Empowered Witness: Politics, Culture, and the Spiritual Mission of the Church, by Alan D. Strange. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024. xvi + 149 pages, $16.99, paper.

This excellent new book on the spirituality of the church (hence SOTC), and the relationship of the church to the civil government and culture, is very timely. Why? Because currently there are pressures in the world against the church asking it to comment on all matters of social malaise in our culture and time. Amid such pressure (and confusion), Professor Strange, a friend and fellow ministerial colleague, has given us a summary of a very important ecclesiastical doctrine: the spiritual mission of the church. He situates most of his discussion during a defining moment in American history (the Civil War). Strange, to his credit, is against the ghettoizing of the church’s mission. He has written elsewhere that he desires all Reformed parties at the table, even ones disagreeing with each other on the relationship of the Christian faith to the world, so that they may agree on what the role of the institutional church primarily is and what constitutes true spirituality. This irenic tone permeates his new book.

His new book is a kind of abridged edition of his dissertation. Therefore, anyone who wants to follow up on a topic for more detail may consult his dissertation, which was published in 2017 by Presbyterian and Reformed.[1] Not surprisingly, it was leading up to and during the Civil War (1861–65), and immediately afterwards, that the church was faced with clarifying and maintaining the SOTC. Early in the book, the author explains that

the task of the church is not to transform the world at large or any society in it. The task of the church is to transform lives: to proclaim the gospel as the person and work of Christ applied by the power of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace so that men and women come to Christ by faith and are justified, adopted, and sanctified—all a gift of God’s grace. (3)

This thesis permeates each section of the book: chapter 1 describes the doctrine of the SOTC; chapter 2 delves into the delicate issue of slavery and the SOTC; chapter 3 discusses the SOTC just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War and during the war itself, including the very important debate over the Gardiner Spring Resolutions of 1861, which Hodge opposed; chapter 4 discusses how the SOTC doctrine was handled in Presbyterian General Assemblies between 1862–65; chapter 5 discusses Hodge’s desire to reunite the Southern and Northern churches after the war. Finally, chapter 6 breaks new ground as Professor Strange applies the teaching on the SOTC to the modern church, suggesting that she not ghettoize the gospel and not show apathy to the world and its needs. Meanwhile, she should not allow the church and her mission to be politicized.  

The book demonstrates that the SOTC doctrine was part and parcel of the church’s confession long before the American Civil War. This book is accessible, well organized, and lucidly written. It would make an excellent textbook for a Sunday school class on the subject, whether young or old. On the other hand, some minor criticisms—or, desire for more clarity, nuance, and full description is in order—even though I suspect that Professor Strange’s desire was to produce a book that avoided getting in the weeds of the minutiae of historical detail. Even so, disagreement can be a great achievement, even among friends. At issue in the criticisms of his new book in this review are not what individual Christians may do, or collectives of individual Christians; rather, the specific issue is what is the role of the institutional and corporate mission of the church?

Strange emphasizes two leitmotifs evident from his study of Hodge, even as he had in his published dissertation: first, we must not muzzle the “prophetic” voice of the church but let her speak in a manner that has potential political implications as it speaks to the outside world. Secondly, for Hodge, when the church speaks to that which is “purely political,” she violates the principles of the SOTC. In Hodge’s view, according to Strange, the church may still engage in actions that might have some political consequences. This is why Hodge opposed the “Gardiner” resolutions introduced at the General Assembly in 1861, which sought to have the Assembly show some expression of devotion to the Union and loyalty to the Federal Government of the United States. For Hodge, this violated the earlier stated principle, i.e., such an action by the General Assembly would be purely political, and therefore the church should not bind the conscience of her ministers in the way proposed. Hodge did not win the day on that vote in the church’s highest court (156 ayes, 66 nays).

In Strange’s new book, the reader will find plenty of discussion about the differences between the Old School titans of the period: especially southerner James Henry Thornwell, border-state minister Stuart Robinson, and northern moderate Charles Hodge. The former two figures, Strange considers as “radical” in their teaching on the SOTC. Hodge, he considers to be the quintessential moderate. It is true that Thornwell was restrictive in what he saw as the role of the minister in the institutional church, he said:

The object of Christian ministry, the ministry that belongs to the church, is not to reform society or fix the many ills that are common among men in a fallen, yet temporal world. Rather, a minister of the church exists ‘to persuade men to be reconciled to God through Christ, to persuade them to accept of the blessed Saviour in all His offices, and to rest upon Him and Him alone for ‘wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.’[2]

This sounds, not surprisingly, very much like Machen.

