As a man in my 50s I have been talking about politics for quite some time. Thankfully there are moments when the discussion moves beyond particular policies and candidates to a discussion of theory. Everyone has a political theory, even if they can’t articulate it.
I took a poli-sci class in college. I’ve kept the text and looked at it periodically. As I consider it these days I realize that it failed to consider changes in theology and religion that shaped politics in Europe (in particular). Since I wasn’t a Christian then, it didn’t bother me. You shouldn’t think of the Tsars without taking into account they saw themselves as the new Caesars over a new holy “Roman” empire. There was the lengthy battle between Popes and kings throughout Europe. You can’t really understand Western politics without considering religion and its effects. You can’t neglect theology.
In the last decade the discussion of R2K has been going on. Honestly, I can’t seem to grasp what the R stands for. I’ve been meaning to read into that more but my hunch is that it may be a more Lutheran 2 kingdoms than a Calvinist 2 kingdoms view (both are dependent on Augustine’s work in The City of God).
I’ve wanted a book that develops a theology of government since I saw this as the main issue of the differences between my friends and myself. We need to look beneath the surface of the water instead of simply the part of the iceberg above the water (policy). Policy is still better than simply talking about the “character” of the candidates. Face it, they are all tremendously flawed. It is just more obvious in some.
David Innes, who teaches politics and government at The King’s College is a PCA teaching elder. He has written a recent book Christ and the Kingdoms of Men: Foundations of Political Life. It is likely the textbook for his class and provides an introduction to a theology of government. As a textbook it does have vocabulary and study questions at the end of each chapter. I am in the process of adapting it into an adult SS class. This ought to indicate that I liked the book and found it helpful.
I really like the material Innes does cover. Perhaps that is simply because we seem to be on the same wavelength. He handles plenty of Scripture. In addition he injects plenty of theologians (Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Aquinas, Lewis et. al) and political theorists like Locke, Hobbes, de Touqueville and others. There is a breadth of resources that he uses. His goal is not to focus on American politics. This is not a book about the Constitution. Innes grew up in Canada so he observes our political struggles as something of an interested bystander (he may be a naturalized citizen now). He addresses some of our struggles, but is not focused on them. His goals are broader and bigger than that.
The weakness is what Innes doesn’t cover, or rather what he does not interact with. He does not interact with R2K (VanDrunen is listed in an appendix for additional reading). This would be a subject of particular interest within the Reformed community. This issue has caused division in some churches. Innes also doesn’t spend time with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Within our churches this is particularly helpful in discussing the relationship between church and state.
Innes does take a redemptive-historical approach. This means he looks at politics thru the theological grid of creation-fall-redemption-consummation. This means that government is not a result of the fall. It is clearly affected by the fall but not produced by the fall.
The Kingdom of God
Innes, like the Bible, begins with the Kingdom of God. We tend to think of the kingdom as coming with Christ but we see the kingdom in creation. God is the eternal king. He rules over all He created. The creation mandate indicates that Adam was tasked with “subduing and ruling” the earth. This is kingdom or governmental language. Adam was intended to be the vice-regent, ruling on God’s behalf and under His authority. The fall initiates the kingdoms of men who live in rebellion to God and His kingdom. There is the promise of the Seed who will ultimately come to redeem His people and re-establish the kingdom. He will reign at the Father’s right hand until all His enemies are brought beneath His feet.
“Politics is worth dying for, but not worth living for. The wise Christian is careful not to seek by political means what can be accomplished only by God through the Holy Spirit applying the work of Christ, and not, as theologians say, immanentize the eschaton.”
In that first section Innes focuses on Genesis 1 and 2. Even in the kingdom of creation there would be government to manage resources and activity to fulfill the creation mandate as humanity filled the earth. Someone has to be in charge. That’s government. In creation it would only have a positive function. These positive functions continue after the fall, but additional negative functions are added due to the sinfulness of humanity.
Innes notes that in his commentary on Genesis, Bruce Waltke differentiates between God’s universal and particular kingdoms. Bavinck saw something similar in the kingdom of power (or providence) and the kingdom of grace. God still rules over the kingdoms of men through providence and power. He reigns over His people through grace. Through that grace we are able to better fulfill the creation mandate. Our temptation is to try to accomplish our great hope through the kingdoms of men. The reality of the kingdom of God is necessary for us to understand the kingdoms of men in which we live.
