re: Our Historical impasse W.H. Chellis Caleb’s p…

W.H. Chellis

re: Our Historical impasse
W.H. Chellis

Caleb’s post provides helpful insight into the nature of our discussion. I am not convinced of the impropriety of “theological abstractions” (in fact with a diverse group like this I am unsure that this will prove comfortable ground). Systematic Theology is the queen of sciences and the formulations of the Scriptures are the right place to go to hash out the relationship of Jesus Christ to the nations.

As Richard Weaver’s publisher reminds me whenever I look at my bookshelf, “Ideas Have Consquences”. I would suggest that the rejection of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship over the nations has had devatating consquences for the West. Its rejection has encouraged the secularists of Protestant nations, and more recently its rejection has encouraged the same in Roman Catholic countries. Since Vatican II, the Reformed Presbyterian Church is the only conservative church that constitutionally upholds this historic doctrine. It is of vital importance.

On the other hand, Christ’s reign over the nations looks different from His reign over the Church. Dr. Hart has correctly noted that it is always much easier to spot in the public worship where knees are bending and tongues are confessing. Here is where I believe Caleb’s comments are the most helpful. Christ reigns among the nations and administers His reign based upon His law. Christ’s law is univeral. Yet, in application, there must necessarily be a great amount of diversity based on historical and cultural settings. Differences between Augustine and Luther are undeniably influenced by their political and theological settings (how could they not be?). Further, I would note, that differences between Luther and Calvin (with regard to political theology) are partially attributable to historical circumstance.

It is a vain hope when Reformed defenders of Christ’s Kingship seek to impose a “one-size fits all” vision for the nations. (Likewise it is a vain hope when American foreign policy seeks to impose the American millenial hope of world-wide democracy and capitalism.) Christ’s rule over the nations includes the fact that He is sovereign over providence and history. As grace perfects nature rather than destroying it, so submission to Christ’s reign should always sanctify what exists rather than bring about radical revolution (1 Cor. 7:20-24). Failure to recognize this principle is the weakness of a good deal of older Covenanter and Puritan thought.

Therefore, I wish to be clear that my defense of Christ’s Kingship over the nations is, I hope, wholly free of any millenarian expectation or political utopianism. Christ reigns and does so over rebellious nations. The nations should confess His Kingship and mold their organic constitutions in conformity to His law. History proves this is both possible and beneficial. To deny it is to reject all that is best in the West.

Our historical situation is that of 21st Century Americans, inheritors of the ancient and venerable legacy of Anglo-American Christendom. Our inheritance is endangered by Christ-less modernism/postmodernism. On what basis do we move forward. The devil is always in the details.