Everyman’s Guide to Protestant Political Thought

A Crash Course in Historic Reformed Political Discourse

Two Ages. Two Swords. Two Kingdoms. Reformed Two Kingdoms (or is it Radical Two Kingdoms?). Sphere Sovereignty. Kuyperianism. NeoCalvinism. Reconstructionism. Theonomy. General Equity Theonomy. Mere Christendom. Classical Liberalism. Postliberalism. Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism. Natural Law. Postmill. Amill. Pre-Mill. And, of course, Christian Nationalism. 

If you’ve listened to any discussion of Christian political thought in recent years, you’ve likely heard many of these terms and more. We live in a time of social and political upheaval, and therefore many Christians are seeking deeper and better foundations for how society ought to be arranged. But these discussions can be confusing. Pastors and theologians who we think ought to agree find themselves strangely out of sorts with each other. At other times, those whom we expect to be at odds find themselves in surprising agreement. What gives?

In this essay, I want to offer a brief overview of five variations of Protestant political thought as a kind of orientation to the question of Christianity and social order. The structure is simple. I’ll briefly identify roughly seven watershed questions involved in this discussion, and then historically trace the answers of the five camps, attempting to clarify where the differences and similarities lie.

Let’s begin with the watershed questions. 

1. What’s the relationship between general revelation and special revelation, between nature and Scripture? All Christians confess that God reveals himself in his world (general revelation) and in his Word (special revelation). But how do these types of revelation relate, and how sharply should we distinguish them? And what effect does the Fall have on our ability to understand and use them?
2. Are corporate bodies (families, churches, states, and nations) moral agents? Can they speak and act? Should all of them acknowledge the living God? Should they acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ? Should they seek to obey him? Can and will they be judged for their obedience or disobedience? If so, by what standard?
3. What is the relevance of the Old Testament for Christian political thought? In particular, what’s the relevance of the original commission to Adam? Is it still binding on humanity? What about the covenant with Noah? What about Old Testament Israel? Are Israel’s laws and political structures binding for us today? Are they a model for us today? Are Israel’s king’s models for rulers today?
4. How do we approach the law of God itself? Should we accept the classic tripartite division of the law (moral, ceremonial, and civil)? Should we distinguish the two tables of the law (our duties to God and our duties to neighbor)? And if we adopt such distinctions, what do we do with them? For example, may the state (should the state?) seek to promote obedience to both tables of the law, or only the second? Should we (apply the Old Testament civil penalties today? 
5. What do we make of distinctions like “two kingdoms” and “sphere sovereignty”? What exactly are the two kingdoms? Church and state? Common and redemptive? Inner and outer? What are the spheres, and what do we mean when we say that they are sovereign?
6. Is freedom of conscience compatible with external compulsion in religious matters? Is it possible to compel, coerce, and restrict external conduct, while refusing to coerce the conscience?
7. Is there a universal, ideal blueprint for all societies–one ideal Christian political arrangement? Or are there basic political principles which may and can be wisely applied in a variety of different ways?

With those questions in mind, I want to spend the remainder of the time giving a historical overview of a number of different Protestant perspectives.

Magisterial Two Kingdoms

I’ll begin with what I will call classic or magisterial two kingdoms theology. This is roughly the view of the Protestant Reformers, including Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Althusius, and Junius. There are variations within these thinkers, but there is still a recognizable tradition from the 16th and 17th centuries.¹

God reveals himself in both nature and Scripture. These two forms of revelation are complementary and clarifying, and we can and do draw from both. While the Fall does affect our reasoning abilities, it does not obliterate them. Yes, we are totally depraved, in the sense that we are dead in sin and blind to the beauty of God, and our sinfulness pervades every aspect of our existence. However, we still think and reason, and are, in principle, able to discern truth from falsehood, good from evil. God has endowed us with a conscience, with a law written on our hearts. Truths about God and our moral duties as humans are evident in creation, even if wicked custom frequently smothers the light of this natural understanding. So when it comes to political philosophy, we consult natural law as clarified by Scripture. Rightly understood, they speak with one voice.

