Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Thursday, September 12, 2024
One of the greatest benefits of explicitly stated creeds is that they protect the church from unwritten and unstated creeds. Everyone has beliefs about what the Bible teaches. But beliefs that are not publicly accessible in simple, clear, written form are not subject to public scrutiny. Furthermore, they are not open to correction because there is a denial that they even exist. “I just believe the Bible,” say some. Yes, all fine and good. But the point at issue is always: “What does the Bible mean?” Creeds provide a publicly accessible standard and safeguard in articulating a church’s official teaching. As such, they can be amended as needed. No such safeguards exist for unstated creeds that exist only in one’s mind.

It is not uncommon to hear someone within a denomination that subscribes to a specific confessional document or binding polity statement complain that their denomination is elevating human teaching above God’s word itself. This sentiment seems to be plausible to a good number of people. I encountered one version of this complaint this year at the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly. It was specifically about whether women can serve in the role of deacons. The argument, presented on the floor of the General Assembly, was that the PCA’s Book of Church Order, especially a proposed clarification being voted on at GA, is more rigid on this point than Scripture itself.
One way to defend the PCA’s confession (the Westminster Confession of Faith) or polity (the Book of Church Order) is jure divino Presbyterianism (divine right Presbyterianism), which contends, as John Lafayette Girardeau (1825–1898) put it, that “that what is not commanded, either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures, is prohibited to the church. She can utter no new doctrine, make no new laws, ordain no new forms of government, and invent no new modes of worship.” Assuming, then, that the Westminster Confession and the PCA’s Book of Church Order are truly biblical, Presbyterians are bound to strict adherence to these documents.
There is, however, another approach to defending our church’s constitutional standards. It is in many ways more prosaic and commonsense, but is also to my mind based on irrefutable logic for those who value honesty and who operate in good faith within our denomination. It is an approach that I encountered years ago in a short introductory essay to Robert Shaw’s (1795–1863) exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by the Scottish Presbyterian pastor and seminary professor William Maxwell Hetherington (1795­–1863).
Why Creeds and Confessions?
Hetherington’s argument unfolds as follows. Because of sin the human mind is prone to error. Thus, even the simplest of statements can be understood in a large number of ways. Not all of these can be correct. Hetherington does not initially discuss the Bible. He simply notes a reality all people regularly face: a failure to agree on the meaning of some piece of written communication. A large number of people might even affirm that they agree with a given statement, but it would be impossible to know whether they are in actual agreement unless and until they explain that statement in their own words. “This,” Hetherington notes, “would be really his Creed, or Confession of Faith, respecting that truth.” If all agreed on that point in said “creed” or “confession” they would have a common confession about the meaning of the statement in question. This confession (whether actually capturing the meaning of the statement or not), if stated clearly, could then be used as the grounds for admission into a body of people who together hold that truth.
Thus far, Hetherington argues, few people would find such a process problematic. No one would be infringing on the liberty of anyone else or attempting to control their personal convictions about anything:
If any man cannot agree with the joint testimony borne by those who are agreed, this may be a cause of mutual regret; but it could neither confer on them any right to compel him to join them, contrary to his convictions, nor entitle him to complain on account of being excluded from a body of men with those opinions he did no concur. No man in strict integrity, indeed, could even wish to become one of a body of men with whom he did not agree on that peculiar point which formed the basis of their association.[2]
This is a matter of simple and basic honesty. No one forced anyone to join together unwillingly in affirming his “creed.” It was freely subscribed to by all as an agreed upon declaration of the meaning of a given statement or statements. At the same time, no one could fault the body affirming that “creed” for excluding others who do not hold to it. Why would anyone want to be a member of a body the holds to a creed they do not believe is accurate anway?
Hetherington then moves to consider these principles with regard to religious truths. It often happens that even those committed to the inerrancy and absolute authority of Scripture do not agree on what the Scriptures teach. Any number of such people, for example, might say that they affirm Paul’s teaching on deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13. It would be impossible to know, however, whether those people were in agreement about the meaning of that passage until they explained it in their own words.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Spiritual independence is the notion that the church must resist all attempts, no matter where they originate, to prevent it from faithfully carrying out its divinely ordained ministry. “When it is faithful in this duty” of preserving its independence, “the benefits of union [of church and state] can be appreciated and, if and when necessary,” the union of church and state “will be abandoned . . . in the interests of truth” (Age of Revolution, p. 22). That is to say, as long as the church’s independence is preserved, there are times when circumstances will dictate that a union of church and state is to be rejected, even if it is legitimate in principle.

Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801–1876) was a Dutch Reformed Protestant historian and politician who founded the political party Abraham Kuyper would eventually join and serve in as Prime Minister.
Against Political Atheism
Numerous themes show up repeatedly in Prinsterer’s writings. Two central ones were the danger of the revolutionary ideology unleashed by the French Revolution and the relationship between church and state. These two themes were integrally connected in Prinsterer’s mind: he saw the radical separation of church and state in France as a great peril to the survival of the church in that nation (or any that followed its example).
Prinsterer summed up his basic position on the relationship between church and state in his published lectures entitled Unbelief and Revolution (p. 32, n. 22) like this:
Church and State should not be separated but kept distinct, united in joint consultations from a position of mutual independence . . . . If the Christian church loses it priority, freedom of conscience is without defenses against the intolerance of unbelief. Unbelief becomes the civic religion of a secular state.
Later in this same work he refers to the default position of France as one of state-sanctioned “political atheism” (Unbelief and Revolution, p. 33). France, despite the claims of some at the time, was not a neutral ground on which all religions could compete, but itself had an official religion, albeit an atheistic one. All state institutions (including primary education) were forced to deny the truths of Christianity. In France, “no positive religion whatsoever,” he continued, “shall be tolerated in opposition to the requirements of revolutionary sociability”(Unbelief and Revolution, p. 103). This is not at all dissimilar to what we see in Western nations today regarding moral issues like abortion and sexuality. Religion may be tolerated as long as it remains a purely inward and private affair, but if at any point it threatens the (sexual) revolutionary sociability an attempt will be made to suppress it ruthlessly.
Prinsterer believed firmly that church and state were divine institutions with distinct spheres of authority. The church does not have the right to usurp the power of the state, nor the state the power of the church. Distinction does not entail radical separation, however.
On the Necessity of Political Prudence
Although maintaining such a distinction, Prinsterer’s articulation of the ideal relationship between church and state is not wholly compatible with the contemporary political theory of liberalism. In another work, entitled Christian Political Action in an Age of Revolution, he develops an additional insight of relevance to ongoing discussions in Christian “post-liberal” circles about the relations of church and state.
In this book Prinsterer says emphatically, in response to a critique: “I am an ardent opponent of the separation of church and state, though not as ardent as Mr. Trottet imagines.” What Prinsterer takes issue with in his opponent’s criticism is, as he says, that Trottet advocates “an absolute separation,” of church and state “as a universal truth . . . thus raising it to the rank of an article of faith” (Age of Revolution, p. 21). In his critic’s understanding any formal relationship between church and state is ruled illegitimate as a matter of absolute and inflexible moral principle.
This is similar to the position of many today, even among Protestants who come from a tradition that for centuries vigorously supported a specific kind of formal connection of church and state. It is one thing to say that it is unwise to seek such a relationship today; it is quite another thing to say that that position is categorically wrong. The Reformers and their heirs and not infallible, but one does need to grapple with their actual arguments on church and state instead of superficially dismissing them.
