God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government

by Gary Scott Smith (Editor)

What does the Bible say about civil justice? How is Christ King over the nations? Was America ever a Christian nation, and should it be one? Which Old Testament laws apply to civil life today? To what extent should the state tolerate non-Christian views and practices in the name of pluralism?

These are some of the questions addressed by 16 contributors representing four positions on the biblical role of civil government. Originally delivered at a consultation on that topic, each of the four major papers is presented by a leading representative of that view and is followed by responses from the three other perspectives. The result is a vigorous exchange of ideas aimed at pinpointing areas of agreement and disagreement and equipping God's people to serve him more effectively in the political arena.

Genres: Politics, Christian, Theology, School

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

Reviews

[A.R. Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm both more informed on all of these views and more confused about my own.

[Michael Galdamez · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading this for about 11 weeks, I realized how politically incorrect the title sounded...

But anyway, good informative book. Yet I still feel a tad confused as to what I would be in the list of views. If any.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just great.

[Adam T. Calvert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book might not be readily accepted by some who are looking for very divergent views. For instance by the title of the book I was thinking there would be a case for Christian-democratic-liberalism, Christian-republic-rhetoric(ism), Christian-libertarianism, and yes maybe Christian-theonomy.

While I think a book like that would’ve been helpful, since there are at least professing believers in each of those camps, I was very delighted with what I actually found in this work.

According to the foreword, the book is comparing specifically “Reformed” views on Christian political theory. The subtitle “Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government” then takes on a slightly more telling meaning.

And among those four views, with the inconsistent exception of one (which will be explained later), they are all saying the same thing - the law of God is to be the very foundation from which all our modern laws are to be derived.

Theonomy:
Ethically speaking, the Second Psalm portrays God responding to political opposition against Christ by calling upon “the kings…[and] judges of the earth” to become wise and instructed (v. 10). It is utter moral foolishness to disobey the King whom Jehovah has enthroned. It is noteworthy that this verse is addressed, not simply to the magistrates of theocratic Israel, but to all of the kings and judges “of the earth,” even (especially) to those who dare to exercise civil rule in defiance of Jesus Christ. We cannot escape the clear biblical truth that each and every earthly ruler stands under the divinely established moral obligation to “serve jehovah with fear…[and] kiss the Son “ (vv. 11-12). Serving the Lord with fear unquestionably means obeying His commandments (cf. Josh. 22:5; Ps. 119:112-126; Deut. 10:12-13).
p. 30

Principled Pluralism:
The dichotomy between “the-private-as-religious” idea and “the-public-as-secular” idea is wholly arbitrary and artificial. The public affairs of society and the state are no less religious than the so-called private affairs of individual, church, home, and school life. … Since all of life is religion, and since the Bible as a book of religion speaks to life as a whole, the question is not whether but how the Bible speaks to issues of society and the state. The question is not whether Scripture addresses matters of public justice, but how it addresses them.
p. 81

Christian America:
I wish to show that it is in accordance with Scripture and, therefore, natural for Christians to try to establish central biblical, Christian values by law in our one large corner of this fallen world. The current American doctrine that our society must be pluralistic in the sense that all values and value judgments are equally acceptable, is self-contradictory and destructive.
p. 127

National Confessionalism:
Because Jesus has come, the time when God overlooks the ignorance of kings and nationsis past! God now “commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the wolrd in righteousness” (Acts 17:30-31) … The lesson is clear: God will no longer tolerate kings who blasphemously claim divinity. Jesus is now the ruler of all things, and he will not allow earthly kings to steal His glory. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). That is the most important political fact of our time.
p. 178


Three of these views are actually very close in principle to advocating the same position. And that becomes not only evident in the content itself but also the remarks made by the different contributors.

For instance, Kevin Clauson’s “The Christian America Response to Theonomy” basically agrees point by point with much of what Bahnsen advocated in his opening position. Clauson's beginning footnote in the article states: “I accept the principle of theonomy, and I will direct my comments to certain related subjects with that presupposition in mind” (p. 61).

In Bahnsen’s closing remarks, he states: “Both H. B. Harrington (for the national confession position) and Kevin L. Clauson (for the Christian America position) have replied to my essay in a way that indicates that their perspectives agree essentially with the theonomic viewpoint. Despite peripheral variation in details of application, at the heart of our political theory and understanding as Christians, the theonomic, national confession, and Christian America positions are one. … A key achievement of our consultation was that it disclosed this underlying unity among the three perspectives” (p. 234).

What Bahnsen goes on to say is what the reader naturally sees in his progress through the book anyway: “that within the Reformed community today (even as in the Reformed heritage) the peculiar position is that of pluralism” (p. 234).

And Principled Pluralism is indeed the view that is not like the others.

While above there were comments made by Gordon Spykman (representing the Principled Pluralism view) indicating that Christ is ruler over every aspect of life - including government and politics, the rest of the essay tries to demonstrate a very complex view of what that looks like in the different sphere-sovereignty outlooks he presents. His authority, then, for the state switches from the Lord Jesus Christ to society: “The state has a specifically limited scope, bounded and balanced [not by Scripture but] by the rights of other societal groupings and spheres” (p. 97). In other words, state justice is dictated by societal groupings and spheres rather than God’s Word.

It is no wonder that in application he ends up taking what God did not establish as civil law and advocates that it should be made civil law (Example: the government giving preferential treatment to the poor, p. 87, 88; contra Lev. 19:15) as well as civil laws that ought to be laws being advocated as abrogated (Example: giving an unbridled freedom of religion, p. 99 ; contra Deut. 13:6-10) - does he really think worshipers of Molech (or a similar modern religion) should be protected by the civil magistrate, even if part of their worship (freedom of religion) is to make their children pass through fire and die as a sacrifice to such a god? Whether he does or not, his view leaves that open if applied consistently.

Nonetheless, with the exception of the Principled Pluralism approach (which was severely dismantled by the responses from the other views as well as Bahnsen’s major response at the end), all the other views are very close and truly the same in principle. There were minor disagreements regarding the history of America and how the founding fathers approached the foundations to government, as well as disagreements regarding specifics on how exactly the laws of Scripture ought to be applied today. But overall out of the 12 contributors (not counting the 4 advocates of Principled Pluralism), all of them had one very clear voice: the Law of the Lord ought to be the law of all societies. And that is simply Scripture applied (Deut. 4:8; Heb. 2:2; cf. Ps. 2:1-12).

[S.G. Willoughby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phew! I'm not sure what to think of this book. Actually, as a book, it's a good premise-- gathering authors from four different views to write one book. It was organized pretty well, too. I just don't know what to think of it quite yet in relation to me. I don't necessarily agree completely or disagree completely with ideas presented by the various views. If I learned anything it was that I'm not called to be a political scientist. It's an important and crucial task, but I have other callings. Of course, I'll participate individually, I just mean that those who wrestle through these questions are admirable. But I'll stick with mission work, thank you very much.

For much of the book, I was confused as I tried to switch back and forth from authors and perspectives and arguments. It was hard to keep my mental place and read with discernment. I think it would be been helpful if I had a tiny bit more introduction to each view before reading. But by the end, I had found my footing pretty well.

In general, though not easy to read, this book presents a lot to think about, and politics is something every Christian should know their convictions on. There were a few parts where it felt like there was a lot of discussion about secondary matters... kind of like different denominations debating between, say, infant baptism or the frequency of communion. They are important, of course, but not when we get so caught up in the small things that we just bicker among ourselves. Overall, though, but the end I realized that this book did a pretty good job of avoiding that and that each "small" item that got talked about a lot actually did have a lot to do with the individual principles of each view.

[Grant Baker · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book covers 4 main views of how Reformed Christians understand the relationship between our faith and how it ought to shape our politics. The arguments are well articulated and discussed well. This book is the result of papers presented at a conference held in 1987. It would be good to do this again as some of the positions have possibly changed or decreased and new theories have emerged. In any case this is recommended for Christians who are curious about how faith and politics relate.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book serves several functions: it gives the reader a survey of Reformed political theology and it highlights the ability of the American Reformed Church to cogently or incompetently argue a position on the civil magistrate. The four views: Theonomy, Covenanter, Christian America, and Pluralism. Each position is alternatingly weak or strong (except for pluralism, which is always weak). The reason is that the proponent of said position is not the one critiquing other positions. The following review will briefly outline each position and the strengths and weaknesses thereof.

Theonomy
It is cogently presented by Greg Bahnsen. The magistrate, accordingly, obligated to enforce the law of God, give or take. Bahnsen's presentation is masterful and deserves a fair hearing. Many trees were slain in the theonomy debate, pro and con, and I won't add more to it. The problem with theonomy, though, is that it really isn't clear (no one is, actually) on who gets to determine what is the general equity. Further, do all Mosaic laws have to be applied? Is it a “must” question or an “allowance” question? If the former, then what do we make of Joseph in the NT? If the latter, then theonomy really isn't a distinct position.

National Confession
There is a lot of overlap between theonomy and covenanter. Both say the magistrate must be Christian and maintain the Christian religion. The difference is on which laws to apply. The National Confession position has much to commend: it is the position of the magisterial Reformers as understand by the best Reformed churches in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Therefore, any critic of National Confessionalism must concede that he is openly deviating from the Reformed church. The weakness is similar to the weakness theonomy faces: which laws does the magistrate apply and why? What's the just punishment for sodomy, for example?

