On solid ground⤒🔗

The question of the why and how of Christian politics is being asked at a time when professing Christians are becoming a dwindling minority in Dutch society. It is good therefore to face this question. Christian politics, too, cannot simply take things for granted. As circumstances change, we will have to ask the question again: “Why?”

There is no doubt that the foundation for all of our actions has to be found in the Bible, the Word of God. After all, it fully contains the will of God. To use the phraseology of the Belgic Confession, Article 7: “The whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in it at length.”

This formulation leaves no room for a partition of our lives into areas for which God’s Word contains standards and others for which it does not. For all our lives, his Word is “a lamp to our feet and a light to our path” (Psalm 119:105).

When the Heidelberg Catechism asks the question “Why are you called a Christian?” the answer immediately adds what our being a Christian obliges us to do: to profess the Name of Christ, to offer ourselves to him as a living sacrifice of thanksgiving, and to fight against sin and the devil (Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 12). In these words of confession the threefold office of all believers has no limitations.

In the exercise of this office, we are not only to be hearers but also to be doers of the Word (James 1:22-25). The accounts of Daniel and Nehemiah teach us how much this command also applies in politics. Even toward governments that oppress the church, its members have a positive task (cf. Jeremiah 29:7, 1 Timothy 2:2).

Christian freedom←⤒🔗

Meanwhile, this reveals nothing as yet about the organizational design of our political calling. On the contrary, the examples from the Bible seem to argue for a political task of individual church members and for the Christian congregation as such. Political parties were unknown. Therefore, we cannot speak of a universal, i.e., a command valid for all places and times, to organize and form a Christian party. Nor would such a command fit with the freedom to which Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1). Especially in countries where the formation and operation of free political groups is not permitted, this would put Christians in great difficulty

Recognition of Christian freedom, however, does not mean that the shaping of our political calling is of secondary importance. Freedom brings with it responsibility: in view of the goal of our political work, it obligates us to exercise the office of all believers in the area of public society. It carries responsibility also with regard to our fellow Christians, who, like us, have to exercise this office and with whom we are united as members of the body of Christ (Romans 12:4-5). Finally, responsibility is also in place with regard to the government that God has placed in his service (Romans 13:4).

The Dutch government leaves us the freedom to organize politically, to formulate and carry out political objectives, to participate in elections for seats in representative bodies and — when our candidates are elected — to participate in the exercise of governmental functions. Where such opportunities are offered, Christians would fall seriously short if they did not make every effort to also give shape to their shared political calling in a political party that seeks to let the lamp of God’s Word shine on the political issues of our time. In the Dutch situation, the choice of a Christian political party is therefore pre-eminently the way to fulfill one’s Christian calling in politics. It is important, but not the only choice. Practice shows this with five political parties in the House of Representatives who want to be called "Christian in one way or another, but who sometimes come to opposing views on rather essential political issues. The Christian character of a party will have to be evident not only from its name, nor so much from the spiritual background or the verbiage of its representatives, but above all from its foundation and its political objectives. This is what makes a party recognizable, what causes it and its representatives to be accountable. This is what we want to pay ample attention to below. This chapter will focus mainly on the basis. Subsequent chapters will deal with political objectives.

The Bible←⤒🔗

For a Christian political party the question of the foundation seems rather simple and straightforward. We began this chapter by reminding ourselves that the basis for all our actions has to be the Bible, the Word of God. Well, if all of our actions must be based on the Word of God, then surely this also applies to our actions as members of a political party. And what applies to our actions also applies to those of others who want to be active in a Christian party. Therefore it seems that the Bible, as the basis for a Christian political party, would be adequate and without controversy.

However, such a basis is neither adequate nor uncontroversial. The largest Christian party, the Christian Democratic Appeal,¹ chose a different formulation. It accepts the biblical testimony of God’s actions, promises and commandments as of decisive significance for man, society and the government. However, the unifying element in this party is not the acceptance of this biblical testimony, but the political conviction laid down in the program of principles.

The Bible as the foundation of a Christian party should certainly be adequate. After all, we read that “The whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in it at length” (Belgic Confession, Article 7). But then this should not only apply to politics. It should at least also apply to church life. Yet already the early Christian church found itself compelled to summarize the “catholic (general) undoubted Christian faith” in confessional writings — the Creeds. And after the great Reformation, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort were added successively. In all these cases, the churches recognized the need to uphold the teachings of Holy Scripture in the face of emerging errors. This was not in order to add anything to the Bible, but to summarize “all that is promised us in the gospel in a summary” (HC, Lord's Day 7, q/a 22).

Since it was found necessary to summarize Christian doctrine in confessional writings and to express the union of Holy Scripture and the confession of the church, the obvious conclusion would have been to let the work of a Christian political party also be bound by the norms of God’s Word in accordance with the confession of the churches of the Reformation. After all, Scripture and confession do not constitute a contradiction. They relate to each other as the (infallible) whole to the (actionable) summary, which in past practice has also proved its necessity.

Yet most Christian political parties made a different decision. The Anti-Revolutionary Party accepted a program of principles as its basis and started from the confession that God is the absolute Sovereign and that he has given Jesus Christ all power in heaven and on earth.

According to its program of principles, the Christian-Historical Union wanted to pay attention not only to the clear statements of Holy Scripture, but also to the judgment of the Christian church and God’s guidance in the history of the nations.

Of more recent date are the statutes of the Reformational Political Federation (RPF), which accepts the infallible and authoritative Word of God as the only standard for its political thought and actions, as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. In the statutes of this party the confessional writings are mentioned, but only with regard to the confession about the authority of God’s Word. This party considers these writings to be of essential importance for politics, insofar as they have political and social significance, as chairman P. Langeler stated in the Nederlands Dagblad (July 3, 1982). As an example of a part of the confession that has no direct political bearing he mentioned in this connection the baptism of infants.

The arguments that have been put forward over the years for not making the confession as a whole part of the basis of a Christian party are diverse. It would take us too far afield to discuss these here. But an important practical consideration was — and is — that there are those among the promoters of Christian politics who want to base themselves on the Bible, but have objections to (parts of) the Reformed confessions. In the past this applied, for instance, to Lutherans and in our time to non-church groups and movements and increasingly to members of Reformed churches, who no longer subscribe to the Reformed doctrine in all respects. Thus, by basing themselves on the Bible and disregarding the relationship to the confession, the aim is to unite Christians of different backgrounds and persuasions in political or social organizations with a Christian, reformational or evangelical name.

Plus the confession←⤒🔗

The Reformed Political League (GPV)² has always raised objections to this approach. After all, in this way the Bible and the confessions are set against each other, while the confessional writings find their very raison d’être in the echoing of God’s Word against emerging errors. Nor is it correct to distinguish in the confessions between what has political significance and what does not. Can it be maintained, for instance, that the confession that the young children of the church are included in the covenant of God and should therefore be baptized (HC, Lord's Day 27 and Belgic Confession, Article 34) has no significance for the task of the government in the upbringing and education of these children? To ask the question is to answer it. Besides, if we could discern which parts within the confession are irrelevant to politics, the same should apply to discernment within the Bible itself. Some parts of the Bible would also then not be deemed "politically significant." But speaking in this way would damage the unity of Holy Scriptures.

There are both realistic (elsewhere in the world) and conceivable circumstances where party-formation on the basis of God’s Word and the confession is not possible. Christians living then and there will have to determine their attitude in Christian freedom and responsibility. In the Netherlands we do (still) have the opportunity to apply what we confess on Sundays into politics during the other days of the week. The GPV has utilized this riches for a political organization based on God’s Word and the confession. Through the unity of the confession, through unity also in the proclamation of the Word, the possibilities for Christian politics are optimal. Where the pulpit allows the living Word to be heard, it also guards against dead orthodoxy, which does not fulfill its function as salt and light of the earth.

The reverse holds true as well. Infidelity in the proclamation of the Word and deviation from the confession are a threat to Christian politics. In the following chapters we hope to illustrate this more. But already here it must be stated that it cannot be cause for joy when Christians can only meet each other in general Christian organizations by leaving the confession on the sideline. Even a "reformational" name or a statement about the infallibility of God’s Word cannot eliminate the fact that within such an organization there are different opinions about the content and meaning of God’s Word. Where such an organization is pursued — in the absence of other possibilities — the awareness of this difference needs to be acknowledged. This certainly applies to politics, which so greatly affects the purpose and organization of the entire society.