RSSThe Mixed Blessing of Liberalism
In the discussion thread of my last post Caleb purposefully tried to confuse me by quoting from Voegelin whose prose and terms would make gnostics proud for the sort of inner-knowledge one needs to decipher them. (I am joking, mainly. I do find Voegelin very taxing to read.) But Caleb also asked what sort of political order I want. The book was not really intended to answer that question. It was designed to suggest that Christianity may not be used to underwrite any political order, monarchy, republicanism, democracy or even the Greek polis. My aims are more theological than political.
But the second chapter on religious liberty does point in the direction of my ambivalent regard for modern liberal societies at least because of the freedom they yield for the church. I personally think that as a Christian I should evaluate a political order not necessarily because of its capacity to assist human flourishing but also by whether it provides a platform on which the church can conduct her mission and in which believers can live quiet and peaceful lives.
Having spent several years at an institution where political theory is important, I now understand better the ways in which the American republic was ill-formed — not completely disordered but somewhat so. If you want to cultivate certain republican virtues, our version of republicanism may not be the best.
But for the sake of proclaiming the gospel the religious liberty afforded by disestablishment, yes, the separation of church and state, has been dare I say a godsend. Yes, it has meant that all sorts of impoverished forms of Christianity, such as in my estimation evangelicalism. But it has also allowed fuller expressions of Protestantism to prosper, such as Old School Presbyterianism, than the state-church system could ever allow.
So in response to Caleb’s question, my ideal political order may be the original Articles of Confederation. I would be far more comfortable, at least in theory, living in a confederation like Switzerland than a super power like the United States. (Who wants to be responsible for the world?) But for the sake of the gospel I can’t deny that kinds of liberties available in the U.S., while responsible for much nonsense, have been incredibly valuable for the church.
Baus
March 26th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Hart writes:
“as a Christian I should evaluate a political order not necessarily because of its capacity to assist human flourishing but also by whether it provides a platform on which the church can conduct her mission and in which believers can live quiet and peaceful lives”
I have several questions about your position as expressed here.
First, can you yourself, being a Christian, legitimately evaluate a political order not “as” a Christian, but as something other than a Christian or in some other respect? You seem to give that impression in your view that Christianity is “politically useless,” and I hope you might speak to it briefly (specifically in relation to your comment above).
Second, you use the term “also” with regard to conducting the church’s mission and to conducting quiet and peaceful lives as criterion by which to evaluate a political order.
How, then, are you contrasting the idea of “human flourishing” to the flourishing of the church and believers? In what way are the flourishing of the church and of believers to be distinguished from “human” flourishing (specifically in relation to how conducive to such flourishing a political order may be)?
Isn’t it the case that a political order which is less conducive to the flourishing of the church and of believers lives is less conducive to human flourishing?
W.H. Chellis
March 26th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Voegelin makes reading Van Til seem easy.
D Hart
March 27th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Christianity is politically useless in the sense that the Bible is politically useless. I don’t think the Bible is a manual to aesthetics any more than it is a textbook in political theory. I have been around enough political theorists (and even read Voegelin enough) to know that if they can theorize the films of Woody Allen, they can theorize the book of Lamentations. But I don’t think that was God’s reason for giving us his word — to construct the ideal form of civil society. The Bible does have truths that have implications for politics. But to go to Scripture looking for guidance on republicanism vs. monarchy is in my estimation to misuse the Bible. It also invites an abuse of Christian liberty since it goes in the direction of saying that the Bible teaches a view of politics to which all Christians must conform.
My reason for questioning the ideal political order of human flourishing has to do with what Scripture teaches about suffering. Christians believe that suffering has a purpose and should not necessarily be eliminated. This doesn’t mean that Christians are masochists looking for suffering. But it does mean that they recognize that God’s ends are served both by suffering and by enjoyment. Taking into account what the Bible teaches about the Christian’s call to suffer would I think automatically affect the way Christians reflect on human flourishing. It would also seem to color the way Christians interact with political theories that seek social orders that encourage human flourishing. Those political theories are valuable and I benefit from them in thinking about the state and civil society. But I don’t take much counsel from them when praying to God about my own pain and need.
