The Philosophical Foundations of the Reformation Party, and Why Christians Should Join With Us

The Reformation Party is unique in many ways in today's western political climate, though it would not have been so unique in time past before the advent of secularism in western cultures. Because of its unique, non-secularist stand, it is important to provide a thorough explanation of the philosophical basis upon which its platform lies. This article is an attempt to do that. Of course, the themes we will look at in this article are discussed elsewhere in much greater depth, and we will refer to some resources at the end of the article where the reader can go to get a fuller treatment of them.

The fundamental assumption of the Reformation Party is that Christianity is true. We also hold that the classic Reformed tradition, as summarized in the Westminster Standards, is the purest expression of biblical Christianity. Just about everyone would agree that it is better to live in accord with reality than out of accord with it. Since Christianity is reality, the right and sensible thing to do is live in accordance with it. Individuals should live according to the principles of Christianity. Families should order themselves in line with them. Businesses, educational institutions, churches, and all other human institutions should be ordered according to biblical principles, for the simple reason that those principles are true. And this applies to the civil sphere, the state, as well.

It would be absurd for any human individual or human institution to ignore the true worldview and to base laws on that which is known to be false. This is why the currently prevailing (in the west, anyway) philosophy that the civil government should be neutral makes no sense. Secularism is the position that the civil government ought not to endorse any particular religion. Secularists claim that this view is neutral, but in reality it is the establishment of Agnosticism as the official religion of the nation, for it requires the government to take a “know nothing” attitude towards religious claims. It is in effect the embracing of Atheism or Naturalism, as it implies that the civil government should ignore information derived from religious sources (like the Word of God) and should base its decisions only on information derived from the natural world without taking into account anything else. This is completely irrational, if Christianity is true. What would we think of a father who took a position like this with regard to his family? “Well, I know that Christianity is true, but I choose to structure my family around the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita instead.” Or, closer to the case under discussion, “I choose to structure my family around the principles of Atheism.” This would be absurd, and it would also be wicked, for God is the ultimate moral authority of the universe and all human beings, both individually and corporately, are under a moral obligation to regard God as Lord over all things, to obey all his commands, and to structure their entire lives according to his desires and standards. Many Christians get this when it comes to individuals, families, businesses, classrooms, etc., but they don't see that it clearly applies to the state as well.

So we are obligated both by prudence and moral obligation to work for Christian standards to be implemented in all areas of life, including the state. We should therefore look to the Bible to see what God has to say about the nature, role, and authority of civil magistrates, and to see what specific instructions God has given to those functioning in that role. The Bible's teachings on this subject can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments. One of the most important summary passages is Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There are descriptive as well as prescriptive elements in this passage. Paul is instructing the Roman Christians to submit to the governing authorities who are currently governing. But in giving this instruction, he also sums up the prescriptive role of the civil magistrate. The role of the civil magistrate is to protect those who do good and to punish evildoers. The Westminster Confession sums up the overall role of the civil magistrate in this way, almost paraphrasing Paul:

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. (WCF 23:1)

God is the ultimate moral authority, but he has delegated limited authority to human beings in various spheres, such as in the family, in the church, and in the state. Each of these spheres has roles that are complementary to the others. The role of the family is to provide mutual help for husband and wife and to raise up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, training them to grow into faithful Christian adults (Deuteronomy 6:7; Ephesians 6:1-4). The role of the church is to shepherd the people of God, teaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and exercising spiritual discipline (Titus 1:9; Matthew 18:15-20). The role of the state is to protect the society from actions which promote evil and which thwart good (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; Acts 25:10-11). The family uses parental instruction and discipline as its tools. The church uses spiritual teaching and discipline. And the state uses the power of the sword (lawmaking and law enforcement). As all of these spheres are mutually complementary, none of them should attempt to encroach into the domain of the others. None of the authorities should attempt to take upon themselves that which is outside their proper sphere (see 2 Chronicles 26:16-21 for an example of the civil power attempting to take on spiritual duties and God's response). Parents should not attempt to administer the sacraments or to excommunicate their children from the church. Church officers should not attempt to arrest or execute people for civil crimes. Civil magistrates should not take it upon themselves to be the primary caretakers of children. And so on. All the spheres should work in complementary harmony under God, the Head of all.

