And now for a different English perspective on political independence. This one comes from the men whom many conservative Presbyterians believe to be the “founding fathers” of Presbyterianism — namely, the Westminster Divines (not to be confused with the divines who teach at Westminster Seminary California). As near as I can tell, without yet sufficient funds to purchase James Dennison’s massive compilation of Reformed creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith is one of the rare Reformed creeds to devote a chapter to liberty (I’m still looking for the chapter on union). And what is striking about their teaching about liberty is how far removed it is from the way many Christians in the United States conflate religious and political freedoms.
Here is the Divines’ statement on Christian liberty:
The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law. But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. (20.1)
According to this teaching, British tyrants, loyalists who ran for cover to Canada, and American patriots to the extent that they trusted in Christ enjoyed the same liberty no matter where they stood on the matter of political independence.
In fact, the Divines go on to teach that Christian liberty has nothing to do with forms of political authority.
. . . because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. (20.4)
That doubleness of mind — affirming both spiritual liberty and political submission — is one of the better expressions of two kingdom theology to exist. Of course, it is a hard truth to assimilate if one is committed to the singleness of mind that goes with pietistic notions of Christ’s Lordship. Saying that someone is free while also enslaved or oppressed appears to be illogical — sort of like saying someone is both a sinner and a saint. But it is a truth capable of affirmation if you don’t calculate the progress of the spiritual kingdom according to the arrangements of this world’s kingdoms.
Old Life 
Darryl. It seems to me that you’re forgetting that when a worldly government steps out of line with what we think their God appointed parameters of rule are, then they give up the right to lead. So revolution is not rebellion…it’s more like a pronouncement from God that we are autonomous and meant to be our own sovereigns.
LikeLike
John Knox,
You are living up to your name. Have you read Van Drunen’s take on John Knox yet? It was not the most admirable of critiques of the man. I used to be a big admirer of John Knox but I am not so sure now after reading some good 2K theologians. I know Schaeffer was a big advocate of John Knox too and it led him into directions which may not have been wise to go towards. I kind of relate him with Josiah in the Old Testament who after producing some great reforms went off on a tangent and got himself killed in the process.
LikeLike
I have not read VanDrunen’s take on John Knox, but I am actually a 2K guy. That above should be read in light of sarcasm. 🙂 I would defend the notion that the revolutionary war was anything but a Godly exercise of protest, and that (as I have heard countless people, including my parents) was NOT a parallel of Israel leaving Egypt.
LikeLike
John K.,
I was not sure if you were being sarcastic or not so I suppose I should have asked and been more careful before jumping to my conclusions. I have been scolded by some at this site for doing that very thing in the past. I should have known better.
LikeLike
I am assuming that John Knox is your psuedo internet name- am I mistaken about that too?
LikeLike
I’m wondering, did any of the the other Reformed or Reformed like communities agree to this around the same time? If I’m not mistaken, the Westminster Divines were working within a government that wasn’t really hostile; as a matter of fact, they had some political power, influence, and special favor.
I also have the impression from some like J. Ligon Duncan that Presbyterians were known to be revolutionary types; perhaps due to some Scottish history? I think he said that the American Revolution was known in Parliament as a Presbyterian revolt or something similar. I also know from one blog post by Michael Horton that the one minister to sign the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, was a Presbyterian.
It seems that Presbyterians are at least partly, if not mostly, responsible for the ease and willingness for Christians to resist the gov’t here in the U.S. They serve as examples and sources to cite and justify past and contemporary actions of Christians in politics.
LikeLike
It seems to me that you’re forgetting that when a worldly government steps out of line with what we think their God appointed parameters of rule are, then they give up the right to lead. So revolution is not rebellion…it’s more like a pronouncement from God that we are autonomous and meant to be our own sovereigns.
John K., I’m not sure about DVD’s take on Knox, but here is his take on Calvin from “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms” (pg. 121):
Calvin’s convictions on this subject [civil disobedience] were, on the whole, strikingly conservative. In an extended series of discussions toward the close of the Institutes, he hailed the honor and reverence due to magistrates as a consequence of their appointment by God [ICR 4.20.22-29]. Calvin exhorts Christians that they must “with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens, which relate to the common defense, or in executing any other orders.” [ICR 4.20.23]. He goes on to make clear that this applies to bad rulers as well as good: “But if we have respect to the Word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes.” [ICR 4.20.25]. “The only thing remaining for you,” Calvin adds shortly thereafter, “will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.” [ICR 4.20.26].