W.H. Chellis
March 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I think Darryl’s last point was well stated. I find a great deal to agree with. Yet, I continue to wonder who is advocating an ideal vision of politics. I also wonder if the lack of an ideal vision makes Christianity, or the bible for that matter, useless in the realm of politics.
In fact, it would seem to me that Darryl’s book is not about why Christianity is useless to politics but how it should be properly used. If Christianity is of no value why read the book?
My question is this: why are Christian answers to political problems assumed to be necessarily univocal. Darryl and Caleb seem to suggest that the problem with Christian answers to political problems is, in part, lack of clear biblical answers to many questions.
Let me say clearly that neither the bible or the Christian tradition(s) believes that there is one form of government that is alone able to be Christian. Monarchy, republicanism, democracy, even enlightened despotism could, under the providence of God, exist among a Christian people seeking to apply their faith to the political realm. A nations history, experience, and traditions are more informative to what will be a good government than is the bible.
Second, answers to most political questions will not find their resolution by pointing to a biblical text. Again, organic development and history have a role to play as do the virtues of right reason and prudence. The bible is not without value but it cannot be simply applied without serious contextual (as well as textual) considerations. With these difficult problems in mind, Darryl has pointed out that Christian presuppositions may lead to various policy preferences. Again, Christian politics offers neither infallibility or a univocal vision.
Does this make either Christianity or the bible “virtually useless politcally”? Unless we assume that Christian politics is seeking to impose a heavenly kingdom on earth the limitations of our “Christian noetic experience” do not create an insurmountable problem. That is, as long as we have a humble view of what can be accomplished relative to the age in which we live.
Bill Edgar suggests has provided a helpful list and I will add some additions:
1. Civil governors are not “gods” able to define good from evil on their own.
2. Civil laws should reflect eternal truth (i.e. God is the ultimate law giver).
3. The kingdoms of man have not authority to dominate or manipulate the kingdom of God.
4. Man if fallen and no political remedy can “fix” them. Power must be limited and political visions humble.
5. Men bear the image of God and must be treated with dignity.
These are rather general principles. That is what the Christian faith offers to civil governors. How they should be applied will be a matter of debate even among Christians. What is the “Christian” answer to the problem of illegal immigration? On one side those opposed can make a number of strong points based on Christian principles. On the other hand, advocates of open borders can make a number of strong points based on Christian principles as well. How do you weigh the relative “good” and “evil” of each side? This is a matter of prudence and statesmanship.
Baptizing specific policy choices is dangerous. Arguing through policy preferrences from the perspective of Christian presuppositions of great policial value.
MarkPele
March 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I think I would go further than Mr. Chellis and say that the Bible does more than history, tradition and prudence in informing us about law. That’s because history, tradition and prudence are fallible. I can think of great examples. Should a good state have a welfare system? It seems so based on history. Should a good state have social securty? It seems so. Should a good state subsidize its exports and heavily tax imports? It seems so. I would say that these seemingly good things are opposed by scripture (maybe not the import tax).
I agree, though, that the structure of government is not Biblically ordained. Republican government seems to have some advantages other forms, but I would say that historically and not Biblically.
What gets really complex is arguing policies that are based on other policies. When it comes to immigration, both sides are wrong. The problem is not immigration, the problem is welfare and free government services. It’s one thing to have immigrants piling over the borders eager to work and contribute to society. It’s another thing entirely to have immigrants piling over the border so that they can take advantage of us for free health care, free education and paid housing and food. So, the immigration question cannot be solved until government handouts are solved.
Caleb Stegall
March 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Bill C. wrote: “These are rather general principles. That is what the Christian faith offers to civil governors.”
Again, I feel I must challenge this species of what I regard as sloppy thinking. In what sense can a principle be said to be Christian? From what is a Christian principle derived? Is this kind of formulation just code for saying that any “true” principle is Christian because Christianity encompasses all truth? In what sense are these principles “offered to civil governors” in ways that they are not likewise offered by other, arguably non-Christian sources or traditions?
W.H. Chellis
March 27th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Caleb has called me out and I confess my use of terms has been equivocal. The general principles that I have suggested should inform civil magistrates are “Christian” in a specific sense (i.e. because they are derived from the special revelation contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.)
