In this article Dr. R. Scott Clark hyperventilates about the dangers of Constantinism. (It is interesting that the term “Constantinian Shift” was popularized by the anabaptist Theologian, Dr. John H. Yoder, and that many of his complaints against Constantinism are the same complaints that are raised by R2K advocates.)
Now Constantinism is the process by which Christianity became the Roman Empire’s official religion in the 4th century. Dr. R. S. Clark (RSC) believes that Constantinism is a bad thing and goes on from there to advocate for a social order setting where no religion has primacy for our social order. What RSC desires is religious pluralism.
Of course if RSC achieved the pure religious pluralism he desires at that very point there would be a non Christian Constantinianism that would be in place. You see, Constantinianism is an inescapable category. It is not possible to have a social order that is not reflective of some prior religious commitment. It is not possible to have a social order that is not serving some God, gods, or god concept. RSC’s desire for religious pluralism finds him championing for a State that would serve as God, with the god-like authority to dictate to the other gods how far they can go in the public square. RSC’s god (the State) will not allow any other God to displace its authority in the public square.
Right now the name of the god in Charge, were we to put a name on this god, is “Demos.” The people are God and the voice of the people is the voice of God. The State makes Demos’ will known and Demos controls all the other gods in the public square dictating to them how far they can and can not go.
I affirm that a people can have a Government that is not controlled by any one denomination but I note that the nature of reality does not allow one to have a Government that is a-religious and that is not controlled by some god or God concept.
RSC thinks we live in Pluralism. Does anyone agree with that? Isn’t it past obvious that multiculturalism and multi-creedalism and pluralism is a mono-cultural and mono-creedal expression that confesses that the only gods are welcome in the public square are the gods who know their place before the Unitarian God-State? All this multiculturalism, multi-creedalism and religious pluralism is giving us a new mono-culture that we will all be forced to subscribe to or else we will be put in the closet or worse. Does a Christian insist that the God of the Bible should be the God who rules over the public square? Well, then the R2K god of religious pluralism must shut the God of the Bible down so that all the Gods can bow before the rule and sway of the R2K god.
Scott and the other Enlightenment Democratic R2K’ers can not be allowed to get away with the argument that something called pluralism exists. It doesn’t. We are living through times that prove that Pluralism is a myth. Are you a Christian who owns a bakery or a florist shop and you do not want to service sodomite customers? Then the R2K god of religious pluralism must teach the God of the Bible that He has to make room for the god of the sodomites.
http://gawker.com/gay-couple-files-discrimination-complaint-against-color-511814443
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/04/florist_fights_lawsuit_for_refusing_gay_wedding
Hard pluralism, which RSC thumps for, is a myth and has been used as a cover and invoked for nearly the entire 20th century as a smokescreen to overturn a increasingly receding Christian social order in favor of a pagan social order that by means of and in the name of pluralism has successfully accomplished their long march through the Institutions.
Soft religious pluralism worked here as long as it did because even though the colonialists were people of many assorted denominations there existed a sweet spot among them where they could all find guarded agreement. That sweet spot was the fact that they all were generically Christian. R2K is trying to recreate that anabaptist vision (go read your Roger Williams). The Enlightenment vision, the anabaptist vision, and the R2K vision for social order have great overlap.
