With the revival of ARPA, the As­sociation for Reformed Political Ac­tion, we are faced with two very basic questions. The first one is: what, if any, is the political task of the Reformed Christian? And the second: if he indeed has a task in this area, how is it to be fulfilled in today's secular and pluralistic society?

These are no easy questions, and I have to begin by confessing that I do not have all the answers. All I can promise is to make some tentative suggestions and in that way introduce the discussion of the topic. That discussion itself will have to be continued in the months and years to come, and corrections will no doubt have to be made.

But that, of course, is no real problem. Continued study is one of the reasons for ARPA's existence. The name suggests action, but if action is to be responsible (that is, in conformity with Biblical principles), then it has to be based on contemplation, on study. The two should go hand in hand: study determining the nature of our action, and action, in turn, leading to further study.

My introduction to the study consists of three parts. First, we will consider the "why" of Reformed political action. In the second place, we will look at the origins of civic authority and at the functions of both rulers and sub­jects. Thirdly, we will draw some prac­tical conclusions from what went before and in that way arrive at suggestions regarding the nature and scope of Re­formed political action.

The "Why" of Reformed Political Action⤒🔗

The first question to be consid­ered is whether political involvement is indeed part of our responsibility as Christians. Or is it just a Dutch tradi­tion, a luxury even, one that takes time and energy which should be devoted to more spiritual matters like mission, evangelism, Christian scholarship, and the like?

For Christians living in Canada, this is a legitimate question. Canadian Christians and North American Chris­tians in general, have not been conspic­uous for their activity in the area of Christian politics. True, there always have been Christians among North American politicians, and attempts have been made to have political pro­grammes reflect Christian convictions, but these convictions were usually re­stricted to the areas of social reform and public morality. North American Christians have not generally stressed the Kingship of Christ over all areas of life, or the relevance of the entire Word of God also for the realm of politics.

To the contrary, there has been a strong tendency to limit the Bible to the domain of church, family and pri­vate life, and to consider politics as the area where the Bible has no relevance. Sometimes this is done to an extent that reminds one of the Anabaptist tradi­tion, which treats the world, including the government, as essentially the dev­il's domain and as irredeemable.

The concern is then, instead, with the cultivation of one's soul, personal piety and morality, abstention from worldly matters, and, indeed, withdraw­al from the world. Behind this view lies the old dualistic conviction that the earth was not redeemed by Christ, and will not be renewed by Him. To the contrary, it is going to be destroyed, and the Kingdom will be an entirely new creation. Therefore the world, with all that it contains, is to be left to its fate by the believers, who concentrate on the heavenly abode instead. As Isaac Watt used to sing in the eighteenth cen­tury (and in the old Book of Praise we used to sing it with him): Through this vain world He guides our feet, and leads us to His heavenly seat (Old Hymn 59).

I think most of us will agree that this dualistic attitude should not be ours, but I nevertheless want to remind you of it. Recently I read articles by two Christian Reformed authors who com­plained about the extent to which their church had been influenced by these ideas in the past six or seven decades. Although our churches have not been in North America that long, we run similar risks. For that reason it is good to begin by restating the Calvinistic, Reformed, Biblical rationale for the Christian's involvement in the world, including the world of politics.

It is this. Although man fell into sin and the earth was cursed because of him, it continued to be God's earth, and the cultural mandate, given in the beginning, remained in force. The earth did not become the legal property of Satan, for Christ redeemed it, and upon His resurrection, He was given all au­thority in heaven and on earth. He was made Lord of lords and King of kings. The rulers, whether they admit it or not, are His servants, and His people are His fellow workers and soldiers, whose task it is to cooperate with Him in breaking what remains of the power of the evil one and so reconquer the world for Himself. In that way we may work for the renewal of this earth, and one day we may live with Him on the renewed earth, where His Name is glo­rified by all, His Kingdom has fully come, and His will is done in perfec­tion. Until that perfection has been reached, it is the task of the Christian to proclaim Christ's Lordship, do His will, and apply His commandments in all areas of our life on this earth, pol­itics included. To be engaged in Re­formed political action is to be engaged in Kingdom work. It is not a luxury, but a duty.