The Authority of Government
Innes shifts to the nature of authority; the right to rule. Modern western political theory focuses on the consent of the governed: authority is granted by the people through elections. This is established in our Constitution, but it isn’t a biblical idea. “Authority is a person’s moral right to direct others.” All are equal since we are all made in the image of God. Yet, God also places some people in authority over others. We are not left to selfish chaos where might makes right aka anarchy. God continues to mediate His authority (by virtue of His being or essence) through human beings as an aspect of His providence.
Innes notes that this does not affirm the “divine right of kings”. The only form of government we find in Scripture is monarchy. Some may think this prescriptive, but outside of the theocracy of Israel it is only descriptive. Leaders are not only answerable to God but also to other magistrates. Innes briefly mentions the doctrine of the lesser magistrate here, which he develops further in a later chapter.
Innes then introduces Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty. “For the government of human affairs, he established authority in four separate, though not independently sovereign, spheres: individual, family, church, and political community- the personal, domestic, ecclesiastic, and civic sphere.” Individuals are self-governing in many ways: where they will work, live, what they wear and eat etc. There are decisions they make on their own that affect them. Families are governed by a parent or parents. Parents have authority over their families. Each family is self-governing. One family doesn’t rule another. Ecclesiastic authorities exercise government over the members of their churches in spiritual matters. Then there are civic authorities that enforce the law in a community. An individual is often a member of a family, may be a member of a church and is also under civic authority. David Koyzis notes that tyranny involves one sphere intruding into another without just cause. The tools for compliance differ between these spheres. Only the civil authority may place someone in prison or take their life. This is contrary to what we see in theocracies and the problem of honor killings by family members in some Muslim societies.
“Fathers do not depend on either the church or the state for their parental authority. It would be wrong for the state to license parents or for the local church to have a commissioning ceremony for new parents. Despite this teaching of both God and nature, modern governments have been eager to supplant fathers in housing, feeding, and educating their children.”
Roman Catholicism has a similar doctrine of subsidiary. But Catholicism has also struggled with whether to church should rule the state or the state rule the church. In Protestant countries the church has never been greater than the state.
Innes then moves into “The Romans 13 ‘Authority’ Problem”. He notes, paraphrasing Augustine, that “many governments resemble criminal organizations.” Yet, God does provide for government generally and governments in particular. Even unjust governments provide some good. In Life of Brian there is a great scene when the rebel leader asks “What have the Romans ever done for us?” Slowly members of the rebel group pipe up: roads, aqueducts, reduced crime… The world learned that even Sadaam Hussein provided some level of “good” over the anarchy into which Iraq devolved after his removal. A bad ruler is preferable to no ruler at all.
The Purpose of Government
God has instituted government for our good. He notes Rep. Barney Frank said, “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” Frank neglected to mention that people choose to do things together with churches, families and other voluntary associations because he was essentially a statist (my addition to Innes’ observation). Innes looks at Romans 13 to see the purpose of government: to punish the wicked and reward the good. Our responsibility toward the government is to pay taxes and respect. Government is one of the ways God gains vengeance on the wicked (Romans 12-13) since it bears the sword. It is one way He governs us for our good.
“Indeed, politics may be defined as the shared life of liberty that involves ruling and being ruled in turn among equals from the common good: life, prosperity, piety, and morality- or, to speak more accurately, the protection of life and the conditions suitable for prosperity, piety, and moral flourishing.”
He then sorts through the “good”. It is unrelated to our fallen condition. It must be genuinely common. It must be something that people can’t do for themselves. This sounds like infrastructure. Yes, the very thing our nation seems to neglect for “goods” related to our fallen condition.
Milton Friedman, he notes, discusses three alternatives in how these goods are provided: private monopoly, public monopoly and regulation. Private monopolies put the power into the hands of a few people unrestricted by law. Public monopolies are owned by the government who alone can provide the goods. Utilities or goods can be provided by private companies with regulation. The importance of governmental regulation of infrastructure became apparent during the recent polar vortex that crippled Texas. Regulation need not be equated with control. Regulation can guard against our baser instincts (though can also be used to impede flourishing). Where I live there is a public monopoly on water in most of the city, a private but regulated monopoly on power and cable, and regulated oligopoly for internet. Friedman notes that the government may have the responsibility to care for those who can’t care for themeselves (and whose families can’t either). Private charity seems ill-equipped to cope with mental illness, natural disasters and pervasive poverty.