The Scriptures say it is the role of the state to protect the good and punish the evildoers. The civil magistrate is “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Whose wrath is he a revenger of? Where is he to look for the standard of good and evil by which he must decide how to carry out his functions? Dictatorship would tell us that the ultimate standard is the will of the dictator. Modern secular democracy tells us that the ultimate standard is the will of the people. But the Scriptures tell us that it is the will of God, expressed in his law. The civil magistrate is not ultimately the minister of himself or the minister of the people, but he is the minister of God. He is to care for the people under his jurisdiction, but his authority is from God and it is his task to rule according to God's standards. God's moral law is to be the foundation of the civil laws and policies of the society.

Some Christians will grant this with regard to what are often called “offenses against the second table (of the Ten Commandments)”--that is, offenses that are immediately horizontal, directed to human beings, such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. But they shrink back from holding that civil magistrates are to enforce the first table of God's law—that is, laws that more immediately concern our relationship with God, such as laws against the worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. But there is no biblical basis for this distinction. Nowhere in all of Scripture do we ever find it taught that the state is to limit itself to the second table of the law. Romans 13 makes no distinction: The state is for the praise of the “good” and for the punishment of “evildoers,” in general. This idea that the state must not enforce laws dealing with man's relationship to God is simply a myth that has become popular due to the prevalency of modern secular ideas in western culture, a prevalency that has infected even the church to some degree. In the Law of Moses, we find that the society is to civilly punish not only murder, theft, and the like horizontal crimes (Exodus 21:12-14; 22:1-4), but also idolatry and blasphemy (Deuteronomy 17:2-7; Leviticus 24:10-16).

This raises a question: Do the civil laws in the Law of Moses have continuing authority for the state today? The Westminster Confession, following the general Christian tradition (and ultimately the Bible), divides the law of God up into three sorts of laws: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and is forever morally binding (though we are freed from its curse in Christ and rely on God's grace to live it out in our lives). The ceremonial portions of the law have to do with ceremonies and practices that were earthly shadows pointing forward to the work of Christ and to various moral duties and are no longer in force to be literally followed by Christians today. The judicial law refers to the case laws—that is, the applications of the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments to particular circumstances (such as many of those found in Exodus 21-23). In this category are included the laws addressed to the society in its civil capacity. These laws, being addressed directly to the people of Israel in Old Testament times, have much in them that no longer applies to us today given the significant changes in our circumstances from the conditions of God's people in the Old Testament. However, there is also much in these laws that is moral and universal in character, and these aspects do apply to us today. Here is how the Westminster Confession summarizes the Scriptural position on the judicial laws:

To them also [that is, to the people of Israel], as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (WCF 19:4)

Aspects of laws that relate to temporary characteristics of the state of the people of God in the Old Testament (such as laws separating Jews and Gentiles, laws regarding what foods can be eaten, laws regarding the earthly Tabernacle, etc.) no longer apply in their literal form today. Aspects of laws that relate to permanent and universal moral principles (such as laws dealing with such permanent evils and dangers as murder, theft, and blasphemy) are still binding on people today. Many of the civil laws fall into this latter category. Particularly, the Reformed tradition has historically acknowledged that laws commanding the punishment of sins against the first table of God's law, such as laws against the public toleration of idolatry, still apply to the state today, as is evident from the entirety of WCF 23. As an example, here is what commissioners from the historic Reformed Church of Scotland had to say about the public toleration of idolatry in 1649:

As the Lord by his servant Moses, in the 17th of Deuteronomy, requires of him that shall reign over his people, that he have a copy of the law of the Lord by him, and that he read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of that law; so in the 13th [chapter] of that book he gives a command to put to death the false prophet, and the brother that speaks to his people to turn them away from the Lord their God; and the reasons taken from the nature of the duty, whereby he persuades unto the obedience thereof, are perpetual and no less binding unto us now, than to them of old. How strongly doth the Lord plead, in the 22d [chapter] of Deuteronomy, against toleration and false worship, and all the occasions thereof, and provocations and incitements thereto? and how severe is he about the removing and destroying all these, and in tying all his people to one way according to the rule of his word? (http://www.truecovenanter.com/anti_toleration/testimony_against_toleration.html)