In other words, contrary to your suggestion, even rulers who are out of step with what we consider “godly rule” (whatever that might be) do not lose their right to rule. One hears this a lot, so I am curious as to where it comes from. I suspect it owes more to secular dogma than sacred text. I mean, what part of Romans 13:1-7 implies anything about conditions whereby rulers are to be deposed? Isn’t that text more about Christian obedience? Mind you, I’ve nothing categorically against secular dogma that delineates the grounds for deposing magistrates, but where is there biblical support for it? Maybe you have in mind teaching on lesser magistrates. But if so VanDrunen goes on to point out that Calvin, when elucidating on the topic of civil disobedience and resistance qualifies his words by saying, “I speak only of private men,” which seems to sugegst that Calvin had no room for you and me resisting even ungodly rulers. VanDrunen then goes on to show how Calvin made some interesting stipulations about the less private and more extraordinary men known as lesser magistrates, typically the doctrine invoked to justify rebelling against a magistrate who says some people can’t sit at lunch counters or on certain sides of buses. Not only may “lesser magistrates curb tyrants,” but “only magistrates who have already been appointed for such a task.” So it would seem that, at least according to VanDrunen’s read on Calvin, that the ordinary citizen who acts contrary to his magistrate’s laws (laws that don’t require any personal violation of God’s clear moral law) is acting contrary to true Christian piety. And the conditions for resistance are so conservative one wonders about how Calvin could ever be invoked by Calvinists who want to attribute our modern arrangements borne of grass roots rebellion to the Genevan reformer and company.
LikeLike
I’ve always been curious as to where this leaves us as Americans, or any one else for that matter. Aren’t most governments that exist currently the result of the overthrow of one regime for another? Getting back to our own situation here, I’m completely on board with Zrim to the effect that even rulers who go out of step (however that may be defined) do not lose their right to rule. Also, nothing in Romans 13 shows any grounds by which secular rulers are to be deposed. The upshot of it all is that I have never heard a credible biblical or theological argument that would justify the American revolution.
Still, it is true that we enjoy some tremendous freedoms and I sometimes find myself amazed at the wisdom of our founding fathers. Nothing in them suggests to me that they were motivated by Christian concerns, but I can honor them as wise politicians and statesmen without calling them Christian. And, having read enough about other nations, and having travelled in China I am very happy to enjoy the freedoms we have here in America.
So here we are, citizens of a nation that began in an unbiblical rebellion to civil authorities. But then again, isn’t that the case in many nations. And even though our present rulers operate in a system that was begun in unbiblical revolution, still Romans 13 applies to them today such that we must oppose any modern day revolutions or revolutionaries.
And is it possible or permissible to have a true and heartfelt appreciation for our nation and the benefits we enjoy because of those who have gone before us, i.e. a true kind of patriotism minus the baptized Christianist kind of stuff that often goes with it.
Sorry the comment rambled, but as one who has been increasingly persuaded of the 2k perspective through Drs. Hart and Horton, and through reading Zrim I do wonder how we balance a 2k perspective with a true appreciation for and defense of our nation.
LikeLike
Alberto, Presbyterians had plenty of reasons for suspecting the king and parliament given the difficult relations between Scotland and England (as well as Ireland). But Congregationalists — nee Puritans — also had their reasons for opposition, not to mention folks like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison.
LikeLike
David Wayne, I can wave 2 flags for the U.S. today even while wondering about Christian apologies for the revolution. What the founders accomplished with our form of government is truly remarkable, especially when you consider the political history of Europe. The immigrants who came here yearning to breathe free were not dopes. So from the perspective of the common kingdom, we can shoot lots of fireworks and eat lots of lobster with the most patriotic of gusto. But from the perspective of the spiritual kingdom, we can also celebrate with a measure of sobriety.
