https://reformedlibertarians.com/018
Gregory:
This is episode EIGHTEEN.
We’re discussing Politics and the Church’s Mission. I’m Gregory Baus here with Kerry Baldwin.
And we’ll be talking about one significant part of Christ’s great commission to His church, namely the institutional church’s teaching mission, and what, according to Scripture, the institutional church must and may not teach —at least on the points we’re addressing— about civil governance.
In this episode we criticize and offer corrections of several views we believe are inconsistent with the Bible and the Reformed confessions that we affirm as faithful summaries of the Bible’s teaching. Our goal in doing this is part of our podcast’s mission to educate and inspire listeners to embrace and promote a view of libertarianism as grounded in the Reformed Faith and informed by a Reformed worldview. Part of that mission is to explain what Reformed libertarianism is, and that involves, among other things, explaining elements of the Reformed Faith (insofar as we have come to understand and affirm it), especially as it relates to matters of politics or civil governance. It seems to us there’s quite a bit of confusion on the issues we’re addressing, and a tremendous need for better and clearer explanation. And perhaps it has gone unsaid, but our intention and prayer, is that through this and every episode God’s people would be edified and encouraged, built-up in their faith in the Lord Jesus, and that listeners would, by God’s grace, discover with Kerry and me more of what it means to glorify and enjoy God, our Creator and Redeemer.
To begin with, Kerry, what do we have in mind when we talk about the institutional church’s “teaching mission”?
Kerry:
The mission of Christ’s institutional new covenant church (which also includes the worship of God, and deaconal care of its needy members), is given by the Lord in Matthew 28. Here, Jesus has just accomplished redemption for His people by His life of perfect obedience, fulfilling all the old covenant required on their behalf, satisfying God’s justice in His suffering and death on their behalf, and by being raised to glorified eschatological life. He’s about to ascend to God’s throne where He would pour out the Holy Spirit on the church. There, on the mountain, the eleven apostles worshiped Him, and Jesus said:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Ever since, through the spiritual ministry of the institutional church, Christ gathers His people from out of all the various ethnic groups, and builds them up through faith in Him. One of the specified means of doing that is the church, primarily by her officers ordained for this purpose, teaching God’s people “to observe all that He has commanded us” to believe and do in His written Word, the Bible. A central part of the church’s mission is to teach the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, because it is the authoritative, alone infallible and inerrant, very Word of God in writing. In Scripture alone, the whole counsel or will of God concerning everything necessary for His own glory, the salvation of sinners, faith and piety is sufficiently and clearly revealed either explicitly or by necessary implication of its explicit teaching.
Gregory:
That’s right.
And the Bible principally teaches two things. First, it principally teaches all we should believe about God, and about ourselves in relation to Him, being created in His image, and then fallen, corrupt, and guilty sinners, and about how one is saved from sin and its justly due penalty of everlasting condemnation, being freely given everlasting life through trust alone in Christ alone. Second, the Bible principally teaches —as a consequent result of one’s having been, and of one’s being, saved— about what it means, and how one is enabled through such trust alone in Christ alone, to love God and one’s neighbors.
This teaching of the Bible is, however fallibly, summarized in the confessions and catechisms, or statements of faith, of the Reformed churches. A confession is an expression of what a church understands the Bible to actually teach, and therefore of what a church believes it is called to teach. The Bible alone is the infallible rule, or standard, of faith, the divine norm that norms the church’s beliefs. And the institutional church’s statements of that faith are fallible rules or standards for the church’s official teaching about what the Bible says concerning that faith. Significantly, a confession is itself part of the church’s teaching mission, a human norm that is normed by the Bible, and subordinate to it.
Kerry:
Yes. And one way a confession is itself part of the church’s teaching mission is this:
If any congregation would cooperate (among its members or with other congregations) in the mission Christ gave to His institutional church —making disciples of Christ, teaching His disciples to believe and do all He has commanded them— then, they must understand and agree about what that mission is, and what “all Christ has commanded us” actually involves. They must have an agreed-upon understanding of what the Bible actually teaches. And the Reformed confessions are, properly, statements of such understanding and agreement.