Here is where I think Prinsterer is most interesting and potentially helpful. He argues that there are times when the very “interests of religious freedom” (here understood as the freedom of true Christians to worship freely) necessitate restricting “the exercise of [some] political rights . . .  to members of the State Church” (Age of Revolution, pp. 21-22). As examples of such times he lists the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) and the Catholic League (1576), both of which set out to murder Protestants and eliminate Protestantism in France, as well as the violent attacks on Protestants during the Thirty-Years War and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), which had granted Protestants toleration in France since 1598.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Thursday, August 1, 2024
Davies believed that one’s indispensable duty as a citizen was to, if necessary, “take the field” in defense of his nation. He was not speaking metaphorically, nor was he understood as such: “a company of colonists with rifles at the ready enlisted” on hearing Davies’ exhortation.3 Soon after Davies preached a sermon on the phrase “Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people” from 2 Samuel 10:12 in order to encourage the men from his congregation to follow through with their duty.4

In 1754 George Washington, then a young Lieutenant Colonel in charge of a regiment of troops from Virginia, attacked a small French force at Jumonville Glen, in what is today southwest Pennsylvania. The French contingent was nearly wiped out, being caught unawares by the combined Virginian and Iroquois force. Though tensions between England and France had been increasing for some time, many historians mark this battle as the beginning of the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). Washington was initially blamed for an unjust massacre of French troops, and for igniting the war, but his reputation had improved dramatically by the next year, largely on account of his skill and bravery in the subsequent battles at Fort Necessity and Fort Monongahela. On hearing of Washington’s bravery, Samuel Davies, a Presbyterian minister and fellow Virginian, remarked, in what proved to be an amazingly prescient intuition: “I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved [him] in so signal a manner for some important service to his country.”1
Davies, born in Delaware in 1723, would go on to serve for many years as a minister, and eventually as the fourth president of The College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton), following the death of Jonathan Edwards, the third president of the college. As a pastor and theological college administrator, Davies was one of the primary influences on early American Presbyterianism, the College of New Jersey being the only training institution for colonial American Presbyterian ministers at that time.2
The details of Davies’ storied life are all worth recounting, but I want to draw attention to one specific aspect, the way in which he combined a robust form of early American patriotism (one might even say nationalism) with an equally robust pastoral ministry, focused with passionate intensity on the centrality of Christ’s saving work, and a heavenly-minded piety centered on the excellencies of the Savior. American Presbyterians of previous generations, along with members of many other denominations, did not find it nearly as difficult to hold these two things together as have many of their more recent theological heirs.
Davies ministered to multiple congregations on the northwestern border of colonial Virginia, preaching as many as five times every Lord’s Day to widely scattered churches. This area was under constant threat from French and Indian attack. What message did Davies think his congregations needed to hear? The answer might surprise many. In a “war sermon” preached in Hanover, VA on July 25th, 1755 Davies urged his flock:
Let me earnestly recommend to you to furnish yourselves with arms and put yourselves into a position of defense. What is that religion good for that leaves men cowards on the appearance of danger? And permit me to say that I am particularly solicitous that you, my brothers of the dissenters [from the established Anglican church] should act with honor and spirit in this juncture, as it becomes loyal subjects, lovers of your country, and courageous Christians.
One could imagine a form of counsel that would simply urge his flock to trust the Lord and not fear for the future, but Davies is not in the least interested in opposing piety and action in the world. He finds, as he says in his sermon, such an opposition, in the face of grave earthly danger, to amount to cowardice, not heavenly-mindedness.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Monday, July 29, 2024
Some people simply aren’t capable of recognizing beauty. This, Burke insists, is due to a variety of factors: stunted powers of discrimination, carnal and materialistic living, an obsession with living for the applause of the world, or “a want of proper and well-directed exercise” in recognizing beauty (33). “The cause of a wrong taste,” in short, “is a defect of judgment” (33). Burke also points out that what is commonly mistaken for total subjectivity with regard to beauty is the fact that there are gradations of beauty. Beauty is on a scale from less to more beautiful. But that is very different from saying that beauty is subjective.

The idea that beauty is objective is not widely shared today. Aesthetic relativism is so widespread in our culture that even those who are firmly non-relativistic in other areas (religion, morality, etc.) are likely to have given up on the claim that beauty in art, music, architecture, clothing, and so on, is objective. Everything has been turned into a matter of preference or pragmatics. Should one believe a painting by George Innes is more beautiful than a Jeff Koons statue? Or that Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, GA is more beautiful than a brutalist office-building masquerading as a church? Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
This is all nonsense, of course. Beauty is objective because it is a reflection of the glory, majesty, and beauty of God’s being. Some things, insofar as they reflect God’s glory, majesty, and beauty, are truly more beautiful than other things. There are many ways this can be defended, but one that may prove particularly helpful today is the revival of an idea found in an early writing of Edmund Burke. Burke, though famous for his political writings and career, first made a splash in the literary world of 18th century England with a treatise on aesthetics entitled A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757).