De Toqueville addressed poverty in Memoir on Pauperism which Innes quotes at length. Public charity is important in such cases. His focus is on temporary assistance, not permanent assistance, except in the worst of cases. Long-term assistance breeds a number of new miseries which we’ve seen in the war on poverty. It undermines human dignity. There is room for well-intended debate on these issues, and that is one of the roles of politics and elections.
In terms of goals of government due to the fall we get to praise and punishment. Peter addresses this in 1 Peter 2:13-17. Punishment of crimes may include sins that are also treated as crimes. Not all crimes are necessarily sins but most are applications of the moral law. The government may choose not to punish some violations of the moral law (adultery, abortion and sexual deviancy of which there are many). This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care or approves of how the government handles its penal code. The government should not exercise control of people’s inner life. He notes the thought crimes used by state to silence dissent in Orwell’s 1984, a problem that is arising as government tries to eliminate prejudice in the heart as well as public actions.
Punishing Evil
Having introduced the concept, Innes now devotes three chapters this role of government. There is a chapter on life and property, one on piety and morality, and a third on liberty. Moral formation begins in the home and most people don’t need the threat of governmental threats to not kill and steal. But we see murder, assault and theft which must be punished by the state or anarchy via blood feuds erupt (think the Hatfields and the McCoys or Roadhouse). When government steps back in its role, evil runs rampant and public trust evaporates as we’ve seen in the riots of recent years. The government can’t protect “everyone” because the police aren’t omnipresent and is wise to allow people to protect themselves within reason (responsible gun ownership, for instance). The government should take particular interest in protecting those who can’t protect themselves: widow, orphans, the poor. They have lost their natural protectors.
“Governmental protection of a woman’s purported right to choose abortion services is thus the most monstrous perversion of civil authority.”
When thinking of property he criticizes the notion of public ownership since people tend not to treat things well unless they own them. Some people are responsible to care for public property but too many aren’t. Biblically he mentions that we provide for ourselves and also help those who may be going through a difficult time and lack financial resources. This brings us back to how much charity should be private (dependent on generous hearts) and how much public (compulsory). When the state replaces the church, public charity essentially replaces private charity through higher tax burdens.
When government protects property rights it is protecting the conditions for prosperity. Government can’t provide prosperity (though it is often tempted to promise to) but only the conditions for prosperity. Economies do tend to do better with enforcing laws rather than governments trying to control economies. In free societies there is equality of opportunity. When equal of outcome becomes the norm there is less freedom, and fewer property rights as the government feels free to take more from some to give to others who may or may not actually combine their gifts with hard work to provide for themselves.
“Good people produce. Bad people plunder. And good government protects the producers from the plunderers.”
In terms of piety the government also provides the conditions for piety rather than enforcing piety. In the Old Testament false religion was punished but in the New Testament we see Christianity competing with legally sanctioned religions. God will address the pursuit of false religions. Good government enables people to live peaceful and pious lives.
With a state church, there is generally no freedom of worship or to worship as you believe the Scriptures teach if the state church disagrees. The other extreme which is growing more popular due to statism is the freedom from religion and the prevention of piety in the interests of the state. De Toqueville and the founding fathers believed that a religious people was necessary to maintain a free people. Innes notes the rise of civil religion which is not true religion but a counterfeit. Civil religion has fooled many into thinking this is a Christian country. We have been influenced by Christianity as a nation, but America is not in covenant with God and has free exercise of worship including non-Christian religions and cults. This is why government provides the opportunity for faithful observance but not the requirement of faithful observance. The gospel is more readily spread through civic friendship rather then enforce adherence to a faith.
People should also be free to practice the morality of their faith, or lack thereof, unless they impinge upon the rights of life and property of others. Pluralistic republics are not theocracies. There will be practices that we see as sinful which are permitted in society. Innes does argue that those sins often work against a good society: sexual immorality, drunkenness, and divorce to name a few destabilize families and therefore the social order of society. Godly people are right to want godly laws even as they recognize that laws don’t make people godly. A more moral society can function with less government. Wicked societies require larger government to police a people who lack internalized police.
“Government action cannot make people moral, but it can protect the conditions in which people most easily thrive morally.”
Innes begins to address liberty and the call of government to punish attacks on liberty. “Government by its nature restrains and controls. It is an ordering authority. But its mandate is not comprehensive. God did not ordain it to control everything for safety’s sake.” He notes that there are more options than life in the wild and the zoo.