Rulers and Subjects←⤒🔗

The next topic concerns the origin of the govern­ment's authority, and the tasks of both rulers and subjects. In dealing with this topic we will not delve into all kinds of secular theories about the source of civil authority and the nature of the re­lationship between governments and citizens. We are interested in what the Bible, and, following the Biblical teach­ings, our confessions say about these matters.

1. The Origin and Task of Government←↰⤒🔗

To find out about the origin of civil authority, we will first listen to Romans 13. There we learn that what­ever authorities exist have been insti­tuted by God and are His servants, hav­ing been appointed for the good of those who do good and as a terror for the wrongdoer.

Article 36 of the Belgic Confes­sion, which also deals with the civil government, refers to Romans 13 and says that "because of the depravity of mankind, our gracious God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and politics, in order that the licen­tiousness of men be restrained and that everything be conducted among them in good order." Article 36 does not say in so many words that governments are God's servants, but it certainly implies this. So does 1 Peter 2:13ff., where both the emperor and the "lower mag­istrates" are said to be "sent by God."

Why did God appoint governing authorities? As we already saw, Article 36 tells us that it is "because of the de­pravity of mankind" — that is, because of sin. As we will see presently, the same article later makes clear that it is also in order that the church may be protected. The one does not contradict the other. Governments were established because of sin and for the sake of redemption.

Following Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, as well as Article 36, we can describe the government's tasks in some more detail as follows:

The rulers have been given the re­sponsibility, first of all, to preserve law and order; to restrain the licentiousness of man, and to encourage good con­duct. They do this by punishing the wrongdoer and by protecting and en­couraging those whose conduct is praise­worthy.

In addition to these duties in the public realm, rulers must also, by pro­tecting the church, promote the com­ing of God's Kingdom. That is their ultimate task. As we read in Ephesians 1:20ff. Christ at His resurrection was made to sit at God's right hand and was made the head over all things for the Church. Or, to quote from the creeds, in Lord's Day 19 of the Heidelberg Cat­echism, we confess that the risen Christ manifests Himself in heaven "as Head of His Church, through whom the Father rules all things." And in Article 36 we read that the government's "task of restraining and sustaining is not limited to the public order but includes the pro­tection of the Church and its ministry in order that the kingdom of Christ may come, the Word of the gospel may be preached everywhere, and God may be honoured and served by everyone, as He requires in His Word." Therefore also in 1 Timothy 2:1ff. Paul urges that "supplications, prayers, interces­sions and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we (that is, the church) may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."

2. The Duties of Citizens←↰⤒🔗

According to Bible and confes­sions we as citizens owe our govern­ments submission, honor, respect, and obedience in all things that do not dis­agree with the Word of God; we must also pay them our taxes; and we must pray for them.

This list of duties, by the way, is a relevant one. Paying our debts of re­spect, obedience and support to those who are in authority over us is an im­portant part of our political task. We know that, of course, in theory, but do we always apply that knowledge? Now that we are once again preparing to en­gage in political action, it may be good to remind each other of the need to take these duties seriously.

We must do that when talking about our governments, when calculating our taxes and preparing our tax returns, when dealing with law enforcement of­ficers, and even when we step on the gas: speed limits also are there to be obeyed. We owe these duties to the gov­ernment whether we like to or not, for the Lord's sake, because the governors are His servants.

And we must do it for unpopular governments as much as for popular ones. Paul, when he wrote Romans 13, had often been mistreated by those in authority. He in fact would be mar­tyred under the emperor Nero, one of the worst tyrants the world has known, and one of the most fanatical persecu­tors of the early Christian Church. Yet Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not qualify his general statement by saying that only good governments are God's servants. The duty of obedience, respect and support must be paid to bad and un-Christian governments as well.

There is, of course, an exception to this general rule: we may not obey the government in matters that disagree with the Word of God, and the govern­ment has no right to force us to do so. Yet this has happened in the past, and it may happen again. In this situation many questions arise — questions that have to do with the legitimacy of civil disobedience, the right of resistance, and similar matters. We will have to consider some of these issues presently.

Just as we must obey every kind of government, good as well as bad, so we must pray for them all. Here again we have an order of great urgen­cy, to which perhaps we do not attend as much as we ought to. Yet we ignore it at our peril.

