5 | ISSUE 1 FALL 2024
FROM THE PRESIDENT
The privilege we enjoy, particularly in the United States, to attend church and to worship freely without fear of persecution is a gift of liberty that we often take too much for granted. For simply worshiping Christ, many of our global brothers and sisters face immense persecution and even
Westminster Magazine appears amid America’s election season. Its focus is not only on the privilege the church has to worship without fear of persecution but also on the honor believers in Christ have as public witnesses, serving as salt and light on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Our theology, which we hold in our hearts and share with family and the church, is a vital aspect of our impact on our communities and even our nation. Whether we label it Christian witness, public theology, or cultural impact, it is our duty and wonderful calling to proclaim and advance the kingdom of Christ through each of our God-given gifts.
Thank you for helping Westminster let its light shine before men by supporting our efforts to proclaim the truth of the gospel. Westminster’s motto is “the whole counsel of God,” which is at the heart of our understanding of a biblical worldview. Your prayerful support and encouragement, as well as your studying with us and sending students to us, are working together to help Westminster be a beacon of truth for the kingdom of Christ. Your prayerful investments in our work enable us to train the next generation of leaders for Christ’s global church.
May our lights shine into a world of darkness so that all the peoples of the earth may see the hope of Christ to the glory of God our Father. Thank you for reading our magazine!
In His service,
Peter A. Lillback, President
Volume 5 | Issue 1 | Fall 2024
Editor–in–Chief
Peter A. Lillback
Executive Editor
Jerry Timmis
Managing Editor
Nathan Nocchi
Senior Writer
Pierce Taylor Hibbs
Associate Editor
Anna Sylvestre
Archival Editor
B.McLean Smith
Design
Ethan Greb
Interior
Angela Messinger
Read, watch, and listen at wm.wts.edu.
WestminsterMagazineaccepts pitches and submissions of previously unpublished work. For more information, email wtsmag@wts.edu.
WestminsterMagazineis published twice annually by Westminster Theological Seminary, 2960 Church Road, Glenside, Pennsylvania 19038. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations.
Printed and bound in the United States of America
Cover art: John Lewis Krimmel (1787–1821), Election Day in Philadelphia 1815
Photograph by Abram Hammer
ARE WE
A Christian Nation?
“Is or ever was the United States a Christian nation?”
Well, what do you mean? Do you mean by “nation” a national government explicitly endorsed or established by Christianity? Or do you mean by “nation” a people overwhelmingly adhering to Christianity?
In 1776, the latter was obviously true, but more people are probably interested in the former. Secularists will
appeal to John Adams’s execution of the Treaty of Tripoli, which states, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” This, they say, is proof that the United States is not now, nor ever was, a Christian nation.
More to come on the Treaty of Tripoli. But first, is that even an appropriate way to ask the question? The United States as a “nation” can imply many things,
Antonio Gisbert (1834–1901), Desembarco de los puritanos en América
Andrew Schwartz
including our government under the federal Constitution, which itself makes no explicit endorsement or establishment of Christianity. But the United States, as a nation, is first and foremost composed of united sovereign states, most of whom had established systems of sovereign government in a constitution prior to the ratification of the federal Constitution.
In discerning a more meaningful answer to the question of original Christian government, we should not ask, “WAS the United States a Christian nation?” We should instead ask, “WERE the united States Christian states?” Understood and asked this way, the question leaves no doubt. Let’s look at the state constitutions of the original thirteen.
Delaware—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Delaware is explicitly Christian, requiring an oath or affirmation of faith in the Trinity and acknowledging the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture—both the Old and New Testaments. Article 22 reads, “I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
Pennsylvania—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Similar to Delaware, Pennsylvania requires an oath unto God (although leaving out the trinitarian formula) and the acknowledgement of the divine nature of Holy Scripture. Pennsylvania uniquely affirms God as the consummate governor, reminding lawmakers of their due submission unto him and his word. Section 10 reads, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”
New Jersey—1776—On qualifications for legislative office: New Jersey goes a step beyond Pennsylvania, requiring not simply a profession of faith in God as part of the universal church, but more specifically a belief in any Protestant sect, in order to meet the requirements for public office, as well as to be protected in their civil rights. Article 19 reads,
[T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but
that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.
Georgia—1777—On qualifications for legislative office: Georgia, too, explicitly required Christian Protestantism as a staple for public office. Article 6 states, “The representatives… shall be of the Protestent religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.”
Connecticut—1818—On preference of worship and civil rights: Connecticut guarantees religious liberty for “any christian sect,” and guarantees equal rights, powers, and privileges for “each and every society or denomination of christians.” But it does not guarantee religious liberty, nor even equal rights and treatment, to non-Christians in the state. Article 1.4 reads, “No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship.” And Article 7.1 says, “each and every society or denomination of christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges.”
Massachusetts—1780—On religious rights: Like Connecticut, Massachusetts establishes equal protection of the law only for denominations of Christians. Likewise, those who did not profess Christianity were disqualified from public office. Part 1, Article 3 states, “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 2 declares, “no person shall be eligible to this office [of governor]…unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” Lastly, Part 2, Chapter 6, Article 1 proclaims, “Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative…shall…make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: ‘I, A.B., do declare that I believe in the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth…”
Maryland—1776—On religious liberty: Though historically Roman Catholic in culture, the state of Maryland generalized its protection of religious liberty to those “professing the Christian religion,” but did not grant that same protection to those who did not make the same profession. Declaration of Rights, 33 reads, “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty… the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.”
Our national mindset has fundamentally shifted away from the founding philosophies in so many ways …
South Carolina—1778—On the establishment of a religion: South Carolina is as explicitly Christian as any of the original states. The introduction below speaks for itself, but the entire resolution in Article 38 is even more prescriptive in its state Christianity. Article 38 declares, “[A]ll persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”
New Hampshire—1792—On the support of religion for the security of government: New Hampshire again sponsors equal protection of the law, but only for denominations of Christians. New Hampshire also grounds its civil and moral philosophies on evangelical [i.e., gospel] principles, and authorizes the legislature publicly to support only “protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” Article 6 states,
As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality… [E]very denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law.
New Hampshire is explicitly Protestant Christian and evangelical (Christian gospel), and it does not authorize the legislature to support non-Christian religions.
Virginia—1776—On religious liberty: Virginia is the first state on our list (in state order) that does not explicitly make itself a Christian state. While it does apply an obligation of religion to “our Creator,” it also goes out of its way to place “reason and conviction” and “the dictates of conscience” as the governors of that duty. One can infer an implicit call to Christianity at best in the Declaration of Rights. Section 16 reads, “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” We can conclude that this was not explicitly Christian.
New York—1776—On religious liberty: Similar to Virginia, New York protects religious liberty, while never calling for a Christian preference in worship or establishment. It does briefly allude to traditionally Christian virtues, but also calls the state to guard against “the bigotry of weak and wicked priests,” and calls Christian preference “repugnant to this constitution.” New York was explicitly not a Christian state. Article 38 reads, “this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within
this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”
North Carolina—1776—On qualifications for office: While not as explicitly establishmentarian as her Southern Sister, North Carolina similarly holds Protestant Christianity in legal preference, requiring its affirmation for public office. Article 32 states, “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”
Rhode Island—1843—On religious liberty: Rhode Island, our thirteenth state, is a strange case, since it didn’t formally adopt a constitution until 1843. Their charter of 1663 is explicitly Christian, and they were technically governed by this charter even after independence in 1776, but it is questionable whether that religious governance was in practice or in name only. In its 1843 constitution, it turned decidedly a-Christian, requiring no religious test for public office, and speaking only of a general God, rather than a Christian or Protestant God. Article 1.3, Section 3 states,
We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.
So, of the thirteen original states to ratify the Constitution, ten states were indisputably and explicitly Christian states either at the time of ratification, or shortly thereafter. Hypothetically, had they bullied their position, they as states could have amended the federal Constitution to provide equal protection only to
Christians, and required adherence to Christianity as a qualification for office.
Returning to Tripoli
So, what was the Treaty of Tripoli talking about, asserting that the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?
Quite simply, this treaty, being concerned with trade via a Muslim country, is asserting at face value that the federal mechanisms for enforcing international treaties are agnostic to religion and thereby not inimical to Islam. The full context of the statement, not often quoted, shows it as simply a preamble for what’s really important to Adams: the potential interruption of trade. Note the language.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Notice that when it comes to the individual states, it emphatically does NOT assert their governments are not founded on the Christian religion (which would be a lie). It only asserts that the states have not entered into any war or act of hostility with Islamic nations (which was true).
It should be noted also, that after the admission of Vermont as the 14th state in 1791, the “Christian” language more and more was left out of official state constitutions. But when asking the question, “Were the United States founded as Christian states?” it’s clear that a veto-proof majority absolutely were.
States in the Westminster Confession of Faith
In 1789, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith as its doctrinal standard. But there seemed to
be a problem. The 1646 version of Chapter 23 had some pretty un-republican language:
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, administrated, 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.
With no monarch installed as a “Defender of the Faith,” as there was in England, this didn’t make as much sense to the American church. The new 1789 language no longer treats the civil magistrate as a singular, but rather as many.
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.
However, it does still maintain its expectations of the civil magistrates to protect religion—not just general religion, but specifically the Christian religion. Presbyterians, despite this new republican sentiment, emphatically did not expect the civil magistrates to protect all religions the same way they were expected to protect Christianity:
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 [i.e., of the Christian church] 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 [i.e., Jesus’s Church], 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 pretense 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 [i.e., of the Christian church] assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
This is important because the Presbyterians, perhaps more so than any other demographic, were crucial in the advancement of the political rebellion against tyranny. The tyrant himself, according to many, considered the rebellion to be “a Presbyterian War.” Presbyterians were not just influential in matters of religion, but they also helped build these Christian states and demanded Christian preference in their civil and religious constitutions.
Whatever one might think or feel about the wisdom of these state constitutions is a completely different question. Our national mindset has fundamentally shifted away from the founding philosophies in so many ways: theology, anthropology, legal philosophy, social theories, economics, and teleology. (I am tempted to blame Kant for all of it.) One may even agree with these shifts to any manner of degree, especially as it concerns the conversation about church and state. But when appealing to the origins, it would be ignorant or deceitful to imply our united States were not overwhelmingly built as Christian systems of government.
Andrew Schwartz is the Senior Director of Stewardship at Westminster Theological Seminary and a Ruling Elder in the PCA. He is also an Early American Historian out of Old Dominion University, currently living with his wife and four children in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania.
Standing
Biblical truth world. in an for down
“Aided by the Spirit and empowered by the gospel, may we live as faithful citizens of the city of God in the midst of the city of man. The Church needs to respond now by equipping culture-shaping Christians for the marketplace and the public square.”
Robert J. Pacienza, DMin, Westminster Theological Seminary President and Founder, Institute for Faith and Culture
A Heavenly Country
Nathan Nocchi
Dutch School (c. 18th century), The Amstel from the Hogesluis facing South
“And if Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings, if he is really the Ruler among the nations, then all nations are in a higher sense one nation, under one King, one law, having one interest and one end. There cannot be two laws for Christians—one to govern the relations of individuals, and the other the relations of nations. I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There is another King, One Jesus: the safety of the state can be secured only in the way of humble and whole-souled loyalty to His Person and of obedience to His Law.”
—A.A. Hodge
The French essayist Joseph Joubert once quipped that “it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” One should say further that this is considerably more important when questions of the greatest importance are in view, even if it is those questions that cause the greatest controversy. In our mercurial world, one of these contentious questions is that of the relationship between Christianity and politics, between religion and the state. This particular question is hardly new. From Constantine to Charlemagne, from the Peace of Augsburg to the Peace of Westphalia, and from political theorists such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill, the relationship between religion and the state has been a prominent issue. Some argued that religion should be sequestered to one’s private life. Others, such as Ludwig Feuerbach, argued that religion is “the only practical and successful vehicle for politics.” The question has been, likewise, explored in our American context. The competing interests of the ministers of Massachusetts Bay and Roger Williams in the seventeenth century, or the nineteenth-century debate between the so-called “Amendmentists,” namely the National Reform Association and the Liberal League, are examples of this question.
In the last three years, there has been, in no uncertain terms, an interest in retrieving an older theological heritage, a “Reformed statecraft.” The buzzwords associated with this retrieval are ‘Christian Nationalism’ and ‘Establishmentarianism,’ with the latter generally being a theological constituent part of the former. The former has become so broadly defined that it is arguably an unhelpful appellation. For instance, in Ross Douthat’s recent New York Times article, he identifies four ways in which the term Christian Nationalism is employed. This has led to poor argumentation, and as Charles Dickens
once said, “If the defendant be a man of straw, who is to pay the costs?” There is, therefore, cause to consider what these terms mean so as to encourage greater understanding about the current political and theological discourse. For our purposes in this brief article, we shall not explore the question of nationalism, though the issue is not foreign to our modern Reformed tradition. Geerhardus Vos spoke positively of nationalism, saying that “nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction,” and that “attempt[s] at world-power” are against “the voice of prophecy,” not only “as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.” We shall, rather, explore that which is more obviously aligned with a Reformed statecraft, namely, establishmentarianism.
When human autonomy is coupled with a vague “pursuit of happiness,” society will inexorably tend toward chaos.
In Reformed Presbyterian circles, there has been a notable reticence to return to the question of church and state ever since the debates over theonomy in the 1970s through the 1990s. However, for the sake of clarity and Christian witness, we must thoughtfully and charitably explore the issue. The obvious reason that this is required is that, in the midst of the culture war, commentators have signaled that “the nation is awash in religiosity,” as an op-ed in the New York Times put it. Perhaps, one might say, with a Jeffersonian spirit, that there is a deep concern about religious values coming to bear on the goings-on of the political sphere. For example, Linda Greenhouse recently asserted in her New York Times article on the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that the country is now coming to a greater realization of “the peril of the theocratic future toward which the country has been hurtling.” The task before us is thus a foray into an issue that is politically charged, debated vigorously within the church, and ambiguous in its terms. But it is, at the same time, an inquiry into that which is “true, honorable, and just” (Phil. 4:8).
What is ‘Establishmentarianism’? In plain terms, it is the teaching that the civil magistrate should recognize “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world” (WCF 23.1). This involves the magistrate supporting and fostering the visible church within its geographical jurisdiction for the promotion of true religion. On this view, there are two errors that are to be avoided. First is the Erastian error, which arises when the civil magistrate acts beyond the power corresponding to his magistracy. For example, the civil magistrate “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” (WCF 23.3). Second is the error of Rome, which is where the church unduly superintends upon the civil magistrate, usurping its ordained authority, and consequently hinders its function. In contradistinction to these views, the church and state are argued to be coordinate powers, and, as such, have unique proximate ends that notwithstanding, by virtue of their coordination, coincide in their ultimate ends. The civil magistrate is, “as [a] nursing father…” and is to “protect the church of our common Lord” (WCF 23.3), and thereby “countenance and maintain” the church (WLC, Q.191).
A significant majority of 16th and 17th-century Reformers have articulated and defended this understanding of the divinely sanctioned duties of the civil magistrate. One of the chief passages in their argumentation was Romans 13:1–4, which reads,
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant
[διάκονός] of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Emphasis added)
In seventeenth-century England, divines such as Anthony Burgess argued that Romans 13 is “the Magistrate’s Magna Charta…his Commission sealed from
heaven, whereby he may be encouraged to goe through his office, [which is] his Calling of God, who hath a peculiar providence over such.” It is vital that the magistrate recognizes this, for just as “the eclipse of the Sun makes a great deale of motion and alteration in things below, so any eclipse in those that are in Authoritie and Government workes great but sad effects in inferiours.” Thus, when civil magistrates do not readily consult that which “God and his Word speaketh,” but follow instead “maximes and principles of State,” there will be ramifications for the subjects of that kingdom or nation. A coherent two-fold polity requires both the church’s prophetic witness and the magistrates’ enforcement of the law.
One might say that it is only natural that English theologians held such views. After all, the Protestant church in England was, at the outset, connected to the Crown. However, should one sail across the English Channel to the Continent, they would find figures such as Petrus Van Mastricht, Franciscus Junius, and Francisco Turretini, all of whom proffered similar arguments. Van Mastricht, who is worth quoting at length, says,
Magistrates, who should know theology and should have the law before their eyes (Deut. 17:18–20; Josh. 1:8; Psalm 19), prescribe it for their subordinates (2 Chron. 17:7–9; Josh. 24:14), protect it against enemies, as nursing fathers of the church (Isa. 49:23; 60:16), and as guardians of both tables of the law, propagate it (Gen 18:19). In sum, they should, in all ways, kiss Christ (Ps. 2:10–12), so that their polity becomes a theocracy, that is, a Christocracy
Countless other theologians from the 16th and 17th centuries could be referenced to support the notion of establishment, including 17th-century American theologians. It is, however, not merely individuals who can be cited, but consensus documents, namely confessions, which codified this idea. Indeed, one can point to many confessions of the period, including the Westminster Standards, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. At least one reason why arguments for establishment were so prevalent is because of a principle that was fundamental to the Reformation itself: the word of God regulates all of life. All human life was argued to be under the authority of Scripture. Thus, when it was seen that the Scriptures note particular duties and articulate an ideal for kings, emperors,
and magistrates, whom the Reformers understood to be public persons, these were thought to have an obligation and duty to abide by the moral law and refrain from acting, either privately or publicly, in such a way that contravenes that law. Scripture states that “it is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: For the throne is established by righteousness” (Prov. 16:12). Indeed, the Lord is the keeper of the city (Ps. 127:1), and should that city not honor him, it “shall be utterly wasted” (Isa. 60:12). As Edward Reynolds wrote, “It would infinitely conduce to the peace of the Church and State, to the honour of Religion and justice, and to the avoiding of envy or scandal, if every person…would regulate all his demeanours and administrations with a Quid requisivit, [namely] what is it that God would have me to do?”
One need only be half-cognizant to see, however, that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are markedly different politically than, say, America is today. But, at the same time, it must be said that the Puritans of England became, as it were, the Puritans of New England. As the English poet George Herbert said, “Religion stands on tip-toe in our land / Readie to passe to the American strand.” The Mayflower Compact (1620) says that their efforts were “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith ... [to] covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid…” This sentiment was later echoed by others, such as theologian John Cotton (1585–1652), who said that “these plantations be planted by God.” Many of the Puritans who traveled to America had a “sacred vision of human progress.”
At a basic level, … the church is to be active in translating the teaching of the Scripture to every context of life, including politics.
Moreover, one might wager that despite the material differences, the substance is very much the same. What is meant is that while there is not a formally established
religion in America, there is nonetheless an “established” religion. How can this be true? The answer to that question is found in the basic facts of human existence. If human creatures are made in the image of God and are created for religious fellowship, then there are, necessarily, eschatological and religious ends which are intrinsic to, and determinative of, human existence. There is no politics, indeed, no knowledge, detached from this reality. In this way, as all people are inherently religious, all societies and all politics are necessarily and inescapably religious. Thus, at least in principle, the question is not whether there is an establishment, but which one.
And the facts are before our eyes. The recent cultural shift has been nothing but palpable, and behind this shift is an ideology that is actively shaping legislation, views of human nature, civic duties and freedoms, and the meaning and purpose of human life. The Christian church and American society no longer share common values or a broadly common religion; the church that was once prominent in the public square has been replaced by the synagogue of Satan, which has its own sacraments, such as abortion and “love wins” creeds. Is this what Friedrich Nietzsche had in view when speaking of the “freedom of the new dawn”? When human autonomy is coupled with a vague “pursuit of happiness,” a phrase which, as Malcolm Muggeridge noted, “is responsible for a good part of the ills and miseries of the modern world,” society will inexorably tend toward chaos. Humankind’s happiness, its beatitude, is found only in the God who made the world ex nihilo. “A Common-wealth is made glorious when it becometh holy and Christian,” says Anthony Burgess. Likewise, when a given society unabashedly repudiates the natural law and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, that society will become treacherous and evil. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
But what does this mean for our current moment? Shall we, at this juncture, legally establish the Christian religion in America? Is there something to glean from our forefathers? Some Christians argue that we ought not concern ourselves at all with the goings-on of the political world. Are we not awaiting heavenly Jerusalem, a new heaven and new earth? We most certainly are, and eagerly so, but while we long heavenward, we nonetheless have earthly duties. We do not so set our minds on heavenly things (Col. 3:1–2) that we do not pray for our earthly rulers (1 Tim. 2:2), or render unto
them that which ought to be rendered (Matt. 22:21), or do not submit to their governance as they support good conduct and punish evil (Rom. 13:3). Indeed, we still have a neighbor to love and friend or colleague to whom we should minister (Matt. 22:36–40). In other words, to borrow the language of Augustine and Calvin, remote ends do not destroy proximate ends, when rightly ordered. We ought not embrace a kind of political gnosticism.
“...while we long heavenward, we nonetheless have earthly duties.”
Thus, the first and most important thing that the church can and should do in our current moment is be a bold prophetic witness. What does this mean? At a basic level, it means that the church is to be active in translating the teaching of the Scripture to every context of life, including politics. In this way, Christians can—and should—be political. If there are policies that are sinful, the Christian ought to oppose them, for love “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6; emphasis added). As Westminster’s Paul Woolley remarked in his radio address Our American Christian Future, “[We] must not remain content with never having anything but the foundations of Christianity…[We] must present a gospel which says something about every sphere of human activity, that has bearing upon all of life, that comes to the secularized man where he now is and says, ‘Look what can be done with politics…’” Thus, politics, too, should be sanctified unto God, for “there is no realm of life which is exempt from the applicability of Scripture.”
Another concern about the intersection between religion and politics is that of the separation of church and state, which is often misunderstood. But given those facts which are basic to human existence, religion, then, is in politics insofar as man is in society. In his essay published in the Presbyterian Guardian entitled “The Christian World Order,” John Murray offers a principled argument against a complete separation of church and state, saying that a “Christian world order embraces
the state. Otherwise, there would be no Christian world order.” He then maintains,
The Bible is the only infallible rule of conduct for the civil magistrate in the discharge of his magistracy just as it is the only infallible rule in other spheres of human activity… this just means that the obligation and task arising from Christ’s kingship and headship are that civil government, within its own well-defined and restricted sphere, must in its constitution and in its legislative and executive functions recognize and obey the authority of God and of His Christ and thus bring all of its functions and actions into accord with the revealed will of God as contained in His Word… To recede from this position or to abandon it, either as conception or as a goal, is to reject in principle the sovereignty of God and of His Christ…
Murray concludes this essay with an exhortation regarding the “philosophy of Christian world order,” saying,
Who is sufficient for these things? We are indeed totally insufficient and the task is overpowering. But this overpowering sense of our weakness and inability is no reason for faintheartedness. It is rather the very condition of true faith and perseverance. The responsibility is ours: it is stupendously great. The insufficiency is ours: it is complete. But the power is God’s.
Indeed. As Thomas Goodwin once remarked, “They that will reforme a Church or State, must trust more in God in doing it, than in any work else.”
How then shall we live? The Christian today should recognize that religion and society are inseparably tied together. When we think about Christianity’s encounter with modern culture, we must at the outset remain true to the commission that we have received from our risen King and Lord Jesus Christ. If we are to reform a society, we must see that spiritual reformation is necessary for true and lasting cultural reformation. As Edward Reyn olds said, “It is not enough for the honour and security of a Kingdome that justice be in the Laws; it must be in the Judges too…” He continues, “Take away the Sun, and all the Stars of Heaven would never make day: So if a man… were destitute of faith in Christ, the Sun of righteousness,
have not God for his God, there would be night and calamity in his soul still.” Thus, without the spiritual reformation of individuals, even those in places of authority, there will not be true civil reformation. This means that now, in volatile times and with profound opposition, the church cannot, must not, capitulate. Cowardice must not masquerade as wisdom. Now is the time, by the grace of God, to stand fortified as a “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
J. Gresham Machen once remarked that “The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought.” Thus, our prayer should be that the gospel will resound to the ends of the earth, and not just resound, but renew every nation of the earth, that the peoples of this earth might proclaim that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, so that all of life may be lived unto Him. As Machen argued in Christianity and Culture, “Instead of obliterating the distinction between the kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.” It is therefore most fitting to conclude with a passage from the American theologian John Davenport (1597–1670):
What I pray may be expected in future times, if the best Church, and the best Common-wealth grew up together? Oh blessed people, among whom each Administration shall conspire with one mouth, and one minde, to conjoyn and advance the Communion of Saints with the Civil Society! One of these Administrations will not detract from the other, but each will confirm the other if it stand, and stay it if it be falling, and raise it up if it be fallen down.
