Comments on: Throwing Down the Gauntlet http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/ The Reign of Christ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:27:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Politeuma · A Secular Faith http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-436 Politeuma · A Secular Faith Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:43:01 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-436 [...] Saturday, March 24th, 2007 So one important question to consider at the outset of this diablog is this: to what extent does eschatology determine one’s understanding of the relationship between church and state? Is the idea of a Christian America a hangover of postmillennial optimism (with premillennialism being the pessimistic flipside)? In other words, is the spirituality of the church (a topic to be discussed more fully in later weeks) merely the logical consequence of amillennialism? ~ D.G. Hart [...] [...] Saturday, March 24th, 2007 So one important question to consider at the outset of this diablog is this: to what extent does eschatology determine one’s understanding of the relationship between church and state? Is the idea of a Christian America a hangover of postmillennial optimism (with premillennialism being the pessimistic flipside)? In other words, is the spirituality of the church (a topic to be discussed more fully in later weeks) merely the logical consequence of amillennialism? ~ D.G. Hart [...]

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-435 W.H. Chellis Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:36:42 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-435 What if all those living together in a community are Christians? What if they all worship together in the same cult? What if they corporately confess Christ? These are the issues of De Regno but do not really move the book discussion forward. Jody is correct that we have strayed far from Darryl's original question which was based on eschatology. The question is an interesting one and I am pretty sure we have not come to a conclusion. Maybe the question actually betrays his own thought process. Maybe Darryl's thesis is a reaction to liberal postmillenialism and Protestant progressivism. Here we find common cause with Darryl and will, I suspect, find much to agree about as the discussion progresses. Finally, as for me, I contend that my committments to Christendom are based more on the history of what God has done in the West than it is on a fuzzy hope of what he will do. I will look backward for light rather than forward. What if all those living together in a community are Christians? What if they all worship together in the same cult? What if they corporately confess Christ? These are the issues of De Regno but do not really move the book discussion forward.

Jody is correct that we have strayed far from Darryl’s original question which was based on eschatology. The question is an interesting one and I am pretty sure we have not come to a conclusion.

Maybe the question actually betrays his own thought process. Maybe Darryl’s thesis is a reaction to liberal postmillenialism and Protestant progressivism. Here we find common cause with Darryl and will, I suspect, find much to agree about as the discussion progresses.

Finally, as for me, I contend that my committments to Christendom are based more on the history of what God has done in the West than it is on a fuzzy hope of what he will do. I will look backward for light rather than forward.

]]> By: Jody Morris http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-434 Jody Morris Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:12:26 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-434 Bill wonders if I'm ready to give up the Christian family, saying all families are temporary but children are "holy". He is challenging my definitions. He says, “Temporary (I think he meant “spiritual”) equals imperishable or heavenly, as Jody offers, excludes families from being “spiritual” and means that references to Christian families are in error.” I see the logic. If I've made it sound like everything "holy" cannot be temporary then I need to make another distinction. I'm not ready to give up the Christian family. Our common covenant theology connects families to the church making them an integral part of God's purpose for the church. My response is that holy things are not always permanent. The temple and its priests were holy but they no longer exist. The entire system of typology is built on a holy but fading glory. I say that, not because families are typological, but to point out that some things can be holy and not eternal. And since Paul says children of at least one believing parent are "holy" then even though families are temporary, they are “holy” and so also Christian. They are in the covenant. That is what makes them holy and so we call them Christian. I still maintain the need to distinguish Christian individual/Christian family/covenant community from culture/nation/ethnos. We are in the culture, but that does not mean the culture is Christian. Christian families do not make Christian nations. They did in the Old Covenant but not in the New. I've deviated from Hart's original question so if anyone cares to respond, they have the last word. Bill wonders if I’m ready to give up the Christian family, saying all families are temporary but children are “holy”. He is challenging my definitions. He says, “Temporary (I think he meant “spiritual”) equals imperishable or heavenly, as Jody offers, excludes families from being “spiritual” and means that references to Christian families are in error.” I see the logic. If I’ve made it sound like everything “holy” cannot be temporary then I need to make another distinction. I’m not ready to give up the Christian family. Our common covenant theology connects families to the church making them an integral part of God’s purpose for the church. My response is that holy things are not always permanent. The temple and its priests were holy but they no longer exist. The entire system of typology is built on a holy but fading glory. I say that, not because families are typological, but to point out that some things can be holy and not eternal. And since Paul says children of at least one believing parent are “holy” then even though families are temporary, they are “holy” and so also Christian. They are in the covenant. That is what makes them holy and so we call them Christian. I still maintain the need to distinguish Christian individual/Christian family/covenant community from culture/nation/ethnos. We are in the culture, but that does not mean the culture is Christian. Christian families do not make Christian nations. They did in the Old Covenant but not in the New. I’ve deviated from Hart’s original question so if anyone cares to respond, they have the last word.

