(A special note of thanks is offered to Larry Birger for his editorial
expertise and assistance in completing this piece.)
"For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the
children of light" (Luke 16:8b).
The civil antinomianism which Doug Wilson adopts regarding pornography
and negative civil sanctions in "Cyberporn: A Case Study"
[_Credenda/Agenda_, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11] is a fundamental error also
prevalent among antiestablishmentarian *modern* Theonomists. Wilson
believes that
"Christians must learn to distinguish sins from crimes. If God reveals His
will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If God reveals the civil penalty which
must be applied, then it is also a crime. But without wisdom from Him on
the civil penalty to be applied, the civil order must leave enforcement of
God's law to the church, family, or the providence of God."
He further states that "when pornography is made and distributed, it
should simply be used as evidence -- of the adultery or of the sodomy,
etc." In his analogy between adultery/pornography and theft/movies
showing theft, he laments, "Why do we resist punishing what God requires
punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in Scripture?"
In short, according to Wilson, because God in his word has *not specifically
mandated* negative civil sanctions against pornography *per se*, "with a
biblical approach, pornography would not be [a] crime."
It bears mentioning that not all modern Theonomists agree with Wilson
that pornography is not a crime. For example, R. J. Rushdoony states, "the
link between pornography and revolutionary totalitarianism is a necessary
one. The rise of totalitarianism has always been preceded by moral
anarchism... the politics of pornography is a moral anarchism whose
purpose is revolution, a revolution against Christian civilization. . . .
Certainly new and clearer legislation [against pornography--RB] is
*necessary and urgently needed*. . . we need and must have sound
legislation" (_Law and Liberty_, pp. 18-20; emphasis added). However,
others, like Greg Bahnsen (cf. his cassette "Pornography, Obscenity,
Censorship"), do concur that the making and distribution of pornography,
generally, is not a crime. Regardless of some disagreement amongst
themselves, the idea that the civil magistrate is limited by *explicit*
biblical pronouncements in what and how he may punish is a teaching
some *modern* Theonomists (as opposed to biblical "*historical*
theonomists" like Calvin, Knox, Rutherford and Gillespie) have promoted
for about three decades. In fact, some in the movement even suggest this
"hyper-regulativism" (defined below) extends to the actual method of
punishment, while others are content to apply it only to the crime and
negative sanction itself. Either way, its proponents insist that their view
alone provides an antidote to civil despotism by offering divinely
prescribed limitations on the civil magistrate's power in punishing
offenders of God's law. Such a view may sound pious, appeal to a
libertarian mentality, and appear to be the only possible check against civil
tyranny, but it is in opposition to God's revealed will and therefore must
be rejected as just another form of modern heresy -- a heresy, which as
Rushdoony notes above, actually helps usher in civil tyranny.
There are a number of major problems with WilsonÕs principles and their
applications, and it may be helpful to survey some of these before giving a
more full refutation from history and Scripture.
To begin with, on the pornography question Wilson (and other *modern*
Theonomists) apply a *form* of "regulativism" (really "hyper-
regulativism"; see below) where it does not belong -- i.e. in the case of
negative civil sanctions. Ironically, many of these same people also deny (if
only by their practice; James 1:22; Titus 1:16) the true regulativism where
Scripture teaches it does belong -- i.e. in the public worship of God.
The regulative principle *of worship* has been skillfully handled in _The
Songs of Zion_ by Michael Bushell, _Instrumental Music in the Public
Worship of God_ by John Girardeau and _A Dispute Against English Popish
Ceremonies_ by George Gillespie, and reader is urged to consult these. For
our purposes here, we simply note that the regulative principle, as taught
and practiced by the Reformers, permitted only those acts of public
worship which had "divine warrant from God's Word either by (1)
command; or by (2) authorized example of the apostles; or by (3) good and
necessary inference" (Greg Price, _Foundation for Reformation: The
Regulative Principle of Worship_, p. 5).
The imposition of anything God has not prescribed has long been *rightly*
exposed and rejected in the area of *public worship* (cf. my _The
Regulative Principle of Worship in History_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPWors.htm], my
_Psalm Singing in Scripture and History_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTPsSing.htm] and
my _Doug Wilson's Five Questions on the Regulative Principle of Worship
Answered_ [free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Doug5Qs.htm]).Wilso
n and other *modern* Theonomists, however, take this approach not to
*worship*, but to *negative civil sanctions*. As he says, "We do not have
the capacity to legislate wisely where God has been *silent*" (emphasis
added). Not only does he make a *fundamental* mistake in attempting to
apply a form of the "regulative principle" to negative civil sanctions, he
takes it one step further by misconstruing the regulative principle itself.
Wilson's form of "regulativism" in the civil sphere denies "good and
necessary inference" (an integral part of the true regulative principle), and
therefore cannot be rightly called biblical regulativism without causing
some confusion. Hence, I call Wilson's view "hyper-regulativism" because
he makes the regulative principle *more strict* than do the Scriptures, or
the Reformers who expounded this principle from the teaching of
Scripture. Furthermore, Wilson's rejection of what Samuel Rutherford
termed "logical or natural consequences," and what the _Westminster
Confession of Faith_ (1:6) designates as that which "by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture," (when applied to the
pornography question before us) does not comport with the classical
Protestant position on negative civil sanctions.
The combination of these errors by Wilson, in the distortion (through the
denial of natural consequences) and misapplication of the regulative
principle, actually turn the making and distribution of pornography into a
*civil right* (except for certain *actual participants* who explicitly violate
biblical judicial laws; i.e. those actually committing the acts of adultery,
sodomy, etc. in the making of the pornography). Noted author and
Reconstructionist-turned-Covenanter, Michael Wagner (who is presently
completing his doctorate in political science), has defined one aspect of civil
rights as "imposing an obligation on the state not to interfere with some
aspect of an individual's life by applying negative civil sanctions." This
definition, given Wilson's view of pornography, would grant most aspects
of the pornography industry a *civil right* (based on Scripture falsely
interpreted) to practice their vile trade freely, without any threat of civil
punishment; and, according to ministries like _Credenda/Agenda_ (unless
they disagree with their editor), such actions would have a kind of "civil
blessing" from God, inasmuch as Scripture allegedly *forbids* negative civil
sanctions against pornographers.
Even more, not only would the making and distribution of pornography be
a civil right (and not a crime), but it would actually be a **sin** for the
civil government to intervene and violate Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" in
such cases (outside of "simply" using the pornography "as evidence -- of
the adultery or of the sodomy, etc." in civil trials). Sin is "any want of
conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God" (_Westminster
Shorter Catechism_ question and answer 14). By applying negative civil
sanctions to the pornographers the civil government would be doing that
which God has given them *no mandate* to do; and thus, in Wilson's
scheme, the civil government would "lack conformity unto... the law of
God" in punishing pornographers. As Wilson writes, "If God reveals His will
on a matter, disobedience is sin;" and, "Why do we resist punishing what
God requires punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in
Scripture?" Therefore, if God has indeed revealed his will on this matter --
that most pornographers are *not* criminals -- then *for the civil
government to treat them as such* is sin.