Burke’s argument is simple. Beauty is objective, but human powers of perceiving of beauty are not. This fact, and not the absence of an objective basis for beauty, is what accounts for the radically divergent claims people make about whether something is beautiful or not:
So far then as taste belongs to the imagination, its principle is the same in all men; there is no difference in the manner of their being affected, nor in the causes of the affection; but in the degree there is a difference, which arises from two causes principally; either from a greater degree of natural sensibility, or from a closer and longer attention to the object. (31)
Recognizing beauty, in fact, requires several things: a developed ability to discriminate between what is beautiful and ugly, and sufficient knowledge and experience in such discrimination. “For sensibility and judgment, which are the qualities that compose what we commonly call a taste, vary exceedingly in various people,” Burke maintains (33). “There are some men,” he continues
formed with feelings so blunt, with tempers so cold and phlegmatic, that they can hardly be said to be awake during the whole course of their lives. Upon such persons the most striking objects make but a faint and obscure impression. (33)
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
The overture requiring the titles of elder and deacon to be restricted only to men who serve in that ordained office passed, but even if it had failed it would still remain impermissible to ordain women to the office of deacon, which is what this minister was arguing for. Others arguing against restricting the titles of elder and deacon to ordained men insisted that their specific cultural heritage, namely respect for older members in the church, demanded that they use biblical titles of office for those not ordained to that office. Still others simply stated that they have used these titles for non-ordained women for decades, and that it would be very unpleasant to change course now.

The Presbyterian Church in America met this week [6/10-14/24] for its annual General Assembly (GA), where the entire denomination gathers to deliberate important, denomination-wide matters. Ruling Elder Steve Dowling was an excellent and fair moderator and business progressed in a timely fashion. One might even dare to hope that the trend of ending mid-afternoon on Thursday, as occurred both this year and last year, will continue indefinitely. This year there were fewer outwardly controversial matters debated, though some of the items up for votes were related to bigger issues (the role of women in the church, abuse, etc.).
I attended this year as a voting commissioner and was pleased with how things went. One of the items receiving extra attention is that of who may use the titles of elder or deacon. This one is important because it addresses the fact that women in some PCA churches have been called deacons, though the polity of the PCA requires that this ordained office be only filled by men. Of all the GA debates, I was most surprised by the reasoning of those who opposed the overture that would explicitly forbid the title of elder or deacon being applied to anyone not ordained to that office. One minister presented the commonly used argument that the biblical word “deacon” is applied to women (Phoebe in Rom 12:1, for example). There is a confusion in this argument between the way in which the word “deacon” is used in a more generic sense in scripture simply to mean someone who is serving others in some capacity and the specific office of deacon described in 1 Timothy 3, but what was most striking to me was that this speaker was using this argument very straightforwardly to state that the PCA’s binding polity is simply wrong about women deacons. Even if the PCA’s polity is wrong on this (I don’t believe it is), for the time being that polity is binding on all officers. The overture requiring the titles of elder and deacon to be restricted only to men who serve in that ordained office passed, but even if it had failed it would still remain impermissible to ordain women to the office of deacon, which is what this minister was arguing for. Others arguing against restricting the titles of elder and deacon to ordained men insisted that their specific cultural heritage, namely respect for older members in the church, demanded that they use biblical titles of office for those not ordained to that office. Still others simply stated that they have used these titles for non-ordained women for decades, and that it would be very unpleasant to change course now. I don’t recall hearing a single argument on this side for the permissibility of calling unordained women deacons within the rules of our currently existing polity. This, to me, only goes to show that the real issue has been a lack of enforcement of our polity in the past, not ambiguity about that polity.
One thing that surprised me this year was the failure of an overture that would make binding an amended section of our non-binding Directory of Worship. The section, as newly amended, would mandate that only qualified men can preach. The main argument against this overture was that our binding Book of Church Order (BCO) already mandates that only qualified men can preach. This is true (BCO 12-5.e), though I don’t understand why added clarity on this matter is problematic.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Wednesday, June 12, 2024
We all feel shame when we do wrong. We should. It shows us that our consciences are working as God intended. But if we will lay down our claims to self-righteousness and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, we will be justified, we will be in the right with a holy God. And that is the only way sinners can find the solution to their shame.