Made in the image of God we were made for liberty under God’s law. As we mature we experience increasing liberty. Humanity, not government, is to subdue and rule. Liberty is not the highest good, or only good, but it certainly is an important good.
“… if (magistrates) wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk … they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.” John Calvin
Christ came to give us spiritual peace, restoring us to salvation and the kingdom of God. He restores us into God’s image so we can live as intended. Freedom is living within the confines of one’s nature, not outside it. Government is intended to protect the liberty of people, not infringe upon it.
This brings Innes into the concept of freedom itself. Freedom is self-government, not enslaved to the passions of the flesh. It includes the ability to order one’s affairs according to what is right and good. He lists four forms of liberty: national, public, private, and moral. National liberty is not being under the thumb of a foreign power. Public liberty is our self-government within community with one another. This means that liberty is not doing whatever your want when you want, unless you are on a deserted island.
“Moral liberty is also necessary for public liberty. Although someone can be morally free without living in public liberty, a people cannot enjoy public liberty (at least not for long) if they refuse to be morally free, that is, if they allow themselves to become slaves to their appetites and impulses.”
This is the problem our nation currently faces. Our lack of moral liberty has put our public liberty at risk.
Praising Good
This is admittedly a short chapter. Government should recognize those who do what is good. This requires that government recognize good, and approve of it. They can discern it from general revelation (natural law) as well as familiarizing themselves with special revelation. In Paul Robert’s painting “Justice Instructing the Judges” she points them to the Word of God.
This does not that government is charged with doing the good. The people do it, and the government recognizes it. Innes postulates that “When government moves from praising the deed to providing the good, the good disappears and evils follows.” Government should excel in praising the good. This mean it publicizes it. More often that State of the Union addresses.
The Problem of Government and the Modern Solution
This chapter begins with trust and distrust. To live together we need trust: civic friendship. Where there is trust you feel safe. Where there is little or none people lock their doors. Innes quotes Aristotle, “When people are friends, they have no need of justice.” Justice involves neighbors, a shared life that doesn’t rest on love and mercy. Trust is essential to good government and politics. Trust is built when politicians keep promises. Trust is eroded when they don’t. The trust is also maintained when politicians are held accountable by the press and the electorate. When neither happens, a society is on the precipice. When there distrust of the media and the electoral process, like there is currently, any government is in a danger they have likely brought on themselves. When people trust government without qualification they are generally on the path to dictatorship and oppression.
“A free people know that government is necessary but also, by its very nature, dangerous.”
The political problem is expressed by Jesus in Matthew 20:25-28. It is people lording it over other people instead of serving them. In God’s kingdom the Son of Man serves by giving His life as a ransom for many. Earthly government needs restraint in addition to power. They exist in tension (just like freedom and safety). This is the political problem Innes refers to. He brings us from Lewis and Plato, Madison and Kuyper to explore some of this. The problem of selfishness must be addressed. He lays out four ways. 1. Suppress selfishness through moral training and the use of shame/honor. 2. Use noble lies to deceive self-interest. These lies make people more governable. He calls civil religion one of these noble lies. They are propaganda though. 3. Through moral reformation in the heart which is ultimately God’s great work of salvation. 4. Exploit selfishness instead of fight it. “Modern politics presupposes it, harnesses it, and turns it to public purposes.” It gains power by offering you “free stuff” without telling you the bill will eventually have to be paid. It offers you power at the expense of others who it claims have oppressed you.
Modern liberalism builds political life on a “rights-based conception of justice.” Hobbes introduced “natural right” which Locke pluralized. The Enlightenment also brought individualism. I, and my rights, became more important that us including you and your rights. This gave birth to “government by consent.” Innes describes a bit of a winding road which ends with Locke limited government. It is limited by the rights of the people excluding preference for faith or regulation of morals; limited by the laws; limited by consent granted through elections. Innes is critical of where this has brought us. We’ve been “reduced to an association of mere human-being-units who desire and choose.” He lays much of the blame on American Protestants who became seduced by individualism themselves. A breakdown in discipleship and covenantal thinking has gotten us to sell our birthright for a bowl of porridge. Liberalism turned out to be more like a cancer whose success destroys the body.
The Problem of Government and a Christian Response
At the end of the previous chapter he discusses a stronger ecclesiology and multigenerational discipleship are biblical and important to a vibrant church. In this chapter he speaks of Christian Republicanism. Older morality has been replaces by new cultural norms based on “radical, group-based egalitarianism”: racism, sexism, classism, and on and on. We must recall that governed and governing are sinners. Government should be limited by consent AND purpose. The restoration of God’s purposes will limit the power of government. The rule of law, seemingly on its last legs, must be restored. The constitution of a nation must not be a putty nose to make whatever the currently elites say is right.
