Practical Uses of State Power to Protect the Church
In the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1788) civil magistrates are called “nursing fathers,” given the duty by God “to protect the church of our common Lord” (23.3). The phrase “nursing fathers,” which comes from Isaiah 49:23, was not found in the original Confession written in 1647, though it has a long history in Protestant and early American political thought. The phrase had come to be a shorthand way of explaining the civil magistrate’s responsibility to protect the church from harm and to be broadly supportive of the church’s mission in the world without meddling in the church’s internal governance. Isaiah’s striking juxtaposition of fathers and nursing was understood to clarify the posture the civil magistrate should take toward the church: paternal strength and protection combined with maternal care and love. Even though the American version of the Westminster Confession toned down the state’s mandate regarding the church, specifically with regard to preserving true doctrine and worship, it did not take this mean that the state had no significant duties toward the church. The state is, in fact, “to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (23.2).
What might this look like today? There are many examples that could be listed, from tax breaks for pastors and churches, to security for church buildings, to ensuring that there is no restriction on the public proclamation of the gospel. This week at the seminary where I teach I heard of an example of just how important is the last of these examples. A Christian pastor and his wife in India were beaten up for preaching the gospel in public. When the police intervened they arrested—not anyone from the violent crowd—but the pastor and his wife, for violating an anti-proselytizing law.
I’ve been struck with how successful President Trump’s tariff threats have been in a variety of cases. Mexico, for example, in response to a promised tariff, agreed to send 10,000 soldiers to the U.S. border to help stem the tide of illegal border crossings. I recognize that the civil magistrate’s responsibility is primarily for the people of his own country, and I don’t find it wise for America to play the role of the world’s policeman, but a tariff threat against a nation with laws banning the proclamation of the gospel could indeed be an excellent way in which our President could fulfill his duty as a nursing father to the church in the broadest sense. It might not even require that level of intervention. Perhaps simply a pointed conversation with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi would be sufficient. Most nations, such as India, desire to be on good terms with the President and America. Undoubtedly, they see their anti-proselytizing laws as preserving the religious culture of their nation. Nonetheless, no law preventing the proclamation of the gospel can be just.
In the end, the most relevant application of the nursing fathers concept is likely closer to home. President Trump has recently pardoned many pro-life protestors who were jailed (with quite extreme sentencing) simply for protesting in front of abortion clinics. The President was absolutely right to do so, and one can hope that his recently constituted task force on anti-Christian bias will continue to do good work in this area, that it will, as the Westminster Confession says, “protect the church of our common Lord . . . in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. ”
Image Credit: Unsplash
Sincere open invitation. What threat of violence do Christian religious organizations face in the United States? And furthermore, what general danger do they face?
I understand frustrations that the larger culture no longer adheres to the aesthetic and (ostensibly) ethical values this website clings to, but that is not the same as danger, and certainly not violence. I can see an argument for greater cultural religious freedom, but I’d hope that is championed universally and not for one’s specific breed of Christian expression.
This column noted that Christian protest against abortion resulted in trial and heavy sentencing of these pro-life fundamentalists (for what – political? religious? crime?) in what had been understood to be the free republic of the United States of America. Strictly speaking, that wasn’t violence. I’m sure the officers of the law, guns holstered, acting under authority not in contravention of the United States Constitution did their best to be gentle and caring, and the judge was very grave and courteous.. No violence in sight, except perhaps to the letter and spirit of the law. It took a national election and a presidential pardon to contravene the previous regime’s “justice” and do justice as it is properly understood.
Things are a little further along in my country (Canada) where more than a hundred churches and synagogues have been vandalised, shot up or burned to the ground, with the authorities achieving limited success in bringing those responsible to justice. Authorities have instead conveyed that such actions are “understandable”.
I think you’d agree that was a bad thing, and the the President’s intervention in the US was a good thing. Not selective, as he has pardoned other parties, but generally, in the interest of justice. Not doing so may have sent a signal to anti Christian (and anti Jewish) fundamentalists that it is open season on the opposition. They don’t need much encouragement.
So I looked into the anti-abortion protesters. They were arrested and charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act. The act came into legislature in the 90s to combat obstructions (everything from blockades to violence) of abortion clinics that were becoming increasingly common at the time. From what I can find, the anti-abortion protesters who were convicted were found to have formed a physical blockade preventing patients and doctors from entering the clinic, something clearly prohibited by the FACE act. This was not an attack against protesting outside abortion clinics (which is still allowed), it was penalizing behavior that has been federally deemed as criminal for almost 30 years. Applying Romans 13:2 in the same way as many have used it upon this site suggests that these protesters were, “rebelling against what God has instituted” by, “[rebelling] against the authority”.
Regarding larger religious targeted violence, I cannot speak for Canada, I have not looked into, perhaps there are significant anti-Christian hate crimes there. In the US, however, there is little data to suggest widespread Christian targeted violence (at least when compared to other groups). By pure total numbers, they seem to be the second most common victims of religious hate crimes (by my quick analysis, Jewish 5700, Christian 1400, Muslim 900 past five years) but when factoring in total population numbers, the incidents per capita become 5700/7.5 mil =~ 1 per 1300 (Jewish), 1400/220 mil =~ 1 per 160,000 (Christian), and 900/4.5 mil =~ 1 per 4900 (Muslim). Per https://hatecrime.osce.org/, in the year 2023 hate crimes against the LGBT community accounted for 2900 incidents, compared to 290 crimes against Christians.
Sure, there is no inherent problem with an Anti-Christian bias organization (with the exception that its own existence tends to exaggerate the effect of Christian targeted hate crimes/injustice), but it better exist alongside other protection groups that are in far more immediate need of a protective magistrate.
Romans 13 prescribes obedience to a civil authority that is subservient to God, which I would argue the US government, at least under Biden, wasn’t, particularly in the areas of social engineering, of which abortion is the preeminent example. What’s a Christian to do faced with such an abomination? Vigorous protest was an option, surely, especially when one considers the precedent set by pro choice activists who firebombed and vandalized hundreds of pro-life churches and pregnancy centers, as noted by the Thomas More Society lawyers who drafted the petition for pardon. Said activists were almost entirely ignored by the Biden administration. A civil civil authority would not indulge in two tier justice.
Ah yes, Paul is writing to the church in Rome, who were under the jurisdiction of the Roman government, famous for its subservience to YHWH, and strong on its anti abortion (or perhaps the contemporary practice of infant expositio/exposure I.e. post birth infanticide) policies.
Wait, that doesn’t quite sound right…
Im fine standing against two tiered justice, and I’ll need to look if the claims of anyone violating the FACE act for conservative facilities exist as you suggest (I hope those lawyers provide proof) and would be an example of Christian bias. However, that itself is neither justification to break the law, and should perhaps be included in the presidents pardoning statement, to my knowledge those details were not.
Is Trump a nursing father or a wannabe Putin impersonator who throws out enough bones to the Church in order to secure its loyalty?