Author: jetbrane

Recently one of the readers of this blog brought the following article to my attention and suggested that I should comment on this article. The article can be located at http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=318

The person who wrote this article for the OPC question and answer format is anonymous.

Will the OPC Endorse a Particular Presidential Candidate?

Question:

Will the OPC endorse a particular candidate for President of the United States? Have individual OP congregations endorsed particular candidates?

Answer:

Greetings in Jesus Christ our Lord and only Savior.

Regarding the first question, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does not endorse candidates for public office and that for at least three reasons. In what follows, nothing is to be construed as in any way limiting the responsibility of Christians—pastors and congregants—to be good citizens, from supporting their choice of candidate, and from voting according to their conscience. The only application is to the Church as a body, speaking representatively through its leadership, session, presbytery, and general assembly.

1.) I’m don’t think it is necessary for denominations or congregations to endorse particular candidates. Such a move would never be necessary as long as denominations and Churches were speaking the revealed mind of God on the issues which the Scripture explicitly speak. For example, in this election cycle there would not be any need to tell people not to vote for John McCain or Barack Hussein Obama if God’s people were taught well on the first commandment, sixth commandment, and eighth commandment to name only a few.

2.)This takes us to the issue where it is said that people should not be kept “from supporting their choice of candidate, and from voting according to their conscience.” Well certainly people shouldn’t be kept from supporting their choice of candidate and from voting according to their conscience so long as their choice of candidate and their vote cast according to their conscience aren’t pursuing an agenda that is set in utter contrast to the explicit teaching of Scripture. While the Church may not explicitly say, “y’all go out and vote for (fill in the blank)” it should be able to explicitly speak to issues that Scripture speaks to and then conclude by saying…”It would be Biblically wrong to support candidates who care not for what God’s Word reveals.”

3.) Note that the idea above is that individual Christians can support who they will but the Church as the Church is restricted on what it can say except in a very circumscribed way. This communicates that God is agnostic about candidates who desire to rule in a way contrary to his revealed word. The Church ought to be able to flatly say, “since God’s Word prohibits Murder it would be sin to vote for the lead Donkey, or, since God’s Word prohibits theft it would be sin to vote for the lead Elephant.

Note also that this latter statement is not to be construed as limiting the judicatories of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from responding to political issues, e.g., the OPC has taken a position regarding Abortion and Women in the Military. These issues, however, focus on ethics rather than politics. Speaking out on issues like these may be construed as the Church fulfilling its prophetic purpose.

First, this part of the OPC answer is a bit confusing. On one hand the writer says that the judicatories of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are not to be limited from responding to political issues but on the other hand the writer seems to suggest that the judicatories of the OPC are better served to focus on ethic rather than politics. This sounds like a creeping contradiction.

Further, it seems inconsistent to say that the Church judicatories can speak to particular ethical issues that are front and center in the political realm but it can’t speak officially, as the Church, on candidates who embrace those issues that the Church has prophetically condemned. Maybe the Church as the Church doesn’t want to officially endorse any one candidate but it seems that it should be able to officially speak as to who absolutely isn’t endorsed due to certain candidates embracing positions that the Church has officially prophetically spoken against.

By the way if the Church judicatories of the OPC were to take its own prophetic pronouncements on abortion and Women in the military seriously they would come out and explicitly say as the Church, “We must recommend, in light of God’s explicit teaching on abortion and Women in the military, that our people not vote for the lead Donkey or the lead Elephant. A refusal to do that reveals how shallow the OPC’s prophetic pronouncements really are.

Therefore, this response is directed narrowly to the specific question: Will the OPC endorse a particular candidate for President of the United States? The following attempts to explain why not.

First, the Church’s purpose suggests that she not be side-tracked into the political arena. Christ calls the church to proclaim the gospel to the entire world (Mark 14:9; Acts 1:8). The gospel proclaims that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23), which leaves people dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1f). The only way that any person can have the enmity between himself and God removed is through the finished work of Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 5:1f).