Repentance vs. Emotional Healing
The western world is not united on much. However, there may be one thing that draws nearly everyone together. It is the attempt to banish the idea that we should ever be ashamed of ourselves or our actions. You see this mentality everywhere you turn. Oprah Winfrey recently commented on her use of a weight loss drug, despite the stigma attached to such weight-loss “cheating”: “‘I now use it as I feel I need it, as a tool to manage not yo-yoing,’ Winfrey said, adding that she’s ‘absolutely done with the shaming from other people and particularly myself.’”
I’m not particularly interested in how people feel about taking weight loss drugs, but I am interested in the modern quest to banish shame to the outer darkness of polite society. As a part of thinking through how modern therapeutic thinking has gained ground (and done much harm) in the church, I keep coming back to the idea of shame. Shame is also treated in Christians circles much like the plague: we must rid ourselves of shame at all costs. And by this I do not mean rid ourselves of shame by taking our guilt to the cross to find forgiveness from the Lord. No, many in the evangelical church, taking their cues from the wider culture, insist that we must instead make sure that we never feel shame. Shame is treated as a disease. And the cure is convincing ourselves that we have nothing to be ashamed of in the first place. Are you a mom who feels shame because you can’t live up to the Instagram ideal? Are you a dad who struggles with shame because you work too much due to anxiety about paying the bills? Banish the thought.
There are, of course, all sorts of unrealistic, and frankly unbiblical, expectations we can face in life. Mothers are called to be faithful to what God commands, not to some bogus influencer lifestyle, and so on. But the contemporary evangelical aversion to shame goes much further than that. It is an attempt to eliminate the very idea of shame, to portray shame as a harmful feeling to be jettisoned, like any other injurious emotion. Popular authors such as Brené Brown have had a large impact on many in Christian churches. She defines shame as “the intensely painful feeling or experience that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance, connection or belonging.” Following her lead, one Christian author (selected at random from countless possibilities to be found online) insists that “living in shame is neither healthy nor part of God’s plan.” Dealing with shame is routinely put in therapeutic terms by Christian counselors adopting the therapeutic models of worldly psychologists:
Shame is one of the most difficult emotions that can affect you. It is hard to spot on your own, yet it can pervade through almost every area of your life. Overcoming shame is difficult to do. Yet by meditating on Bible verses about shame, you can walk toward the light of healing that God provides.
In a culture defined by the “triumph of the therapeutic” shame needs healing, not repentance.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Monday, June 10, 2024
While Curtis Chang is not accurate when he claims that it was “the right-wing faction within the PCA” that was responsible for the political polarization panel being cancelled, it is likely that he is right when he says this “only encourages more of the same.” One can only say: by God’s grace, yes, may it be so. Courage to do the right thing in the face of unrelenting cultural pressure is contagious. And such contagious courage is sorely needed today.

This is cowardice. This is caving to a mob mentality that only encourages more of the same. This is an outright smear of a faithful and true Christian man.” These are the words of Duke Divinity School’s Curtis Chang, a progressive Christian activist and professor, to describe recent events in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The “caving to a mob mentality” he has in mind is the decision of the Stated Clerk of the PCA to disinvite David French from the denomination’s annual General Assembly in June. French was to take part in a panel discussion on political polarization in the church, which was cancelled.
The events connected with French are significant in their own right, but this episode also highlights important challenges the PCA faces in a nation increasingly hostile to basic Christian truths. Despite those who have attempted to portray French’s disinvitation as the result of a small group of angry, overly-online keyboard warriors, the decision was in fact the result of a large number of leaders (called ruling and teaching elders in the PCA) and ordinary church members expressing their concern in the proper way, to the proper decision makers in the denomination. Many of those who expressed these concerns are not even on the “right” of the denomination. They are middle-of-the-road Christians who recognize, whatever their own political beliefs, that David French is an extremely polarizing figure, unlikely to fulfill the stated purpose of the panel to help the church avoid polarization. That said, many are also concerned with the actual positions French takes on important moral and social issues, including on so-called gay marriage, laws regarding minors and “gender reassignment” surgeries, drag queen story hour, and more.