God is no less concerned now for his public honor and for the protection of true religion than he ever has been. Idolatry is just as wicked and harmful now as ever. Just as we recognize the continuing role of the civil magistrate in protecting the life and property of citizens today as well as in ancient Israel, so we should recognize the continuing role of the magistrate in protecting the public honor of God and the spiritual welfare of the people. To quote again from the representatives of the Church of Scotland in 1649:

As that infinitely glorious divine Essence is one in himself most holy, most righteous, most true, so hath he given unto the children of men, one eternal, unchangeable law, according to the rule whereof they are to square their profession, and order their conversation: Therefore as his justice requires in the covenant of works that we should walk according thereto without declining to the right hand or to the left, so he in his mercy promises in the covenant of grace to give unto his people one heart and one way to fear him for ever: And in both covenants they are obliged to walk after the rule of this law. It is acknowledged by many of those with whom we have now to do, that no liberty is to be allowed unto men in the breaches of the duties of the second table, which we owe unto our neighbours, but that if a man sin against his neighbour, and disturb the peace of the common-wealth, he is to be restrained and punished: Can there any solid reason be given why it should not also be thus in regard of the duties of the first table which we owe unto God? Is not one Lord author of both? hath not conscience influence upon both? Is not the Lord's glory interested in the one as well as in the other? Doth not his image shine as brightly, and may it not be as much defaced in the one as in the other? Are the things of God less precious than the things of men, and that which concerns the soul less to be cared for than that which concerns the body? or are we more to value our own damage than the Lord's dishonour? We know that no man hath dominion over the conscience: But the Lord who made it, exercises his sovereignty therein; and he hath set a law unto the spirits of men, after the rule whereof they are to order both their judgments and affections; and hath given power to those whom he clothes with authority, which they are to exercise in these things so far as they are manifested in expressions and actions unto the dishonour of his name, and hurt and prejudice of others.

As we mentioned earlier, secularism claims to be neutral. It also claims to be tolerant and loving and accuses biblical law of being harsh and bigoted. But secularism is not neutral. Nor is it inherently more or less tolerant than any other philosophy. All societies have something in common: They all make and enforce laws according to their own beliefs and values, tolerating what their worldviews consider tolerable and not tolerating what their worldviews consider intolerable. We have seen that blasphemy (dishonoring God's name) is a civil crime according to God's law. It is not so in a secular society. Is this because the secular society is “nicer”? No, it is because a secular society, being an Agnostocracy, does not care at all about the public honor of God because it considers God to be a myth. If God is a myth, then having laws against blasphemy makes no more sense than having laws against publicly insulting the Keebler Elves. But if God is not a myth, if he is instead the Supreme Being and Creator and of infinite value, then blasphemy is a grossly wicked moral action and ought not to be tolerated. All societies become intolerant when values they see themselves bound to protect are threatened. Modern liberal secular societies generally put value on human life and private property to some degree, and so they make laws against theft and murder. The problem with the argument for having a secular society is that it asks us to accept a non-Christian foundation for determining which values the society ought to protect and how it ought to protect them. And we've already seen that since Christianity is reality, it is foolish to base our policies on false, unrealistic non-Christian beliefs and values.

It also needs to be pointed out that though secularism claims to be a neutral safe haven for people of all views, there is no reason to believe that secularism will be tolerant of distinctively Christian beliefs and practices. So far, in the United States in particular, Christians have indeed been relatively safe in our secular society. But times are changing. Secularism has been to a large degree kept at bay by the fact that the United States has for most of its history been made up mostly of Protestant Christians of varying degrees of doctrinal purity and faithfulness. Over the past century, this has begun to change dramatically. We have seen remarkable growth in the number of people with non-Christian views in our society, including a rapidly growing Agnostic/Atheist community. These non-Christians are taking full advantage of American secularism to push out of the public sphere Christian beliefs and values and to instill their own. Many of the culture war battles we have seen and are continuing to see in the United States—including battles over abortion, physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, prayer in schools, and many others—are really front line battles in the war of worldviews. And we are consistently seeing Christians beliefs and values losing these battles to the beliefs and values of Agnostics and Atheists as the United States resolves itself more and more into consistency with its declared secular political ideology. Unless there is a dramatic shift, we can expect to see more of the same in the future, with greater and greater acceleration. As this happens, there is no doubt that toleration of some distinctively Christian practices is going to significantly decrease. Atheists and Agnostics often preach toleration for religious viewpoints today, but much of this is owing to the fact that they do not yet have the power to squelch dissent to many of the items on their agenda. We should not expect them to keep this up forever. Already, both in the United States and in Europe (which is further along the road to full secularism in some ways than the United States and which many secularists in the US look to as a model), there are signs of decreasing toleration for many religious practices. The fights over homeschooling, the battles over tolerating circumcision of male children, and the attempts of anti-discrimination laws to stop people who own apartments and businesses from refusing the demands of homosexuals, are just a few examples of what we should expect to see much more of in the coming years. Unless things turn around.

Ultimately, only God can turn the tide of secularism. Only God can overcome any of the false ideologies that dominate human societies today. But God often chooses to work through means, and he invites us to be his fellow-workers, in reliance on his grace and strength, in the battle. It is time for Christians to stop accepting the status quo that secularism and other non-Christian ideologies should be dominant in our societies. It is time that we refuse to be put into the secular box of “religious fundamentalists whose beliefs belong in private life” and instead employ all our powers and opportunities to proclaim and work for the crown rights of Christ the King and of his law and gospel in all areas of life, including politics. The Reformation Party is one of the few political parties in the world today that proudly, consistently, and unashamedly stands for a consistent and explicit Christian foundation for social/political ethics. And of the few parties that do stand for this, we are part of an even smaller group of political parties (I am only currently aware of two, including the Reformation Party) that stand for a fully consistent version of Christianity as the foundation for politics—the historic Reformed faith, summarized in the Westminster Standards. Don't get your values from the Agnostic world that surrounds us, or whatever false ideology is dominant where you live. Live and advocate in all areas of life for the beliefs and values that are rooted in reality, in the Word of the true and living God. Join the Reformation Party and help us show the church and the world a better way!

Some resources for further research on the biblical principles of civil government (besides documents already quoted from above):

The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration - An excellent work by John Brown of Haddington outlining a biblical case for biblical civil government and responding to objections.  A series of MP3 readings of the book can be found here, and a hard copy of the book edited by Gospel Covenant Publications (under the title of A Refutation of Religious Pluralism) can be purchased here.

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty - A great article by Scottish Presbyterian George Gillespie discussing the classic Reformed view of liberty of conscience.

A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience – Another excellent work on liberty of conscience by Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford.  A hard copy of this book edited by Gospel Covenant Publications (under the title of Conscience, Liberty and God's Word) can be purchased here.

The Written Law, or the Law of God Revealed in the Scriptures, by Christ as Mediator; the Rule of Duty to Christian Nations in Civil Institutions – Great book by American Reformed Presbyterian theologian James R. Willson on the role of God's law in the Scriptures for the exercise of civil magistracy.

Essay on Tolerance – A nice little essay on the rhetoric of tolerance, also by James R. Willson

One Hundred and Eleven Propositions – Another work by George Gillespie articulating biblical principles of church and civil government in a series of propositions.

Pluralism, Secularism, and Societal Peace and Stability

It is commonly alleged by those in favor of "secularism" that one of its great selling points is that it can bring peace and stability to society, while non-secular societies are going to be rife with conflict and strife.  Let's take a look at this idea just a little more closely and see if it holds up in theory.

For our purposes, secularism refers to the idea that civil government should avoid taking sides in worldview/religious disputes.  Secularism implies a state that refuses to endorse or reject any particular worldview or set of beliefs that belongs to any worldview.  In other words, secularism implies a religiously neutral civil government.

Let's consider the various kinds of societies, in broad outline, that can exist, and see if we have any reason to believe that secularism's claim to be the ultimate producer of peace and stability can withstand scrutiny.