Nathan Nocchi is the Assistant Director of the Craig Center for the Study of the Westminster Standards and Managing Editor Westminster Magazine. Nathan is undertaking PhD studies in historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary that focus on seventeenth-cen-
Dr. Lillback interviewed Dr. Edgar and Dr. Gaffin on the topic of Christian citizenship for Westminster Magazine. This inter view took place on Monday, July 22, 2024. The following has been compressed and condensed for clarity.
Peter A. Lillback (PAL): Dr. Gaffin, I would like to ask you this question. Citizenship is an idea that’s external to the Scriptures but enters into the Scriptures. How do you put those two together in your mind?
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (RBG): Peter, in fact, the Bible speaks pointedly to the issue of Christian citizenship. In Phi lippians 3:20, Paul addresses the church—the church, we should understand, not just in his day but for any and all times until Jesus returns—and he says, “our citizenship is in heaven.” So, Christians have a heavenly citizenship that comes as they are united to Christ by faith and are concerned to serve him. This is the Christian’s primary and ultimate citizenship. So, the question is, how does this heavenly citizenship manifest itself in the various earthly citizenships there are? I take it that was the direc tion of your question, a question the Bible leaves consid erable scope for in terms of how we address it.
PAL: Dr. Edgar, as you think about the ethics of citizen ship, obviously there was a sense in which Israel had a unique boundary for members within it, and Paul was a Roman and appealed to his citizenship. Do those biblical principles or historical facts give us any guidance for our own understanding of citizenship in the secular state that we’re members of?
William Edgar (WE): I think they do. As Dick said, our primary citizenship is in heaven. And we look forward to the fulfillment of that at the end of time when we will be citizens and have our primary identity with that reality. Now, God has placed us on this earth. He gave Adam and Eve and their progeny a cultural mandate. Culture includes citizenship as was suggested. It varies a great deal with the type of government we have. But it’s not negligible to think of our citizenship here on earth. You mentioned Paul’s appeals to Rome. That’s one scenario. You know, in China you have to be very cautious about getting involved with politics because of the dangers there. In a modern democracy . . . well, the way I like to put it is: “How do you render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s when
HEAVENLY CITIZENS, EARTHLY STEWARDS:
Joseph Francis Gilbert (1792–1855), Chichester Cathedral
An Interview with William Edgar and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
Peter A. Lillback
you are Caesar?” I think the implication is that God’s imprint is everywhere, whereas Caesar’s imprint is on the coin. And that coin looks different from age to age. But we have an allegiance or responsibility to honor Caesar, whatever form it takes. That is not in competition with—it’s a complement to—the heavenly comprehensive citizenship of God over all things.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, since you’ve emphasized our heavenly citizenship, how does our citizenship in heaven compare or contrast with our citizenship in the earthly state? The word is used in both senses, obviously. What are your thoughts on comparing and contrasting the use of the word?
RBG: If I may, I’d like to back up and make the important point that in answering your question we need to be careful in using the Old Testament. To give an example, I’ve been struck in the aftermath of last October 7th how often comments and discussions about the war refer to Israel-Palestine as “the Holy Land”; even some secular reporters use that language. If I were to write an article, I would entitle it, “It’s No Longer the Holy Land.” The citizenship of the people of God now, in light of the coming of Christ, is no longer identified with or confined to one geopolitical order, as was the case with Old Testament Israel. The church in the Old Testament was ethnically limited; God’s people were one nation, holy in distinction from all others. Now the New Testament church is made up of not just Jews but non-Jews as well, Jews and Gentiles found in every ethnicity, present in every earthly political order. So the question becomes how Christians function given the state of affairs that has arrived in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, where now he is, as Paul says, “head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). How does that universal Lordship work out on earth?
PAL: Let’s zero in this way and say Christ is the Lord of everything, and we’re in a divine monarchy in the church, but in the American context we’re not in a monarchy; we’re in some sort of a constitutional democratic republic. In that setting, what does it mean to be a citizen of heaven? How is it different than being a citizen on earth?
WE: Since Pentecost, there has been no such thing as a Christian nation per se. There might be nations that come closer to putting biblical ideals into the law. But this
whole discussion of, for example, America as a Christian nation is misguided. As Dick suggested, the present expression of nationality is in the church. And the church has an ambiguous or paradoxical relationship to the surrounding system of government. We may be in a more or less free country where we get to decide and vote and set policy. Or we may be in a highly oppressive situation where we don’t get to make such decisions, and we may even have to resist. But there is no Christian nation today, and all this discussion of the Christian origins of America is often misguided because while there may have been a Christian influence in the Founding Fathers, you don’t want to call this a Christian nation. Instead, we should say that Christian principles were at work, but not necessarily [that we have a] Christian nationality. Anyway, yes, the citizenship is different. But of course, our heavenly citizenship not only does not preclude earthly responsibility, but it demands that we participate fully in the creation that God has given us, which means politics, as well as culture and the arts, science, business, and so forth.
PAL: Let me give an interesting historical test case for both of you to respond to. There was in 1892, perhaps you’ll remember, the Holy Trinity case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Brewer wrote, and a unanimous Supreme Court declared, by the organic utterances and many other evidences, “This is a Christian nation.” So at the end of the 19th century, there was a sense in our highest court that we could call the legacy of America Christian, that we were a Christian nation. Were they misguided? Were they onto something? What were they trying to get across? The Supreme Court is generally a lagging indicator of the beliefs of a country. At least historically, they tend to be indicating this is where we’ve come from. Maybe they’re going to change, but right now this is what we think. So I’d love to hear how you’d evaluate that both historically and perhaps theologically.
RBG: Tying into what Bill was emphasizing, I wonder if the Justice meant anything more than that there was a pervasive Christian influence which gave rise to the birth of our nation. Also, what did he mean by “Christian”? How do you become a Christian? What makes you a Christian? Those are questions that need clarification. I wonder, speaking at the end of the 19th century, if he
wasn’t reflecting in that language what Bill was pointing out, not that we are a Christian geopolitical entity but that undeniably there has been a significant Christian influence, for instance, on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
WE: Glenn Scrivener, the British theologian, says that we’ve never been Christian, but there has been Christendom. And so, we shouldn’t talk today about being post-Christian because we never were a Christian nation in the sense that Israel was a believing nation. We had Christian influence, yet we were in Christendom. And even today as we get further and further from a Christian consciousness, we’re walking away from Christendom rather than Christianity. And I think that means that, as Dick was suggesting, there are undoubted Christian influences in our government. Just the separation of powers, for example, you can trace that back to the Puritan notion that you can’t trust one person or one group with all the authority. You’ve got to have checks and balances. The idea of the Constitution is somewhat rooted in the Covenant idea. Although there’s a lot as well of Enlightenment principles that are at work, not just Christian principles. So, it seems to me it’s a helpful distinction to say that we are abandoning Christendom, not Christianity, because we never were Christian.
PAL: Let’s put it this way. Is it good to abandon Christendom and become just totally a secular state or let’s say a quasi-Marxist state? Or is preserving Christendom a valuable thing because of the benefits that flow from it culturally?
RBG: You’re asking a fairly theoretical question, and I’m not a political scientist. I don’t know how helpful this will be to our conversation, but I do think it gets at what you were asking about initially, Peter. What shapes my thinking is a passage like 1 Timothy 2:2, where in the context of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul has in view not only the immediate circumstances of the church in Ephesus but the entire post-apostolic future of the church and what should be the outlook and conduct of Christians looking toward Christ’s return. There he makes the point that we are to pray for governing authorities “that we [the church, Christians] may lead a peaceful and quiet life, ….” While that was written in the context of submission to the autocratic governance of the Roman Empire,
whereas we have the democratic advantage of having a say in government by voting for or even participating in government, Paul’s exhortation still stipulates an agenda for us: what we are to pray for is what we are to be concerned to work for, as we are able and have opportunity. And that goal is a political order that promotes peace and ordered, quiet living as that would be not only for the good of believers and the well-being of the church, but also for all citizens.
WE: To answer your question directly, it’s tragic to abandon Christendom-type principles. And we see that increasingly in the trends around us. We have to, as Dick said, pray for peace and order that the gospel may run its full course. So our prayer for peace and order is not just for the good of humanity, but it’s also for the sake of the gospel going forward.
It’s awful to see the country departing from Christendom. But the answer is not theocracy. The answer is to pray for order and peace and justice. Just as Paul in Romans 13 alludes to the fact that authority is legitimate, governmental authority is legitimate, and it contributes to rewarding the good as well as punishing the bad. Those are, I think, principles that transcend the different episodes of government.
PAL: Some time ago I was reflecting on the question, did our founders intend to create a Christian nation? And the answer became really clear to me when I was reading the Constitution. In Article VI it says “the supreme law of the land” is this constitution. It doesn’t say it’s the Bible. It’s clear that they intended to have a standard that was not the Bible. So it’s not making it a Christian nation, but they created a constitution, it seems to me, that has the ability to let consciences have freedom. And that was obviously augmented by the First Amendment, the free exercise of religion and the government not having the right to establish it. So I think we have then, whether we call it Christendom or Christian influence into a new form of government, the kind of peace that means that you have religious liberty and the freedom to make influence for the good.
So that brings me then to the classic text from Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, where he tells us that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. And Christians have often taken that to say that by our work, we are helping to preserve what is good and prevent
decay, and also to dispel darkness. And it has that notion perhaps of cultural influence, of political impact. How do you look at that particular biblical text and its use in that way, in terms of our notions of citizenship?
RBG: Well, that has a nice aphoristic ring to it when it’s quoted by itself, but we are bound to see it in context, particularly as it flows directly out of the Beatitudes, which mark the effects of the grace of God in bringing the kingdom as the rule and realm of the redemption accomplished by Christ. Among those effects mentioned is seeking genuine peace. Then the issue becomes a matter of what that peace is and how you go about realizing it. I read something recently—an article for the 100th anniversary of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism—picking up on a quote of Machen concerning what Jesus says later in chapter six of Matthew, which is also part of the Sermon on the Mount, and so has to be related to your “salt of the earth” question. This is in a context where Jesus is noticing things in human life and society that create anxiety: concern about food, clothing, and, by implication, shelter (Matt. 6:25‒31); in view more broadly, we may say, is the economic aspect of our lives, those things that any just political order ought to be concerned about. Concerning these anxiety-producing matters Jesus makes a basic distinction. He says, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33‒34). “All these things,” the things that can cause anxiety, God is well aware of our need of them (verse 32) and will provide for them. Concerning this distinction of Jesus, Machen makes an observation that really struck me. He says, if you understand seeking the kingdom of God as realized in bringing about all these added things or merely a means to the end of realizing them, then you will get neither the kingdom nor these things. But when you make seeking the kingdom of God primary—responding to the gospel of the kingdom by faith in Christ for the salvation he provides from sin— then all these other things will be provided. And as they are provided for God’s people, then as we love neighbor as well as self, we will have a concern for a just and quiet peaceful order for all citizens, whether confessing kingdom-followers of Christ or not, and will contribute as we can to that political end.
WE: Going back to the Founding Fathers, I think the creation of our Constitution was a work of genius. It
provided for freedom of conscience and not freedom from religion, but freedom for religion. But it’s important to remember that the founders owned slaves. Some were nativists that resented Catholic immigration. There was a lot of work to be done, and we had to go as far as the Civil War to resolve some of those problems.
PAL: Dr. Edgar, you’ve had a great exposure to the Huguenots in France, and they had an experience of losing their citizenship in France because of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and many of them fled to America, where they became great defenders of the American experience, in fact the Declaration as well as the Constitution. Why did the Huguenots find the American expression of government such a blessing for them given their history?
WE: Well, because of what I said earlier about the freedom to express one’s faith without the oppressive constraint of government. Remember, they went to Germany, they went to Holland, they went to England, they went to countries that had been influenced by the Reformation, and the Reformation with all of its drawbacks promoted freedom through discussion and through dissent as opposed to freedom through revolution. And so I think the Huguenots were drawn to that. And though they loved their mother country, they could be more salt and light in those new situations than they ever could in their own country.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, I believe it is Dr. Van Til in his book Christian Theistic Ethics who says the summum bonum of the Christian life is the pursuit of the kingdom of God. So as a citizen on earth pursuing that summum bonum, how do we live that out as our highest goal, even as we go about our daily business, including engaging in political things? Is there a dialectic? Is there a commonality? How do we pursue that and then impact other aspects of our duties as a citizen?
RBG: That’s a very important question. Maybe, in responding, I could draw our attention again to Philippians 3:20, that our citizenship is in heaven. When we turn over to Colossians and the opening verses of chapter 3 (1‒4), we have an indication of how that heavenly citizenship originates and something of what marks it. Christians are heavenly citizens because they have
been united with Christ in his resurrection, so that for them, in union with Christ ascended and “seated at the right hand of God,” nothing less than “your life” itself “is hidden with Christ in God.” Further, the citizens of heaven are to be active citizens. They are to “seek” and “set [their] minds on” “the things that are above.” Their aspiration is to be everything that pertains to the present life and rule of the ascended Christ. This is clearly a large scale, comprehensive imperative for the church, this call for Christians to be heavenly-minded in all they do. But it should not be missed that the striking thing in Colossians 3 is that this heavenly-mindedness is not simply an otherworldly preoccupation but very much a down-toearth reality. The immediately following verses through 4:1 go on first to address the proper use of the body, then interpersonal relationships within the church, before moving on to how heavenly-minded seeking the things above plays out in marriage, in the home, family life, and beyond—most directly related to the question we’re dealing with—the economic concerns of life. A key aspect of seeking the things above is doing what pleases the Lord, and what pleases the Lord is keeping his commandments, in whatever ways that can apply. So then in our present situation, a just political order, and someone wanting to enter into the political process and seek office, will want to facilitate what will promote pleasing the Lord and be conducive to seeking his kingdom. Christians will be any earthly good only as they are heavenly-minded.
PAL: If you had young people who felt they had leadership gifts and were fascinated by the principles of politics and what earthly citizenship means, what would you advise them if they asked, “Should I enter into politics today given the realities that we’re facing?” What would be your council?
WE: Well, I’ve got some thoughts on that. First of all, I’m a great believer in the primacy of local politics over national politics. So if you’re called into the political life, you should consider first your local responsibilities. Are you involved with the practices of neighborliness, of garbage disposal, or whatever. And for that matter, does your participation reflect what Dick was saying, obedience to the commandments? Now, beyond that, there are a few who are called to more prominent leadership in the world, including the highest offices. And I would say with cautious optimism, they should participate
in political life as Christians—not thinking that legal maneuvering is going to change the world but thinking that bringing the righteousness of the kingdom into the political process will be reflecting the heavenly citizenship that is our primary place of consolation and of security.
So one phrase I heard, which I think is helpful, is “Jesus is political, but he was not partisan.” So it’s a big mistake to think that the only way to be a public leader is to align yourself with certain precepts and set positions about immigration and so forth. I think that political involvement is crucial, but be very careful of the particular choices you make as a partisan because they tend to be tentative and relative. They might be helpful and true, but they should be held with a light hand.
RBG: I would second the point that Bill was making; all politics is local. I think that’s been said, particularly for someone starting out, and that’s very good advice. That’s likely the way a person would have to start out anyway. The increasing dominance of the way government has been centralized and consolidated in Washington presents a formidable challenge for a Christian in politics at the national level.
PAL: Let me zero in on some of our duties as heavenly citizens, with a duty to honor King Jesus in all that we do, seeking his kingdom, seeking the common good through prayer, through peace, through love, through obeying the commandments. We have duties then in our earthly task. So let’s start with the beginning. Should Christians pay taxes to a government they believe is unjust?
WE: They should, as long as at the same time they’re working to reform the system. In other words, yes, pay taxes. We don’t have a choice about that, but don’t stop your activities there. You go on to try to change the system to make it more just. Christ is the great example of this. He, of course, paid taxes. He pulled the coin out of the lake, but he also ministered to Zacchaeus, and Zacchaeus under his influence reformed his views. So as long as you’re working as best you can to change the system, yes, you should pay taxes even to an unjust government. I don’t want to lose track of what Dick was saying. [Even though it can be] very discouraging for good young people to go into the political arena, there’s got to be a way in which people of integrity can move forward in
a limited way but in a forthright way to make changes. And right now it’s nearly impossible for a good person to do that, which is a very sad statement about American politics.
RBG: Romans 13 seems pretty clear in what was manifestly a situation where the autocratic functioning of the Roman empire could be quite unjust and abusive. Even though that passage is challenging exegetically at points, it is clear that however political or governmental power may be abused, it still is ordained by God. First Peter 2:13‒14 is another passage that makes that point. But then I would emphasize what Bill said, that when we have the political capacity, do everything we can to get rid of unjust taxation. Over the years, this became an issue for parents with children in Christian schools who were not willing to have their children in public schools because of the non-Christian influence there. I know of one case where a person took the amount of their school taxes, put it in a bank account, and told the government, “If you want it, you can go get it. I’m not going to pay you.”
PAL: Is it our duty of citizenship to volunteer to serve in the military to defend the land, or be willing to be drafted? Is that something that we ought to do.
WE: Of course. Each of these institutions is legitimate as a creation ordinance. That includes the defense of property and the defense of a country. So those are legitimate callings. Obviously, you can abuse them. I think pacifism is a romantic dream. But it’s like marriage or business or any of these spheres. They’re legitimate, but there’s going to be huge abuses and problems. We all know that marriage is good, but we also see terrible marriages. And the answer is not to abolish marriage. The answer is to work for the improvement of the institution. Now, it gets very complicated, but I think that’s the same set of answers to your first question: Should we be paying taxes? [Should we] go into the military? Yes. But as we do that, we need to work towards the biblically based improvement of these institutions.
PAL: Dr. Gaffin, any further thoughts?
RBG: Well, that raises the issue of just war, which I think is to be affirmed biblically for various reasons, some of
which Bill has indicated. So, if I were much younger and draftable, as a believer I could be faced with my government initiating an unjust war. I think, akin to the question about taxation, I would have to go along with the government unless, you know—the Third Reich comes to mind and people like Bonhoeffer taking the stand of opposition that he and others did, which, I certainly want to affirm. But it could be a difficult question under circumstances which are less stark than the rise of the Third Reich and Nazism taking over the entire political process. My default position would be that I have to go along with the government, right or wrong, like taxation, right or wrong.
WE: When I was younger, the big issue for us was the Vietnam War. And I had friends who paid their taxes except the part that they thought was going to supply the war effort. I chose to oppose the war, not by illegal measures such as refusing to pay taxes, but by persuasion. Now, sometimes persuasion is not possible. You mentioned Bonhoeffer. I don’t think persuasion was going to work for him, and for our Huguenot ancestors, persuasion wasn’t always possible. But I think it should be a very, very rare default position to resist in some sort of clearly physical way. Calvin has helpful teachings on this. He’s very reluctant to change the regime, Christian resistance or not. He does admit that there are cases when there has to be resistance to tyranny, but even there, it’s got to be in line with a secondary magistrate or with some legal entity. He’s totally against vigilante justice, and I think that’s biblical. There’s no call in Scripture to lash out as a Clint Eastwood type of rebellion against the system. You’ve got to work within the system, however unjust it might be.
PAL: You have been very generous with your time. I should bring it to a close, but I do want to ask you about the issue of citizenship and voting and the context. What counsel do you give people at this moment? Does a Christian have an obligation to vote? If they vote, is there any legitimacy in voting for what you believe to be the lesser of two evils? Since we’re not voting for king Jesus in this context—we don’t vote for king Jesus anyway, who sovereignly chooses us. Given that we’re in a broken, fallen world, what are our duties as citizens . . . in a democratic republic, for exercising our right as a citizen to vote?
WE: Dick [laughs]?
RBG: I’m aware of various Christian bloggers and journalists who are telling me that I ought not to vote, that this election—particularly for president—is one that believers ought to sit out. I’m not persuaded by that. Peter, you put it in terms of the lesser of two evils. I do think the person, particularly the person of the president, is very important. I get that and I get the problems that can be raised about the candidates. Well, just as we’re talking this morning there’s going to be significant change on the one side. But the way I look at it—particularly as a federal election—is that I’m voting not only for a president, as significant and influential as that person undoubtedly is and will be if elected, but for an administration with the party platform it intends to implement. So, I need to determine what will be most conducive to what would be pleasing to the Lord between one administration or the other. And I need to vote that way. That’s my present thinking.
WE: I think that’s exactly right. All political decisions that we make are going to be challenged by things we don’t like, even the best of all candidates. We won’t agree with all their platforms. The difficulty is when you have a couple of candidates whose platforms and character are very dubious. And [...] you vote for what the administration might bring that’s a bit better than what already exists. [There are times when you may need to] vote your conscience. And I think sometimes you have to do that rather than think that your vote is going to change the world. You vote for what you think the administration might bring, and it’s all fallible, but you can’t retreat into political indifference, because Jesus was political, not partisan.
PAL: All right. As we conclude, I’ll just put this pointed question this way: In your quest to honor Christ, can a Christian simply choose in a democratic republic not to vote and not get involved? Is that an option? Or is that abandoning our duty as a Christian?
RBG: Well, I’ve mentioned blogs that I’m aware of that argue as a matter of principle that we ought not to vote, particularly for president. As I’ve said, I don’t agree with that. But if, as you put it very pointedly, Peter, I think not voting is a defensible position, although less
defensible than what I’ve expressed. Is that too weaselly an answer?
PAL: That sounds like a pointed answer that doesn’t want to be too harsh. So that’s good [laughs].
WE: And don’t forget that not to vote is actually to vote for some default candidate or party. It’s not as if not voting gets you out of the process. So in a country where the vote is possible, you have to do it. But it is very challenging indeed in our current political state of affairs.
PAL: You’ve been very gracious. You have spoken as Christian gentlemen about touchy issues. Let me have the privilege of concluding us with a word of prayer if I might.
Lord, I thank you for these gentlemen who love you, who have given their lives for your glory and your service to advance the kingdom as the primary concern of their lives. They are role models and blessings in so many ways. We do pray, Lord, that readers would find, in the conversation we’ve had today, wisdom and truth that will bless your people, [who] will be seeking guidance and prayer and encouragement. Lord, we do pray for the crisis that’s before the world and before our nation. Lord, we pray for President Biden and his family as he’s made a massive decision. We do pray for the Democratic convention that will be meeting in Chicago, Lord, that you’ll [rule over] that according to your wise council and for the good of your people. We thank you for the Republican National Convention’s completion. We pray, in spite of all the challenges that are before everyone, that good might come through it. And Lord, regardless of our politics, we’re grateful that the attempt on the former president’s life was not successful, for Lord, that only makes us less a part of the Christendom that we’ve spoken of, of honoring those that lead even when we disagree with them. Lord, would you please let us find the kingdom of God advancing by our fidelity to your word, by the work of your Spirit? And as we’ve been reminded, we thank you that our citizenship is with the risen Christ. We appeal to your throne for your glory and the advance of your name and the completion of your kingdom. May this be a small step toward that. We thank you for the joy of serving you, and we pray for health and strength and blessing upon these brothers, and we ask it in Christ’s name. Amen.
Life in the Negative World
A review By Pierce Taylor Hibbs
Alfred Stieglitz (1864–1946), From the Back Window
Food chains have always fascinated me. It wasn’t so much the “kill or be killed” tenacity that drew my attention. It was the interrelation of all things— the delicate harmony that would shatter if just a single creature were removed from the chain. It was comforting to me that God had built a world this way, a place where the significance of the smallest carried weight, where—to use Leonardo Da Vinci’s words—“everything connects to everything else.”
Food chains exist in the public square, too. They just take the form of ideologies and cultural trends. God is Lord over all relations, including where Christianity fits in that chain at any given moment in history. And history shows these chains are fluid. What’s in vogue Monday might be unfashionable by Friday. But not all changes are so light or superficial. Many have serious consequences. As I’ve heard David Owen Filson say, “Ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims.” Ideologies do not just switch places in the chain of popular opinion. They might also crush or abuse those who find themselves beneath them. And so the principle of natural food chains applies to ideological ones as well: know where you are.
The principle of natural food chains applies to ideological ones as well: know where you are.