Leading voices within progressive churches and institutions quickly denounced the decision to cancel the panel. It is incredibly difficult for confessional Christian institutions to resist such pressure. One can see what happened to people like cake-maker Jack Phillips for refusing to create cake designs celebrating homosexuality, or more recently, the pressure put on Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker for stating basic facts about homosexuality, God’s design for men and women, and the harmful effects of DEI programs.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Friday, May 3, 2024
The New Testament only grants authority regarding the internal governance of the church to the officers of the church. I think most people who oppose establishment frame their opposition the other way round: they are mostly afraid of Christians imposing their will on the general populace via the state. I am more concerned—from a biblical and theological standpoint—about the state interfering in matters that God has not granted it authority to pronounce upon. I’m aware that the older Protestant view did not give the magistrate carte blanche to interfere in internal church matters. But perhaps it still granted it too much leeway in this direction. Should the U.S. government have the authority to mandate that the Presbyterian Church in America (my denomination) call a second General Assembly every year? The older view allows this. I don’t see God having granted the state that authority.

In my series of articles on Christianity and politics, I have mostly attempted to make my argument from Scripture and natural law. In this entry, I aim to show how the ideas I’ve argued for relate to previous Protestant approaches to politics. I start with John Calvin since he is an important, and representative, voice within the classical Protestant approach. I then turn to some representative Protestant confessional statements of the past, since these (unlike the views of individual theologians, however revered) were actually authoritative for the practice of the churches. Lastly, I look at how classical Protestant political thought was adapted in America, using the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an example.
The Classical Protestant Understanding of Politics
John Calvin (1509-64)
The most foundational element of Calvin’s understanding of politics is his argument (here taken from the Battles translation of Calvin’s Institutes III.19.15) that “there is a twofold government in man.” This twofold government, which is sometimes called the “two kingdoms” is often mistakenly equated with the difference between church and state. The distinction, in fact, is between government that is internal and “spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God” and government that is temporal and “political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men.” Spiritual government “pertains to the life of the soul, while [temporal government] has to do with concerns of the present life” such as “laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately.”
Calvin’s discussion of this twofold government is found in the middle of his treatment of how the conscience of the Christian is absolutely free from any human commandment that is not found in Scripture. A possible, but erroneous, conclusion from this fact might be (as it actually was with the Anabaptists) that Christians are not bound to submit to earthly governments at all. Calvin accepts that the Christian’s conscience is bound only to God’s word in spiritual matters, while simultaneously insisting that obedience to lawful human governments is also mandated by God: “As we have just now pointed out that [temporal] government is distinct from that spiritual and inward kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance” (Institutes IV.20.2). That is to say, the inward kingdom of salvation in Christ and the outward kingdoms of earthly governments must be kept distinct, yet should not be understand as at odds. Each is appointed by God; each has its unique vocation in the world: one pertaining to eternal life, the other to earthly life. The latter is not sub-Christian, a “thing polluted” (IV.20.2), simply because it is focused primarily on how to live on this earth. This is an important point for those Christians today who struggle to see that vigorous political action by Christians is not at odds with heavenly-minded piety.
For Calvin, “civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God,” and “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church,” in addition to its non-spiritual purpose “to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us to one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.” Few Christians today would dispute the non-spiritual purposes of government Calvin enumerates, though even fewer would accept the spiritual mandate of civic government “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church.” Be that as it may, Calvin’s view was the norm in Protestant political thought for centuries afterward, so one at least needs to understand it, even if one partially or wholly rejects it. Sound reasons would also have to be provided for this rejection, reasons beyond “it’s scary,” or simply pointing out that it would be a difficult task. I have my own reasons for tweaking the classical view, which I will address below.
The Augsburg Confession (1530)
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession was presented to Emperor Charles V (1500-58) at the imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1530 as a summary of Lutheran beliefs. The Confession’s Article 16 is entitled “On Civil Affairs” and says the following:
Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.