We cannot escape this conclusion to which the regulative principle drives
us. For example, concerning public worship, if everything except that
which God has instituted is forbidden (outside of "some circumstances...
common to human actions and societies"; cf. Westminster Confession, 1:6),
then any addition of elements and regulated circumstances not instituted
of God for use in public worship (e.g. man-made hymns, musical
instruments, drama, dance, women preachers, holy days other than the
Sabbath, etc.) is, of necessity, sin. The same is also true if Wilson's "hyper-
regulativism" is to be applied to negative civil sanctions. The addition of
any negative civil sanctions *not explicitly revealed* in Scripture would be
a transgression much akin to the sin we speak against in the sphere of
public worship. Thus, Wilson must argue that a civil government that
enacts laws for which it has no biblical warrant, such as laws against the
possession, production and/or distribution of pornography, ***must be
sinning***.
On a practical level, the situation that has developed in the African nation
of Zambia may be instructive here. Shortly after Zambia threw off her
communism and embraced Christianity as the official state religion it was
reported that "whether by accident or design, new found freedoms also led
to the legalization of pornography and abortion" ("Those Who Walk In
Darkness, Will See A Great Light... The Christian Reconstruction of Zambia"
by Abshire, free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/zambia.htm). In the
case of pornography, was this a good or bad testimony to the other nations
of the world? Wilson would have to say that it was very good, as it was in
keeping with God's (alleged) instruction concerning negative civil sanctions.
The communists kept the nation relatively free of pornography but a
professedly Christian government actually initially legalized it (along with
abortion) -- and Wilson's views would have the Zambians "glorifying" God
by legalizing pornography! (One wonders where the civil leaders of Zambia
originally got the idea that it was honoring to God that pornography be
free from negative civil sanctions!) But , thanks be to God, it came to pass
that,
"the Zambian government then took a most encouraging turn. President
Chiluba made a public speech against pornography and called for its total
eradication. This was followed by vigorous action by the Zambian police in
rooting out all publicly displayed pornography and arresting those who
sold it. Representations of Zambia Christian Action convinced the Zambian
government to have the police burn the pornography on the streets
wherever it was found" (ibid.).
Given these developments in Zambia it would now seem appropriate for
_Credenda/Agenda_ to provide a short article (their specialty) rebuking
the Zambian civil government for "backsliding" into this latter state of
affairs (by enacting negative civil sanctions against those involved with
pornography). After all, "Why do [Zambians] . . . insist on punishments
found nowhere in Scripture? . . . [Zambians] must learn to distinguish sins
from crimes. If God reveals His will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If God
reveals the civil penalty which must be applied, then it is also a crime. But
without wisdom from Him on the civil penalty to be applied, the [Zambian]
civil order must leave enforcement of God's law to the church, family, or
the providence of God." Articles, attacking the faithful, are becoming more
common in the pages of _Credenda/Agenda_, so the production of such a
column should not catch many off guard -- especially if _C/A's_ writers
turn the Zambian's faithfulness on this matter (and disagreement with
them) into some kind of a joke or parody (thus confusing people into
believing something about such righteous actions which have nothing to do
with what has actually transpired in reality). Beware the man who is
*quick* to jest about sin or other serious matters related to the kingdom of
God (Eph. 5:3-4). Somehow I doubt we will ever see such an article
(rebuking the Zambian's) from our "jovial" (I'm being kind) friends; for I
think -- or at least hope -- that they are already wiser than the principles
Wilson espouses in "Cyberporn: A Case Study." But, if no rebuke to the
Zambian civil government (for their "sin" of outlawing pornography) is
forthcoming from _Credenda/Agenda_, a public retraction of Wilson's
published principles may be in order. But alas...
Having thus given a brief overview of some of the glaringly absurd and
destructive problems inherent in Wilson's position, we now turn to an
examination of irrefutable historical and Scriptural evidences against it.
We will thereby briefly, but I believe sufficiently, demonstrate that Doug
Wilson's position (though we doubt that he holds to it consistently) on the
application (or lack thereof) of negative civil sanctions, especially
regarding pornographers, is not the "classical Protestant" position, nor is it
biblical.
Beginning with some historic proof we find that Wilson's "hyper-
regulativism" can be soundly refuted in citations taken from the individual
(major) Reformers, their confessions and their covenants. Our first quote is
taken from _Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty; or, the
True Resolution of a Present Controversy Concerning Liberty of
Conscience_ by George Gillespie (1644; free at:
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/wholsome.html). Gillespie, one of the
Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, here illustrates that
the basis of Wilson's position has historically been used by at least one
Anabaptist. Gillespie writes,
"I have endeavored in the following discourse to vindicate the lawful, yea
necessary use of the coercive power of the Christian Magistrate in
suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, *according as the degree
of their offense and of the Church's danger shall require*: Which when I
had done, there came to my hands a book called _The Storming of
Antichrist_ (by Christopher Blackwood, 1644--RB). Indeed, "The Recruiting
of Antichrist, and the Storming of Zion" (if so be that I may *anabaptize an
Anabaptist's book*). Take one passage for instance (p.25): 'And for Papists,'
says he, 'though they are least to be borne of all others, because of the
uncertainty of their keeping faith with heretics, as they call us, and
because they may be absolved of securements that can arise from the just
solemn oaths, and because of their cruelty against the Protestants in
diverse countries where they get the upper hand, and because they are
professed idolaters, yet may they be born with (as I suppose with
submission to better judgments) in Protestant government, in point of
religion, **because we have no command** to root out any for conscience,'"
etc. (1644 edition, p. v, emphases added).
Note that this Anabaptist's tolerationism is built on the same foundation
Wilson insists is the magistrate's guide regarding negative civil sanctions.
The Anabaptist argues that we must not punish the "papists" because "we
have **no command** to root out any for conscience" (emphasis added).
Gillespie subsequently distinguishes the truth from the error in the
Anabaptist's statement (on tolerationism and conscience), but for our
purpose it illustrates that this was one instance where Wilson's principle of
civil hyper-regulativism is called upon to justify the Anabaptist position
regarding civil penal sanctions.
I also addressed this question on pages 17-18 of my work, _John Knox,
Oliver Cromwell, God's Law and the Reformation of Civil Government_:
"One further example of weakness in the modern Theonomic movement is
found in the application of the *regulative principle to civil penal
sanctions*. This idea has led some to such logical extremes that they would
deny the civil government the right (or should I say duty) to censor or
prohibit the *investment* in, or the *distribution* and *sale* of,
pornographic materials (the seventh commandment notwithstanding). In
such a 'Theonomic' state hard-core pornographic movies, books and
magazines would be protected by a 'Theonomic' civil legal code -- while
the 'Theonomic' police would have authority (based on a constitution which
establishes the application of the regulative principle to civil penal
sanctions) to apprehend *only* those who have *participated* in the
adultery, fornication or sodomy of the pornography *itself*. The regulative
principle, when applied to penal sanctions, would insure all other 'non
participants' the constitutional *right* to involve themselves in the chain of
production and distribution of pornographic materials, because the civil
penal sanctions of the Old Testament don't *specifically* cite them as
offenders. One further example would involve the sixth commandment.
Would it be no crime to hire, counsel or plan a murder that was carried out
by another because the penal sanctions do not *specify* anything other
than the *actual murdering* as the crime? Obviously, matters must be
judged in regard to allowing for an interpretation of Scripture, concerning
crime and punishment, which takes into account those things which can,
'by good and necessary consequence... be deduced from Scripture'
(_Westminster Confession of Faith_, ch. 1, sect. 6). Questions 91 to 151 of
the _Westminster Larger Catechism_ would be an indispensably helpful
guide to the civil magistrate here."
