RSSIs Self-Righteousness a Virtue?
Protestants at the time of the War for Independence and since have talked a lot about the need for a virtuous citizenry to protect this freedom-loving republic. The rhetoric of virtue has always made religion necessary to the health of the U.S. From George Washington to Jerry Falwell, the American religio-political tradition has been to insist on the need for a religious people if this experiment in liberty is to survive.
Although this argument has much common sense behind it, it seems like an argument that any justification-by-faith loving Protestant would steer clear of as much as possible. The talk of virtue, and the assumption that religion makes people good, sounds like a form of works-righteousness. Worse, it sounds like boasting, as if the believers are the good citizens and the unbelievers are the ones we need to keep an eye on.
If Protestants truly took solace in the righteousness of Christ and looked at their own virtues as filthy rags, I think they might be less willing to speak of religion as the basis for republican virtue. They might also consider other ways to preserve civil and political liberty (though I admit this is hard one to reconsider). But with this argument as the basis for political reflection have Protestants merely made America safe for Mormons and Roman Catholics? Have they also given their faith a bad name by coming across to unbelievers as self-righteous?
Bill Edgar
March 28th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Religion valued primarily for its social benefits, as many in Europe’s upper classes have done and as people like Washington also did, betrays the truth in Christ. The sociology is probably correct, but it means that Mormonism fits the bill as well as the Gospel of Christ. So does Confucianism or even the gods of Rome at their best. But what good is a religion that is of value in this life, but of none in the next?
One source of observations among the American founders about the necessity of religion to nurture virtue was the experience of Rome. They were educated in Latin, they all knew the history of Rome, indeed in many ways Greek thought came to them trough the filter of Rome. How to keep the American empire from going the way of the Roman republic and ending up in Caesarism was a key concern.
Nevertheless, one fruit of the Gospel is changed lives that allows for certain developments in society. I have a Greek Cypriot friend who lived in Ulster for a decade and travels often in the Middle East on business. He observes when he returns to Cyprus from Arabic countries how glad he is for the influence of the Gospel over the centuries in Cyprus. And when he remembers Ulster, he is impressed with how much more thoroughly the Gospel shaped that culture (with all its continuing sin) than Cyprus and how glad he was for it. The NT gives many instructions concerning the household, interpersonal relations, and even a peacable, respectful stance towards civil authority. It calls believers “saints.” The work of sanctification in the individual and through the centuries in believing families and societies is genuine. We are new creatures in Christ. This teaching is not self righteousness nor is it works righteousness. It should be acknowledged by Christians with humble gratitude.
The American founders understood the personal character changes that came with the Gospel. The tragedy is that some of them valued the fruits on the branches more than the vine who gives the branches life.
D Hart
March 30th, 2007 at 6:12 am
I appreciate the appeal of Ulster over Cyprus, though I suspect the latter has better food — why couldn’t the Reformation have taken root in places with more interesting cuisine? But I am not convinced that the benefits of Ulster are the result of sanctification any more than I suspect the liabilities of Cyprus owe to sin. We in the West, as Bill Chellis’ many appeals to Christendom suggest, are heirs to a culture that was shaped as much by an inferior view of sanctification — namely, Roman Catholicism — than it was by question and answer 35 of the Shorter Catechism. I am not trying to say that religion had nothing to do with Ulter’s achievement — as if indoor plumbing and electricity are all that matter. But I am trying to say that the influences on cultural development are various and complicated. And I don’t think it does Christians much good to try to take credit for certain cultural outcomes in the West. (There was much of this prior to 1960 and then it blew up in our face.) Aside from the West’s many defects, which could also be attributed to Protestantism, I personally think it is bad form to point to our faith as the reason for cultural advance. It seems to me to be an instance of pride.
W.H. Chellis
March 30th, 2007 at 7:57 am
“In short, the culture can be renewed only if the cult is renewed; and faith in divine power cannot be summoned up merely when that is found expedient. Faith no longer works wonder among us; one has but to glance at the typical church build nowadays, ugly and shoddy, to discern how achitecture no longer is nurtured by the religious imagination. It is so in nearly all the works of twentieth-century civilization: the modern mind has been secularized so thoroughly that ‘culture’ is assumed by post people to have no connection with the love of God.” Russell Kirk, Redeeming the Time, pg. 11.
