The Establishment Principle- Prove it!
In this episode of I Wonder, I am pushing myself to my limits. Still an EP man, but shaking, shaking.
Firstly, the Old Testament (OT) church functioned as a state church grounded in the theocratic model of ancient Israel, where God's Word intertwined religious and civil governance. This is evidenced through the Mosaic Law. There, the church and state were twain made one. There’s really no debate to be had here.
But the New Testament is curiously silent on political/nationalistic ideas of any sort in reference to the kingdom of Christ. Other than, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), “render unto Cesar,” “pray for the king,” etc. We ought to SERIOUSLY ponder those words, by the way. And then reponder them some more because Jesus’ words appear much clearer on this subject than polemical arguments from holdover thoughts.
But my question is, why? Why are there NT crickets on the grand doctrine of the Establishment Principle (tEP)? Not a hint. Not a whispering whisp?
I have heard these replies, mostly from my own lips to others over the years:
"Well, they were an infant church, and there was no need for the EP doctrine just yet."
Fine, now prove the doctrine.
“The Old Testament had the blessing of Jehovah over both religious and civil matters as a nation.”
If you are going to argue this way, you should also be arguing for a king over that church, as J.I. Packer does (Anglican).
"Later on, once the NT church came to maturity and grew in numbers, then they would become politically active."
So it's a numbers game. Is that what Jesus meant? “My kingdom is not of this world…yet”? Is that the story of the Early Church? I don't think so.
We know that Constantine legalized Christianity because as a failing political leader, it's always expedient to be on the winning side of a movement. Constantine’s was John Kerry’s famous line in reverse: “I was against it before I was for it.”
The reality is, that Christianity was doing just fine before his eminence declared anything. The resurrection gospel was seeping into synagogues, trade routes, markets, and kitchens all over Asia Minor like hot lava. Even permeating the most significant pagan households of the region! So what if Constantine legalized it 300 years later? Did Jesus need his permission, his stamp, his endorsement? Tell me, was it after Constantine’s approval that Christianity flourished, or were the winds of compromise beginning to blow? Did the church become more pure, or less? And when he finally gave Christianity its freedom, did he go to the Scriptures to enquire after these things, or did he merely swap out parts of old Rome with parts of new Christianity? It's the same engine under a different hood, and its fumes smell a lot like antichrist to me. Prove that any earthly power possesses that right. The right, not only to legalize Christianity (Civil) but fundamentally change its administrative form from the OT theocracy (by king, prophet, priest) to a pagan mashup of Rome’s greatest hits (Sacred). Forever, with nary a thread of continuous doctrine? That’s a stretch. That’s a real reach. The theological pedigree of (tEP) continualism should be clear to see over the past 2000 years. But it isn’t. If you believe the church did right in adopting the EP in the 4th century, actually, they had no choice at all, no alternative whatsoever since the whole globe had adopted Imperialism as its model. And given the theological controversies of that era, it’s no wonder that the subject of church/state relations was left unchallenged, and unclarified. Perhaps unnoticed.
"The EP model has done so much good over time."
Yes, I agree but prove its doctrine.
"We know many forbearers defacto agreed with the tEP and were smarter than you."
I know! So it should be easy to prove. Prove it.
“The Reformation occurred under the EP, and no one challenged it. Not Calvin, not Luther, no one."
There was no need. It was working just fine for them too. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But that proves nothing. Prove it.
"The Golden Age of the gospel around this world was under the auspices of the EP."
Agreed, in many ways that’s true. Now prove it.
Why is it so essential to have an EP? What is so vital about it that we can't challenge or refine it? Even though we can't quite prove it with clarity, like we can, say, with exclusive psalmody, infant baptism, or the doctrines of grace. You know, arguing from both testaments, with loads of cross-references and systematic layouts, scriptural underpinnings, fortifications, and clarifications? In an age where the world is crumbling around us, Christian Nationalism needs a check. I say it is quite likely it has a faulty foundation. There, I said it.
