09/20/11
COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT
MODELS FOR EXPLICITLY CHRISTIAN POLITICS
I am thankful that God is raising up more people who recognize the need for explicitly Christian politics. But we cannot ignore that there are two different models being proposed for explicitly Christian politics in North America at the current time:
· Explicitly reformed/presbyterian Christian politics
· Christian politics where ‘Christian’ is taken in a more generic sense
An example of the first model is the Reformation Party ( http://www.reformationparty.org/ ). Here are the requirements for membership in the Reformation Party:
Voting members -
·
Indicated their desire and willingness to be a
voting member in the Reformation Party.
·
Indicated their full adherence to the Biblical
doctrines summarized in the original Westminster Standards (which include the Westminster Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Shorter Catechism,
and the Westminster Larger
Catechism).
·
Indicated their agreement with the Party
Platform of the Reformation Party.
·
Communicant member in good standing in a presbyterian/reformed
church
·
Male
·
21 years or older
And here is its party platform:
1. It is the duty of all men and institutions of men,
including civil governments at every level and for every nation, tribe and
tongue, to acknowledge the Biblical doctrines accurately summarized in the
original Westminster Standards, and to suppress heresy, idolatry, and every
other enemy of sound doctrine, appropriate to their station and calling.
This includes violations of both the first and second tables of the Ten
Commandments.
Examples of the second model include the Christian Liberty Party ( http://www.christianlibertyparty.org/ ) and the Christian Heritage Party ( http://www.chp.ca/party/ ). It would seem the League of the South is heading down the path of the second model as well (e.g., see the article at http://dixienet.org/rights/christian_nation.php ), as is the Constitution Party (e.g., see their platform at http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble ).
Membership requirements for the Christian Heritage Party can be read at http://www.chp.ca/party/about/ :
Membership requirements for the Christian Liberty Party can be read at http://www.christianlibertyparty.org/ :
“This is why the CLP has established membership criteria that include a profession of faith in Christ. Additional requirements for party leaders and candidates include evidence of a redeemed lifestyle as confirmed by the candidate's pastor or church elder and another personal witness from his community. The CLP stays true to a basic Christian worldview but does not involve itself in the denominational distinctives of various Christian groups. Our goal is to build a venue through which the Bible-believing Christians from diverse denominations can influence political affairs for Christ. This fellowship of believers represents a unique opportunity, fulfills a Biblical admonition, and exercises the fundamental right of freedom of association.”
“Those who can subscribe to the following requirements are welcome and encouraged to join:
1. I am eligible to vote in the state in which I reside and am not affiliated with any other political party.
2. I agree with and will support the purpose of the Christian Liberty Party as expressed in its Constitution, Vision, & Principles documents.
3. I confess Christ as my Savior and acknowledge His Lordship over men and nations and will conduct my personal and party affairs accordingly.
4. I agree to operate according to the policies and procedures set forth in the party Constitution and Bylaws.
5. I understand that subscribers may voluntarily withdraw at any time from this association without a refund of any membership donations.
6. I am not a member of any secret organization or association which requires any oath which supersedes such covenant oaths as baptism, marriage, oath of public office, public testimony, or public jury or which requires loyalty and obedience to a jurisdiction contrary to God’s order.
7. I agree that men of every nation, tongue and race are of one blood as determined by God according to Acts 17:26.
8. I agree to pay an annual subscription fee as prescribed by the CLP National Committee. “
The Constitution Party principles and requirements can be read at http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble :
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles. The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens.”
The seeming direction of the League of the South can be read at http://dixienet.org/rights/christian_nation.php :
“Secularists deliberately paint a false picture of a “Christian nation,” perverting it into a denominational dictatorship. That’s a powerful argument because no Episcopalian wants to live under a Baptist dictatorship, any more than Baptists want to live under a Methodist dictatorship, or Roman Catholics under a Presbyterian dictatorship. Is that the death blow to a Christian nation? Portraying the Christian nation as a denominational dictatorship is a classic straw man or false picture. It’s an old debating trick designed to overthrow the truth by presenting a false picture of it. No Christian in his right mind wants a state under a denominational dictatorship. Through one hundred years of bloody religious wars that depopulated large stretches of Europe and several hundred more years of mutual persecution, Christianity learned the hard way that a certain measure of tolerance must be allowed to minority views. This does not mean that any Christian must gag himself from witnessing the truth as he sees it, only that we do not put people to death over theological differences. A Christian state is built not upon denominational differences, but upon a shared faith. The expression of that faith in the state is the law of the state. As Justice Whyte said, “I have been taught that Christianity is part of the law of the land. The four gospels upon the clerk’s table admonish me it is so every time they are used in administering oaths.... Law, reason, Christianity and common humanity, all point out one way. (Fields v. Tennessee, 9 Tenn. 156, Tenn. Sup. Ct. 1829). … What is a Christian state then? And what sort of Christian state do we envision for a Christian South? A state is Christian when its law and behaviour are conformed to the image of Christ. A Christian state does not enforce the peculiar beliefs of any one sect but follows the moral law of Jesus Christ revealed in Holy Scripture. More than that we cannot say; less than that we will never accept.”