While I appreciate Darryl’s attempts to follow what he percieves to be the logical ends of his theology, I am very concerned at the unintended consequences. Darryl is much more willing than I to light the match and allow our cultural (and in the great Protestant nations that mean cultures influenced… for good and ill.. by the Reformed faith) inheritance to burn. I think he should stick to lighting his cigars!
D Hart
March 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
That tears it. You should never burn a cigar.
So have I hit a neo-nomian nerve? Bill C’s response is not far from the response of Rome to the Reformation. What will come of the neighborhood if we don’t have a faith that makes people good?
I understand, those may be fighting words. But I do wonder, as my post implies, if the utilitarian argument for Christianity’s social benefits is not so different from the idea that faith, to be true, has to lead to good works. This construction of the gospel would never cause someone to ask, as Paul did, whether we should sin that grace may abound. But if the Reformation has something to say about how we are saved, then I think we may need to be willing to “let goods and kindred go” if the Word truly abides.
That doesn’t mean that I favor cultural decay. I enjoy fine cigars and they are one of the benefits of the West. It’s just that I worry that a utilitarian appeal to Christianity will lead to no Christianity at all. (That is one of many things I learned from Machen.)
Recognizing the limits of the gospel for cultural development doesn’t mean we are without resources for civil society. I thought that was what General Revelation was for.
W.H. Chellis
March 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
First, in our day of justification controversy, has it become neo-nomian to think that true faith will be followed by good works. That justification is always united to sanctification?
Second, just as many people read your excellent book Recovering Mother Kirk and say… that sounds like Roman Catholicism, so in our day many hear the views of the magestrial Reformers and say it sounds Roman. They are wrong when they say it about your ecclessiology. You have done more than anyone I know to help us recover what evangelicism was causing us to forget. Things are the same with the social kingship of Christ. It sounds like Rome.
I agree with you about general revelation (and cigars). The question is this, does everyone interpret the general revelation and natural law correctly? Can vicious customs or the hardening of the heart through individual or corporate sins cause people to mis-read the book of nature? Could it be possible for people to say, I see male dogs committing homosexual acts, so maybe being a homosexual is natural. Could liberals attempt a natural law argument, a higher law arguement, for homosexual marriage?
How does the Christian address such an arguement? Should we restrict our arguments to science, history and tradition, a combination of both? Can we say, the God of nature is the God of grace and we say homosexual behaviour is wrong? Or does our “unique” knowledge as Chrisitans (I realize that most cultures have known that homosexuality is sin on the basis of nature but think of our present situation) have to be left out of the equation in the secular realm?
Anthony Cowley
April 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Rush Limbaugh says that he works with 1/2 his brain tied behind his back “just to make it fair.” Sounds like Dr. Hart is willing to tie Special revelation behind his back, when dealing with Statecraft, just to make it fair to the pagans. We’ll just use natural revelation.
But, this is another way of saying that the Bible is not a revelation for the nations, as such.
True, the church is the theocracy today - the Israel of God (Right?). But, as the priests for the nations the Church is to minister and preach to the nations. And, she has good news for the nations. A gospel for the nations. Nations are extended tribes. Empires are also extended nations. As Christians we have dual citizenship - but our true citizenship is in heaven. Yet, we are told to lengthen the cords and stretch out the tent:
Isaiah 49:20 The children of your bereavement will yet say in your ears: ‘The place is too narrow for me; make room for me to dwell in.’ 21 Then you will say in your heart: ‘Who has borne me these? I was bereaved and barren, exiled and put away, but who has brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; from where have these come?’” 22 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders. 23 Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame.”
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge gives a good old Postmil (or premil) take on this passage:
“Isa 49:23 - kings: Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and other Persian monarchs, as well as Alexander the Great, and his successors, particularly Demetrius, conferred many privileges and immunities on the Jewish people, and were munificent benefactors to their temple. But the prophecy was more remarkably and fully fulfilled in the favour which Constantine the Great, and other Christian princes and princesses from his time to the present day, have shewn to the church of Christ; though it cannot be disputed, that the grand and signal accomplishment of these predictions is yet future.”
What think ye?
D Hart
April 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
If the church is to disciple the nations, if she has all the truth for civil and ecclesiological society, why bother with the state? Why not let the church do everything? (Please leave me off that session.) But if there is room for state authority that is different from the church’s, where does the state get its guidance from?
I’ve used this argument with Bill, but if nations are simply extended tribes, families are reduced tribes. But we don’t require people to be Christian to be married. We believe that marriage is a creation, not a redemption, ordinance. (If it were a redemptive one, then wouldn’t it be sacramental?) We also think it is good for non-believers to marry rather than live together, and that such non-believing unions are legitimate and that the offspring of such marriages are not bastards, literally. So there are other kinds of authority that we recognize and encourage. Or have Protestants recently change their views of marriage and I missed the memo?
W.H. Chellis
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Say what? I still do not get this one.
The Church’s disciples individuals but that does not mean it hands them an authorative guide to all truth. The discipling of nations is the same. It is limited to pointing to the true King, the justice of His law, and the sanctity of His Church.
D Hart
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I was responding to Anthony’s point about having one book of revelation tied behind the church’s back, or whatever the Rush analogy was. His point seemed to be that the Bible is a revelation for the nations.
But that assumes that the Bible teaches politics. I agree that the Bible reveals Christ to the nations. But it doesn’t reveal political science. In which case, if the Bible is largely silent about politics — does it really determine whether goverment should be monarchical or republican or democratic? — the it’s not a case of trying to play fair, of using natural law to avoid being offensive. It is because the Bible doesn’t reveal political truth, and so the church can’t say to the state (except in a small and extreme number of cases), “thus sayeth the Lord.”
In addition to eschatology being important, I am increasingly seeing in this discussion that the sufficiency of Scripture is key to what I’m trying to argue.
W.H. Chellis
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Well, granting that you might be able to use eschatology and the sufficiency of Scripture against Tony, it does little to deal with my arguments. We seem to continually disconnect.
The Bible does not provide political science. It does not tell a King how to govern. It is not sufficient for the needs of a modern nation-state. Sola Scriptura belongs to the church. Eschatology is speculative and does not inform my view of Christian politics.
Now, having granted all that… I must insist that the fact that the church offers Christ to the nations is of great political consequence.
1. It tells the state it is not a god but that its role is strictly limited.
2. It tells the state that law and justice have higher definitions than might make right.
3. It transforms cultures and breaks the reign of the demonic that tranforms nations (and rulers) into beasts.
4. It tells the state that another city dwells in its midst and that they have no jurisdiction within that city but must protect it and preserve it.
5. Many other benefits that I do not have the time not ability to point out.
MarkPele
April 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Separating Christianity from politics makes no sense. Marriage has already been brought up, so I’ll appeal to that.
If the Bible is not a manual for the state, then there is NO reason why a state should have laws concerning marriage. Marriage is a creation ordinance. Creation by whom? By the Christian God. So, here, the Christian God created a man and a woman, put them in a special relationship and we, with that special revelation now know that any other unions are naturally wrong and morally sinful. What other laws come straight from the words of scripture? Adultery. Fornication. Bestiality. Murder. Theft. Rape. Perjury. Insubordination. Treason.
But wait, we as Christians are supposed to keep our religious rear ends out of politics because somehow the Bible is not applicable to politics? Again without the revelation of Scripture, the light of nature does not tell us that marriage should exist, or that male/male relations are “sinful”.
This reminds me of Christian/Secular debates where such things as the universality of the laws of logic are assumed, even though the secularist then rips the rug under his own feet by saying that logic is mere agreed-upon convention.
So, suffice it to say that the Bible is indeed the manual for secular governments. At a minimum, the second table of the law is the standard by which nations will be judged.
Now concerning the first table, it’s convenient to throw out the entirety of the Old Testament, but unfortunately, the Old Testament was separated into the spheres of church (the Levites and their hierarchy as leaders), the State (the King and his appointed leaders) and the families (the elders and leaders from each tribe as leaders). When you look at the epithets for the Old Testament kings, how many discussed civil peace and order?
Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat - good, but condemned for high places
Jeroboam and all Israel kings - condemned for establishing a new religion
Rehoboam - condemed for high places and other false worship
So, in the entire Old Testament, these kings are judged entirely for how they led their nation in service to God. For secular kings, you have Nebuchadnezzar who God cursed for not giving Him the glory. You have Belshazzar whose kingdom was judged and its overthrow predicted because he did not give God glory.
It’s convenient to then say that the old dispensation is gone with the resurrection of Jesus and now we are in this new age where God somehow by His conspicuous silence has made it clear that we aren’t to push for governments that overtly serve and obey him, and in fact, ought to ignore politics altogether because it’s somehow anti-Christian to be a magistrate.