In brief, this article states that just laws must be obeyed and that government is a good and divine institution. Like Calvin, the Confession rejects the Anabaptist notion that submission to God’s kingdom precludes submission to earthly governments. Unlike Calvin, there is no statement of a mandate for the civil magistrate to ensure that true religion prevails in a nation (see also Article 28). It does, however, require that the state practice charity in its ordinances, which at a bare minimum means that the laws of the state are shaped by Christian teaching. That said, the Augsburg Confession appears more concerned with preventing church officers from meddling in civil government than closing off the possibility that the state might have certain responsibilities regarding the promotion of true religion. In general, however, Lutherans did not employ Calvin’s argument in this regard.
The Scots Confession (1560)
In contrast to the Lutherans, all of the key political ideas expressed by Calvin (and other Reformed pastors and theologians) were soon enshrined in major Reformed confessions. The 1560 Scots Confession is a good place to begin, since it was written by followers of Calvin while he was still alive. The Scots Confession was approved by the Scottish Parliament and served as the official doctrinal statement of the Scottish national church. Chapter 24, on the civil magistrate, says the following:
We Confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distincted and ordained by God: the powers and authorities in the same (be it of Emperors in their empires, of Kings in their realms, Dukes and Princes in their dominions, or of other Magistrates in free cities), to be God’s holy ordinance, ordained for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind. So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established, we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God’s expressed will. We further Confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation; because that they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God himself doth sit and judge (yea even the Judges and Princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defence of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied. And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God’s ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further, we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel, and comfort, while the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his lieutenant craveth it of them.
There is no material difference between this chapter and Calvin’s teaching on the magistrate. It can be summed up like this: distinct nations are ordained by God, as are their civil rulers; these rulers are meant to rule for God’s glory and the good of their people; to unlawfully resist their lawful rule is to resist God; such rulers are tasked, as per Romans 13:1–7, with “the praise and defense of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors;” they are also given responsibility “for maintenance of the true Religion.”
The Belgic Confession (1562)
The Belgic Confession was written in the early 1560s for the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, eventually becoming the official doctrinal statement of those churches. The original form of Article 36 (“Of Magistrates”) reads as follows:
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
Summarized, this article states that the civil magistrate is a legitimate, divine authority and that it must enforce just laws so as to facilitate a just and well-ordered society. On the role of the magistrate regarding true religion the Belgic Confession is somewhat more specific and detailed than the Scots Confession. Among the magistrate’s responsibilities is to protect the free exercise of the church’s ministry, remove idolatry from the church, and ensure that the gospel is preached faithfully and that faithful worship takes place.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Wednesday, May 1, 2024
The abandonment of the freedom to engage in political speech against those currently in power leaves one of two options, neither of them conducive to national stability and flourishing. Those not currently in power will either become politically powerless forever or they will seek that political power non-peacefully. There is no alternative.

As I type these words the NatCon Conference in Belgium is in the midst of being shut down by Belgian police, at the order of the mayor of Brussels. The reasons that have been given are incoherent and absurd: the police cannot guarantee the safety of the conference attendees in light of a planned protest, and the conference attendees themselves are causing a public disturbance (by calmly presenting speeches on conservative political topics). There is no doubt that the real reason is the fact that the mayor of Brussels, as one cog in the machine of the modern global-leftist monoculture, simply does not want those who dissent from his politics to be allowed to voice their own views in public.
Such open, unashamedly illiberal tactics are now the norm throughout Europe, as well as the entire Anglophone world apart from America (and the only thing stopping them here is a lack of power, not a lack of desire). And yet, those participating in this new totalitarianism still feel compelled to publicly voice support for free speech. They do this for two reasons: to obscure their real intentions, which are still unpalatable to many in their own countries, and because they genuinely desire certain forms of “speech” to be absolutely free, just not the kinds of speech that were protected in classical liberalism.
Josh Abbotoy puts this dynamic well: “In our political tradition freedom of speech was almost entirely about the right to have political speech. Modern liberal democracy outlaws political dissent, but is ‘free speech’ maximalist when it comes to things that actually enslave people like porn, obscenity, etc.” In other words: you are free to say whatever you like if it undermines what is genuinely good in the world, but you are not free to oppose your political overlords, the ones working frantically to destabilize everything that is necessary for a stable and healthy society (secure borders, law and order, the family, etc.).
