# Radical 2K vs NeoCalvinism vs. the historic/Confessional position?



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 28, 2016)

I've been reading up more on the differences between what's often called the radical two kingdom position (VanDrunen et al) and NeoCalvinism. From what I've been reading so far, both are doing well at refuting one another, to the point that I can't agree entirely with either one. I think I know where I stand on these issues, but struggle to articulate it positively. So some questions: 

1) What would the more historic Reformed position be on the "two kingdoms"? Was there are clear consensus or Confessional position prior to Kline or NeoCalvinism? If so did it have a name/label or some representative theologians? Or were there several views about how Christians interact with culture? 

2) If there was a dominant historic/Confessional position, is anyone articulating his position today in contrast to the other two? If so, please list some sources. 

Thanks!


----------



## VanGillMan (Jan 28, 2016)

The WCF Chapter on the Civil Magistrate may be helpful --> http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ (Chapter 23). 

After doing a fair amount of reading on the subject my view is that the R2K teaching is way off base. Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Divines, Matthew Henry - based on my reading these men would not agree with Van Drunen. I have ample quotes to prove such, if you like I can pull some out over the weekend and post them.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 28, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I've been reading up more on the differences between what's often called the radical two kingdom position (VanDrunen et al) and NeoCalvinism. From what I've been reading so far, both are doing well at refuting one another, to the point that I can't agree entirely with either one. I think I know where I stand on these issues, but struggle to articulate it positively. So some questions:
> 
> 1) What would the more historic Reformed position be on the "two kingdoms"? Was there are clear consensus or Confessional position prior to Kline or NeoCalvinism? If so did it have a name/label or some representative theologians? Or were there several views about how Christians interact with culture?
> 
> ...



There are two views with more historicity among Presbyterians. One is the classical two-kingdoms position. You can find an excellent treatment of this understanding in Gillespie's _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. This gist is that Christ's kingship as Christ (i. e., his Mediatorial Kingdom) is his Church, and that His rule over the civil magistrate is his not by inheritance as Christ, but by nature as Creator. The Magistrate has the duty to legislate in accord with the whole of God's moral law, including the first table.

The other view is the Covenanter view that Christ's Mediatorial Kingdom extends to his rule over the civil magistrate. The classic work on this is Symington's _Messiah the Prince._


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 28, 2016)

Van Drunen is not all that radical. Darryl Hart is much further out there than Van Drunen. There is a good exchange in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal about this (volumes 8 and 9, I think).


----------



## Andres (Jan 28, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> The classic work on this is Symington's Messiah the Prince.



Read this book - it will teach you what you need to know. 
Also my pastor, Mark Koller, has an excellent series on the mediatorial kingship of Christ. You can listen to the first in a series of eight sermons here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 29, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> Van Drunen is not all that radical. Darryl Hart is much further out there than Van Drunen. There is a good exchange in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal about this (volumes 8 and 9, I think).



As one academic friend said to me recently, "Don't give Darryl a hard time. His Hart is in the right place."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2016)

The historic view is that the magistrate is a father to the true religion in the commonwealth, yet he doesn't have any position within the church.

Ironically, both R2K and NeoCalvinism reject article 36, which was theocratic. Both groups also see the tension in saying the magistrate is a "Father" to the true religion but doesn't have ecclesial authority. Or in other words, there is going to be an overlap. 

(1) Does the magistrate by himself get to determine which groups (Freemasons, Baptists, Methodists) are outside the "Covenanted, true faith?" And presumably he takes action like exile, burning their builds, etc. If so, it seems like he is making a theological and ecclesiastical claim.

(2) Or, the church elders/synod make that claim. In that case, it seems like they are making a political and legal judgment.

(2*) What if the magistrate refuses? Can he be disciplined by the church? 

