Beware of the thecrats here and elsewhere who speak as if anyone who says that the civil magistrate should not enforce the first table or who denies that there should be a state church is a "radical." That's an odd definition of radical since it indicts the entire American Presbyterian church, which revised the Westminster Confession to deny civil theocracy and it denies those Reformed churches which have adopted or which use a revised version of the Belgic Confession (Art 36) which also denies civil theocracy. Such rhetoric indicts Abraham Kuyper (whom most regard as a strong advocate of the Lordship of Christ!) and J. Gresham Machen (the founder of Westminster Seminary) and most contemporary orthodox Reformed pastors and teachers.
Note: I have nowhere in this thread used the word “radical” to describe anyone; and fail to find such undefined qualifiers helpful to the discussion.
However, disagreement with the non-establishment position of the amended American version of the Westminster Standards (XXIII:3) or the revised version of the Belgic Confession (Art. 36), and those denomination holding such is not intended as an “indictment” in the sense of bring serious charges of heresy against them. Obviously, this matter is not a central issue of the gospel or determinant of the legitimacy of a particular church. I am willing and able to serve within the OPC though I take exception with that particular revised paragraph of the Confession. As that denomination continues to have fraternal relations with the RPCNA, the Free Church of Scotland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, I’m assuming they do not consider me an heretic any more than the brethren in those denominations which hold to the original form of the Confession.
I would point out the inconsistencies of the American form of the Westminster Standards. First, the American amended form of XXIII:3 says:
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
Does it not seem inconsistent to call civil magistrates “nursing fathers” and then imply they are to have no regard for the spiritual food their children ingest? If parents had such a disregard and open toleration for all manner of heresy purveyed to their children, a church might rightly bring them up on charges of parental neglect.
Secondly, the standards themselves are inconsistent with other unamended parts. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism say at Q. 191:
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
“Countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” implies some favor toward the gospel and church of Jesus Christ, contrary to the non-preferential indifference advocated in XXIII:3.
However, I take exception with Dr. Clark’s labeling of those holding to the establishment view as “theocrats.” "Theocracy" is one of those boogyman words that scares us away from taking a second look at what is postulated. A strict definition of “theocracy” implies a civil government under the authority of an ecclesiastical authority. Pope Boniface VIII’s
Unam Sanctam of 1302 was a theocratic document arguing civil magistrates came under the authority of the pope. The original Westminster Confession did not advocate “theocracy.”
Does Dr. Clark “indict” the, Free Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland Continuing, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North American of “theocracy” or a lack of charity toward brethren in other denominations on this issue?
The rhetoric on both sides of this needs to be cooled. The issue is whether the civil magistrate has any obligation to enforce outward violations of the first table of the law. I fail to find any dispensation in the New Testament for this Old Testament obligation. In this I’m consistent with much of the Reformed heritage and await a scriptural argument for the civil magistrate’s non-obligation to “kiss the Son” and recognize him as King of kings and Lord of lords.