Corporate bodies, whether families, churches, nations, or states, are moral entities, and ought to acknowledge the living God (by nature) and the risen Christ (because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him), and seek to obey him. Family, church, and state are distinct institutions with distinct vocations, emphases, and tools, but they ought to assist each other in directing human beings to both their earthly good and their heavenly good. 

Old Testament Israel is a model for nations, and we consult Israel’s law and history as wisdom for us. We distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil layers to the law, with the moral law (which corresponds to the natural law) still universally binding, the ceremonial law fulfilled and abrogated in Christ, and the civil law useful as divinely sanctioned applications of the moral law to Israel’s particular circumstances. The two tables of the law are distinct, but inseparable. Piety (our duties toward God) is the foundation of justice (our duties toward man). The second table rests on the first. 

The “two kingdoms” refers to God’s two-fold government of man. One kingdom is spiritual and heavenly; the other temporal and earthly. There are some variations on this, but the simplest is to make the biblical distinction between the inner man and the outer man. God governs the inner man directly; there is no human mediation in the realm of the conscience. God governs the outer man through various authorities–parents in the family, ministers in the church, magistrates in the nation. The family, the state, and the visible church are all in the earthly kingdom, whereas the invisible church (which is known only to God) is the spiritual kingdom. This distinction is why Protestants can champion freedom of conscience and still permit external compulsion even in certain religious matters. No earthly authority is capable of binding the conscience; you can’t make people believe. But you can compel and restrict outward behavior, and thus Sabbath laws and laws restricting blasphemy or heresy are permissible, since such public acts are harmful to the social order, which the state has jurisdiction over. 

Finally, politics is about the prudential pursuit of justice, applying foundational theological and philosophical principles in a variety of concrete circumstances. There is no single blueprint for all societies. Questions of political regime–monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or a mixture–are matters of wisdom. Christian statesmen must take into account the size, character, and history of the people, the circumstances on the ground, as they seek to wisely govern. In this sense, the Westminster Confession of 1646 (British) and of 1789 (American), the Belgic Confession, and the 39 Articles of the Church of England all operate from shared principles. Britain, Holland, and America in the 17th-19th centuries were all different applications of common political principles.

So that’s our baseline, and, to put my cards on the table, that basically describes my own political views. Other contemporary proponents include Stephen Wolfe, Timon Cline, and Brad Littlejohn.²

Kuyperian NeoCalvinism

Let’s turn to Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian and statesmen of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.³ His legacy continues in the Dutch Reformed tradition of Bavinck and Dooyeweerd, and finds modern expression in NeoCalvinism, with thinkers like Tim Keller. 

Everyone knows Kuyper because of his famous statement, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’” But what many don’t realize is that when it comes to political philosophy, Kuyper offered a self-conscious and intentional departure from the classic Protestant view that I just sketched. 

Article 36 of the Belgic Confession includes this section: 

For their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the [civil] polity, but also to maintain the true sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted.

In th 1890’s, Kuyper wrote:

We oppose this [Constantinian language in article 36] out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed. We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.

Kuyper regarded the classical Protestant view expressed in the confessions as a holdover from Rome and as contrary to the Holy Spirit and the Christian faith. He said explicitly, “We do not at all hide the fact that [on the role of the magistrate] we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.”⁴

Kuyper argued that Reformed political theory (which I just sketched) was inconsistent with Reformed theological principles. In this way, Kuyper’s political philosophy is an attempt to “finish the Reformation.” He wrote, “we break with the imperfect political theory of our fathers and condemn what they perpetrated in Geneva, England, and partly [in Holland]” (Our Program, 65).

Kuyper’s fundamental contribution is the doctrine of sphere sovereignty, a development of the older notion of distinct institutions or estates. In Kuyper’s view, each social institution (family, church, state, business) is sovereign in its own sphere and must be free from interference from other spheres. The result was a sharp division between church and state.

