RSSResponse to Darryl Hart: The Radicality of Christian Obedience
Darryl, you write: “Andrew, I’d be glad to answer these reflections if I weren’t already asking for you to answer them.”
What?! I have been providing answers to this (admittedly) difficult question. The “hard sayings” of Jesus are called such because they are not easy for anyone who recognizes the validity of natural law, even in the Christian life.
Alright, I’ll summarize my view for anyone interested in interacting with it.
First of all, Jesus’ commandments do appear to go against our desire for earthly justice and natural inclinations for self-preservation. At times, faithfulness to Christ demands that we give up everything for his service. However, we do not choose the when and how of this. We do not manufacture the circumstances in which we are called to obediently suffer. It is up to the sovereign Lord to determine when our faith will be tested in such a radical way.
Second, in my series on the cross and glory, I’ve been arguing that in life everyone has to go through probationary tests in order to advance to a position requiring greater responsibility. This was a dynamic in the original CoW, and is still operative in the economy of grace, though there is no longer a possibility of eternal condemnation. God puts every individual in a lowly circumstance, peculiar to whatever status he is originally given (i.e., born into). For example, before becoming a journeyman lineman, an apprentice must go through several years of apprenticeship. Another example is that before becoming king, a prince must be under the discipline of tutors. You get the point.
Third, a Christian is to be characterized by humility both in his probation and in his responsible vocation. Just because someone has been given an exalted position doesn’t mean that there aren’t probationary tests anymore. Rather, Christian sanctification is a progression “from glory to glory” as the flesh is further mortified. This process doesn’t stop after a particular plateau has been reached. In the last comment I wrote under this heading, I said that there is humility “appropriate to kings, another appropriate to parents, another appropriate to husbands, and another appropriate to single unattached people.” The station one finds himself in determines in what way and how extensively he is able to lay down his life in imitation of Christ. Single people are freer to do this, while married people are less free.
I deny that desiring a Christian state in any way contradicts these principles. It should be fairly uncontroversial that a king can serve Christ and his subjects in a self-sacrificing way, while a beggar, eaten up with resentment can hoard whatever wealth he can acquire and refuse help to people around him. Yes, God uses the humble to shame the proud. So what? This doesn’t mean that the humble always remain in humble circumstances. King Nebuchadnezzar said, “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men” (Dan. 4:17).
Furthermore, using the power of the sword to enforce a social way of life is not necessarily tyrannical, but in fact a legitimate function of the state (if approached wisely). Scripture is clear: kings not only punish evildoers, they promote the good as well (Rom. 13:3-4; 1 Pet. 2:14). St. Paul says, “once your obedience is complete, we will be able to punish every act of disobedience” (2 Cor. 10:6). After a person acquires the responsibility of parenthood, a period of obedience has been completed and a new obedience requires a new exercise of disciplinary enforcement (in children). Accession to a royal throne involves an analagous progression into a new obedience of enforcement.
A state may become Christian through the natural course of things (i.e., not through revolution). At that point the king has an obligation to confess Christ’s Lordship, emulate Christ in a way appropriate to his responsibility, punish those who trouble the Church, and foster that which facilitates discipleship while suppressing ungodliness.
Darryl, you write: “So it seems that you also concede that Christians resort to the city of man. Why is this only a problem that I have to solve when you yourself admit that you do not pursue a life of weakness, folly or poverty, at least when you’re thinking about culture and politics.”
I deny that Christ intended us to pursue “a life of weakness, folly or poverty” at any point. Rather, we are to take the “lowest place,” when presented with options in a probationary test.
I have provided an account how to apply Christ’s commands in real life. W2K avoids this challenge. W2K men think that by prohibiting theocratic transformationalism they are taking the path of humility, and somehow fulfilling Christ’s requirement. This is mistaken, and falls far short of Christ’s intent. Jesus calls us to obedience in every sphere of life in ways appropriate to our vocation.
By positing dual citizenship in two ultimate realms, the “city of man” and the “city of God” with an ethic proper to each, W2K leads immature Christians into error. The simple are deluded into believing they will be okay (i.e., justified) even if they live their everyday lives according to the fallen principles of the city of man.
And so, Darryl, my challenge to you still stands: How do you do justice to Christ’s commands in all their comprehensive radicality?
D Hart
July 6th, 2007 at 5:34 am
I’ll try to answer that, maybe, when you can explain, Andrew, how a king following Christ’s commands (both in the gospels and in the epistles since he is the author of both) should turn the other cheek in the execution of a murderer.