It just seems like there is HUGE overlap in the mindset of R2K and Kuyperians.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 29, 2016)

Here is audio of 2 lectures Dr. Cornelis Venema recently delivered at a conference in California, followed by Q&A session. He provides a good assessment of Escondido 2k compared to historic Reformed theology from a scriptural and confessional standpoint:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...rence+2016&keyworddesc=Winter+Conference+2016


----------



## mvdm (Jan 29, 2016)

Here is a set of R2k propositions with my counterpoints which you may find helpful:

http://theaquilareport.com/27-propositions-and-counter-points-concerning-two-kingdom-theology/


----------



## VanGillMan (Jan 29, 2016)

There are also very many helpful articles on the Calvinist International website here -> 

https://calvinistinternational.com/?s=two+kingdoms

Some of which summarize historic views of various individuals, John Calvin among them.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 29, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> 1) What would the more historic Reformed position be on the "two kingdoms"? Was there are clear consensus or Confessional position prior to Kline or NeoCalvinism? If so did it have a name/label or some representative theologians? Or were there several views about how Christians interact with culture?
> 
> 2) If there was a dominant historic/Confessional position, is anyone articulating his position today in contrast to the other two? If so, please list some sources.



Patrick, I am sorry to be a pedant, but by Confessional do you mean the original WCF or the revised WCF?


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> If there was a dominant historic/Confessional position, is anyone articulating his position today in contrast to the other two? If so, please list some sources.



It is the establishment principle, and is still upheld as a confessional doctrine by a number of churches in the Disruption tradition. There is an abundance of resources from the nineteenth century when this doctrine was under attack and manfully defended by conservatives. Robert Shaw's exposition of the Confession on chap. 23 is the best introduction. James Bannerman's Church of Christ provides useful didactic discussion as it relates to the doctrine of the church. William Cunningham's Church Discussions contains important material on chap. 23 in light of the charge of Erastianism. Thomas M'Crie's Statement of the Difference is a powerful polemic against defection from this principle within Secession churches. For a contemporary source, there is an excellent article by Hugh Cartwright in the Westminster Confession into the 21st century, volume 2, which covers the main issues with clarity.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 29, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Patrick, I am sorry to be a pedant, but by Confessional do you mean the original WCF or the revised WCF?



Either one actually. I'm also curious how that transition took place from an establishment church to a Christian "pluralism" or multi-denominationalism (for lack of better terms). I know the change of state context was influential. But I'm curious about the actual arguments used from Scripture to justify either one or the other.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 29, 2016)

Andres said:


> Read this book - it will teach you what you need to know.
> Also my pastor, Mark Koller, has an excellent series on the mediatorial kingship of Christ. You can listen to the first in a series of eight sermons here.



Thanks. I read Symington a few years ago. He had some great insights, but he didn't answer the one crucial question (at least to me), how Christ can be a "mediatorial" king over those who are not in the covenant of grace. He simply leaves it to mystery and says in effect "that's just the way it is" and just moves on with his exposition. Again, that was a while ago, so I may just have missed it, and if you have a reference stating otherwise I'd be glad to see it. I can certainly see how Christ is king as Creator, and even rightful king by inheritance (Psalm 2), and that all men owe him obedience and honor, but the specific benefits of his mediation are restricted to those in the covenant of grace (i.e. those who "kiss the Son"), not the rest of the world still under the covenant of works.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 29, 2016)

MW said:


> It is the establishment principle, and is still upheld as a confessional doctrine by a number of churches in the Disruption tradition. There is an abundance of resources from the nineteenth century when this doctrine was under attack and manfully defended by conservatives. Robert Shaw's exposition of the Confession on chap. 23 is the best introduction. James Bannerman's Church of Christ provides useful didactic discussion as it relates to the doctrine of the church. William Cunningham's Church Discussions contains important material on chap. 23 in light of the charge of Erastianism. Thomas M'Crie's Statement of the Difference is a powerful polemic against defection from this principle within Secession churches. For a contemporary source, there is an excellent article by Hugh Cartwright in the Westminster Confession into the 21st century, volume 2, which covers the main issues with clarity.



Thank you! Very helpful. I have some of those sources and will look them up. 

What would you call the principle behind the American revisions of the WCF?


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I know the change of state context was influential. But I'm curious about the actual arguments used from Scripture to justify either one or the other.



There were also changes in overall mindset concerning liberty, the right of private judgment and the role of human authority in matters of faith. Scripturally, many debates centred on whether Christ has instituted a new moral order in the New Testament which differs from that of the Old Testament, especially concerning the connection of church and state.