This sets the stage for Aaron M. Renn’s book Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture (Zondervan 2024), a work that has already had broad influence in Christian circles. Essentially, the book is about a shift in America’s ideological food chain. Christianity was once a fierce creature here—setting moral standards and shaping legislature. But in the last sixty years, it’s moved down. Those who call themselves Christians today are unsuspecting prey for larger and more widespread ideologies such as secularism, pragmatism, materialism, Marxism, egalitarianism, and a host of others. God is still Lord over these changes. So, despite the particular place Christianity has in a given culture, we know that Christ is King. He may just work out that
kingly rule with patience for rebellious hearts. (Isn’t that what he does with all of us?)
Let me set out a synopsis for the book and then offer some engagement with a selection of Renn’s ideas. My goal is not to be analytically thorough but to be thought-provoking in helping Christians both question and then build on Renn’s work.
Synopsis
Renn argues that we can think of Christianity in America for the last sixty years as falling into three identifiable eras: the positive world (1964–1994), the neutral world (1994–2014), and the negative world (2014–present). His selection of these dates is intentional but somewhat arbitrary. In the positive world, “Publicly being a Christian enhances social status. Christian moral norms are still the basic moral norms of society, and violating them can lead to negative consequences.” In the neutral world, “Christianity no longer has privileged status, but nor is it disfavored. . . . Christian moral norms retain some residual effect.” But in our own time, the negative world, “society has an overall negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative. . . . Christian morality is expressly repudiated and now seen as a threat to the public good and new public moral order.”
Renn uses political scandals to represent each era. Rumors of a possible affair could end your political career in the positive world (Gary Hart, 1987). But in the neutral world, a politician could survive this, appealing to the separation of public and private life (Bill Clinton, 1998). In the negative world, egregious moral failures are overlooked as insubstantial because Christian moral standards and the importance of character have been washed away (Donald Trump, 2016).
Renn suggests a series of causes for the shift from neutral to negative: the collapse of the WASP establishment, the sixties social and sexual revolutions, the end of the Cold War, deregulation of the corporate sector (allowing a smaller group of large companies to gain dominance), and digitization (financial, professional, and social engagement moving online).
The remainder of the book focuses on strategies Christians might adopt for life in the negative world. After considering which model of Christian civic life you might pursue (culture war, seeker sensitivity, or cultural
engagement), Renn reminds readers of the deeper problem: “American evangelicals are largely operating as though they’re still living in the lost positive or neutral worlds.” Christians today have not truly accepted that we are the real minority now, that we have been pushed down the country’s ideological food chain. For Renn, this means we need to critically assess which models of civic life have worked best in the past, and how we might reconstruct or reapply them in the present. But it also means thinking about how we live personally, institutionally, and missionally.
On a personal level, Renn first calls Christians to obedience. Obeying the truth of Scripture amidst a hostile world is a necessity. We cannot sacrifice biblical orthodoxy for the sake of cultural compromise. Second, Renn encourages Christians to pursue excellence—especially intellectual excellence. He warns of the loss of intellectual excellence in evangelicalism and the exodus of intellectuals to different realms of Christianity (mainline Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy), or to full blown secularism. But excellence goes beyond the intellectual. Each one of us needs to commit to excellence in our field, whatever it may be. As to how we might learn of and measure this sort of excellence, Renn offers few details. Third, Renn invites evangelicals to be resilient. This means not only standing back up after being persecuted for our beliefs, but also taking proactive measures to ensure our financial independence (so as not to be reliant on government-based funding).
On the institutional level, Renn asks evangelicals to pursue another triad of traits: integrity, community strength, and ownership of social and cultural spaces.
On the missional level, we should strive to be lights, illuminating God’s natural law and created order. We should also take every opportunity to voice biblical truth in public, even in highly sensitive areas such as gender and sexuality. Renn also calls us to be prudentially engaged, that is, to avoid the tendency to withdraw from the political sphere and cultural life. We might not be interested in politics, Renn writes, “but politics will remain interested in” us.
Engagement
Some of Renn’s suggestions or strategies are admittedly broad and abstract. And theologians have criticized this, along with the lack of biblical
grounds in his approach (see Brian Mattson’s review for The Gospel Coalition). For instance, Renn does not present a biblical anthropology to shape and guide his analysis of these “eras” in American civic life, nor does he explore the relationship between biblical morality and progressivism within his chosen sixty-year time frame. These would likely be approaches for theologians, which Renn admits he is not.
But in the interest of being thought-provoking and helping readers to engage with what I believe are helpful elements of the book, let me pose some questions we might ask ourselves in light of Renn’s thesis—that Christians in America (and in the modern West) are living in the negative world.
We cannot sacrifice biblical orthodoxy for the sake of cultural compromise.
As Christians, do we know where we are in American thought life? I agree with Renn that many Christians simply don’t want to see themselves as living in a hostile world, especially when the founding of the United States had major Christian influences. But knowing where we are right now is critical for a wise and measured engagement with others in the public sphere. If we parade around like an ideological lion when we’re the equivalent of a house cat, chances are things will not go well for us. That’s not an invitation to trepidation. It’s simply a call to look at your ideological surroundings. What values are prevalent right now? What ideologies and trends? Egalitarianism is certainly big, as are cultural Marxism, materialism, and a de-supernaturalized view of the world. Like it or not, these things are part of our surroundings, our ecosystem. Our words and actions should enter the arenas of human behavior with intentionality and tact.
For example, I noted to a nurse at a local physician’s practice that surveys for patients now included a question about gender identity. I said, “I noticed that was a new addition.” The nurse replied almost apologetically, “Yeah, I know. It’s something new, and it’s been
freaking out a lot of the older patients.” As she said these words, I knew where Christianity stood in America’s ideological food chain, even out in the suburbs. So I replied, “People are deeply confused about identity, aren’t they? And everyone is struggling to understand this new transgender phenomenon.” My point wasn’t to stab through transgender ideology in the moment. It was to acknowledge before another human being that confusion is swirling, and people are trying to figure out how to respond. My bringing it up was meant to alert the staff that I noticed . This is a new phenomenon, and despite many claims to the contrary, society as a whole is just not sure what to do about it. Evidence for that lies in the differing State responses to policies regarding transgender identity and care. Had the nurse asked me what I thought, I would have moved beyond empathizing and communicated biblical truth. But, like a good nurse, she was only making sure I was taken care of. These are the sorts of interactions Christians will have in the negative world. I can no longer assume that a nurse in the suburbs knows anything about the Bible, including its anthropology and stance towards gender. I have to start by letting her know that I see her, that I see where we are as a culture. Communication moves on from that point. We need to know where we are when we speak.
Do we know how to measure excellence in our respective fields? This is a harder question than it seems. As a writer, I certainly strive for excellence in the craft—in my non-fiction, poetry, and fiction. But how I define “excellence” is very different from definitions we find in the secular world. There’s overlap, of course, but far more differences than similarities in my opinion, and that’s primarily because of telos—the final purpose that shapes my writing.
For instance, it’s common to hear literary critics condemn William Wordsworth’s later poetry as “poor” or “much worse” than his poetry from before his Christian conversion, such as in his Lyrical Ballads. What measurement is being used to make that assessment? There are probably many. But I’ll tell you what measurement isn’t being used: how well Wordsworth’s later poetry conveys biblical truth in creative and meaningful ways. That measurement is not even on the secular literary radar. But isn’t that the most important metric for Christian writers? Isn’t that our telos as wordsmiths for the word (John 1:1)? This does not mean Christian art must be
“explicitly” Christian in its symbolism, as if novelists should not write a story unless John 3:16 gets an allusion somewhere. But the overarching pull for Christian artists should be towards the redemptive, directly or indirectly, even as that redemption blooms amidst a messy and frustrated world.
On the institutional level, Renn asks evangelicals to pursue another triad of traits: integrity, community strength, and ownership of social and cultural spaces.
Or consider the work of the contemporary Anglican poet Malcolm Guite, who has resurrected the classic form of the sonnet but focuses on religious content for his poems: the resurrection, the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and Jesus’s parables. To the world, I have no doubt that his poetry would be condemned as “religiously prosaic.” And yet his poetry is some of the best I’ve read in recent years. Why? Because he conveys biblical truth in creative and meaningful ways—the Christian wordsmith’s telos. Christian poets need not be as direct as he is in presenting Christianity, but he cannot be faulted for it, in my opinion.
I say all this because excellence in one’s craft is not a matter of simple definitions. Our definition of “excellence” in a given field must ultimately be defined and shaped by Scripture. And once that happens, we may find our version of “excellence” very different from that of the secular world. That doesn’t mean there won’t be points of overlap. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics who enjoy the prose of G.K. Chesterton because of his skill with literary tools and devices, just as there are non-Christian fans of C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, Marilynne
Robinson, and Robinson Jeffers. And there can also be Christian fans of George Orwell, Cormac McCarthy, and a host of other secular wordsmiths. Great writers know how to effect change in their readers, even in readers who don’t share their basic convictions. Christian writers should learn and practice those features of writing that are almost universally appreciated within a given language. But that doesn’t mean our telos is the same as that of secular writers. Our “excellence” is a God-centered, Christ-honoring excellence. And for that, we can assume the world will ridicule us. I would entirely expect non-Christians to condemn Wordsworth’s later poetry: they don’t truly know what he’s writing about!
No matter what people think, they are playing with gifts from God, they are serving him through their lives, and they are ultimately being used to his ends.
Are we trying to influence those above and below us in the ideological food chain? Let me end here. The Apostle Paul wrote something truly amazing about God: “from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). This goes further than Da Vinci’s “everything connects to everything else.” This means all things are interconnected because of God. No matter what people think, they are playing with gifts from God, they are serving him through their lives, and they are ultimately being used to his ends. That means something important for Christians: God is using us right now to influence those above and below us in the ideological food chain. Because all things are interconnected for God’s glory, non-Christian members of the ideological food chain
“stand on” God’s bestowed grace in the ones below them—true Christians. Nowhere is this more apparent than in modern secular culture’s continued reliance on Christian values and moral norms. As books such as The Air We Breathe and Remaking the World make clear, the ideas higher up in America’s food chain are still standing on values and truths that are distinctly Christian: things such as equality under God, individual freedom, justice for the wronged, love for the poor and broken, and generosity of spirit. As Tom Holland wrote in Dominion, “To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions.”
Given that reality, Christians should make personal efforts to communicate biblical values despite the pressure to keep silent. We are the true heirs of Christ, but we are also heirs of the biblical value system that undergirds our culture. The more we voice that truth, the more we encourage others to see the roots of our own culture and the roots of the modern West. People can disavow the Christian faith, but we would be hardpressed to find someone who would disavow the values of Christianity.
“Addresses a broad audience regarding matters that are mount doctrinal concern. Makes an indeed superb contribution, one that will continue to be, as it already has proven to be,
From the foreword to this edition, Professor Emeritus, Westmin is a book on the Christ grounded in the person of Christ for the sake of the
From the pastoral afterword of this edition, Minister of Trinity
Despite its shortcomings (and every book but the Bible has them), Renn’s book is helping Christians reexamine their place in America’s ideological food chain. But it’s up to readers to begin using or reforming his advice and setting it into action. That seems to have been Renn’s main purpose all along. Time will tell where the country goes from here. But Renn is right that we live in a negative world. The question is how, exactly, we’ll have a positive influence on it for the glory of the self-giving God.
“This is one of those genuinely life-changing books. I know personal experience. Redemption Accomplished and Applied played a crucial role in my coming to understand the doctrines of grace. With his rigorously scriptural yet warmly accessible style, Professor Murray leads us to grand peaks where we a breathtaking view of God’s mercies in Christ.”
J. Gresham Machen Professor of Theology and Apologetics,
“A Scottish-born pastor and professor, Murray originally wrote this work of soteriology as a series of articles for ordinary members. You would be hard pressed to find a more succinct readable theological exploration of the work of Christ and
Senior Pastor, Christ Covenant Church, Matthews, NC; Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological ociate Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary,
Pierce Taylor Hibbs (MAR, ThM Westminster Theological Seminary) serves as Senior Writer and Communication Specialist at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is the author of over 20 books, including the Illumination Struck Down but Not Destroyed, The Great Lie, and One with God
He lives in Pennsylvania with his wife and three kids. Learn more about his work at piercetaylorhibbs.com.
Originally published in 1955 ted dozens of times over the Murray’s Redemption Accomplished Applied systematically explains sides of redemption–its accomplishment through Christ’s atonement and cation to the lives of believers.
In Part I of this theological classic explores the necessity, nature, ction, and extent of the atonement.
II expounds the biblical teaching calling, regeneration, faith and tance, justification, adoption, cation, perseverance, union with and glorification. of
An Adapted Title Page from Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"
“There is no power on earth that would compare to what [Leviathan] has become so that it would fear anyone.”
(translation of Vulgate Job 41:33)
How should contemporary Christians approach church and state relations? One entry point is by considering the extent of the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26–28 in terms of modern challenges to it. There are two linked parts contained in that short passage: the first addresses humanity made in the image of God and the second the cultural mandate. If humanity is not considered as made in the image of God, at a basic level human beings are not dignified as persons (e.g., Roe v. Wade 1973). But when human dominion and power are conceived of as absolute, the state easily functions to the detriment of the church. I focus on this latter issue in this article in relation to limited state power and the liberty of the church.
What happens when human dominion is conceptualized apart from human submission to God? In pursuit of progress toward that answer, I will compare two seventeenth-century thinkers who considered the nature of state power in terms of its limitations. One thinker articulated a theory of unlimited state power while the other a theory of limited state power. Amid these discussions of state power, a helpful point of reference when facing a pluralist society and the modern state today is the 1788 American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith on the civil magistrate’s role and the liberty of the church. After examining these, I will end with a reflection on governments that claim total power and demand utter subservience.
Thomas Hobbes and His Leviathan: The King above Law
The first thinker was a political philosopher and absolute monarchist, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who lived to see Britain and Ireland
plunged into multiple civil wars, the English parliament execute their king, and puritans and covenanters become dissidents and outlaws upon the reestablishment of the monarchy. Hobbes’s 1651 work, Leviathan, or the matter, forme, & power of a commonwealth ecclesiastical and civill, has been studied by political philosophers and legal theorists ever since, garnering praise and engagement from Karl Marx and Jean Jacques Rousseau, among others. For Hobbes, the most important reason to argue for absolute power of the monarch and absolute relegation of right by the citizenry was for political security and civil peace.
Using the image of leviathan, an insurmountable and invincible creature intended to overawe all rivals, Hobbes unpacked a theory of sovereign power and commonwealth in terms of an authoritarian entity that he would call variously the crown, the sovereign, and the monarch. On the original cover of the 1651 Leviathan is the picture of a king bearing a crown and brandishing a sword and crozier, traditional medieval symbols of the two powers of church and state. The two powers, spiritual (church) and temporal (state), were contested in longstanding debates regarding the limits of papal and imperial power as far back as Pope Gelasius I’s letter to Emperor Anastasius Augustus (494), as well as in the debates regarding the church’s power in ordination and investiture between Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073–1085) and Emperor Henry IV (r. 1086–1105). In the Renaissance, Marsilius of Padua (1270–1342) argued for a limited ecclesiastical power in order that the church could be reformed. In the fifteenth century, the debates surfaced again in the conciliarist movement on the limitation of the papacy by a church council. On the question of papal power versus imperial power in the sixteenth century, Protestants favored by their sovereign chose the state as the most competent agent to enable the reformation of the church. For
Protestants persecuted by their sovereign, the church was deemed competent to reform itself apart from the magistrate and the papacy, but they often did so as outlaws. All grappled with the question of how exactly church and state were related. Hobbes, then, joins an old conversation, arguing that the church and state are not under the pope, but both church and state are absolutely under an unlimited sovereign power within its domain. Additionally, in this cover image, what at first appears to be an armor of scale mail is actually comprised of people knitted together into a body corporate whose head is a king, forming a corporate commonwealth. If the commonwealth were the legal body politic in all its jurisdictional and juridical forms, the soul, intellect, will, and head of that body in Hobbes’s view is the sovereign. Just as the soul directs the body, so the will of the sovereign directs the commonwealth.
How does Hobbes justify his view? The native condition of humanity is the genesis of Hobbes’s claims for a sovereign and a commonwealth. According to Hobbes the absolute sole sovereign is necessary as a remedy,
because the condition of Man … is a condition of War of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason; and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies. It follows that in such a condition, every man has a right to everything, even to one another’s body. And therefore as long as this natural right of every man to everything endures, there can be no security to any man …
Note that the absolute individual exercise of natural right in Hobbes’s vision of society is an existential threat to the safety of society. In his view, what is necessary is an absolute yielding and subduing of all individual natural rights for the creation of an artificial contracted commonwealth for the common good, thereby mutually eliminating the natural right and therefore natural claim of all to all property. The elimination of such absolute claims and rights is how to eliminate the condition of war and usher in an age of security.
In Christianity, building upon the creation account in Genesis 1–3, the individual, the marital union, and the family all properly and originally related to God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, which precedes
political society and organization. This is not to say that political, civil, and societal organization are a result of the Fall into sin, although many agreed that sin now necessitates such political governance. After the Fall into sin, one of the chief aspects of the magistrate remains the just execution of punitive justice and enforcement of law (e.g., Rom. 13:1–7). Even still, all the building blocks of human existence—the individual, marriage, family, society, and so forth—as their hierarchy are developed from their foundation in the original condition of humanity cannot subvert its most basic goal. Human value and dignity are found first and foremost in their relation to their Creator. This is the center mass that rightly orders other relationships in their proper orbit and sphere. Whatever civil institutions and political structures arise subsequent to human creation, even prudential ones, are ultimately in service to God and proximately to human flourishing. They cannot rightly subvert justice, human value, and human dignity and yet remain impervious to the judgment of God.
In Genesis 11, the divine destruction of the tower of Babel illustrates an attempt to build a nation-state into a divine empire. If the Babylonian ziggurats resemble the tower of Babel in Genesis, examining the later inscriptions on them in connection with Genesis 11 is revealing. The ziggurat was not merely a temple, but claimed to be Babilu, the gate of the gods, where Marduk ruled gods and men for the promulgation of his worship, law, rule, and supremacy. While the Babylonians claimed that one temple—the Etemenanki (c. 1300 BC)—was “the house of the foundations of the heaven and earth” and that such a temple had a divine origin, Genesis 11:5 states the tower of Babel was one “which the sons of men had built.” The divine judgment was not for the height of the building, but the height of the hubris. The Tower of Babel symbolized the rule of an all-encompassing mortal god. While the state can be a powerful servant and protector of human value, dignity, and flourishing, it is not the savior of the human race, nor is it its chief end or God. The state is a sandcastle in the tide of time. The death of Herod in Acts 12 shows that God does not suffer aspirant mortal gods. As King Herod proudly met a crowd crowing his praise (“The voice of a god, and not of a man!” Acts 12:22), “immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last” (Acts 12:23).
What then, according to Hobbes, is the solution to an original condition of life-as-war that is bloody, barbaric, and short? Hobbes argues individuals must cede their natural liberty and individual rights in exchange for common security to an all-powerful monarch and commonwealth with no limits. For Hobbes, this is the necessary “generation of Leviathan or rather to speak more reverently of that mortal god to which we owe under the immortal God our peace and defense.” Hobbes’s mortal god, leviathan, is birthed when all “confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon an assembly of men that may reduce all their wills … to one will.” In short, for Hobbes, authoritarianism solves the problem of individual wills and political conflict, whether the sovereign is a monarchical executive or a corporate legislature. The social contract, as articulated in Leviathan, is an irrevocable grant of individual rights ceded to the sovereign. It is crucial to note that the sovereign receives the once-for-all covenant pledge of fealty from the people. The sovereign power, that is leviathan, and thus the monarch is not a party in the social contract. The sovereign lives above the law, determining and nullifying it. Against proponents of a limited government, Hobbes denies that the sovereign’s power is a contingent grant from the governed. The force of law is not by covenant and consent, but force. “The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant, that is to say on condition, proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth, that Covenants being but words and breath have no force to oblige, contain, constrain, or protect any man but what it has from the publique Sword.”
The divine judgment was not for the height of the building, but the height of the hubris.
How extensively did Hobbes envision a restructuring of human liberty considering sovereign power? Was it limited to civil and political matters? In Leviathan, Hobbes argues for the absolute supremacy of the monarch and the commonwealth over the military, the law, property, the definition of crime, and the execution of
punishment. This seems like a general articulation of the duties of government. In the exercise of a sovereign’s power, however, Hobbes claimed a sovereign could intentionally execute an innocent man without committing a crime, based on his interpretation of King David’s murder of Uriah. While it was a sin against God and a crime against Uriah’s natural rights, Hobbes contends that within the domain of the state, David committed no crime or injustice against Uriah, since monarchs cannot break the law. In fact, Uriah consented to his murder in his original pledge of fealty to David.
But what of matters of faith, worship, and doctrine? Religion and the interpretation of Scripture? Even conscience itself? Consider Hobbes’s approach to the Sovereign and Scripture, when he argues that since sovereigns in their domains are the sole legislators,
… those books only are canonical, that is, Law in every nation, which are established for such by the Sovereign Authority. … and therefore when [God] speaks to any subject, he ought to be obeyed, whatsoever any earthly potentate command to the contrary. But the question is not of obedience to God, but of when and what God hath said; which to subjects that have no supernatural revelation, cannot be known, but by that natural reason which guided them, for the obtaining of peace and justice to obey the authority of their several commonwealths, that is to say, [it belongs] to their lawful sovereigns.
In this quote, Hobbes pays lip-service to the supremacy of God as the ultimate sovereign authority but contends that the canon of Scripture and its meaning are determined by the human sovereign, as all individuals equally lack supernatural revelation because only the sovereign can make Scripture public law. In this vacuum of authoritative interpretation, the sovereign has the right of final determination of the canon of Scripture, its content, and an individual’s conscience. Hobbes in one stroke shrouds Scripture and its interpretation in an envelope of state control, relegating the spiritual ministry of the church as a vassal, agent, and mouthpiece of a sovereign temporal state.
That the state is the arbiter of all meaning and significance is a core aspect of totalitarianism, whether in the seventeenth century or the twentieth. Benito Mussolini’s
dictum encapsulating the political philosophy of fascism—“all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state”—sounds similar to the totalitarian power of the sovereign set forth in Leviathan. Mussolini tolerated traditional Roman Catholicism only if it aligned with and served the reigning ideology. Hobbes similarly subordinated the preaching of pastors to the sovereign:
There is therefore no other government in this life, neither of State nor Religion, but temporall; nor teaching of any doctrine lawfull to any Subject, which the Governor both of the State and of the Religion forbiddeth to be taught: and the Governor must be one … The Doctors of the Church are called Pastors; so also are civill soveraignes: but if pastors be not subordinate one to another, so as that there may bee one chief pastor, men will be taught contrary doctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one chief pastor is, according to the law of nature, hath already shewn; namely, that it is the civil sovereign; and to whom the Scripture hath assigned that office …
Hobbes argued even more explicitly that the civil sovereign is the judge of heresy and can never be a heretic, “for haeresie is nothing else, but a private opinion, obstinately maintained contrary to the opinion which the publique person (that is to say, the Representant of the Commonwealth) hath commanded to be taught. By which it is manifest that an opinion publiquely appointed to bee taught, cannot be haeresie; nor the Soveraign princes that authorize them, haeretiques.”
To be clear, the state enfolding the church as Hobbes wanted results in a chained and crippled ministry. The church no longer functions prophetically to address sins and to call for repentance regardless of social or civil position. Hobbes envisions pastors as agents of political conformity and propaganda under the king as chief pastor. It does not shock us today that the Bible is outlawed under some political regimes, but it is striking when regimes edit the very text of Scripture to align with the reigning ideology. In such environments, reading, exegeting, and preaching the text of Scripture in its original language is a meaningful declaration of the liberty of the church. Leviathan in all of its reach
and expanse is indeed a fitting and terrifying image of what constitutes state power over against the individual, family, and the church.
The Liberty of the Church in the 1788 WCF 23.3
Contrast Hobbes’s view with Westminster Confession of Faith 23.3 as revised and received by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia in 1788. The revision stems from a change in perspective as well as conviction. Are Christian denominations only to be tolerated by the establishment, or do they have spiritual liberty apart from the State? The most germane portions of WCF 23.3 are reproduced in part here:
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.