Regrettably, if church officers and members alike are not being faithfully catechized or discipled in the confessionally Reformed view of the Bible’s teaching, it results in serious negative consequences. The flock or body of Christ becomes spiritually starved and malnourished, and worse, often poisoned with false teaching. And it seems the exhortation of the author of Hebrews in chapter 5 applies to too many Reformed believers:
“Although by this time you should be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the Oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food. And everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the Word of Righteousness, since he is childish. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”
Gregory, haven’t we just seen serious negative consequences even among the supposed orthodox, confessional Reformed churches recently?
Gregory:
Most definitely.
One of the great tragedies among Reformed churches, at least among the English-speaking ones we’re most familiar with in the U.S. and Canada (and we wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is the case among Reformed churches elsewhere)… one of the great tragedies is that many of these otherwise Reformed churches teach contrary to a Reformed confessional view of the Bible’s teaching about submission to civil government. These churches have failed to teach what Christ has commanded us concerning His ordination of civil power.
As far as we can tell, the confessionally Reformed teaching on this matter began to decline in Reformed churches around the middle of the 1800s, and declined even further in the early 1900s. We suspect likely factors were the American Civil War and the World Wars, or rather the influence of the nationalist propaganda that accompanied them, and the growing influence of non-confessional, non-Reformed Evangelicalism after the 2nd Great Awakening (or not so great, as we call it). Simply put, Reformed churches began to teach that Scripture obligates us to submit to, or to obey, civil government dictates, unless they require sin. Particularly in episodes 2 and 6 we explain why that view is wrong, and in contrast, what the confessionally Reformed view is, and the importance of it being taught in Reformed churches. If you haven’t listened to those episodes, we recommend you do, of course.
Kerry:
In brief, as we say in the Reformed Libertarianism Statement:
The Bible specifies that God prescriptively ordains the administration of civil justice. This involves the legitimate use of coercive retribution (or the “sword”) against aggressors (or “wrongdoers;” namely those who commit aggression against another’s person or property), enforcing restitution by aggressors to their victims. According to God’s ordination, civil governance is strictly limited to this task. And God’s Word obligates all to submit to the administration of actual civil justice. The claim to civil power or exercise of power or coercion on any pretense that violates civil justice is not ordained by God according to Scripture, and may be legitimately resisted. It is not only orders to sin that must be refused, but any civil dictates beyond the God-ordained sphere of civil justice may, when not otherwise sinful, be justly ignored.
The confessionally Reformed understanding of the Bible’s teaching does not oppose resistance to unjust laws or to powers that violate civil justice. The Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 20 section 4 specifies that those who “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it… resist the ordinance of God.” However, tyranny or unjust dictates are unlawful, not the ordinance of God, and may be lawfully opposed. The Belgic Confession of Faith article 36 likewise specifies an obligation to obey only those “things that are not in conflict with God’s Word,” and denounces all, even civil powers, who would “subvert justice.”
Gregory:
Exactly.
God prescriptively ordains, as Charles Hodge put it, “the legitimate design of government, not the abuse of power by wicked men… No command to do anything morally wrong can be binding nor can any [command be binding that] transcends the rightful authority of the power whence it emanates… [And] The right of… determining where the obligation to obedience ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the nature of the case, rest with the subject, and not with the ruler.” So, in other words, since God hasn’t authorized or ordained civil government to dictate or use coercion except in matters of punishing wrongdoers, no one is obligated to submit to them when they exceed their God-ordained jurisdiction or authority —even when what they require isn’t sin. As usual, we link in the shownotes to an annotated bibliography on the topic of Reformed Political Resistance Theology.
Tragically, in recent years, when federal, State, and local governments required churches to not assemble or to impose restrictions on congregants in church assemblies, the sessions or elder councils of many otherwise Reformed churches erroneously taught that they were obligated to obey because obeying didn’t constitute sin. Such teaching is in direct contradiction of the Bible. May the Lord grant them conviction of such sin and open, genuine repentance of it. We know that some Reformed churches resisted government dictates to not assemble or to impose restrictions on congregants, but some of them did so because they believed imposing restrictions or not assembling was sinful (and that’s fine), but they continued to erroneously teach, contrary to the Reformed confessional view of Scripture, that we’re obligated to obey government dictates unless they require sin. This false teaching must still be repented of. Other churches made what they thought were prudential judgments, without contradicting confessional Reformed teaching of Scripture. While those judgments may have been seriously imprudent, we pray those congregations and their elders are wiser now. And those who taught the biblically Reformed doctrine, and avoided contradicting it on this point, should be commended. But it’s important that those churches that did and do teach against the biblically Reformed, confessional teaching repent of it publicly. If they don’t repent, they’ll likely continue to sinfully compromise in the face of surrounding pressures.
Kerry:
It’s worth emphasizing, as we have in previous episodes, that what God’s Word teaches about what exactly we’re obligated to submit to and to obey (and what we’re not obligated by God to submit to or to obey), which is something the institutional church must confess and teach, is not a matter of political theory. When faithful, confessionally Reformed churches confess and teach that all are obligated to submit to the administration of civil justice God has prescriptively ordained, and that no one is obligated to submit to tyranny or injustice, the church is not thereby teaching libertarianism or any political theory or political philosophy. Rather, such churches are only teaching what is actually the teaching of the Bible itself. And this is the teaching of the Bible as it has been understood and taught in the Reformed confessions. This teaching, which we elaborate particularly in episodes 2 and 6, is part of Christ’s commission to the institutional church; it’s part of teaching “all that Christ has commanded us.”
But, Gregory, if the institutional church must teach the whole Bible, and so teach what the Bible teaches about civil government, the question arises: What about the civil or so-called judicial laws of the old Mosaic covenant?
Gregory:
Yes. And this isn’t a new question, believe it or not.
The old covenant civil laws are those laws that specify a civil penalty or coercive punishment. Some might wonder if those laws are obligatory for civil governments in the new covenant era. The confessional Reformed view of the Bible’s teaching on this is clear: As an inseparable part of the old covenant, God specially gave the people of Israel various civil laws that terminated or expired with the end of the old covenant, along with the nullification of their condition as a political body that was constituted by that now ended covenant. Scripture explicitly teaches that the old Mosaic covenant has been made obsolete with Christ’s institution of the new covenant. The pre-Mosaic moral will of God is always morally in force. But the old covenant was typological (or specially symbolic) and temporary, and its civil penalties were temporary and typological positive laws, not abiding moral law. This doesn’t mean civil governance as such is obsolete, but the old covenant civil law as such is not civilly-obligating for any political bodies that are not constituted by that old covenant. And no political bodies in the new covenant era can be constituted by the old Mosaic covenant, since it is fulfilled by Christ and so ended.
Kerry:
The Westminster Confession of Faith adds, however, that the old covenant civil laws, being expired, don’t obligate any now “further than the general equity thereof may require.” One erroneous view about what this means is called “theonomy.” So-called theonomists have always erroneously claimed that, in their view, the abiding civil obligation of old covenant civil law upon civil government in the new covenant era is a matter of general equity. Theonomists mistakenly interpret general equity to mean whatever underlying principle each civil law illustrates or embodies in its own particular case. And so, in the theonomist view, general equity requires application of the old covenant civil law principles and equivalent penalties to particular current circumstances; circumstances that may be different than those of the past. All theonomists think they’re view involves —not “directly” or “woodenly” implementing old covenant civil laws— but rather, applying whatever the principles of those laws are to the differing historical situation of today.
Gregory:
The original theonomic movement, prior to the rise of the internet, has largely been discredited in confessionally Reformed churches. But false teaching, especially when its teachers don’t receive church discipline, often doesn’t go away, it simply re-groups and comes back in other forms or with different names. So, in more recent years some theonomists have tried re-branding their views as so-called “general equity” theonomy. Original theonomists (let’s call them) are clear that their views entail that old covenant civil laws are, in principle, categorically moral, and so universal and obligatory at all times and places. Those that have rebranded as general equity theonomists profess to accept the distinction between civil and moral, and are simply unclear about the fact that their views are no different (from regular ole original theonomy) in entailing the categorical inclusion of civil law within moral law. Some general equity theonomists also teach that because the old covenant civil law is case law, or like a common law system, this entails an obligation on civil governments in the new covenant era to have a common law system of law. This is all erroneous and deeply confused. And it’s contrary to the confessionally Reformed view of the Bible’s teaching.