That said, whatever principles that have been expounded by pagans in conformity to the light of natural revelation and consistent with special revelation can be understood as “Christian” in the more general sense, in the sense that the Christian revelation is found in both natural and special revelation, (i.e. all true truth must be Christian since the Triune God is the ultimate knower of all things and our “true knowledge” is always anological).
Caleb Stegall
March 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Bill, fair enough, I won’t push the argument too far other than to say that I wager all five of the “principles” suggested above can be found in the Greeks (probably elsewhere too) and are therefore not “special revelation” in the sense of a revelation unique to “the gospel” if we use a narrow definition of “gospel” to mean the irruption into history of the divine in the singular person of Christ as that living Word made flesh through which man is saved.
If we use a broader definition of the gospel, we may conclude with Justin that the gospel was present to all those in history who responded to the divine pull of the saving logos, even though that Word was undifferentiated and unknown as the second person of the trinity.
W.H. Chellis
March 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
It was not by accident that John’s gospel began with the profoundly Greek declaration that the “Logos became flesh…”
D Hart
March 28th, 2007 at 6:11 am
This is what I fear happens when we put Christianity to use for civil society — we end up with a broad and vague sense of the gospel. I thought the Social Gospelers already taught us that lesson.
W.H. Chellis
March 28th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Darryl,
The gospel is unquestionably not about earthly politics. It is about the death of the righteous Christ for and unrighteous people and recieved by faith alone. That is the gospel.
The gospel is not the whole package of Christianity which includes both nature and grace, law and gospel, creation and redemption (as well as consumation). Christianity speaks about the whole of reality but the Church speaks authoritatively only on grace, gospel, and redemption (not nature, law, and creation).
I appreciated A Secular Faith for its detailed analysis of how shallow conservative Christian political engagment has been in the American context. Maybe your thesis should be why evangelicalism is politically usesless. Still, Christendom was not useless. What do we enjoy that is not its fruit?
That said, the church’s role is to expound a very dogmatic and exacting gospel. Yet, the application of biblical truth to the civil area is not nearly as dogmatic or exacting in its application. Your a two kingdom man, I would think you would embrace this distinction.
D Hart
March 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I think, Bill, this is where you and I stumble in our similar yet contested ideas. I don’t believe Christianity speaks about the whole of reality because the Bible doesn’t speak suchly. (See my comment on Baus’ recent post.) Now if you mean that God reveals the whole of reality then I’m on board mostly. But it seems to me crucial to distinguish as the paleo-Calvinists have between the two books of God’s revelation. For me, the natural order speaks to the whole of reality, or most of it. But only the Bible speaks of Christ. Or am I missing something?
W.H. Chellis
March 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I agree. Except you seem unwilling to say that the book of nature is a Christian book. Why is Christianity limited to redemption to the exclusion of creation (gospel to the exclusion of law, grace to nature, ect)?
R. Scott Clark
March 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Christianity, as such, does speak to both nature and grace. We hold, I think, that grace renews nature.
That’s not the same thing, however, as saying that Christianity entails some political theory or policy.
It’s begging the question to assume that unless Christianity speaks to politics that it doesn’t speak to nature. It assumes what is in question, whether there are two kingdoms which God administers distinctly.
W.H. Chellis
March 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Let me clarify:
1. No one on DRC has ever suggested that “Christianity entails a political theory” as if Christianity demands one form of government or set of laws applicable at all time and places.
2. I do not know that the statement “there are two kingdoms which God adminsters distinctly” is in question. RP’s happily affirm this principle. This is affirmed by Augustine in the City of God, Gregory in his Pastoral Rule, Pope Gelasius I in his “two-sword” theory, Thomas, Calvin, Andrew Melville, and every Covenanter. While the judicious Hooker and Burke (men Iove and respect) would dissent to our agreed upon principle, I do not know of anyone in this discussion who has advocated their position.
Also, a thought:
Since politics begins with the vice-gerency of Adam exercising dominion over the earth and ends with the Kings of the earth bring the glory of the nations into the New Jerusalem, I would say that the fact that grace restores (perfects!!!) nature includes the political realm.
Thanks Scott.
Baus
March 29th, 2007 at 12:02 am
The way the Bible does and, in another sense, doesn’t speak about the whole of reality, according to neocalvinists: Is There A Christian View Of Everything?