RSSCan we have Christianity apart from the Church?
One of the curious aspects I’ve found in the discussion so far is a fairly widespread agreement that church and state should be separate. This concession has often been combined with a view that despite the differences between church and state it is still possible to have Christian political principles or Christian norms for the state. To me this makes no sense at all. Maybe this is a big feature of the disagreements we are exploring.
Here is the problem in my estimation. The church is the only institution God has ordained to administer Christianity (the possible exception here is the family, but a non-believing family is still a true family and so Christianity is not essential to being family). This is one reason why I think the WCF describes the visible church as the kingdom of Christ and goes on to say that ordinarily outside the church there is no salvation. This means that the church has the duty and right to interpret what Christianity is, to determine those things that are Christian and to leave be those things that aren’t. This is one reason for separating church and state. The church has not been given the power or ability to interpret politics, nor for that matter economics, art, medicine or auto mechanics.
Then how can we have a Christian interpretation of politics, economics, art, medicine or auto mechanics when the ones called to admininster God’s word are neither competent nor ordained to speak on such matters? It seems uncanny to me to think that an average Christian can have a Christian understanding of politics when his minister may not by virtue of the minister’s very calling to interpret and apply the word of God.
For this reason, the Kuyperian distinction between institutional church (organism) and church members (organic) looks incredibly hollow. It does resemble the difference that many advocates of the spirituality of the church explain, that is, between the church corporate and the church as indvidual members. But the Kuyperian notion then proceeds to make hay of the distinction and goes ahead and gives us Christian labor unions, Christian art, Christian universities, Christian economics. Meanwhile, the one institution that has been ordained to speak on behalf of Christianity is supposed to remain silent on and separate from these affairs.
Yes, I still believe in Christian liberty and affirm that Christians may do things that the church may not. But I don’t think it is appropriate to call Christian the things that Christians do simply because the actors themselves are believers. We might call a Christian politician’s actions wise, virtuous, commendable, conservative, liberal or stupid, but why do we need to call them Christian? The same would go for the other tasks of modern society. Is there Christian accounting? Christian law? Christian chemotherapy? Or even Christian baking? Christian plumbing? Christian sex?
If not, then why do we need Christian politics?
sixteenninety
April 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Admittedly, I am a simple layman. Therefore, my comment may seem theologically infantile.
To address the final paragraph of Mr. Hart’s post, I am wondering how we cannot help but work to make all things “Christian”. That is, since Paul wrote, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…” (2 Cor. 10:5); and since Christ told us that, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn. 14:15) than what drives every decision, be they political, sexual, or even plumbing, should be done with WCF question 42 (among others) in mind.
Can we say that actions such as plumbing and sex do not touch on any portion of thought that ought to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ? Is it possible that we are too lax when it comes to identifying the completeness of “every thought†when that is precisely what the bible says?
I appreciate everyone’s patience with my rambling. I hope that at least some of what I wrote contained a semblance of logic.
Baus
April 9th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Hart wrote:
the Kuyperian distinction between institutional church (organism) and church members (organic)…”
I think this was a typo.
The distinction is between the church or body of Christ as an “organization” (institutional, visible church proper) and believers in Christ as “organism” (not the invisible church so much as believers as they are also members of non-ecclesial societal communities and activities).
I’m not certain that Kuyper or Kuyperians (neocalvinists) came up with this distinction –as it actually is the “the difference that many advocates of the spirituality of the church explain, that is, between the church corporate and the church as indvidual members” (except that it references individual members in their non-ecclesial capacities). But if Hart wants to credit us neocalvinists for the initial articulation… well, he’s the historian here.
Hart may be surprised to know that I consider my contribution to this discussion to be Christian. It’s not my prayer that makes the discussion Christian, but I am in fact praying that the Lord would grant Hart understanding to know how “despite the differences between church and state it is still possible to have Christian political principles or Christian norms for the state,” and Christian non-ecclesial life altogether.
Baus
April 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Hart wrote:
But I don’t think it is appropriate to call Christian the things that Christians do simply because the actors themselves are believers.
Neocalvinists also do not think its appropriate to call ‘Christian’ the things that Christians do simply because the actors are Christians. That’s why we talk about Christian norms. Christians can fail to follow economic norms, for instance. They can fail to follow aesthetic norms too. Normativity is not the same as “morality.” There is a moral normativity, and there are a variety of other kinds of normativities. Christian norms are those that God created, which we can only come to know and do rightly through Christ.
There are ‘partial’ normative truths that one can come to ‘partially’ know and ‘partially’ do in some subChristian fashion… but that is never to know and do it Christianly.
I suppose you’ve heard all this before. And yet, I suppose, it continues to fail to make any sense to you?
Anthony Cowley
April 9th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
sixteeninty:
Good thoughts!
Dr. Hart -
While I tend to agree with what Baus has written above - you are onto a good question.
Institutional separation of Church and State does not mean there is no relationship between Church and State. Any kind of CHristian establishmentarianism involves difficulties, espcially today. It is not very high on my agenda to get the State to have a special relationship with a given denomination. Denominations are problematic in themselves.
So, is there something short of establishmentarianism which goes some way towards accomplishing the concept of Christian Civil Government? Yes, something like the Christian Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (proposed in the South by Thornwell as well). Thornwell argued that a Jew could be the president of a Christian nation’s govenment. What abot that!
Anyway, just some quickie thoughts.
BLessings,
Tony
Article36
April 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Politically, the scriptures are nonKuyperian, if I understand what everyone here means by Kuyperian politics. The main issue is that God has given His church commands to follow as regards their civil rulers and masters. Dr. Hart believes this. Where the semi does the jackknife is when he seems to deny that by the same token God has given masters and civil rulers any specific commands at all. Servants and citizens are servants and citizen as unto the Lord by the specific commands of Christ. Masters and civil rulers have corresponding and complimentary commands from the Lord of Lords. Christian toaster repair? Surely there is a weightier objection than this.
tolleblogge
April 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I’m going to address, primarily, this one thoroughly problematic sentence: “The church is the only institution God has ordained to administer Christianity (the possible exception here is the family, but a non-believing family is still a true family and so Christianity is not essential to being family).”
First, seeking to be a faithful Christian in business on Monday morning is not Christianity apart from the church, but is rather a Christianity that builds on the foundation of the covenantal community and the public worship of God.
The failure to make this distinction is how we end up with this odd phrase “administering Christianity.” What is that, exactly? I know what administering the sacraments is, what preaching the word is, and what church discipline is, and I don’t there’s much debate in Reformed circles that these responsibilities have been given uniquely to the church without state interference. At the very least, this concept breaks down in the context of the family and home (as almost admitted in the equivocation above). When Paul instructs women to remain silent in church and ask their husbands at home, is he telling these women to not have their Christianity administered to them in church (is that how to say it?), but that their husbands should be administering Christianity? Since she wasn’t an officebearer in the church, Timothy’s grandmother teaching him the Scriptures would presumably be administering Christianity apart from the church. How about Priscilla (I think we’d agree, definitely not an officebearer) and Aquilla teaching Apollos? If a Christian businessman refuses to allow his employees to falsify accounting records on the basis of Ex. 20:5, even if a legal loophole was discovered that made it not technically a violation of civil law, would he be “administering Christianity”?
Second, adopting the structure/direction categories used by Al Wolters in Creation Regained would clear up the confusion over a family in this sentence. Is a non-believing (would you object to saying “non-Christian” here?) family a true family? Yes, as a structure of human relationships that God built into creation, but no in the sense it does not fulfill the purpose of blessing God intended for families (Eph. 6:1-3). To speak of a “Christian family,” or of any institution or perspective as Christian in this sense, is to speak of its direction (toward faithfulness and glorification of God), not its structure.
D Hart
April 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
What if in the grand scheme of things — creation, fall, redemption and consummation — the politics of civil society were on the order of toaster repair? Why does Calvin pray that we not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things? Last I checked, neither the U.S. nor Scotland were going to make it into the new heavens and new earth. Does that make them worthless? No. Neither is toaster repair.
Thornwell may have gotten somethings right, but I’m not sure how an observant Jew could enforce Christian laws that forbade idolatry.
Believe it or not, this post was inspired by Baus’ comment somewhere back there, and his repeated invoking of a paper about a Christian view of everything. At another point he wrote that we are agreed about the separation of church and state. But now he says that Christianity goes beyond the church. Then why not fold the state, toaster repair and calisthenics into the church? (I would like someone to answer this one. Really.)
I would imagine that most people writing here have some regard for the church and her capacity (institutionally, not organically — sorry for the mistake) to interpret Christianity and administer the mysteries of God’s revealed truth. If the church is so constituted, and has such powers, and if there are Christian norms about everything in life, then why can’t the church rule over every sphere of life? Why in fact grant powers of interpreting Christianity across the board to everyone but the church? Either someone’s view of the church is awfully low, or one’s view of Christianity is too broad.
So to put the question directly, why keep the church and state separate if the church has a better read than church members on Christianity in its fullness? (Which is to say, I trust my pastor to interpret Scripture better than a Dutch-Canadian philosopher. And I trust the philosopher to interpret Kant better than my pastor. And I trust neither of them in their primary callings to interpret the U.S. Constitution.)
Put another way, if there are Christian norms for the state, and the church knows Christian norms, why prevent the church from entering into politics and running the whole shebang?
BTW, I appreciate Baus’ prayers. But having failed to ground his arguments in the one revelation that reveals Christ (meaning the Bible, not creation which can only condemn), aside from waves of the hand to those cosmological passages in Paul’s epistles, I’d say that his contribution so far has been more philosophical than Christian. In my book that’s a compliment because creation and its goods are good even without the uplift of grace. (No, I’m not denying the fall. I’m only trying to avoid turning all of life into full-time Christian service. I thought that was the point of the Protestant doctrine of vocation — to give significance to secular callings. But if as Baus has it, Christianity is essentially creational, not redemptive, then all of creation is fair game for ministers and the institutional church.)
Free Pastor Willie!!!
nasteffe
April 9th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Darryl,
In my head, bishops aren’t administrators for the same reason that they’re not teachers, or prophets (given Paul’s whole bit on gifts). It’s not their place. It’s not a spiritual vs physical thing, but simply a wisdom thing of recognizing that things have their place. That doesn’t at all mean that things aren’t continuous in some way, but that they’re simply not the same thing.
For example, there’s no problem with a teacher exegeting and expositing a particular Biblical passage to the politician who then uses that understanding to craft his public policy. The teacher might not have insight into the nature of politics, nor the politician into theology, but they’re still working together, not apart. Does this make sense? Or am I just jumping into a repeating cycle of comments saying basically the same thing?
Oh, one more thing (if you don’t mind). Earlier you talked about Christianity not being apolitical necessarily, but that a liberal democracy is not the crossover point between the two. Do you think there is a political system where Christianity can be appropriately political without having to take the reigns?
Anthony Cowley
April 10th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I suppose an observant Jew would have little problem enforcing laws against idolatry, of all things! I’m assuming that the Civil Law would not try to peer into men’s hearts, at coveteousness, which is idolatry. Even Church courts don’t do that, do they?
But, even a law he was not too fond of…The observant Jewish head of a Christian Constitutional Republic could “do it” the same way that an observant Orthodox Presbyterian could enforce American Divorce Laws, or uphold the Constitutional/legal status quo on any number of issues where they run contrary to what he’d like the law to be. We are a nation of “laws” not men, so the saying goes. One may dissent, but one must obey the law as it stands. If one incorporates into the system as a law officer, he must uphold and enforce even those laws he does not much like. Though, one might guess that the present fracas over US Attorney firings would indicate that the executive has some choice about which laws they will actually be interested in enforcing, and which they’ll ‘de-emphasize’. Seems awkward, but inescapable, unless we pare the law down to reasonable proportions.
As for the concept to which you seem to return without fail, “Why doesn’t the Church just run everything?” - Because she is not King of the nation. She may inform and advise, teach and even command, but she cannot enforce civil laws. Ain’t her job. This is a red herring.
Just a thought, or two…
Tony
Josh L
April 10th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Saying that the church has the “right and duty” to define and interpret Christianity sounds almost like a Romanist ecclesiology. So does saying that church leaders are the only authoritative interpreters of Christianity (which, it seems, has no authoritative word from God to the world).
The separation between church and state is a division of function within God’s kingdom, not a separation of “sacred” and “secular” because the state is outside of God’s authority.
But as Mr. Cowley said, this is a red herring, because part of Christianity is performing justice and righteousness, which is the express function of the civil magistrate. He is God’s minister, therefore he is ordained by God and required to study God’s word and govern the nations by its light.
As Christians, we are exhorted to do all things to God’s glory. We can honor and obey God with our actions, words, and deeds, or we can defy and disobey Him. This applies to every person and cuts across every area of life.
Phil
April 10th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Don’t we see a separation of cult/church and state in the OT? Yet they worked hand in hand. It’s the same in the WCF, the Belgic, the French, and just about every other confession but the Baptist. It’s a collegial arrangement, not the caesaropapism I think I see the MR guys assuming. The king couldn’t enter the Holy Place without being smacked by God; Solomon could fire the high priest and Jehoiada could order regicide, both apparently righteous acts, but other than these brief crossovers, cult and state, under God, were to be separated.
D Hart
April 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
If a magistrate, who is God’s minister, does not do what he is required to do, that is, to study God’s word and rule by its light, then what happens? Civil War? Rebellion? Submission? If the latter, then what practical difference does this debate make for our actions as citizens?
Article36
April 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“If a magistrate, who is God’s minister, does not do what he is required to do, that is, to study God’s word and rule by its light, then what happens? Submission.” Now what about Peter who was commanded not to preach Christ? Submission in all things lawful. You mentioned King James earlier. The Mayflower Compact is a flawed, human, yet wonderful example of honor and submission to an unbelieving magistrate that shows fear of God and Christ. Also, by our constitution keeping the US from a national church, the argument could be made that in a certain way compliance to Article 36 was marvelously effected. Wha Huh? Yes. Though not as consciously or directly as was in the Netherlands, for example, the true church in America is rightly defended, promoted, and allowed to flourish. May she continue to be. The false church in all its forms is also hindered from brazenly requiring everyone to bow before its golden image. What practical difference? As you say, this life is not to be compared to the life to come. As you say, the US and Scotland are not going to bring their glory into heaven in the way some think. While we anticipate the eschaton, we still need toasters to toast our bread. While live with those with the only hope, God and His Christ have given His clear word to rulers and those they rule. We still need our rulers to trust and obey our Lord Jesus Christ, just as they need we the people to trust and obey our Lord Jesus Christ.