# Church and State/ Reformed Views



## Doulos 2 (Nov 5, 2011)

I am trying to come to an understanding of the main Reformed views on the relationship between the Church and State. Can anyone point me to some standard resources on the main views? Are the main options Theonomy and 2K?

Thanks for your help. 

Blessings.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 5, 2011)

Theonomy it should be said is more a question of Jurisprudence than a political system per se. The real dichotomy is between R2K and Establishmentarianism.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

Three works to better understand the historical Reformed view are:

Martin Bucer's De Regno Christi

Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex

William Cunningham's Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

David Van Druen is also worth reading for the 2k argument. from my limited reading though it is pretty hard to argue that the 2 kingdom approach as defined by Horton and Hart is the historical position of the Reformed Churches. Lutheran- yes. The reformed may have talked about the spirituality of the church and the importance of its independence, but just pragmatically speaking they clearly wanted the government to support the church just not interfere. I'm not trying to read other people's motives, but I get the impression from r2k proponents that they just don't want to stand up for Biblical Truth verbally and be a prophetic voice against the culture and use the language of ''the spirituality of the Church'' to justify not speaking against cultural evils. Not saying that it is true in every case, but it is a strong impression.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2011)

Doulos 2 said:


> Can anyone point me to some standard resources on the main views?



"Harmony of the Protestant Confessions" contains a chapter on the civil magistrate (p. 473). Available here:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 6, 2011)

The perspective of our existence in two kingdoms goes pretty far back, at least in the continental reformed view. Here in the US it would have been seen as orthodox at old Princeton and was broadly advocated by G. Vos. (For his perspective, pick up any of his books or articles that begin: "The Eschatology of ..."

It is fair to say that anyone in the reformed camp would see overlapping spheres of influence between the church and state. The church, for example, exclusively proclaims the word and administers the sacraments. The state administers civil penalties and defends that land at large. But there is an intersection (think Venn diagram here) that overlaps -- the church speaks into the culture, and that includes the gov't. Or someone could be charged in both the church and state for a sin/crime where the church would examine a person's repentance while the state administers a civil penalty.

But I think we have to look further than a specific discussion regarding church and state. As believers we are called to be salt and light and to proclaim Christ before man. A pastor is constrained to speak truth, even if it endangers himself. (Think churches in China or in Muslim controlled areas, or even the US military chaplains having to deal with the army's acceptance of the gay lifestyle.) These generalized truths apply regardless of any position someone might hold on an articulated position on church/state relations. Shame on anyone who ceases to be salt and light because the gov't is not a "spiritual" entity.


----------



## Philip (Nov 6, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> The perspective of our existence in two kingdoms goes pretty far back, at least in the continental reformed view.



Arguably it goes back at least to Augustine and his two cities.

Non-establishmentarianism in the reformed tradition comes out of the various dissenting movements in the late 17th century. The Savoy declaration, for instance, is moving in that direction, though not yet there.


----------



## Peccavi (Nov 6, 2011)

The Church and State debate mostly stems from disagreement about what the relationship between the two should be, not necessarily the level of cultural control the church should have. In essence, when you ask about church and state you could really mean two things: 1. Should we have an established or independent church or 2. what, if any, relationship should the church and the state have in an organized society. They are similar, but one is a much more sweeping and broad question, the other relates more to details of the relationship and how that all plays out.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 7, 2011)

> The Savoy declaration, for instance, is moving in that direction, though not yet there.


Can you expand on this? In my reading, it primarily affected church gov't -- though the exclusion of Christ as the head of the church is rather startling.


----------



## Doulos 2 (Nov 7, 2011)

Thank you all for your responses. I greatly appreciate it. God bless.


----------