LikeLike
Oh man, you just made my mouth water with the mention of lobster – I’ve been to Maine twice and could live on their hot lobster rolls – would love to be celebrating the 4th with that – looks like I’m going to have hot dogs instead, maybe some brats if someone brings some to the cookout.
LikeLike
Is there a plausible argument that the American Revolution was a “magisterial Reform”? Were not some/many of the signers of the D of I duly elected magistrates? Calvin’s notion, Inst. IV, that intermediary magistrates who already hold divinely ordered power can intervene with those above them who are abusive may apply here. If not, please educate me as to why.
And Darryl, I see your two flags and raise you three.
LikeLike
@John Y. – John Knox is my real name. 🙂
@Zrim – I tried to clarify that point with John Y. I was being sarcastic. I do hold to 2 Kingdom theology and have no quarrel with submission to tyrants if that is who I am put under (as Rom 7 was to Christians under the rule of Nero if I am not mistaken. I guess I presumed too much and should probably clarify sarcasm better until I am more well known around the blog. 🙂 But thanks for the quote from VanDrunens’ “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms”. I basically said “here here!” to “Living In God’s Two Kingdoms” but have wanted to know more in depth argumentation behind his position as the latter was basically a general summary and explanation of the position.
LikeLike
One has to remember that John Knox had to deal with Bloody Mary so you have to consider that when thinking through his ideas of civil disobedience.
LikeLike
Rome had to deal with Nero, and the Apostle said submit. 🙂 Though, Scottish and Irish have tempers…so maybe that makes it different? (I’m scottish, irish, and german. so im prone to be a drunk violent warmonger…’tis my burden to bear. :P)
LikeLike
You can go further and say that Almighty God submitted to an excruciatingly painful death on a cross- we haven’t suffered nothing yet.
LikeLike
David, the idea of lesser magistrates is a point that Reformed political theologians did develop, Calvin as I understand it, among the more faint among them. All things being equal, a governor of a colony declaring independence is better and more responsible than an average bloke of a citizen. But I’m still not sure how you square that with the Confession.
At the same time, if you do go with the lesser magistrates, then the South’s rebellion is also kosher. It is truly amazing to me how Americans can celebrate the rebellion of 1776 but get all King George-like when it comes to the confederacy.
LikeLike
It seems to me that squaring it with the Confession is only possible if it’s not counted as rebellion, since the Brits had failed to continue as a legitimate govt. (in the same way that the Reformation was not schism because the RC church in the 16th century was not in fact a church).
I could in theory accept the fact that the War of Southern Disappointment was morally and legally justifiable (Walter Williams argues this repeatedly and his arguments are hard to refute – Harry Jaffa, on the contrary vindicates Lincoln’s constitutional obedience). But it seems to me southerners weaken their case in making all kinds of tenuous claims with regard to slavery instead of sticking to the question of whether lesser magistrates could withdraw from the Union. The KGL Syndrome you mention probably occurs when people find it hard to refute Williams’ line of reasoning but really want to maintain the benefits, abolition of slavery being chief, that came from the conflict. I suffer from KGL myself.
LikeLike
And is it possible or permissible to have a true and heartfelt appreciation for our nation and the benefits we enjoy because of those who have gone before us, i.e. a true kind of patriotism minus the baptized Christianist kind of stuff that often goes with it.
Of course, David. And by the same token so can Iraqi, Russian and Chinese Christians. But I do wonder how much of the baptized American patriotism clings when it is suggested that citizens of these regimes can be just as patriotic as American Christians.
John Knox, sorry the sarcasm (and the clarification, evidently) was lost on me.
LikeLike
From this side of the Atlantic, the most puzzling thing about American patriotic rhetoric is the vigour of it. It’s hardly as though Britain was running the 13 colonies as a concentration camp. You paid far lower taxes than British people and enjoyed the free protection of the British Army from the native Americans at enormous cost to the crown, not to mention a very lucrative trade relationship. I’m quite a fan of the American constitution so in some ways I’m glad it happened, but all this talk of tyranny as such is really very overblown when you look at the situation on the ground.
LikeLike
David and Ed, given what the Huguenots endured and Calvin’s reluctance to give them the green light to rebel — even with the help of lesser magistrates — American independence looks more like an instance of popular rebellion than a Reformed reorganization.