In all our political concerns we should remember that these Biblical imperatives — obedience, support and respect — are central to our political calling. We are antirevolutionary peo­ple. As Calvin reminded us: disobedi­ence and rebellion were our original sin, which cost us paradise. It was from this sin that Christ came to redeem us by His perfect obedience to His Fa­ther's will, and therefore by showing perfect obedience also to earthly par­ents and rulers. He came to do God's will and He came to teach rebels that life is found in obedience only. Let us never forget that in this revolutionary, antiauthoritarian age, wherein we see a frightful resurgence of the sin of par­adise.

The Nature of Our Political Calling←⤒🔗

The time has now come to draw conclusions — tentative as they may be — about the nature of the Christian's political calling.

The Biblical Imperatives←⤒🔗

By reminding ourselves of our duty of obedience, respect, payment of taxes, and prayer, we have dealt with what is probably the most important part of our political task. For Reformed political action is not exhausted by what we normally consider political involvement, such as voting, writing political programmes, forming a party, trying to influence our elected representatives, writing letters to the editor, etcetera. All these activities can be very important, but they come in the second place. They should not be engaged in to the exclusion of the duties outlined earlier.

We must remember these priorities, as spelled out in the Bible and in our confessions. Here also it is true that obedience is better than sacrifice. Reformed people do not always escape the danger of activism: the feeling that we have got to do things, by hook or by crook. The fact of the matter is that we cannot create a Christian order and establish God's Kingdom. The Lord Himself will do that. And while He is pleased to use us, He wants us to follow His rules. Only that soldier deserves praise who obeys — implicitly obeys — the orders of his general, even if personally he may think that there are more effective ways of reaching the goal. The end, however, does not justify the means.

If we indeed honor the Biblical commands, we may expect a blessing. It has been pointed out by a Reformed author (A. Zijlstra, Tenzij, pp. 220, 243), that in past centuries (e.g. at the time of the early Christian Church) an obedient church reformed state and society not by rebellion, and not even by political action as we define it, but by obediently performing its proper task of preaching, administering the sacraments and church discipline. By so doing it taught both rulers and subjects about the Kingship of Christ and admonished them to keep His commandments, in private and in public life. An obedient church, therefore, is of great political importance. And so are obedient Christians, who in word and lifestyle show their submission to the Lordship of Christ. They are the salt of their society: a preserving and reforming influence.

And their influence remains even if the political results seem negligible. For while it is true that tangible political results are nice, and numbers important, they are not as important as obedience to the Lord's Word and commandments. Christian politics, as we mentioned before, must have as their goal the promotion of the Kingdom of Christ. And is not this a manifestation of His Kingdom: that His people subject themselves more and more to Him, doing His commandments, trusting His promises, and leaving the outcome to Him? That's what faith is all about. The battle that the Lord asks us to wage against the evil one is a cosmic battle. It is fought in the spiritual realm, and it is won by obedience and submission and trust, that is, once again, by faith. "This is the victory that overcomes the world," the Apostle John wrote in 1John 5: "our faith."

These Biblical imperatives, then, are basic to our political task. However, they do not exclude what is usually called political action, but imply it. It is "pray and work." Political involvement is part of our cultural mandate and therefore part of our life of gratitude.

Political Involvement and the Vote←⤒🔗

What is involved in Reformed political action? It depends to some extent on the circumstances. There usually are opportunities to submit briefs, speak to one's representative, write letters to MPs and others, and perhaps get involved in local politics. In some instances the possibility may exist to form a Reformed political party: the Netherlands is a case in point. In other cases there may be a chance of electing Christians to the government simply by voting for existing parties, although the benefits of such a procedure may be limited. Party discipline is such that individual Members of Parliament must follow the party line, and in most cases that party line is in accord with the secular trends of our post-Christian society. Christian witness is therefore rendered very difficult for Members of Parliament, whether they belong to the Conservative, the Liberal, or the New Democratic Party.

Does that mean that we should not make use of the right to vote? I personally do not think so. After all, there are still differences between parties and between candidates. There are usually opportunities left in our system to inform candidates (and party leaders) of Biblical norms in the area of politics. Furthermore, if we pray for the government, asking that it may obediently fulfill its task of restraining and sustaining, we should also do what is possible and permissible to influence government policy, limited as these possibilities may be. It is again "ora et labora," pray and work. And work in this connection includes the use of the vote.

This topic brings us to a recent development on the Canadian political scene: the establishment of the Christian Heritage Party. We have all heard of this party, which was established to stem the corruption and lawlessness in our society and to call for a return to Biblical principles in government policy. Such aims deserve our sympathy. I know that many of us — and probably all of us — have our difficulties with this party: with its broad ecumenical basis, the vagueness of its principles, its "right wing" tendencies, and so on. I do not have to detail our objections: those who are interested in a critical evaluation are referred to a number of articles by Prof. J. Geertsema in Clarion (the editorials in the issues of Aug. 8, Aug. 22, Sept. 19, and Oct. 17, 1986). I agree with many of Prof. Geertsema's critical remarks. What has his sympathy — and also mine — is the fact that this party confronts the government and the nation with Biblical norms in the area of politics. For that reason I wish it well. Furthermore, it intends to provide an alternative to the existing parties. Those of us who have been in the habit of voting for one of the mainline parties may be in a position, sometime in the future, to cast their vote for a candidate whose professed intention is to combat the secularization of our public life, and who will not be prevented from doing so by the party leadership.

Meanwhile, let us get serious about our studies so that we know what is required in Christian politics, and work for the development of Christian political principles and policies appropriate for our situation in this country.

What May We Ask of Our Government?←⤒🔗

We still have to consider the question what we may request of our representatives and governments. As one of the organizers of a local ARPA put it to me: Do we have to insist that the government obey the laws of God, or do we simply ask that we be given the freedom to live according to these laws?

The second question I have already touched upon when dealing with our duty of obedience. At that time I said that the government should give us that freedom. I also pointed to the difficulties that will arise when this right is refused and we must disobey.

As to the first question (i.e., Do we have the right to ask that the government obey the laws of God?), I think that the answer must again be affirmative. The government ought to be reminded of its origin and status as God's appointee and servant, and of its duty to enforce law and order, protect the church, and so promote the coming of the Kingdom.

In his handbook to which I referred earlier, the Dutch politician A. Zijlstra devotes quite a bit of attention to the question what we may legitimately ask of the government (Tenzij, Chapter 24). The following paragraphs contain some of the examples given by him. First of all there is the warning that we should not assign too large a task to the civil authorities. The fact that the government is God's servant does not imply, for example, that it must establish God's Kingdom; only that its politics must be directed in such a way that it is promoted. Nor does it imply that the government must preach the gospel, or meddle with the preaching, or engage in mission and evangelism. All those things belong to the task of the church. The task of the government, on the other hand, is to ensure that this preaching and teaching, this missionary and evangelistic work, can take place.

It should also be kept in mind that the government is not a theocracy, as in ancient Israel. In a theocracy, the laws of the land are divine commands, rather than human ordinances, and there it is the duty of the ruler to enforce God's laws in the lives of the subjects. Our governors are not, and should not try to be, such theocratic rulers. Church and state are separate, and the government's powers in forcing compliance with the divine laws are limited. The government cannot, for example, dominate the families and ensure that parents bring up their children in the fear of the Lord, or that the children obey and respect their parents. Similarly, it has (to quote one of our former prime ministers) no supervisory powers in the nation's bedrooms to enforce sexual morality. Neither can it make sure that people refrain from gossip, slander, coveting, and similar trespasses of the divine law.

However, the government does have a task in many of these areas. It can and must enact laws that promote good family life and public morality, and it should do all it can to enable its citizens to obey God's laws. Also, it must punish transgressors of its own laws. Note that I say its own laws, not God's laws. The latter it often cannot do; the former it must do. And it must make sure that these laws are good and in conformity with the law of God. To use one concrete example: it is not the government's task to enforce, let us say, the fourth commandment as it is explained in Lord's Day 38. In other words, the government may not force people to go to church to hear God's Word, use the sacraments, etc. Yet it has a definite task in connection with this commandment: it must do what it can to keep the sabbath holy, to enable citizens to attend the worship services, and to protect the ministry. This much we may ask of our governments. For they, too, are subject to the commandments of God.

We must not expect too much of the government, however. Its task is limited. Traditionally, Reformed people have admitted this and expressed their preference for "small government": one that does not attempt to legislate and supervise everything but that ensures freedom to the citizens — and to the church — to fulfill their tasks and duties.

