Over the weekend I was doing a little internet searching for churches that still confess the 16th and 17th century Reformed teachings on the civil magistrate’s role. Practically all of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, both mainline and conservative, have modified the creeds of the Reformation and scholastic eras, even to the point, in the case of the Christian Reformed Church (circa 1958), of calling the original Belgic Confession’s construction “unbiblical.”
One set of churches, I thought, might actually still hold to the original Westminster Assembly’s teaching — that church being the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which emanates from Doug Wilson’s Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. So I went to Christ Church’s website and was not surprised to see the original Westminster Confession in force “for use in doctrinal accountability for officers of the church.” What was surprising was to see a set of creeds, almost like a Book of Confessions, adopted by Christ Church, including the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.
The Thirty-Nine Articles are noteworthy in their teaching on the civil magistrate because they specify the magistrate in view. This makes a lot of sense since the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the supreme head of the Church of England. But this is different from the other Reformed confessions which provide a general description of the magistrate’s responsibilities that can then be applied in various lands and political orders. Here is the bulk of Article XXXVII (see how the NFL unwittingly helps in the ecclesiastical realm?):
The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.
It is indeed odd for Christians to confess allegiance to a particular civil authority as part of their profession, as if Christ died specifically for the subjects of the English crown. It is also odd for citizens of the United States to confess the supreme authority of the English monarch over the Church of England. And to keep the oddity going, it is indeed strange for members of a church outside the Church of England to confess anything about the Church of England. The introductory statement at Christ Church leaves me all the more perplexed: “we therefore commend the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as an faithful and historic testimony of the martyr church. . .” What kind of martyrdom is it that professes the sovereignty of a monarchy that did its fair share in producing martyrs and non-conformists? Can martyrs really identify with the establishment?
This is one of those examples of what happens when you try to add to your confessional play book. You think you are affirming the catholicity of the church and situating yourself in that breadth of voices. Meanwhile, you have so many documents to confess that you lose track of the disagreements among those voices.
Old Life 
So basically you’re saying that someone in Moscow did not do the research?
Never saw that coming…
LikeLike
I believe the operative word in your CREC citation would be “commend.” If I recall correctly, none of the contents of their “book of confessions” is constitutionally binding. Yes, that’s completely inconsistent with the biblical purpose of a “confession,” but they are making this up as they go along so we shouldn’t be surprised.
Anyway, they aren’t suggesting that the confessional documents they’ve collected all agree in their several parts. I believe their intention here is simply to project a high catholicity. As a confessionalist, I would call it careless more than catholic. But, in FV circles where they make the loose embrace of general tradition an art form, precision is not considered a virtue.
As to the “martyr church,” isn’t that a traditional reference to connectivity with the church of antiquity?
LikeLike
This is one of those examples of what happens when you try to add to your confessional play book. You think you are affirming the catholicity of the church and situating yourself in that breadth of voices. Meanwhile, you have so many documents to confess that you lose track of the disagreements among those voices.
By and large “catholicity” has lost its creedal meaning. Can a teaching be truly catholic and yet *not provable by Scripture? Sadly with too many, the word has devolved to more of an ecumenical inclusiveness of sorts. And for too many Anglicans ‘catholic’ is used in a broad authoritative appeal to early patristic writers in order to elevate them to the same level (or higher?) with Scripture in order to give warrant to the continuation of Romish/medieval teachings and practices, again, *not provable by Scripture.
* a recurring theme throughout the 39 Articles. Which highlights the inconsistency of Art. 37.
LikeLike
Other versions of the 39 Articles exist so they should have just used the version adopted by the PECUSA shortly after the formation of the USA. Article 37 was revised in 1801 thus:
“The power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.”
Jack, since apparently the theme is recurring throughout, perhaps you can cite several examples for our benefit.
LikeLike
The recurring theme I refer to is that of the oft repeated standard of sola scriptura throughout the Articles as in the following:
Art. 6 – “so that whatsoever is not read therein [Scripture], nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man”
Art. 8 – “for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture”
Art. 20 – “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”
Art. 21 – “Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
Art. 22 – “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God”
Art. 24 – “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God”
Art. 28 – “but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture”
Art. 34 – “so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.”
Not to mention that the first sermon by Cranmer in the Book of Homilies referred to in the Articles is: A fruitful Exhortation Unto the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture
LikeLike
I forgot to add what may be obvious… the theme of sola scriptura throughout the Articles is what causes the inconsistency in Art. 37. England had under Henry VIII established the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church (1534) prior to the blooming of the Reformation in England. The Church-State mixture that was more or less taken for granted in the era of the Reformers was etched officially in stone in England from the git-go. This unscriptural and unfortunate (though deemed necessary at the time) development led to the subsequent sordid history which DGH alludes to in his post and to the Reformation never having completely taking hold in the Church of England.
LikeLike
DGH
Well, as Gomer Pile use to say “Surprise,surprise!” Really, given the rarefied air around the parlando in that place what did you expect.
LikeLike
Since the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the supreme head of the Church of England, can we expect the ordaining of women in local churches soon? Probably not, but it would be hard to justify, given this disclosure.
LikeLike