LikeLike
It seems to me that squaring it with the Confession is only possible if it’s not counted as rebellion, since the Brits had failed to continue as a legitimate govt.
Introducing the concept of the “legitimacy” of a particular government is, as far as I can tell, about as pure a “No true Scotsman” argument as can be imagined, i.e. it’s a transparent attempt to justify rebellion by more-or-less arbitrarily moving the goal posts. More than that, it involves the uniquely modernist move of subjecting a governing authority to individual judgment rather than the other way around. If individuals, either on their own or in groups, can decide whether or not their government is “legitimate” of said government, it’s a pretty short step to positing that individuals, either on their own or in groups, can decide whether or not their church is legitimate.
I don’t think you’ll find any support for such a move anywhere in Scripture. My own take on the rightness of the American Revolution is God exercising his tendency to draw straight or at least beneficial lines with crooked sticks, i.e. it the fact that it seemed to work out for the best doesn’t make it the right thing to have done.
LikeLike
Ryan, I’d agree that one finds scant support for civil disobedience in Scripture; it’s hard to get civil rebellion instead of submission out of something like Romans 13:1-7 without lots of dubious calisthenics.
But in terms of cultic disobedience where individuals may decide whether or not their church is legitimate, what about Acts 5:17-30? Usually the “Obey God rather than men” text is used to argue for civil disobedience, but it sure seems to be about resisting those spiritual authorities that demand silence or compromise on the gospel. Or how about Galatians (that treatise on sola fide) 1:8-9: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Isn’t Paul, the apostle amongst apostles, suggesting that even he is under biblical authority, such that were even he to defile the gospel he should be set aside? Without this what grounds do we have for the (ecclesiatical) Protestant Reformation?
LikeLike
Ryan,
I meant to stipulate that it’s only possible if it’s not counted as rebellion; I was not making a judgment as to whether the British govt. of 1776 was or was not legitimate.
Also, I need clarification as to what this means, individuals “in groups”. I agree individuals cannot, but individuals in groups are a different animal.
LikeLike
Zrim, the issue with the cite to Galatians is that Paul is essentially invoking his own apostolic authority and was theoretically available should anyone have questions about whether a particular teaching was consistent with what he had already taught. If anything, I read that passage as bolstering ecclesiastical authority, not Scriptural authority, as the focus is clearly on preaching, not the written Scriptures, the canon of which we have little reason to believe was even finished when Galatians was written.
What grounds do we have for the Protestant Reformation? To be quite honest… I’m not really sure. Any Reformed type that takes a high view of the means of grace should find that question troublesome. But someone other than me made that decision, and it’s sort of water under the bridge at this point. I do think it raises a sort of inherent paradox, i.e. how is it submission to authority if we get to choose our authority, but I think going with the tradition in which one was raised is a plausible solution to that paradox. I don’t think it was the optimal solution to the problem, but it’s what God in his wisdom ordained to happen, so I’m not going to question it now.
LikeLike
I’m a bit confused by something. How is submission to the visible church even in the same ballpark as submission to government? If for instance the entire visible church became unitarian universalists, how do we not commanded to separate ourselves from such a heresy? Scripture seems to emphasize sound doctrine and the apostles teaching as authoritative. Does not Paul even imply that there is some benefit for the church in the preaching of the gospel from impure motives? The scriptures seem to put the validity of the visible church on the content of the gospel message, and I’m not sure I see that as any parallel to the government whose authority is from God regardless of if they are wicked or righteous. I don’t know, am I missing something here? I just don’t think the Reformation is even the same game as the Revolutionary War.
LikeLike
Ryan, the thing is that what Paul was preaching are the written Scriptures for us. But I do think by your reasoning the Reformation is essentially lost and Rome wins, at least in western Christianity, and that said it isn’t clear to me at all why anyone would remain out of fellowship with the Bishop of Rome. And “I was born this way” has a only so much steam. The formal principle of the Reformation was sola scriptura (which lead to its material principle, sola fide). For Protestantism everything turns on scriptura, and for Rome it turns on ecclesia. From either starting point one ends up in either Geneva or Rome. So as one with a high view of the means of grace and the church the question really isn’t very troubling at all. I wonder what you mean that it should be. It may be that you’re working with an ecclesiology closer to Roman than Protestant: a high view of the church isn’t the same as a fallible one; and a Presbyterian view of ecclesial authority isn’t the same as a authoritarian view of authority. This is why low church evangelicals (read: Anabaptists) think of high church Protestants as frustrated Catholics and Catholics think there is Catholicism and then there’s everybody else, as in everybody who isn’t Catholic in western Christianity is Protestant. But there’s more to being Protestant than not being Catholic since broad eeeevangelical is closer to Muenster than Geneva or Wittenburg.
