Reformed theology and the ideal government
- Thread starter ThomasT
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Instead of indifferent, I want to say it isn't tied down to any one government. All governments have their dark sides. Everyone likes to point out how monarchy becomes tyranny, but democracies become mob rules and republics can be controlled by financial oligarchies.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
It's indifferent because Scripture is indifferent. Certain countries are more suited to one form of civil government over another at different times in their history. This is a matter that is very much tied in to practical realities and the amount of maturity and strength of the Church within a particular society. Having said that, modern democracy developed in Protestant lands. It is now being put under strain through the apostasy from Christianity.
The Mosaic theocracy was unique, for a number of reasons and is finished with, and should not/cannot be returned to, apart from the general moral equity thereof. E.g. governments should experiment with restitution for certain offences rather than relying so heavily on prison. But that type of OT theocracy that was closely related to the Levitical and sacrificial system is definitely excluded.
The important thing, whether a country is s democracy or monarchy or something in between is that God's moral law is upheld in the laws of the land. But that can only be achieved if the king/dictator with supreme power is a devout Christian, or if in a democracy, the populace is largely devout Christian.
Reformed theology emphasises that civil government is not the only government or necessarily the most important e.g. there is self-government, family government, clan government, scholastic government, Church government, commercial government, the government of voluntary societies, etc. If they were operating properly, civil government would have less to do.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
The Mosaic theocracy was unique, for a number of reasons and is finished with, and should not/cannot be returned to, apart from the general moral equity thereof. E.g. governments should experiment with restitution for certain offences rather than relying so heavily on prison. But that type of OT theocracy that was closely related to the Levitical and sacrificial system is definitely excluded.
The important thing, whether a country is s democracy or monarchy or something in between is that God's moral law is upheld in the laws of the land. But that can only be achieved if the king/dictator with supreme power is a devout Christian, or if in a democracy, the populace is largely devout Christian.
Reformed theology emphasises that civil government is not the only government or necessarily the most important e.g. there is self-government, family government, clan government, scholastic government, Church government, commercial government, the government of voluntary societies, etc. If they were operating properly, civil government would have less to do.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
If Reformed theology is indifferent to forms of government per se, then what, according to Reformed theology, makes a government legitimate? Is it the mere possession of power? Or is it possession of power combined with a policy of ensuring (as you put it) that "God's moral law is upheld in the laws of the land"? If it's the first (mere possession of power), we're setting the bar really low. We're saying that if a genocidal Satanist dictator happens to have a grip on power, he constitutes the legitimate government and we're stuck with him. If it's the second formula (power plus ensuring that the moral law is reflected in the civil code), then we'd have to conclude that according to Reformed theology, the earth today contains not one example of a legitimate government.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
In Romans 13, the Apostle assumes that the Roman Empire has been ordained in God's providence. That doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't use legitimate means to improve or change bad government, whether the ballot box or even some kind of insurrection in extreme circumstances. Reformed writers have surmised from Scripture when it is right to remove a bad king and who should be involved. These are not straightforward questions because they come up against "real politique". It's better to have a moderately bad king than unleash anarchy - "by mistake" - in a misplaced attempt to replace him with a very good king.
So you're not stuck with the dichotomy you mention. Reformed thought, e.g. John Knox, has speculated about the legitimate removal of very bad rulers, and is also concerned about the laws of the land not contradicting God's law, but has not set its seal to democracy, monarchy, oligarchy or any "system".
You can get a very godless democracy and a very godly kingship. I'm here talking about the traditional form of kingship, not our constitutional monarchy and democracy in Britain, where the monarch has no or little political power.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
So you're not stuck with the dichotomy you mention. Reformed thought, e.g. John Knox, has speculated about the legitimate removal of very bad rulers, and is also concerned about the laws of the land not contradicting God's law, but has not set its seal to democracy, monarchy, oligarchy or any "system".
You can get a very godless democracy and a very godly kingship. I'm here talking about the traditional form of kingship, not our constitutional monarchy and democracy in Britain, where the monarch has no or little political power.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Reformed theology teaches the rule of law; that being the case, a republic is the only kind of government that comports with it. Whether or not that republic is headed by a monarch is indifferent.
All forms of tyranny, however are opposed. That includes absolute monarchy and democracy (which is the tyranny of the majority).
Reformed theologians usually use the term "theocracy" as a technical term to refer to the Old Testament nation of Israel. The laws and form of government were established on the basis of special revelation, and that was unique to the Jews (indeed, God even chose their kingly dynasties by special revelation). A theocracy, in that sense, is impossible to have today.
All forms of tyranny, however are opposed. That includes absolute monarchy and democracy (which is the tyranny of the majority).
