Sacralism and Human Governments

Introduction

We see in Scripture that there are three distinct governments among men that were established by God directly. The first was the government of the family when God presented our first mother to Adam (Gen. 2: 22-24), and the apostle Paul delineates the hierarchical nature of that government for us (Eph. 5: 24; 1 Cor. 11 ). The second government established by God is civil government, as Paul tells us (Rom. 13:1-7). And the third government He established was the government of the church (Eph. 4:8-13). These three governments were established directly by Him, and so He writes the by-laws for them. He determines the legitimate jurisdictions of each, and the range of their respective responsibilities.

The family is supposed to be the Ministry of Health, Education, and Welfare. The civil government is the Ministry of Justice. The church is the Ministry of Word and sacrament.

Other governments can be formed by men, of course, and as the creators, the founders of such governments get to write the by-laws for them. But these are lesser forms of social organization, and do not conduct their business with any kind of divine sanction. They are lawful, certainly, but they do not come to us from the hand of God they way the others do. I am talking here about the by-laws for your ham radio club, or the rules for a ladies’ book group, or the expectations and standards for a Signal group chat, like not allowing in journalists from The Atlantic.

The Challenge

All nice and tidy, right? The difficulty is that in the pursuit of their duties, these three governments have to relate to one another, and there are competing views on the nature of those interactions.

Everything would be nice and tidy if everybody concerned was a Christian, and moreover if everybody concerned were thinking and acting like Christians. Tall order, but there you go. I will address what our responsibilities should look like when one or more of these governments is not cooperating, and is misbehaving wildly.

But the first thing to note is that the two entities of church and state are largely made up of households, and depend upon them. This means that the necessity of figuring out what that relationship ought to be is not really optional. The fact that the church has authority over households does not mean that the elders can meet in session and then tell the Smiths what kind of car they can buy. They have authority, but not that authority. And the fact that the state has authority over households does not mean they have the authority to declare that two dudes can be husband and husband. They have authority, but not that authority.

This means that one of our essential tasks in figuring out our social responsibilities is the task of figuring out how to keep the church and the state in their respective lanes when it comes to the family. And the problem goes the other way also. A father who administers the sacraments to his family is out of line. And a family man who declared war on Canada would be taking far too much upon himself, and would probably lose anyhow.

The Challenge One Level Up

And then one level up we have the challenge of how to relate the church to the state, and vice versa, and this is where most of our current confusions and controversies are located.

There are three basic approaches to the relationship of church and state. The first would give the church the seniority, as was seen in the claims of the medieval papacy. The pope was the vicar of Christ on earth and, as such, he could require kings to submit to his will. If they crossed him, he could put that nation under an interdict, cutting off the flow of grace to all the sacraments in that nation, thus creating pressure on the king to comply.

The second approach puts the church under the state, thus making one church an official department of the state, or placing all churches in a subordinate position. This approach has been called Erastianism, named after one Thomas Erastus (1524-1583) who argued for it in the Reformation era. James White calls this and other related approaches sacralism. In Byzantium it was called caesaropapism. And because the modern secular state recognizes no real limits on its jurisdictional authority, the basic assumptions in modern society are Erastian in nature. This shows us that an Erastian civil government could be openly Christian, or it could be godless and secular. Say that in our time a local church excommunicated a woman for adultery and desertion of her family, and then she sued the session of the church for doing that. If a secular court took up the case, and if the suit proceeded, it could only do so on the supposition that the state was over the church.

The third approach has been called the Kuyperian approach. This approach recognizes the Lordship of Christ over all governments, and gives each government the authority to pursue its responsibilities within the parameters set by Scripture. The family is to house and clothe its members. The civil government is to maintain order in the streets. The church is to preach the Word and administer the sacraments.

But these separate responsibilities are not being conducted in distinct or separated dimensions. They are all happening in the same world, and so they will all bump into each other, and at times their jurisdictional responsibilities will overlap. When that happens, responsible Christian men, guided by Scripture and natural prudence, need to work it out. And if the men in charge of one or more of these governments are godless men, or immature Christian men, then there will be tests and challenges. You know, clashes and showdowns.

My Theological Heroes

Now I am an advocate of this third approach. I think our starting point really needs to be Kuyperian. That does not mean that there will be no problems to work out, but I do want to start with the assumption that the family was directly commissioned by God, and so He defines the family. The civil magistrate was directly appointed by God to serve as a civic deacon, and so God is the one who establishes the moral necessity of limited government. And the church was established by God, with Christ as her head, and this means that she answers to Him directly, without state interference.

Now Stephen Wolfe likes to tease (and sometimes taunt) modern Reformed guys for holding a view of church/state relations that is contrary to the views of their theological heroes. Well, yeah. Of course. That is because my theological heroes did not maintain unbroken unanimity down through the centuries. Just imagine a panel discussion that included Augustine, Cranmer, and Warfield on pretty much any topic. And this is why Christ Church takes an exception to the original Westminster 23 (which is our confession) on the civil magistrate, holding to a position that is mid-way between the original and the American revision of Westminster.