LikeLike
Ryan, the thing is that what Paul was preaching are the written Scriptures for us.
No, it isn’t. Paul had made a previous visit to Galatia and preached there. His subsequent letter does not refer to the book of Acts or to the four canonical gospels, none of which were written at the time. He was referring to his ministry there. I shouldn’t think this is controversial. I’m down with sola Scriptura, but this really isn’t where we find support for it.
And I actually do believe that the Presbyterian view of church authority is actually pretty authoritarian, when you stop to think about it. Presbyteries ordain ministers, not congregations. And one needn’t believe that the church is infallible to think that. You poke at the Anabaptists, but they may not actually be wrong.
LikeLike
How is submission to the visible church even in the same ballpark as submission to government?
Because they’re both subsets of the idea of submission to authority in general. If authority is something that has to be recognized as “legitimate” before one submits to it, there’s an inherent tension there, as submission seems to be predicated on some other condition.
Here’s the similarity: sure, governmental authority is from God, wicked or righteous. But who gets to decide what constitutes the apostle’s teaching? If it’s the church, then whether or not you happen to agree, i.e. whether or not you construe a particular point of doctrine as wicked or righteous, is immaterial. You don’t get to make that decision. But if individual believers get to make that evaluation, then the “authority” of the church seems largely illusory.
Look, this is a tension that goes back thousands of years in the history of philosophy, and I’m not sure I’ve got a solution for it. But it is a problem, and denying such doesn’t make that less true.
LikeLike
Ryan, I think you’re being a bit wooden. I understand that some things Paul may have preached weren’t enscripturated, but the point is that there are things he did preach that were and those things are called the Scriptures. And when what is preached now by others align with those things enscripturated is where we find the true church. And when what is preached now doesn’t align it is a false church and an individual has the duty to cleave to the former and reject the latter. I understand some think that is a way to set up the individual as the authority, but it really is a matter of personal duty on the part of the individual and not personal authority.
If the Presbyterian view of church authority is authoritarian then how would you describe the Roman view? But presbyteries ordain elders; some are called teaching and some ruling. The teaching are subject to the ruling. Who is the Pope subject to? “Nobody but God alone,” which sounds an awful lot like the way Anabaptists view their leaders.
LikeLike
Just a simple old Grandpa of 25 youngins, here. Trying to wade through DGHart’s very early July 4 AM posting and many emotional replies. Seems to me all this conflab is just an attempt to locate the point on the spectrum where we rightly stop being subject to civil gov’t and say with Peter, “We must obey God rather than men!” Not easy!(sometimes)! I say Deitrich Bonhoeffer rightly reached that point during Hitler’s short reign. Likewise G.Washington, I believe, with Peter Lillback: “Sacred Fire”, (I guess) that our founding fathers did it right. Some Godly brothers disagree! So? BTW— I don’t think any Christian ought to call himself a “curmudgeon” (sp?) One of DGH’s buddies does this! Is DG one, also? If we must shoot someone, how ’bout some enemy of the Gospel rather than a brother? Old Bob,
LikeLike
I’ve been away and out of touch with blogs for a while. And I probably missed it in this posting, but the WCF does not decide the question of what constitutes, in every case, “lawful power.” The Roman church claimed her pontiff wielded it; the Reformers disagreed.
More to the point, with respect to the civil realm, the Parliament of England, in direct contravention to King Charles I, called for this Convocation of Divines in 1643. Abp. Ussher, for instance, refused to attend because he believed that the Assembly of Divines was an act of rebellion against the lawful monarch. Obviously those in attendance at the Westminster Assembly believed that the Parliament enjoyed “lawful authority” to call for a convocation of divines.