The revisions reflect significant geopolitical changes from the 1647 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the 1788 Synod of New York and Philadelphia. After the National Covenant (1639) and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), Scottish Presbyterians envisioned a unified Scottish crown and an established Presbyterian church. However, events took a different direction. Charles I was beheaded in 1649 by the English Parliament for treason by upholding “in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people.” This was after ten years of conflict within England, Scotland, and Ireland, including the Bishops’ Wars, the
English Civil Wars, and the Irish Confederate Wars. The Third Civil War (1650–1652) between Scotland and England was imminent.
In 1650, at the Treaty of Breda, the exiled Charles II (1630–1685) swore to uphold the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant to gain Scotland’s military support. However, by 1660, Charles II, now king, declared his prior covenanting oath void, claiming Presbyterian principles conflicted with the crown. The Rescissory Act (1661) voided all Scottish parliaments since 1640, ejected over four hundred Presbyterian ministers, and re-established episcopalian polity. The Abjuration Act (1662) nullified the national covenant, barring most Presbyterians from civil office. Preaching at Presbyterian conventicles was declared treason in 1685. This period, known as “The Killing Time,” repressed Presbyterians by fines, persecution, torture, and extrajudicial executions, eliciting assassinations, risings, and rebellions in response.
Toleration movements emerged towards the end of this period. The Toleration Act of 1689 in England allowed dissenting Protestants to practice their worship separately from the established church. A similar move occurred in Scotland. King James VII of Scotland (James II of England) allowed Roman Catholics to hold public office in 1686 and permitted Presbyterians to worship privately in 1687. Despite this, dissenters in North America faced fines, imprisonment, or exile. It was not until the acquittal of Presbyterian minister Francis Makemie in New York in 1707 that colonials gained protection under the 1689 Toleration Act.
Religious toleration in the colonies varied. Apart from Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, toleration often stemmed from expedience. In Maryland, originally a haven for Roman Catholics, the Protestant Revolution in 1689 led to disenfranchisement of Catholics, which persisted until Maryland’s admission to the United States. In Virginia, the persecution of Baptists and other itinerant ministers such as Presbyterian revivalists continued throughout the mid-eighteenth century. The Toleration Act of 1689 eventually allowed unestablished congregations to build meetinghouses and form denominations. But the problem was just that, these were tolerated differences. The various denominations were not at liberty in the free and public exercise of their religion. The 1788 revision of WCF 23.3 coincided with the presentation of the U.S. Constitution for ratification to the States. The Presbyterians did not expect religious
unity in the new country nor desire state-enforced resolution. Instead, they anticipated an environment of fervent evangelism and voluntary religious participation. Key biblical passages, John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world,” and Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” emphasized the liberty of the church from the state and the need for Christians to be faithful witnesses, even if out of step with societal norms.
The church seeks liberty in the things of God, freedom to be the voice of godliness, grace, and holiness to every member of society at every level.
Most American Presbyterians, especially during the revival and missionary movements of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, held to a free church model. A. A. Hodge, in A Commentary on the Confession of Faith (1869), notes the shift from the Roman Catholic view of church supremacy over the state and the Erastian view of state supremacy over the church. Remarking on WCF 23.3, he notes, “These sections teach that the Church and the State are both divine institutions, having different objects and spheres of action, different governments and officers, and hence, while owing mutual good offices, are independent of each other.” Toleration of the church within the state is insufficient; the church seeks liberty in the things of God, freedom to be the voice of godliness, grace, and holiness to every member of society at every level.
Rutherford’s Lex Rex: The King under the Law
The second seventeenth-century figure was Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Presbyterian theologian, pastor, and Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly. Rutherford lived through the same turmoil as Hobbes but died one year after the
restoration of the monarchy. After the Restoration in 1660, his work, Lex Rex (1644), on the subordination of the king to law, was ordered to be burned in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and in Oxford in 1683. Why was the book treated so? Rutherford argued the power of the sovereign is limited. Rutherford was also cited by the Scottish parliament in 1661 on a charge of treason, a capital offense, but died before the process could commence. Lex Rex is a seminal piece of seventeenth-century Presbyterian political thought. One scholar labeled Rutherford’s approach to limited government one of the five points of political Calvinism. It represents a covenanter line of thought born amidst the same context in which Hobbes wrote Leviathan against Presbyterians and dissenters. Assuming the fallen nature of humanity and the need for grace, Rutherford advocated a limited, accountable, and transparent government. While Rutherford could not foresee a future with religious toleration, much less religious liberty, he argued for what moderns would call a constitutionally limited sovereign. The biblical fulcrum against which he leveraged his view was Deuteronomy 17:18–20,
And when [the king] sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.
Rutherford argues that the best king knows the word of God as it applies to his realm, but especially as it applies to himself. The word of God encompasses all of life. The king cannot compartmentalize his daily devotions, which shape his character, from the character he employs in the exercise of his office as king. Reading the word of God is an act of submission that counters the temptation and sin to exalt oneself over others. In reading the word of God, the king is cautioned that he is only a man serving in an office who must love the Lord God and his neighbor. A sovereign that forgets he serves the people and claims absolute power is primed for tyranny.
In Question 22, Rutherford asks whether the power of the king is absolute or limited by God’s first mold and pattern of a king.
... But that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a King, above the law, is evident by this: 1. He who in his first institution, is appointed of God, by office, even when he sits on the throne to take heed to read on a written copy of God’s law, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words of this law, &c. He is not of absolute power above law, but, Deut. 17:18-19, the King, as King, while he sits on the Throne, is to do this; Ergo, the Assumption is clear: for this is the law of the King, as King; and not of a man, as a man. But as he sits on the Throne, he is to read on the book of the Law: and ver. 20. Because he is King, his heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren.
The principle then is a limited and accountable sovereign, balanced in his powers and fully answerable to the law. Power, dominion, and their exercise, according to Rutherford, are never absolute in the hands of human beings.
Claiming such absolute power for oneself is tantamount to claiming equality with God, says Rutherford. Against the monarchist claim of his day that asserted the king cannot formally commit a crime even though it is a sin against God, Rutherford states:
… that absolute power to Tyrannize, is not from God. 1. Because if this Moral power to sin were from God, it being formally wickedness, [then] God must be the Author of sin. 2. Whatever Moral power is from God, the exercises of that power, and the acts thereof must be from God, and so these acts must be Morally good and just; for if the Moral power be of God, as the Author, so must the acts be. Now the acts of a Tyrannical power are acts of sinful injustice and oppression and cannot be from God.
Rutherford argues further that “[Absolute power is] a power contrary to justice, to peace and the good of the people; it looks to no law as a rule, and so is unreasonable, and forbidden by the Law of God, and the
Civil Law …” Here Rutherford, contrary to the claims of monarchists and totalitarians, argues it is not simply that sovereigns are subject to the Law of God. Even staunch royalists in Rutherford’s day would have argued that. Rather, his point is that kings as kings are subject to civil law and its consequences. Rutherford argues further that absolute power “cannot be a lawful power, and cannot constitute a lawful judge; …. How can the Judge be the Minister of God for good to the people, (Rom. 13:4) if he have such a power as a King given him of God to destroy and waste the people?”
Turning his attention away from a king and to the people, Rutherford argues for a limited government answerable to the people. He also argues that citizens, contra Hobbes, retain their natural right of defense against unjust exercise of force:
… An absolute power is contrary to nature, and so unlawful, for it makes the people give away the natural power of defending their life against illegal and cruel violence, and makes a man who needs to be ruled and lawed by nature, above all rule and law; and one who by nature can sin against his brethren, such a one as cannot sin against any, but God only, and makes him a Lion and an unsocial man.
And it is here that we find the crux of the argument for Christians pondering politics. Rutherford is plain that limited, accountable government that walks in accord with the Scriptures is an incalculable blessing. He is also clear that sovereigns claiming absolute power walk contrary to the law of nature, the Law of God, and the law of man. No one in principle has the right to sin, whether citizen or sovereign. Theologically, it is unconscionable for a Christian to maintain that God gives the right to a minister of justice to act unjustly. For these and other arguments, in 1661 Rutherford was declared a traitor. Such is the consequence of speaking against a leviathan, a regime that claims absolute power.
A Reflection on the Death of a Leviathan
How should contemporary Christians consider questions of church and state relations? With care. The postures of individual nation-states towards the church, Christians, and Christianity are not
equivalent. The state as servant is a minister of justice for the terror of evildoers and a protector of the good (cf. Rom. 13:1–7). But insofar as it is a question of a leviathan that does not tolerate the church’s liberty and seeks to engulf it, I would like to conclude by reflecting for a moment on my recent visit to the Amphithéâtre des Trois-Gaules in Lyon, France, the old Roman city of Lugdunum.
Pausing on a patch of nondescript red clay some twenty yards in diameter, just one quadrant of the original size, I watched as nonchalant stagehands set up for an outdoor summer concert and a pop-up bar for the night’s event. What drew me to this spot was not the coming entertainment. It was the entertainment that had occurred.
A leviathan may rage for a time, but it will meet its limit at last.
I was standing amidst the ruins of an ancient amphitheater that once accommodated at least 20,000 people, built in 19 AD to secure the loyalty of one of the most powerful Gallic tribes to oppose the Romans. After their conquest by Julius Caesar, it became a site where representatives of the three Gallic kingdoms Aquitania, Belgica, and Lugdunensis annually pledged perpetual and undying allegiance to the absolute rule and sovereignty of Rome. The amphitheater was adjacent to the oldest temple outside of Rome devoted to the imperial cult, worshipping Dea Roma, the goddess Rome, and the Augusti, the emperors. This temple was also one of the largest sites for emperor worship in the western empire, with a marble courtyard fifty meters long supporting an altar nine meters tall and almost fifteen meters wide, and two columns thirteen meters high each with a statue of the goddess victory three meters tall. It was a bastion of power and grandeur. Here in stone was a leviathan’s temple to overawe all as a mortal god. And if there was any doubt, its criminals and dissidents rubricated the red clay redder still. Its state-funded priests boomed, muttered, and silently performed their mysteries of
Roman divinity daily. Christians would have been pressed to just pinch incense over fire and admit the emperor a god alongside their God. And while other deities dotted the city in homes, streets, and alcoves, this was the most prominent edifice. In view of the balconies and terraces of that complex above, overlooking the amphitheater below, here on this red clay Christians met their deaths in 177 AD at the jaws of roaring lions with the jeers of a roaring crowd. With a mortal emperor-god enshrined in stone and the crowd proclaiming loyalty, Christians pleaded their faith, bled, and died bearing witness.
The second-century church at Lyon was a mission church whose first pastors were Greek-speaking Christians from the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. And while they prayed for the peace of their city and sought its prosperity ministering in it, they were accustomed to a costly witness, to faithfulness in suffering, refusing to worship the emperor or validate the imperial cult. For there is only one God with absolute dominion, of that they were sure. While it is unknown what they prayed, said, or sang as they died, if the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon serve (d. c. 202 in a Roman massacre), they knew the words of Paul,
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor. 10:3–5).
The Roman empire, that ancient leviathan, sanguinary and savage in its persecution of Christianity, has passed. The trinkets of Roman rule in Lugdunum—inscriptions, stones, mosaics, baubles, pots, shards, keys, locks, and bits of glass and boats, antiquarian wonders all—are partially housed in an austere concrete museum across the two rivers, next to another two ancient amphitheaters; more a tomb than a living city. Rome’s pride and glory in Lugdunum, such as it remains, can be visited for a bargain discount at €2.50. But the other remains of its worldly splendor—its leviathan temple— have been lost to history, paved over with parking lots, high rise apartments, cafes, and shopping centers. Virgil
once boasted of Rome in poetry that Jupiter had given it imperium sine fine, empire without limit. A boast now hollower than ever. A leviathan may rage for a time, but it will meet its limit at last. Standing and reflecting on the witness of the church and the preserving hand of God, I found that Isaiah 27:1 came to mind, that the Lord will defend his church.
In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.
Not too far from the ruins of that silent amphitheater and a fifth-century church, I had the privilege of worshipping in Lyon with a faithful congregation meeting in a rented theater, still preaching and praising God, finding promise, hope, and courage, with uplifted voices singing freely without fear, Tout pour la gloire de Dieu et de l’Agneau! All for the glory of God and the Lamb!
With thanks to Rev. Dr. John Anderson, the session, and congregation of Bay Presbyterian Church (PCA) Bonita Springs, FL, this article has been adapted from an address delivered on abuses of the Creation Mandate at their Expositors Conference, Feb. 22–23, 2024.
Dr. Todd Rester (PhD, Calvin Theological Seminary) is associate professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Rester is a post-doctoral research fellow at Queen’s University Belfast (September 2016–present). In addition to guest lecturing at Queen’s, Dr. Rester has taught as an adjunct professor at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (2010–2016), Kuyper College (2013–2015), and Calvin Theological Seminary (2011–2015). He also works as a translator for the Dutch Reformed Translation Society (2009–present). Dr. Rester’s academic interests include the history of the doctrine of Scripture and its reception; early modern and Enlightenment conflicts between theology and philosophy on general and special revelation; and early modern and post-Enlightenment models of missiology.
Westminster Weekly
THE CHURCH’S SOVEREIGNTY
R.B. Kuiper
Alexander Jackson Davis (1803-1892), Church of the Holy Apostles, New York City
Afrom the archive
good dictionary defines sovereignty as “the possession or exercise of supreme authority; dominion; sway.” A most important word in that definition is supreme. The English word sovereign is derived from the Latin supremus, which means highest or supreme. In the light of this derivation the less usual spelling soveren is correct. The spelling sovereign seems to have come into use because soverenty usually involves reigning God alone is sovereign in the absolute sense, for his authority is truly supreme. He holds unlimited sway over the whole of the universe. “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can stay his hand or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35).
However, the term sovereignty has also come to be used in a relative sense. The sovereign God has seen fit to lend authority to some of his creatures over others. In consequence, while no creature has an iota of sovereignty in relation to the Creator, certain creatures do possess a measure of sovereignty in relation to other creatures. Therefore, it is proper to ascribe sovereignty, for example, to the state; and that is commonly done. Much less frequently are men wont to ascribe sovereignty to the Christian church, and yet to do that is not a whit less proper. Its sovereignty is a significant aspect of its glory.
A Restricted Sovereignty
Let us suppose that a certain village has three churches, that each of these churches has a high spire, and that all three of these spires are of exactly the same height. No matter how high they may be, not one of them is the highest. Manifestly there can never be more than one highest. It follows that there is but one who is truly sovereign. That one, of course, is God. No matter how great the power and authority of, shall we say, the state or the church may be, God alone is sovereign.
Therefore, the church has no sovereignty whatever with reference to God. God is sovereign over the church, and that is the entire truth. The church is wholly subject unto God. Its one duty is to obey the law of God, and it has no right to make laws of its own that contradict or
even augment the law of God. It may neither allow what God forbids nor forbid what God allows.
As the church is subject to God, so it is subject to its Head and King, Jesus Christ. He reigns over it as its absolute monarch. His word is law for the church, and the church has no right to amend his law whether by alteration, addition, or subtraction. It is entirely correct to say that the church has no legislative power, for Christ has given it a perfect law. When it makes certain rules and regulations in the interest of good order, as it often must, these are never to be equated with the law of Christ.
How clear that the church’s sovereignty is severely restricted. With reference to God and Christ it is simply non-existent.
God has, however, given a measure of authority to the church with reference to men, and that authority may be denominated sovereignty. The question whether this sovereignty is restricted or unrestricted has been the subject of much contention throughout the church’s history. While Protestantism insists that it is restricted, the Church of Rome teaches that it is unrestricted. The authority which Rome claims for itself is truly totalitarian. But that claim cannot be substantiated.
The church has no sovereignty whatever with reference to God. God is sovereign over the church, and that is the entire truth.
When God made man in his image, he endowed him with certain inherent rights. By man’s fall into sin that image was severely marred and even largely lost, but not annihilated. In consequence every human being remains in possession of certain inalienable rights. And in the, case of the regenerate, in whom the image of God has been restored, those rights are accentuated. Freedom of speech and freedom of worship are but two of them. To
be sure, in the exercise of these rights each man must respect the rights of his fellow-men and above all else the law of God, but nobody may seek to deprive him of these rights. Rome has often done precisely that. There was a time when it forbade not only the reading, but the possessing, of a Bible; and frequently it has inflicted the penalty of death on those who dared to criticize the teachings and practices of the church. Beyond all doubt, the church’s sovereignty with reference to the individual is restricted.
Both the church and the state are sovereign, each in its own sphere; and each must recognize the other’s sovereignty.
So is the sovereignty of the church with reference to the family restricted. God established the human family in the garden of Eden. He created woman and gave her to Adam that she might be his wife. He commanded them: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Significantly, God, not the church, brought the family into being, and it antedates the founding of the church. It follows undeniably that the family, like the individual, has certain rights on which the church may not encroach; It is not the church’s business to stipulate the precise percentage of the family budget that is to be given to the church, nor to prescribe a menu for the family dinner, nor yet to dictate to a bereaved family where it is to bury its dead.
More instances of restrictions on the church’s sovereignty might be named, but in this context the relation of the church to the state deserves special attention.
For centuries two opposite views of the relation of church and state have vied with each other: The Western church, under the leadership of the bishop of Rome, has long taken the position that the church must exercise authority over the state. A certain pope declared that the pope as head of the church “possesses the right, which he properly uses under favorable circumstances; to pass judgment even in civil affairs on the acts of princes and
of nations.” Contrariwise, the Eastern church early took the position that the church is but a phase of the state and that it is the state’s duty to appoint the officers of the church, to define its laws, and to support it. Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to give official recognition to the Christian church and in 330 moved his capital eastward to the city which he named for himself, Constantinople, was regarded not only as head of the empire but also as head of the church. In later times the Russian czars claimed the same double honor. It is not strange that the churches of the Protestant Reformation, by way of opposition to Rome, adhered in the main to a more or less similar view.
Today a large part of Protestantism, American Protestantism in particular, is convinced that the Bible teaches what is commonly—and somewhat loosely—called the separation of church and state. What is meant is that the church may not seek to govern a commonwealth nor interfere with the purely political affairs of the state, and that the state may not seek to govern the church nor interfere with its spiritual affairs. In short, both the church and the state are sovereign, each in its own sphere; and each must recognize the other’s sovereignty. That is implied in the saying of the Lord Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21), on which Calvin has commented that the Lord here “lays down a clear distinction between spiritual and civil government.” The same truth is implicit in the fact that on Pentecost the church, which had been largely—although not entirely—national, became universal. A universal church must needs transcend the bounds of nationalism. And is it not obvious that neither did the state create the church nor did the church create the state, but God originated both and endowed each with its own specific authority?
The conclusion is inescapable that, while the sovereignty of the state with reference to the church is restricted, the sovereignty of the church with reference to the state is also restricted. The church is sovereign only in its own sphere. Its authority is not totalitarian.
A Positive Sovereignty
Let no one infer from the foregoing that the sovereignty of the church amounts to little or nothing. The truth is that it is very real, most actual, and decidedly positive.
Time and again in its history the church has found it necessary to assert its sovereignty over against usurpation by the state.
It is an interesting fact that already under the theocracy of the Old Testament, when church and state were much more closely associated with each other than has been the case since Pentecost, the church on various occasions exercised its sovereignty vigorously in opposition to the encroaching state. King Saul was ready to go to battle against the Philistines. It seems to have been customary for the Israelites before joining battle to bring a sacrifice to God. That was a function of the priests, to be performed in this instance by Samuel. When Samuel was late in coming, Saul became impatient and himself offered the sacrifice. Presently Samuel arrived and informed Saul that because of this sin the kingdom would be taken from him (1 Sam. 13:9–14). King Uzziah once upon a time insisted on burning incense on the altar of incense in the temple. This again was a prerogative of the priests. When the king ignored the vigorous protest of the priests, God smote him with leprosy, and his son reigned in his stead (2 Chron. 26:16–20). In both of these instances a representative of the state was severely punished for encroaching upon the sovereignty of the church.
The New Testament records some striking instances of the same sort of thing. To name but one, when the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews, forbade the apostles to preach in the name of Jesus, Peter declared boldly: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and so they did.
When the emperor Nero bound the Christians in bunches, poured pitch and tar over them, and then set them on fire thus to illuminate the imperial gardens, the church did not yield but sovereignly proceeded on its way.
When the Diet of Worms demanded that Luther recant his supposedly heretical teachings, he sovereignly uttered the memorable words: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me; Amen.” John Knox sovereignly defied both the tears and the wrath of Queen Mary, and over his grave Melville spoke: “Here lies one who never feared the face of man.” Said Lord Macaulay of the Puritan: “He bowed himself in the dust before his Maker, but he set his foot on the neck of his king.”
Ours is an age of state totalitarianism. All over the world statism is in the ascendancy. In the second world war three totalitarian states, Germany, Italy and Japan, suffered a crushing defeat, but Russia, another
totalitarian state, has since risen to incomparably greater heights of power and influence than ever before. And in the so-called democracies, the United States of America included, there is a strong trend toward statism. In consequence, in many lands the church finds itself utterly at the mercy of a state whose mercy often proves cruelty, while in others the notion is rapidly gaining ground that the church exists and operates by the state’s permission. Now, if ever, is the time for the church to assert its sovereignty over against encroachments by the state. The church is in sacred duty bound to rise up in its God-given majesty and proclaim to the world that it preaches the word of God, not by the grace of human governments, but solely at the command of the sovereign God and its sovereign King seated at God’s right hand.
In another respect too the sovereignty of the church is positive indeed. It must sovereignly lay down the law of God to the individual, the family, society and the state.
The church is in sacred duty bound to rise up in its Godgiven majesty and proclaim to the world that it preaches the word of God, not by the grace of human governments, but solely at the command of the sovereign God and its sovereign King seated at God’s right hand.
No individual has the right to say that his private life is his own to lead and is none of the church’s business. That would be far too sweeping an assertion. The law of God concerns every aspect of human life, and the church has been charged with the proclamation of that law in all its Scriptural fulness. It must condemn every sin in the
life of the individual. To be sure, there are a number of practices which the law of God neither commands nor forbids. They are commonly called adiaphora or indifferent things. But even such matters are not beyond God’s law. An accurate definition of an adiaphoron is a practice which the law of God allows but does not require. That means that the so-called indifferent things have divine sanction; in themselves they are neither immoral nor amoral, but good although not required. But only then is their performance truly good when they are performed in faith and out of love. While the church must be scrupulously careful not to forbid what God allows, it must also tell men what is the proper use according to the word of God of that which God allows.
Never may the family tell the church defiantly to refrain from meddling with any of its affairs. That would be exceedingly rash. With reference to the family too, the church must sovereignly proclaim the whole law of God. When a husband and his wife are contemplating divorce, they may not bid the church leave them alone. It must acquaint them with the teaching of Scripture on divorce and demand of them that they live accordingly. That church is remiss in the performance of its duty which does not proclaim the teaching of the word of God on “mixed marriages” and “planned parenthood.” And whether parents give their children a truly Christian training is not merely their concern, but the church’s as well. For on that subject, too, God has spoken, and he has done so emphatically.
For many decades now the so-called social gospel has been popular with Modernists. In their righteous indignation with the social gospel of Modernism many Fundamentalists have illogically jumped to the conclusion that the gospel must be presented only on a strictly individual basis. In consequence, conservative churches generally have neglected the social implications of the gospel. But that is a way of saying that these churches have failed to assert their sovereignty in relation to society. For but one example, society is torn today as seldom, if ever, before by conflict between industry and labor, employers and employees. All too often the church is satisfied with the role of a mildly interested, if not altogether disinterested, onlooker. What it should do is to declare boldly to masters and servants alike the sovereignty of the Lord Christ over both of them (Col. 3:22–4:1). For in the recognition of that sovereignty lies the solution of this problem.
It must be admitted to the church’s shame that it
has often cowered before the state. It was not ever thus. When David had stolen Bathsheba from her husband Uriah and had then got rid of him by what amounted to murder, the prophet Nathan told him off in utter fearlessness. And when King Ahab had robbed and killed Naboth, the prophet Elijah unflinchingly pronounced upon him and his house the judgments of God. A noble company of God’s servants has followed in the train of these prophets, but that company has never been as large as it should have been. Today it is small indeed. The church of God should lift up its voice with strength against lying and theft and bribery and vice, which are so frightfully rampant in high places. It must proclaim aloud that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). It is much more than time for the church to call to repentance and, in case of failure to repent, to discipline to the point of excommunication those rulers of the world who are at once members of Christ’s church and putrid politicians. And those power-hungry potentates who neither fear God nor regard man but take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed, saying: “Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us,” must be told by the church that He that sits in the heavens will laugh, that the Lord will have them in derision, and that, if they fail to kiss the Son, He will break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (Ps. 2).
