Saturday, June 26, 2010

From the Belgic Confession, article 36, still in use in the Reformed Church in America:

"And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain
but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying
all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and
to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored
and served by everyone, as required in God's Word."

Proposition: this assignment of tasks is appropriate to the biblical nature of government.
Thoughts?

Near the start of the 20th century, an official meeting of the Christian Reformed Church claimed grounds from Scripture and revised this paragraph to a footnote. However, I haven't researched enough to find what actual Scripture they cited.

5 comments:

  1. I'm going to say no, this assignment of tasks is not appropriate to the "biblical nature of government," largely because government doesn't have a "biblical nature," i.e., a nature drawing its substance from revelatio specialis. Scripture does not define government for us, although St. Paul does give a nice description of its function in Romans 13:

    "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 of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer."

    From this we can cull several things about government:

    i. It is authoritative.
    ii. It is a terror to bad conduct.
    iii. It is a servant of God for our good.
    iv. It is an avenger who carries our God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

    Who is the authority over Paul at this time? Nero. Is he a legitimate authority? Yes. A servant of God and avenging agent of God's wrath? Yes, actually. "The authorities that exist have been instituted by God." Not "the authorities that you like," or "the authorities that like Jesus," but "the authorities that exist." What we have in Romans 13 is not a "Let there be civil government" clause, but rather a description of what government is in its essence -- a negative, a curb, an embodiment of the theological "first use" of the Law. It does not draw its essence from the Gospel, certainly not from the canon of Scripture, nor was it instituted under the New Testament. It is a divine "creation ordinance."

    The irony is that legitimate government can actually be quite opposed to Christianity, and still be legitimate. In such an instance, Christians are bound to disobey any law which commands them to sin, to "obey God rather than men," but such laws as are adiaphora they are bound to observe. They are bound to respect the office from which the laws come, just as we are bound to honor our fathers even if they are evil men, because they are our fathers. In sum, the faithful are forbidden from open rebellion. Note that Moses appealed to Pharaoh to "let [God's] people go"; he didn't foment a slave rebellion. He petitioned the government for a redress of grievances (heh heh). No, but really, he did. Because Pharaoh was the legitimate governing authority instituted by God over the Israelites.

    The Belgic Confession has got it all wrong, I'm afraid -- for this reason and several others which I could go into. In short, it conflates Law and Gospel, and in so doing conflates the City of God and the City of Man. The essence of government, while it is meet, right and salutary, is not sacred. It also belies a severe misunderstanding of the sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura, attempting to turn Holy Writ into a law book. In short, it tends towards theocracy, triumphalism, millenialism, etc. And that's fine, if you want to do it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may be interesting to look at historical situations in which this took place. There are two models. One would be the state run church, such as in England or Geneva's original reformed model, or even in early colonial America.

    The other would be a church protected and supported by the government, such as in the different German territories (Lutheran and Catholic) as well as in early America (Episcopal Church in Virginia until about 1800). I'm not sure that the Smalcaldic League tended towards "theocracy, triumphalism, millenialism, etc" for instance, though that was a political body formed around a religious confession rather than a Church body formed by a political group. I suppose you could put the Spanish Catholic church from 1500-1700 (ish) into this model as well.

    Do the two differ in effect? Is one model more acceptable than the other?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Smalcaldic League. As in, moderate State-Church Erastianism, as opposed to Calvinist theocracy, a la Geneva, for which the Belgic Confession argues. Adherence to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession was a condition of membership in the League, but the Smalcaldic League was a political body. This is one of the major reasons why Henry VIII ultimately gave up on joining the SL: he wanted an ally against Christendom (Pope Leo X + Emperor Charles V). Yet the Lutheran princes were actually explicitly loyal to the Emperor during the Peace of Augsburg -- an oft overlooked fact. During the period of cuius regio eius religio, terms established by Charles V, the Lutherans remained in static opposition to Romanism, yet loyal to the Emperor, who considered the League an indispensable ally against the Ottoman Turks.So, yes, Smalcaldic League.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting. So, there is certainly room for the two kingdoms to intersect, such as a political body formed around a particular confession of faith. I am a little confused though as to some differences between "upholding the sacred ministry" and protecting the sacred ministry. Clearly, there is a difference between protecting religious bodies and "protecting the sacred ministry," one offers protection to all religious institutions, the other to the religious institution which is seen as uniquely true. But I suppose questions spinning off from anything else on this thread will most likely be having to do with American tax law and not very much to do with this forum. Alack, damnable topicality!

    ReplyDelete