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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

What think ye?

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?

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.

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!