Let the church speak sovereignly for the sovereign God and “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15).
Rienk Bouke Kuiper (1886–1966) was educated at the University of Chicago, Indiana University, Calvin Theological Seminary, and Princeton Theological Seminary. After graduating from Princeton, Kuiper served five western Michigan congregations (in the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America) over the next seventeen years, before becoming one of the founding faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (1929–30), as Professor of Systematic Theology. He then served as president of Calvin College in 1930 until being called back to Westminster in 1933 as Professor of Practical Theology, serving faithfully until his retirement in 1952.
“...our Lord Jesus Christ... is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords.”
–1 Timothy 6:14–15
Jan Wildens (1584–1653), Gezicht op Antwerpen
FACULTY NEWS & UPDATES
Stephen Coleman recently led a group of students on an evangelism missions trip in Sumatra, Indonesia (September 28–October 4). He also taught a course, Themes and Theology of the Minor Prophets, at the International Reformed Evangelical Seminary (October 7–10). At the end of October, he is speaking at two conferences in Aracaju, Brazil—23rd to 24th; Feira de Santana, Brazil—25th to 26th. The topic is “The Church in the Old Testament.” He has stepped into the role of editor-in-chief for Unio cum Christo, which just saw its first issue published under the auspices of Vandenhoek and Ruprecht (V&R).
John Currie is interim senior pastor at Proclamation Presbyterian Church in Bryn Mawr till May, 2025. In October, he spoke on pastoral leadership at the OPC Revitalization Mentors’ Seminar (Oct. 3–4) and is leading the Westminster Conference on Preaching and Preachers (Oct. 15–16) in Willow Grove, PA. John is also speaking on Pastoral Leadership for the Presbytery of Southern California (OPC) at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, CA, and at the Education Conference (Hong Kong) in early November. In April, he will speak at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ Gap Conference in Gap, PA.
Iain Duguid has a Genesis commentary in the 12 volume ESVEC series out in March. He continues to publish sections of The Quarterly, an adult Sunday school curriculum that follows a 7-year journey through the entire Bible. Upcoming editions include 1 & 2 Kings (Fall ’24), Galatians & Ephesians (Winter ’24), and Daniel, Ezra, & Nehemiah (Spring ’25).
Rob Edwards was the plenary speaker at a missions conference at New Covenant Fellowship PCA in Mechanicsburg, PA in April, 2024. Earlier this summer, he preached at a church pastored by a WTS alumnus (June 2) as well as the ordination service of one of our recent graduates (June 30).
Mark Garcia is completing work on a commentary on the book of Romans to be published in the new Hodder Bible Commentary series. He’s continuing work on various essays and articles as well as books on gender, ecclesial faithfulness in cultural and pastoral contexts, and the order of reality. Mark will also lead a research and ecumenical project with the World Evangelical Alliance regarding the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) churches of the East. He was appointed to the advisory council of St. Dunstan’s Academy in Nelson County, VA. His work as president and fellow in Scriptures at Greystone Theological Seminary will take him to an in-progress Greystone Learning Community in Cape Town, South Africa in December.
David Garner presented at the Gap Theology Conference in September, and at the Greenville Conference on Reformed Theology (Second Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC) earlier this month. He will be presenting at the “Unchanging God Has Spoken” Conference (Christ Presbyterian Church, Nashville, TN), and the Education Conference (Hong Kong) in early November. Finally, he will participate in the Kingdom Advisors Conference (Orlando, FL) in February and give the Charles Krahe Lecture at WTS in April.
Jonathan Gibson participated in the Cheyenne Reformation Conference in September. Jonny will deliver the Crossway ETS Breakfast address on November 22 and participate in the BRITE Winter Intensive from Jan. 16–19, 2025. He is having two books published, An Interpretative Lexicon of Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic and My First Book of Bible 1, 2, 3s.
Peter A. Lillback participated in the Lausanne Conference in September. His travel schedule includes lecturing on the Reformation in Brazil, meeting with the WTS Korean Council in South Korea, and looking forward to teaching Johannine Theology in Jakarta in November. He is coordinating a continued pastoral training program in Southwest Florida with Dr. Stafford Carson and Dr. Jonny Gibson, coordinated by Dr. John Anderson. He is doing an online church history course on the Modern Age and a winter-term course on the Westminster Standards for the advanced degree programs. He is completing the abridged version of George Washington’s Sacred Fire, an anticipated publication by P&R.
K. Scott Oliphint will retire from his position as professor of apologetics and systematic theology on December 31, 2024, the end of the fall semester. Scott has taught at Westminster for 33 years. In the past, he also has acted as Westminster’s vice president of student affairs and academic affairs.
Vern Poythress spent time in July working with the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible. The committee discusses and determines small changes to the ESV. His book,
Making Sense of Man: Using Biblical Perspectives to Develop a Theology of Humanity, will be released by P&R Publishing in November, 2024. In addition, he is working on a book tentatively titled, Making Sense of God: Using Biblical Perspectives to Develop the Doctrine of God, also with P&R. He is currently on professional advancement leave from the seminary.
Todd Rester is working on several book projects, including the full translation of Petrus van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Theology for the Dutch Reformed Translation Society and Reformation Heritage Books, which was completed in February 2024. Now in final editing, the concluding volumes five, six, and seven of this work are set to be published by the end of 2025. The publication of Franciscans and Scotists on War with Routledge in late 2024 or early 2025 will conclude his participation in a European Union ERC postdoctoral project, “War and the Supernatural in Early Modern Europe” (Grant #677490, Mar 2016 - Feb 2021) hosted by Queen’s University Belfast. Dr. Rester is also the editor and occasional translator on the Historic Texts of Reformed Theology with Westminster Seminary Press. Volume 1 is a critical transcription and translation by Dr. Harrison Perkins of heretofore unpublished theological treatises of Archbishop James Ussher. Volume 2 is a critical transcription and translation by Dr. Rester of Petrus van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Syntagma on Saving Faith and will be headed to the publisher in 2024. With a team of WTS students whom he has trained in Latin and French paleography, he is completing a two-volume critical catalog of the Turretin family library (1540–1772), a finding aid of approximately 14,000 books belonging to several generations of a family of pastors and theologians. In January 2025, he will begin serving as a co-editor with Dr. Stephen Coleman of the Westminster Theological Journal
WESTMINSTER EVENTS & ALUMNI NEWS
z “Preaching the Heart of Christ for Sinners” conference, Willow Grove, PA, Oct 15–16, 2024.
At Westminster’s annual conference on preaching and preachers, guests Dane Ortlund, David Gibson, and Eric Watkins join Peter Lillback and John Currie to encourage pastors in their vocation. The conference will include breakout sessions, and a Q&A moderated by John Currie, along with a time of worship.
z “The Unchanging God Has Spoken” conference, Nashville, TN, Nov. 1–3, 2024.
Peter Lillback, Mark Garcia, Jonny Gibson, Todd Rester, Scott Oliphint, David Filson, and Rob Edwards will present on various issues surrounding the Doctrine of God. David Garner will lead Sunday worship with a sermon: “The Unchanging God Has Spoken: The Redeemer and the Sinner.”
z Samuel Chung (2005 MDiv, 2009 ThM) was installed as senior pastor of Yuong Sang Presbyterian Church in Horsham, PA (KAPC) in November, 2023. Prior to that, he was senior pastor of Reformation Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Queens, NY (2017–2023).
z Dong Woo Kim (MDiv 2003, DMin 2020) is serving as the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church of Maryland, in Laurel, MD. The church started as a church plant on the second Lord’s day of January, 2020, two months before the pandemic started. He writes, “God has been faithful to us, gathering us every week for the Lord’s day worship and allowing us to have a covenant worship with children and parents together, even though most of the worship is in Korean. Our being a small church makes it possible to worship together as families.”
z Hunter Jackson (MDiv 2022) received a call to be the pastor of the Broomall Reformed Presbyterian Church, beginning in late August. His installation service is on Oct. 12.
Previously, Hunter was associate pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Elkins Park following his graduation. He is finishing up two years of pastoral service with Sr. Pastor John Edgar (MDiv 2002). He writes, “I
gained a lot of wisdom and experience working alongside a seasoned and respected minister like Pastor Edgar.”
Since his graduation, his family has welcomed another son, Nehemiah Hunter Jackson. He writes, “the Jackson family would love your prayers for the Lord to give us wisdom, love, and courage for a new town, new place, and new church.”
z Daniel Ribera (MAR 1983), in June 2023, retired from teaching after 30 years of service. He served first as an elementary principal for 11 years, then as high school Bible teacher and Bible department chair for 19 years at Bellevue Christian School, Clyde Hill, WA. In addition to his MAR at Westminster in 1983, he received a Doctorate in Education at Seattle Pacific University in 2012. His doctoral dissertation focused on “the meaning and practice of the integration of faith and learning.” His doctoral work built on a Reformed epistemology (including Herman Bavinck, John Frame, Abraham Kuyper, Michael Polanyi, Vern Poythress, and Cornelius Van Til) that he first learned at Westminster Seminary. He taught a Philosophy of Education seminar for new teachers at Bellevue Christian. He served as an adjunct in the Schools of Education at Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA, and Northwest University, Kirkland, WA, where he taught Philosophy of Education and Ethics in Education. Daniel and Laura attend Trinity Church Seattle (PCA). They have three married sons who are software engineers in Seattle, and five grandchildren.
z Sheri (Yan Sun) Ho (MAC 2023) serves as a counselor at the Biblical Counseling Center. She offers counseling to teenagers and women across the nation, including some clients residing overseas. Sheri also provides trauma counseling and mentorship at a Christian women’s shelter. For the past two years, she has collaborated with colleagues to develop a series of Sunday school classes focused on care ministry and serves as a speaker at various Chinese Christian conferences.
z In June 2023, Andrew H. Selle (MDiv 1979, DMin 1985) led a “Counseling Practicum,” assisted by his wife, Dawna, for the first graduating class in the Biblical
Counseling Program of Baltic Reformed Theological Seminary (Riga, Latvia), and later spoke at the BRTS graduation and 25th Anniversary celebration. He has taught there, on-site and remotely, since 2012 when he was recruited by former WTS lecturer, Larry Sibley. He plans to teach a remote course this fall, “Sufferers, Sinners, and Saints: An Overview of Marital Counseling.” Courses are taught in English with simultaneous translation into Latvian and Russian. Andy and Dawna are thankful for these students from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, and elsewhere.
z Following graduation, Alex Chen (MDiv 2014) served at Covenant Fellowship Church in Glen Mills and was sent out with a team to plant Risen Hope Church. After becoming ordained in 2016, he served as a pastor of Risen Hope and was later installed in January 2024 as senior pastor. He said, “I thank God for the rich theological investment given to me by Westminster, which has equipped me and my wife Teresa to serve the body of Christ.”
z Melton Ross (MAR 1978) was able to retire at the age of 60 after a 35-year career in banking and investments. Upon retiring, he began teaching Finance and Business Ethics at two South Carolina Christian universities: Anderson University and North Greenville University. At the request of former Westminster Professor O. Palmer Robertson, he traveled to Africa to teach in African Bible University’s new graduate business school, African Business Institute, led by Jun Shiomitsu. He was excited to play a part in the work of this young Christian visionary.
During the COVID outbreak of 2020, a need arose to revamp the program, and it was rebranded as AVODA Institute. He, along with others across the globe, formed a U.S. non-profit named AVODA Fund, which raises support in the U.S. for the school in Uganda. God has been gracious in allowing AVODA to raise the necessary support for this important work over the past four years. The school is now in the process of expanding into a second African nation. Check out the website www.avodafund.org for greater details on this exciting work.
Introducing the New President’s Professors
Dr. David Owen Filson is incoming President’s Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology. He is the Interim Senior Pastor at Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) and Head of Spiritual Life for Christ Presbyterian Academy in Nashville, TN. David served previously as Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and Director of Alumni Relations at Westminster Theological Seminary. He co-chairs the theological examining and credentials committee for the Nashville Presbytery, and previously chaired the theological examining committee for the PCA’s General Assembly. His PhD dissertation (WTS) focused on post-Princetonian developments in theological epistemology, with a special emphasis on the thought of Cornelius Van Til and J. Oliver Buswell. This December, David will celebrate 28 years of marriage to Diane. They have two adult children, Lydia (21) and Luke (23), a wonderful new daughter-in-law, Lucy, and a Cocker Spaniel, named Gabby.
Dr. J. Stafford Carson is an incoming President’s Professor & Frank Barker Chair of Missions and Evangelism. He was Westminster’s executive vice president and academic dean from 2000–2005. From 2013–2020, he served as principal of Union Theological College. He has been Senior Director of Global Ministries for Westminster since 2022. After completing his degree from Westminster, he returned to Ireland to serve in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. He and his wife Patricia have three grown children and two grandchildren.
Dr. Julius Kim is the incoming Executive Director of Korean Initiatives and the President’s Professor of Global Ministries. Julius recently served as president of The Gospel Coalition for three years, and prior to that, for twenty years as the dean of students and professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary California. He is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), currently serving as an associate pastor at New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, California. He is the author of multiple publications. In addition to his teaching and writing, he has served on the board of several ministries (e.g., National Association of Evangelicals, Covenant College, Peacemaker Ministries) and as an advisor to global organizations, such as Onnuri Church (Seoul, South Korea) and the Lausanne Movement.
The AUTHORITY of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE
T. David Gordon
Introduction
Iwas often surprised to hear students at a Christian institution discuss capital punishment as though it were an open or debated question. Of course, in the strictest sense of the word, the doctrine is debated in our secular and sentimentalist culture. Almost every argument one hears against capital punishment in our setting is an argument against its abuse: minorities are more likely to be capitally punished than others; DNA testing has exonerated many people on death row; and our system of justice is flawed in many ways. These may all be valid reasons to reform our particular system of capital punishment. But reforming an institution is not
the same as repudiating or prohibiting it. It is one thing to talk about reforming capital punishment within the contemporary American criminal justice system; it is another to argue that it is inherently wrong. Further, in every generation, part of the purpose of education is to consider every question as an open question, in order to assure ourselves that we have considered our tradition carefully and critically. At a minimum, however, our students should be aware that capital punishment has been regarded by the confessing churches not only as permissible, but as a duty. Consider, as an example, the first two sections of the 23rd chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (all subsequent italics from Confessional quotes are the author’s addition):
Carlo Bossoli (1815–1884), Senato presieduto da Cesare Alfieri di Sostegno
WCF 23:1—God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers
WCF 23:2—It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.
I only call attention to the fact that Westminster regarded the magistrate as instituted by God, and as given the power of the sword (an intentional allusion to Paul’s language in Romans 13) to administer justice and wage war in the Christian era (“now under the New Testament”). Those who regard the matter otherwise should, at a minimum, be aware that they are a minority voice challenging the majority of the Christian tradition, since pacifism has never been more than a minority voice therein.
What’s more, this was no peculiarity of us (sometimes harsh?) Presbyterians; other ecclesiastical confessions and catechisms have said the same thing:
Luther’s Large Catechism (1530) The Fifth Commandment—Thou shalt not kill.
We have now completed both the spiritual and the temporal government, that is, the divine and the paternal authority and obedience. But here now we go forth from our house among our neighbors to learn how we should live with one another, every one himself toward his neighbor. Therefore God and government are not included in this commandment, nor is the power to kill, which they have, taken away. For God has delegated His authority to punish evil-doers to the government instead of parents, who aforetime (as we read in Moses) were required to bring their own children to judgment and sentence them to death. Therefore, what is here forbidden is forbidden to the individual in his relation to any one else, and not to the government.
Belgic Confession (1561) Article 36: The Civil Government—We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings. For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.
Heidelberg Catechism (1563)—Question 105. What does God require in the sixth commandment?
Answer: That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonour, hate, wound, or kill my neighbour, by myself or by another: but that I lay aside all desire of revenge: also, that I hurt not myself, nor wilfully expose myself to any danger. Wherefore also the magistrate is armed with the sword, to prevent murder.
Irish Articles of Religion (1615)—61. The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offenses. 62. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to bear arms and to serve in just wars.
Savoy Declaration (Congregational, 1658) Chapter 24 Of the Civil Magistrate—God the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the [defense] and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.
Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742) Chapter 25 Of the Civil Magistrate—1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for [defense] and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
Each of these confessional statements acknowledges that the civil government is ordained by God to punish evildoers, up to and including punishing them capitally. Their use of “sword” is an intentional allusion to Paul in Romans 13, and they can mean no less of it than he did (see comments below). The Irish Articles of Religion
even expressly say that “Christian men” also are liable to capital punishment; surely others are as well. Human creeds and confessions may err; but when such a number of them say the same thing in different countries in different times, there is prima facie reason to believe their statements were well-grounded, since they allude to the language of the apostle Paul, speaking in Holy Scripture. At a minimum, this consensus position satisfies the burden of proof.
The Canonical Background
Iconcur with those many scholars who regard Romans 13 to be Paul’s own reflection on the realities of Genesis 9:6–7, about which I offer these very abbreviated comments. Students of Genesis recall that the human race, in its rebellion against God, became remarkably evil. Cain killed his brother (Gen. 4:8); his descendant Lamech was vengefully blood-thirsty (Gen. 4:23–24). Wickedness spread at such a rate that, by the time of Noah, Moses observed, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This is why God judged the earth through the Noahic flood. Genesis 9 records what happened when the floodwaters receded, and when those on the ark re-emerged onto the earth again:
And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. … And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it” (Gen. 9:1–7).
We observe that twice here, at the beginning and end of the passage, the language of the original creation mandate from Genesis 1:26–28 is employed (“God blessed them…Be fruitful and multiply…”). But the teeming, multiplying, and thriving of the human race is threatened by the violence of people like Cain and Lamech. Those who emerge from the ark must recognize that sin and violence emerge with them and still threaten them. But God will not permit such violence to threaten his created purposes
for the human race; to the contrary, God will “require a reckoning” for those who shed blood, and he therefore institutes the duty of such a reckoning: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Note that God will not send an angel of death to require a reckoning for bloodshed, nor will God himself continue to rid the world of the wicked through a series of floods; he requires that humans execute this reckoning: “ by man shall his blood be shed.” Exercising capital punishment justly is, after the flood-judgment, an additional duty in the fallen era for those who bear God’s image.
Paul, trained in the Hebrew Scriptures, knew Genesis 9 well, and many scholars regard Romans 13 as Paul’s reflection on the reality of Genesis 9. Let us examine the passage as distinct but interrelated parts:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for (your) good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute (his) wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid (God’s) wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Rom. 13:1–7)
This passage divides itself into three parts. The first part (1a) describes a basic duty: “be subject to the governing authorities.” The text, unlike many pulpiteers, does not say “obey” (ὑπακούετε); it says, “be submissive to” (ὑποτασσέσθω). In both English and Greek there is a difference, and since Paul employs “obey” in Ephesians. 6:1, and “submit” in the previous verses 5:21 and 24, he knows the difference, and may be presumed to have chosen his language as deliberately here as he did in Ephesians 5 and
6. The second part, 1b–2, explains the ground for this duty, that the civil magistrate is instituted by God. The third part, 3–7, explains God’s purpose for instituting the civil magistrate, and the power given the civil magistrate to affect these purposes. Note the logic in these three parts: There is an imperative (submit to the authorities), a ground for the imperative (because the authorities are ordained by God), and two purposes for the ground. First, God has instituted the magistrate for the purpose of rewarding good and punishing evil. Second, to enforce this, God has given the magistrate the “sword.” That is, the magistrate is given the power of the sword by God for this limited (and only morally justifiable) purpose of rewarding/promoting good behavior, while punishing/ suppressing evil behavior. We can represent the logic visually, with A, B, and C as the major components.
A. The civil magistrate is instituted to promote good behavior … For rulers are not a terror to good conduct … do what is good, and you will receive his approval for he is God’s servant for (your) good… and to punish wicked behavior rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad But if you do wrong, be afraid he is the servant of God to execute (his) wrath on the wrongdoer.
B. To accomplish this end, the civil magistrate is given the authority to inflict capital punishment (“he does not bear the sword in vain”).
Pause here before we get back to our logical depiction of the passage (C). This is not merely figurative language; swords were not employed to spank people; the sword (Greek: μάχαιρα) was a weapon designed to kill. Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10); one may justly assume that, had Peter’s aim been better, he would have cleaved the skull itself and killed Malchus, which was probably his intent. When the Philippian jailor thought the apostles had escaped, “he drew his sword (σπασάμενος μάχαιραν) and was about to kill himself” (Acts 16:27). And the author of Hebrews, considering the Old Testament martyrs, said, “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword (ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι)” (Heb. 11:37). The consistent witness of the New Testament is that some behaviors “deserve” to be punished by death, indicating that some version of retributive justice must have prevailed (italics added for emphasis):
Luke 23:15—Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him.
Acts 23:29—I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment.
Acts 25:11—If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.
Acts 25:25—But I found that he had done nothing deserving death. And as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to go ahead and send him.
Acts 26:31—And when they had withdrawn, they said to one another, “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.”
Rom. 1:32—Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Now, back to our final component in the logical representation of the passage.
C. Both the civil magistrate’s purpose and the means of accomplishing that purpose are contained in the summary in verse 5: “Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid (God’s) wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
The first part of this summary, obscured by the RSV’s and ESV’s gratuitous insertion of “God’s,” reminds us that the civil magistrate is to be submitted to because of his ability to sanction. He may employ the sword to execute “wrath,” and if you wish to avoid this wrath, submit to him. The second part summarizes by indicating that conscience itself requires us to be good and do good, and for this reason also the one who enforces good behavior is to be obeyed. That is, “conscience” is invoked because (and insofar as) the magistrate rewards good and punishes evil. Note the chiastic ABBA parallel:
A for he is God’s servant for (your) good
B he is the servant of God to execute (his) wrath
“Therefore you are to obey”
B not only to avoid (God’s) wrath
A but also for the sake of conscience
Thus, both because the civil magistrate rewards good and because he uses the sword on those who do evil, he is to be obeyed. Insofar as he rewards good, there is a moral or conscientious reason to obey him; insofar as he has power to kill (or otherwise punish), there is a prudential reason to obey him. There are two distinct reasons for our submitting to the civil magistrate, not one. If it were always a conscientious duty to obey the magistrate on every point, why would Paul mention the second reason? Whether the magistrate would punish us or not would be irrelevant, if it were our conscientious duty to obey him. The duties of conscience have nothing to do with the gains or pains associated with such duties.
When one wrestles, then, with the ticklish question of the limitations of our duty to obey the civil magistrate, Romans 13 becomes very helpful. Plainly, the civil magistrate is not to be obeyed implicitly or blindly, because:
A. the apostles did not do so (Acts 4:19 and 5:29); B. it would be contrary to the nature and duty of conscience to obey anyone but God implicitly (cf. WCF on Liberty of Conscience).
Limits to Our Submission to the Civil Magistrate
What, then, are the limits of our submission to the civil magistrate? First, it would be sinful to submit to the magistrate when he commands us to omit a positive duty or when he commands us to commit a positive sin. Second, it would be sinful to not submit to the civil magistrate in such a flagrant or public manner as to challenge or disregard God’s good purpose in instituting such government (note, for instance, the respectful manner in which the apostles disobey in Acts 5:29). Third, our conscientious responsibility to submit to the civil magistrate is itself determined by the magistrate’s adherence to his divinely established purpose. That is, in circumstances where he neither commands what is evil (in which case we must disobey) nor commands what is morally right (in which case we must submit), but merely commands regarding a matter that is “indifferent” in itself, we are not morally obliged to submit to him, because the conscience can never be obliged to implicit obedience, and, indeed, it is the magistrate who has sinned by stepping beyond his divinely established role to reward good and punish evil.