There are two, competing versions of free speech common today, though many people conflate them. The first, which is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, goes back significantly further than America’s founding. It was a right hard-earned by the English over centuries of conflict with the Crown. It is summarized in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, a document drafted after the succession of William of Orange to the English crown, and as a response to the radical attacks on England’s historical liberties under James II: “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” Roughly a half-century later (1752) this understanding was put simply by David Hume: “Nothing is more apt to surprise a foreigner than the extreme liberty which we enjoy in this country of communicating whatever we please to the public and of openly censuring every measure entered into by the king or his ministers.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Brokenness theology is not only unbiblical and spiritually damaging. It is also the gateway drug to a whole host of other heresies and errors. By teaching people that they are primarily helpless victims of forces outside their control, rather than willful sinners in need of salvation, it opens the door toward seeing every difficulty or challenge in life as an incapacitating force over which they have no control.

A popular, contemporary evangelical song opens with these words: 
O come, all you unfaithfulCome, weak and unstableCome, know you are not alone
A few verses later we read:
O come, bitter and brokenCome with fears unspokenCome, taste of His perfect love
A subtle, yet devastating error is found in such sentiments, one that is causing great mischief in evangelical churches. It is, at its most basic, a substitution of the language of brokenness for the biblical language of sin.
It is subtle, as much false teaching is, because it sounds on the surface very biblical. Has not the fall introduced disorder into the world? Has it not wrecked human relationships, destroyed families, churches, and nations, and brought about the dissolution of God’s good design for human life? It has done all of these things and more.
Is brokenness, then, such a bad way of describing the human predicament? It is indeed. Brokenness theology is, in fact, a denial of the Bible’s teaching on sin, a perversion of the Bible’s teaching on salvation, and a theology that leaves fallen sinners without hope.
What are the components of brokenness theology? First, it must be said that brokenness theology may give lip service to orthodox tenets of Christian theology. It may not deny that the Fall has corrupted human nature outside of Christ, or that we all are guilty sinners as a result. It does not, however, as a matter of routine patterns of speech (seen in sermons, songs, conference talks, articles, books, etc.) emphasize fallen human nature and individual acts of sinful rebellion as the most fundamental problem facing humanity. Instead, it emphasizes brokenness, which can be defined as disordered aspects of human existence. Brokenness, however, is not the same thing as sinfulness. Brokenness happens to a person. It comes from outside of him. The song I opened this article with gives a representative sample of the kinds of things one finds in brokenness theology: weakness, instability, loneliness, weariness, barrenness, bitterness, fear. But note that all of these states are framed in this song as if they were caught like the common cold; they are things that happen to you.
The biblical picture is far different: yes, we are weak in ourselves; yes, we face manifold temptations to give in to disordered instability in our lives, to succumb to self-pity and despair in the face of loneliness, to become bitter when God’s providence is hard, to rage against God for our barrenness, to succumb to fear and anxiety in moments of stress. But all of these responses are sinful. They are not neutral things that happen to us. Brokenness theology turns humans into passive victims of forces outside their control, rather than sinners who chose to rebel against God and who are therefore in desperate need of forgiveness and spiritual transformation.
In short, brokenness theology gives sinners a false understanding of the fundamental problem they face (God’s wrath), obscures the solution (repentance, faith, sanctification), and leaves them without hope (they’re simply broken victims). As such, it is a narcissistic, therapeutic perversion of the gospel. Sinners outside of Christ are indeed slaves to sin (Rom 6:17–21), but those savingly united to Christ are not helpless victims of forces outside their control. The grace of God has pulled us out of ourselves, to turn us to the savior in whom we find forgiveness for our rebellion, anxiety, fear, bitterness, grumbling, and doubts, and to find daily strength to fight against these sinful states of heart and mind. Brokenness theology teaches that God’s grace merely gives us help to endure all of these states, which are taken as characterizing the normal Christian life. These states, however, are sinful and must be repented of, not endured as so many unfortunate things that simply happen to us.
Read More
Related Posts: