Few issues are as contentious among those who love God’s law and wish to see it applied not only in the individual, home, and church, but also in the society at large and by the civil authorities, as is the issue of the regulative principle of civil government. Essentially, the regulative principle of civil government contends that civil government may only act when scripture teaches that it should act. This can be taught explicitly (for instance Genesis 9:6 teaches that murderers are to be executed, Romans 13 teaches that it is for the State to execute God’s vengeance against criminals, thus the State should implement death penalties for murder) but it can also be taught by good and necessary consequences (for instance, the laws about a goring ox provide precedents for dealing with any situation where a person is warned or knows that he is taking an action that seriously endangers the lives of others, and yet takes that action anyway, and there is a loss of life.) The alternative view teaches that government may act as long as action is not forbidden either by scripture or by reason. We do need to be fair to both sides on this debate. Someone who believes in a proper regulative principle of the magistrate does allow for God to command the magistrate by necessary consequence, and those who hold the normative principle would allow that God can forbid the magistrate to act because an action would be unreasonable or would go against natural law. So its not technically fair to say those who support the regulative principle need a proof text, nor that those who oppose the regulative principle need a proof text saying “thou shall not.” Its more complicated than that and I do want to be fair to my brethren who disagree with me.

One’s position on this usually has a large impact on how one sees the State in general.  Though even among those who hold a similar view of government there may be differences in how we see specific issues, in general the regulative principle of government leads to a view where the State is primarily oriented toward the punishing of evildoers.  Taxation, if it is allowed at all, is limited to under 10% of GDP (per 1 Samuel 8) and limited to this express purpose.  People who take the normative principle often (not necessarily always) see the rightful role of the State as being applicable to other issues, including very frequently things like education and welfare.   Many also claim that 1 Samuel 8 is only saying 10% taxation is not to be desired in one particular situation, not necessarily forbidden or even always unwise.

So we can imagine while both sides do sincerely want to honor God’s law, how we view this important issue will greatly affect the way our government’s look.  It is very possible (though I do not say that normative principle advocates necessarily desire this) that a Christian normative principle state could look very much like the State apparatus we see today, only with Christian laws tacked on.  By contrast the regulative principle of government adherent wants to see government radically downsized.

I intend for the rest of this post to just be introductory material on why I support the Regulative Principle of Civil Government.  This is not meant to be exhaustive in nature, nor is it meant to answer every possible question one could have about this principle.

I will also say that just because I support the regulative principle of government doesn’t mean I agree with modern Christian Reconstructionism in all of the ways it applies this principle.  For instance, while some Christian Reconstructionists might say that pornography should not be a civil matter, I believe it is very possible (and likely) that good and necessary consequences from the law would lead to it being illegal to view or sell pornographic materials (I won’t be making a systematic case for this here).  Many Christian reconstructionists do not believe the sabbath should be enforced, I do believe that the sabbath is now the first day of the week and the Christian civil magistrate should ensure that no works, save those of necessity and mercy, are performed on this day.  Some recons are comfortable with religious pluralism, I am not.  In addition to believing that the Bible is very clear that proselyting for pagan religions (Deuteronomy 13) and open practice of idolatry (Exodus 22:20 and Deuteronomy 17) should be punished, I also believe it is very possible that the precedent of destruction of high places provides precedent for the civil magistrate to suppress even certain forms of worship directed toward the true God (Deuteronomy 12 and 2 Kings 23).  I am still working through some of the details of the general equity here, but keep in mind that this is a general overview.  The rest of this post will be some basic explanation  why I hold to the regulative principle of government in general.

Some (though not all) of my covenanter brethren would say that Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 12 are restricting innovation in the area of worship, but not forbidding adding to government law.  In Deuteronomy 12, I think they are very likely correct ( a common mistake made by Christian Reconstructionists is to refuse to acknowledge this, and thus often accepting innovations in worship) but Deuteronomy 4 seems clearly to be about law in context.  I won’t systematically defend this here, but this seems difficult to argue against.

Secondly, Romans 13 says that we pay taxes “for this purpose” (the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous.)  Perhaps some would stretch the rewarding of the righteous to include things like providing Christian schools, but this seems like a major stretch given that no such thing (or infrastructure to provide for this sort of thing) is seen in the law.  The only reason taxation is ever authorized in the Bible is to punish the evildoer, and the reward to the righteous that is justice exercised against the evildoer.  But the one who does good is praised, he remains in the avenger’s good graces.  So taxation is authorized by God for punishment of the wicked, but it is not authorized for education, welfare, aggressive war, or any other purpose.

Third, all authority requires sanction.  The fact that the judicial code of Moses is fairly exhaustive, if God wanted a legislative branch that also imposed its own laws “according to general wisdom” or however we want to say it, I believe such would have been authorized in the law.  Yet it is not.  There are judges, and the entire community functioned as the executive (the community as a whole, not vigilantes.)  Judges can interpret and apply the law to modern situations, but any interpretations and applications have to be grounded in the existing law and formed as case-law.  So while there is basis for making a judgment about what types of driving are equivalent to leaving a goring ox out, there is no place for autonomously inventing a fine for breaking the law.  If it is comparable, the law should be applied in the same way, if you do the dangerous thing and harm someone, you are held responsible for the blood.

And finally I’d simply apply to a principle that I think is common sense, though I’ll grant that the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach it.  The initiation of violent force definitely requires outside sanction.  Some would say this is too libertarian, but I do not think it is. A true libertarian would not even grant God the right (or at least they would assert that its a right God never exercises) to authorize government as an institution possessing the right to use violent force to punish offenses against God (even those that don’t necessarily “harm” physical people or physical property.)  As a theonomist, I certainly recognize that God not only can but has done so.  Yet I only ask the government to use the sword as God’s avenger, the avenger of God’s Wrath per Romans 13.  Nowhere is the civil government authorized to exercise its own wrath.Furthermore, I think Romans 12:18 is applicable here.  If someone violates the civil laws of God, it no longer depends on the civil government to keep peace with that person.  God has commanded civil force, thus force must be exercised.  On the other hand, if God has not (even implicitly) authorized the use of violence, I believe the civil magistrate has an obligation to keep the peace with that individual as much as it is able.  This includes personal slights against the magistrate (for instance insulting the king or his enforcers, even where they are acting righteously), any citizen who is doing that which is not evil in God’s eyes (for instance, the civil magistrate does not have the right to set arbitrary age limits on consumption of alcohol nor does it have the right to pass laws saying that only the government is allowed to own certain types of guns*), nor does it have the right to even use vengeance against sins for which God has never prescribed (explicitly or implicitly) punishment (for instance the civil magistrate cannot categorically ban the use of drugs, even though doing so in many cases would be equivalent to drunkenness, which under the Law of God is a sin but not a crime.

*There may be Biblical basis (though its not something I’m getting into depth with here) to say that there are certain types of weapons that nobody can rightly own since its impossible to use them in a moral manner.  Hence it MAY be possible to ban the ownership of nuclear weapons if you can combine the prohibition on collateral damage with some case law precedent.  This isn’t something I’ve looked into.  But this is very different than, say, admitting it is moral to own assault weapons but yet saying only government agents can own them for “safety reasons.”  The civil magistrate lacks the right to do this.