I agree that the state as such is not the mediator of Scripture. But the implication of several of the posts seems to be that the state is somehow supposed to be mediating the truth of the Scriptures, but (correct me if I’m wrong) doing so under the authority of the Church. This is a troublesome position in more than one way. The search for biblical support of such a position always leads to a comparison between modern nations and ancient Israel, a comparison which is completely unwarranted by Scripture. This idea also leads to a kind of natural theology which says God is working equally (if not somewhat differently) in all human institutions.

But, perhaps I’m seeing the argument going places that it isn’t actually going.

Christina

Agreed. The Scripture has authority over the church. Yet, God has established the church as the normative expounder of the meaning of scripture.

Without an interpretor the scripture is just a book sitting on a shelf. Who interprets? The civil magistrate? The acadamy? Not-for-profit corporations? For corporate corporations? Whose interpretation is binding when they conflict?

Christina

Christina

It may very well be a semantic distinction. I believe that both the state and church are required to deal with individuals within the structure of a family. For example, I don’t think a church could refuse the presence of a parent when dealing with a child. Both the state and church have to respect the authority of the parents over children.

So, to that extent, I think that one could say that family is inescapable in church and state, but to use the word unit implies indivisibility. And the indivisibility implies that the covenant head is the only representative - just like the CEO of a company is held to task for the performance of all within the company, or the king in the actions of the country. That’s why I have an indelible association between making the family the fundamental unit and Patriarchy. So, I’m looking forward to your August post.

You will have to give me more time to tease out the position. I do see the family as the basic unit of society in both church and state but I do not think you have rightly understood the implications. You have confused me with the Patriarchy advocates. This is not where I am going. I think the August column will help clarify some of these issues.

I think I have to side a bit with Baus on Sphere Sovereignty. At least with one of the founding principles. Each sphere has direct authority from God to execute its legitimate power, and each sphere is distinct in its influence.

I think Mr. Chellis wants to deny that. For example, saying that the family is the fundamental unit in each sphere. I believe this is incorrect. The fundamental unit is all spheres is the individual. In the family, the individual is joined, by birth and marriage into a unit subject to the authority of a father/husband. In the church, an individual is a covenant member of a body of believers, subject to the authority of the elders. In the state, an individual, by his location is covenantally subjected to the authority of the state.

All of these spheres derive their authority directly from God, and are responsible to him alone for the authority they have in that sphere.

What are the implications of this point? The state can enforce legal obligations between husband and wife, or father and children. The church can excommunicate an individual even to the objections of his parents.

Marriage is an interesting case study. Despite claims to the contrary, marriage is solely within the family. (I hear cries of disgust). Why are the church and state interested in marriage? Because marriage creates a new family, and that family has a different legal status within the state (e.g. adultery requires marriage) as well as within the church (only condoning marriage that is equally yoked). Thus it is wholely appropriate for the state and church to be witnesses at a wedding.