The venerable Dr. G. I. Williamson underscored this thinking recently in a comment he left at Dr. Nelson Kloosterman’s blog,
“Since the American experiment in the political sphere both Reformed and Presbyterian bodies have modified their historic Confessions (Belgic Art. 36 & WCF Ch. 33). I could be wrong, but I think the dazzling success of the U.S. in earlier history was the catalyst for these Confessional Changes. And the longer I’ve lived the more I’ve been driven to wonder if we did not err in making this shift as great as it has been. The Reformation itself was promoted (one could even say ‘made possible, humanly speaking’) by the actions of favorable Civil Government. The Synod of Dordt and the Westminster Assembly were both brought into existence by (or at least with the cooperation of) civil rulers. Even then there was a care to see to it that these civil rulers kept their hands off the word, sacraments and discipline, but, at the same time, they were told (by the Reformed churches) that they had a duty to God (the true God) and his church. And I find it difficult to see why it was necessary to reduce the right of the church to tell them what their duty is, or of their sacred duty to protect and even promote the honor of the name which is above every name. Furthermore, even in the OPC/RCNZ version of the WCF we still say the magistrate is “under him [the true God, and] for his glory and the public good.” Well, now, who is to define these terms? Is it good to approve of the homosexual lifestyle? The WCF further says “they [civil rulers, that is] ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace” – well, how on earth can they do that if they are not helped to understand what these words mean? The problem is, of course, that the revision of 23:3 seems to me to open the door to complete pluralism.
It worked well when Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians etc., all had a lot in common. But just look at the chaos now!
I have been strongly influenced by two fine studies by Dr. Gary North, in which he shows (1) that 12 of the original 13 colonies that became the USA originally required those who would serve in civil office to acknowledge the triune God; (2) that this was discarded at and by (in the secret meetings of) the Continental Congress, because of the strong influence of the Free Masons (one of which was none other than George Washington himself); and (3) the result was a Constitution which – at best – is Deistic, and in principle paving the way for the present total pluralistic chaos. [I urge you to read Dr. North’s book entitled ‘Political Polytheism.’] For nearly 200 years the USA still ‘looked like’ – and in many respects was – a Christian Nation. Why? Because there was a strong Bible believing presence – Protestant Churches that preached and (by discipline) enforced the Word of God. But when that began to crumble (big time about of my birth in 1925) there was nothing to hold back or restrain the inherent wickedness of the Adamic nature. So the question is: What are we to do now? And it seems to me that there is only one possible answer. We must speak. We must say to all men of our generation – high or low, small or great – that the day of judgment is coming, and that what they are doing is wrong and that those who have served as civil rulers will one day be judged by the Lord Jesus Christ who is – whether they like it or not – the King of kings and Lord of lords…”
We can not go back to the Pluralism of Colonial America. That magic lamp has been busted by the influx of Rapacious Humanists, Muslims, and “Secular” Jews and that pluralism — the pluralism of the Enlightenment project — lies shattered in the nation’s past.
Elsewhere in RSC’s article RSC complains about those who, “want to go back to Constantinianism, the arrangement whereby the magistrate establishes a state church and enforces Christian orthodoxy.”
In response to this let us note,
1.) One does not have to support Establishmentarianism in order to believe that the magistrate has a responsibility to rule in keeping with God’s revelation. The legislating of law does not necessitate the creation of a State Church.
2.) RSC is opposed to the magistrate enforcing Christian law. As that is so, what law would RSC have the magistrate enforce? Is there an law from nowhere that can be successfully enforced? What now of your Van Tillian “no neutrality” RSC? Is it possible to have law that is not reflective of some God or god concept? If not law reflective of the mind of God then law reflective of what other god’s mind?
RSC, in his article, writes, “As modernity leavened the culture, Christianity was gradually displaced as the reigning paradigm.” I agree but what RSC doesn’t ask is, “as Christianity was gradually displaced as the reigning paradigm what new religion replaced Christianity as the reigning paradigm?” Remember, Van Til does not allow us to answer that it was replaced by “neutrality.” Some other religion replaced Christianity as the reigning paradigm and that religion and the god of that religion became the source of law.
RSC presses on in his article by citing Kuyper on the dangers of Constantinianism because it often returns upon the heads of the non-heretics. The problem with that “insight” is that RSC misses that his current religious pluralism has its own version of “heretic” that it murders by the millions. The heretics of RSC’s religious pluralism are called “unborn babies.”
Elsewhere in his article RSC waves the bloody shirt of religious wars. I would recommend to RSC, as a corrective on this point, William T. Cavanaugh’s “The Myth of Religious Violence.” Cavanaugh goes to great lengths to expose how religion has been blamed for bloodshed by the modern Enlightenment State that desires to keep itself in the ascendancy in order to keep religion at bay. RSC’s invoking of this myth ends up supporting the true god of his R2K … the modern State. (I highly recommend reading Cavanaugh’s book.)
