1) Failure to accept the establishment principle as it was originally confessed.

2) Failure to acknowledge that the Pope of Rome is THE antichrist.

As a result of the first, they adopt positions which are wholly at odds with Reformed orthodoxy concerning the civil magistrate, while all the time thinking they are upholding the Reformed position. This goes back to the initial compromise with the Enlightenment and the Constitution. More recently, owing to the influence of Neo-Calvinism/Kuyperianism they do not understand the two-kingdoms, and so they assume that the magistrate caring for true religion is a violation of “sphere-sovereignty”. Hence it should not come as a surprise that they take this notion to its logical conclusion and advocate voting for an antichrist to be their supreme magistrate. After all, if the magistrate is not bound to nourish true religion, then there can be no logical objection to voting for an idolater.

As a result of the second, “Reformed” Christians in the United States tend to see evil in overwhelmingly materialistic terms (which, ironically, is strangely similar to a Marxist definition of evil). They fail to realise that our greatest enemy is false Christianity, especially that embodied in the Papacy. When someone thinks that the antichrist is “big government”, a politician, or some middle-eastern ruler, then it should not surprise us when they go soft on spurious forms of Christianity such as Mormonism. Instead of worrying about the idolatry of the Mormons, the focus is all on abortion and homosexuality or other second-table issues (failing to recognise that our idolatry is the root of these second-table offences). Moreover, how exactly can you be Reformed without believing that the Pope is the antichrist? What are we “Reformed” from? Popery and Romanism.

The compromise we are seeing all around us should make us thankful not only for political dissent, but also for the original Westminster Confession. It should also remind us of the practical dangers of tinkering with such tried and tested standards. Ideas have consequences; if this election does not demonstrate that is true, then nothing does.

“Covenanters in America believed that the obligations of the covenants transcended national boundaries as well, and that their terms were applicable even in the United States.”

Emily M. Robinson, ‘Immigrant Covenanters: Religious and Political Identity from Scotland to America’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of California, 2004), p. 254.

Not sure what primary sources substantiate this (this comment occurs in an introduction to a chapter), but I suspect Samuel B. Wylie’s book on descending obligation might address it.

At the same time, we cannot exhort kings to “be instructed” when we ourselves are not overly clear on what exactly covenanting principles entail. I am not claiming the moral high-ground here, as I had to renounce my small-government sins after I found out that they were unconfessional and contrary to the covenants (in addition to being contrary to the Bible, of course). However, I only found this out as a result of my own research – nobody was able to explain to me WHY this was wrong (not merely assert it was wrong without providing cogent reasons). Moreover, how are we going to tell rulers to heed what the Bible says when most of our members vote for candidates who ignore what the scriptures say concerning civil government? If their abandonment of the word of God is so grievous to us, then why do we continue to vote for them? Furthermore, how can those who vote for such candidates escape ecclesiastical sanctions – especially as we argue that the people who they are voting for are provoking the wrath of God by their actions. It seems to me that a bit more reflection on the Covenanter doctrines of political dissent and close communion is in order.

Poor ref. What a futile action. If only he’d known that absolutely nothing in this world can speed Slowel up at anything!!!

Pual? Was that a typo, a Freudian slip, or a little joke?

Hope ye’s cope rightly without Fabien. Just stick that other big yin in nets.

Oop the meenisters!