Petrus Van Mastricht’s systematic theology text (“Theoretical-Practical Theology”) takes up the office of the civil magistrate in his section on Christology, under the heading “The Mediator as King.” In other words, political theology is treated as a subdivision of Christology. The magistrate represents Christ and is to rule in submission to Christ.
He then proceeds to give a classic exposition of the Reformed view of the role and duties of the civil magistrate:
“They must study, second, the fear of God, through which they should govern not only justly, but also piously and religiously. They should have concern for religion, not neglect it (Acts 18:14-16), but devote themselves entirely to it, which chiefly concerns these three things:
(1) to have a heart faithfully possessed with the fear and reverence of God, throughout their entire governance (Gen. 42:18; 2 Chron. 17:3-6; 34).
Next (2) to direct the entire contour of their governance according to what has been prescribed in the divine Word, to which end the king of Israel was bound to write for himself a book of the law Deut. 17:18-20; 2 Chron. 17:6).
Furthermore, (3) to set before them as the chief goal of their entire governance the glorification of our King, the propagation and amplification of his kingdom, to provide in every way for its prosperity of both kinds, spiritual and temporal (Rom. 13:3-4; Isa. 60:10, 16; 1 Tim. 2:2).”
The first point stresses the personal piety of the king. Godly leadership and godly governance flow out of godly character.
The second point is essentially “lex rex” – the king is bound by the law of God and must know God’s law.
The third point is especially important. The Christian ruler will use his power to extend the visible rule of Christ in the world; he will use his temporal kingdom to serve Christ’s eternal kingdom. He will seek to serve both the earthly and heavenly good of his people.
Mastricht continues, explaining how the magistrate can accomplish these aims:
“All this is generally obtained by these helps:
(1) by cherishing and stirring up the exercise of religion and divine worship (2 Chron. 15:9-16; 20:7-9; 29-31; 34-35; Deut. 17:18-20).
(2) By removing any impediments to religion, with respect to doctrine, worship, discipline: the sorts of impediments that generally arise from idolatry, heresy, profanity, persecutions, and so forth (Deut. 13:1-6; Zech. 13:3; 1 Kings 15:14 with 2 Chron. 15:17; 1 Kings 22:44; 2 Kings 12:3; 23:8, 13, 19-20, 24-25).
(3) By reforming the church, if ever it has been corrupted in doctrine, worship, or morals (examples of which are evident in Ex. 32; Josh. 24; 2 Chron. 15; 17; 2 Kings 18; 23).
(4) By calling together synods for reforming and directing matters of the church (1 Chron. 13:1-2; 23:1-2; 29:4; 1 Kings 8:1; 2 Kings 23:1-2).
(5) By establishing the laws and statutes of Christ by their own civil authority, and by appointing and inflicting penalties upon violators (2 Chron. 29:5, 24; 30:1; 34:33; Neh. 13:7 ff.; Dan. 3:28-29; 6:26-27).
(6) By providing for the church whatever is necessary for it with respect to external matters: the support of ministers, schools, and so forth (1 Chron. 22; 2 Chron. 36.; 34ff.; 1 Tim. 5:17-18; 1 Cor. 9:6-15 with 2 Kings 31:4-9).
(7) By punishing violators, not only of the second table, but of the first table of the law as well (Deut. 13-1-6; Zech. 13:3; Ex. 22:1-15; Lev. 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-25). And so forth. To say it in a word, by all these things they should serve Christ the King (Ps. 2:11), they should cast their crowns, that is, their entire authority and power at the feet of Jesus the King (Rev. 4:10), they should devote their resources to him (Matt. 21:3, 7-8), by the example of David, Solomon, and others, and thus they should make their monarchies to be theocracies, in which God, and his anointed, is the supreme king (1 Sam. 8:7; 12:12; Rev. 11:15; Ps. 82).”
His 5th and 7th points may be considered “small t theonomy” – Mastricht says the civil magistrate is to enforce both tables of the law, and punish violators. Civil laws should be rooted in and reflective of revealed law. Mastricht even says civil magistrates should view their realms as “theocracies,” with the goal of acknowledging and submitting to God’s appointed and anointed King, the Lord Jesus. Magistrates must bow before the true King of kings.
Most of the other points concern the magistrates relationship to the church, and spell out ways in which the magistrate can protect, enhance and serve the bride of Christ. The magistrate is not to do the work of the church, but should care for and support the church in her mission. This is an ecclesiocentric theocracy, a missional theocracy.
All of this is taken from volume 4, p. 265-266, and is only a small part of a much larger discussion. The entire section makes constant reference to Psalm 2 and may even be considered an exposition of Psalm 2. Psalm 2, every bit as much as Romans 13, is the load bearing text when it comes to Reformational political theory. In Psalm 2, King David tells other magistrates, one king speaking to other kings, how they should fulfill their office, and what will happen to them if they refuse to comply.
