Comments on: Defining Our Terms A. Matthews Society, Civilizat… http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/ The Reign of Christ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:45:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-270 D Hart Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:39:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-270 What I don't understand about the Covenanters is their ongoing attraction to monarchy when the king with whom they covenanted was one of the greatest proponents of divine-right monarchy, a system ripe for abuse. I myself think constitutional monarchy a legitimate form of government, though probably a tad wasteful with having to pay for all the trappings -- isn't it better simply to have 20,000 employees in each federal agency. But monarchs and emperors do not exactly have a great track record, either of Christian fidelity or wise statesmanship What I don’t understand about the Covenanters is their ongoing attraction to monarchy when the king with whom they covenanted was one of the greatest proponents of divine-right monarchy, a system ripe for abuse. I myself think constitutional monarchy a legitimate form of government, though probably a tad wasteful with having to pay for all the trappings — isn’t it better simply to have 20,000 employees in each federal agency. But monarchs and emperors do not exactly have a great track record, either of Christian fidelity or wise statesmanship

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-271 W.H. Chellis Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:30:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-271 I love the monarchists!<BR/><BR/>I am of the belief that no form of civil government is biblically commanded and that historical constitutional development under the providence of God should lead to organic development of civil institutions. Radical changes occur at great risk to civil stability.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think highly of the rule of kings especially when governing with the collected wisdom of an assembly of elders. <BR/><BR/>I am uncertain that a monarchial institution could ever be organically grafted onto the American politica tradition.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the only King for which I confidently contend for is King Jesus. I love the monarchists!

I am of the belief that no form of civil government is biblically commanded and that historical constitutional development under the providence of God should lead to organic development of civil institutions. Radical changes occur at great risk to civil stability.

That said, I think highly of the rule of kings especially when governing with the collected wisdom of an assembly of elders.

I am uncertain that a monarchial institution could ever be organically grafted onto the American politica tradition.

Thus, the only King for which I confidently contend for is King Jesus.

]]> By: Andrew Matthews http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-272 Andrew Matthews Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:40:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-272 Dr. Hart,<BR/><BR/>I don't see that monarchy is necessarily implied by the contention that the culture of Christ's Kingdom sustains earthly cultures.<BR/><BR/>However, you have found me out. <BR/>;-) I think there's a better fit between Christ's royal reign and rule by a Christian monarch. Jesus is King of kings after all. <BR/><BR/>I see kingship as a natural-organic extension of fatherhood. Fatherhood is original kingship, possessing the potential of being developed, if that makes sense. Obviously, this has ramifications for how I understand Adam's covenant headship.<BR/><BR/>As for America, I cannot deny that I'd like to see a monarchy here established someday. I think it's only a matter of time before people start realizing that the system itself produces corrupt politics and politicians. Maybe we will give up our cynicism and start to long for true nobility again.<BR/><BR/>However, as a good old-fashioned traditionalist, I don't believe in revolution. Things should take their course, and perhaps God will be pleased to raise up a great and godly man who would be able to unite the nation more perfectly in the service of the <I/>Lord</I> Jesus. Dr. Hart,

I don’t see that monarchy is necessarily implied by the contention that the culture of Christ’s Kingdom sustains earthly cultures.

However, you have found me out.
;-) I think there’s a better fit between Christ’s royal reign and rule by a Christian monarch. Jesus is King of kings after all.

I see kingship as a natural-organic extension of fatherhood. Fatherhood is original kingship, possessing the potential of being developed, if that makes sense. Obviously, this has ramifications for how I understand Adam’s covenant headship.

As for America, I cannot deny that I’d like to see a monarchy here established someday. I think it’s only a matter of time before people start realizing that the system itself produces corrupt politics and politicians. Maybe we will give up our cynicism and start to long for true nobility again.