Christian America
This position has gotten weaker in the recent years. It is merely a watered-down version of National Confessionalism. Its distinctive is that the American Constitution is a Christian document and the country should reflect Christian principles. The most devastating response to this is “so what?” The U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, not to mention POTUS, has been so openly anti-Christian that a mere enunciation of the Constitution will do little to change the situation. This is why Francis Schaeffer's political ethic failed. Even pretending for a moment that the Const. Is not a deistic document, it is certainly one written by Freemasons.

Pluralism
By Far the most embarrassing and weakest of position. It argues that the magistrate should respect all religions as long as the religion doesn't violate the rights of others. Bahnsen's response is total in its devastation and brevity: the Santiera cult in Mexico worships Satan and sacrifices virgins. What's the magistrate supposed to do? Any response the pluralist gives automatically refutes his position.

The pluralist further says that non-Christian states have often been more just than Christian states. This is asinine. I can immediately point to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as counter-examples. But let's take the statement as it stands. For example, my next door neighbor is a meth-addict. By the grace of God (common grace, anybody?) his meth lab didn't blow up yesterday and thus damage my property. Using the pluralist's logic am I to conclude that he is a good chemist and I should respect his chemistry abilities? Or even better: should the meth-head be taken as the normative princinple for chemistry? That's absurd, but that's also the type of reasoning popular in today's Reformed seminaries. (No, the better answer is that he just got lucky.)

Conclusion
National Confessionalism wins by default, though theonomy is a close second. The trouble is that there are many unanswered questions on how to apply the law of God. Positing natural law isn't promising, though it could work as a grammar for applying biblical law (The American Covenanter Alexander McLeod opted for something like this).

It's sad, though, that the Reformed church even considered pluralism as a viable option. This was the mindset of Westminster when they fired Bahnsen. It's hard to see how the established American Reformed church has had any cogent political response today.

[Anthony Lawson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this one many years ago, didn't agree with any of the positions.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly friendly four-way discussion from within Calvinist Reformed circles. The front cover tells the reader which four groups will be interacting on the subject. So, for example, the Lutheran "Two-Kingdoms" position, which has only recently gotten a foothold in Reformed circles is not specifically tackled. Fascinating read, at least from inside the Reformed perspective. All four actually agree on some crucial issues, and most of the divergence is application - or so it seemed to me. In the present environment where "Christian Nationalism" is becoming a topic of discussion/debate, this is worthwhile. For me, personally, it was a good reminder of a few very foundational concepts.

[Roger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I am not a Calvinist, nor do I fully agree with any of the four views presented in this book, I found the discourse between its several authors to be informative. Insofar as Reformed positions on political theory and political theology are influential in the wider Protestant world, it is important to understand where these arguments originate and how their proponents attempt to justify them theologically. If you're a student of Christian political theory, this is well worth the read.

[Caroline Z · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was interesting to read and presents things that are good to think about.
I don’t necessarily feel like it fully convinced me to pick any one of the views presented though. Each presenter had some good thoughts, and some things I wasn’t sure about, making it hard to decide who might be right.

[Mitch Tepper · Rating 4 out of 5]

In life we must a balanced view of life as we hold on to the reigns of tension in this life, that keep us from living in the extremist views that infiltrate our society and government today. This is a goodread that has an objective look at these four sides of government.

[Bobby · Rating 3 out of 5]

The biggest thing this book has going for it is that it contains four different authors in dialogue with four different ideas of what an ideal American government would look like. However, even within these four views, it lacks the breadth to capture the current conversation of American Politics.

[Calen Brantley]

Nathan

[Thistle · Rating 2 out of 5]

It would be better if any of the positions were sound. Nice format though, I appreciated the collection of essay style.

[Dawn Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a rather scholarly and, at times, dry book, but it presented some very interesting and challenging ideas. My motivation for reading it was to preview it as a possible resource for high school Government. The book is very structured, presenting four long essays that each represent a particular Biblical view of what the Christian's role and attitude should be in American governement. Then each of the other three viewpoints present a rebuttal to each essay. Finally, each viewpoint responds to the rebuttals. The most interesting discussions, to me, centered around the religious views and intentions of our Founding Fathers, as well as discerning moral vs. ceremonial laws in the Old Testament and which are applicable for governing the nations today. The real question seems to be whether Christians agree that patterning our legislation on God's law is practical or even desirable, and how that would be accomplished in a religiously plural society.

[Peter Clegg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to reformed political thought. A good beginning to how we as Christians should apply Scripture to government. Very helpful.

[Susan Card · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very dry but helpful