The Church applying God’s word to the political arena does not make for a ‘side-tracked’ church anymore then prophetically applying God’s word in the ethical arena makes for a side-tracked church. When the Church does speak to the political arena she should speak salvifically. Any prophetic voice into that realm should be finished by reminding those in the Political realm that not only should they repent of their sinful agenda but they should embrace Christ who alone can save them from their sins. In short speaking into the political arena doesn’t mean that we quit speaking the Gospel of the Christ who offers Himself as the salvation of the World.

To complain about getting side tracked by speaking to the political realm just sounds like a clever way to avoid speaking to one place that desperately needs the Gospel proclaimed in all of its saving authority.

The church’s purpose or goal is realized in its practices. These practices are expressed in the liturgy of the church as she gathers together to worship. For example, God’s call to worship instructs the people of God to be hospitable and welcome all who come. This hospitality includes, but is not limited to, time in worship; it extends to individual homes.

I’m not sure what the point here is unless it is to subtly suggest that we don’t want to bring up issues that will keep people from visiting our hospitable Churches. Is the point here that we should welcome all who come including those who vote for baby murderers and people who vote for our women to be in foxholes? Now certainly, we we do want to welcome all people but not at the price of suggesting that God welcomes people into His Kingdom who will not repent of disobedience.

The church’s confession instructs the congregation in another allegiance. We are not a nation under God. Rather we are a citizenship of heaven gathered together to glorify and enjoy the Triune God. Our confession of sin calls us to reconciliation and peace by confessing our own sins and seeking forgiveness for our wrongs. God’s kingdom, His politic is what is being gathered together for the practices of that kingdom. The state politic has none of this in mind.

It is true that our citizenship is in heaven but it is also true that we are to be salt and light in this world. Salt is a preservative and the Church refuse to do its job as salt what good is it except to be cast out and trodden upon? The quote above sounds as if the Kingdom of God is restricted to the Holy Huddle that occurs on Sunday in Worship. It is true that the state politic has none of what he speaks of above in mind and its also true that it never will as long as the Church doesn’t seek to take the aroma of the Gospel into the public sphere.

It is good for the church to gather under God’s politic to be reminded of our sin and of our reconciliation and forgiveness. It is good to be reminded that nothing can remove us from God’s Kingdom. But we would go on to say that it is good to be taught that we disburse from Worship with the purpose of making God’s Kingdom known so that it overcomes the Kingdoms of this World.

Therefore, to endorse a candidate for president and all that would involve would be to take the church’s attention off of the kingdom of which it is a part and put it on a kingdom that is passing away…

Again, the Church doesn’t have to endorse a candidate for president without having a word for God’s people during this election cycle.

Second, there seems to be an assumption here that God has no interest in seeing the public sphere come to know the fullness of His joy by being in league with Him. There seems to be an assumption that the World is an evil sphere that God has no interest in. Certainly the Church shouldn’t become a political institution but in order for it to be as Spiritual as it is called to be it must pronounce the Kingship of the Lord Jesus over every area of life.

Ee need to keep in mind that the Scriptures teach that the Kings are to “Kiss the Son lest He be angry and they perish in the way.”

Second, the authority to bind conscience is limited to the revealed Word of God. The Scripture calls all men to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Because God speaks in and through His Word, that Word is authoritative and people are conscience bound to submit to that Word. Granted, not all men do. However the Church, because it declares and proclaims God’s holy Word may command men to repent and believe. The authority is not ours; it is God’s speaking in and through His Word.

Yes, and all of that applies to the political realm. Even politicians are conscience bound to submit to the Word. Even politicians are called to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Even politicians must know that God’s Word is authoritative.

Second, while the authority to bind the conscience is limited to the revealed Word of God, the judicatories of the OPC has, in keeping with the Word of God, bound consciences of its people by speaking on abortion and women in the military. On that basis alone the OPC judicatories ought to be able to say, just on the basis of those two actions, that the lead Donkey and the lead Elephant cannot be voted for by Christian people.

The ground on which the Church can rightly speak is on the clear declaration of the Bible. The Bible does not command us to vote for any particular candidate; therefore, the Church can not declare any candidate to be “God’s choice” in an election.

Maybe it cannot declare any candidate to be “God’s choice” but it can declare which candidates are not “God’s choice.”

However, in any case, the conscience could not be bound by God’s Word, because God’s Word is not about the kingdom of this world but the kingdom of God.

If the OPC really believed this then they wouldn’t have spoken to abortion or women in military since those issues, by this reasoning, are about the kingdom of this world.

Again, not the dualism between God’s Kingdom and the kingdom of this world as if the age to come, which has already triumphed in Christ isn’t to overcome this present wicked age.

Third, the practice would lead to a disruption of the peace and unity of the church. It is unlikely that any particular church would agree to endorse a candidate for the office of president. To get an entire denomination to endorse a candidate is even further removed. Doing such would divide congregations and lead to church splits. Therefore, the peace and unity of the church would be disrupted, which is contrary to God’s holy Word. For a church to have divisions over that which the Bible teaches is regrettable enough, but at least the issue at stake is truth. However, to have the church divided over that which is not biblical is unconscionable.

Here is what I suspect is what is really behind all the rest of the smoke. This sounds like, “If we endorsed a candidate we would lose people. As such, we allow our people to vote for socialists, communists, Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, or Constitutionalists. They can vote for whoever they want because if we started speaking God’s mind on the issues then our attendance would suffer.” Hence, the peace and unity of the Church is pursued at the cost of God’s revealed Word. We don’t care if they vote for abortionist candidates (in violation of the sixth commandment), wealth redistributionist candidates (in violation of the eight commandment), or the divine state candidates (in violation of the first commandment) so long as they don’t leave our churches.

I hope that this has helped somewhat. The same question will evoke various responses from other respondents. However, many years ago, the OPC faced the question of involvement in the political process. Some people left our fellowship over this issue, but the Church has always been clear: we have not been called to the political arena of this world; we have, however, been called to the political arena of God’s kingdom.

Does the political arena of God’s Kingdom not overturn the political arenas of this world?

The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church

“We must now consider also what authority the civil government has with regard to the church. Such use of its authority we wholeheartedly uphold.

The duties of the government with regard to the church are threefold. It has 1) the power of protection, 2) the power to legislate concerning external circumstances, and 3) the power to subdue evil influences.

First, the civil government is empowered to protect the church. It must protect the church from all oppression from without and within, so that no one will disturb or prevent either the exercise of religion or the meetings of consistories, Classes, and Synods. It must preserve the freedoms and the spiritual privileges which Christ has given to the church, so that she may use and exercise them without impediment. It must remove all external obstacles which either could be detrimental to religion or impede the growth and well”“being of the church.It must do everything possible to promote religion so that the church may flourish under its protection and “œ?may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty?”� (?1 Tim. 2:2?). Such was the practice of the godly kings David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah””a fact which can generally be observed in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

Secondly, the civil government has power to legislate concerning external circumstances. As such it can maintain order as far as the external circumstances of public worship are concerned””such as the most suitable time for and place of worship, as well as that the welfare of the civil state be not impeded. It must also call ecclesiastical synods together, and see to it that other ecclesiastical assemblies are held, so that they in turn may promote the internal well”“being of the church.

Thirdly, the civil government has the power of control with regard to ecclesiastical matters. It must see to it that members of the clergy””ministers, elders, and deacons””discharge their duties and not be negligent in this regard, as well as that they adhere to the established church order which is according to God´s Word. It must publicly oppose those who by false doctrine and immorality trouble the church, or who by evil philosophies and opinions disturb the civil state as far as political matters are concerned. It must also prevent the continuation of such practices. It must exterminate false religions. It must promote the reformation of the church if she becomes entirely degenerate in doctrine and morals, and by the use of all political means imaginable restrain opponents and compel those who forsake religion to observe their duty, etc. In this manner Moses (Ex. 32), Asa (?2 Chr. 14?), Jehoshaphat (?2 Chr. 17?), Hezekiah (?2 Chr. 29?, ?30?), Josiah (?2 Chr. 34?), and Nehemiah (?Neh. 13:30?”“?31?) were engaged in the work of reformation. How blessed is the church and the civil state which functions in this way, and where the church and the civil government, each within their own sphere of influence, are faithful in the discharge of their tasks!

We thus observe that none ought to be of the opinion that the government is not to be involved in the church at all, ought not to be concerned about her, and ought merely to be the blind executor of whatever the church wishes her to carry out. There is a certain Jus majestatis circa sacra; that is, a rightful claim, power, or duty of civil governments with regard to that which is holy. The Belgic Confession speaks of this in Article 36:
[quoteAnd their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone, as He commands in His Word.

It is the duty of civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God´s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church, as the darling of the Lord Jesus, is protected and preserved; and that neither internal dissension nor any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.

The government must be engaged with regard to all these things, but not formaliter; that is, by intruding into the very essence of the matter at hand. It must do so objectively; that is, deeming her (the church) to be the object of its activity. Therefore we say that the civil government has authority with regard to the church, rather than in the church. Neither civil governments nor any other individual may exercise power in or over the church, for Jesus is her only King. The civil government has, however, an obligation with regard to the church. There is a significant difference between “œ?in?”� and “œ?with regard to.?”� A civil government has authority with regard to marriage, but no authority in the marriage; with regard to a household, but not within the household. It likewise has authority with regard to the church, but not in the church. We have thus shown what authority the civil government has with regard to the church, and what authority the elders have in the congregation.”

Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. II, pp. 178-179

Question:

Does the civil government exercise any authority at all with regard to the church?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church, but it does have authority with regard to the church.

We thus most strenuously oppose the Erastians and Arminians who posit all authority and government with the civil government, subordinating all ecclesiastical authority and government to the civil government, from which it is in turn delegated to the church. We have contradicted this notion in the foregoing and shall shortly do so again. We are likewise opposed to the view of the papists who remove all who belong to the church from governmental jurisdiction. At the same time, they maintain that the civil government may not render judgment at all in the realm of religion, and that the civil government must merely follow blindly and execute whatever the church has deemed and judged to be correct. We are also opposed to the view of the Libertines who insist that the government may not be involved with religion at all, but must permit every religion in its territory to proclaim whatever it wishes. We declare that the civil government does indeed have authority with regard to the church and is obligated to make use of this, which is a matter we subsequently shall demonstrate to be so.

Question:

What authority does the civil government not have?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church and may not rule over the church as lords and masters. Government officials may not act as if they are servants sent of Christ””in Christ´s Name preaching, administering the sacraments, using the keys of the kingdom of heaven, commissioning ministers, appointing elders in the church, and decreeing what or what will not be preached concerning divine truths, and what are or are not the fundamental points of the Christian religion. They also have no right to depose and expel ministers who are godly and blameless in doctrine and life, and who have been lawfully called as the ministers of given churches. They may not, as lord and master over the church, reject such men, declare the calling to be null and void, efface it, etc. The government has no authority relative to such ecclesiastical matters, for in doing so she would reach for the crown and scepter of the Lord Jesus, whose prerogative this is. Those governments who are not refrained by the many examples of divine judgment will pay a bitter price for such a practice.”

Wilhelmus A Brakel – (1635-1711)
The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. II, pp. 169-170

Note that A’Brakel desires to protect the Church from the State’s interference on what it is divinely commissioned to do. It’s not difficult to conjecture that the reason for this insistence that the State is limited in the Church when the Church is faithfully being what she is supposed to being is that A’Brakel understood that when the State tinkers in the Church when the Church is being what she is supposed to be that what the State is attempting at that moment of tinkereing is to change the religion of the people.

Second though the State isn’t to tinker in the Church when the Church is being what she is called to be the State still has responsibility to protect the one true religion. The Reformed Theologian A’Brakel calls them Libertines who suggest that the Magistrate must take a “hands off” posture when it comes to religion. A’Brakel sees all attempts at creating a civil realm where the State allows all religions to flourish as being LIBERTINE.

Perhaps A’Brakel understood that if the State can’t control the church through the front door by commissioning its pastors, appointing its elders, decreeing what and won’t be preached in the Church, or assigning the fundamental points of the Christian religion, the State will attempt to gain control of the Church through the back door by making the Church irrelevant to the people by allowing all religions to compete with the Christian religion. If the State successfully sets up a situation where all religions are competing then the State gets to be the referee over the various competing religions. Just as the States interests towards cultural hegemony are served by directly controlling the Church so its interests towards cultural hegemony as served by creating a situation where religions are competing with one another.

If A’Brakel could come back to life where would he find the Libertines in America? Would he find any Seminaries where Libertinism is exhaustively taught on this subject?