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-433 MarkPele Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:33:50 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-433 Jody, your own claim betrays you. You refer to nations as lifeless - like a coffee mug, but then you say that nations are part of Babylon. This is what the Bible says about Babylon: "I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." How can a coffee mug sin? Sin is necessarily spiritual because it is rebellion against God Himself, thus nations (represented in your words by Babylon) are in spiritual opposition to God and your whole claim is self-contradictory. Whether "calling a nation Christian" is okay is another interesting subject. Jesus says, "If you love me keep my commandments." So, if a nation is capable of sinning, it is, by definition capable of not sinning. A nation that does not sin obeys the first table of the law, which places God first in everything. Thus it is possible for there to be a Christian nation. A Christian nation is no more (and no less) than a nation that obeys God's law by making Christ preeminent in everything. Jody, your own claim betrays you. You refer to nations as lifeless - like a coffee mug, but then you say that nations are part of Babylon. This is what the Bible says about Babylon: “I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” How can a coffee mug sin? Sin is necessarily spiritual because it is rebellion against God Himself, thus nations (represented in your words by Babylon) are in spiritual opposition to God and your whole claim is self-contradictory.
Whether “calling a nation Christian” is okay is another interesting subject. Jesus says, “If you love me keep my commandments.” So, if a nation is capable of sinning, it is, by definition capable of not sinning. A nation that does not sin obeys the first table of the law, which places God first in everything. Thus it is possible for there to be a Christian nation. A Christian nation is no more (and no less) than a nation that obeys God’s law by making Christ preeminent in everything.

]]> By: Jody Morris http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-431 Jody Morris Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:36:36 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-431 The most useful part of Rev. Chellis' post was the argument that says if there are Christian individuals then by simple progression there can also be Christian nations; Abraham warranting the case. I appreciate this argument. God called Abraham, an individual and gave him a family that became an independent culture, an ethnos, living distinctly from the surrounding cultures. At times they even warred against other cultures. Abraham’s family also originated the nation Israel. So we can, in a simple line of progression, easily move from individual Abraham to Christian nation. I see at least one basic problem with this argument. Abraham's family was spiritual, holy and cultic. They were the covenant culture of God. If we are going to use Abraham’s family as the starting point, then what ever we end with must also be deemed spiritual holy and cultic, the covenant community of God. Isn't this precisely where redemptive history leads, to the holy nation Israel and then to the church? The argument defeats itself unless one says that Christian nations are spiritual, holy and cultic. I don't think Rev. Chellis would say that. I argued above that individuals are holy and that is what makes them Christian. I also agree that, in a qualified sense, that families are holy and so Christian (1 Cor. 7). The progression from Abraham to family, then to culture and Christian nation seems to work but it sacrifices to much. Abraham was father to a holy nation, something no Christian person, no matter how influential he might be, could ever claim again. I am fully committed to Christian involvement and influence in culture. I'm only asking that we make good distinctions. I do not think the line of progression argued above makes a case for calling a nation Christian, not even were Caesar himself a Christian. The most useful part of Rev. Chellis’ post was the argument that says if there are Christian individuals then by simple progression there can also be Christian nations; Abraham warranting the case. I appreciate this argument. God called Abraham, an individual and gave him a family that became an independent culture, an ethnos, living distinctly from the surrounding cultures. At times they even warred against other cultures. Abraham’s family also originated the nation Israel. So we can, in a simple line of progression, easily move from individual Abraham to Christian nation. I see at least one basic problem with this argument. Abraham’s family was spiritual, holy and cultic. They were the covenant culture of God. If we are going to use Abraham’s family as the starting point, then what ever we end with must also be deemed spiritual holy and cultic, the covenant community of God. Isn’t this precisely where redemptive history leads, to the holy nation Israel and then to the church? The argument defeats itself unless one says that Christian nations are spiritual, holy and cultic. I don’t think Rev. Chellis would say that. I argued above that individuals are holy and that is what makes them Christian. I also agree that, in a qualified sense, that families are holy and so Christian (1 Cor. 7). The progression from Abraham to family, then to culture and Christian nation seems to work but it sacrifices to much. Abraham was father to a holy nation, something no Christian person, no matter how influential he might be, could ever claim again. I am fully committed to Christian involvement and influence in culture. I’m only asking that we make good distinctions. I do not think the line of progression argued above makes a case for calling a nation Christian, not even were Caesar himself a Christian.