In this vein Gillespie notes:
"Fourthly, I distinguish between bare opinions or speculations, and
scandalous or pernicious practices, as Mr. Burton does in his _Vindication
of the Independent Churches_. 'You must distinguish,' he says, 'between
men's consciences and their practices.The conscience simply considered in
itself is for God, the lord of conscience alone to judge, as before. But for a
man's practices (of which alone man can take cognizance) **if they be
against *any* of God's commandments, of the first or the second table; that
appertains to the Civil Magistrate to punish**, who is for this cause called
custos utriusque tabuloe, the keeper of both tables.' For this he cites Rom.
13:3-4, and he adds, 'So as we see here that is the object of civil power, to
wit, actions good or bad, not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience,
but actions.' And this in his answer to the interrogatory concerning the
lawful coercive power of the civil Magistrates in suppressing heresies. In
which he handsomely yielded the point, for who advises the Parliament to
punish men for their thoughts, bare opinions, or for conscience simply
considered in itself? It is for preaching, **printing, spreading** of
dangerous opinions, for schismatical, pernicious and scandalous practices,
for drawing factions among the people contrary to the covenant [the
Solemn League and Covenant -- RB], for resisting the reformation of
religion, for lying and railing against the covenant [the Solemn League and
Covenant -- RB], the Parliament, the [Westminster -- RB] Assembly of
Divines, or against the Reformed Churches" (_Wholesome Severity_, p. 34,
emphases added).
Likewise:
"Those that are in authority are to take such courses and so to rule, that we
may not only lead a quiet and peaceable life, but further that it be in all
godliness and honesty (1 Tim. 2:2). The Magistrate is keeper of both tables,
and is to punish the violation of the first table, as well as of the second. 3.
'Will any man,' says Augustine, 'who is in his right wit, say to Kings, "Do not
care by whom the Church of God in your Kingdom is maintained or
opposed; it does not concern your Kingdom, who will be religious, who
sacrilegious:" to whom, notwithstanding, it cannot be said, "It does not
concern you in your Kingdom who is chaste, who whorish," etc. Is the soul's
keeping faith and truth to God a lighter matter, than that of a woman to a
man?'" (_Wholesome Severity_, p. 14).
In another place Gillespie goes so far as to say that
"though *other* judiciall or forensecall laws concerning the punishments of
sins against the Moral law, may, yea, *must* be allowed of in Christian
Republickes; Provided always they be **not contrary** to Gods own
Judiciall laws: yet I fear not to hold with Junius, _de Politia Mosis_ cap. 6,
that he who was punishable by death under the Judiciall law, is punishable
by death still; and he who was not punishable by death them, in not to be
punished by death now" (_Wholesome Severity_, p. 9, emphases added).
So we see, whereas Wilson would not even have the godly magistrate
protect the public for the "lesser" second table physical whoredoms (of
pornography), Gillespie would have the magistrate punish for the "greater"
first table spiritual whoredoms (e.g. tolerationism, heresy, false worship,
etc.). Wilson says that we need **specific institution** for sanctions;
Gillespie says that the magistrate can punish as long as the punishment is
"**not contrary** to Gods own Judiciall laws." The antithesis is clear: either
Gillespie and his fellow Covenanters at Westminster were wrong on this
point, or Wilson, the "Classical Protestant"; for there are no revealed penal
sanctions which specifically call upon the magistrate to punish people "for
drawing factions among the people contrary to the covenant [the Solemn
League and Covenant -- RB]... for lying and railing against the covenant
[the Solemn League and Covenant -- RB], the [English -- RB] Parliament ,
the [Westminster -- RB] Assembly of Divines, or against the Reformed
Churches." Negative civil sanctions for these crimes must be specifically 'by
good and necessary consequence... deduced from Scripture' (_Westminster
Confession of Faith_, ch. 1, sect. 6). Clearly, Gillespie and other *historic*
theonomists oppose Wilson and many *modern* Theonomists.
John Knox's "Appellation... to the Scottish Nobility" in volume 4 of his
_Works_ also refutes Wilson's civil regulativism. In this appeal Knox
repudiates the use of the regulative principle to guide magistrates (in
regard to negative civil sanctions) when he notes that we are to submit to
the laws of the magistrate except "*such as be expressly repugning to God's
commandment*" (cited in Knox's "Appellation" as printed in _John Knox on
Rebellion_, R.A. Mason, ed. [Cambridge University Press, 1994], p. 107; see
also the discussion of Westminster Confession 20:2,4 below). This is not the
regulative principle applied to negative civil sanctions, which Wilson sets
forth (i.e. only that which is expressly *instituted* of God is a lawful
negative civil sanction), but the Reformation principle of negative civil
sanctions, which allows for sanctions rightly **deduced from Scripture "by
good and necessary consequence"**. The bulk of Reformed divines believed
that God allows the magistrate much more room to *apply* Scripture to the
area of negative sanctions -- as the Judges in Israel of old did, as well as a
father disciplining his children -- than our modern "Presbyterians" and
Theonomists do. Samuel Rutherford clearly states, "that which the *master
of a christian family* may doe, that the *father of the Common-wealth the
King*, in his place may doe" (_A Free Disputation Against Pretended
Liberty of Conscience, p. 176; emphasis added).
One contemporary author who has diagnosed part of the problem with
applying the regulative principle to the state, writes:
"I have read in other places the argument that government should have no
involvement in education because the Bible does not give instructions for it
to be involved. These authors set forward what I call the 'regulative
principle of the state.' Just as the regulative principle of worship says that
what is not explicitly commanded is therefore forbidden, the regulative
principle of the state says that what is not explicitly commanded to the
government is forbidden. This principle is, as far as I know, without
significant precedent in Church history, lacking in exegetical support, and
leads to absurd policy implications (e.g. the elimination of traffic laws).
This "libertarian model" of Christian statesmanship is inferior to the
historic Calvinist view, which I call the 'patriarchal model.'" (Jerry Bowyer,
_Christian Statesman_ magazine, "Bowyer's Blast" in the Educational Choice
Issue, January/Feb., 1993).
This leads us to some incisive questions. Is the state really forbidden to
intervene, because there is no explicit or specific biblical law mandating
civil punishment against those who would *corrupt the morals of young
children* through the use of lewd pictures? What about when hard core
pornography is being displayed in a local community playground (or the
local corner store)? Are we really to think that a godly civil magistrate
would be honoring God by allowing triple X billboards on public highways
because there is *no specific negative civil sanction* against the public
display of such morally reprehensible trash -- only negative civil sanctions
against those who actually participated in the act, as Wilson asserts? And
what if the participants were married, or only one person was before the
camera? Are pornographers then free from any form of punishment? Is
there a *specific* negative civil sanction against *watching* married
couples copulating or against self stimulation for public viewing? Against
filming such acts? Against publicly displaying the film? Against selling the
film? Against selling the film to minors? Is God really a civil libertarian?
Or is He a "covenanter"? Can we lay on our beds at night and thank God in
prayer that He is biblically glorified by a civil government that protects
those that *publicly* pimp off of the base lusts forbidden in Scripture --
rather than bringing negative civil sanctions against them? Or would we
not rather bless God for his benevolent ordinance of civil government
which, rightly functioning, would have delivered us from the filth that has
defiled so many, and which continues to sound its siren song? Can a
*public* moral wrong, which is an affront to God (openly violating the
seventh commandment) and destructive to society (violating the fifth and
tenth commandments), be a civil right? Or should it be punished by the
civil magistrate?
Just stop for a moment and try to thank God in prayer that pornographers
(at just about every level -- excepting paedophiles -- from production to
distribution) are free from civil punishment in our society today. In
attempting such a prayer, at a very practical level (by the testimony and
witness of the Holy Spirit with your spirit) you should know immediately
and intuitively that pornography is not a civil right positively sanctioned
by Scripture. If fact, if your conscience is acting in accord with truth, you
should also clearly see what the civil magistrate should *deduce from
Scripture, by good and necessary consequence* regarding negative civil
sanctions against pornographers (unless, of course, you have become so
hardened that you can falsely "bless" God in prayer that the pandering
dogs of pornography are free from civil sanctions). And, it should be
carefully noted that these same type of questions -- which produce such
horrid answers if approached with Wilson's principles of biblical
interpretation -- may with equal force and revulsion be asked of other
areas. For example, is there a *specific* negative civil sanction in the
Scripture against *promoting* Nazism (or similar immoral political
philosophies, ideas and/or antichristian civil governments)? Or was Paul
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's official propagandist, undeserving of civil
sanctions in his marketing of Hitler and his murderous and tyrannical
regime? The reader is left to continue this reductio ad absurdum (see the
end of this essay for other examples) and conclude for himself whether
Wilson and *modern* Theonomy really provide the check against civil
tyranny as they claim; whether their conception of the civil magistrate
really is "the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:4). "Wisdom is
justified of her children" (Matt. 11:19) and the offspring of Wilson's and
many *modern* Theonomists' principles (on this point) are illegitimate --
and look much more like the bastard children of the Anabaptists and
Libertines.
As an interesting side note, we also see that the application of the
regulative principle to civil penal sanctions (what we might rightly term a
"sub-theonomic" view of God's law) ties closely together with the
antiestablimentarianism prominent in many Reconstructionist and
"evangelical" circles today. Antiestablishmentarianism is also another
aspect of Anabaptist thought that finds its ways into the pages of
_Credenda/Agenda_ (when was the last _Credenda/Agenda_ article, much
less entire issue, defending -- or even mentioning -- the truth of
establishmentarianism?), and sadly much of the modern "Reformed"
community as well adopts this species of defection (moving away from
Reformation attainments to the innovations and heresies of the
Anabaptists). We will not discuss extensively why Wilson's view of civil
sanctions is the sister to antiestablishmentarianism, but the Anabaptist
connection is clearly evident. Cunningham notes:
"Under the general head of the civil magistrate, or of civil magistracy, --
that is, in the exposition of what is taught in Scripture concerning the
functions and duties of the supreme civil authority of a nation, whatever
be its form of government, -- *the Reformers were unanimous and decided
in asserting what has been called in modern times the principle of national
establishments of religion*, -- namely, that it is competent to, and
incumbent upon, nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity,
or in the exercise of their legitimate control over civil matters, to aim at
the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true religion, and the
prosperity of the church of Christ. This principle, which comprehends or
implies the whole of what we are concerned to maintain upon the subject
of national establishments of religion, we believe to be fully sanctioned by
Scripture; and we can appeal, in support of it, to the decided and
unanimous testimony of the Reformers, -- *while the Anabaptists of that
period seem to have been the first, if we except the Donatists of the fifth
century, who stumbled upon something like the opposite doctrine*, or
what is now-a-days commonly called the Voluntary principle" (William
Cunningham, _Historical Theology_, Still Waters Revival Books, [1882]
reprinted 1991, vol. 2, pp. 559-560, emphases added).
According to the Anabaptists, then, it was not the civil magistrate's official
task "to aim at the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true
religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ" by causing the nation,
in her official character, to make a public confession of the one true
reformed religion, to the exclusion and suppression of all contrary heresies
and corruptions. If, rather, his job is to ensure every citizen's "freedom to
choose" their own religious practices (even if only amongst the differing
sects of Christianity) then it is not difficult to see the link between
"freedom" in this area and "freedom of speech" in disseminating
pornography. And, we need look no farther than the United States, with its
dogmatic religious pluralism and thriving pornographic market, for
verification.
Citations could be multiplied from Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649, the best Dutch Synods,
other Reformed Confessions, etc., to offer further historical "Classical
Protestant" support of our position and opposition to Wilson's. We will
consider only four more, however: another from Gillespie; one from _The
Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_; a
third from the Solemn League and Covenant; and the fourth, and perhaps
most powerful, from a fruit of that Covenant, the Westminster Confession
of Faith.
Turning again to _Wholesome Severity_, we find mentioned a number of
others who concur with the position on civil punishment here set forth. In
answering the question of "Whether Christian Judges may lawfully punish
Hereticks" (p. 1), Gillespie deals with three views, first disposing of the
Papists' opinion, "who hold it to be no sin, but good service to God, to
extirpate by fire and sword, all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the
Church and Catholick Religion" (p. 1).
He then says,
"The second opinion falls short, as far as the former exceeds: that is, that
the Magistrate ought not to inflict any punishment, nor put forth any
coercive power upon Heretics or Sectaries, but on the contrary grant them
liberty and toleration. This was the opinion of the Donatists, against which
Augustine has written both much and well, in diverse places: though [he]
himself was once in the same error, till he took the matter into his second
better thoughts, as is evident by his Retractations (lib. 2, cap. 2, & epist.
48). In the same error are the Socinians and Arminians (See Peltii
Harmonia, Artic. 21; Nic. Bodecher, Sociniano. Remonstrantismus, cap.25.
See also Grotii Apologeticus, cap. 6, p. 130; Theoph. Nicolaid, Refut.Tractat.
de Ecclesia cap. 4, p. 33). The very same is maintained in some books
printed amongst ourselves in this year of confusion: viz. The Bloody Tenent
[by Roger Williams -- RB]; Liberty of Conscience; The Compassionate
Samaritan; John the Baptist; and by Mr. [Thomas--RB] Goodwin [the
Independent --RB] in his Theomaxia, p.50, and in his Innocencies Triumph,
p.8. In which places he denies that the Magistrate, and particularly that
the two houses of Parliament, may impose anything pertaining to the
service and worship of God under fines or penalties. So M.S. to A.S. (pp. 53-
55, &c.), disputes against the coercive power of the Magistrate to suppress
Heresies and Sects" (pp. 2-3).
Finally, Gillespie gives the classical Protestant position:
"The third opinion is that **the Magistrate may and ought to exercise his
coercive power, in suppressing and punishing Heretics and Sectaries, less
or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism, obstinacy,
and danger of seducing others, requires**. As this was the judgment of the
orthodox ancients (_vide Optati opera_, edit. Albaspin, p. 204, 215), so it is
followed by our soundest Protestant writers; most largely by Beza against
Bellius and Monfortius, in a peculiar treatise, _De Hareticis a Magistratu
puniendis_. And though Gerhard, Brochmand, and other Lutheran writers,
make a controversy where they need not, alleging that the Calvinists (so
nicknamed) hold as the Papists do, that all Heretics without distinction are
to be put to death: the truth is, they themselves say as much as either
Calvin or Beza, or any other whom they take for adversaries in this
question, that is, that heretics are to be punished by *fines, imprisonment,
banishments*, and if they be gross idolaters or blasphemers, and seducers
of others, then to be put to death. What else does Calvin teach, when he
distinguishes three kinds of errors: some to be tolerated with a spirit of
meekness, such as ought not to [cause] separation between brothers; others
not to be tolerated, but to be suppressed with a certain degree of severity;
[and] a third sort so abominable, and pestiferous, that they are to be cut off
by the highest punishment? And lest it be thought that this is but the
opinion of some few, that the Magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and
by civil punishments suppress Heretics and Sectaries: let it be observed
what is held forth and professed concerning this business, by the Reformed
Churches in their public confessions of faith. In the latter Confession of
Helvetica (cap.30), it is said that the Magistrate ought to "root out lies and
all superstition, with all impiety and idolatry." And after, "Let him
suppress stubborn Heretics." In the French Confession (art. 39), "Therefore
he hath also delivered the sword into the hands of Magistrates, to wit, that
offenses may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the
second table, but also against the first." In the Belgic Confession (art. 36),
"Therefore hath he armed the Magistrates with the sword for punishing
them that do evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover it is their
duty not only to be careful and watchful for the preservation of the civil
government, but also to defend the holy ministry, and to abolish and
overthrow all idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God." Beza, _De
Hareticis_, tells us in the beginning, that the ministers of Helvetia had
declared themselves to be of the same judgment, in a book published of
that argument. And toward the end he cites the Saxon Confession, Luther,
Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Wolfangus Capito, and Bullinger. The Synod
of Dordt (ses. 138), in their sentence against the Remonstrants not only
interdicts them of all their ecclesiastical and academical functions, *but
also beseeches the States General by their secular power further to
suppress and restrain them*" (pp. 3-5, emphases added; spelling and some
wording modernized).
Moving next to _The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the
Time of Calvin_ (P.E. Hughes, ed. and trans., Eerdmans, 1966), it is evident
that Wilson's view of negative civil sanctions was alien to Calvin and the
Geneva Presbyteries. Blasphemies, contradiction of the Word, drunkenness,
usury over five percent, dissolute games, missing church, being late for
sermons, women (midwives) baptizing, superstitious worship, observing
Romish festival days, attending Mass, etc., all came under civil cognizance
(usually fines, pp. 53-59). Never mind punishing pornographers, the
Genevans correctly deduced from the seventh commandment that "anyone
who sings indecent, dissolute, or outrageous songs, or dances the fling or
some similar dance shall be imprisoned for three days and shall then be
sent before the Consistory" (p. 58). This, and even stronger laws, could be
used in our day to rid the land of the Devil's minstrels, and all the literary
"pornography" (in the form of the antichristian propositions that infect our
society through Rock and Country music, blasphemous comedy, etc.) that
bombards us through radio and television. Is there any real question how
AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Madonna,
Michael Jackson, "Rappers" or even Shania Twain (and their videos) would
fare among the real classical Protestants? How much more those who
corrupt the nations with pornography!
Thirdly, we consider an illustrative section from the Solemn League and
Covenant (SL&C), the bond that joined the nations and churches of England,
Scotland and Ireland in a covenanted "uniformity in religion, confession of
faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising"
(Head 1). The portion in question is Head 4, which we simply reproduce
with appropriate emphases (noting that reference can be made to the _The
Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the Year
1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_ for further understanding of the original
intent and actual implementation of this section of the SL&C, concerning
the question of negative civil sanctions):
"We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery [disclosing or
making known -- RB] of *all* such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion,
dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or
making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League
and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive
*condign [appropriate -- RB] punishment*, as the **degree of their offences
shall require or deserve**, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, **shall
judge convenient [suitable or proper -- RB].**"
Finally, we look at the fourth and perhaps most powerful example, taken
from chapter 20 of the **original** Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of
Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience." Section 2 of that chapter
teaches, "God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing **contrary**
to his word, or *beside it*, in matters of faith or worship." Section 4
condemns practices subversive of lawful power and lawful exercise thereof
which might plead Christian liberty for their warrant. It frankly describes
the biblical sanctions due to such offenders: "And for their ***publishing***
of such opinions, or **maintaining** of such practices, as are **contrary to
the light of nature**, or to faith, worship, ***or conversation [conduct or
behavior -- RB]***; or ***to the power of godliness***; or such erroneous
opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of
publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and
order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be
called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church,
***and by the power of the civil magistrate***.
Note carefully the distinction between the qualifiers, "contrary to" and
"beside" the word of God in Section 2. The latter, "beside", is a reference to
the regulative principle of worship which teaches that God may only be
worshiped in ways "prescribed in the Holy Scripture" (cf. 21:1). Anything
*beyond (or "beside") this*, except those "circumstances . . . common to
human actions and societies" (1:6) is strictly forbidden in public worship.
"Contrary to," on the other hand, is applied to all other "doctrines and
commandments of men," which would include (according to the *historic*
theonomists at Westminster) the laws and punishments of the civil
magistrate. We saw this view in our earlier mention of John Knox, and it
truly is the "Classical Protestant" position as taught by the reformers and
their creeds.
This observation on Section 2 alone overthrows Wilson's position. Even
more pointed, however, is the wording in Section 4, which not only
contradicts Wilson's principles, but would subject Wilson himself to the
civil sanctions of a truly biblical magistrate. This is evident because Wilson
(and many *modern* Theonomists) are "publishing such opinions . . . as are
contrary to the light of nature . . . or conversation [conduct or behavior --
RB]; or to the power of godliness," inasmuch as they declare most of those
involved in the making and dissemination of pornography (excepting
certain participants) to be free of negative civil sanctions. Of course, this
says nothing of their erroneous views of worship which likewise are
"contrary to . . . the power of godliness" and "are destructive to the
external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church." (Cf.
Larry Birger's copious citations from the National Covenant and Solemn
League and Covenant which prove the same point regarding his former
elders, in "Why The PCA Is Not A Duly Constituted Church, And Why
Faithful Christians Should Separate From This Corrupt Communion," free on
the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm).
It is time for those like Wilson to acknowledge that not only are they *not*
holding to the positions of our reformed forefathers, but these very
forefathers (as evidenced by their national **confessions and covenants**)
would have sought civil sanctions against them if they did not repent of
their errors! Then, based on this admission they must either repent (as we
ourselves have done by the grace of God) or cease claiming to be the
progeny of the Reformation.
Even a cursory survey of the small amount of historical evidence
presented above renders impossible the conclusion that Doug Wilson (and
a number of *modern* Theonomists) adopt anything near the classical
Protestant position on negative penal sanctions. But historical practice is no
rule outside of its agreement to Scripture; so we now turn to some clear
examples revealed by "the supreme Judge, by which all controversies of
religion are to be determined" (WCF 1:10).
Gillespie, in "Whether it be lawful, just, and expedient, that the taking of
the Solemn League and Covenant be enjoined by the Parliament upon all
persons in the kingdom under a considerable penalty" (Chapter 16 of "A
Treatise of Miscellany Questions," pp. 85-88 in _The Works of George
Gillespie_ volume 2, Still Waters Revival Books reprint -- or free at
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/SL&CGil.htm),
presents a *positive* biblical example of approved negative civil sanctions
which are nowhere *expressly* revealed in the portions of Scripture
dealing with the laws related to civil punishments:
"When king Josiah made a solemn covenant (the effect whereof was a
thorough reformation, the taking away of the ancient and long-continued
high places, the destroying of Baal's vessels, altars, priests, &c. 2 Kings 23,
throughout), he did not leave his covenant arbitrary; but 'he caused all that
were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it,' 2 Chron. 34: 32. In
all which he is set forth as a precedent to Christian reformers, that they
may know their duty in like cases" (p. 86).