So how did Kuyper answer our questions? First, he offered a sharp distinction between natural and revealed knowledge of God (general and special revelation). Natural knowledge includes 1) there is a God, 2) This God governs the world (including the State), 3) he desires justice, and 4) sin is operative among men and requires a supernatural remedy. Revealed knowledge comes from the Scriptures and includes God’s mighty works and especially the gospel. 

Thus, corporate bodies are moral agents and accountable to God. Kuyper believed in a Christian nation, which he defined as “a nation not without God.” This double negative contrasts with a more robust notion, such as “a nation in covenant with God.” But while upholding the idea of a Christian nation, he rejected a Christian state. The state is based on natural knowledge of God and must limit itself to the truths of general revelation. Thus, while the state should acknowledge God, it must not acknowledge Christ. Individual magistrates can influence the state by their individual faith, but they should not formally enshrine their convictions through the state. 

This is because the state lacks the competence necessary to determine truths of revealed religion and adjudicate among competing interpretations. He rejected attempts to model modern states after Israel in the Old Testament. Again, on the Belgic Confession, he wrote:

1) That the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.

2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.

At the same time, Kuyper believed that the State should maintain law and order, continue to use the oath of office (which invoked God), and observe the Sabbath (since setting aside one day is a creational principle).

Kuyper’s basic alternative principle was this: “the state shall allow, no less but also no more, freedom for the development of the Christian religion” (Our Program, 65). The state must not discriminate against the gospel. Neither may it favor it. So the gospel should have free course in society. And the state itself should not propound any false gospel. But it should allow for citizens to propound their own false gospels in public. Kuyper insisted not only on freedom of conscience (which the classical Protestant view had done) but also on freedom of worship and freedom of expression. Blasphemers and heretics must be allowed free rein in society. He rejected religious tests for public office (even atheists can serve) and argued for “government nonintervention in the domain of revealed religion,” or what we might call a “principled pluralism.” Kuyper’s ideal was “a free church in a free state.”

At the same time, he commended a vision of cultural transformation through individuals and private associations (churches, schools, charities) in which every sphere would be brought under the lordship of Christ. Kuyper pointed to the United States of America as a model of his vision of social order.

Theonomic Reconstructionists

So much for Kuyper. We turn now to a second modification of Protesant thought–the theonomic Reconstructionists. Reconstructionists include men like Rousas Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North. Like the Kuyperians, the Reconstructionists sought to finish the Reformation. Building on the epistemology of Cornelius Van Till, the Reconstructionists were highly suspicious of dualisms (especially the dualism of nature and grace) and regarded the presence of such dualisms among the Reformers as a holdover from medieval Catholicism. Classic Protestantism had not sufficiently detoxed from Aquinas and Aristotle. This was especially true in relation to natural or general revelation. While the Recons certainly acknowledged the existence of general revelation, following Van Til, they regarded it as effectively useless apart from Scripture, due to man’s radical depravity. Because of man’s truth-suppressing rebellion, there’s no use consulting natural revelation and natural law; instead we ought to consult Scripture.

When they did, they found that the classic Reformed approach to the Mosaic law was suspect; it didn’t seem to track with the biblical text itself. According to Rushdoony, “It is a serious error to say that the civil law was also abolished, but the moral law retained. At most points, they cannot be distinguished” (Institutes of Biblical Law, 304). The basic posture toward the Old Testament was this: the Old Testament continued in force except in those places where the New Testament explicitly abrogated it. As Bahnsen wrote, “Our attitude must be that all Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made…. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity” (By What Standard?, 3). So the ceremonies and sacrificial system are no longer in force (because the New Testament tells us so), but the Old Testament civil laws (including its punishments) continue to be relevant and binding as God’s ideal way of governing societies. In fact, this is why God has given us the Old Testament law–it shows us the ideal way that societies should be ordered. 

