Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
There are three basic ways to relate the authority of the Church to the authority of the civil magistrate. The first is the route taken by ultramontane jesuits, in which scheme the final authority is held by the church, with the pope at the head of it. The second is that of Erastianism, where it is taught that the state has final and supreme authority over the church. The third is that of Kuyperian sphere sovereignty, where the different spheres function according to the law of Christ, only answering to one another in those areas where Scripture teaches that their concerns overlap. There are of course variations within each party, with different people leaning this way or that, or reacting to the other thing.
But those are the options -- the state gives way to the church, the church gives way to the state, or the church and state figure out where their respective boundaries are.
In arguing for mere Christendom, it would be an easy mistake for some to assume that this necessitates a Protestant form of the first option -- some kind of ecclesiocracy. But in fact, I want to argue that the historic Reformed position is a variation of the third option -- a Kuyperian settlement of some sort. But in describing this above, I mentioned that both sides figured out where the boundaries are, which is trickier than it looks.
One other side comment. These different options can be supported in different ways. For example, a person could argue for the Church having authority over all others because that is the way he has the flow chart set up, or he could urge a system whereby the competitors have, in the Marxist sense, "withered away." The former would be seen with a strong medieval pope and surly princes, while the latter would be seen in an anabaptist eschatology, where the Church wins the demolition derby of history, and is the last vehicle running. For my purposes here, whether it is represented eschatologically or not, it mattereth not.
I want to make two points about all this, one historical and the other . . . not.
The first is that the historic Reformed position is the Kuyperian one, even before Kuyper, and that the radical two-kingdom approach (R2K) is radically unconfessional. Calvin and numerous other Reformers would have found the modern accommodations astonishing.
Let's hear what the gentlemen who wrote the Westminster Confession thought about it.
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 (WCF 23.3, emphasis mine).
They begin by denying the raw Erastian option -- where the civil magistrate is told that he may not administer the Word and sacraments, and he does not hold the power of church discipline. The president may not, in short, preach the gospel, administer the Lord's Supper, or intrude himself into matters of church discipline. That is what he may not do. What may he do? He can keep the peace in the Church, keep the truth from getting fragmented, suppress blasphemy and heresy, enforce the patterns of biblical worship, and see to it that the ordinances of God are kept. In order to enable him to do this, he can call synods of the Church, he can be present at them, and he can ensure that the churchmen stick closer to the text than they might want to. Anybody have the willies yet?
This section of Westminster was modified by the American Presbyterians in the downgrade of 1789. To wit:
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance (WCF 23.3).
Both forms of the Confession acknowledge that the magistrate has authority circa sacra, around sacred things, and both deny that he has authority in sacris, in sacred things. I want to argue that both are basically Kuyperian, although they are obviously leaning in different directions. We might struggle with the original Confession, where it says that the magistrate has the authority to determine that decisions by church synods are in conformity with the Word of God. How is that not taking away with an Erastian hand what was given to the Church earlier in the paragraph with a Kuyperian hand? But we should also have trouble with the American version, where it says that the magistrate cannot interfere with matters of faith "in the least." How is that not sowing the seeds of a latter departure of the civil magistrate from any duty to Christ whatever?
In fact, both forms of the Confession are assuming a continued Christian predominance in civil society, a predominance which did not in fact occur. The British Westminister wanted one denomination of Christians to be selected as the Church of England. The Americans wanted the government (at every level) to refuse to play favorites among Christian denominations, but the Americans wanted the magistrate to do this as Isaiah's nursing father, protecting the Church of "our common Lord." To the extent that Buddhists and Muslims entered their thinking (hardly at all), they would not have wanted any citizen to be persecuted for their faith, but they would at the same time have wanted the civil magistrate to be protective in a special way of the Christian Church, made up of different denominations of Christians.
It is common for people to think, when the original Reformed views of the civil magistrate are brought up, that the American revision fixed "all that." They certainly moderated it, but did so in the conviction that they were describing the magistrate's relationship to a Christian country. Once the pagans and unbelievers arrived en masse, we are back to the problems that Constantine faced.
That is the historical point. R2K thinking is out of conformity with the Reformed tradition, and out of conformity with the confessions. Further, soft anabaptist reformed thought (e.g. James K.A. Smith) is also giving away the store.
Here is the other thought, of a more devotional nature. Party spirit and factionalism can afflict spheres as well as Whigs and Tories, or Methodists and Baptists. This has happened numerous times in history. God has created three basic spheres -- family, the Church, and the civil order. These are all created directly by God, and not by man.
Now humility delights in the prerogatives given to another, and hubris insists that, in the final analysis, things are going to have to go the way of me and my faction. To want the Church to supplant the family and state is just as bad as wanting the state to supplant the Church and family. There are times when eschatology reveals, not the faith of Abraham, but the conceits of Diotrophes. We push our way to the front of the disciples, and ask if we can sit at the Lord's right hand when He comes into His kingdom. It is amazing that after two millennia we are still flunking that particular test.
Kuyperianism is the only option presented to us that guards against the hubris that is always wanting to float up to the surface of our hearts, in whatever sphere we happen to be. As a minister of the Church, I am to delight in the fact that in the kingdom there will be kings and princes way ahead of me. Not as easy as it looks.
No comments:
Post a Comment