—
Just a reminder that Calvin addressed his Institutes to the King of France.
The Augsburg Confession was presented to the Emperor by German princes.
Knox’s Appellation was addressed to Scotland’s nobility, the Westminster Standards were produced by Parliament wanted a new confession for the established church, etc.
The Protestant Reformation was not just ecclesiastical, it was political.
The early Protestant pastors spoke to civil magistrates constantly.
The Reformation was all about political theology from the beginning.
—
An excellent gateway to Reformed political theology as it was it actually put into practice is Douglas Kelly’s book, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World.
Kelly’s work is helpful because, while he does give some of the philosophical, theological, and biblical backdrop to the political outworking of the Reformation, he is most especially concerned with actual history, with what Protestants did when they actually had the power and opportunity to enact their political vision.
It’s very instructive.
Several other books cover similar ground in some way, eg, Ronald Wallace’s book on Calvin’s Geneva and John T. McNeill’s History and Character of Calvinism, but I think Kelly’s is the most succinct and helpful.
—
Ecclesiocentrism in one verse:
“I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)
Christian political theology one verse:
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD.” (Psalm 33:12).
—
If you are going to develop a political philosophy or political theology from the Bible (which we must), you cannot cherry pick verses – you have to use the whole Bible in a systematic, redemptive-historical way.
—
People often talk about what our nation OUGHT to do. Nations are moral agents.
“Nations ought” — that’s the key.
Nations have duties.
Nations (rulers and ruled) have corporate obligations to God.
This is what separates historic Christian political theology from post-Enlightenment modernism and radical progressive individualism.
The New Testament confession, “Jesus is Lord,” is not just for individuals and it’s not just about soteriology.
It is also a political claim, one that must be proclaimed, defended, and ultimately applied.
Because nations have obligations to God, they can be judged in history according to how they have fulfilled or rejected those obligations.
The Great Commission’s requirement that that the church disciple nations includes teaching nations their corporate duties before God.
Just as David spoke to the kings of the earth in Psalm 2 to tell them their duty, we must teach presidents, congressmen, judges, and citizens what Christ requires of them.
—
The Noahic covenant is a Christian covenant; if civil government is rooted in the Noahic covenant, civil government should be Christian. A political theology rooted in Genesis 9 will result in Christian nationalism, not a naked or neutral public square.
—
We need “4 book Calvinists,” not just “5 point Calvinists.”
Calvin’s political theology (found in Book 4 of the Institutes) is a crucial plank in the Calvinistic project.
—
If Jesus is king, neutrality is a myth. We are either for Jesus or against Jesus in everything we do. We are either serving him as Lord, or serving some other lord, in every endeavor.
—
Real Christianity is better than cultural Christianity, of course, but cultural Christianity is vastly better than cultural progressivism.
—
The Christian goal is not “religious freedom” (whatever that is). The Christian goal is a discipled nation.
—
An old X post:
It is crucial to understand the times and to understand the Scriptures.
Many Christian movements have fizzled out quickly because their leaders misunderstood the cultural situation. Or, the movement got traction, grew, and became influential, but did damage because it was more culture-shaped than Scripture-shaped.
An example of the former might be the Reconstructionist movement of the 1970s-1990s. It did a lot of incredible work, but largely fizzled out because its proponents fought over hypothetical minutiae that were far removed from the practical political realities of the day.
An example of the latter might be the seeker-sensitive movement which ended up diluting biblical teaching in the church by pursuing continual relevance and accessibility in a way that locked the church into immaturity and made the church vulnerable to the culture’s continued shift leftward. Not surprisingly, many seeker-sensitive churches are barely orthodox, if at all, today.
I see conservative Christians going wrong in the public square in two main ways today: we either adopt a loser’s theology or losing political positions.
On the one hand, some Christians are the proverbial “beautiful losers.” They are afraid of political power so they never assert political will. Power corrupts so it’s spiritually safer to be powerless, to be a victim, to be a doormat for Jesus. Power can easily become an idol, after all. These people continually lose because they surrender before the battle begins.
Thank God many of our spiritual ancestors did not think this way; if they had, the West would have been overrun by Islam 1300 years ago and Christendom would have been aborted. Thank God many of our Christian forebears were willing to pursue power, and use it for good, to transform legal and cultural institutions. There is no virtue in weakness; again and again Scripture commands us to be strong, so we have a duty to make ourselves strong. Avoid selfish ambition, but cultivate godly ambition.
But on the other hand, some Christians unnecessarily adopt political positions which are bound to lose. These Christians would love to win but they sabotage themselves right out of the gate with positions that will never get traction outside of a small bubble. They may be popular amongst a social media subculture but they have no chance of success in the broader culture.