For those who are interested in seeing how our forefathers dealt with the ever-present issues of race, slavery, and the relationship of the church to the state, the reader will find much description of the issues outlined, and in detail from a well-trained historian who writes clearly and lucidly in this new book. My concern at this point, however, is that reducing the discussion about that history and the Old School figures involved (i.e., by labelling them “radical”) obscures more than clarifies for those disagreeing with Hodge.

One question that comes up repeatedly is the issue of whether the institutional church should have a “prophetic” voice (Strange’s words) towards the world? The answer should be a qualified yes and no, as Strange says. I, however, would have appreciated seeing more clarification related to the use of this term “prophetic.” After all, this is the very term that the Social Gospel proponents appealed to (e.g., Walter Rauschenbusch) in their day (early twentieth century) and that many appeal to in our own time. The prophetic voice of the church in the New Covenant is spiritual. But the question, precisely, is how does the church testify (institutionally and corporately) of her Lord to the culture in which she resides? It testifies to the world as it exercises Word and sacrament, and even church discipline. Hodge himself recognized this when he was comparing the Kingdom in his Systematic Theology:

First it is spiritual. That is, it is not of this world. It is not analogous to the other kingdoms which existed, or do still exist among men. It has a different origin and a different end. . . . The Kingdom of Christ was organized immediately by God, for the promotion of religious objects. It is spiritual, or not of this world . . . all secular matters lie beyond its jurisdiction. . . . It can decide no question of politics or science which is not decided in the Bible. The Kingdom of Christ, under the present dispensation, therefore, is not worldly even in the sense in which the ancient theocracy was of this world. . . . The kingdom of Christ being designed to embrace all other kingdoms, can exist under all forms of civil government without interfering with any. It was especially in this view that Christ declared that his kingdom was not of this world. . . . He intended to say that his kingdom was of such a nature that it necessitated no collision with the legitimate author of any civil government. It belonged to a different sphere.[3]

For the “church” to address the society in the Old Covenant was expected, especially in the prophetic office of the Old Covenant, particularly in the time of the monarchy. The prophets played the role of lawyers, gathering legal briefs to indict the kings (or the people, or both) for their shortcomings in failing to live up the terms of the Mosaic covenant. But that office has ceased. The last great prophet of the Old Testament period was John the Baptist. He was the prophet of ultimatum. He called upon Israelites to repent at the inauguration of Christ’s coming.

For the sake of argument then, how do Christians corporately primarily manifest the faith to the external world? By practicing the marks of the corporate church. Again Hodge:

As religion is essentially spiritual, an inward state, the kingdom of Christ as consisting of the truly regenerated, is not a visible body, except so far as goodness renders itself by outward manifestations . . . Christians are required to associate for public worship, for the admission and exclusion of members, for the administration of the sacraments, for the maintenance and propagation of the truth. They therefore form themselves into churches, and collectively constitute the visible kingdom of Christ on earth, consisting of all who profess the true religion, together with their children.[4]

This would seem to suggest that it is primarily when New Covenant Christians corporately exercise their sacred duties (e.g., attending worship, praying) that they testify to the world, not when they exercise their individual cultural duties that Christians manifest the KOG (kingdom of God) to a watching world. Instead of invoking a “prophetic” witness, I wish that Professor Strange had invoked these sections from Professor Hodge.[5]