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> What would you call the principle behind the American revisions of the WCF?



Voluntaryism; but I would say it is equally against pluralism in its affirmation of the magistrate's moral obligation concerning religion. It is interesting to compare Thornwell and Bannerman, who argue along similar lines for the moral accountability of the State, with Thornwell stopping short of Bannerman's establishmentarianism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 29, 2016)

MW said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > What would you call the principle behind the American revisions of the WCF?
> ...



Thank you again. That is very interesting. One thing I've been thinking through... It would seem the American revision still advocated an established religion of Christianity, even though it argued that the civil authorities show no preference to any denomination of Christians. That would seem to me to be a further application of that principle that the magistrate holds no authority in the church, and that church divisions were church business not state business. But at the same time, there can be no neutrality. If he must be a nursing father to the Church, he needs a definition of the Church, a creed of some sort to guide him. But in receiving that creed, even the Apostle's Creed, he inevitably must favor a denomination since terms of even the most basic creed are defined within a denominational context. 

Did the establishment advocates argue for permitting the existence of dissenters? If so, on what basis? And what would be the magistrates role toward them?


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2016)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Did the establishment advocates argue for permitting the existence of dissenters? If so, on what basis? And what would be the magistrates role toward them?



An accommodation for Independents was proposed at the Westminster Assembly. "Dissenters" were accommodated after the Revolution Settlement of 1690 in England, and dissenters of different shades existed alongside the Presbyterian establishment in Scotland. At the Disruption the Free Churchmen went out of what they regarded as a vitiated establishment, and did so on the establishment principle. When disestablishment was agitated it was the Free Church constitutionalists who argued against it.

I think the basis was simply a broader establishment on fundamental Christian principles whilst recognising other principles necessary for a particular church which were distinct for that particular establishment.

The magistrate would protect them and allow them their place of worship and distinct witness as long as it did not act contrary to the laws of the land, including the law which settled the church.


----------



## AndyS (Feb 2, 2016)

mvdm said:


> Here is audio of 2 lectures Dr. Cornelis Venema recently delivered at a conference in California, followed by Q&A session. He provides a good assessment of Escondido 2k compared to historic Reformed theology from a scriptural and confessional standpoint:
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...rence+2016&keyworddesc=Winter+Conference+2016



Random: Dr. Venema (his voice, inflection, and mannerisms) sounds remarkably like James Boice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 2, 2016)

I thought this little blurb from Noll's excellent work was interesting (speaking of Roger Williams):


> In his later career Williams remained consistent with his early beliefs, though he did change in some other ways. As the poem at the start of the chapter suggests, he enjoyed excellent relations with Native Americans; he was one of the few English settlers to take time to learn their languages. Yet during a 1637 war with the Pequots, Williams made his knowledge of their ways available to the Puritan soldiers attacking them. As we have seen, he helped Baptists settle in Rhode Island, but he himself remained a Baptist for a few months, thereafter becoming (as he put it) a “seeker” after the true church of the apostles. He later published important tracts criticizing John Cotton and the Massachusetts Puritans, most notably The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience in a Conference between Truth and Peace (1644), in which he argued against the use of force to coerce Christian faith or practice. *But later, when Quakers descended on Rhode Island, he drafted arguments opposing their distinctive beliefs. He did not want Rhode Island to constrain people in religion as Massachusetts had, yet he spent several years as an old man in England trying to secure a stable charter that would provide some regulation for the sizable handful of lawless settlers who took advantage of the free air of Rhode Island. Before his death in 1683, he also came to oppose the pacifism of the Quakers on the grounds that all responsible citizens should be required to defend the common good in times of military peril.*
> 
> Noll, M. A. (1992). A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (pp. 59–61). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


I just find it interesting that those who resist an Establishment principle find it inevitable, at times, that the State would somehow inhibit some religious expression.


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 2, 2016)

> > What would you call the principle behind the American revisions of the WCF?
> 
> 
> Voluntaryism; but I would say it is equally against pluralism in its affirmation of the magistrate's moral obligation concerning religion.