1. First of all, we can imagine what I will call a pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, non-secular society.  What I mean by this is a society full of citizens/residents where there is a large amount of significant worldview-diversity (pluralism) among the citizens/residents, but where the citizens/residents (can I just call them "citizens" for short from now on to save space?) have no real concern to have their own ideals, beliefs, values, or goals reflected in the actions and policies of the governing institutions (pietism).  The society is non-secular, and so the civil government does not claim to be neutral but straightforwardly and honestly adopts a disputed set of beliefs and values and bases its laws and policies on them.  However, it also displays a great deal of tolerance towards those who do not share the official government worldview.

It would seem that such a society is likely to be very peaceful and stable, at least with regard to disputes that might originate from differing worldviews.  Since the citizens in the society are allowed to live their own private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values due to a policy of broad toleration, while they have no desire to have their views reflected in government policies, there is no recipe here for significant conflict.  (Of course, one can raise the question of whether an entire population in the real world is likely to be pietistic to this extent.)

2. Secondly, we can consider a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and non-secular.  The key difference between this society and the first one is that the citizens are not content merely to live out their private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values.  They also have a strong desire that the civil government follow their own beliefs and values in policy-making and law-making.  They hold their values and beliefs to be important not just to themselves but to the general good and the well-being of society, and they want society's policies and laws to be wise and just (as they count wisdom and justice).

This society is going to be prone to conflict and will lack stability.  It is full of people who have completely different ideas of the true and the good, all of whom wish their ideas to be reflected in official law and policy. The problem, of course, is that there can only be one set of laws and policies for a unified society, and those laws cannot reflect everyone's conflicting viewpoints.  As the state is non-secular, it will have a straightforwardly-acknowledged official worldview guiding its public policy.  The citizens whose views coincide with this official public worldview will be likely to be satisfied with this state of affairs, while those whose views are at odds with the reigning paradigm are likely to be dissatisfied with the situation, even if the state tolerates their dissident views in private life.  Conflict may be significantly diffused if the state allows some kind of legal processes, however long-term, by which dissidents can work within the system to try to alter the overarching constitutional order and thus the reigning paradigm of the society (such as by allowing amendments to the Constitution to be made by a certain number of votes).  However, this will be unlikely to resolve all societal tension.  Even with a legal process for change in place and available, it will be difficult in a pluralistic society to get the society to permanently and with stability endorse anyone's particular point of view.  As all sides of a particular dispute can use the same legal channels, it will be hard for one group to establish any kind of permanent dominance for its views over other existing views.  A pluralistic society of this sort is thus likely to forever be like a see-saw, constantly going back and forth between conflicting views and policies.  If the disputed matters are highly important to the parties (think of something like abortion, where both sides feel crucial, fundamental rights are at stake), there will likely be an increasing frustration as the parties realize they will never really be able to make the society what they want it to be so long as it remains non-pietistically pluralistic.  This seems likely to eventually lead either to the breaking up of the society or to serious and even violent conflict, assuming the pluralism remains in place.

3. Now let's imagine a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, and secular.  This society is like the first society except that it is secular--that is, it claims not to have an established official worldview but to be neutral between contested worldview beliefs in the society.

This society, like the first, will likely be prone to peace and stability, for the same reasons as the first society was.  If secularism vs. non-secularism has any effect at all, it will likely be towards slightly decreasing the amount of peace and stability.  A secular society claims to be neutral between viewpoints and to treat all viewpoints equally.  However, it is actually impossible for a state to be neutral in this way (especially in a pluralistic society).  Different worldview beliefs lead to different values, and different values lead to different ideas as to what is good, worthwhile, beneficial, etc., both at an individual level and on a societal level.  Therefore, a pluralistic society will have differing ideas as to what laws and policies in a society are truly good and wise.  The state, in embracing some particular set of values, priorities, goals, policies, etc., will of necessity end up endorsing the ideals of one or some groups of people over others'.  Especially in a deeply pluralistic society (like the modern USA), there simply will not be enough items agreed upon between those with differing worldviews to provide a sufficient foundation for governmental law and policy without the government having to add to those items other controverted ideas and ideals.  So religious or worldview neutrality is really impossible for a single society.  (For more argumentation on this point, see here, here, and here.)  Therefore, any promise of neutrality made by a secular civil government will be necessarily deceptive.  It will promise a kind of equality to all the citizens and their views that it can't really deliver.  The society, as it must go on and make laws and policies in order to survive, will in fact adopt some set of controversial ideas and ideals anyway, all the while claiming it is not doing so.  It will encourage citizens who don't share the concealed official viewpoint to think that their views are equally honored in the society when they truly are not.  This situation is likely to bring resentment, as citizens with minority worldviews come to expect society to be more congenial to themselves and their values than is really the case.  There would be less resentment, and thus less tension, if the society would simply come out and declare honestly and straightforwardly what its official viewpoint is and thus encourage its pietistic minority citizens to remain pietistic and not get their hopes raised too high.

