try to rally the troops once again to reverse the (perceived) evil and good realities and repeat th eover-realization when he says, “Refusing to participate in determining our nation’s priorities, shaping its policies, and directing its expenditures robs Christians of a great opportunity (and obligation) to advance Christ’s true kingdom on earth… Through doing so we can help, as Christians have done for centuries, make our nation and our world more righteous, just and peaceable.†I am not sure how this squares with better, former statements like, “We need, therefore, to have modest expectations about what can be accomplished through government.†I think Smith shows just as much confusion as those he means to chastise. What he gives with one hand is roundly taken away with the other.
MarkPele
November 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
CBrown, I think that Geneva College has lost its “distinctively RP” flavor because the RPCNA has not been so interested in Geneva College, except to smack it when it exceeds its boundaries. I suppose it’s more incompetence, but the Board of Corporators spends all of its time and energy trying to decide matters of worship rather than the overall direction of the college.
So, within those bounds, Geneva has found its niche as one of the few institutions that even teaches that all areas of life (even science) are to submit to the Lordship of Christ, and the college has been pulled away from its distinctively Covenanter history by professors who are escaping the evanjellyfish institutions (for all the right reasons) but are not necessarily committed to the political views of the Covenanters.
This goes all the way back to the RPCNA synod, which, in my opinion has had too much of a hands-off approach to how Geneva is run. We can talk about this in private if you have any specific recommendations. The college president is expected to be the vision-bearer for the institution, and I think that’s a mistake. The Corporators should be directing the College rather than waiting for the college to step out of bounds so that they can rat them out to synod. As a graduate, I felt I got a good education, but not one that was really distinctively covenanter (even with the required core courses in Bible, Political Science and Humanities)
W.H. Chellis
November 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am
I am not so sure. The covenanters were 17th, 18th, 19th, and (for the most part) 20th Century liberals. In American they have been progressive in most all the great social causes.
Geneva College, an institution that is not even mentioned in ISI’s Finding the Right College and is never included in lists of top 10 Conservative colleges, remains a bastion of politically liberal and socially progressive evangelical thought.
Not so un-covenanter when you think about it.
MarkPele
November 21st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’m not sure about either. It’s quite possible that the political thought of the covenanters was progressive for their day, they would not be labeled as progressive today. It was also the covenanters who were behind the temperance movement, which I would argue was a conservative movement.
I wouldn’t say that Geneva is overwhelmingly politically conservative or liberal as an institution. I would say somewhat liberal in terms of the average RPCNA congregation, but that’s significantly conservative in terms of today’s political thought. I would say that more to the point, Geneva is not a politically outspoken institution, so even if it does have conservative leanings, those are not communicated to the outside. The word that gets out in the RP circles is the political views of certain professors, which are definitely liberal, but don’t represent the other professors who are not so outspoken. If you have anything specific, I’d appreciate e-mail - maybe there are things that can be done to help.
Anthony Cowley
November 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Bill - I accept your uncle. He’s a nice fellow.
But, I wonder if your use of liberal is accurate. Certainly the Covenanters were ‘progressives’ in the late 1800s and through to Prohibition. They were for the female vote and against slavery. But, the earlier covenanters were not so sold on all this progressivism. Some were critcial of the unitarian style progressivism, and none were - of course - unitarians.
And, “Liberal” has changed its meaning over the years.
At one point some of us NRA guys were contemplating a history book of reprinted essays which we wanted to title “Right from the Beginning,” but the factors you mention scuttled this. So, I’m not saying you are wrong - but the NRA and modern American RP Church until the 1940s or so, was pretty ‘liberal.’ But, there were RP voices that were not part of that mix. And, there were conservative elements as well in the stuff published by the NRA. It just seems that few of them questioned the legitimacy of the public schooling movement. And, so, while some (I think of Delbert Elliot, Paul Martin’s grandfather in Law) were conservatives in many ways, this was within certain set of assumptions which many of us today would question. Just a heads up as to the semantic range of meaning of “liberal” and even “Progressive.” Today Progressive is pretty much Marxist, eh?
selder
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
I am considering no longer voting because of my position as a high school history and government teacher. If I vote, I will be partisan and this has in the past compromised my academic neutrality. Any thoughts on this from anybody?
W.H. Chellis
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Academic neutrality? Do you teach your students that the American Revolution was an admirable event? Where is the academic neutrality? Did a Jewish Holocaust occur in Germany during WWII? Where is the academic neutrality?
I am not sure taking a position makes one a partisan. The neutrality of the academic should lead to truth and a defense of it, no?
Josh M.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Pastor Chellis and others, what books discuss the history of Covenanter politics? Any recommendations? Thanks.