However, freedom can and will be abused, and here difficulties arise. For example, if the government allows the faithful church of Christ the freedom to fulfill its tasks, can this same freedom be denied to false prophets or to proponents of a false religion? But who determines which ministry is true and which is false? Can the government do this? It is surely very risky to allow it that power: we have seen in the past what horrible tyranny can result if the government considers that to be its mandate. Think of the persecutions by the Roman Catholic church in the time of the Reformation and still today in some parts of the world. The same applies with respect to the government's restraining task in such matters as the propagation of atheism, public immorality, pornography, and similar evils. If the government were to censor and forbid all these things, where would the end be? And what great powers would it acquire in the process? Also, what freedoms would remain for the citizens and for the church?

As Zijlstra suggests, a large part of the solution is perhaps the one proposed by the seventeenth-century Dutch Calvinist who said that, if given full freedom to preach, the church would deal with atheism and false religion. We have indeed seen this in centuries past, particularly in countries where the Reformation was able to establish itself. The Word, proclaimed by the church and manifesting its power in the life of the believers, works as a leaven for all of society.

Nevertheless — as even our present secularized and permissive governments admit — the civil authority has a task in restraining blatant immorality, but where does this task begin and where does it end? Christians, who often tend to demand government action in these areas, should be aware of the implications. Continued study is necessary, as well as the sober realization that legislation does not get to the root of the problem: morality cannot be legislated. And the difficulties that all governments face in this matter, especially in today's apostate society, remind us the more of the need to pray for them.

Civil Disobedience←⤒🔗

In the foregoing, I briefly touched upon the matter of civil disobedience, such in connection with the question what we may and must do if the government goes against God's commandments and/or fails to provide justice for its citizens. What should be our attitude in such cases? May we or must we, to use one example, do what the politician in Manitoba did when he withheld his taxes from the government because it allowed abortion? Or is that an act of rebellion and do we restrict ourselves to written protests and admonitions? And what if it is not a matter only of the government transgressing God's laws, but of forcing us to do so? If that happens, what road is the Christian to follow? Disobedience, of course, but what then? Passively suffer the consequences? Or are sit-ins, demonstrations, and similar public expressions of dissent allowed? May we even take up arms against the government?

These and similar questions are under discussion today, also among Christians. The matter of armed resistance has been discussed in the past as well. You no doubt know that both Luther and Calvin, for example, struggled with it. Both reformers urged great restraints. Luther, in fact, reached the conclusion that resistance was never allowed: Christians who were denied freedom of religion had no recourse but to leave and go into exile. Calvin believed that resistance might be allowed under certain circumstances, but he did hedge that right with important restrictions and never tired of reminding Christians of the duty to obey the civil authorities, the good as well as the evil. He also continued to be concerned about the implications of armed resistance and warned the Calvinists of France who, with their supporters from among the feudal nobility, challenged their Roman Catholic government. Nevertheless, followers of John Calvin did take up arms against governments that forbade freedom of religion, not only in France but also in Scotland and the Netherlands. In Scotland and the Northern Netherlands Calvinism triumphed; in the Southern Netherlands (present-day Belgium) it was eradicated.

How are we to evaluate the advice of men like Luther and Calvin and the actions of their sixteenth-century followers? And, to turn to some conspicuous issues of our own times, what are we to say of the many insurgencies we have witnessed in this century and still witness today — those of the left and those of the right? Again, I restrict myself to asking the questions, for often there are no simple answers. Here, too, continued study is both necessary and urgent.

In Conclusion←⤒🔗

It has been pointed out a number of times that Reformed political action is performed in the service of Christ and for the sake of His Kingdom. This means that we may never yield to the temptation of making a Christian party into a special interest party, whose aim it is to promote the welfare, concerns, and interests of the group in question. Nor is it our political calling to save our nation by returning it to what has been called its Christian past. These are among the temptations that not only the Moral Majority group or the Christian Heritage Party, but we all, have to be on our guard against. The aim of Christian politics is not the comfort and wellbeing of Christians, nor the continuation of their favoured political and economic systems, nor the safety and prosperity of their country, but the promotion of the Kingdom.

And this implies that the concern of Christian politics is with the nation as a whole, and indeed with the world as a whole. I have quoted on a number of occasions from 1 Timothy 2, where we are urged to pray for all men, including all who are in high positions. These verses are followed by the words, "This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of our God and Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Our task in Reformed politics is ecumenical, that is worldwide, for the Kingdom is worldwide.