All I have heard are pragmatic arguments for the EP. I've not found a single one that does not ask me, first, to presume the EP before they prove the EP. I don't need to know the history of it. I know it quite well, thank you. I’m asking, “Is there no NT textual formule?” That’s what I wonder. It feels like a hand-me-down garment that doesn’t fit anymore.
It's crucial to distinguish between pragmatic outcomes and foundational reasons. While the effectiveness of a model can be demonstrated through its results, the reason for its absolute adoption and continuation must be grounded in doctrinal soundness and adherence to Biblical principles. What is the scriptural doctrine of the continuance of the Establishment Principle? Rutherford proved The Due Right of Presbyteries, and James I attempted to prove The Divine Right of Kings. But where is the proof of the divine right of the Establishment Principle? Start in the Old if needed, but establish its existence, and prove its trajectory into and through the New Testament.
Thoughts, comments?
Thank you for interacting with this article. I greatly appreciate it.
I find myself transitioning from a staunch adherence to the Establishment Principle, a stance I robustly defended for over two decades, towards a more nuanced view that resonates with Augustine's vision in 'City of God' and what can be understood as an embryonic form of Calvin's dual jurisdictions. Calvin, in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion', particularly in Book IV, opens up the nature of civil government as distinct yet under the providential sovereignty of God. He articulates a dual governance system: the spiritual, under the church's stewardship, addressing matters of the soul, faith, and eternal destiny; and the temporal, under civil authorities, overseeing public conduct, justice, and societal welfare.
This perspective, echoing Augustine, who grappled with the Christian's role in a fading empire, posits a more pilgrim-like existence for believers, reminiscent of biblical figures such as Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon. It speaks to our role as sojourners, navigating an increasingly pluralistic society while remaining scripturally anchored.
My journey through Reformed thought, from my days as a Steelite in the 90s, engaging with the Reconstructionist movement and its evolution into what is now perceived as Christian Nationalism, especially within certain Presbyterian and Reformed circles, has been one of continuous reevaluation. I have read “Lex Rex”, “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming”, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”, “Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects”, Baza, and a host of Scottish Covenanters on the subject. I know the position. Yet it has become increasingly apparent that the Second Reformation writers offer limited insights on the Establishment Principle, as to its two testament clarity, instead presupposing its validity rather than robustly proving it.
Notably, this principle seems less a doctrine that has organically grown from Old to New Testament continuity but rather appears as a theological construct superimposed onto the Christian ethos, postdating the New Testament era. Its roots can be traced not to the teachings of Christ or the Apostles but to the legislative actions of Constantine and Theodosius I. Unlike foundational doctrines such as the Law, the Covenants, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the sacraments, which have clear scriptural lineage and development, the Establishment Principle lacks a similar New Testament trajectory. It seems more a product of historical circumstance than a doctrine emerging from the continuous revelation of Scripture.
In this light, I advocate a careful re-examination of the church's role in the state, considering the complexities of modern society. This re-examination, while informed by historical positions, must be deeply rooted in a biblically sound, Christ-centered theology that respects the distinct yet interwoven roles of the church and state under the sovereign rule of God, who rules over all, blessed forever.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Brother, you say you can "prove" infant baptism, yet you claim an objective hermeneutic cannot "prove" the establishment principle in the New Covenant.
Yet you concede that the establishment principle is explicitly in the Old Covenant Scriptures.
Similarly, children are included in the visible church under the Old Covenant. A Reformed hermeneutic assumes continuity with the Old Covenant except where discontinuity is explicit. Hence, we require of our Baptist brothers explicit proof of discontinuity with respect to covenant children.
If you grant a hermeneutic where continuity must be proven with respect to the establishment principle but not infant inclusion in the visible church, I would have to conclude that you are inconsistent.
I would supply as biblical proof of the establishment principle Deuteronomy 13 and Romans 13. The civil government is a servant of God. Servants must obey the law of their Lord.