The following comments from Ligon Duncan's The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document? are helpful:


> Second, he [Kline] mistakenly thinks that the American revision of 23:3 intended to deny the magistrate the right to enforce first table commands.6 Actually, the revision was primarily intended to move the confessional position of American Presbyterianism from the "establishment principle"7 to "voluntaryism,"8 and to secure the church from unlawful government interference.9
> 
> 7. The "establishment" view of church-state relations (which should not be confused with Erastianism, as Kline unfortunately seems to do) is that the state should establish a particular church (e.g., in England--the Church of England [episcopal in form], and in Scotland--The Church of Scotland [presbyterian in form]) and work with it for the advancement of the cause of religion in the realm. We may paraphrase William Cunningham's description of the principle behind this view: the obligation to advance the cause of God, and the Kingdom of Christ lies not only with individuals, but also with rulers and nations. See Historical Theology, 2:560.
> 
> 8. Not the more extreme "voluntaryism" of British independency which operated on the principle that the responsibility for the advancement of the cause of Christ rests merely on individual men, rather than rulers and nations (see again Historical Theology), but a "moderate voluntaryism" which explicitly intended government to favor the Christian religion (but not one particular denomination), protect all denominations of Christians, pass no law hindering Christian ministers and church members in the due exercise of religion, and to uphold the moral law. Cf., WCF 23:2,3 (American revision). We will discuss this point more fully later.


-----



> > I'm also curious how that transition took place from an establishment church to a Christian "pluralism" or multi-denominationalism (for lack of better terms).
> 
> 
> 
> There were also changes in overall mindset concerning liberty, the right of private judgment and the role of human authority in matters of faith. Scripturally, many debates centred on whether Christ has instituted a new moral order in the New Testament which differs from that of the Old Testament, especially concerning the connection of church and state.



The most obvious change, in America, was the non-existence of a national established church. Any move to establish a national church would first require someone to determine which of the various churches in America was _the_ church. The Westminster Assembly didn't have to face this question. The Church of England was already established. There was only one church. They just had to decide what it believed and how it governed. So in America, where there is no established church, how do you decide which church is _the_ church? Yes, the civil magistrate should kiss the Son and be a nurse father to the church... but only once it is determined which church is the church. And of course there were competing ideas about that. Who then should resolve the question? The various churches could not all gather together to decide, because they would each decide in favor of themselves. The only possible answer to the question is that the civil magistrate must decide.

And here is precisely where they encountered a logical dilemma. De jure divino Presbyterianism meant the civil magistrate may not declare who is and is not the church. They do not hold the keys to the kingdom. Neither may they determine the governance of the church. They may only submit to it and support it. So if the battle with Erastians in England solidified de jure divino, we could say round 2.0 in America solidified the necessary logical consequence of de jure divino: the right of private judgment/liberty of conscience. The Presbyterians stopped short at "moderate voluntaryism," but of course the logical consequence must be full voluntaryism since you still have to determine what is and is not Christian.

Dabney touches on this in his "Religious Liberty and Church and State."
http://www.pbministries.org/R. L. Dabney/Systematic Theology/chapter48.htm


> By the same general fact, it appears that when intolerance commands me to surrender my private judgment in religion, it is to the Magistrate I surrender it, in other words, a man not sacred, nor even clerical, an officer purely secular, and even upon Roman Catholic teachings, no more entitled than me to judge in religion. But, it is said, "the Magistrate persecutes not for himself, but on behalf of a Church infallible and divinely authorized, to which he has dutifully bowed, and lent his secular power, as he ought; so that it is to this infallible Church we are compelled by the Magistrate’s sword to surrender our private judgment." No; how did the Magistrate find out that this Church is infallible? Suppose I, the subject, choose to dispute it? Who shall decide between us? Not the Church in question; because the very question in debate between us is, whether the Church ought to be allowed a supreme authority over my, or his conscience. It is to the civil Magistrate’s judgment, after all, that I am compelled to yield my private judgment, and that, in a thing purely religious.
> 
> ...Among competing religious communions, which shall have the right to coerce the other? Of course, the orthodox one. This is ever the ground of the claim. "I am right and you are wrong; therefore, I must compel you to think as I do." But each communion is orthodox in its own eyes. Every one is erroneous to its rivals. If Rome says, there are evidences of our being the apostolic infallible Church, so clear, that no one can resist them without obstinate guilt, Geneva says to Rome just the same. Whatsoever any Church believes, it believes to be true. There is no umpire under God; shall the magistrate decide? He has no right. He is not religious. There is no umpire. Each one’s claim to persecute is equally good. The strongest rules. Might makes right.
> 
> ...In the incipiency of the English Establishment, the grand appeal of its advocates was to the example of the Israelitish kingdom, where State and Church were united so intimately. Hence were drawn all the arguments, nearly, for the King’s headship over the Church. Hence Calvin’s idea of State and Church. Nor is the argument yet given up. But the answer is, that a theocratic State is no rule for a State not theocratic. *When a State can be shown, where there is but one denomination to choose, and that immediately organized by God Himself just then*; where there is an assurance of a succession of inspired prophets to keep this denomination on the right track; where the king who is to be at the head of this State Church is supernaturally nominated by God, and guided in his action by an oracle, then we will admit the application of the case.