]]> By: Bill Edgar http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-430 Bill Edgar Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:18:20 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-430 Is Jody ready to give up "Christian family?" All families are temporary. "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven." (Mk 12:25) And children leave their families of origin when they marry. Nevertheless, the marriage bed is undefiled (Hb 13:4), elders are to have "faithful" children (Ti 1:6), and indeed the children of believers are "holy." (I Co 7:14) Indeed, a man is to lead his family in the service of God, raising his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. (Ep 6:4) It is not all left to the church. "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua) Temporary equals imperishable or heavenly, as Jody offers, excludes families from being "spiritual" and means that references to Christian families are in error. That's individualism on an extreme scale even for Americans. Is Jody ready to give up “Christian family?” All families are temporary. “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” (Mk 12:25) And children leave their families of origin when they marry. Nevertheless, the marriage bed is undefiled (Hb 13:4), elders are to have “faithful” children (Ti 1:6), and indeed the children of believers are “holy.” (I Co 7:14) Indeed, a man is to lead his family in the service of God, raising his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. (Ep 6:4) It is not all left to the church. “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua) Temporary equals imperishable or heavenly, as Jody offers, excludes families from being “spiritual” and means that references to Christian families are in error. That’s individualism on an extreme scale even for Americans.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-429 W.H. Chellis Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:46:42 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-429 By the way, I also think Caleb hits the nail properly when he compares the spirituality of the Church to Voegelin's point about the spiritual and noetic sides of the church. I think this helps fit the spirituality of the church into its proper perspective and roots it within the broader framework of Western Christendom. By the way, I also think Caleb hits the nail properly when he compares the spirituality of the Church to Voegelin’s point about the spiritual and noetic sides of the church. I think this helps fit the spirituality of the church into its proper perspective and roots it within the broader framework of Western Christendom.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-427 W.H. Chellis Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:18:12 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-427 One would think that the holy/common, secular/sacred distinctions had been discovered by the 20th Century Reformed Churches. Rather, they are a the heart of the common experience of Western Christendom. While neo-kuyperians may fail to distinguish between the eternal and temporal by obscuring these distinctions the same cannot be said for Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas, Calvin, Melville, Dabney, or Hodge. These men understood that the church was a unique and holy theocracy. The only redemptive nation in the New Covenant. Rev. Morris suggests that individuals can be Christian but what of families? If families why not tribes? If tribes why not cultures? Why not nations? Was cult not the foundation of culture amidst the tribe of Abraham? Was Abraham's tribe not an ethnos? Are you really so sure that geography is the only thing that defines a nation? I detect the ghost of Ockham? At any rate, I don't buy it. Neither does the Western Christian tradition, Romanist, Anglican, or Reformed. O.k. those who wish to radically divorce cult from culture can claim the anabaptists, some methodists and baptists... but you can have them! But be warned. Ideas have consequences (as Weaver's publisher reminds us) and the unexpected consequences for the West could be catastrophic. One would think that the holy/common, secular/sacred distinctions had been discovered by the 20th Century Reformed Churches. Rather, they are a the heart of the common experience of Western Christendom.

While neo-kuyperians may fail to distinguish between the eternal and temporal by obscuring these distinctions the same cannot be said for Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas, Calvin, Melville, Dabney, or Hodge. These men understood that the church was a unique and holy theocracy. The only redemptive nation in the New Covenant.

Rev. Morris suggests that individuals can be Christian but what of families? If families why not tribes? If tribes why not cultures? Why not nations? Was cult not the foundation of culture amidst the tribe of Abraham? Was Abraham’s tribe not an ethnos? Are you really so sure that geography is the only thing that defines a nation? I detect the ghost of Ockham?

At any rate, I don’t buy it. Neither does the Western Christian tradition, Romanist, Anglican, or Reformed. O.k. those who wish to radically divorce cult from culture can claim the anabaptists, some methodists and baptists… but you can have them!

But be warned. Ideas have consequences (as Weaver’s publisher reminds us) and the unexpected consequences for the West could be catastrophic.

