<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can a king acknowledge the facts?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/</link>
	<description>The Reign of Christ</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: D Hart</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>D Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-765</guid>
		<description>I don't think enforcing Covenanter theology on non-Covenanters is merely a practical question.  It is one of principle.  Was that what God intended for this age of redemptive history?  I am not convinced.  And I continue to think this idea is more the legacy of Constantine than Christ.

And why is it the case that Christ's reign over the state is only evident when the state is enforcing Christianity?  The point of my post on Saddam Hussein was that Christ was also ruling over Saddam when Saddam held office.  The position mlefevbre is espousing suggests that Christ and the apostles didn't know what they were doing when Paul told Christians to submit to an anti-Christian government.

And one more thing, church history at times suggests that the church prospers when the state is opposed to Christianity, not in support of it.  So maybe God knows what he's doing when he raises up non-Christian governments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think enforcing Covenanter theology on non-Covenanters is merely a practical question.  It is one of principle.  Was that what God intended for this age of redemptive history?  I am not convinced.  And I continue to think this idea is more the legacy of Constantine than Christ.</p>
<p>And why is it the case that Christ&#8217;s reign over the state is only evident when the state is enforcing Christianity?  The point of my post on Saddam Hussein was that Christ was also ruling over Saddam when Saddam held office.  The position mlefevbre is espousing suggests that Christ and the apostles didn&#8217;t know what they were doing when Paul told Christians to submit to an anti-Christian government.</p>
<p>And one more thing, church history at times suggests that the church prospers when the state is opposed to Christianity, not in support of it.  So maybe God knows what he&#8217;s doing when he raises up non-Christian governments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mlefebvre</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>mlefebvre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-764</guid>
		<description>Darryl, you certainly raise a valid *practical* concern: how does a state that admits the truth of Christ confess that admission without forcing the same on all its subjects? That is, however, simply a question of pragmatics -- how to implement the principle -- it does not invalidate the principle. Governing is, by nature, a complex affair, and governing a pluralistic people in a manner that honors Christ is one of those complexities. But that it is a challenge to do does not mean it is impossible or undesirable.

It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom's advance (the church) in the state's midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with Christ?

Already, the US government enacts legislation to give tax benefits to religious institutions, thereby necessitating that the government define what is a government-endorsed religious organization. By doing so, they do not prohibit other religious bodies, which do not meet the government-recognized standards, from operating. They simply operate without the government's tax-breaks.

Perhaps a better teaser: the American government presently seems to regard as its great purpose the promotion of business. The government enacts all kinds of measures to try to establish in America an environment in which businesses can prosper and make money. This requires the government to determine what kinds of business enterprises it will countenance, and what kinds of business enterprises it will not. Certain measures may be enacted to encourage more farmers to grow lima beans in Illinois because of a government recognized need for lima beans in that state, without thereby denying the right of farmers to keep on growing alfalfa if that is their preference. (I don't know if lima beans or alfafa even grow in Illinois! But you get my point.)

Furthermore, the American governments efforts to nurture market growth are continually exercised within a national ideal that admits the government is not itself a business. Sometimes things get out of hand, admittedly; but in principle, the government is to foster these business endeavors without so meddling as to itself become the CEO of any business.

Naturally, the government encouragement of money-making is a complex affair, and often sinful men in government trespass the lines of government's legitimate boundaries in business matters. But the fact that it is challenging to work out this relationship does not in itself illegitimate the endeavor.

If we already recognize that the government can rightly exercise its powers to encourage business without thereby ascribing to her the right to become the CEO of any business, why cannot a government that comes to acknowledge an even more profound purpose not be blessed with that joyous privilege of using her Christ-appointed office to provide nurture and encouragement to that grand purpose?

So I guess, with humble (or simple-minded?) tenacity, I simply reassert my original question. I recognize that implementation of Christ-honoring government over a religiously plural society is complicated, but simply noting the difficulty does not itself negate the question.