Another area where the book could have been clearer was on the major area of disagreement between Hodge and Thornwell on church government. Precision is important here for the sake of further dialogue. This was at the heart of the matter in their disagreement over church boards. For Hodge, church government is jure humano (by human right). Its form of government should be left to the judgment of its members according to the circumstances.[6] Hodge lumps Thornwell together with Stuart Robinson as being “radical” in their approach to the SOTC according to Professor Strange. Hodge had grown exasperated with Thornwell’s concept of Presbyterianism, even stooping to label it “hyper-hyper-hyper High church Presbyterianism.”[7] Hodge declared that “the great principles of Presbyterianism are in the Bible; but it is preposterous to assert that our whole Book of Discipline is there.”[8] Hodge was in favor of claiming divine authority for the “essential elements of church government, but claimed a discretionary power for matters of detail and modes of operation.”[9] As one of Hodge’s biographers states, “Hodge argued that churches must be governed by general principles rather than hard and fast rules that apply equally to all congregations in every situation.”[10]

Thornwell was a firm proponent also of jure divino (divine right) ecclesiology.[11] This is best explained by a leading Scottish theologian of the time, James Bannerman:

Church government, according to this view, is not a product of Christian discretion, nor a development of the Christian consciousness; it has been shaped and settled, not by the wisdom of man, but by that of the church’s Head.  It does not rest upon a ground of human expediency but of Divine Appointment.[12]

For Thornwell, the church may not do whatever it deems wise in its polity; rather, there must be clear sanction for her worship and her practice. He claimed, contrary to Hodge, that he did not want to deny discretionary power, only limit, and define it.[13] Thornwell explains, “We hold it to be the circumstances connected with commanded duties, and hence affirm that whatever is not enjoined is prohibited. He [Hodge] holds that it pertains to the actions themselves and maintains that whatever is not prohibited is lawful.”[14]

A commitment to see Christ’s headship articulated in terms of the munus triplex (Christ’s threefold office, as Bannerman and border-state Pastor Stuart Robinson suggested), that is to say that the church’s practice of doctrine, worship, and government should be influenced by Christ’s prophetic, priestly, and kingly headship, might have brought about more rapprochement between these Old School giants.[15] In short, more eloquent listening was in order. Church government, according to Robinson and Thornwell, its limits and powers, are a confessional matter that flow from the headship of Christ.[16] In short, practices in the church, even the polity of her government, must be sanctioned by Scripture.

In conclusion, these are merely criticisms that are asking for fuller historical disclosure and detail on these complex issues. In my opinion, this would enrich even more fruitful discussion on what has become an essential ecclesial doctrine in our day and age. My friend and colleague, Professor Strange, has given us a new book that is a welcome addition to the topic. Take up and read; you will not be disappointed.

Endnotes

[1] Alan D. Strange, The Doctrine of the Church in the Ecclesiology of Charles Hodge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2017).

[2] Thornwell (Vol. IV, 565) quoted in Christopher C. Cooper, “Binding Bodies and Liberating Souls: James Henley Thornwell’s Vision for a Spiritual Church and a Christian Confederacy,” The Confessional Presbyterian 9 (2013): 35–47, especially at page 40.

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (1871; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 605–06 (emphasis mine).

[4] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 604.

[5] Again, this does not preclude individual Christians, or collectives of Christians to address issues of social malaise. The issue is what the church is to do in its corporate capacity.

[6] See James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A treatise on the nature, powers, ordinances, discipline and government of the Christian Church (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1960), 2:202 for discussion.

[7] See John Lloyd Vance, “The ecclesiology of James Henley Thornwell: An Old Southern Presbyterian Theologian,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Madison, NJ: Drew University, 1990), 184.

[8] Quoted in Strange, The Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church, 440.

[9] Quoted in Strange, The Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church, 440.

[10] Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

[11] In my judgment, Thornwell was correct to connect his church theory with that of Calvin, with Scottish and English divines, and with Westminster.

[12] Bannerman, Church of Christ, 2:202.

[13] J. H. Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henry Thornwell, vol. 4 (Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 4.245.

[14] Thornwell, The Collected Writings 4.251. A discussion of the distinction between regulative principles vis-à-vis constitutive principles could have made for greater clarification of differences among these Old School Presbyterians at this point as well. See, e.g., T. W. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee on Education, 1892), 109.

[15] See, for example, Craig Troxel’s discussion in “‘Divine Right’ Presbyterian and Church Power,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 116, 184–85, 252.

[16] See, WCF, chapter 30.

Bryan Estelle is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian church and serves as professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido, California. Ordained Servant Online, October, 2024.