Fourth, prudence, however, may dispose us to submit to the civil magistrate even where conscience does not. If the magistrate, for instance, required us to put whitewall tires on our automobiles, on pain of death, we would submit not for conscience’s sake (since it is not inherently right or wrong, by divine standards, to have whitewalls; and the magistrate has stepped beyond his divinely-instituted prerogatives in requiring such), but for the sake of prudence (why surrender life for such a trivial matter as whitewall tires?). It is not immoral to have whitewalls, and so conscience does not require us to not submit. Similarly, it is not morally necessary to have whitewalls, and therefore conscience does not require our obedience. Prudential considerations alone—the power the magistrate has to punish those who disobey him, and the likelihood and consequences of his employing it—govern our behavior in such a circumstance. Of course, the sword is a figurative expression of the remarkable power of the civil magistrate, and he does not always resort to this final expression of his authority. He may choose less extreme (though always coercive) measures, such as banishment from his realm and its protection, incarceration, etc. This view was earlier proposed by theologians such as Thomas Manton (1620–1677):
Whatever God commandeth, I am bound to do even in secret, though it be to my absolute prejudice; but now submission to man may be performed by suffering the penalty, though the obedience required be forborne; and in some cases a man may do contrary in private, where the thing is indifferent, and there is no danger of scandal and contempt of authority.
Manton recognized that it is consistent with our “submission to man” either to suffer the penalty for disobedience, or to disobey privately and not be punished, if the matter required was not a moral issue (and therefore not properly something the civil magistrate could require anyway).
Manton concurred with the Westminster Assembly (of which he was a commissioner), which rather remarkably (considering that the Assembly itself was called by the Long Parliament) only required obedience to the magistrate’s “lawful” commands: “It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands,
and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake” (WCF 23:4, italics mine). However self-consciously, this differs from the earlier Lutheran confessions. The Augsburg Confession (1530) had said: “Christians, therefore, must necessarily obey their magistrates and laws, save only when they command any sin; for then they must rather obey God than men.” Westminster used much more ambiguous language than the Augsburg Confession had employed; permitting one to embrace the Augsburg view, but also permitting views such as those of Manton.
Exercising capital punishment justly is, after the flood-judgment, an additional duty in the fallen era for those who bear God’s image.
Those such as myself who adopt the view of Manton (et al.) recognize that the magistrate about whom Paul wrote was a Roman, who neither acknowledged the Law of Moses nor the teachings of Christ. When Paul said of this Roman magistrate that such “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:3), what did he mean by good and bad conduct? The opinion of Manton and others was that “good” and “bad” were not here references to the highest Christian ethic, but to those essentials of public morality or justice necessary for cultures to thrive. “Bad” in such a context probably meant something like what John Locke suggested, when he said, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”
Theoretically, this viewpoint is consistent with the definition of Christian liberty and liberty of conscience taught in the Reformed standards and also consistent with the instructions of Romans 13, which prescribes not only our submission to the magistrate, but also the proper arena or limits of the magistrate’s authority. Practically, this viewpoint justifies the practice of many believers who routinely disobey the civil magistrate (knowingly or unknowingly) in an era when the civil magistrate’s laws more frequently deal with matters of indifference than they do with matters of morality. Many
Christians adopt this practice, while professing in theory that they are obliged to obey the civil magistrate in every area that is not sin per se. My practice is no worse than my theory; if one is wrong, both are wrong.
Conclusion
Romans 13 is almost as interesting for what it does not say as for what it says. It addresses the civil magistrate at greater length, and in greater detail, than any other passage in the New Testament, and is therefore a passage that may not be set aside when considering the magistrate, in light of the realities of the New Testament. To the contrary, it is the most important passage to deal with, in attempting to assess the magistrate within the framework of commitment to Christianity. But something should be said about Constantinianism.
Constantine, via the Edict of Milan, agreed to cease persecuting Christians. It was not until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, however, that the emperor Theodosius I declared Christianity to be the official imperial religion. Western Christianity has been so influenced by Constantinianism that many, if not most, western Christians are Constantinian by default, even if they have never consciously thought about the matter. Constantinianism is that (de facto if not de jure) belief that the church will prosper best when, and insofar as, she is aided by the magistrate; by his own faith, and by his resources and powers. While everyone grants that Constantinianism could not have existed, historically, until there was a magistrate who professed Christianity, fewer recognize that Constantinianism need never have existed, exegetically speaking.
The magistrate to whom the apostle Paul referred was manifestly a Roman magistrate. When Paul’s letter to the Romans was written, the civil magistrate was a Roman. This Roman would not have embraced Christianity or Judaism and would not have required such faith of his citizens, nor would he have required them to embrace either the so-called Golden Rule of Christianity or the decalogue of Judaism. Indeed, it is not only likely, but probable, that he had never heard of either of them. Despite this lack of recognition of the moral teachings of the Bible, Paul called the magistrate “a minister of God for your good.” Thus, it is not necessary to the magistrate’s fulfilling his God-ordained role that he either
endorse or even know the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, or their moral content.
What is necessary is that he be a “terror to evil conduct,” and since the Scriptures elsewhere consider many acts of the heart or mind to be evil, Paul must be using the term differently here, to refer to public evil, to evil that harms the public in its pursuit of its creational calling. At the very least, the magistrate must protect his citizens in two ways. First, he must be a terror to those who would commit crimes against persons. He cannot permit Cains to slay Abels with impunity. Culture and civilization cannot make progress when people live in fear of their lives, or if their lives are taken with impunity. It took Brahms, as an example, seven years to write his Ein deutsches Requiem, and if someone had taken his life after two years, the world would not have had the fruit of his labors. Second, the magistrate must be a terror to those who would commit crimes against property. Again, culture cannot make progress if its long-range building plans can be interrupted, without impunity, by the wicked. If a contractor hauls lumber to a site to begin construction, and if another is permitted to come and take that lumber and burn it as firewood, the building will not get built.
It would be sinful to submit to the magistrate when he commands us to omit a positive duty or when he commands us to commit a positive sin.
It is virtually self-evident that such protection of persons and property is a duty of the magistrate, because nearly all civilizations have recognized it. Surely, all civilizations that value beauty and utility recognize it. Paul just assumed that the magistrate would realize this, and that he would protect (and does protect) both persons and property and is therefore to be regarded as God’s minister.
Note, however, that Paul cared nothing at all (in a passage discussing the magistrate and our duty towards him) about the magistrate’s personal religious faith. It
didn’t concern Paul in any way that the magistrate was not a Christian, or that he did not promote Christianity. He didn’t even indicate that it is our duty to pray for his conversion to Christianity: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:1–2). Paul did not instruct the Ephesians to pray for the magistrates that they (kings) may lead a godly life, but that “we may lead a peaceful and quiet life…” For Paul, it was the church’s responsibility to propagate Christianity, not the magistrate’s.
One cannot but contrast Paul’s view with the common (Constantinian?) view that we should persuade the magistrate to make public commendation of Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or the Ten Commandments, as though something vital were at stake in his so doing. Whether there might be merit in such recommendations is a matter I am tentatively willing to consider, but what I am not willing to consider (without substantial reasoning from Romans 13) is any notion that it is somehow necessary for the magistrate to do so. Paul’s unbelieving Roman and pagan magistrate was good enough for him, and good enough for Paul to call him “God’s minister for good.”
The magistrate fulfills God’s purpose whether or not he endorses Christianity or the Ten Commandments, or anything else distinctive to our religion. The magistrate is analogous to the waste disposal person; he performs a duty that is vital to the public well-being, but also a duty that is odious. Christians should keep all of this in mind—especially Paul’s argument in Romans 13:1–7— when discussing capital punishment with people in today’s society. The Apostle Paul and our confessional documents have much to teach us in this regard.
T. David Gordon was professor of religion and Greek at Grove City College for more than twenty years. Previously, he was an associate professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and, for nearly a decade, pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashua, New Hampshire. He is the author of several books and numerous theological articles.
Poythress uses multiple biblical perspectives to address the origin of humanity, the image of God, body and soul, the creational covenant, free agency, human sexuality, and other truths about humanity.
Release: 11/13/2024 | Series: Making Sense | ISBN: 979-8-88779-038-1 | Price: $49.99 | Binding: Hardcover with Dust-Jacket Pages: 704 | Foreword: Sinclair B. Ferguson
“If an edifying, helpful overview on the human person in biblical perspective could be written in our day with both vigor and charity, with both courage and circumspection, Vern Poythress would be the one to write it. And so he has. Man does require a ‘making sense of ’ today, and Poythress has led us back to the inscripturated revelation of man’s Maker, where true sensemaking must begin. In doing so, Poythress has not pretended to say the last word on anything (and others should be read alongside and after reading this work). But he has reminded us of the first words that must be said, to the end that a properly Christian theological vision of humanity would arise and blossom from the good soil of what God has said concerning us.”
—MARK A. GARCIA
Liberty & Religious Freedom
Peter A. Lillback
Design by Ethan Greb
Americans might easily believe that their privilege of gathering for worship on Sundays without fear of reprisal, attack, or ridicule is the norm for Christian experience. After all, we enjoy the great protections of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Further, the 18th principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations declares, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”
But the enjoyment of such religious liberty is far from the reality of many in the world, including states that are members of the United Nations. At this moment, there are brothers and sisters in Christ who risk worshiping in secret lest they be attacked, incarcerated, persecuted, or killed. And there are those in America who perceive an insidious and growing effort to curtail the hitherto unquestioned blessing of religious liberty in America.
We should not forget that the American experience of religious liberty is unique in the annals of church history. Philip Schaff, the renowned American church historian of the nineteenth century stated,
The United States furnishes the first example in history of a government deliberately depriving itself of all legislative control over religion, which was justly regarded by all older governments as the chief support of public morality, order, peace, and prosperity. But it was an act of wisdom and justice rather than self-denial. Congress was shut up to this course by the previous history of the American colonies and the actual condition of things at the time of the formation of the national government. The Constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.
He maintained, “The relationship of church and state in the United States secures full liberty of religious thought, speech, and action, within the limits of the public peace and order. It makes persecution impossible.”
Persecution of Christians in the New Testament
Areading of the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation reveals that persecution was normative for the early church. Our Lord’s ministry was questioned, opposed, and attacked until the plots against him brought betrayal and an avalanche of hostility. In his final days, Christ endured false accusation, imprisonment, scourging, and unjust condemnation. This crushing persecution led to public humiliation and affliction beyond comprehension, climaxing in his agonizing crucifixion. He was mocked until his excruciating suffering concluded with his majestic words, “It is finished!” The suffering Savior obediently fulfilled the devastating and triumphant prophecies of Isaiah 52:13–53:12.
We must not forget how our Savior opened his ministry with the magisterial instruction of the Sermon on the Mount. He declared, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:9–12). Jesus’s words reverberate through the New Testament: “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake” (Matt. 24:9). “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). “Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name” (Acts 5:42). Having aided in the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7, “… Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (Acts 9:1–2). Upon his supernatural conversion, Saul, now Paul, experienced continual persecution (Acts 12:1–4; 16:19–25; 23:12), such that several of his epistles were
written from prison. Suffering and persecution of early believers called forth needed encouragement by the Epistle to Hebrew Christians (Heb. 10:32–37; 12:3–4), as well as the Apostle Peter’s Epistle to exiled believers (1 Pet. 3:8–18; 4:12–19). Climactically, the two witnesses of the Apocalypse are dramatic eschatological icons of the church’s costly witness for Christ (Rev. 11:1–13).
Religious Persecution: The Early Church, Augustine, and the Reformation
From the close of the New Testament through the conversion of Constantine in 312, the Christian religion faced persecution from Jewish opponents, Roman government officials, and pagan religious leaders. Christian tradition places the martyrdom of the church’s early leaders, Peter and Paul, in Rome.
Roman opposition to Christianity has often been summarized as ten periods of Roman persecution of the church. Augustine in The City of God writes,
I do not think, indeed, that what some have thought or may think is rashly said or believed, that until the time of Antichrist the Church of Christ is not to suffer any persecution besides those she has already suffered—that is, ten—and the eleventh and last shall be inflicted by Antichrist. They reckon as the first that made by Nero, the second by Domitian, the third by Trajan. . . For as there were ten plagues in Egypt before the people of God could begin to go out, they think this is to be referred to as showing that the last persecution by Antichrist must be like the eleventh plague, in which the Egyptians, while following the Hebrews with hostility, perished in the Red Sea when the people of God passed through on dry land. Yet I do not think persecutions were prophetically signified by what was done in Egypt, however nicely and ingeniously those who think so may seem to have compared the two in detail, not by the prophetic Spirit, but by the conjecture of the human mind, which sometimes hits the truth, and sometimes is deceived.
Augustine affirmed ten Roman persecutions of Christians but denied that they were prophetic based on a typological reading of the Egyptian plagues. The most famous of these persecutions were those
under Emperors Nero (d. 68), Domitian (d. 96), Trajan (d. 117), and Diocletian (d. 305). These periods of severe suffering have produced many accounts of noble martyrs such as Ignatius (d. 140), Polycarp (d. 155), Felicitas (d. 165), and Perpetua (d. 203).
The irony of the ascendancy of Emperor Constantine is that persecution did not stop, even after his victory on Oct. 28, 312 at the Milvian Bridge and his Edict of Milan in February 313 that made Christianity the official religion of Rome. The Constantinian rise of Christianity greatly advanced Christianity, yet sadly, it also placed the sword of persecution into the hands of Christian emperors and Christian bishops. The theological warrant for this was developed by Augustine.
We should not forget that the American experience of religious liberty is unique in the annals of church history.
Augustine’s response to the Roman church’s struggle with the schismatic Donatists was to apply to the civil government Jesus’s words “to compel them to come in” from Luke 14:23. In his letter written in 408 to Vincentius, he writes,
You know me now to be more desirous of rest, and earnest in seeking it, than when you knew me in my earlier years at Carthage, in the lifetime of your immediate predecessor Rogatus. But we are precluded from this rest by the Donatists, the repression and correction of whom, by the powers which are ordained of God, appears to me to be labour not in vain.
With words that were to change history, Augustine reasoned,
You are of the opinion that no one should be compelled to follow righteousness; and yet you read that the householder said to his servants, “Whomsoever
ye shall find, compel them to come in.” You also read how he who was at first Saul, and afterwards Paul, was compelled by the great violence with which Christ coerced him, to know and to embrace the truth; for you cannot but think that the light which our eyes enjoy is more precious to men than money or any other possession. This light, lost suddenly by him when he was cast to the ground by the heavenly voice, he did not recover until he became a member of the Holy Church. You are also of opinion that no coercion is to be used with any man in order to his deliverance from the fatal consequences of error; and yet you see that, in examples which cannot be disputed, this is done by God, who loves us with more real regard for our profit than any other can; and you hear Christ saying, “No man can come to me except the Father draw him,” which is done in the hearts of all those who, through fear of the wrath of God, betake themselves to Him. You know also that sometimes the thief scatters food before the flock that he may lead them astray, and sometimes the shepherd brings wandering sheep back to the flock with his rod.
Augustine then further reasoned that persecution could be deployed for godly ends, citing even the example of Christ.
In some cases, therefore, both he that suffers persecution is in the wrong, and he that inflicts it is in the right. But the truth is, that always both the bad have persecuted the good, and the good have persecuted the bad: the former doing harm by their unrighteousness, the latter seeking to do good by the administration of discipline; the former with cruelty, the latter with moderation; the former impelled by lust, the latter under the constraint of love. For he whose aim is to kill is not careful how he wounds, but he whose aim is to cure is cautious with his lancet; for the one seeks to destroy what is sound, the other that which is decaying. The wicked put prophets to death; prophets also put the wicked to death. The Jews scourged Christ; Christ also scourged the Jews. The apostles were given up by men to the civil powers; the apostles themselves gave men up to the power of Satan. In all these cases, what is important to attend to but this: who
were on the side of truth, and who on the side of iniquity; who acted from a desire to injure, and who from a desire to correct what was amiss?
Augustine’s “compel them to come in” ultimately led to the deadly persecutions perpetrated by the Holy Office of the Inquisition, the official arm of the Roman Catholic Church dedicated to extirpating heresy. Augustine’s interpretation became the historic impetus for the tragic Medieval Christianity’s persecution of Jews, as well as Roman Catholic persecution of Protestants, of Protestants’ persecution of Roman Catholics and other Protestants. Sadly, history records Lutherans driving the Reformed from German lands; Anglicans and Puritans persecuting each other; and formerly persecuted Congregationalists in New England persecuting Quakers. The general practice of nations was to erect boundaries to prevent other creeds from entering the regions where a creed was official. Ejus regio, ejus religio —his region, his religion—was the motto of Reformation era European monarchs.
American Religious Liberty: Roger Williams, William Penn, and the Continental Congress
Religious liberty was birthed in the new world in 1636 on a local scale in Roger Williams’s Providence Plantation in Rhode Island. Williams was deeply committed to the liberty of conscience. Religious liberty in Pennsylvania followed Rhode Island in 1701, enabling the varied religious traditions of Europe to flourish together in the new world.
William Penn wrote of his colony as a “seed of a nation.” Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, was the incubator of his “holy experiment,” yielding religious liberty on a broad scale. In his 1701 Charter of Privileges he wrote,
... no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince
the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or super any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion. . . . the First Article of this Charter relating to Liberty of Conscience, and every Part and Clause therein, according to the true Intent and Meaning thereof, shall be kept and remain, without any Alteration, inviolably for ever.
The liberty guaranteed to Philadelphia by Penn’s 1701 Charter of Privileges was celebrated at the jubilee of his Charter. A new bell was needed for the Pennsylvania State House, what we today know as Independence Hall. Ordered from London, it became the icon of liberty around the globe—the Liberty Bell. The name for the bell was inspired by the biblical reference that was placed upon it, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout The Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof. Lev. 25:10.”
Some seventy years later, the First Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in September 1774. The theme of liberty remained a major concern. They gathered as the winds of war began to blow. The delegates, particularly those from Massachusetts, were deeply concerned that British actions were impugning their Protestant faith.
Their Congressional Journal reveals a repeated concern for civil and religious liberty. Pertinent statements include [emphasis added]:
1. THAT it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.
2. THAT the late act of Parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion and the French
laws in that extensive country now called Quebec, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and therefore as men and protestant Christians, we are indispensably obliged to take all proper measures for our security.
3. … to act with hostility against the free Protestant Colonies, whenever a wicked Ministry shall chose so to direct them.
4. These rights we, as well as you, deem sacred. And yet sacred as they are, they have, with many others, been repeatedly and flagrantly violated.
5. a family unfriendly to the protestant cause, and inimical to liberty
6. by civil as well as religious prejudices, … to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the same fate of slavery….
7. … secret enemies, whose intrigues, for several years past, have been wholly exercised in sapping the foundations of civil and religious liberty.
8. … those truly noble, honourable and patriotic advocates of civil and religious liberty, who have so generously and powerfully, though unsuccessfully espoused and defended the cause of America, both in and out of Parliament.
9. free, protestant English settlements.
This palpable concern for religious liberty carried on to the formation of the new nation. Ultimately, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791, ninety years after Penn’s Charter, adopted in Penn’s City. Its sweeping declaration of personal liberties declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
Early American Presbyterians: The Westminster Confession and Religious Liberty
As the colonies wrestled with the centrality of religious liberty for their flourishing, the adoption of religious liberty by Presbyterians in America developed. Presbyterian commitment to this essential freedom is due in large measure to their
experiences both in Scotland and in America. When America declared independence, an emigration of some 500,000 Scots-Irish Presbyterians had come to America. They were motivated by a desire for freedom and a quest to escape persecution.
The Constantinian rise of Christianity greatly advanced Christianity, yet sadly, it also placed the sword of persecution into the hands of Christian emperors and Christian bishops.
As I’ve pointed out in an upcoming edition of ByFaith Magazine,
Scots Irish immigrant Francis Makemie (1658–1708) was an early organizer of Presbyterian churches. As he planted churches, he experienced colonial persecution for his ministry and convictions. He was ultimately vindicated, and the news of America’s fledgling religious liberty encouraged a growing exodus to America from Northern Ireland. The persecuted Scots Irish Presbyterians were finally free to practice Presbyterian distinctives in the New World, which included their being relieved from paying taxes for a church to which they did not adhere. By 1706, the first presbytery was established in Philadelphia.
The Westminster Confession of Faith from its beginning in London declared a commitment to the idea of the liberty of the conscience. This concern had been developed by Puritans such as William Perkins and Non-conformists such as John Owen. Adopted in August 27, 1647, Chapter XX.2 in the Confession affirms,
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of
men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
But the centrality of the liberty of conscience had not yet been integrated with a parallel commitment to religious liberty. Thus the original WCF stated in Chapter XXIII.3, Of the Civil Magistrate:
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.
Following the proposal put before the Synod the previous year, which had been drafted as the new American Constitution was being finalized, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia adopted the completely rewritten chapter of the Confession on May 28, 1788. The revised WCF, Of the Civil Magistrate, XXIII.3 states,
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 pretense 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.
This vast commitment to religious liberty became a hallmark of American Presbyterians. Thus, Westminster’s founder, J. G. Machen, expressed a deep concern for religious liberty. Machen writes in “Christianity and Liberty, “The real indictment against the modern world is that by the modern world human liberty is being destroyed.” Therein, he calls to mind the liberty defended by Patrick Henry, quoting his courageous line, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Richard S. Brown III explains,
Such was the insistence of the Founding Fathers, whom Machen himself admired and often alluded to in a favorable light. For instance, Benjamin Franklin is oft-quoted for saying, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all expressed the same sentiment. ... Machen admired the cause of liberty and the covenantally-formed principles which led to the American Revolution. In his short article entitled “The Responsibility of the Church in Our New Age” (1933), Machen referred to this liberty as “the glories of the past,” that “civil and religious liberty, for which our fathers were willing to sacrifice so much.” He admitted that such a noble cause was “something very precious, though very intangible and very difficult of defense before those who have not the love for it in their hearts.” In fact, Machen viewed the remarkable securing of the nation’s religious and civil liberty as being “more valuable than any other earthly thing.”
Those who adhere to the American version of the
Westminster Confession of Faith affirm an emphatic commitment to the freedom of the Christian as well as religious liberty for all. With respect to the government, our Confession insists that religious liberty is to be a “full, free and unquestioned liberty.” Hence, Presbyterians from the birth of the United States have been committed to protecting conscience and have grown to an espousal of religious liberty for all.
Theological Rationale for Religious Liberty
What is the biblical source of religious liberty? Christianity began with no direct connection with an earthly state. Jesus taught that we are to render unto God the things that are God’s, and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matt. 22:21). He paid tribute to the Jewish temple and recognized the Caesar in Rome. However, he did not accept the role as an arbiter to determine the distribution of an inheritance for disputing brothers (Luke 12:14).
Phillip Schaff wrote,
He declared before Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and rebuked Peter for drawing the sword, even in defense of his Master (John 18:11). When the Evil One tempted him with the possession of all the kingdoms of this world, he said unto him: “Get thee hence, Satan” (Matt. 4:10). The apostles used only the spiritual weapons of truth and love in spreading the gospel of salvation. They enjoined obedience to the civil power, even under Nero (Rom. 13:1–7), but they would rather suffer imprisonment and death than obey even their own Jewish magistrate against the dictates of their conscience (Acts 5:29).
The application of the Golden Rule of Jesus in Matthew 7:12 has been a powerful force for the establishment of religious Liberty. Jesus taught us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we do not want to be persecuted for our religious beliefs and practices, we should not persecute others for their religious beliefs and practices. The theme of freedom in its various dimensions is an important aspect of biblical religion. This is seen from the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:10) and the proclamation of liberty to the captives (Isa. 61:1) to the
freedom promised in Christ (John 8:32, 36). It is repeatedly affirmed by the Apostles (Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:15; 6:22, 8:2, 21; 1 Cor. 7:21–23, 10:29; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1; James 1:25; 1 Pet. 2:16; 2 Pet. 2:19; Rev. 1:5). These verses suggest the truth of an aphorism attributed to Horace Greeley, the famous nineteenth-century newspaper man. He declared, “it is impossible to enslave, morally or politically, a bible-reading public.”
Conclusion
Let us, then, resist the coercion of consciences in America. We do so by employing the privilege Americans have in our Constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion. We stop the erosion of religious liberty when we inculcate and celebrate our nation’s legacy of religious liberty. To preserve our extraordinary gift of religious liberty, let us heed a warning issued by Schaff that is even more pertinent in our age than his. Schaff wrote,
Republican institutions in the hands of a virtuous and God-fearing nation are the very best in the world, but in the hands of a corrupt and irreligious people they are the very worst, and the most effective weapons of destruction. An indignant people may rise in rebellion against a cruel tyrant; but who will rise against the tyranny of the people in possession of the ballot-box and the whole machinery of government? Here lies our great danger, and it is increasing every year.