Likewise, his comments in _Wholesome Severity_ (p. 10):
"Josiah caused 'all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to
the Covenant,' 2 Chron, 34:32, which could not be without either
threatening or inflicting punishment upon the transgressors; there being
many at that time disaffected to the Reformation."
Did Josiah "not have the capacity to legislate wisely where God had been
silent," as Wilson contends? Where in Scripture is Josiah, as king, told to
**cause** "all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to"
this *particular covenant*? Does Scripture commend or condemn Josiah's
work as a covenanting king?
Another clear example, contrary to Wilson's position (as noted in my, _A
Contemporary Covenanting Debate; or, Covenanting Redivivus_; free at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm), is
King Asa -- who "nationally caused (by civil power) the inhabitants of the
nation to stand to the covenant." The Scripture relates it thus:
"So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in
the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they offered unto the LORD the
same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and
seven thousand sheep. And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD
God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; *That
whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death,
whether small or great, whether man or woman*. And they sware unto the
LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with
cornets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all
their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of
them: and the LORD gave them rest round about" (2 Chron. 15:10-15).
Was this **particular** covenant renewal revealed in Scripture as a duty
which king Asa was to enact (in his civil capacity over the nation), or was
this civil duty deduced by Asa "by good and necessary consequence" from
the moral law of God? (See "Covenanting a Duty," chapter 3 in John
Cunningham's _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ for a *detailed* explanation
of the answer.) Were the *negative civil sanctions* attached to the
malignants (covenant refusers) in Judah *explicitly* revealed or were they
also deduced from Scripture, "by good and necessary consequence," from
the moral law of God? Was God "found of them" for these actions? Was Asa,
at this point in his reign, a Covenanter or an Anabaptist? On this point is
Wilson closer to the Covenanters or the Anabaptists?
Samuel Rutherford touches on matters related to negative penal sanctions
in numerous places in his _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty
of Conscience_ (1649). Pertinent, in principle, to the Scriptural question
before us are Rutherford's comments when he writes,
"but they had just powers, as the [civil -- RB] Ministers of God, to punish
seducing Prophets as well as other ill-doers, by the law of nature and
Nations. And this I take is holden forth by Job 31.26,27,28. *who being
under no Judicial Law*, obliging the Jewes, but a Gentile, and so in this led
**by the Law of nature and Nations**, maketh Idolatry and worshipping of
the Sunne and Moone, to be an iniquity to be punished by the Judge"
(_Free Disputation, p. 313, emphases added).
Two final Scriptural examples follow demonstrating that God approves of
negative civil sanctions which are not *explicitly* revealed in the judicial
law.
The first is found in Ezra's godly example during the covenanted
Reformation of his day.
"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the
wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord,
and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the law. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we
also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. Then arose Ezra, and
made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they
should do according to this word. And they sware. Then Ezra rose up from
before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of
Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water:
for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried
away. And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto
all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves
together unto Jerusalem; *And that whosoever would not come within
three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his
substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the
congregation of those that had been carried away*" (Ezra 10:3-8, emphases
added).
Where in the judicial law do we find civil penalties which state that if one
did not attend this particular covenant renewal "within three days" that
the civil magistrate could relieve him of all his "substance," and separate
(exile) him from the covenanted people of God? If no such negative civil
sanction can be expressly found in God's Word, then Wilson's view of
penology stands overturned. Clearly we need to look beyond his truncated
view for guidance on such contemporary questions as how the civil
magistrate should deal with the pornography plague.
Though the preceding Scriptural and historical examples provide more
than ample refutation of Wilson's hyper-regulativism as applied to
negative civil sanctions, we consider briefly one final, devastating account.
Nehemiah, a civil reformer par excellence, exemplifies God's ordinance of
civil magistracy as a "nursing-father" (Isa. 49:23) to the church of Christ:
"In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath,
and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs,
and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the
sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold
victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all
manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in
Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them,
What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not
your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon
this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.
And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark
before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and
charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of
my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in
on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged
without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said
unto them, Why **lodge ye** about the wall? **if ye do so again, I will lay
hands on you**. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath"
(Neh. 13:15-21, emphases added).
Note carefully that in his treatment of those who just gave "the appearance
of evil," by waiting outside the gate for the Sabbath to end, Nehemiah
threatens to apply negative civil sanctions ("I will lay hands on you")
*before* any actual *explicit* Sabbath violation (i.e. buying and selling,
etc.) occurs. Is there an explicit judicial law requiring the magistrate to
punish those who look as if they are about to break the Sabbath? Or were
Nehemiah's civil threats a logical inference deduced by good and necessary
consequence from the fourth commandment and the Scriptural duty of the
civil magistrate?
But further -- and this observation once-and-for-all nullifies Wilson's civil
hyper-regulativism -- consider the nature of the offense for which
Nehemiah was to punish these merchants who were camping outside of the
city. It is apparent from the context that Nehemiah was seeking to keep
the inhabitants of Judah, and especially Jerusalem, from desecrating the
Sabbath by merchandising. He does not wait until the actual infraction
occurs to threaten punishment, nor does he promise those lodging outside
the city that they will be punished *if they break the Sabbath by buying
and selling the following day*. Rather, he assures them that if they even
***tempt*** his constituents to break the Sabbath ***he will "lay hands on"
them***. Matthew Poole concisely concurs: "For this was a *temptation* to
covetous or needy Jews, that lived in or near the city, to steal opportunities
of buying their commodities, which then they might do with more
advantage" (emphasis added). And thus we have righteous Nehemiah's
example standing as an eternal and irrefutable testimony against the
teaching of Wilson and a number of *modern* Theonomists, for what is
pornography but ***a temptation to violate the seventh commandment***?
As we have seen, at the root of this issue are two questions. First, Is
Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" to be applied to negative civil sanctions?
And second, what is the place of logical consequences in determining upon
whom (and why) these sanctions should be applied? Samuel Rutherford,
one of the greatest biblical political philosophers ever to have lived (and
one of the Westminster Divines) answers both of these questions as we
have answered them (contra Wilson).
In arguing against the application of "hyper-regulativism" to negative civil
sanctions, Rutherford writes,
"I see *nothing said against bodily punishing* [notice Rutherford does not
say I see something 'said *for* bodily punishing,' as Wilson's view
requires--RB] of such as teach transubstantiation to others: for the
Idolaters and Seducers in the Old Testament believed the same way, there
is one true God 'Jehovah that brought them our of Egypt,' Exod 32.4,5.
Jereboam who made two Gods, and Jehu who was zealous for Jehovah, 1
King 13.6,c.13.1,2,3,. 2 King 9.25-36,37.c.10.16.20,21... [Rutherford here
adds many biblical examples concerning various idolaters, some who
claimed to worship Jehovah and some who did not, which we have
omitted--RB]" (_A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of
Conscience_ [1649], p. 71, emphases added).