In evaluating these two competing models, two central questions must be asked:
1. Is the Christian gospel reformed or generic?
2. Is how man is to serve God (including in civil government, as well as worship, church government, etc.) reformed or generic?
Although advocates of the second model may not recognize it, by defining acceptable “Christian” politics in the generic sense, they have implicitly defined acceptable “Christianity” in the generic sense, and not in the exclusively reformed sense. This then leads me to ask one very practical question: if the generic path is followed, which if any denomination will tend to become dominant? I would submit that the Roman Catholic Church will.
Steve Halbrook provides some excellent insights on the dangers of political syncretism in his article at http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2011/09/glenn-beck-david-barton-and-new.html :
“Recently we found out that David Barton, of the influential Wallbuilders organization, called the Mormon Glenn Beck a Christian …Barton's endorsement is disturbing, but not surprising. For some time, political syncretism has been an evangelical trend. In the past we have seen Gospel-compromising evangelical coalitions with the heretical Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches (e.g, the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Document, and the more recent Manhattan Declaration)… Of course, let's not forget the long-standing Israeliolatry fueled by some dispensationalists. (Israeliolatry says "we stand with Israel unconditionally" despite the fact that modern Israel is an unbelieving, anti-Christian nation.) And now perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of "Evangelicals and Mormons Together" (as if Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxism are not heretical enough); because of Beck's stance against liberalism, many evangelicals have a "warm, fuzzy feeling" for him--perhaps to the extent of overlooking his Mormonism. And to top it off, Barton, an influential evangelical, tells us that Beck is a Christian…A major reason evangelicals succumb to political syncretism is that they don't understand Christ's lordship over the state. They don't see that Christ must be openly proclaimed as the highest political authority; that civil polytheism (religious pluralism) is sinful; that the Old Testament civil laws are binding on civil government; and that seduction to idolatry is just as much a temptation in the civil sphere as any other sphere (cf. Deut. 13).In not recognizing Christ's lordship over the state, evangelicals lack biblical precepts to regulate their approach to politics. Thus they are “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14b). Without the objective, biblical standard for civil government, all that is left is compromise, pragmatism, and ungodly alliances. Hope is not in Christ, but in charismatic personalities and what man can achieve. And so we can expect evangelicals to continue in their political declension until they realize that Christ, and Christ alone, is Lord of the state. He does not share His glory with another, and thus does not want His people to politically align with papists, Mormons, and other enemies of Christianity. As we have seen, the fruit of this is not political victory, but compromise with heresy and syncretism. And this provokes God's judgment, including by means of political tyranny. May God protect His church from Mormonism, every other heresy, and those who would say "peace, peace," when there is no peace.”
Furthermore, let it be kept in mind that the Reformation Party is not advocating some sort of coup by a Presbyterian elite in which the masses will be forced to submit to a Presbyterian minority. Rather, it is advocating that when a people recognize the reformed Christian faith is Biblical, such a people should form a covenanted reformed Christian community or nation. In contrast to Roman Catholicism (which must in theory submit to the Pope), Anglicanism (which permits a monarch to have Erastian control and bishops to have undue power), and even Independents and Baptists (which often allows one man to have undue authority at the congregational level), Presbyterianism advocates for rule by council and courts of appeal, which is the very opposite of dictatorship. (The use of the term “Presbyterian dictatorship” in the article at http://dixienet.org/rights/christian_nation.php is an oxymoron.) Finally, it is most certainly not advocating putting to death those with denominational differences. On the other hand, it is asserting that a covenanted reformed Christianity community or nation should only be ruled by reformed Christians and that covenanted reformed Christian communities and nations are the Biblical model for civil government.
We should be under no illusions which of the two models will likely continue to attract the most followers as secularism recedes and falls, but I think we should also be under no illusions as to which one God’s word supports. That model which God supports will ultimately prevail, even if those who follow it must go through a period of widespread rejection and even intense persecution.