RSSModern Reformation Review of Secular Faith
W.H. Chellis
The March/April edition of Modern Reformation includes a review of A Secular Faith. written by R. Scott Clark.
Scott is having technical difficulties so I had to post it. Thanks Scott.
W.H. Chellis
March 28th, 2007 at 9:44 am
An excellent review. I think it does a great job of making clear what is best about the book and showing its areas of weakness.
No one has done more to convince me of the need to be a confessional Presbyterian than has D.G. Hart. I affirm what he has taught me and I seek to apply it. Scott Clark has wisely intercepted an objection that I have been holding back. Darryl’s book suggests that his position is confessional presbyterianism. A strangly provincial (American) reading of confessionalism to say the least.
Indeed, the Reformed tradition adhears to the Two Kingdom (thank you John Calvin and Andrew Melville) and the spirituality of the church. Yet, the authors of the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession (not to mention the Canons of Dort) would be shocked to learn that Christianity is nearly useless for politics. They were magisterial reformers not anabaptists. Confessional Presbyterianism should be sceptical of sectarian revisions of the confessional documents (when those changes are used to seperate brethern of the same tradition). Here the RPCNA is closer to true Presbyterian confessionalism (when we stick to our confessional guns).
Yet, with Hart and Clark, I am fully convinced that the evangelical “religious right” has not been thoughtful in mixing its politics with religion. Departing from Hart/Clark, I believe that we can find better answers by looking back to the tradition of the magistrial reformation and Protestant Christendom. Indeed, we can learn a great deal by looking back to pre-Protestant Christendom, and I dare say we could learn a good deal from interacting with the post-Reformation Roman Catholic doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ (Kuyper certainly seemed to).
I think that Darryl has a doctrine that makes Christianity applicable to politics. Darryl Hart is no heretic. He is no anabaptist. He affirms the soverign Kingship of Christ over both Kingdoms (one common and one holy). I am waiting to hear how, in his mind (and Scott’s) Christ’s rules the nations and how the nations should respond? What is the role of the moral law and what is the nation’s duty toward it?
When these questions are answered, we may find a good deal more to agree about than disagree. Maybe not.
Some Provisional Answers to Bill’s Questions | De Regno Christi
March 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
[...] commenting on my review of Darryl’s book, Bill Chellis asks, I think that Darryl has a doctrine that [...]
J. Schoe
March 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“I dare say we could learn a good deal from interacting with the post-Reformation Roman Catholic doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ (Kuyper certainly seemed to).”
What happened to sticking to confessional guns? viz. “that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed”,”it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church”
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.”
W.H. Chellis
March 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Samuel Rutherford was there when the confession was written. He looked to the Jesuites. As Caleb as said, “truth is truth.”
D Hart
April 8th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Scott, I’ve finally read your review. Thanks. (I actually don’t like to read these things. Nerves.)
First, about not citing WCF ch. 23 when talking about ch. 20 on Christian Liberty, it seemed beside the point. I was trying to show that the idea of Christian liberty (spiritual) is quite different from religious liberty (civil) even though folks like Witherspoon conflated them. Talking about the role of the magistrate, and trying to explain the differences between the Divines and the Americans on that office, would really have slowed that chapter down.
Second, as to my affinities for Lutheran over Calvinist politics my reason for not discussing Calvin was two fold. The first is that the book is about American politics, not European. The second was rhetorical and economic. Many readers may know I am a Calvinist, so to trot out Calvin is old news. Plus, mentioning Lutheran two-kingdom theory was an effort to get close to 10 million Lutherans to pay attention. (For some reason, the publisher agreed.)
Third, I have no real answer to your conclusion about wanting guidance for how Christians should be engaged politically. That’s because the Bible doesn’t have anything to say, really. After all, I am a spirituality of the church churchman. What people do in the private of the voting booth with their public lives is their business.