He then states, on the question of logical consequences, that each of these
idolaters
"yet denyed and hated this *logicall consequence* that they had 'forsaken
the Lord,' Jer. (.13,14. or Deut 32.18. 'forgotten the rocke that begat them',
Ps.78.11,41. Ps. 107.12,13. that 'they forsooke him dayes without
number'... and *they did error indeed in a consequence*, against the light
of nature, yet the irreligious and wicked stopping of eyes and eares at
*naturall consequences in matters of Religion is no innocent errour*, as is
cleare, Isa.44.18... yet *the Papist will deny this consequence*, that he
multiplyes Gods as loaves are multiplyed in an oven; because as Esaiah
saith, 'he knoweth not, he understandeth not, God hath shut his eyes';
certainly that knowledge he denyes to the Idolater, *is the natural
knowledge of a naturall consequence*; if ye worship a bit of a ash-tree, or
a bit of bread, ergo, the halfe of your God, or the quarter thereof, 'is baken
in an oven', ergo, 'there is a lye, and an abomination in your right hand';
then **the deniall of logicall consequence in Religion, and the teaching
thereof to others, may be, and is an heresie, and punishable by the
Magistrate**, as Duet.13 and Exod. 32. So Christ rebukes Matth. 22 Saduces
as ignorant of the Scripture, when they denyed but the consequence or a
logicall connexion, as God is not the God of the dead but of the living, ergo,
the dead must rise againe, and Abraham must live, and his body be raised
from the dead. And the Idolaters who were to dye by the Law of God,
Exod. 32. Deut.13. denyed not the true God more than our false teachers
doe now [who deny him in consequence--RB]. We see no reason why none
should be false teachers, but such only as deny fundamentals, and that
pertinaciously, though these by Divines be called Heretickes" (_A Free
Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649], pp. 72-73,
emphases added).
Moreover, in accord with these principles, Rutherford writes,
"I say not for believing tran-substantiation only, men are to be hanged; the
question now is of bodily punishing, hanging and burning quick, are
particular kinds of punishing, in which I should be as sparing as another
man, but the question may draw to this, whether the Laws of England &
Scotland be bloody and unjust, that ordains seminary Priests and Jesuits,
whose trade it is to seduce souls [soul murder--RB] to the whole body of
Popery, to bee hanged. I conceive *they are most just Lawes*, and
warranted by Deut. 13. [based on the good and necessary inference that
the enticing of the people to Romanism, and 'Romanism' is not mentioned
by the name 'Romanism' in Scripture, is the enticing of the people to 'go
and serve other Gods' Deut. 13:2,6,13--RB] and many other Scriptures, and
*that the King and Parliaments of either Kingdomes serve Christ, and Kisse
the Son in making and executing these Laws*" (_A Free Disputation Against
Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649], pp. 70-71, emphases added).
But you may say that "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" [John 6:60].
The answer from the lips of our Lord: "My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follow me" [John 10:27].
Thus, we find that here, using different examples (idolatry,
transubstantiation and seduction to soul murder [as an occupation]),
Rutherford has summarized and refuted Wilson's view of negative civil
sanctions on the pornography question -- at a principial level. Rutherford
attacks the use of Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" and approbates the use of
lawful ("good and necessary") inferences regarding negative penal
sanctions (for further study see the whole section "Errours in non-
fundamentalls obstinately spread, punishable," pages 64-77, in _A Free
Disputation..._ for extensive Scripture proofs on this point). On the two
most important points of principle related to the question of pornography
and criminal penalties Rutherford (the Westminster Divine) is
diametrically opposed to Doug Wilson the "classical Protestant." And
Rutherford's view was not novel in his day, but rather the majority
position among the Reformers.
We agree with Rutherford (and Scripture), and thus proclaim that all
pornographers should come under negative civil sanctions (to a greater or
lesser degree depending on the level of offence) as a logical consequence of
their public violation of the law of God (and in light of the damage their
actions do to the promotion of godliness in society as a whole). This is the
"classical Protestant" position on the power of the civil magistrate, in
opposition to the "freedom of choice," Anabaptistic, Libertarianism
rampant among Christians today.
In our brief treatment we have noted a number of Scriptural and historical
examples squarely opposed to the civil "hyper-regulativism" which Doug
Wilson promotes in _Credenda/Agenda_, and thus we must reject forever
this hermeneutic and its illegitimate, socially destructive offspring.
One of the tragic ironies of the *modern* Theonomy/Reconstructionist
movement is its (seemingly) paradoxical antinomianism. We say
"seemingly" because, as noted, their principles lead some of them
unembarrassedly to avow that the civil magistrate leave stumbling blocks
in the middle of the road (such a pornography) which ultimately encourage
its citizens -- especially the young and immature -- to break the seventh
commandment (and how many Christians compromise their testimony and
injure their soul by watching "off color" movies and television programs or
listening to "adultery glorifying" music?, "But I say unto you, That
whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart" Matt. 5:28). Such stumbling stones, if they
were found in the middle of a busy highway (and caused car accidents)
would never be tolerated, yet we are told that the *greater dangers* posed
by *spiritual stumbling stones* are to be left alone civilly, until they are
removed by the "church, family, or the providence of God." Even a civil
highway department couldn't be run on the bases of such principles, much
less a nation seeking to honor God. Could you image the traffic jam that
would occur on a busy mountain road, after a landslide (leaving massive
boulders on the highway), as people waited for the "church, family, or the
providence of God" to clear the way? This is a graphic picture of the
problem caused by civil antinomianism and the antiestablishmentarianistic
views of civil government held by many Christians today -- and we have
many detouring off the road to Zion (practically speaking) and on to the
highway to hell, along with multiple car collisions in ruined Christian
testimonies, to prove it. Hordes are held captive to the lusts that readily
available pornography feeds, when civil governments are commanded by
Scripture (rightly understood) to have long ago brought out the graders
and rock crushing equipment and to have removed such impediments
from the road. And this is not to say that externals will produce salvation
or righteous behavior, but the older Reformed writers all recognized the
value of (civilly) limiting the public expression of sin in every legitimate
way possible. But this aspect of the Reformed understanding of Scripture
has been largely ignored or forgotten in our day.
Others have also noted this antinomian streak of which we speak (e.g.
Kevin Reed, _The Antinomian Streak in the Reconstructionist Movement_
free on the web at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/AntinomR.htm),
particularly concerning offenses against the first four commandments (the
first table of the moral law). Every bit as tragic, however, have been their
opponents' insipid and equally antinomian criticisms. Indeed, we are
convinced that one of the greatest strengths of *modern* Theonomy is the
weakness and more blatant lawlessness (at least at a principial level) of
the majority of its critics.
Likewise lamentable has been Doug Wilson's insistence in claiming the
title, "Classical Protestant"; yet as we have briefly demonstrated he is
simply rehashing antinomian *Anabaptistic* principles. Similarly, other
Theonomists have mustered the alleged support of the Westminster
Confession (and other products of the Reformation), when in reality their
principles fly directly in the face of the biblical truths championed by the
best of our reformed forefathers. We believe much of this
misrepresentation has arisen from ignorance, for many of the compositions
of our covenanted forebears have laid buried for centuries. However, by
the abundant grace and lovingkindness of God many of these works are
again being made available to the general public. Thus, while we do not
denounce everything these brethren have asserted (for who could not be
roused by the invigorating return to God's law that some of them have so
eloquently proclaimed?) we do call upon them to beware of willful
ignorance (2 Pet. 3:5), and to reject the cockiness exemplified in Wilson's
one-liner dismissals of the true "classical Protestantism" of the
Westminster Divines and other reformers (Rom. 12:3). We also admonish
them to consider a verse often appealed to in their writings: "Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
We ourselves once zealously promoted many of the errors we now abhor
and testify against, so it is not a matter of who is superior: we are *all
desperately wicked*. We only ask that our brethren humble themselves
and admit their ignorance and errors, as we by God's grace have done, and
that in the meantime they do not rail against the truth they fail to
comprehend. May they also heed another sobering warning: "It is
impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom
they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little
ones" (Luke 17:1-2). Civil magistrates are to be the church's "nursing-
fathers, and their queens [her] nursing-mothers" (Isaiah 49:23), not the
protectors of her enemies.