The Assembly itself then took issue with the Erastianism of the Parliament and did not believe that the civil authority lawfully wielded the power of ecclesiastical discipline. Much more could be said about all of this but the bottom line is that WCF 20.4 was not intended to rule out all “right of resistance” (Rutherford would never have gone along with that) but was to indicate that submission must be made to some lawful authority, contra Anabaptists and some Antinomians. Chad’s fine work bears this out.
The Divines did not permit Christian liberty to become a pretext for anarchy but were not, manifestly, denying any right to rebellion ipso facto, which all the Reformed recognized in varying ways in certain circumstances.
LikeLike
I understand some think that is a way to set up the individual as the authority, but it really is a matter of personal duty on the part of the individual and not personal authority.
Distinction without a difference. If one has the duty to do a thing, one has the authority to do a thing. And every time you call for an evaluation of anything, you are essentially giving the person doing the evaluating some measure of authority. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe it isn’t. But it is what’s happening, and denying it is pedantic.
I’m not going to play semantic games with you about what constitutes “authoritarian.”
LikeLike
So then, Ryan, Rome wins and there is only communion with her or schism? But I still hold to the older Protestant formulation and say that scriptura precedes ecclesia (i.e. that the Word creates the church), not the other way around which is what medieval and modern Romanism formulation is. I don’t see how one can remain Reformed with a Roman ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Alan, surely resistance is different from rebellion, and surely the tyranny experienced by Huguenots was different from tea drinkers in the colonies.
LikeLike
I am speaking of resistance theory among the Reformed, with which you are quite familiar. Such theory in most Reformed thinkers permits rebellion in right circumstances. I am not, however, commenting on any particular instance of such rebellion–tea drinking or “cake eating.”
My point was simply to note that WCF 20.4 is saying that rebellion against “lawful authority” is not permitted, while at the same time the Assembly itself is engaging in a dispute over how that is to be defined. Clearly the WCF is not saying that whatever the current authority happens to be it must always and ever be obeyed. To have asserted such, would have rendered its very meeting absurd, since Charles had forbidden it. And the Assembly itself resisted what it regarded as unlawful Erastian authority.
In fine, the Westminster Assembly enjoined obedience to lawful authority: Ussher regarded the King as the lawful civil and ecclesiastical authority; Lightfoot and Selden regarded the Parliament as the lawful civil and ecclesiastical authority; and most there, led by our Prebyterian fathers, regarded the Parliament (at war with the King, mind you) as the lawful civil authority (at the time) and the church, rightly reformed, as the lawful ecclesiastical authority.
The problem of resistance, rebellion, etc. against what parties argue to be “unlawful authority” is neither addressed nor resolved by the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
LikeLike
I was just reading through VanDrunen’s section on resistance theory and civil rebellion in his Natural Law and Two Kingdoms book today- it starts on about page 119 and extends through page 143. It is a very worthwhile and controversial section to read. As Zrim quoted earlier from page 121:
Calvin’s convictions on this subject [civil disobedience] were, on the whole, strikingly conservative. In an extended series of discussions toward the close of the Institutes, he hailed the honor and reverence due to magistrates as a consequence of their appointment by God [ICR 4.20.22-29]. Calvin exhorts Christians that they must “with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens, which relate to the common defense, or in executing any other orders.” [ICR 4.20.23]. He goes on to make clear that this applies to bad rulers as well as good: “But if we have respect to the Word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes.” [ICR 4.20.25]. “The only thing remaining for you,” Calvin adds shortly thereafter, “will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.” [ICR 4.20.26].”
However, VanDrunen continues on with the following: “Nevertheless, Calvin did provide one route for overthrowing a tyrannical ruler. In a famous passage following his exhortation to obedience, he reminds his readers once again that theirs is to obey and that it is God’s to avenge, yet goes on to add the qualifying phrase: ‘I speak only of private men.’ He proceeds to speak of “popular magistrates” that have been appointed for the purpose of reining in the tyranny of monarchs and offers example of such lesser magistrates among the ancient Spartans, Romans, and Athenians. Such magistrates, he concludes, not only may resist tyrants, but must: ‘so far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.”