Which touches on Matthew's second point: the validity of Israel as a model. Charles Hodge notes:


> The doctrine current among us [American Presbyterians] on this subject is of very recent origin. It was unknown to the ancients before the advent. In no country was religion disconnected with the state. It was unknown to the Jews. The early Christians were not in circumstances to determine the duty of Christian magistrates to the Christian church. Since the time of Constantine, in no part of Christendom and by no denomination has the ground been assumed, until a recent period, that the state and church should be separate and independent bodies. Yet to this doctrine the public mind in this country has already been brought, and to the same conclusion the convictions of God’s people in all parts of the world seem rapidly tending. On what grounds, then, does this novel, yet sound, doctrine rest? This question can only be answered in a very general and superficial manner on the present occasion.
> 
> ...That the relative duties of these several institutions cannot be learned by reasoning a priori from their design, but must be determined from the Word of God. And when reasoning from the Word of God, we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament economy because that was avowedly temporary and has been abolished, but must derive our conclusions from the New Testament...
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=92



In other words, the arguments put forward by men like Roger Williams regarding the nature of Israel slowly began to be accepted. Increase Mather, son in law of John Cotton, the premiere theocrat, tells of his change of opinion on this question in his autobiography (published 1725). It's rather striking in that he adopts Williams' interpretation of the central passage in dispute between Williams and Cotton: the parable of the wheat and the tares.



> Toleration was of course declared against, as bringing more mischiefs into the church, than the trojan horse into the city, whose ruin soon followed its admission. It was commonly said “Antichrist was coming in at the back door, by a general liberty of conscience.”
> Mr. Mather was never for carrying matters to extremities; and utterly disliked the bitter spirit which he saw in some, who had a great influence on public administrations. It is a pity any of those laws should stand on record, some of which were never executed, and all of them long since repealed.
> It is true, he supposed the civil magistrate might restrain seducers; but upon maturer thoughts, he became fully satisfied with what our Savior declared, “That tares must be tolerated” and was utterly against the nonsensical way of converting men to the faith by penalties. It is plain, the man who is a good neighbor and a good subject has a right to life and to civil enjoyments; and it is not his being of this or that opinion in religion, but his doing of something which directly tends to the hurt or subversion of human society that forfeits this right.
> 
> ...



Following in that New England tradition was Congregationalist Isaac Backus who became a baptist and then became a very influential advocate for non-establishment, with William G. McLouglin arguing “The role of Isaac Backus (1724-1806) and the Separate Baptists in the development of the American tradition of separation of church and state has not yet been given its due. Yet any careful evaluation of this tradition must acknowledge that neither the position of Roger Williams nor that of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison adequately defines it.” http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...&uid=63&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21104590270697

Backus wrote a history of New England with a lot of his own primary research, dealing with a lot of these issues. He discusses how close the establishment issue still was at the Constitutional Convention: https://play.google.com/books/reade...r&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA220

I recommend Ronald Baines' "Separating God’s Two Kingdoms: Two Kingdom Theology Among New England Baptists In The Early Republic" http://www.galaxie.com/article/jirbs01-0-03

You will notice above that Hodge said "the relative duties of these several institutions cannot be learned by reasoning a priori from their design, but must be determined from the Word of God." So they did not abandon the Word of God as the source of political ethics in favor of some kind of Thomistic natural law theory. However, they don't seem to have developed a clear answer to the question either. But by 1973, at the PCA gave up and said


> 3-4. The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events.
> 
> http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015BCO-Reprint-with-bookmarks.pdf
> 
> ...