A more extended treatment of this topic is well overdue, and perhaps this
essay will arouse such an edifying endeavor. In the meantime, we
encourage the reader *not* to be content with the evidence shown herein.
Rather, armed with an introduction to the true, *historical* theonomy held
by our reformed progenitors, and tasting of how their faithfulness to
Scripture would deliver us (as a body politic and as individuals) from
many of our society's temptations, let the reader obtain the *source
documents* of the Reformation for himself and enjoy a hearty spiritual
feast. In doing this he will certainly partake of Christ's wondrous gift to the
church: "And he gave . . . *pastors and teachers*, for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the *ministry*, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14, emphases
added).
The following list presents some questions, aimed at the thoughtful reader,
which we believe will help demonstrate the absurdity of the modern
"Anabaptist" view of negative civil sanctions. When we speak of civil
punishments, we do not have anything particular in mind, for the type and
severity of punishment are other issues which need to be addressed
separately. But, once civil coercion is allowed in a given instance, outside of
an *explicit* negative civil sanction from God's Word (as in the biblical and
historical examples we have cited above), Wilson's "hyper-regulativism" as
applied to the state stands overthrown.
¥ Is the magistrate to punish a neighbor who inconsiderately and
obstinately plays his stereo (from his front porch) at 120 decibels (every
night of the week) from 3 to 5 A.M.? What if "Mr. Rock and Roll" decides to
do the same thing outside of an old folks home? A hospital? A church
"meeting house" on the Lord's day (at 11 A.M.)?
¥ Should those in favor of abortion be allowed to speak publicly in favor of
their views, or to print pro-abortion literature, or make pro-abortion
videos and music? Should they be punished for seeking to win others to
their view?
¥ Should medical establishments be free from civil punishment for training
abortionists?
¥ Should the civil magistrate allow triple X videos to be intermingled in the
children's section of the local video store? Should those who do such things
be liable to negative civil sanctions? What would you think of a father who
said that he doesn't agree that civil sanctions are lawful in such a case, and
though he would boycott such a store *personally*, and have his church
pray against them, he would also defend (in his magazine?) the *civil
right* of the store owner to pervert others who do not find (in their
reprobate minds) such public perversion to be offensive to them or their
children? This is an interesting question, as *modern* Theonomists often
denounce those who focus on *only* individual (or family) piety, to the
exclusion of civil matters -- and yet some of them exempt pornographers
from criminal penalties (which in effect makes them less reconstructionists
than some of the pietists who understand by "the law of nature and
nations" [as the old divines would say] that public pornography should be
suppressed by the civil magistrate).
¥ Should heroin, LSD, PCP, MDA, mescaline, peyote, pot, or other mind (and
spirit) altering drugs be legal and available at your local corner store? Does
the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on the *age of buyers* of
such poisons? Does the Bible explicitly mandate any civil restrictions on
the age of buyers of alcohol? Tobacco? Pornography?
¥ If a group of university students takes it upon themselves to block a
major interstate as some sort of protest (as happened a few years ago in
San Diego), should the magistrate use his coercive force to intervene, and
later punish these offenders in some way? Given Wilson's published
principles civilly defending pornographers, could there even be a law
making such behavior criminal?
¥ Can the police, as police (and not as private men) stop a crime at its
beginning, or even before it begins, or do they need to wait until it's been
committed to apply negative sanctions (even death to the criminal) against
the perpetrator (or would-be perpetrator)?
¥ Should terrorists be apprehended and proceeded against with sanctions
*before* they have detonated the bombs they are found to be
manufacturing? Which *explicit* biblical negative civil sanction deals with
bomb *making* (in and of itself)? Is there not much which a lawful civil
magistrate must determine, that is not explicitly stated in Scripture, in
order to rightly apply the *spirit of the law of God* in a case such as this?
¥ Should a teacher (in a public, private or home school) be punished for
positively *promoting* (not just exposing) homosexuality, atheism,
communism, Romanism, Islam, occultism, or even bestiality in the
classroom? What about for providing recipes for home-made
hallucinogenics (as one of my high school teachers did many years ago)?
For teaching evolution as a fact?
¥ Should a drunk driver be punished by the civil magistrate before he
actually hurts anyone?
¥ Should those flagrantly violating traffic laws be punished, though they
may not yet have hurt anyone or damaged property? Should there even be
traffic laws (or other safety standards applied to vehicles)?
¥ Should those wearing flagrantly immodest clothing in public (e.g. bikinis)
be prevented from doing so by the magistrate, and punished if they persist
in this sin? Should those running naked in public ("streaking") be subject
to civil sanctions?
¥ Should those making movies, songs or books promoting blatant error be
subject to civil sanctions?
¥ Should the civil government ever repress godless (and blasphemous) art
or music, and punish those producing and promoting such filth?
¥ Is the U.S. law mandating civil punishments for "conspiracy to violate an
international treaty" biblically legitimate (apart from the question of
whether or not the US in a duly constituted nation)? Does this depend on
which treaty is being violated (i.e. whether it is lawful or unlawful to begin
with)?
¥ Is it a crime in Scripture for one person to commit adultery, while, on the
other hand, promoting, counselling and encouraging millions to do so (as
pornographers do) is free from civil punishment?
¥ Is the public toleration of pornography, Romanism, abortion, Islam,
homosexuality, idolatry, the occult, atheism, etc. (all parts of the complex
moral person of Antichrist) one of the causes of God's wrath upon our
nations? Should all publicly know national or provincial causes of God's
wrath be dealt with by the civil magistrate?
¥ Are patent laws legitimate?
¥ Should cigarette companies, who knowingly deceived the public about
the health hazards of smoking, be liable to civil penalties?
¥ Are there explicit penal sanctions revealed in Scripture (without the use
lawful inferences) regarding medical malpractice (which does not result in
death)? For example, if the undisputed negligence of a doctor causes a
person to become a paraplegic, is the negligent doctor free from civil
liability?
¥ Would it be a crime for a company to produce a food containing traces of
peanut extract, and not alert their customers as to this ingredient, if they
knew that severe allergic reactions would seriously harm a small portion
of those who consume this product? What *explicit* Scripture deals with
this from the civil standpoint? Do we again have to rely on necessary and
lawful inferences, based on Scripture, to determine this case?
¥ Should avowed Satanists be allowed to homeschool their children?
Unitarians? Romanists?
***********************
Still Waters Revival Books
(Reformation resources at great discounts!)
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB,
Canada T6L 3T5
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/
(FREE BOOKS on the home page too!)
***********************
This item is also available as a bound photocopy for $1.99 [Canadian funds]) and is appendix "B" excerpted from Saul in the Cave of Adullam: A Testimony Against the Fashionable Sub- Calvinism of Doug Wilson (Editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine; and, For Classical Protestantism and the Attainments of the Second Reformation.