When I say they hold these positions “unnecessarily,” I mean that these positions are not necessitated by the Bible. There are certainly some stands Christians must take in an immovable way that will be unpopular (anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, etc.). But many Christians, especially young men who want to be as “based” as possible, are in danger of advocating for positions that simply cannot win. They are a political dead end.
For example, they see the left doing identity politics, so they decide to try an identity politics from the right – especially a racial identity politics. But a white identity politics is not only unbiblical (the Bible trains us in covenant consciousness rather than race consciousness), it is certain to be politically unsuccessful (even Trump knows he must court non-white voters to win at electoral politics; his rejection of racial identity politics shows he is prudent about electoral politics).
Another example: some insist on archane and unnecessarily unfamiliar and unAmerican terminology to describe their political goals and aspirations, like calling for a “Christian prince.” I do not believe Stephen Wolfe, who popularized this terminology, insists on it, but many others seem to. The title is confusing and there is simply no mechanism or pathway for bringing the “Christian prince” to power.
Another example: Renarrating WW2 so that Hitler was “not so bad after all.” This is simply not true to the historical record. There is no moral equivalence between the western allies and the Nazis. Yes, Churchill and the American military and political leaders of the era had their flaws, but they do compare of the sheer wickedness of Hitler and his neo-pagan movement. There is no point in trying to rehabilitate Hitler’s image. Hitler and Stalin were responsible for millions and millions of civilian deaths and nothing can undo that horrific tragedy of history. Both needed to defeated – and we did so, beating the Nazis in the 1940s in WW2, and defeating the Soviets in the Cold War over the next several decades. Christians who try to paint a rosier picture of Nazism are simply asking to lose, no matter how badly they want to win. Nazi sympathizers are doomed to fail, and should fail.
Christians should want to win “down here” because we serve a Messiah who has won the great victory. We should desire to gain power so we can use it to promote the good, the true, the beautiful. But we should seek power in ways that are wise, that give ourselves the best possible chance of actually winning. Adopting edgy but stupid positions will result in wasted energy.
—
Another older X post:
Ecclesiocentrism means both judgment and reformation begin with the house of the Lord (the church).
Ecclesiocentrism is a matter of faith, not sight. The church does not always *look* like the core and central institution in a nation or in history, but she is in God’s sight. Scripture makes this plain.
Both the rise of Western civilization and its decline can best be understood in ecclesiocentric terms. Western civilization is an ecclesiocentric story. Even our great military and political heroes can best be understood in terms of their faith and connection to the church. Faithful churches produce discipled nations. Churches that lose their saltiness produce rotten, corrupt societies.
God blesses or judges societies (including civil rulers) based on their posture towards the church. To paraphrase Genesis 12, God will bless those who bless the church and curse those who curse the church. (Side note: Based on this criteria, I expect good things from the Trump administration. While I have doubts about the quality of Trump’s personal faith in Jesus, there is no question he appreciates conservative/evangelical Christians and very much wants to include us in what’s he is doing – quite the opposite of the other main political party that mocks us and hates us. Trump wants to “bless” faithful Christians and is willing to transact with us, while he seems to have a proper and justified disdain for the liberal church).
Ecclesiocentrism does not mean the church replaces other spheres or usurps their roles. Ecclesiocentrism holds to sphere sovereignty, though it contends the church is the central sphere in certain important ways. While the church does not replace other spheres, the church does have a responsibility to disciple other spheres.
Ecclesiocentrism is not pietism, which confines piety to participation in church activities, or which prioritizes vocations connected to the institutional church. Ecclesiocentrism does not mean that elders are supposed to run civil affairs or even tightly control the lives of church members.
Ecclesiocentrism focuses on the power of liturgy and prayer to shape people and history; it emphasizes preaching and discipline as tools and weapons in the cultural and spiritual battles we are in; it points to the church’s calling as a people who suffer and serve their way to victory and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Ecclesiocentrism highlights the church’s role as a public, political body, not merely a private, voluntary organization. The church is a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Ecclesiocentrism is rooted in the fact that the church is a divinely built, divinely maintained, and divinely victorious body. Ecclesiocentrism focuses on the promises God has made to the church, the power he has given to the church, and the mission he has assigned to the church.
Ecclesiocentrism does not replace conventional political activism with political prayers; rather it grounds the former in the latter, remembering the words of Jesus, “without me you can do nothing.”
—
Worship is both warfare and equipping for warfare. A big part of the problem is that for most churches worship has become very effeminate- we don’t sing psalms or pray imprecatory prayers, the sermons are lame, the vibe is casual, etc.
—
The classic two kingdom (c2k) doctrine was always contingent on certain historical factors that existed then…and probably don’t today, at least not sufficiently. Kuyperianism, reconstructionism, etc, have been attempts to adapt c2k (aka Calvinistic political theology) to changing social conditions in the West. The latest iterations of “Christian nationalism” are as well.