Many of the theonomists appreciated the Kuyperian emphasis on cultural transformation and even the notion of distinct spheres (the theonomists had a strong libertarian streak that insisted on a small and limited government that did not encroach on the authority of the church or the family). However, they rejected any notion of neutrality when it comes to the state, and, because of their emphasis on Scripture (over natural revelation), they sought to ground all institutions in the Lordship of Christ. The state should acknowledge Christ and govern accordingly, including instituting punishments for blasphemy and heresy along the lines of the Mosaic law. What’s more, given that theonomists tended to be postmillennial, they saw the establishment of Christ’s Lordship in every sphere (including the state) as a fulfillment of the Great Commission and thus the duty of every Christian. 

To summarize everything to this point, both the Dutch Kuyperians and the American theonomists broke from classic Protestant political thought, but in different ways. The Kuyperians used sphere sovereignty and a sharp distinction between natural knowledge and revealed knowledge of God to essentially create an almost neutral secular public space and state founded on generic theism while still insisting on Christian transformation of every other area of life. The theonomists rejected dualisms (like nature and grace) and with a more radical view of man’s sinfulness, sought to build every aspect of society on the Scriptures, while rejecting classic Protestant distinctions when it comes to the Mosaic law and the abiding validity of the civil code. But again, let me stress–both were self-conscious departures from classic Protestant thought. They both sought to finish the Reformation by bringing Protestant political thought in line with their understanding of Protestant theological principles.

Reformed Two Kingdoms

Our third group–Reformed Two Kingdoms (R2K) should be seen as a reaction to the previous two camps. R2K theology is largely rooted in Westminster Seminary in California and has been propounded by David VanDrunen, Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, and others.⁵ It billed itself as a recovery of the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms over against Kuyperian transformationalists and theonomic Reconstructionists. However, in seeking to recover the political thought of the Reformers, R2K made its own innovations and modifications. 

For example, R2K emphasized the distinction between natural law and Scripture, arguing for a common kingdom (governed according to natural law) and a redemptive kingdom (governed by Scripture). In the church age, these two kingdoms correspond roughly to the church and the state or civil society. Drawing on the novel biblical theology of Meredith Kline, VanDrunen and others placed considerable weight on the covenant with Noah as the establishment of the common kingdom, in contrast to the redemptive covenant with Abraham.⁶ Whereas the Kuyperians built a semi-neutral public square via sphere sovereignty, R2K accomplished something similar with the common vs. redemptive kingdom distinction, but without the Kuyperian transformationalism in education, arts, business, and culture. Thus, R2K and Kuyperians are at odds over whether there is a Christian way to pursue one’s vocation, but are aligned when it comes to a neutral state. 

What’s more, while R2K advocates sought to recover the tripartite division of the law in order to resist the theonomic imposition of the Mosaic civil code, they frequently advocated for a “thin” version of the natural and moral law, placing a major division between the law’s two tables. God’s covenant with Noah explicitly mentions earthly penalties meted out by human authorities for murder. R2K advocates therefore argue that human governments can punish crimes as defined by the second table of the law (horizontal justice), but not the first. The state should not seek to promote obedience to the first table of the law, or punish disobedience to it as a matter of theological principle; it’s not authorized or competent to do so. This follows from their emphasis on the Noahic covenant as the foundation and model for governments in the church age, as opposed to Israel. Israel was unique and unrepeatable, and thus, modern nations should not seek to emulate Israel’s political structures and laws. To put it another way, like the Kuyperians, R2K creates a secular and neutral space, but using a different means (the Noahic covenant) which avoids the Kuyperian transformationalism that they also rejected.

Baptists

Finally, let’s talk about Baptists. Since the 17th century, Baptists have been dissenters and separatists within Christendom. In the face of nominalism within Christian countries, Baptists are basicaly the “But you have to mean it” Christians. At various times, Baptists were persecuted by other Christians as disruptors of the peace and a threat to social order. In unpacking Baptist political thought, I’m thinking of contemporary representatives like Jonathan Leeman and Paul Miller.⁷ 

The hallmarks of Baptist political thought are regenerate church membership and an expanded notion of freedom of conscience which entails religious liberty for all and a sharp separation of church and state. Because of the emphasis on regenerate church membership, many Baptists argue that you can’t call any institution Christian except the church, because no other institution is made up solely of regenerate Christians. So, no Christian nations or states (though they sometimes make exceptions for Christian schools and Christian families). 