Kerry:
Our friend, Jonathan McIntosh, has a helpful presentation titled “Theonomy, Westminster, and Libertarianism,” given at the Summer 2021 conference of the George Buchanan Forum that explains some of the key differences between these positions, and we link that in the shownotes. Among other things, McIntosh summarizes what “general equity” really means. Also, a helpful article, largely written by Peter Wallace, co-authored with Craig Troxel, titled “Men In Combat Over The Civil Law: ‘General Equity’ in Westminster 19, section 4,” was published in the Westminster Theological Journal over 20 years ago. We link to an edited excerpt from that in the shownotes too. This article also makes clear the meaning of “general equity” as used in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Gregory, how can we summarize the proper meaning of “general equity”?
Gregory:
At the time the Westminster Confession of Faith was written, equity courts were distinct from common law courts. Courts of equity developed as a means of resolving certain disputes or petitions reckoned to be outside of common law court jurisdiction. In this sense equity has the meaning of fairness or justice applied where no legal precedent in a common law system applies.
The idea of a “general” equity, as used in theological discussion, is that of natural or creational law, morality revealed in created reality, or through general revelation outside the old covenant, held to be recognized commonly in the law of all societies (sometimes called the ius gentium or law of nations), whatever other particular and differing civil governance laws those societies may have.
Kerry:
So “general equity” would be a principle of justice, given in general revelation or in creational law that’s believed to be recognized universally, in every society’s civil governance laws?
Gregory:
That’s right.
The old covenant civil law penalizing murder, for instance, certainly involves such general equity. While not every form of murder is always and everywhere considered murder —for example, in some society killing someone of a lower caste or social class might not be considered murder— nevertheless, some form of murder is, as far as we know, considered something to be coercively penalized everywhere. There’s no society in which it’s considered legitimate to kill everyone on a whim. Every society has some idea of murder and of its being unjust and justly coercively-punishable.
According to the confessionally Reformed view, it’s obligatory to penalize murder, then, not because God said it must be under the old covenant. Rather, while it is an old covenant civil law, and therefore as such expired, its “general equity” may be, and in the case of murder is, obligatory on civil government outside the old covenant as a principle of justice in creational law that everyone recognizes.
Kerry:
So, “general equity,” contrary to theonomic views, is not that whatever principle stands behind an old covenant civil law is obligatory for civil governments today. Nor does it mean anything like a case law or common law system is obligatory. Nor does it mean that old covenant civil laws are all particular illustrations or embodiments of the moral law.
And the theonomic view (whether original theonomy or so-called general equity theonomy), contrary to the Reformed general equity view, is that “God’s law” (in which all forms of theonomy include old covenant civil law as moral law), simply defines what God’s will is, and so its principles obligate all civil government outside the old covenant.
We can see clearly, then, that all forms of theonomy contradict the Bible’s explicit teaching that the old covenant is fulfilled and now obsolete, and contradict the necessary implication that the old covenant civil laws are expired or terminated, and contradict the idea of general equity. “General equity” and “theonomy” are opposing terms, and “general equity theonomy” is an oxymoron; a contradiction in terms.
Gregory:
Precisely.
Original theonomy and so-called general equity theonomy are not confessionally Reformed. As in the case of those who teach contrary to the Reformed confessional teaching on submission to civil governance, may the Lord also grant theonomists conviction of their sin of false teaching, and open, genuine repentance of it.
To theonomists’ credit, at least they recognize that this is a hermeneutical or interpretive, exegetical issue. However, you’ll often hear them pose a false dilemma such as: “Does the Old Testament only apply today where the New Testament says that it does? OR Does the Old Testament apply today unless the New Testament says that it doesn’t?” Posing the questions this way is erroneous. In colloquial or common terms, you might hear this referred to as a question of “repealed unless repeated, or maintained unless modified.” Neither option is the right one. And when a question contains faulty assumptions, sometimes further distinctions are required. The distinctions needed here are covenantal distinctions. In episode 16 on The Kingdom Of God we explain, among other things, the different epochs of God’s Kingdom as covenantally-administered; that is, administered by different covenants. Unless one’s view of what the Bible teaches is guided by a proper covenantal interpretation revealed in the Bible itself, one that understands the covenants and how they relate to each other correctly, you’re bound to go wrong in many of Scripture’s fundamental teachings —not only about politics, but even about salvation. All forms of theonomy misinterpret the covenants and their relations.