—
America will never be great again without great churches.
More specifically, America will never be great without great churches, singing great hymns and psalms, hearing great biblical sermons, enjoying great fellowship within the body, following the leadership of great elders who truly shepherd the flock wisely, and doing great works of service.
Want to make America great again? Make the church in America great again.
—
Had the church not been a faithful royal priesthood for several generations prior, there never would have been a Constantine. The priestly phase of history precedes the kingly phase. Remember, many of the bishops who showed at Nicaea still had scars from persecution that had endured. Constantines don’t pop up out of nowhere. The pump has to be primed. Constantine caught a rising wave; he didn’t create the momentum behind the church, but he did have his eyes opened to it so he could catch it and extend it.
—
Some versions of Christian nationalism depend on a Spirit-sent revival. Other depend on a Christian magistrate popping up out of nowhere. Which is more likely? Which is more true to history?
—
On the Nicene Council, convened by Constantine:
Ecclesiocentrists do not oppose a magistrate calling an ecclesiastical council, whether it’s Nicaea or Westminster. In fact, we’d expect it, because theology and politics, church and state, intersect so deeply. The church’s theological positions have massive political and social consequences, as Constantine understood. If the church is just a private, voluntary association, there was no reason for Constantine to take interest in its internal theological squabbles. Precisely because the church is a “holy nation,” a public institution, the embassy of heaven, Constantine realized he needed to reckon with it.
Orthodoxy prevailed, Constantine endorsed it (following the wise guidance of Lanctantius), and the rest is history.
—
Political action, like familial action, is necessary, and nothing about ecclesiocentrism negates that – or what needs to be done in other spheres, like education, art, etc.
One way God could unite the church is through a godly magistrate who locks up pastors from various traditions in a room and tells them they can’t come out until they work out their differences. Etc.
—
In a nation with some form of representative government, politics will *always* entail some kind of agonistic struggle. This is inescapable. In a constitutional republic, there will be arguments over what the constitution means. In a theonomic republic, there will be exegetical debates about what the law means and how its equity applies. In a society committed to natural law, there are debates over what nature teaches. And so on. Even in a society where the vast bulk of the population is Christianized, there will still be political debate. History shows this. Church life shows this. The Overton window will determine the range of debate (more or less), but that window never goes away this side of the resurrection, when everything is finally properly ordered under Christ’s lordship.
In conditions of tyranny, eg, dictatorships, there is no political struggle because the masses of people have no say. Sadly, much of humanity for much of history (including the present day) has lived under some kind of tyranny. There was no political struggle (except perhaps a covert struggle against the tyranny itself) because the people had no political power, no real leverage.
The gospel brings freedom – Spiritual freedom from sin at its core, but Spiritually free men always produce free societies over time. Western civilization is Exhibit A for this truth. But with great freedom comes great responsibility, or hard won freedoms can be lost. When people no longer govern themselves, they fall back into some form of tyranny. Further, maintaining freedom requires a high level of social trust and social capital. We have to trust one another to use freedom wisely. When trust dissolves, freedom is sure to follow suit.
Two implications flow from these truths:
1. Civil, political, and economic freedom is a precious gift that must be actively guarded and there is no way to do this apart from the people and their rulers maintaining a high level of virtue. (John Adam’s made this point with regard to the US Constitution.) True liberty is always ordered liberty – liberty ordered to earthly and eternal goods.
2. In a free society, purity spirals can be deadly. They can make you irrelevant to the political process because there will always be areas where compromises of some sort are necessary. Politics in a free society requires cooperation and coalition building. “Politics is the art of the possible,” as the saying goes. This doesn’t mean every principle becomes negotiable, of course. Where and when to stand firm (even unto death) and where to be an incrementalist willing to compromise requires wisdom. The American War for Independence is a good example of drawing a line and standing on principle, even at the risk of life and property. The American founders did not agree on everything (as soon as the new nation was formed, their own agonistic political struggles with one another began), but they all agreed that living under British rule was no longer tolerable.
—
An older X post:
The church’s failure to do political discipleship is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. When pastors stopped preaching election day sermons, politics fell into the hands of secularists and progressives.
Historically, the church discipled both civil magistrates and citizens in their political duties, according to the word of God. Many people want to keep the church out of politics, but to do so is to muzzle the pulpit. For pastors to go along with this is to refuse to preach the whole counsel of God. There is no way to restore America to political sanity without political preaching. Without such preaching from the “black robed regiment,” America would not even exist.
—
It’s been said many times in the past and needs to be said many more times in the future: If there is no God above the state, then the state is god. A state that does not answer to God has been turned into an idol. People who trust the state for safety, security, and freedom have made an idol of the state. An autonomous state is an idol. All of these manifestations of statism must be opposed by Christians.
—
TPC Pastor's Page 