But in a number of ways, Baptists are similar to our three other variations. While they are often most distinct from theonomists, like theonomists, they tend to put a heavy emphasis on Scripture over against natural law. For example, Baptists will frequently highlight the need for explicit biblical authorization for the family, the church, or the state to do something. Without that explicit biblical authorization, that institution is prohibited from engaging in certain activities. At the same time, some Baptists, like Andrew Walker, are attempting to recover a more robust view of natural law.⁸ Additionally, for Baptists, we do not look to Israel as a model for modern nations; instead theocratic Israel is fulfilled in the church, with excommunication replacing capital punishment. 

Baptists often have a deep appreciation for Kuyper. Both groups view the ideal political arrangement as “a free church in a free state.” Kuyper wrote, “Our supreme maxim, sacred and incontestable, reads as follows: as soon as a subject appeals to his conscience, government shall step back out of respect for what is holy. Then it will never coerce” (Our Program, 73). Absolute respect for all freedom of conscience. Baptists could not agree more. In both cases, the ideal is a kind of generic theistic state (what some Baptists call “civic theism”) staffed by sincere and conscientious Christians who seek to influence society, but who refuse to formally establish their religious views in law and policy. 

Finally, modern Baptists frequently borrow from Reformed Two Kingdoms thinkers, especially David VanDrunen. In particular, modern Baptists like Leeman and Miller employ the distinction between a common and redemptive kingdom, rooted in the universal covenant with Noah, accompanied by a thin version of natural law, one which limits the state to enforcing the second table, and absolutely prohibits the state from any acknowledgement of Christ or promotion of obedience to the first table of the law. 

(Now I should note that there are a minority of Baptist thinkers who embrace a more robust role for Christianity in the state and would commend a Baptist version of classic Protestant political thought. Before becoming a Presbyterian, I argued for a magisterial Baptist perspective, as a variation on classic Protestant political thought. Baptist theologian John Gill might be regarded as a progenitor of this perspective). 

Strange Bedfellows

I hope this sketch clarifies some of the strange and shifting alignments that occur in modern discussions of political philosophy among Reformed Christians. Kuyperians and R2K agree on sharply distinguishing the church and state (common and redemptive kingdoms), but the different pathways to that distinction is why Kuyperians aim at cultural transformation and R2K doesn’t. Both of them also end up effectively arguing for a neutral and secular public square. R2K and Baptists are aligned on the importance of Noah in establishing the common kingdom and in a thin view of natural law. In fact, in my judgment R2K is simply Baptist political thought with wet baby dedications. Theonomists align with Kuyperians in their insistence on “every square inch,” but part ways over the question of how nature and Scripture inform our efforts. The classic Protestant view overlaps with theonomy in a number of respects (the relevance of OT Israel, the permissibility of enforcing the first table), but disagree about nature and grace, and how to relate natural law and Scripture, and how to approach the OT law itself. 

And of course, many people are a mash-up of influences. That’s how you end up with Kuyperian, general equity theonomists like Doug Wilson. Kuyperian, general equity theonomists typically combine Kuyperian sphere sovereignty with a more robust biblicism. The sphere sovereignty undergirds the libertarian impulse among them–every institution, and especially the state, should stay in its lane (it’s also why theonomists tend to have a deep appreciation for Austrian economics). At the same time, like the older reconstructionists, they don’t limit the state to natural law; instead they expect all institutions to acknowledge the living God and the Lordship of Christ and to seek to obey him. The state should wield the sword in explicit obedience to Christ. The result is that general equity thenonomy is essentially a more biblicist version of classic magisterial two kingdoms theology, modified by a VanTillian skepticism about natural law, Aquinas, and Aristotle, a concern that the call for prudence easily becomes a masquerade for rebellion, an appreciation for the Kuyperian impulse to exalt Christ over every square inch as well as the hard boundaries established by sphere sovereignty. 