4. Next, we can imagine a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and secular.  This society is like society #2, except that it is secular.

This society is going to be prone to conflict and instability, for the same reasons as society #2 was.  Will the society's being secular help?  I don't really see how.  In society #2, the civil government adopted a contested point of view as the basis upon which to make law and policy.  The conflict arose because the non-pietistic population was not content to let views contrary to their own dominate political policy.  The same situation will be in play here, the only difference being that the civil government will be pretending not to have a controversial official worldview while in reality it does.  I suppose this might appease a few very stupid people who also don't really care all that much about what is true and good, and it also might make those with a majority viewpoint who don't think too deeply feel better about themselves, as if their views aren't being favored any more than anyone else's (though they really are).  But it is more likely to exacerbate the problems had by society #2 for the reasons I mentioned when discussing society #3:  A non-secular government might take views at odds with your beliefs and values, but at least it is honest and straightforward about it.  A secular society, on the other hand, may just as much hold views contrary to yours, but it will disingenuously try to make you think that it is not doing so, that it is treating your views fully equally with all other views.  This is likely to increase rather than decrease tensions among those with minority viewpoints.  Also, a non-secular government, because it is fully aware and up-front about its controversial positions, is likely to be more aware than a naive or disingenuous non-secular government will be about the possible desirability of allowing societal tension to be diffused by means of putting in place legal processes towards change that minorities can avail themselves of.  A secular government, on the other hand, may be less likely to consider carefully such an idea, since it denies outright that there are any minority views in the society (after all, how can there be views that are out of accord with the official viewpoint of the civil government--which is what I mean by "minority views"--if the civil government is neutral?).  Thus, I must conclude that the secularism of this society is likely to make it less rather than more stable and peaceful than the otherwise comparable non-secular society #2.

5. OK, now let's consider a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.

This society, for obvious reasons, is going to be prone to strife and instability.  Even though the citizens are pietistic, yet they still hold beliefs and values that they consider important to their private lives.  Insofar as the state refuses to allow them to hold and practice these beliefs and values, there is likely to be conflict.  Of course, toleration comes in degrees.  We can think of a society that allows dissident beliefs and values to be held and practiced in private life, but not in public view.  (Imagine, for example, if Jews were allowed to be Jews and live as Jews in their private lives, but were not allowed to go outside in Jewish dress, erect publicly-visible synagogues, etc.)  We can think of a society that goes further than this and outlaws even private beliefs and practice (insofar as such things can be witnessed enough to come to government attention).  And we could imagine other forms of non-toleration as well.  I think we can say, generally, that the less tolerant a pluralistic society is, the less peaceful and the more unstable it is likely to be, all other things being equal.  A pluralistic society is a society full of people with different worldviews, different beliefs and values.  If we make the way of life of a large group of people illegal in a society, we are courting serious resistance and thus conflict.  For example, some people in Germany and the USA, and probably other western countries, want to outlaw male infant circumcision, including for religious reasons.  What baffles me is how they never seem to realize just how impractical that idea is.  Jews, and those who would sympathize with Jews if persecuted, make up a significantly large part of the populations of these countries.  To ban an essential practice of Judaism (and apparently Islam as well, or so I'm told) would result in mass unrest and chaos.

6. Now, a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.

Need we say much here?  Obviously, this society is going to be significantly more unstable and chaotic than society #5.