]]> By: Jody Morris http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-426 Jody Morris Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:49:33 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-426 This is my first post to deregnochristi.org. I recently learned that Dr. Hart posts here occasionally. He was my professor at Westminster in California. I’m a minister in the OPC Carlisle, PA. I have not read Darryl's latest book but I do know his position well and stand by it. I’ll attempt to contribute to the task of defining terms and also make a comment about Christian Caesar and Hart’s title “A Secular Faith” because I think both phrases carry the kind of rhetorical force that gets to heart of things. Please consider 3 sets of terms: spiritual/earthly, holy/common and cult/culture(see "Kingdom Prologue" M.G. Kline). I'm convinced that when the Bible describes something as spiritual, i.e. God (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 10:3, 4), the church (John 4:24; 1 Pet. 2:5), the individual (1 Cor. 2:15) gifts/ethics (1 Cor. 14:1; Gal. 5:22, 23) the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:44), it is describing what is imperishable and heavenly. I would say that spiritual and imperishable, on one level, are synonyms. This is an important point because it limits what one may properly call "Christian". On this definition there cannot be a Christian nation, or university or culture anymore than there can be a Christian coffee mug or t-shirt because culture is perishing just like the t-shirt that “moth destroys”. That which is Christian is by definition eternal. Nations with land borders; nation states, universities, economies, etc. are intrinsically non-Christian specifically because they will not survive the fire (2 Peter 3:10). That leads to the second set of terms, holy and common. Saints are holy because they have been set apart from the common. More specifically saints are holy because they partake of the heavenly and eternal blessings of Christ (Eph. 2:6). In contrast, the common is earthly and temporary. It serves a legitimate purpose (2 Pet 3:9), but remains temporary nonetheless (2 Pet. 3:10). A distinction between holy and common gives me a context for a distinction between cult and culture. The cult or Christianity is heavenly because it is the only institution in this world that is connected to the risen Christ. The church is acceptable to God “through Jesus Christ” and therefore called “sojourners” in this earthly habitation(1 Peter 2:5, 11). Culture in contrast is not heavenly because it is not united to the risen Christ. She is, no matter how useful to God now, Babylon the harlot who will perish in the fire (Rev, 18:21 –24 notice the culture categories). I hope I’m not being pedantic, especially on a blog. I am defining terms because I believe this directly addresses the common discussions we have about various Christian Caesar models. I am arguing that we carefully distinguish between what is spiritual and imperishable –namely Caesar's Christian soul and what is earthly and perishing –his status as Caesar. We must distinguish between what is holy –his status as saint or Christian, and what is common –his vocation as Caesar. We must distinguish between the man's cult –Christianity and his culture –Rome. When we do this, I think we have already begun to address the question of why and how faith meets the secular world. I like to think, though Hart likely doesn’t, that the title "A Secular Faith" is a rhetorical poke at the foolishness of trying to bring to life what is secular and perishing, to sanctify what is secular and common and trying to give the secular/cultural institution heavenly cultic status. I do agree, a man can be Christian and Caesar at the same time. We all have our vocations in the culture. That's part of the tension we experience in this world. “In pain you shall eat of it” (Gen. 3:17). But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to secularize the faith. It seems to me that’s making temporary what God has deemed eternal. I prefer Abraham's faith model Hebrews 11:8 –10. This is my first post to deregnochristi.org. I recently learned that Dr. Hart posts here occasionally. He was my professor at Westminster in California. I’m a minister in the OPC Carlisle, PA. I have not read Darryl’s latest book but I do know his position well and stand by it. I’ll attempt to contribute to the task of defining terms and also make a comment about Christian Caesar and Hart’s title “A Secular Faith” because I think both phrases carry the kind of rhetorical force that gets to heart of things. Please consider 3 sets of terms: spiritual/earthly, holy/common and cult/culture(see “Kingdom Prologue” M.G. Kline). I’m convinced that when the Bible describes something as spiritual, i.e. God (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 10:3, 4), the church (John 4:24; 1 Pet. 2:5), the individual (1 Cor. 2:15) gifts/ethics (1 Cor. 14:1; Gal. 5:22, 23) the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:44), it is describing what is imperishable and heavenly. I would say that spiritual and imperishable, on one level, are synonyms. This is an important point because it limits what one may properly call “Christian”. On this definition there cannot be a Christian nation, or university or culture anymore than there can be a Christian coffee mug or t-shirt because culture is perishing just like the t-shirt that “moth destroys”. That which is Christian is by definition eternal. Nations with land borders; nation states, universities, economies, etc. are intrinsically non-Christian specifically because they will not survive the fire (2 Peter 3:10). That leads to the second set of terms, holy and common. Saints are holy because they have been set apart from the common. More specifically saints are holy because they partake of the heavenly and eternal blessings of Christ (Eph. 2:6). In contrast, the common is earthly and temporary. It serves a legitimate purpose (2 Pet 3:9), but remains temporary nonetheless (2 Pet. 3:10). A distinction between holy and common gives me a context for a distinction between cult and culture. The cult or Christianity is heavenly because it is the only institution in this world that is connected to the risen Christ. The church is acceptable to God “through Jesus Christ” and therefore called “sojourners” in this earthly habitation(1 Peter 2:5, 11). Culture in contrast is not heavenly because it is not united to the risen Christ. She is, no matter how useful to God now, Babylon the harlot who will perish in the fire (Rev, 18:21 –24 notice the culture categories). I hope I’m not being pedantic, especially on a blog. I am defining terms because I believe this directly addresses the common discussions we have about various Christian Caesar models. I am arguing that we carefully distinguish between what is spiritual and imperishable –namely Caesar’s Christian soul and what is earthly and perishing –his status as Caesar. We must distinguish between what is holy –his status as saint or Christian, and what is common –his vocation as Caesar. We must distinguish between the man’s cult –Christianity and his culture –Rome. When we do this, I think we have already begun to address the question of why and how faith meets the secular world. I like to think, though Hart likely doesn’t, that the title “A Secular Faith” is a rhetorical poke at the foolishness of trying to bring to life what is secular and perishing, to sanctify what is secular and common and trying to give the secular/cultural institution heavenly cultic status. I do agree, a man can be Christian and Caesar at the same time. We all have our vocations in the culture. That’s part of the tension we experience in this world. “In pain you shall eat of it” (Gen. 3:17). But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to secularize the faith. It seems to me that’s making temporary what God has deemed eternal. I prefer Abraham’s faith model Hebrews 11:8 –10.