Why? Well, because any biblical argument must demonstrate that Israel was unique and is not a model for today. But any biblical argument to demonstrate that Israel was unique and not a model for today necessarily undermines the very foundation of Presbyterianism in terms of church governance and sacraments, not simply establishmentarianism.

As for me personally, if you care, I reject VanDrunen's appeal to "natural law" but I agree with much of his underlying two kingdom theology. Political ethics must be rooted in Scripture. Israel was typological of the church and not a model for nations today. What we're left with is that the only just use of the sword is defensive (Gen 9:6), as Samuel Rutherford explains: http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/samuel-rutherford-on-magistrate-as-defensive/


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2016)

There is some excellent material there, Brandon. One thing I would point to in Dabney's appeal as the weak link in the anti-establishment argument is that the requirement of infallible prophets would apply as equally to the presbyters governing the house of Christ and making decisions related to the consciences of other individuals. In other words, his appeal to prophets to safeguard a religious establishment must apply equally to the church and thereby destroy the validity of church government without extraordinary revelation. This virtually abandons the church to the individualist state into which it has subsequently disintegrated since Dabney's time. Of course the answer to this appeal is simply this -- the promise that the Spirit ordinarily works by means of the Word to guide His people into the truth. If the church can lay claim to that promise and act upon it, there is no reason why a Christian magistrate cannot have the same confidence in a church-establishment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 2, 2016)

brandonadams said:


> You will notice above that Hodge said "the relative duties of these several institutions cannot be learned by reasoning a priori from their design, but must be determined from the Word of God." So they did not abandon the Word of God as the source of political ethics in favor of some kind of Thomistic natural law theory. However, they don't seem to have developed a clear answer to the question either. But by 1973, at the PCA gave up and said
> 
> 
> > 3-4. The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events.
> ...


Brandon,

This is a very simplistic summary of the background behind this clause in the PCA's BCO and misses over a century of development that led to this statement. It assumes some sort of logical line of thinking among American Presbyterians and misses the political, cultural, and religious tradition of Southern Presbyterianism.

The idea that the Church's mission is spiritual was deeply embedded in Southern Presbyterianism but, at the turn of the twentieth century a turn toward progressive views of social justice combined with encroaching theological liberalism mixed with the tradition of racial segregation were all in play.

Though Presbyterians were a minority in terms of their membership, they occupied an outsized influence on the political structures of the South. The Progressives increasingly came to see the Church's role as prophetic and active in moving the broader culture to move away from the injustices of society (later very much in support of activities at racial justice and integration). They concurrently embraced critical theology and neo-Orthodoxy. The Conservatives, on the other hand, maintained that the Church's mission was spiritual - to convert souls. They were not against the right government of society but saw society as being transformed not by the Church meddling in affairs but as citizens were transformed by the Gospel then they would transform society and its institutions. The conservatives fought for inerrancy and evangelism (a leading conservative was Billy Graham's father-in-law) and missions to convert the lost.

I cannot quickly summarize the decades-long slide into apostasy but conservatives and their Churches became increasingly assailed by the progressives who sought unification with the Northern Church and eventually even disciplined Presbyteries for refusing to ordain men who held to theologically liberal views. They were men with clay feet but it was a hard fight to maintain Church and property as they sought to preserve what they considered the continuing Presbyterian Church.

In summary, the clause has to be understood less in the light of a broader context of Presbyterians developing a view about Establishmentarianism and more in light of Conservatives coming out of what they perceived to be a fight for the very existence of the Church itself and the aftermath of a Church who saw its role to be primarily about prophetically transforming the society around it. The conservatives who formed the PCA were a mixed bag of thoroughgoing Westminterians trying to preserve the Confessional understanding along with a good number of those who came out of the tradition of Billy Graham and the Presbyterian Evangelical Fellowship.


----------