With stunning prescience, Schaff warned,
Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord’s Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with
Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.
Over half the world’s inhabitants do not have this basic freedom enjoyed by Americans. People are dying because their Christian faith is illegal. Christians are imprisoned and abused because they are not free to believe the gospel and will not violate their consciences before God even at the cost of persecution and imprisonment.
The Westminster Confession of Faith from its beginning in London declared a commitment to the idea of the liberty of the conscience.
Give prayerful thanks to God for our freedom as a people and as Christians. Encourage your church and community to remember in word and deed the sufferings of the persecuted church and persecuted peoples worldwide. Intercede for those who may this very day face torture and martyrdom for their faith and convictions for Christ and his word. May the Liberty Bell’s message once again ring loudly and clearly in hearts, homes, and pulpits, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All The Inhabitants Thereof.”
Peter Lillback (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is president and professor of historical theology and church history at Westminster Theological Seminary. He also serves as the president emeritus and founder of The Providence Fo and senior editor of the new Unio cum Christo: An International Journal of Reformed Theology and Life. Dr. Lillback’s academic interests include church history, the doctrine of Scripture, public theology, the theology of John Calvin, Johannine Theology, and Christianity as it relates to American history.
How do you live in two places at once? Maybe better: How can you belong in one place and yet live in another? It’s a strange predicament. But it’s one for every Christian. And I believe the answer has much to do with our greatest love
I was born in a small fishing town in Nova Scotia, Canada, where my father was helping to plant a church. We lived there until I was five and then moved back to the States. For a time, I held dual citizenship. I was welcome in both countries as a legitimate citizen, with full access to all the rights and privileges of each nation. Back in the early 2000s, when you reached eighteen as a dual citizen, you had to choose which citizenship you would legally embrace. You couldn’t remain a dual citizen forever (this is different now, as I understand it). Naturally, I chose American citizenship, since that was my home. It also made sense to me that people could only ever hold one ultimate allegiance.
Dual Citizens
As a pastor, my father saw a thread that ran from the ancient pages of Scripture to the life of his teenage son. Something that Paul told the Philippian church struck a chord in my father’s soul. And it reverberates in me now, especially as I try to live faithfully as a Christian in America.
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. Therefore, my brothers, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved. (Phil. 3:17–4:1)
In the margin of my father’s Bible, he had written the following notes:
• We’re visitors—here for a short time.
• We belong somewhere else.
OUR GOAL, GOD, AND GLORY
Pierce Taylor Hibbs
• Taylor—Dual citizenship, makes choice @ 18
Simple notes for a simple Christian man, now safe and secure with the Lord Jesus Christ. (Incidentally, he passed away from cancer when I was eighteen. I finalized my earthly citizenship as he entered fully into his heavenly one.)
There’s much here we can learn when thinking
Theodor Kittelsen (1857–1914), Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like Gold
about our situation in the modern West, especially as Christians in America. Paul is outlining here not how to be in two places at once, but how to belong in one place and yet live in another. He’s also calling us to a life of imitation. We need both of these things in our current context, ordering our life according to our first love (Rev. 2:4). Let me first spell out what it means to be a citizen of heaven and how that affects our earthly
stewardship as Christians in America and in any other earthly country.
What Is a Citizen of Heaven?
To understand what Paul means by heavenly citizenship, we have to examine the context. He starts this passage not by defining terms, but by inviting the family of God to a life of imitation, of mimesis. Note that this is already an affront to modern secular culture, which strives to make its own way in the world, opting for poiesis instead of mimesis, a point recently emphasized in Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age But Paul takes his queues from the living Christ of Scripture, and he asks us to then take our queues from him: “join in imitating me”; “stare at and walk by the example I have given” (v. 17). The Christian life is deeply mimetic—not because we try hard to be like Jesus but because the Spirit of the risen Christ is working in us already (John 14:23; Rom. 8:9; Col. 1:27).
Our hope and pride are set not on what we are doing right now but on what God is doing to us, both now and in the future.
Now, things shift in verse 18. Paul moves from the positive to the negative, from the redeemed to the rebellious. There are those who are enemies not just of “Christ” but of “the cross of Christ.” That wording is critical. It can be easy to be a fan of a moral teacher. But Jesus was no mere moral teacher. He went to the cross. That was his central message: that he must suffer and die at the hands of godless men in religious garb. And then, when the whole world was convinced he was crushed, he would rise from the dead on the third day (Matt. 16:21; Luke 24:26). Why did he have to do this? Because of our sin. The cross is God’s grand answer to human sin and rebellion. We needed God to do this on our behalf. Otherwise, we’d be lost and gone forever. The enemies of “the
cross of Christ” hate that message—that they would need such amazing and supernatural grace to be set right with God. This brings Paul to tears.
Paul then tells us about their goal, their god, and their glory. He summarizes their entire lives by revealing (1) where they are headed, (2) what they worship, and (3) what they take pride in. Their goal or “end” (τέλος) is destruction; their god is their “belly” (κοιλία); and their glory (δόξα) is their shame or disgrace (αἰσχύνῃ). Put differently, their lives are moving towards annihilation. It doesn’t get any worse than that. But while they move towards that end, what are they doing? Consuming. They are worshiping their bellies, or their inner self. They are feeding the flames of internal desire. In short, they have made themselves objects of worship. And so Matthew Roberts’s words ring true: “At the heart of what has gone wrong in man is a transfer of worship.” Lastly, the very things they are most proud of—unhindered self-fulfillment and consumption—are actually shameful. And here’s the final blow: anyone living this kind of life has a mind set on earthly things. In other words, such people are claiming with their very actions to belong to this earth, in all of its passing corruption. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul classifies this type of person as a dying breed, a lineage of dust (1 Cor. 15:47–49). Those who live as if they belong to this earth are doomed to pass away because they are detached from the life-giving Spirit of Christ (1 Cor. 15:45).
We need to keep this close to heart for the next sentence, which helps us grasp what it means to be a heavenly citizen. Paul starts this sentence with a holy conjunction: “But” (γὰρ), which defines heavenly citizens as polar opposites to earthly-minded people.
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. (vv. 20–21)
Instead of belonging to the earth that is passing away (Matt. 24:35), we belong in heaven. And heaven is the pure and perfect presence of God and his people. Notice how markedly different our goal, God, and glory is here. First, God’s holy and peace-giving presence is our telos, our goal. While the enemies of the cross of Christ are headed for destruction, we are headed for unhindered
communion. Second, our God is not our belly, the satisfaction of our inner self, but the one true and sovereign Lord, whose grace and glory are forever praised (Rev. 19:5). That means we are fundamentally staring at God, not at ourselves. And yet, it is precisely by doing this that we find fulfillment. As Matthew Roberts wrote,
Worship, for images of the Triune God, is both the denial of self and the discovery of self. It is denial of self, because to worship God is all about abandoning our admiring thoughts about and preoccupations with ourselves. Instead, we focus our heart and mind on the God whom we love and seek to glorify. It is discovery of self, because this magnifying and rejoicing in God is reflecting His glory back to Him; and so is the very heartbeat of what it means to be His image. It is when, focused on our God and saviour, we cease to be concerned about who we are that we fulfil what it means to be who we are.
Lastly, our glory is not our shame; it is our Christ-conforming transformation. Our hope and pride are set not on what we are doing right now but on what God is doing to us, both now and in the future. He is transforming our lowly bodies to be like his glorious body. That is the consummation of our imitation of Christ, our mimesis. Contrary to popular assumption, imitation leads not to boring repetition but to blinding resurrection, as long as we are imitating Christ.
So, there you have it. A citizen of heaven, according to Paul, is someone who has the goal of eternally communing with God, joyfully worshiping the one who gives life, and transforming fully into the image of Christ, using our time on earth as a chrysalis.
The Chrysalis of Christ
It’s worth staring at that image for a bit: the Christian as a chrysalis. We used to catch Black Swallowtail caterpillars for our kids. They would feed them and watch them grow for several days until each began making its chrysalis. Bit by bit, a caterpillar would disappear behind an ossified green or brown shell stitched to a flower stem by a self-spun silk pad. For about two weeks, each one goes through a process called holometabolism—where its body breaks down into cells, which then reassemble to form a new shape. A butterfly
emerges from the chrysalis at the end: a new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).
However, anyone looking at a chrysalis from the outside would consider it trash. It’s plain and stony, fossilized and faceless. It is clothing fit for a crawler, not a king. It’s only after a Black Swallowtail emerges—with deep silken wings dotted in yellow, blue, and orange— that we marvel. The crowning follows cruciformity. The glory follows grieving.
A citizen of heaven, according to Paul, is someone who has the goal of eternally communing with God, joyfully worshiping the one who gives life, and transforming fully into the image of Christ, using our time on earth as a chrysalis.
Such is the Christian life. Our glory is our transformation, which has already begun but will not reach consummation until we are with the Lord. In the meantime, we are sewing our chrysalis. And here’s the hard news for Christians to swallow: it’s not pretty—I mean, to the world. In the world’s eyes, we should not look appealing. That’s not because the beauty of God isn’t at work in us; it’s because the world cannot see what we truly are. The world cannot discern spiritual things. It sees, in Paul’s words, only “the natural.” He tells the Corinthians, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
Building a chrysalis during our earthly days is an exercise in humility, in growing content with being
misjudged, undervalued, and rejected. Ours is a mission of sharing in the sufferings of Christ (Rom. 8:17–18; Phil. 3:10–11). That’s a mark of Christ’s church. As Richard B. Gaffin Jr. put it, we are a people that “wins by losing,” that identifies itself by suffering with Jesus, that realizes the power of Christ’s resurrection precisely in our cross-bearing. In the weakness, in the waiting, in the dark chamber of our Christ-conforming chrysalis, we carry the unquenchable flame of resurrection life.
Stewards on Earth
Now, that doesn’t mean Paul is calling Christians to a hermetic life, closed off from the world in our happy little chrysalis. In fact, each of the marks of heavenly citizenship we’ve looked at has an external, witness-bearing component. If our goal is one day to enjoy full communion with God and his people, we are still working towards that goal today. We are thinking, speaking, and acting (God willing) in such a way that other people will witness our longing for communion with God, our hope-giving and joy-spreading destination. And if our God is the true and triune Lord, then it should be evident each day how we are worshiping and honoring him above all else. Put negatively, it should be clear that we are not self-focused, as “the enemies of the cross of Christ” are. Lastly, if our glory is Christ-conforming bodily transformation, ushered in by the sovereign King who will subject all things to himself (Phil. 3:21), then people should see our daily commitment to that self-giving glory and our trust in God’s sovereign rule through Christ. Perhaps this comes through our Spirit-driven efforts to suffer with Christ in ten thousand tiny ways.
The point is that people are watching. And we need to keep living as citizens of heaven sojourning on earth. We can give this job the name of stewardship. A steward is a faithful caretaker of what is entrusted to him, knowing that another Lord is reigning.
So, what has been entrusted to us? Many things, but focus on “the truth.” This was Paul’s message to a young Timothy:
I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me. Follow
the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. (2 Tim. 1:12–14)
Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the crucified and risen Savior, according to the word of God. And he entrusts the same message to Timothy. The “good deposit” is the sound teaching of the gospel. And we are recipients of the same deposit. We have received the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of God (Col. 2:9; Eph. 3:19). All of the beauty and goodness and truth of God come to us through Jesus Christ. And ours is a world that desperately needs that beauty, goodness, and truth. We steward what has been entrusted to us by faithfully testifying to what God has done in Christ and by the Spirit for his people. And that faithful testament has countless applications—in the ways we raise our children, engage with the environment, and conduct ourselves in the public square as citizens of our respective earthly countries.
This view of stewardship as witnessing to the gospel entrusted to us makes much sense of Romans 13:1–3, a passage often referenced in distinguishing the church and the state. But in that distinguishing, we might overlook the relationship between church and state. Paul says,
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad (Rom. 13:1–3).
Notice two points about this passage, given our discussion of Philippians 3:17–4:1. First, God is the true King, even as Jesus is the true Sovereign who will subject all things to himself (Phil. 3:21). Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a purely secular government. All earthly governments stand under the authority of God—whether they confess his Lordship or not. Second, how is the government supposed to know what warrants “judgment”? How is it supposed to know the difference between “good” and “bad” conduct? Common grace can
only be a partial explanation. If true justice and goodness are rooted in the character of God, then the state would only learn what those things are by looking at the church. Hence, as stewards of the gospel, we are duty-bound to witness to the world concerning who God is, what he is like, and why we are here.
So, while we are certainly citizens of heaven, we are still stewards of the earth. And I believe our primary role is to be witnesses for the world concerning . . . well, everything. The blood of the gospel percolates every crease and crevice of life. There is nothing left uncolored by crimson grace. The gospel shapes our approach to family life, literature, the arts, technology, environmental engagement, and, yes, even politics. It cannot be otherwise.
A Christian Nation
So, does this mean that I want a country such as America to be labeled a “Christian nation”? Well, if by that, people mean a nation that largely affirms that God’s nature and work as revealed in Scripture lead to the greatest and most fulfilling life possible, then yes. One of my recent books, Insider-Outsider, was about how people are made to be fully known and fully loved. But there’s only one being who can do that for us: the triune God. I have the core conviction that this is true—not just for me, but for everyone. God is the only one who satisfies our deepest longings and offers us a meaningful life of love through Christ. Life with Jesus is the best life. I have no intention of even suggesting that it’s okay for people to think, speak, and act as if that weren’t the case.
The crowning follows cruciformity. The glory follows grieving.
But if by “Christian nation” people mean a country that is materially governed by Christians whose main focus is to make this earthly life easier on God’s people, then no. Why? Because if material or political success
becomes the main metric for Christians in any country, then they are dangerously close to taking up a different goal, god, and glory. The same ones, in fact, that Paul spoke against in Philippians 3. In this case, we would be throwing the principle of our Christian chrysalis by the wayside, trying to be butterflies when we lack wings.
We cannot really be dual citizens of heaven and earth. In that sense, my father’s analogy needs mending. We can be a citizen of only one kingdom. We can only have one highest love, one greatest allegiance. This principle comes out clearly in the words of Jesus himself concerning material prosperity: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (Matt. 6:24). We cannot claim dual allegiance to heaven and earth, any more than we can claim joint rule for Jesus and Satan (John 12:31). We can have only one primary allegiance. Paul calls us to be citizens of only one kingdom—heaven. That means we are, at our best, stewards of the earth. And a steward’s main goal is to guard and proclaim what has been entrusted to us, not just inside the church but outside it. This is the only thing that can help any government straining to piece together a value system apart from God.
The Greatest Love
Isaid at the outset that the key to understanding our heavenly citizenship is our greatest love. This helps us order our priorities when it comes to engaging with people in the public sphere. If God is our greatest love, then we love other things in the world—including enjoyment or exercise of country-specific rights—for God’s sake. We love partaking in a discussion about freedom of speech, for instance, not because we love freedom of speech on its own and for our benefit, but because we see in that discussion an opportunity to witness to the true freedom found only in Christ, of which every earthly freedom is only a shadow. There’s a difference between loving things in the world and loving God through the things of the world—political and civil service included. Saint Augustine began a tradition of doing the latter. In his Confessions, he wrote, “He loves you less who together with you loves something which he does not love for your sake” (Confessions, 10.28.202). As Christopher Watkins put it,
If I pay my taxes in a way divorced from my giving to God, I do not give to God as I ought. Like a child receiving a Christmas gift from her parents and greedily taking it to her room, locking the door behind her, and refusing to say, “Thank you,” loving things and doing our civic duty in a way unrelated to God snatches the lesser gift and ignores the greater giver.
We have a sad history of loving earthly things more than we love our heavenly Giver. And that’s precisely where dual allegiances come into play.
Conclusion
Being heavenly citizens and earthly stewards is a matter of keeping our first love first (Rev. 2:4). Paul portrays our heavenly citizenship as diametrically opposed to the goal, god, and glory of earthly-minded people. Being heavenly-minded means that we live out a witness—both in private and public—to the goal, God, and glory of the crucified and risen Christ. Until we meet him face-to-face, we weave our chrysalis and proclaim God’s entrusted truth to a watching world, even if that world rejects and despises us for doing so. In fact, especially when the world does this. For that is the gospel, isn’t it? “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Our dying for others is a testament to our living for heaven’s King. May our citizenship with him continue to be a light for those still clinging to the goal, god, and glory of a fading earth.
Pierce Taylor Hibbs (MAR, ThM Westminster Theological Seminary) serves as Senior Writer and Communication Specialist at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is the author of over 20 books, including the Illumination Award-winning titles Struck Down The Book of Giving, The Great Lie, and One with God. He lives in Pennsylvania with his wife and three kids. Learn more about his work at piercetaylorhibbs.com.
Design by Ethan Greb
THE LESSER of TWO EVILS
Alfred Poirier
The year 2024 marks the 60th presidential election in the United States. Christians and non-Christians alike shall be asked to vote for either Kamala Harris (D), or for former president, Donald Trump (R).
Have you made up your mind as to which candidate you will choose? Have others inquired of you, “Who will you vote for?” Or, “will you choose a third party other than Democratic and Republican?” And not a few of us may have raised the question: “Is it okay not to vote at all?”
The Oxford Dictionary defines the verb “to vote” as “to give formal indication of a choice for a candidate or a course of action.” In the United States, citizens enjoy the right, privilege, and responsibility to vote. It is a right that is denied many in other countries. It is a privilege as our form of government confers this right to vote on all citizens for all candidates and bills at all levels: the federal, state, and local. And it is a responsibility as all freedoms are freedoms subject to our ultimate duties to God and neighbor (Mark 12:29ff).
Of course, when we consider voting, we must not forget that there is more to an election ballot than voting for the president every four years. In the United States we vote for senators, congressman, and many lesser civic authorities as well as, at times, specific bills or propositions.
How, then, ought Christians to think about their right to vote? Let’s explore this one issue at a time.
Are Christians obligated to vote?
Every Christian, every follower of Christ, understands that the Lord Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). So, our entire life must be governed in accord with the risen Christ, who told his disciples to teach all other followers of Christ to obey all that he has commanded (Matt. 28:19). So, we need to ask: Does Scripture command or require Christians to vote? The answer is no. Scripture does not command or obligate us to vote either by expressed precept or by good and necessary inference deduced from Scripture (WCF 1.6). That is to say, to exercise one’s right to vote is a wisdom issue.
Yet, whether we choose to vote or not, and whatever choices we make in casting a vote, we must do so in accord with three biblical criteria.
First, it must be an action done in faith. Romans 14:23 tells us that “everything not done in faith is sin.” Christians are expected to exercise faith, that is, to rely humbly on God so that you do not act out of fear, pride, or other sinful motives. In this light, a question we can ask ourselves is: Am I casting this vote in faith? Or, out of sinful fear or pride?
Scripture does not command or obligate us to vote either
by
expressed precept or by good and necessary inference deduced from Scripture (WCF 1.6).
Second, it must be an act in accord with God’s word. Matthew 4:4 tells us, “man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” To the best of our ability, we must choose good and hate evil. Vote for upholding God’s moral law, and vote in ways to restrain evil. A question to ask here is: Am I assured that by casting this vote God’s moral law shall be upheld?
Third, it must be unto God’s glory. First Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The Christian seeks, above all, God’s glory, the exaltation of his name, kingdom, purposes, and law. Thus, we must ask ourselves: In casting my vote, do I recognize, hope for, and wait until that day when Christ, who sits on the throne, and is sovereign over all, shall return and “the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and Christ” (Rev. 11:15)?
The Lesser of Two Evils
“Lesser of two evils” is a rhetorical statement. Herman Bavinck, in his book titled Reformed Ethics, rejects the “lesser of two evils” idea. He says we should never do anything that is evil. Instead, he counsels: “… we may never choose the lesser of two evils, for our conscience can never obligate us to do what it
judges to be evil.” So in one way, if you deem a candidate “evil,” you cannot in true faith choose such a candidate.
However, in common usage the phrase “the lesser of two evils” often serves simply as a synonym for “the lesser of two not particularly desirable options.” Most Christians I believe have this second definition in mind. As Reformed Christians, we know that all men and governments this side of glory are tainted with evil to varying degrees. There is no perfect or ideal government, candidate, or bill. With that in mind, we are always choosing the “lesser” of two evils. And if chosen in faith, in accord with God’s word and to his glory, we may vote for the lesser candidate or bill.
Of course, the “lesser of two evils” assumes that one has only two options, in voting for this or that bill or this or that candidate, and there is no third alternative. As we discussed earlier, there is the option not to vote. If one cannot in good faith vote for either candidate, not voting would be the godly thing to do, lest you violate your conscience (Rom. 19:23). But another option, a third option, would be to vote for a third party that does not violate your conscience. In light of the dominance of the two major parties, such a vote is considered by some as a “throw-away vote.”
But that is a conclusion drawn from a merely pragmatic view of voting. As we saw earlier, Christians are bound to act upon biblical principles: faith, God’s word, and God’s glory. Yes, there are wisdom issues to our votes. And there is an “incalculable calculus” in voting— so many competing issues to weigh and decide which is best. Yet, if we act in principle by voting for a third party that we deem honors God’s moral law better than the major parties, then there is no throwing away your vote. God will judge us, and our voting, not on the basis of “success” but on whether or not we acted in faith.
What about so-called one-issue voting?
In light of the myriad competing issues and choices, is it wise for a Christian to vote for a candidate or a party’s slate based upon a single issue, such as respect for human life or God’s design for sexuality and marriage? Such issues are rooted in God’s moral law and expressed in the Ten Commandments.
Consequently, some Christians argue that in light of the deeply foundational nature of human life, one should never vote for any candidate who advocates or defends
LGBTQ issues: same-sex marriage, transgender legislation, e.g., Equality Acts, Respect of Marriage Act.
In view of this “single-issue” voting, it is important for us to remember that when one votes or does not vote, they do so for more than one reason. Even so-called single-issue voters likely have more than one reason. Typically, the single issue can be of two kinds: (1) a very broad reason, or (2) a very narrow or particular issue. A broad issue might be that I vote only for this or that party because they will best promote God’s moral law. So, when voting, I check all the boxes for this or that party: be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, etc.
Vote for upholding God’s moral law, and vote in ways to restrain evil.
On the other hand, some single-issue votes are for a particular matter that appears to the voter to have such moral weight or is of such fundamental or foundational substance affecting the nation as to allow a voter to definitively say “yes” or “no” to this or that bill or candidate. One might find this “single reason” voting compelling. For example, Psalm 11:3 asks: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” What are the foundations? Well, they would be God’s moral laws. If a government, or people—much less a candidate or bill—is not in accord with God’s moral law, then it is by definition striking at the foundations.
I stress “people” because in many ways, in a country ruled by a democratic government, in the end the government expresses the attitudes and desires of its people.
If its people desire idolatry and want to transgress God’s moral law, then they suffer for it. Or better, then God judges them. A clear example of this is found in Ezekiel 20:25. There the Lord reminds Israel that due to their love for idolatry, he gave them unjust laws: “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life…”
Very similar to this idea is what Paul says in Romans 1—that the way God presently expresses his wrath is
giving people over to their sin and their sinful desires such as immorality, homosexuality, and depraved minds (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28).
All this to say, when we vote, even for a so-called “single issue,” we vote for multiple reasons, which are not equally weighted or valued. If, then, I vote for bills or candidates that support a single issue, let’s say pro-life, or the sanctity of marriage, or freedom of exercise of religion, then that single issue is not simply a single reason but a foundational one. Granted, others may disagree.
So again, the critical question we need to ask ourselves is: Is this or that reason wise, good, just, and does it promote God’s moral law?
Regarding Civic Duties
We’ve talked about what obligates Christians in terms of our civic duty to vote. We have seen that voting is a right, a privilege, and a responsibility. We have also seen that we are not commanded to vote. We may choose not to exercise this right to vote.
But let us never forget that while voting is not a divine command, our Lord does command two things with respect to our civic duties: (1) pray for our leaders (1 Tim. 2:1–2); and (2) submit to them (1 Pet. 2:13).
First, let’s be mindful of the context in which 1 Timothy and 1 Peter are written. Both letters were likely written during the time of the Roman emperor Nero (54–68). According to ancient historians, Nero was considered corrupt in character and notorious for his cruelty and debauchery. Nevertheless, the apostles Paul and Peter instruct us to be submissive to the emperor, kings, or rulers.