Innes seeks to put forth a Christian doctrine of rights. These rights would be discerned from Scripture rather than simply asserted. They must be more than the post-modern will to power. A theology of rights begins with the image of God which includes the concept that we are more than individuals but made for community life, to sacrifice for one another. Liberty is to be used to fulfill the creation mandate. “True liberty is always in the service of vice-regency.”
“Moral rights direct how we ought to treat one another and what we may fairly expect from one another. Political rights restrict the sphere of government action with respect to the governed .. and specify in broad terms what service the government owes the governed, such as the protection of people’s lives against assaults from their neighbors.”
Justice must be objective and transcendent once again rather than an appeal to a voting block. What he doesn’t really say is how to get from here to there.
The Problem of Government: Submission and Resistance
Since government does not have absolute power, and can be unjust, the issue of submission and resistance must be addressed. Our default mode ought to be submission. Submission has to do with disagreement. You aren’t submitting if you agree with what should be done. But governments don’t always do what we want or like. Innes notes that this is the cross of self-denial applied to the political realm.
The issue for the Christian is not simply an unjust law, or one that permits unrighteousness. The issue for a Christian is a law that requires disobedience to Christ on the part of His people. The Scriptures have examples of people like Daniel and the Apostles who refused to obey laws that would cause them to violate their conscience. They disobeyed and were willing to endure the consequences. They were not advocating “resistance, riot, or revolution.” Augustine counseled indifference to whom ruled as long as they did not compel impiety or sin.
“God belongs to no particular nation, but owns all nations and judges them by his righteousness.”
As citizens of heaven, our allegiance to the earthly kingdom in which we live can cause conflicts. No earthly kingdom is God’s kingdom. Innes notes that laws do have moral content. Citizens and officeholders can’t ultimately separate their convictions from their actions and policy decisions. Christianity isn’t politics but you can’t necessarily separate it from politics. They are neither the same like the Erastians imagine, nor strictly separated as if we are gnostics.
Here Innes traces the development of the theory of the lesser or popular magistrate more fully. He begins with Calvin who agreed that popular rebellion is a denial of the faith. The Magdeburg Confession, a Lutheran document, developed the thoughts of Calvin into this doctrine of the lesser magistrate who has the responsibility to protect the people under his care from tyranny. Beza, Calvin’s successor, brought this more developed idea into Reformed thought. Innes applies this to the American Revolution in which the colonies had their own magistrates, and together had the Continental Congress, to represent them. The Revolution was not carried out by private individuals but these lesser magistrates, which is why it was often called the Presbyterian Revolution in England.
The Practice of Government: Citizenship and Statemanship
Innes addresses both side of the equation here. Citizens have responsibilities in practicing government. There is a moral component which is often neglected when we approach government as consumers. This is one of the issues today in our country. This is to live for oneself, not to live for the good of the nation. We shouldn’t vote what is best for ourselves but the nation. We should ask who will help the most people flourish and live godly lives. A good citizen will not go along with a wicked government, but there should be a willingness to submit to government and the law.
Statesmanship is a lost art. It was a major issue in the last 4 years. Trump was not a politician, but many were tired of the political status quo. While I think he was unusually effective, many longed for a return to statemanship and decorum in the office. He holds out Churchill and Reagan as examples of statesman. Churchill was not necessarily what we’d think since he could be abrasive. But he was persuasive. He sees the statesman as “principled, patriotic, prudent” as well.
In this context he addresses the “IvI Gap.” This is the gap between ideals and institutions, principles and practice. The good statesman used prudence to close that gap. Unwise officials think they can immediately close the gap. In this sense they put principle above people, doing damage to the republic in the process of fixing the problem.
This book doesn’t attempt to deal exhaustively with all these issues. It is an introduction. This means there are things you will wish he had spent more time fleshing out.
He does lay out a vision for a limited government that upholds the rule of law and provides the conditions for people to flourish. It is a moral government, and the citizens are moral. The Christian is not required to leave their faith at home, but acts in the earthly kingdom in a way consistent with their faith but without binding others to the practice of our faith. He provides a cogent apologetic for what I believe the Bible teaches us about the role and practice of government.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply