Inbox: The Enlightenment, Westminster and Romans 13, and the Question of Civil Disobedience

This deals with a series of questions regarding where to read about some of the Christian interaction with The Enlightenment especially in terms of political and social ideology and ethics. Additionally there is the question of the Westminster Confession's view of Romans 13 and why I believe it to be in error – and are there any pre-Reformation instances that would support my view?

Finally, what of civil disobedience? Is it ever appropriate?

In terms of Christian resources regarding the influence and struggles over the Enlightenment, I might start with some of the historical works by the likes of George Marsden, Mark Noll, and perhaps Perry Miller which reveal some of the intellectual climate within the American context. In terms of the pre-Revolutionary period, a study of Puritan sociology and ethics is helpful as they most certainly were quite opposed to the individualistic values and economic theories (then in seed form) that came to dominate in the 18^th century and after. At that point even some cultural histories like David Hackett Fischer's 'Albion's Seed' can be helpful.

Ironically (perhaps) in the Reformed sphere it is some of the Theonomist writers who have (despite their grave errors) written clearly about the legacy of the Enlightenment and its influence on American thought. They are (or were, depending on how you view the movement's status) very clear in their determination to re-write the US Constitution and effectively overthrow its intellectual foundations. The same is true of the (perhaps misnamed?) US Constitution Party. Last I knew the very first thing they would do is change the wording of the document and thus any appeal to Originalism (which has become orthodoxy in Right-wing circles) goes right out the window.*

The entire Left-Right discussion in American politics is within the framework of Classical Liberalism. The older view, one of Throne-and-Altar, a view that was utterly hostile to the Enlightenment and its redefining of the state's basis has either dropped from the scene or has made compromises with Liberalism, but you still catch hints among some paleo-conservative thinkers that if they had their druthers, they would abandon Liberalism altogether – dispensing with the social contract theory of government, rights of free speech, religion, press, and so forth. Now, how they can wave the flag even while they are in fact opposed to the intellectual and ideological foundations of the US Constitution is a contradiction I don't pretend to understand.

The Magisterial Reformation's legacy on this point is mixed. There is a republican strain to be sure but probably more in the realm of Constitutional Monarchy (and the flawed and unbiblical Lesser Magistrate doctrine) as opposed to the social contract views which emerged in the French and American Revolutions. The Industrial Revolution changed everything too as evidenced in Rome's compromise in the form Catholic Social Teaching and its Protestant iteration, Kuyperian Sphere Sovereignty – along with Kuyper's limited pluralism and Pillarisation view of society.

As far as the Westminster Confession, many readers already know the legacy is divided and even a bit schizophrenic. The original document fully embraced a Constantinian schema with the state taking an active role in church life and polity. The 18^th century American Revision remedied this somewhat but there's still a great deal of confusion with regard to the role of the Law (along with the confusion stemming from the error of the 3-fold division), the notion of general equity, and the magistrate in terms of Church and society. The confusion is sourced in the reading and application of the state being a 'minister for good'. Given the Neronic context, Paul's meaning (in Romans 13) cannot be what many have tried to impose on the text. Rome was (as the state is today) a 'minister' or servant in the same sense that Assyria was in Isaiah 10, as Babylon was and so forth. There's no covenantal aspect to what Paul is saying, a point erroneously assumed by Westminster and the Magisterial Protestant tradition.

Even though they are bestial powers, they still serve a good purpose and generally speaking even evil states will live at peace with those doing good – but not always. But even in the case of the 'not always', a wicked state is still better than the chaos of no state at all.

This has all taken a very different turn in the American intellectual and political tradition with the rise of libertarianism and the ethics that accompany it. I cannot recommend any paleo-conservatives but they would be the ones within the context of conservatism that have picked up on this. And so now we have this strange kind of hybrid system, in some cases we have Christians claiming allegiance to the Westminster Confession of Faith but at the same time rejecting or ignoring its very positive and pro-active (and thus anti-libertarian) view of the state – a view that categorically rejects notions such as the First Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights for that matter. There is nothing more strange than one claiming the legacy of Westminster and the Puritans while waving the banner of Libertarianism. They are completely at odds and yet the movement is growing. To do so it has been forced to engage in quite a bit of historical revisionism.

As I don't agree with either the American system or the Westminster Confession, it makes little difference to me but these debates rage in the Church so I have to interact with them whether I like it or not.

Historical works on the Waldensians, even by those that are critical of them such as Malcolm Lambert and Euan Cameron nevertheless reveal their understanding of Romans 13. Peter Chelcicky (1380-1460) who was on the Hussite fringe also spells out very clearly a view of Romans 13 that is completely opposed to what emerged in the Magisterial Reformation. As I continually insist the chapter division at that point is unhelpful as it is part of the larger conversation which began in Romans 12. Paul isn't switching gears (by starting a new chapter) he's juxtaposing Christian ethics at the end of what we call Romans 12 with the sword-ethic of the state – ordained by God and providentially necessary, but something at odds with a Christian ethic and profession and thus a 'sphere' (as it were) that we are to have nothing to do with. This certainly resonates with other statements Paul makes in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5-6, and 2 Timothy 2 – not to mention statements made by Peter and Christ himself in the gospels.

There are certainly limits to what civil authorities can command and yes, there are times we are called upon to disobey them but our disobedience is not political or rooted in activism or somehow attempting to steer or threaten the state. We disobey and suffer social alienation, penalties, or we always have the option to flee.

----

*Some Catholic Traditionalists writing on Integralism are also helpful. This is not to say they're correct but there's at least an understanding that Americanism (as it used to be known), along with the ideology of the US Constitution is incompatible with the idea of a Christian order. That said be careful because the line can get fuzzy and overlap with some of the narratives and teachings of the John Birch Society which tends to engage in revisionism and often imposes equally fictitious metanarratives.