Comments and Criticism

Thus far, I’ve sought to describe the positions in a way that their proponents would accept. But I want to close with some critical interaction. To begin, it’s worth highlighting that three of the variations (Kuyper, Theonomy, and Baptist thought) are all self-conscious attempts to “finish the Reformation.” The fourth (R2K) is a reaction to these other views that seeks to “recover the Reformation.” The problem is that R2K gets the Reformers wrong; VanDrunen’s view is not Calvin’s or Althusius’s, a fact implicitly acknowledged by the frequency with which  Calvin and other early Protestants are regarded as “inconsistent” in their application of the their supposed R2K principles. In my judgment, it’s more accurate to say that R2K thinkers have simply misunderstood or modified the principles. 

Second, it seems to me that the four variations are often conclusions in search of a rationale. In other words, three of them seem to be searching for ways to buttress the modern political order with biblical and theological justification. Another way to put this is that Kuyperianism, R2K, and contemporary Baptist thought seem to be accomodationist. That is, Kuyper was seeking to adapt Reformed political thought to the growing secularism of Holland in his day, just as R2K and Baptist thought are adaptations to the post-war American civic order.

Third, this raises the issue of the ideal polity. Each of the variations implicitly (if not explicitly) puts forward an ideal form of government. For Kuyper, R2K, and Baptists, America in the 20th century seems to approach the ideal–democratic, with a sharp separation of church and state, no religious establishment, and an expansive definition of religious liberty. The theonomists, on the other hand, regard Old Testament Israel as the ideal polity. This contrasts with classic Protestant political thought which has fixed principles capable of wise application in a variety of contexts. 

This brings me to my major criticisms of each view. My major criticism of theonomy is its skepticism of natural law, the flattening of its approach to the biblical law, and the corresponding absence of prudence and wisdom in application. Put simply, it’s too narrow. By rejecting or minimizing the tripartite analysis of the Mosaic law, it fails to recognize that Israel’s polity itself included both universal principles, as well as divinely inspired applications that suited Israel’s circumstances, but may not suit all circumstances. This makes theonomy a narrower political philosophy than classic Protestantism.⁹

My major criticisms of Kuyperianism, R2K, and Baptist thought all run along the same lines. They artificially separate the two tables of the law, and unnecessarily restrict the state’s role in promoting obedience to the first table. In doing so, they end up arguing that the state is the one institution that honors Christ by refusing to name and acknowledge him. In fact, they argue that for the state to acknowledge Christ as Lord of heaven and earth is to dishonor and disobey him. In doing so, they effectively create a neutral public square that is unsustainable. The second table of the law cannot stand without the first.¹⁰

As a result, their expansive definition of religious liberty leaves them defenseless against all manner of secular folly and wickedness. All religions must be equally protected and promoted (whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Satanism). It’s wrong for the state to privilege Christianity, whether through religious tests for office or Christian religious displays that exclude other religions. In some cases, proponents even argue that drag queen story hour in public libraries is the price we pay for religious liberty. This shows that, having separated the second table from the first, even the second table withers. How many proponents of R2K or Baptist thought would advocate for laws criminalizing adultery, sodomy, and pornography, on the grounds that the seventh commandment exists to protect marriage? In my experience, it’s very few. To put it more crassly, if your understanding of natural law can’t tell the difference between men and women and can’t determine that the anus is not a sex organ, then quite frankly, your version of natural law is worthless.

So in conclusion, let me again commend classic Protestant political thought as the most faithful and biblical way of approaching the questions that vex us. One of its chief benefits is the combination of fixed biblical principle and room for prudence and wisdom in application. It doesn’t propose a single ideal polity for all times and places, but instead, rooted in both nature and Scripture, it offers a foundation for wisely navigating the shifting and confusing sands of history. 

---

Image Credit: Unsplash

Share This