RSC then invokes a argument from silence in the NT to prove that Constantinianism is wrong. I wonder how RSC reacts when Baptist invoke the argument from silence in the NT to prove that babies should not be baptized? There is also no words in the NT prohibiting necrophilia. Does RSC believe that necrophilia as such is acceptable today? Then there is always Belgic Confession #36 that does say that the Magistrate has a role in promoting the Kingdom of God. RSC is always chattering about recovering the Reformed Confessions. Maybe he would like to recover Belgic #36? To suggest that the NT must repeat OT truths or else the silence proves the OT truths are no longer truths is a strange way for a putatively Reformed person (and Doctor of the Church to boot) to argue.
RSC then, in his article fretting over the Constantinians, invokes Calvin in support of his position. Well, let’s see what Calvin had to say about these matters,
The French Confession
XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.
1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2
And again,
“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”
Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542
RSC, is just wrong. Dreadfully, painfully, and perspicuously wrong.
But we’ve come to expect that from R2K.
“If Scripture did not teach that [the office of magistrate] extends to both Tables of the Law, we could learn this from secular writers: for no one has discussed the office of magistrates, the making of laws, and public welfare, without beginning at religion and divine worship. And thus all have confessed that no government can be happily established unless piety is the first concern; and that those laws are preposterous which neglect God’s right and provide only for men. Since, therefore, among all philosophers religion takes first place, and since this fact has always been observed by universal consent of all nations, let Christian princes and magistrates be ashamed of their negligence if they do not apply themselves to this concern. And we have already shown that these duties are especially enjoined upon them by God; and it is fitting that they should labor to protect and assert the honor of him whose representatives they are, and by whose grace they govern.
“Also, holy kings are greatly praised in Scripture because they restored the worship of God when it was corrupted or destroyed, or took care of religion that under them it might flourish pure and unblemished…
“This proves the folly of those who would neglect the concern for God and would give attention only to rendering justice among men. As if God appointed rulers in his name to decide earthly controversies but overlooked what was of far greater importance — that he himself should be purely worshiped according to the prescription of his law. But the passion to alter everything with impunity drives turbulent men to the point of wanting all vindicators of violated piety removed from their midst.”
— John Calvin, Institutes, Bk IV, Ch. 20, section 9
And here we have it, Calvin calls R2k “preposterous… folly” and ascribes such ideas to the “passions” of “turbulent men”.
If I recall correctly, Calvin’s point in the passage cited by RSC was to say that a Christian’s liberty of conscience was a liberty from extraneous religious impositions with respect to the things necessary for salvation. He was careful to point out that such liberty did not translate into civil anarchy. Hence his “two spheres”.
Very exacting article. I hope, but am not holding my breath, that Dr Clark’s readers would read this and understand what exactly is being misrepresented in Dr Clark’s writings…
I too have noticed that he often pulls the Constantinian flag… Where in theonomy has it ever been stated that the theonomic doctrine supports a merging of church and state and the creation of a state church? There is none, in fact, the opposite.
It is disappointing that Dr Clark, as knowledgeable as he is in certain areas, constantly misrepresents theonomy as being Constantinian, as being logically connected to FV, thinking that theonomy is attempting to “Israelize” North America and a whole host of other things.
Thank you for the post!
“Are you a Christian who owns a bakery or a florist shop and you do not want to service sodomite customers? Then the R2K god of religious pluralism must teach the God of the Bible that He has to make room for the god of the sodomites.” I would add to that ‘Printer’. Are you a Printer who refuses to print material for sodomite customers who want to promote their sodomite agenda and lifestyle? Does your church refuse to rent out its facilities to Sodomite (same sex) marriages? We can apply this scenario to just about all kinds of services and businesses that are operated, performed or owned by Christians of Biblical convictions.