Kerry:
Because the Reformed covenantal hermeneutic is so important, we’ll take the opportunity to recommend again the resources linked in the shownotes of episode 16. Of particular relevance, we’ll highlight, from our friend Lee Irons, the lectures with Q&A on Reformed Covenant Theology in the Friday Night Academy, a video explaining the relations between the Abrahamic, Old Mosaic, and New Covenants, and a series on the typological works principle in the Old Mosaic Covenant.
Briefly, here are some of the key ideas you’ll find elaborated in those resources.
First, after humanity’s fall into sin, God introduced, both, what we call common grace and special or saving grace. In common grace, God postpones the final judgment and establishes a distinction between His institutional church and all other kinds of societal communities and common cultural activity, including civil governance. More explicitly in a Common Grace Covenant after the great flood, God promises to not destroy the world again by water, and to preserve the order of creation and human society. And this would serve as the context in which He would build His Kingdom of saving grace in Christ until He consummates it at Christ’s return and the final judgment. Significantly, in that common grace covenant, God makes explicit His prescriptive ordination of civil governance in the fallen world, epitomized in what’s called the “lex talionis” or law of proportionate retribution that authorizes the legitimate use of coercion only in response to prior aggression. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”
Gregory:
Second, in special or saving grace, God promises a seed or descendant (who we know is Jesus Christ) who would save God’s people from Satan, sin, and everlasting death, accomplishing for them the righteousness and eschatological or glorified life Adam failed to earn. And God makes this more explicit in His covenant with Abraham, that, applied to sinners through faith alone in Christ alone, the promised blessing of salvation in a glorified new creation would be accomplished on behalf of God’s people from all ethnic groups. And this Covenant of Saving Grace, administered through the Abrahamic Covenant of Promise, continued with the descendants of Israel down through to the first-coming of Christ in which He inaugurated the fulfillment of the promises, establishing the New Covenant.
Kerry:
Third, however, at Sinai, after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, God temporarily added the Old Covenant, given through Moses. The Old Mosaic Covenant, or The Law, was a temporary and typological (or special-symbolic) arrangement that has now been made obsolete. Under the old covenant, the people of God were, for a time, organized as a unique theocratic nation. This involved a typological principle of works at a national level involving certain external “blessings and curses.” And, in relation to the theocracy, the normal operations of common grace were temporarily suspended. Part of what that means is that the old covenant civil law required coercive-punishment for certain violations that are not aggressions against persons or their property. This unique, temporary, and typological legal code finds fulfillment in Christ and applies spiritually to the new covenant church. But just like the old covenant’s non-free market property and debt arrangements, the Mosaic civil law doesn’t now, and never did, apply civilly to any society outside the old covenant, whether before or after the old covenant was in effect. In the new covenant era, the old covenant is made obsolete, and the normal operations of common grace resume, and all legitimate civil governance is again restricted to the principle of proportionate retribution of the lex talionis that forbids the use of coercion against non-aggressive immorality.
Gregory:
Just in terms of these three key covenantal points, you can see how totally erroneous and inadequate the theonomic false dilemma is, and how their “maintained unless modified” interpretive scheme seriously misinterprets biblical teaching about the covenants and how the covenants properly relate.
Kerry:
Gregory, before we move on to the last point we want to address on this topic of the institutional church’s teaching mission, and what it must and may not teach about civil government, let’s briefly recap what we’ve said so far.
Gregory:
Good idea. I think we can sum things up, so far, in 5 points.
First, we say why we’re talking about these things, namely, to address the great need we perceive to promote better and clearer explanations on these issues, with the goal of building-up others in the Faith, to the greater glory of God.
Second, we say what we mean by “the teaching mission of the institutional church,” namely, a key part of Christ’s “great commission” to His church to make disciples: teaching God’s people to observe all He has commanded us, which means teaching the whole Bible, and nothing other than what the Bible itself teaches.
Third, we say how the Reformed confessions are a part of the institutional church’s teaching mission, namely by their expressing what a church understands and agrees upon as the Bible’s own teaching.
Fourth, we point out one way that otherwise Reformed churches have recently failed to teach the confessional Reformed view of the Bible’s teaching about submission to civil governance, namely, by falsely teaching that all are obligated to obey state dictates if they don’t require sin.