The original Westminster Confession (1646) really is conflicted on this point. It contains some strong Erastian elements, as well as some portions that try to lean against Erastianism. Again, Erastianism is the view that the state holds supremacy over the church, including ecclesiastical matters. As for example . . .

Now that is Erastian, straight up, right there. And it was drafted and approved by my theological heroes . . . always remembering that I agree with them on another point, which is that synods and councils err and have erred (WCF 31.4).

But we also need to be fair. The original Westminster was a consensus document, and the assembly contained members who leaned Erastian and those who didn’t, while at the same time an Erastian Parliament, which had convened the assembly in the first place, was breathing down their neck. And this is why there are both elements in the Confession. There was a strong sentiment in favor of the independence of the church among the Presbyterians, and there was also strong pressure from Parliament to, you know, to make them play ball.

And so this is why there are other places that lean non-Erastian. For example, in WCF 31.1, it says when a synod has been called, it belongs to “the ministers of Christ, and other fit persons” to decide issues of doctrine and discipline. This implies that such matters do not reside with the state, but rather the church. Another place that does not comport easily with Erastianism is the chapter on Liberty of Conscience (WCF 20.2), where it says that “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” and that when men contradict Scripture, there is real freedom from “the doctrines and commandments of men.” And the Confession also defines the church as the “kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ” (WCF 25.2), and asserts “no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ” (WCF 25.6).

This is why the American Presbyterians felt they needed to correct the original confession on this point. The American version says that civil authorities must not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs or favor one denomination of Christians over others.

Now even though I would prefer a position a little less robust than the original, and a little more robust than the American, it still needs to be said that the American Westminster is a Christian nationalist document. So if you are an American minister who subscribes to the Westminster, you need to believe that the magistrate should be solicitous for the churches of our common Lord, and that he needs to avoid playing favorites between Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians. Either that, or you need to register your exception at presbytery.

One More Thing

In a matter that is not exactly unrelated, a recent online scuffle has broken out over Joel Webbon’s statement about the state needing to take wicked or apostate churches in hand, while knocking a few heads in the process.

But there is a deep structural problem with this take. This is either talking about now, or it is talking about a hypothetical situation down the road, without being given any of the variables.

If it is talking about now, the picture is ludicrous . . . the pot declaring the kettle wicked and apostate, and seizing all the kettle’s assets. I know, this mixes the metaphor but we need to take risks if we are ever to learn anything new. The idea of any modern state in the current situation being competent to judge matters of doctrine or the spiritual health of churches is just laughable.

But it doesn’t improve any if we are talking about a hypothetical situation. It is like someone asking me what I would do if serious danger were to be coming right at me on this day next year. Which way would I jump? Left or right? I have questions that would need to be answered first. What danger? How is it coming? Is it the kind of danger where jumping would help?

And if the hypothetical situation is way out in the future, a century after a massive reformation and revival, and our families are overwhelmingly in order, and Congress is crammed with Christians (there’s some postmill for ya), and the churches are orthodox, and sound, and vibrant, and the wolf has in fact made friends with the lamb, then I believe that all the governments involved are going to be in their own lanes, happily serving the Lord. The idea that under such conditions the state would be bossing the church around is simply wrong. That is not the future. As someone with Kuyperian convictions, and as someone who is postmill, I believe the future arrangement will be Kuyperian.

The best formulation for all of this is something I learned from James Bannerman, which is that the state has authority in things circa sacra, around sacred things, but has no authority in sacris, in sacred things.

But suppose the hypothetical situation down the road is dislocated. It is not the situation we have now, but it is really messed up in some way. Does the state get to step into ecclesiastical affairs then? Well, no, and sometimes yes, and I guess it depends.

Where is it messed up? How? When Nathan corrected David over his adultery, that was the church correcting the state. When John the Baptist rebuked Herod over Herodias, that was the church correcting the state. When Jehoida oversaw the coup that removed Athaliah, that was the church correcting the state. When Ambrose challenged Theodosius over his slaughter of the Thessalonians, that was the church correcting the state.

But this is a fallen world, and there are times when it could go the other way. There are times when churches have become synagogues of Satan, and so it would not be a problem at all if a pious prince interfered with their misbegotten plans. But everything rides on what those plans actually are. If Guy Fawkes is plotting to blow up Parliament, then it is not a violation of his liberty of conscience to arrest and try him.

So we cannot relate church and state in the abstract. If the conditions are postmill good, then we can relate them peaceably, right out of the Book. If they are tumultuous, then you need to describe the nature of the tumult, doing so in detail. And if the tumult is anything like what we have going on today, the church (with all her problems) has more wisdom to offer the state than the other direction.