The Reformed Perspective/Bredenhof article in question provides a worthy discussion of the some of the dynamics concerning Article xxxvi of the Belgic Confession (1559) and the views of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). To many in the Reformed sphere, their teachings are effectively one and the same and yet this is not actually the case. For some Kuyper actually represents a serious departure creating an uncomfortable situation for those who would both champion Kuyper as the twentieth-century Reformed Theologian par excellence, and yet demand a strict Confessional Subscription.
In Belgic Article xxxvi we read:
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well.
And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commanded in His Word.
Moreover, it is the bounden duty of everyone, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
----
Written in 1559, the article is more or less in keeping with the Sacralist assumptions that governed Christendom since the days of Constantine. It calls on the state to be intolerant, to suppress false worship, and thereby to protect and promote the Church. It therefore assumes a paradigm in which Church and State work in concert. Functionally the state (under this paradigm) would have to be subservient to the Church, though the language tries to dodge this problem. There's no suggestion of an ecclesiastical hierarchy wed to the state, nor the idea that the legitimacy of the state is tied to the approval and appointment of the Church or vice versa, but it's certainly implied. No one is suggesting that pastors run the state or magistrates run the Church. They function separately and yet due to their symbiotic nature they cannot be separated.
The truth is, that despite an already evident departure from Scripture, there are serious internal contradictions in this article (xxxvi) that are not spelled out or reconciled – but left for history to decide. Presumably the officers of the state are members of the Church and subject to its discipline – thus indirectly subordinating the state. And yet if the state ultimately has to arbitrate and pick winners and losers – punishing and suppressing those it deems to be in error, the Church is very much subject to the state. What's to say that a Church challenging the state won't be deemed heretical and thus subject to suppression? We see this over and over again in Church history. Some will argue this sort of thing can be avoided by a constitution – but is that really any guarantee? Such documents must be interpreted and contexts (and interpretations) change over time – and necessarily so. History shows that in every case – the state wins and the Church loses its identity. The only exceptions are found among the churches that break away – at which point as Free Churches they abandon the assumptions and forms of Article xxxvi, and rightly so.
History demonstrates that the politics of the moment drive this dynamic as do strong personalities and other social forces. The unscriptural ideal presented in the article is in fact a kind of Ivory Tower White Paper and little more.
It is critical to understand the context of the Belgic article and what it wishes to condemn. The Münster Rebellion of 1534-35 was still a fresh (if raw) memory, as well the influence of earlier figures like the Zwickau Prophets (1522). And many at the time would still shudder at the mention of Thomas Müntzer and the larger question of the Peasants' War which ended in 1525.
The legacy of the German Peasants' War is complicated because of the multitude of factions involved and the fact that many rebels were driven by economic and sociological reasons – which often overlap with nascent Protestant sympathies and in some cases outrightly so. And while the Sack of Rome (1527) was conducted by rebel mercenaries under Charles V, there were nevertheless significant numbers of Lutherans in the army turned mob – men motivated by strong anti-Catholic sentiment.
Was the Peasants' Revolt an outcome of Protestantism? No.
Was the Sack of Rome an outcome of Protestantism? No.
But you can't honestly discuss either apart from the context of the Protestant Magisterial Reformation. Protestantism played an important part in both of these episodes. One must also consider the emerging wars of religion. Zwingli was cut down in battle in 1531 – fighting for Zürich against the Five Catholic States of Switzerland. The Schmalkaldic Wars between Lutherans and the Habsburg Crown were fought in 1540's and 1550's – and these were just the opening salvos of what would become a century of war and upheaval. The Magisterial Reformation was (from the beginning) reliant on the state and this is expressed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century confessional tradition.
The final section of Belgic xxxvi condemning the Anabaptists, accusing them of anarchy and primitive communism is a caricature, a takedown of a straw man as many Anabaptists did not hold these views and certainly by 1559, very few if any still did. The author Guido de Bres is playing on fears by means of sweeping generalisation and anachronism. And keep in mind he too advocated rebellion, playing an active role in the opening chapters of the Eighty Years War and was executed by the Spanish as a rebel and traitor. Whether de Bres was a rebel deserving death, martyr, or something else is an open question. If he was a martyr it was to a political cause, not in the service of Zion. He may condemn the Anabaptists for their perceived anarchy but from the Spanish Habsburg perspective – he was guilty of the same.
But I digress.
In addition to condemnation, Article xxxvi also makes positive statements or assertions of doctrine which upon examination are revealed to be just as erroneous as the errors it would condemn – and over time would result in just as much death, depravity, and destruction. The second paragraph of the article has no basis in the New Testament and opens the door to many evils and misguided policies – and in the process re-casts the concept of Christian vocation and wreaks havoc on Christian ethics.
The contemporary discussions are confused and all the more when one considers a titanic figure in the Dutch Reformed world like Abraham Kuyper – one esteemed even by today's Calvinist and Evangelical communities.
Some thinkers (and one cannot help but think of those associated with Westminster-California) present Kuyper as something of a positive break with this Magisterial Reformation heritage, an advocate of what they would call a Reformed Two-Kingdoms Theology – in opposition to the kind of Two Kingdom thinking seen among the Anabaptists and other pre-Reformation groups.
In other cases, the Westminster-California reading of Geneva under Calvin is subject to significant revisionism as well. As a rule this faction plays a bit fast and loose with the Westminster and Reformed Confessional heritage – often appealing to the 1789 American revision of Westminster, as if it is in keeping with the larger tradition and historical legacy – and not representing a fairly radical shift.
Though Kuyper is so closely associated with a Reformed sacralist view of society (and thus the larger Reformed Magisterial tradition), the truth is his thinking does represent something of a limited break – at least at first glance. His pillarisation and sphere sovereignty models as well as his views of Common Grace were born of his post-Revolutionary context and the inescapability of social pluralism. In many respects his views are a kind of Reformed-Protestant variety of Catholic Social Teaching which was attempting to wrestle with the same problems. The world had changed and so the old Constantinian Sacralist model needed to be recast in order to function within the new matrix of Liberalism and Industrialisation.
These are complicated questions, but for many Reformed today, Kuyper is like a breath of fresh air – all the more as many (even Dominionist-minded) people are uncomfortable with the kind of hard sacralism seen in the Westminster Confession and Article xxxvi of the Belgic Confession. The older traditional teaching (evidenced in the confessions) seems a little too close to the kind of overt Constantinianism and authoritarianism which not everyone wants to see revived.
In fact, it could be said that in many ways the debate is not over whether or not dominion should be exercised – but how. When criticising the larger Magisterial tradition, Kuyper's name is often evoked as his influence has spread even into Evangelical circles and some would accuse critics (such as myself) of conflating and confusing the near pluralist views of Kuyper with the old mono-sacralist and holistic views of the older Reformed Orthodoxy.
The answer to this is one of 'yes and no', as the point is not groundless but misses larger critical questions. There is a divide between Kuyper and the old Reformed Orthodox, but they're both on the wrong side of the line (as it were) and thus are (from my perspective) quite closely related. They represent a difference on paper but in practice it's a distinction without a difference.
In other words, the differences are not nearly as great as some would make them. The contexts are different but the core assumptions regarding the Kingdom and questions of dominion are more or less the same. And even if one is to grant that Kuyper's views are a little closer to Scripture (and thus better), this isn't really saying much at all. Regardless, his views are not congruent with New Testament teaching, categories (or as stated) even basic assumptions.