However, as a good old-fashioned traditionalist, I don’t believe in revolution. Things should take their course, and perhaps God will be pleased to raise up a great and godly man who would be able to unite the nation more perfectly in the service of the Lord Jesus.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-273 D Hart Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:18:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-273 Bill won't be surprised to hear that I am not as much in agreement as he. But it's hard for me to say that I disagree since I'm not committed necessarily to one definition of any of these terms, cult, culture, civilization or society.<BR/><BR/>So to see where my disagreement may lie, I wonder if Mr. Matthews could answer this question: Since the kingdom of God actively imparts life and health to earthly cultures, does this mean that a republican form of government is wrong and that the United States should revert back to a monarchy? Bill won’t be surprised to hear that I am not as much in agreement as he. But it’s hard for me to say that I disagree since I’m not committed necessarily to one definition of any of these terms, cult, culture, civilization or society.

So to see where my disagreement may lie, I wonder if Mr. Matthews could answer this question: Since the kingdom of God actively imparts life and health to earthly cultures, does this mean that a republican form of government is wrong and that the United States should revert back to a monarchy?

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-274 W.H. Chellis Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:23:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-274 An excellent first post Mr. Andrews. I am in complete agreement. An excellent first post Mr. Andrews. I am in complete agreement.

]]> By: Daniel Howe http://deregnochristi.org/2006/10/10/defining-our-terms/#comment-275 Daniel Howe Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:08:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=55#comment-275 Very interesting post. I am delighted to see Kline's metahistorical insights applied. I would add only a few observations from Oliver O'Donovan and Tim Keller.<BR/><BR/>O'Donovan makes it clear that the great distinction is not secular vs. sacred but secular vs. eternal. It is a matter of ages or eras, not static categories. This fits well with an "already-not yet" eschatological structure. Further, the breaking-in of the eternal once and for all in God's act of final judgment is just that - God's act. It cannot be humanly initiated. <BR/><BR/>However, it is built into the church's apologetic that it is witnessing prophetically, constantly, to the coming judgment and just age. This witness is enough to get it killed, since it is inherently political (a Reformed missionary to China recently told me that the only doctrine that state-sanctioned churches are explicitly forbidden to teach is that of the Second Coming). This prophetic witness and its living-out within the church is at once confrontational and transformational; it is never segregable from public life. Sometimes the pagans will listen to us and bow the knee; sometimes they will kill us. If we are living godly in the present age, they can never ignore us.<BR/><BR/>Second, Tim Keller was asked at a recent conference about the relationship between Christianity and culture. His very insightful response was that Christians have to fall at either end of Niebuhr's "Christ and Culture" spectrum. They must create a very "thick" counterculture (living as a veritable city with in a city) while self-consciously serving their culture (especially their cities). This seems like no contradiction at all to me. Christians live like Christ wants them to in a given setting, and like Christ they serve: that is the very nature of the Christian counterculture!<BR/><BR/>A great point-counterpoint by Chellis and Edgar. What I find missing is the service element. Very interesting post. I am delighted to see Kline’s metahistorical insights applied. I would add only a few observations from Oliver O’Donovan and Tim Keller.

O’Donovan makes it clear that the great distinction is not secular vs. sacred but secular vs. eternal. It is a matter of ages or eras, not static categories. This fits well with an “already-not yet” eschatological structure. Further, the breaking-in of the eternal once and for all in God’s act of final judgment is just that - God’s act. It cannot be humanly initiated.

However, it is built into the church’s apologetic that it is witnessing prophetically, constantly, to the coming judgment and just age. This witness is enough to get it killed, since it is inherently political (a Reformed missionary to China recently told me that the only doctrine that state-sanctioned churches are explicitly forbidden to teach is that of the Second Coming). This prophetic witness and its living-out within the church is at once confrontational and transformational; it is never segregable from public life. Sometimes the pagans will listen to us and bow the knee; sometimes they will kill us. If we are living godly in the present age, they can never ignore us.

Second, Tim Keller was asked at a recent conference about the relationship between Christianity and culture. His very insightful response was that Christians have to fall at either end of Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” spectrum. They must create a very “thick” counterculture (living as a veritable city with in a city) while self-consciously serving their culture (especially their cities). This seems like no contradiction at all to me. Christians live like Christ wants them to in a given setting, and like Christ they serve: that is the very nature of the Christian counterculture!

A great point-counterpoint by Chellis and Edgar. What I find missing is the service element.

]]>