Reformed theologians usually use the term "theocracy" as a technical term to refer to the Old Testament nation of Israel. The laws and form of government were established on the basis of special revelation, and that was unique to the Jews (indeed, God even chose their kingly dynasties by special revelation). A theocracy, in that sense, is impossible to have today.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
John Adams (yes, that John Adams) once said that Britain was a republic with a constitutional monarch. I would argue that Britain is a republic with a constitutional monarchy tagged on, while the United States is a constitutional monarchy with a republic tagged on to it.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree with most of your post, but I think a case may be made that at least some forms of government are sinful and thus illegitimate. Two examples:
Communism is sinful because it violates the 8th commandment, Thou shalt not steal. It "steals" property that people have a God-given right to own.
An Islamic republic is a theocracy based on a false God and many laws that are forbidden in the Bible.
What I am not saying. If you providentially found yourself a member of such governments, you would still be duty bound to obey all the laws that were not sinful to submit to.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Only under very controlled circumstances. Once Republics get too large (like ours) and more economic, they will be controlled by economic elites (like ours). The anti-federalists predicted all of this.
I can think of numerous monarchies that comport with the rule of law, so I am not sure how your statement that only Republics comport with the rule of law obtains.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
John Adams (yes, that John Adams) once said that Britain was a republic with a constitutional monarch. I would argue that Britain is a republic with a constitutional monarchy tagged on, while the United States is a constitutional monarchy with a republic tagged on to it.
Exactly. Let's take the leading authorities of the US and ask if the people voted on them:
The Supreme Court: not voted.
Goldman Sachs: not voted.
From the posts there seems to be a consensus (though not complete unanimity) that Reformed theology has no particular preference for democracy. An objection to tyranny, yes, but no preference for democracy in principle. Can we conclude, then, that Reformed theology disagrees with the US Declaration of Independence when it claims that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the government”? Are we right in saying that these words present no legitimate argument for rebellion and are not rooted in proper Christian belief?
I messed up the quote from the Declaration of Independence: I wrote, "their just powers from the consent of the government". Obviously this should have read, "their just powers from the consent of the governed". Rather major typo. Hopefully not Freudian...
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Jacob, it's good to see you active on the board again. I've missed your presence.
I don't see the idea of a republic as excluding monarchy. Note that I said that it is indifferent whether the republic is headed by a monarch. The rule of law is the main thing that makes the difference. If the monarch is above the law, it ceases to be a republic.
As for the mongrel form of government that we are under, I don't really consider it to be a republic anymore. It has the elements of several forms of government, but the rule of law is something that is being abandoned more and more.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
As it is often quipped the American President in 2016 has more direct power than George III did in 1776.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Not sure if this has anything to do with the question, but I was just studying the Puritans, and according to their logic, the idea of a democracy was completely irrational. They believed all relationships in life functioned as duals, so you have a teacher and a student, a husband and a wife, a master and a servant, etc. In their minds, having a group of people leading the country being the same group who are led, would be absurd. They saw clear distinctions in the created order.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Clearly Scripture doesn't teach democracy vis-a-vis e.g. monarchy, but if there is a monarch in the traditional sense of someone with real political power, Scripture teaches that he/she is bound to follow the moral law as a monarch, and to be a servant of both God and the people ( Luke 22: 24-27). This also applies to a democratically elected government.
Scripture teaches a degree of popular choice under God's guidance within the Church and that salvation is by grace alone. To what extent things such as that rediscovered by the Reformation led to democratic and liberal Christian societies and government, I don't know, but clearly, even Christian, democratic government is not necessarily the wisest form of government for all societies. It may well be when the world is largely converted to Christianity.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes. But, as you say, until it is changed, even a constitutionally sinful system of government is the government that has been ordained in God's providence.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
If all governments are divinely ordained, wouldn’t insurrection qualify as a kind of rebellion against God as well? And if not, if insurrection is sometimes permissible, how do we make a clear distinction between good insurrection and bad insurrection?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
You'd have to read Knox, Calvin and Rutherford on that. Maybe someone else on the board can direct you to what to read, or explain Reformed thinking on it. Presumably those who remove a wicked ruler in a proper way are the legitimate agents of God by which a new civil minister is ordained in God's providence, just as voters can be in more normal times in a democracy. I only know that it has been discussed in Reformed works, when and how it is legitimate to remove a wicked ruler.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Just some food for thought...
I agree with your statement about governments being ordained by God, but I am not sure we mean the same thing by those words.
All governors are ministers of God. True enough. (Romans 13:1-7) But not all ministers are faithful to their calling. Often, by your words that I quoted above, what people mean is that they are rightful ministers that must be obeyed. If civil magistrates are ministers of God, how much more then are ministers in the Church ordained of God. What about unfaithful ministers of the Word? Are they to be unquestionably obeyed? Do we consider them as worthy of our emulation? Must we believe their false doctrine? Do we follow their example? I think that all on this list will agree that we do not have to submit to their doctrinal tyranny? No not for a minute.
Just as Paul recognizes the civil minister as ordaind of God, so Jesus recognizes these unfaithful ministers in the Church as legitimate authorities, but that we should only follow them in as far as what they say is true, and not to follow their example at all.
Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
What are our options when we find ourselves in a position of submission to unfaithful Christian Ministers? We can do many things working from within the church; or, after all else fails, we can leave the church.
I think the same thing is true in respect to unfaithful civil ministers.
I agree with your statement about governments being ordained by God, but I am not sure we mean the same thing by those words.
All governors are ministers of God. True enough. (Romans 13:1-7) But not all ministers are faithful to their calling. Often, by your words that I quoted above, what people mean is that they are rightful ministers that must be obeyed. If civil magistrates are ministers of God, how much more then are ministers in the Church ordained of God. What about unfaithful ministers of the Word? Are they to be unquestionably obeyed? Do we consider them as worthy of our emulation? Must we believe their false doctrine? Do we follow their example? I think that all on this list will agree that we do not have to submit to their doctrinal tyranny? No not for a minute.
Just as Paul recognizes the civil minister as ordaind of God, so Jesus recognizes these unfaithful ministers in the Church as legitimate authorities, but that we should only follow them in as far as what they say is true, and not to follow their example at all.
Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
What are our options when we find ourselves in a position of submission to unfaithful Christian Ministers? We can do many things working from within the church; or, after all else fails, we can leave the church.
I think the same thing is true in respect to unfaithful civil ministers.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Civil or Gospel ministers should never be obeyed if they ask those under them to disobey God's Word. In other commands they ordinarily should be obeyed.
Yes. Good analogy with the Gospel ministers. We can go to another church. We can seek to reform the Church from within. We can take up the right of protest within a denomination if we believe that it's behaviour is egregious. Or we can seek to remove a wicked pastor by legitimate means.
In the case of wicked Civil ministers we can go to another country, protest by various means or seek a change of government/ruler. Some of the Reformers emphasised the important role of the "lesser magistrates" in this.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it is indifferent; the form should suit the social context and enable the maintenance of law and order within it. Only it is not a jus divinum (a divine right), like church government; it is a jus humanum (an human right), on the basis of moral law and equity. So there is room for differing polities among the nations.
For myself, I consider constitutional monarchy to best suit the present situation in our British commonwealth, especially in its present uncertain condition, and particularly because it maintains Protestant principles notwithstanding its defects. The same passage which urges the jus humanum of supremacy and honour (1 Peter 2), points to a king as the appropriate expression of supremacy and honour. Moreover God and Christ assume supremacy and honour under this title, and their sovereignty over civil magistrates is expressly said to be over them as kings. But God and Christ also rule by law and covenant. It is righteous rule. If even divine kingship sees it as wise to operate under a constitution, how much more the human and sinful kingship. Hence the need for a constitution within which to constrain the power of the magistrate according to law and equity. Having said that, Caesar and the senate can itself create a situation for anarchy, which just goes to show that there is none perfect in this fallen world. We need God in Christ to save us from our best efforts. There is no Messianic hope in mere human government.
Everyone who lives in a democracy accepts it. It is just that they have become so accustomed to their "bloodless" revolution that they forget the blood that has been spilt in order to create and sustain it. The power of the sword stands behind every form of civil government. It is just that polished and polite societies have learned how to conceal it a little better than others.
Is it a moral obligation for everyone to improve or change bad government?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
It depends on your gifts and station in life how much you should be involved in this task. There are other tasks that will be more morally pressing than this for some or many. Generally Christians should do what they can with their gifts and in their station to promote good and, ideally, Christian civil government.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I’m not quite sure I understood your answer. Leaving the conceits and hypocrisies of democracy aside for the moment, what I’m wondering, as someone who’s unfamiliar with where Reformed theology stands on this issue, is in your view if Reformed theology, to the extent that it has a clear position here, would allow something like regicide in the event that all other measures to resist the tyranny of a bad king have failed.
I assumed other forms of government were included under the "tyrant." A king might come to deliver a people from the tyranny of an oligarchy or a democracy, etc. Sorry for the confusion. I see you are more concerned with the king as tyrant.
In the various civil wars in England, different royal and noble houses could enter into alliance and rise up to remove the king in order to seek a new settlement. There was also a continual constitutional battle between king and nobles. Where the constitutional conflict was clear enough, as in the 17th cent. war between parliament and the king, there were grounds for opposing the king without seeking his removal. The eventual regicide and installation of a dictator went further than the original design of parliament and did nothing to resolve the problem; and many reformed puritans were opposed to it. On the other hand, there were independents who supported and worked with the protector.
Given the fact that reformed people have found themselves on different sides of political issues, it is probably in vain to seek an univocal answer to the question as to what reformed theology would allow. Certainly the removal of tyrants by lesser magistrates is a strong line in reformed political theory, but the concrete measures for which it allows would seem to be a debated area.
- Status