It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom's advance in the state's midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with what is already Christ's purpose for her?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Darryl, you certainly raise a valid *practical* concern: how does a state that admits the truth of Christ confess that admission without forcing the same on all its subjects? That is, however, simply a question of pragmatics &#8212; how to implement the principle &#8212; it does not invalidate the principle. Governing is, by nature, a complex affair, and governing a pluralistic people in a manner that honors Christ is one of those complexities. But that it is a challenge to do does not mean it is impossible or undesirable.</p>
<p>It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom&#8217;s advance (the church) in the state&#8217;s midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with Christ?</p>
<p>Already, the US government enacts legislation to give tax benefits to religious institutions, thereby necessitating that the government define what is a government-endorsed religious organization. By doing so, they do not prohibit other religious bodies, which do not meet the government-recognized standards, from operating. They simply operate without the government&#8217;s tax-breaks.</p>
<p>Perhaps a better teaser: the American government presently seems to regard as its great purpose the promotion of business. The government enacts all kinds of measures to try to establish in America an environment in which businesses can prosper and make money. This requires the government to determine what kinds of business enterprises it will countenance, and what kinds of business enterprises it will not. Certain measures may be enacted to encourage more farmers to grow lima beans in Illinois because of a government recognized need for lima beans in that state, without thereby denying the right of farmers to keep on growing alfalfa if that is their preference. (I don&#8217;t know if lima beans or alfafa even grow in Illinois! But you get my point.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, the American governments efforts to nurture market growth are continually exercised within a national ideal that admits the government is not itself a business. Sometimes things get out of hand, admittedly; but in principle, the government is to foster these business endeavors without so meddling as to itself become the CEO of any business.</p>
<p>Naturally, the government encouragement of money-making is a complex affair, and often sinful men in government trespass the lines of government&#8217;s legitimate boundaries in business matters. But the fact that it is challenging to work out this relationship does not in itself illegitimate the endeavor.</p>
<p>If we already recognize that the government can rightly exercise its powers to encourage business without thereby ascribing to her the right to become the CEO of any business, why cannot a government that comes to acknowledge an even more profound purpose not be blessed with that joyous privilege of using her Christ-appointed office to provide nurture and encouragement to that grand purpose?</p>
<p>So I guess, with humble (or simple-minded?) tenacity, I simply reassert my original question. I recognize that implementation of Christ-honoring government over a religiously plural society is complicated, but simply noting the difficulty does not itself negate the question.</p>
<p>It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom&#8217;s advance in the state&#8217;s midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with what is already Christ&#8217;s purpose for her?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D Hart</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-758</link>
		<dc:creator>D Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-758</guid>
		<description>Bill, I did not say that Christianity's sole benefit is spiritual.  But I would assert that its permanent benefit is spiritual.  (Having recently attended a conference on Russell Kirk and having heard much talk of the "permanent things," I couldn't help but think a little immanentization of the eschaton was going on.)  

Christ did many physical things through his miracles.  But all of those people healed and even raised from the dead still died.  At which point the spiritual benefits of Christian look a whole lot more permanent than the physical.  

This doesn't mean that I deny the resurrection or the goodness of the body.  But for the final resurrection to happen, we will need a whole lot more than a reform of the health care system or Christians going into the medical profession.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill, I did not say that Christianity&#8217;s sole benefit is spiritual.  But I would assert that its permanent benefit is spiritual.  (Having recently attended a conference on Russell Kirk and having heard much talk of the &#8220;permanent things,&#8221; I couldn&#8217;t help but think a little immanentization of the eschaton was going on.)  </p>
<p>Christ did many physical things through his miracles.  But all of those people healed and even raised from the dead still died.  At which point the spiritual benefits of Christian look a whole lot more permanent than the physical.  </p>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t mean that I deny the resurrection or the goodness of the body.  But for the final resurrection to happen, we will need a whole lot more than a reform of the health care system or Christians going into the medical profession.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W.H. Chellis</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-753</link>
		<dc:creator>W.H. Chellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-753</guid>
		<description>The benefits of the church are spiritual.  Christianity includes a doctrine of creation.  Therefore, it is impossible to say that the sole benefit of Christianity is spiritual.  Further, the spiritual blessing of the church cannot be seperated from our doctrine of creation.  We are new creations (spiritually now but physically also at the consummation).  Christ Himself is a the first fruits of the New Creation through the resurrection from the dead.  He is physically glorified.  Should that part of Christ's experience be subtracted from "christianity"?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The benefits of the church are spiritual.  Christianity includes a doctrine of creation.  Therefore, it is impossible to say that the sole benefit of Christianity is spiritual.  Further, the spiritual blessing of the church cannot be seperated from our doctrine of creation.  We are new creations (spiritually now but physically also at the consummation).  Christ Himself is a the first fruits of the New Creation through the resurrection from the dead.  He is physically glorified.  Should that part of Christ&#8217;s experience be subtracted from &#8220;christianity&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D Hart</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-747</link>
		<dc:creator>D Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/17/can-a-king-acknowledge-the-facts/#comment-747</guid>
		<description>I appreciate the comment.  But what does the Covenanter position do with non-believers in modern society?  I might concede that the Christian tradition's account of the state and virtue is more robust than modern liberalism (though I'm not sure it is more robust than Aristotle or -- to keep Caleb happy -- Voegelin).  But one of the virtues of liberalism is that it does make room for those pesty non-believers and idolaters.  To say that Reformed Christianity is good for these people, whether they like it or not, is to misconstrue the efficacy of Christianity since its benefits are spiritual, not civil.  And how often do the public affirmations of God or Christ, in order to prevent them from being offensive to non-Christians, trivialize the Christian religion?  Any number of Bush performances have demonstrated as much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate the comment.  But what does the Covenanter position do with non-believers in modern society?  I might concede that the Christian tradition&#8217;s account of the state and virtue is more robust than modern liberalism (though I&#8217;m not sure it is more robust than Aristotle or &#8212; to keep Caleb happy &#8212; Voegelin).  But one of the virtues of liberalism is that it does make room for those pesty non-believers and idolaters.  To say that Reformed Christianity is good for these people, whether they like it or not, is to misconstrue the efficacy of Christianity since its benefits are spiritual, not civil.  And how often do the public affirmations of God or Christ, in order to prevent them from being offensive to non-Christians, trivialize the Christian religion?  Any number of Bush performances have demonstrated as much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