7. What if we make the society pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?

It's hard to see how making the society secular is going to have any influence to make the society more stable or peaceful.  Again, as we saw earlier, a secular society is one that is disingenuous towards those with minority views, and thus, if anything, is simply going to increase rather than decrease tension.  Secularism might even possibly have the effect of encouraging a society towards more non-toleration:  A non-secular society knows and acknowledges that it disfavors certain views, and thus it is likely to consider how those holding such views should be treated.  On the other hand, a secular society denies that it disfavors anyone's views (while doing so anyway), so it might be less inclined to consciously consider how tolerant its policies are towards dissidents in some cases.  It might be less tolerant in some cases without noticing, due to a naivete arising from its secular philosophy.  On the other hand, perhaps secularism might be more likely in some ways to be tolerant than a non-secular society, in that a society can only go so far in terms of discriminating against minorities before the illusion of neutrality comes to be in grave danger of bursting.

8. How about pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?

Again, I don't see how secularism would make this society any more stable than society #6.

9. Now, let's imagine some non-pluralistic societies.  I'm going to look at these more briefly and in a single point, because once we've gotten rid of pluralism, we've removed the basic cause of worldview conflict, as is evident from what we've seen.

Obviously, a tolerant, pietistic, non-pluralistic society is going to be prone to peace and stability.  But a non-tolerant, non-pietistic, non-pluralistic society will also preserve overall peace and stability, because there will only be a very few people in it with minority views.  All societies are intolerant towards some ideas and actions of some members of the society.  For example, in the modern USA, we are intolerant towards theft and human sacrifice.  Are there people in our society who want to steal, think it's OK to steal, and actually steal?  Obviously.  Are there people in our society who think it is good thing, or even a religious virtue, to practice human sacrifice?  I would be surprised if there weren't.  However, these ideas and ideals are enough of a minority that those who have and practice them do not make up a significant portion of the population--or, to put it another way, the society is not really significantly pluralistic with regard to these ideas and practices.  Therefore, we can be intolerant towards them (by making them illegal) without undermining our overall peace and stability as a society.  And this will be the case generally with such uncommon views.  In a biblical theocracy, for example, where the public expression of idolatrous worship would be outlawed, so long as the population does not become significantly pluralistic regarding such matters, the outlawing of these things will not tend to decrease peace and stability.  More likely, it will increase peace and stability, as it will discourage pluralism in these areas from developing and reinforce publicly-shared values.  (Of course, throughout this whole examination, I've been looking at these things from a purely human point of view, not taking into account how God would bless a society favorable to his will and curse a society non-favorable.)

It seems to me it would make little difference whether a non-pluralistic society were secular or non-secular.  It would have little practical reason to be secular, as there would be little point in pretending to be neutral.

So let's consider what we've learned through this little exercise.  Our goal was to examine more closely the theoretical claim that secularism will tend to make human societies more peaceful and stable.  We have not seen any reason at all to think that that is the case.  If anything, secularism might, in some circumstances, make a society somewhat less stable and peaceful, but it's hard to see how it would be at all likely to make it more so.  I think we can conclude that if it is peace and stability we are after, secularism is a useless dead-end.  Getting rid of pluralism, on the other hand, would seem to be a very good move, if it could be done in a peaceful way (such as through large amounts of voluntary conversions to a single worldview ideology).

Some accuse those of us who hold to the Establishment Principle--the idea that all societies ought to be explicitly Christian (and even embrace some specific form of Christianity and some specific church) and base laws and policies on the revealed will of God--as promoting a political philosophy that will tend to produce chaos, unrest, instability, and violence in a society.  However, our investigation showed no reason, humanly speaking, to think that the promotion of the Establishment Principle will do any such thing.  Certainly, much depends on how biblical law will be promoted in a society.  If we attempt to use violence and civil coercion to suddenly enforce an entire Christian societal moral code on a population like the modern USA, yes, that will be highly likely to lead to serious chaos and conflict.  However, if we work in more peaceful, moderate, and long-term ways to influence people in the broader society to share our point of view, and/or if we engage in creating our own distinct societies populated by Christians and based on Christian values (such as is envisioned in the New Plymouth Project of the Reformation Party), there is no reason to think that the pursuit or attainment of these goals will produce chaos and unrest in society.  On the contrary, insofar as we succeed in reducing pluralism and shaping a society in which the vast majority of the population agree on the same basic beliefs and values and see those values enshrined in the common laws, we are most likely to create a society that is much less prone to conflict and chaos and that is much more stable than anything we see today in the secular western world.