LikeLike
Alan, all of this is helpful. Is this the way we read the confession? Do we need historical footnotes to qualify what they put into writing?
LikeLike
I think a good answer to that is found in the Report of the Committee on Creation Views (http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf), beginning at 1657. There the Committee deals with the original intent of the Divines with respect to the question as well as the matter of animus imponentis. Both of these address the hermeneutics of the Standards.
We read the Standards in context, not simply as individuals but corporately. We can read the secondary standards in a decontextualized, individualistic way as we can the Scriptures. But they are the church’s confession of what the Bible teaches and as such are to be read corporately. To read the Divines in a decontextualized way as if they here command unqualified obedience to all alleged authority is to read this differently than it was meant and to read it differently than the church has itself interpreted it (animus imponentis).
LikeLike
But Alan, isn’t the Confession a summary of biblical teaching, and doesn’t the Bible teach submission to civil authority, while giving no grounds for determining whether the government is legitimate. In which case, is 17th century British politics the context for understanding the confession or the first century Roman empire?
LikeLike
That’s a bit of a different question than what I have been more narrowly focused on. I’ll give it a shot.
I take it that you are asking me straight out what the Bible teaches on the matter. And that you are, perhaps (I really don’t know), at the same time assuming that all the resistance theory that has dealt with this in the Reformed faith (and elsewhere) is unbiblical.
Basically, I would maintain that the Bible never anywhere teaches absolute submission to any earthly authority, but relative and qualified submission. So, if Pharoah or Nebuchadnezzar issues commands at direct and evident variance with God’s law they are not to be obeyed but resisted. Now there may be significant debate hereby among the faithful as to when this is occuring and what is to be done.
The general rule is that parents, elders/ministers, civil governors are to be obeyed in their lawful commands. Is one ever justified in removing elders or civil governors? Sometimes the later can only be removed by force if they are to be removed. If you wish to argue that it is never justified for any party or parties at any time to remove a civil ruler by passive or active resistance that is a novelty for the Reformed faith as far as I can tell (and was not the position of any of the great 19th century promoters of the spirituality of the church, including Hodge, Thornwell, and Robinson).
These are very knotty and difficult questions which a quip here or there is hardly going to solve. This is why Calvin, Beza, Knox, Buchanan, Rutherford, et al. dealt with these questions so carefully. We may disagree with them. Knox may be quite wrong. But we need to admit that this is one of the most difficult questions we face and not breezily toss off answers as if this were child’s play.
LikeLike
Alan, who said this is child’s play? The early church produced lots of martyrs, some who like the apostles refused to submit to commands not to preach, and some who were simply fodder for the Emperors’ amusement. Huguenots, among other Protestants, also suffered for the faith and some gave up their lives, in ways that make 1776 look like a tempest in a teacup.
It is a thorny question, but reading chapter 20 in the light of Scripture rather than 17th c. history leads to serious questions about resistance. I understand that Reformed Protestantism has a literature on resistance theory. But too often Reformed have prided themselves on this. It may be unbecoming, especially around American civil religion. But Reformed do not have a monopoly on resistance theory. Roman Catholics and Lutherans both discussed it sensitively before the Reformed.
So I am arguing against associating resistance theory exclusively with the Reformed position and also reading the Reformed tradition in such a way as to miss what Scripture teaches.
BTW, David had pretty good reasons for resisting the tyranny of Saul but refused to use them.
LikeLike
I appreciate your answer here. This is a difficult question. We ought to be slow to resist and loathe to have to go against any established authority, even if it is unlawful in its commands.
Submission to authority–familial, ecclesiastical, and civil–is our ordinary course, to be sure. For even lower magistrates to conclude that higher ones are to be resisted because they have forfeited lawful authority is a frigthening prospect. I very much agree that this is a challenging matter.
For our church in the Middle Ages, however (you mention the RC approach) it was a bit easier: the church (in a couple of the Lateran Councils), Innocent III, and Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam, 1302) claimed to be over the state. So for Aquinas the church could declare that the state need not be obeyed when under interdict and in other circumstances. Rome does not have at the time of the Reformation resistance theory becaue it did not recognize resistance against its rule and expected the king or emperor to submit to the church in key matters. Thus the boomerang in the Reformation of Erastianism.