There is no perfect or ideal government, candidate, or bill.
The first priority for us as citizens and civilians in any country is to pray (1 Tim. 2:1–2). Says Paul: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful
and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”
Paul’s goal is that God would grant us a basic stability of life in terms of political, economic, and social order. Jeremiah encouraged the Jewish exiles in Babylon similarly, saying, “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer. 29:7).
Let us do the same. Whether we vote or not, let it never be said we failed to pray for our civic leaders, legislators, justices, and government.
The second priority is to submit. First Peter 2:13 says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men, kings, governors, who are sent by him (God) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Of course, our submission to human authorities, even in the church, is always a penultimate submission, as our ultimate authority is obedience to God. We must obey God rather than man if a human authority demands we violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).
We most honor Christ when we obey his commands to pray for and submit to our governing authorities.
So, whom will you vote for this November? Well, let us hope that, come November’s presidential election, it may be said of us: “We prayed for our leaders and our country. We shall submit to them. But we shall always obey our God.”
Dr. Alfred Poirier (DMin, Westminster Theological Seminary) is professor of pastoral theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Poirier has held several additional teaching positions and has 38 years of pastoral ministry experience, including his time as a pastor at Rocky Mountain Community Church (PCA) in Billings, Montana for 26 years. Dr. Poirier’s academic interests lie in the areas of pastoral counseling and expository preaching. He is the author of The Peacemaking Pastor (Baker, 2006) and Words that Cut: Learning to Take Criticism in Light of the Gospel (Peacemaker Ministries), and several articles in The Journal of Biblical Counseling. Dr. Poirier has been married to his wife, Trudy, for 44 years, and together they have 3 children: Sarah Clark, Sonja Stordahl, and Anya Valeriano; and 11 grandchildren.
ALUMNI PROFILE: BRYCE CRAIG
share about the environment in which you were raised?
Bryce Craig: My grandfather and Machen founded The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company in 1930 by publishing the original Christianity Today. My dad took P&R over in the mid 1950s, and he rented a storefront to store and ship books. When I was in 4th grade, my dad had me come down and help out for a couple of days a week. I did that for a number of years. My mom was an English major and helped my father do proofreading. She was also an artist and did some of the book covers. I did some covers as well when I was in high school and college, so I was always immersed in the business. My mom and dad were the top readers, since my sisters were art majors, my brother was a business major, and I was a philosophy major. We spent most of our summers in Tarkio, MO, visiting relatives. Loraine Boettner lived in a town called Rockport that was seven miles away, so my dad would have me come with him to visit Loraine and discuss the books he was working on, especially Roman Catholicism, which is now out of print. Recently we republished his book The Harmony of the Gospels and transformed it into the Gospel of Jesus. We
became a pastor with a large church in Dresher. The faculty were kind, and I sold them some of the books by Jay Adams that P&R published when I first came to seminary. The success of his first book, Competent to Counsel, was a complete surprise to my dad. As his books became very successful, the company grew. Some other students, such as Vern Poythress and Greg Bahnsen, also did their first books with us. Ed Clowney was a great leader—he complimented me on my chapel talk and my sermon. (I had been doing Young Life and speaking to the youth, so that helped out.) That is a very special memory for me.
NN: Being raised in a family committed to the publication of books, what expectations and goals did you have as you entered the world of publishing?
BC: I was somewhat involved in publishing while at seminary, bringing books to the bookstore, creating charts for some of the books, and doing cover designs. Many WTS faculty published with us: Ed Clowney, Paul Wooley, Jay Adams, Jack Miller, Harvie Conn, Norman Shepard, Richard Gaffin, Oswald T. Allis, Vern
with WTS for many years through sales to the bookstore and through a few joint projects, such as Thy Word Is Still Truth with Richard Gaffin and Pete Lillback. We publish books that are Reformed and helpful for the church and pastors.
When I began to lead the company, I started by putting up a building and hiring a few people to keep it going. I was the first publisher to attend PCA GA, and we attended the large Christian Book Association convention in 1980. So I did have a vision for future growth.
NN: There are many Christian publishers today. How has P&R set itself apart, and what are your hopes for P&R over the next 10–20 years?
BC: We are truly Reformed and stand by our statement of faith. While other publishers publish Reformed books, we are the only confessional publisher committed to publishing only books that conform to the Westminster Standards. Our goal is to serve the church, both leaders and laypeople, with books that will help them in practical ways. In future years, we hope that the staff will reach out to explore new areas and book concepts but stay true to our foundational beliefs.
NN: Books have always been important for the advancement of the Christian church. What books that P&R published are you especially proud of? Are there any works that you, personally, would like to see in print?
and we are pleased with new and recent series such as our 31-Devotionals for Life and some exciting upcoming women’s series. We are touching base with many authors, and they are helping us with our vision. We have an excellent but small staff, so I hope we can grow some more in promoting the church and Christian education. We have published some helpful church titles, and we would like to see more foundational theological books in print.
NN:: What hopes do you have for the future of the church and Christian education? What role does P&R play in this?
BC:: We’ve done many books on service to the church and just came out with The Elder-Led Church. We picked up Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller when Zondervan dropped it. Jack Miller’s The Heart of a Servant Leader and Tim Witmer’s The Shepherd Leader have been excellent books. We have invested in homeschool markets and are making investments in training books such as Understanding the Faith by Stephen Smallman.
NN: How can our readership pray for you and P&R?
BC: Unfortunately, I was recently diagnosed with ALS, and I would appreciate prayers that I could work a few more years and that our staff would continue to grow.
God and the War
John Murray
Théodore Gudin (1802–1880), La bataille navale près de Lizard Point, Cornwall, le 21 Octobre 1707
from the archive
he topic on which I dwell is ‘God and the War.’ War is, to say the least, a ghastly evil. I did not highly necessary and even dutiful. For a sovereign state or federation of sovereign states the waging of war is oftentimes the only resort that remains, to guard the paths of justice, to promote the interests of God-given liberty and, paradoxical as it may seem, to conserve the blessing of true peace. The waging of war upon just and necessary occasion is no more wrong than is the execution of just judgment upon the violators of civil righteousness within a particular municipality or nation. But war is a ghastly
we are confronted with the barbarities and brutalities of which corrupt human nature is capable. We witness tyranny, oppression, cruelty, suffering, the destruction of precious life and property. As we think of all this, there appears to be such foolishness and absurdity to it all, not to speak of the iniquity that lies behind the whole tragedy of turmoil and devastation. Can God have anything
Surely he is of purer eyes than to behold evil and he can-
It is possible that our minds are not controlled by the trolled by an evolutionary philosophy, and we are incurable optimists. These ordeals are, we may be disposed to say, but the birthpangs of a better day. The evolutionary process proceeds through conflict and suffering, and the greater the struggle the greater hope we should entertain for the ultimate result. In the past we became too complacent towards things as they were, too complacent towards the obsolete or the obsolescent. It is necessary by the law of progress that the upheaval be all the more radical and even painful, in order that we may shake off the scales or the chains that have clogged us in the past and step by the thought of the holiness of God and, if so, our answer to the question may be that it is more honoring to the one living with it. We perhaps think that it is beneath the dignity
and majesty that are his to be in any way related to so wretched and despicable a thing as war with its entail of untold enmities and miseries.
Perhaps we might try to shield the integrity of God by supposing that the world has simply got out of hand, and that God is not able to cope with the perversity of human nature. He is doing the best he can with a bad situation, and like our good selves he deserves our warm sympathy and support.
Or again, perhaps we entertain a more noble conception of the power of God and say that he has just left the world to go its own way. He has been pouring out the bowels of entreaty, he has been striving with men. But they have not been responsive to his pleadings and warnings. Men have proved themselves hard-hearted, stiff-necked and rebellious. In holy retribution he has withdrawn his hand and, as a sad spectator, leaves men to their own resources. He allows the world for a time to reel and stagger in the wisdom that is folly. And so he has no active providence in this war. His relation to it is one of bare permission.
All of these attempts to philosophize with respect to the rationale of the present conflict may be well-meaning. Indeed some distorted element of truth, twisted from its proper orientation, shifted from its proper context, inheres in each of these attempts. For if any system were entirely devoid of plausibility, devoid of any approximation to reality, it is not likely that it would have much appeal to any large proportion of men.
The question however recurs: Are these the answers of truth? Are they the answers of God’s wisdom as deposited in his word? Are they the answers of Christian revelation?
When the question is thus qualified the answer simply is that it will not do to say that God has nothing to do with this war. It will not do to say simply that God allows or permits this war. For the Scripture says,
“Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).
“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside
me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45:5–7).
“Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand” (Isa. 14:24).
All things come to pass by God’s ordination and in his providence. We are faced with the inescapable truth that the whole of history in its broadest extent and minutest detail is the unrolling of the plan devised from eternity and accomplished by him of whom and through whom and to whom are all things. If our thought is guided by the Christian revelation, we are shut up to the recognition that it is no honor to God to say that he has nothing to do with this war, nor that he occupies with reference to it the position of offended but sad spectator.
What then is the meaning of this war, as that meaning may be derived from the biblical revelation? When we say meaning, we are not presuming to claim that we in our puny finitude, and particularly we sinners in our sinful ignorance, are able to survey all the counsel of the Eternal as it is embodied in the events of history. How little a portion do we know of his secret counsel! But we do know in part, and God has not left us to wander in total darkness with respect to the mystery of his providence and the purpose of his will.
There are at least five propositions that may be elicited from the Scriptures with respect to the meaning of this war.
1. This war is an evil consequent upon sin. It is one of the logical issues of sin. “From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1). We cannot deal with the topic God and the War unless we first propound the topic Man and the War. The sinful cause and occasion of war is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.
It is, no doubt, impossible for us to diagnose all the affections, motives, volitions, acts and purposes that have converged upon one another, that have interacted with one another, and that in unison bear the onus of responsibility for the gigantic catastrophe that has now befallen the world. We must recognize that a complex movement having its root far back in history, a complex movement of sinful impulse, ambition and action that only the all-seeing eye of God can fully view and diagnose, lies back of, and comes to fruition in, this present conflict.
While we are not able to survey that movement in all its factors and in their various interactions, nevertheless we cannot but recognize the broad features of that movement. Whatever of responsibility rests upon us for failures of the past, and however much we must bow in shame and humility for the sins committed in our national capacities, we must not allow our judgment to be blinded to the stark spectre that stalks before us in the crime and barbarity of the Axis nations. It surely must be said that Nazi Germany has been the main perpetrator of wrong in plunging the world into the holocaust that is now upon us. And why did Germany descend to such acts of iniquitous aggression? We cannot explain it on any other ground than that the moral fibre of the German people had undergone some radical deterioration. There must have been an eclipse of those moral principles that guide just and humane treatment of fellow men. And when we say moral eclipse, we must not dissociate that eclipse from its religious source and basis. This source we must find in departure from the one living and true God, and such departure, in a country like Germany at least, means departure from the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The whole of history in its broadest extent and minutest detail is the unrolling of the plan devised from eternity and accomplished by him of whom and through whom and to whom are all things.
We do not need any profound knowledge of history to be able to discover the source of this departure, and therefore the source of the moral and spiritual debacle witnessed in that religion of blood and race and soil embodied in the ideology of Nazi Germany. This source is found in the naturalistic and destructive criticism of
our Christian faith that found a ready home and active sponsorship in German soil. This war is the logical issue of that religion of blood and soil embraced by German Nazis, and that religion is the logical outcome of that pseudo-Christianity that is based upon the denial of the divine authority and finality of Holy Scripture as the infallible word of God. That is the diagnosis which, I am making bold to say, is the root cause of the onslaught on decency, justice, liberty, mercy and truth we have witnessed in the Nazi aggression.
But this indictment is a humiliating one for us. It is only too obvious that that same pseudo-Christianity, and that same godless religion that is its child, have found in our nations hospitable entertainment and sponsorship. It may not have produced in our nations the same notorious fruits that have been manifest in Nazi Germany. We should be thankful that some respect for truth and justice has survived among us. Yet the very same phenomenon is with us and prevalent among us. Let us painfully know that the virus that has produced in the Nazi regime those atrocities we severely condemn is a virus that we also have fostered and cultivated. It is the virus of a pseudo-Christianity that has denied the very foundations upon which the Christian faith rests.
The roots of these crimes reside in our fallen nature. For that corruption there is but one cure—the gospel of the grace of God. In this pseudo-Christianity we have the denial of that which is our only salvation from the corruption that issues in just such barbarous acts of tyranny, oppression and destruction as have confronted us in the avalanche of Nazi power.
2. This war is divine retribution for sin. We may think lightly of sin, we may be indifferent to it. But not so God. Sin is the contradiction of that law that is the reflex of his holy nature. And so “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18).
It is, of course, true that God does not execute all his wrath in this world. But it is a settled datum of history, as recorded in the Scripture and abundantly corroborated by subsequent history, that when iniquity abounds the Lord rises up out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity. He did this in the case of the Old World by destroying men from off the face of the ground. He did this in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah
by destroying them with fire and brimstone. The divine philosophy of history forces us to the conclusion that in this present conflict we must discern the rod of the divine anger and the staff of the divine indignation.
We rightly regard with the utmost disapprobation the unspeakable iniquities committed by the Axis nations. We think of treachery and deceit, treachery that baffles our ability adequately to depict its true character—our minds immediately travel to Pearl Harbour! We think of tyranny and ruthless persecution—Nazi oppression of Jews and Christians in Germany and in the conquered states of Europe is the very acme of this iniquity! And if we are looking for the most classic example of the inexpressibly mean and contemptible we find it in the actions of Mussolini and of the Fascist regime in Italy. We can say that these are incarnations of blatant wickedness.
There often surges up in our minds the question: Why, if God is the God of justice, if by him actions are weighed, does he not forthwith destroy such perpetrators of iniquity from off the face of the earth? We are disposed to reiterate the plaint and question of the prophet, “Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root: they grow, yea, they bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins” (Jer. 12:1, 2).
If our minds are imbued with the principles of the divine government as set forth in the Scriptures and as exemplified in history, we cannot escape the application to Germany, Italy and Japan of the word of God through Isaiah the prophet, “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets” (Isa. 10:5,6).
Assyria was not more righteous than Israel, and Assyria did not set out on its campaign of conquest and destruction with the motive and intention of executing the dictates of divine retribution upon Israel. Oh no! For Isaiah continues, “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few” (v. 7). Assyria’s purpose did not coincide with God’s purpose and neither does the purpose
of the Axis nations with which we are now at war. Nevertheless, their campaign as the campaign of Assyria fulfills in the grand strategy of God’s plan the purpose of holy retribution and judgment. We cannot diagnose the meaning of the crisis that is upon us nor derive the appropriate lessons from it unless we see in large letters the writing of divine displeasure upon us for our sins.
It is true that in due time the divine judgment will be executed also upon the instruments of this judgment upon us. But the greater iniquity of the instrument of judgment, and the greater judgment that will in due time be executed upon that instrument, must not blind us to the iniquity that is the ground for the divine anger against us. God is punishing us for our iniquity, let us therefore in submissiveness and humility hear the rod and him who has appointed it: When we stagger let us know that we stagger under the staff of God’s righteous indignation.
The divine philosophy of history forces us to the conclusion that in this present conflict we must discern the rod of the divine anger and the staff of the divine indignation.
3. This war is the divine call to repentance. Naturally we all long for the date when the bells of a victorious armistice or peace will begin to toll. We naturally think of days approximating those of the past. We think in terms of economic stability and comfort, and we perhaps pray for the early cessation of hostilities. But surely we have learned that there is something more important and precious than peace. Why have we gone to war? Is it not because we have deemed something more precious than peace? We must read the text again—“the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” That is the lesson of God and the War that bears upon us with more practical moment than anything else. It is the lesson that we have
been loath to learn, the lesson of individual and national repentance. I do not think I am unduly pessimistic if I say that the signs have not been pointing in the direction of penitence and humility. We have had much humiliation, but have we put on humility as a garment? Have we acquainted ourselves with the alarming prevalence of sexual immorality and of marital infidelity? Have we followed the history of the divorce courts, the facility with which divorce may be secured, and the frequency with which divorce is sought and granted? Have we witnessed the appalling increase in profanity, a tendency given impetus, deplorable to relate, by the example of some who occupy positions of high public trust? Have we taken cognizance of the lamentable increase in desecration of the Sabbath? Have we not rather heard or read the proclamation from the highest seat of government of a seven-day week, when God has said, “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exod. 20:9, 10)? Have we not heard, in the terms of a pernicious antithesis, that this war is to be won in the workshop and not in the church? Can we fail to discern that the economic and educational systems of this country are very largely devised and conducted in systematic disregard of the authority and will of God? Our defiance has surely reached Babel proportions when we think that in the interests of defending our civil and religious liberties we can dispense with the laws which God has ordained. For the laws of God are the only basis and guarantee of true liberty and true worship.
Our minds are very liable in these times to be blinded by a certain kind of panic. We quite properly desire and set our minds upon the preservation of our national liberties and integrity and, in order to that end, upon the defeat of those enemies that are arrayed against us. But in preoccupation with that end we are too prone to that panic that blinds our vision of the kingdom of God and his righteousness. We should remember that no temporal catastrophe can be as bad as the strengthening of the bands of godlessness. I am not saying that it is necessary for us to undergo ultimate defeat in order to learn righteousness. May God forbid that this should be the case. But it would be better for us to suffer the humiliation of defeat, if thereby we should learn righteousness, than to be crowned with sweeping military victory if thereby we are to be confirmed in the ways of ungodliness. Let us ever remember
the sovereign prerogatives of God’s kingdom and even in the pursuance of a life-and-death military conflict let us learn to think even then in terms of the kingdom of him who is the “King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1 Tim. 1:17).
4. The perfecting of Christ’s body, the church, is being promoted by this war. The whole of history is the unfolding of God’s purpose. But we must also remember that all authority in heaven and in earth has been committed unto Christ. He is head over all things, and he is head over all things to his body, the church.
As we confront the grim realities of the present situation, we may not forget the reality of the situation that is more ultimate, the situation created by the transcendent kingship of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the king and head of the church. Through all the upheavals, sufferings, tribulations, persecutions and even executions of God’s people, there runs an invincible purpose that cannot fail of execution, the completion of the whole body of Christ, in line with the word of the apostle, “I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened... have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel” (Phil. 1:12). These sufferings fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, to the end of furthering the great purpose that Christ had in view in coming into the world, and of bringing that purpose to consummation in the glorification of a countless multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue.
Let not our certitude and peace be disturbed. Christ sits as king and he must reign until all his enemies shall have been made his footstool. He will not leave off until he will bring forth the headstone of this living temple with shoutings, crying, “Grace, grace unto it. The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it” (Zech. 4:9).
5. The war vindicates God’s sovereignty. pressible comfort in these days of upheaval and turmoil to know that all events, great and small, are embraced in God’s sovereign providence. He has not resigned the reins of government. Present history is not moving toward chaos. It is moving in the grand drama of God’s plan and purpose to the accomplishment of his holy designs and to the vindication of his glory.
Before the avalanche of totalitarian human govern ment, many professing Christians are capitulating and
many have also enlisted in the unholy crusade of taking “counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Ps. 2:2, 3). With respect to the true church of God they have said, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance” (Ps. 83:4). We must be reminded in such a situation that in this universe there is only one totalitarian government, and that men must assume in it the place of humble submission and obedience. “The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble; he sitteth between the cherubim; let the earth be moved. The Lord is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people” (Ps. 99:1, 2). All history is under God’s governance and is moving towards his tribunal where every infraction upon truth and deviation from justice will receive its final adjustment and adjudication. It is here that the believer finds solace, for it is the secret place of the Most High and the shadow of the Almighty. Through all the disquieting events of our history there runs the sovereign and holy purpose of the Lord God omnipotent. And even though clouds and darkness are round about him, justice and judgment are the habitation of his throne. He fulfills his righteous purpose through the righteous wills of wicked men.
We must assert, and take refuge in, the absolute sovereignty of the eternal God, the absolute sovereignty of him who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with equal universality the mediatorial sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, the incarnate Son, the Saviour-King, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. In the words of the prophet let us say to ourselves and others, “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day”
John Murray received his doctorate from Princeton Seminary, and later taught Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary for 36 years.
A Report on “Reformation and Society: A Symposium”
It is the historian that traverses many winding paths into the past. These paths are often traveled by means of books and their editions, and manuscripts and their marginalia. When inspected closely, these become portals into a foregone world, where the scrupulous scholar can exhume artifacts from the textured terrain of history. Though the journey may be arduous, the result of such labors can be invaluable and rewarding. Indeed, it is through these efforts that the past enters the present, where one can view in their own moment, even if only a glimpse, past ideas, communities, and events.
To travel this path into the world of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the British Isles, New England, and Europe, one is immediately met with questions of great complexity, for it was these centuries that experienced palpable religious and political upheaval. And so a seemingly simple line of inquiry such as “What was involved in the Reformation?” swiftly becomes complicated. It was these questions and considerations that brought about an academic symposium in August 2024. In conjunction with Hillsdale College departments of History, Philosophy and Religion, and English, Westminster’s Craig Center hosted a two-day event entitled “Reformation and Society: A Symposium.” With a view to facilitating greater cross-confessional dialogue and fostering serious engagement within and across denominations, scholars from multiple denominations came together to discuss the sixteenth and seventeenth century world of reformations.
Each day began with morning prayer led by Reverend Adam Rick in the stunning Christ Chapel on Hillsdale’s campus, setting the spirit for the rest of the day's events. With excitement and keen interest, the first day saw a variety of panels, including “The German Reformation,” which was chaired by Todd Rester and had papers from Jonathan Mumme, Eric Hutchinson, and Derek Stauff; and “Plato in the Reformation(s),” which was chaired by Mickey Mattox and had papers from Matthew Gaetano, Catherine Kuiper, and Nathan Nocchi. Following lunch and good, edifying conversation, the third panel, which was chaired by Adam Carrington, had presentations from Joshua Benjamins and Adam Rick. The last panel of the first day was chaired by Peter Lillback, and included papers from Adam Carrington, Harrison Perkins, and
Michael Lynch. The first day of the symposium concluded with dinner and the first keynote lecture, which was Westminster’s first Bartow-Spurgeon Lecture given by Todd Rester.
The second day saw papers just as insightful and constructive as the first day’s. The first panel of the second day was chaired by Eric Hutchinson, and included presentations from David Urban and Patrick Timmis. The second panel, being chaired by Mark David Hall, saw presentations from Sarah Morgan Smith and Timon Cline. Subsequent to these two panels, Korey Maas, Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College, gave the second keynote address, entitled “Martin Luther in Reformation England: Received, Rejected, or Revised?” The paper was engaging and stimulated a host of productive questions and discussions.
The last panel was on the legacies of the Reformation in eighteenth-century New England and was chaired by Hillsdale professor Miles Smith IV. The three presentations were on the influence of the Reformed tradition in the American founding (Mark David Hall), Samuel Adams’s doctrine of political resistance (Peter Lillback), and Jonathan Edwards and the revelation of history (David Owen Filson).
The last segment of the symposium was indeed a proper capstone, a lively roundtable discussion about the present and future of inter-confessional engagement in America. With Matthew Gaetano as its chair, Mickey Mattox, Jonathan Mumme, Peter Lillback, Alan R. Crippen II, and Justin A. Jackson explored a variety of questions, including what inter-confessional cooperation looks like even when confessional boundaries are maintained.
For the Christian, the study of history is not merely some intellectual exercise where past events are recovered. It is more than that, for the study of history is, in a way, to observe the hand of providence at various times and places, and in the lives and work of our Christian forefathers. The 2024 Reformation and Society symposium provided a context for precisely this: not just scholarship but Christian scholarship. The 2024 symposium saw great success overall. And we are pleased to note that plans are underway for a symposium in 2025, as well as a publication with Westminster Seminary Press containing many of the papers given at this year’s symposium.
Society Reformation
A collection of essays that explore the sixteenth and seventeenth-century world of reformations FORTHCOMING 2025
Edited by Nathan Nocchi & Patrick Timmis
Westminster Magazine is published twice annually to bless Christ’s church with sound theological reflection for the church today.
To support Westminster Magazine , visit wts.edu/donate and select “Westminster Magazine” from the drop-down menu, or use the remittance envelope included in this magazine.