Fifth, we also point out another way that some churches have failed to teach the confessional Reformed view of the Bible’s teaching, in this case, about what civil governance outside the old covenant is obligated to coercively-enforce, about what general equity means, and about the sort of interpretation the Bible itself teaches, namely, by falsely teaching some form of theonomy.
Kerry:
We know that’s a lot of material. But we hope listeners will find that, to some extent, what we say and the additional resources linked in the shownotes, resolve some confusion on these issues, and offer better and clearer answers.
Now, Gregory, as for the last issue we’ll address:
In contrast to all forms of theonomy, when considering the Reformed confessional criterion of general equity, a biblically Reformed covenantal hermeneutic seems to call for a few additional points of clarification on the question of so-called establishmentarianism and how we can discern according to Scripture what civil governance outside the old covenant is obligated to coercively-enforce.
Gregory:
That’s right.
Most Reformers and the original uncorrected forms of the confessions rejected all forms of theonomy, yet they nevertheless affirmed general equity required the civil establishment of religion. Briefly, establishmentarianism, or the civil establishment of religion, involves a certain religion’s institutions, beliefs, or practices being given exclusive legal protections or privileges by a state. The reason most Reformers and the original uncorrected forms of the confessions held it was obligatory to civilly, coercively-enforce certain external elements of Christian religion or of public morality was not because religion and morality were civilly required by the old Mosaic covenant. Rather, they did so on the basis of general equity, that is, principles of justice revealed in creation thought to be recognized in the civil governance law of all societies outside the old covenant.
However, some Presbyterian and Reformed churches corrected their confessions on this point, and it’s these corrected Reformed confessions that Reformed libertarians affirm. We address this to some extent in episode 15 on whether Christian civil governance can be “theocratic.” Well link to that in the shownotes and to an article I wrote titled “Against Civil Establishment of Religion” that discusses theologian Charles Hodge’s explanation of what is called ‘Disestablishmentarianism’ and some further implications of the biblical arguments he explains.
Kerry:
Particularly significant for the question of what the institutional church must teach as the Bible’s teaching about politics is the distinction between what is more broadly moral, and what is more narrowly justice. We’ve mentioned this distinction before. Things more broadly a matter of morality are a matter of love to God and neighbor. And things more narrowly a matter of civil justice are a matter of not initiating coercion against our neighbor’s person or their property.
The Bible teaches, for example in Romans 1 & 2, that along with a certain knowledge of God, God also reveals His moral requirements in creation (although such truths are inevitably suppressed by sinners-apart-from-Christ, through various unrighteous means). However, the fact that something is a part of God’s universal moral will doesn’t tell us that God requires it to be coercively-enforced by civil governance. Further, the fact that some principle of civil justice is thought to be commonly recognized in the civil governance law of all societies, and so might be a historical or empirical question of general revelation, if it’s not also something taught in Scripture (whether explicitly or by necessary implication), then it is not something Christ has commissioned His institutional church to officially teach.
Gregory:
The point is this: when considering general equity for civil governance, insofar as it’s something the institutional church must teach, the relevant question is: what criterion, if any, does the Bible itself reveal as the standard for discerning what is a matter of civil justice that should be coercively-enforced by civil governance outside the old Mosaic covenant? That standard can’t be broadly-moral principles, since, as Kerry just said, the fact that something is a part of the moral law doesn’t tell us that God requires it to be coercively-enforced by civil governance. Nor can that standard be only whatever recognition principles of justice seem to be commonly given in the law of all societies. In order for it to be something the institutional church can teach, it must be taught in the Bible itself, either explicitly or necessarily implied by its explicit teaching.
As we understand it, and as we’ve already hinted, that standard is the principle of proportional retribution in the lex talionis biblically revealed in the Common Grace Covenant. Outside the old Mosaic covenant, that principle necessarily entails not only the extent to which coercion may be legitimately used, but whether it may legitimately be used at all. According to the teaching of Scripture about politics, the institutional church must teach that coercion may only legitimately be used in proportional response to prior aggression against the person and property of others. The Bible teaches that outside the old Mosaic covenant, to use coercion against what is not itself a matter of initiating coercion is disproportionate and therefore not ordained or authorized by God.
Kerry:
That’s all for this episode. Give it some thought, and as always, we’d love to hear your comments or questions.
