Drawing the sword on behalf of the Gospel

Romans 13: 1-7 speaks of the relationship between the civil government and the Christian. Christians are to be subject to civil authorities and indeed, as hard as it can be sometimes to accept for some of us, those in authority over us are not there in spite of God's will but because of it. We also should see in Scripture a clear line of difference between the sphere of the secular world and the Church.

What then do you think of this from the Belgic Confession, one of the Three Forms of Unity for Reformed denominations and beloved by many of the Reformed denominational churches (emphasis added)?

Article 36: The Civil Government

• We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.

  For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

  And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

  They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

  And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

  Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God's Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

  And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.

Keep in mind that the Belgic Confession is still used widely among those who are in historically Reformed denominations (I differentiate between being "Reformed" versus being in a church that is part of a "Reformed denomination"). Many of them have modified the content of this article because it is so patently unbiblical but the same mindset that wrote Article 36 in its original form is what crafted the rest of the Belgic Confession.

I was curious to see what Reformed commentators had to say about this. I didn't find much but I did find a commentary on the Belgic Confession by Kim Riddlebarger. Riddlebarger’s defense of article 36 focused far more on the alleged errors of the Anabaptists than it did on the erroneous view of the relationship between the church and the state intended by the authors of the Belgic Confession. I find the mindset that lumps all Anabaptists in with the Muenster Rebellion and therefore arbitrarily rejects anything they wrote or believed to be intellectually lazy.

I agree with Leonard Verduin that the Reformers, Luther and company, were faced with a difficult task. To stand up for the Gospel in the 1500’s was to invite being struck down by the sword, so the Reformers by and large embraced the protection of the state and in doing so preserved their own lives but dangerously intertwined the church with the state. Out of fear of the sword, they in many cases embraced the sword. We can look back and be critical of that but we also aren’t facing a slow death by being burned alive at the stake. Nevertheless, we need to keep that context in mind when we read the confessions and where the confessions or the magisterial Reformers or the Anabaptists are incorrect or need clarification, we should be willing to do so.

I am not anyone's idea of a pacifist. However, I find the idea that the church should embrace the state to raise the sword to strike down heretics repugnant. There is a legitimate role for the state to promote an orderly society but the church should not use the state as muscle to enforce its doctrines and promote one faith over another. We see the results of this sort of thinking with the turmoil after the beginning of the Reformation, when Rome had "heretics" put to death, where Protestants killed Catholics and where both magisterial Reformers and Roman Catholics had Anabaptists put to death. In every case, the state was used as the sword for the church to enforce its doctrines. I think you are hard pressed to argue that the time between the rise of Constantine and the beginning of the Reformation was a golden age in the church. In times and places where the state has used prison, the sword and the stake to enforce loyalty to the church, the Gospel witness has suffered. Even men we admire like John Calvin need to be held to account where they err. In places where Calvin approved of and later defended the state taking the life of Servetus, he erred and we should not fear to say so. In places where the confessions call for things that are unbiblical like the state enforcing doctrine with the sword, we shouldn’t try to explain it away, we should acknowledge that the authors of the confessions were in error.

Having too high a view of the creeds and confessions leads to defenses of things that are on their face indefensible. I appreciate the confessions as useful aids to our study. I would be in fundamental agreement with most of the 1644 and 1689 London confessions, and find much I agree with in the Belgic and Westminster confessions especially where the confessions address the nature of God and justification. Taken to an extreme however, confessional devotion can be dangerous. I think you see signs of this when men respond to questions of doctrine with quotes from confessions, as if the confessions are settled matters and unquestionable. As Article 36 proves, there are plenty of places in even the most cherished confessions where we need to hold what is written up to the light of Scripture. Being old and carrying the label “Reformed” does not place a document above examination or reproach.