]]> By: Bill Edgar http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-425 Bill Edgar Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:55:02 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/19/throwing-down-the-gauntlet/#comment-425 I agree with Caleb concerning the necessity of asking, What sort of polis do we wish to construct? That question concerned not just the classical Greek world, but also the founders of the varied American colonies and then of the United States. I heard a fascinating degate some years ago between De Klerk and Mandela about South Africa, where they asked the fundamental questions about what sort of society is a good one and how can South Africans move their country toward that society. Christians rightly share in that discussion: we are in the world, as Jesus said. Do we bring anything to this discussion that unbelievers do not? Yes. We bring two things: a correct view of man as noble, fallen, and some of them redeemed in Christ, and the knowledge that God and his law reign supreme in the cosmos. We also bear the sure hope of the Resurrection at Christ's Return, which relativizes the importance of any relationship in this life and allows us to absorb defeats without despair, accept imperfection without fury, and strive for goals without humorless fanaticism. Christians do not make all the best fathers and mothers, but we bring to family life certain true understandings that not all share, for example, the God-given permanence of marriage in this life, a commitment which makes for sounder families than the "as long as we both shall love" folly. Likewise, Christians may in practice often make poor rulers, but the Christian mind of the centuries knows certain fundamental truths that make for wise governance. I agree with Caleb concerning the necessity of asking, What sort of polis do we wish to construct? That question concerned not just the classical Greek world, but also the founders of the varied American colonies and then of the United States. I heard a fascinating degate some years ago between De Klerk and Mandela about South Africa, where they asked the fundamental questions about what sort of society is a good one and how can South Africans move their country toward that society.
Christians rightly share in that discussion: we are in the world, as Jesus said. Do we bring anything to this discussion that unbelievers do not? Yes. We bring two things: a correct view of man as noble, fallen, and some of them redeemed in Christ, and the knowledge that God and his law reign supreme in the cosmos. We also bear the sure hope of the Resurrection at Christ’s Return, which relativizes the importance of any relationship in this life and allows us to absorb defeats without despair, accept imperfection without fury, and strive for goals without humorless fanaticism.
Christians do not make all the best fathers and mothers, but we bring to family life certain true understandings that not all share, for example, the God-given permanence of marriage in this life, a commitment which makes for sounder families than the “as long as we both shall love” folly. Likewise, Christians may in practice often make poor rulers, but the Christian mind of the centuries knows certain fundamental truths that make for wise governance.

]]>