I would agree that each instance of rebellion would have to justify itself in biblical and confessional terms. And such situations are never unalloyed but always mixed. What I meant by child’s play is that we have to read these things and deal with them more carefully than they are often dealt with when it appears that we are tossing off historical judgments.
If you believe that resistance is never justified biblically I do believe that you need to fully engage resistance theory, which argues obedience is ordinary and refusal to submit is extraordinary. The argument, as you know, is made in terms of the Bible, so that it then becomes a matter of biblical interpretation. But it is not one that the WCF solves for us in 20:4.
What I mean by this is that whether resistance is ever justified is not an article of faith among us–our Confession in 20.4 is not deciding that question and forbidding resistance as it proscribes (and prescribes) other things. If you wish to argue that the Bible forbids resistance in all cases then you have that argument to make (and a lot of Reformed history to refute).
LikeLike
Alan, whatever you make of resistance theory, I would be hard pressed to classify American independence as an instance of the Reformed version.
LikeLike
There are so many ideological strands contributing to the American War for Independence (with a tip of the hat to Bernard Bailyn)that the Reformed contribution (think of Noll’s treatment of Jacob Green as an example) is but a part and an arguable one at that. A better case is to be made, I think, not with respect to Reformed resistance theory but in terms of English civil history.
The colonists who were “patriots” (aka “rebels”) could point back to Magna Carta (1215) and following, including the Civil War of the 1640s and especially the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and claim continuity with previous revolts. It is the case that after the Seven Years War (1754-61), the monarchy and parliament became restrictive as never before and started not only levying internal taxes but also otherwise regulating internal matters, which they had not done since 1607.
The colonies admitted that things like the Navigation Acts of 1650 and 1696 were proper exercises of parliamentary power but that overriding colonial bodies and regulating internal affairs were not. The claim was that Britain was violating the constitution and doing that which was not “the done thing” and thus tyrannical in the exercise of its power. The colonists developed their own identity and wished no longer to be second-class British subjects but a free people.
I agree that this is more influenced by the Enlightenment than Reformed resistance theory. But I’ve just touched the tip of the iceburg. There’s much to be said about the American War for Independence. I think that there are plausible arguments for and against it. That you had an Englishman like Burke supporting the colonists means this was certainly no French Revolution (which Burke abominated).
LikeLike
My second try at commenting, here! Hard to keep up with all the repeat commenters! I still say that the list of grievances against George III, as listed in the Declaration of Independence, amount to the sometimes hard to reach point for Christians— Right to “obey God rather than men!”
LikeLike
In Daniel it says that God raises up kingdoms and brings them down. USA would never have
happened without God’s permissive will. And if God had wanted the South to secede they would have ‘won’. Also, David did resist the tyranny of Saul—he left the country, hid in caves, and aligned himself with Saul’s enemies—at least for a time. Just a couple of small observations within a heady conversation. And I am a 2K Presbyterian…..just getting my feet wet in the subject…no conflict for me between our liberty in Christ, whether roaming ‘free’ or in a cell, and our political liberty; I know and cherish the distinction. But I praise the Lord for the miracle of the U S Constitution and our heritage. (For some further insight see Wallbuilders.com)
LikeLike
Linda, but if God raises kingdoms, and brings them down, what about republics?
LikeLike
Dr Hart,
I have a son who will be attending college next year and I have been encouraging him to consider Hillsdale.
It is my understanding that Hillsdale is a champion of constitutional values. I’m trying to ascertain whether I am mistaken on that view or whether your views are a contrarian view at the college?
Can you help me understand?
LikeLike
GAS, Hillsdale is a great school and I am honored to teach here. The college has a variety of conservative outlooks, traditionalists, Straussians, libertarians, and standard. Religiously it is also diverse. The college has no religious affiliation or requirements. But it is a very religion-friendly place and the theological debates among students — evangelicals, confessional Protestants, and Roman Catholics — is healthy. Plus, we have a very good OPC church plant with two good services every Sunday. I recommend Hillsdale highly.
LikeLike
Thanks for that.
I take it that you are in the traditionalist camp. So would you consider Arnn a Straussian?
LikeLike
GAS, a sensible Straussian with a sense of humor.
LikeLike