i would only add that even those charges such as ones given our fathers are themselves really pointers grounded in temporal institutions meant to be understood eternally. that is, even pagans know they “should punish evil, love their wives and discipline their kids.” but they are not told that this has some parallel to the KoG, like we are; they are not told, “love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” our creational endeavors look very simililar to pagans (which is part of what allows us to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them), but why we don’t/do what we don’t/do is from eternal perspectives (or at least, ought to be).

…so, no, for my part, i am not about to send an envoy to retrieve hart back to the reservation.

zrim

I appreciate Anthony’s point about the flattening hermeneutic and I wish the other side, especially the Kuyperians would adopt some of these bumps and pot holes because when I hear the rhetoric of a Christian view of everything, or a Christian world and life view, I not only reach for my gun but I also hear a lot of flattening.

So does this mean that fathers, magistrates and pastors appeal to different parts of the Bible for their duties? For instance, I could see a magistrate turning to Rom. 13 for some sense of her high calling. And I could see a father turning to Eph. 5 to understand his responsibilities. In a sense, this would be fair enough and the one way in which I’d concede that special revelation has something to say to secular affairs (but again, it is only to the Christians who hold those offices, not a universal command to any and all magistrates and fathers).

Lest Caleb and Zrim think I’ve gone off the reservation, let me explain that I can’t see how a Christian magistrate could possibly believe that his duty did not involve punishing evil. For instance, there seem to be plenty of American politicians who are fairly selective about the evils to be punished. Think Don Imus and MSNBC versus Dennis Miller and HBO. (Get this, Dennis Miller now has a show on the Salem Radio Network, that “God-fearing” evangelical radio network that also employs Roman Catholics and Jewish persons.)

Even so, I think my comment still has some bite for Anthony because the Bible not only has a few things to say to fathers and magistrates but it has a lot to say to ministers, not only what they should do but also the scope of their ministry. And since a pastor is to minister Rom. 13 and Eph. 5, then why can’t the church administer those affairs of human existence? In other words, if folks like Anthony can distinguish among the duties of magistrates, fathers and pastors, why can’t I distinguish more broadly the difference between the temporal affairs of the state and the eternal affairs of the church without being thought to have gone liberal?

The point isn’t what people think of me or my arguments. The point though is why people find my argument so threatening to Reformed Christianity. It seems to be that my book compromises a Christian America. But how does the point that Christianity is not a political program but a ministry of the gospel threaten or undermine the notion that magistrates should punish evil doers or that fathers should love their wives and discipline their children?

This is a flattening hermeneutics, which does not recognize the different responsibilities of the Deacons and Leturgioi Civil (Rom 13) and Ecclesiastical (Matt. 18). A Christian Family is not a Christian Church. The Father does not adminster the keys to the kingdom. Nor does the Principal, nor does the President, or king. Even the old Anglicans, who messed this up ‘royally’ wrote:
The original (1571, 1662) text of Article XXXVII (Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates)reads as follows: “The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

It seems their intention is to grant a degree of sphere sovereignty for the respective kingdoms of christ and man. But to equate church and kingdom of Christ, and I agree we should, doesn’t mean the church isn’t expansive in its reach. If the Bible addresses medical ethics or the weights and measures used by a CPA, then shouldn’t the church claim jurisdiction over such fields? Indeed, isn’t the health of her membership reliant on such an exposition of God’s Word enforced by discipline?

Sincere thanks.

If you have read Leithart’s Against Christianity I would appreciate a brief assessment of his thesis and a differentiation, if necessary, of your views. The similarities seem apparent.

Sincere Thanks.