Andrew Matthews
July 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Alright. Just as a father who is slapped by his child does not literally offer the other cheek, so it would be detrimental to royal authority for a king to offer his. Rather, a king fulfills Christ’s command by reacting with dignity and forebearence, while solemnly proceeding with the declaration of judgment. If some wrong has been committed in the course of carrying out justice, the king might even prostrate himself before the condemned, asking for forgiveness. A grant of clemency might also be given, in providing compassionate assistance to the condemned man’s family. In every case, the condemned should be given the counsel of a Gospel minister, a last meal, a swift & dignified death, and a decent burial.
Why should a father or king be required to literally follow Christ’s words, if the spirit of Christ’s commands are obeyed? To require that following Christ means following the letter of his commands is unreasonable. Such is irresponsible exegesis of the text.
Don’t forget that when Christ said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he was addressing the civil authorities of the time. He was not abrogating the death penalty for adultery, neither was he undermining the legitimate authorities (the Mosaic economy being not yet ceased), but was giving the Jewish leaders a lesson in how to faithfully administer judgment in service to the Lord.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged,” is neither a prohibition against moral judgment nor the exercise of justice. Rather, we are to show mercy so that we will be shown mercy, and we are to judge while at the same time preparing ourselves to be judged.
Darryl, if these explanations do not satisfy you, I’d like to know why.
D Hart
July 6th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Andrew, this was not exactly the view of Christ’s kingship employed either by the authorities of Christendom or the Covenanters. They didn’t know much of this “spirit of Christ.” They were all about the letter. So your appeal to the spirit is a very modern conception that shows your defense of Christendom to have more in common with the W2K project than you admit. You can’t take Christ’s claims and apply them directly (by the letter) to the state or the culture. That’s my point. Again, you agree with my argument and yet you think you don’t. I don’t understand. Do I have b. o.?
Andrew Matthews
July 6th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Darryl, the reason I’m so critical of W2K is that I view it as an inadvertent betrayal of Christ’s claims. Despite my appeal to the spirit of the law, which is a very important NT concept (1 Cor. 3:1-6) and absolutely essential to properly understand Jesus’ teachings, I insist there are concrete obligations laid upon all men (both personally and socially) by Christ’s universal Lordship.
I am very suspicious of conceptual dichotomies (e.g., cult/culture, providential/redemptive) that appear to be useful solutions to theological difficulties but actually break up the unity of life as it is lived, of reality as it is. In the next installment of this series I intend to show how I understand the post-fall economy, the Noahic covenant, and Christ’s mediatorship. You will see then that our biblical understandings greatly diverge (although I do owe a lot to traditional covenant theology generally and Meredith Kline in particular–he was a genius).
I’ll have to defer to your judgment on the Covenanters for now, but you mentioned Constantinople in an earlier comment. From my understanding of Byzantium, which is admittedly limited, the institutions of church and state ideally acted in symphonic complementarity. There were problems to be sure: sometimes bishops had to oppose heretical emperors, and sometimes orthodox emperors opposed heretical bishops. But there was not a church/state crisis like that which occured in the west prior to the Reformation. There seems to have been a less rigid and more flexible relation between church and state.
We do agree that the civil laws of the Mosaic legislation cannot be imported directly into our cultural circumstance. But, James Jordan agrees here also. And as you well know, there is a world of difference between W2K and Jordan’s theonomy. Finally, we do not agree on whether Christ’s commands as he intended them are meant for human society in the present pre-consummation era.
D Hart
July 7th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Andrew, I have no idea what hermeneutic you are using if you think the Bible is a book that governs all of human life — including personal and social. Not even the Old Testament in all its specificity will tell me whether or not to blog. And as for the New Testament, the idea of Christian liberty there articulated in such passages as 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 gives me even more wiggle room.
But the issue isn’t the comprehensiveness of Christ’s commands for my personal life, it is whether the Bible is the norm for the state. It is perfectly fine to say that the OT was the norm for Israel. And Christians since Pentecost have been trying to figure out how to harmonize the OT and NT. But the NT has next to nothing to say about the state explicitly aside from such places as Rom 13 or Acts 5. If you want a Christian theory of the state you will have to look elsewhere. Even H. Richard Niebuhr conceded that.
In addition, I think it is fairly bad hermeneutics to take biblical teaching that may be binding on individual Christians and say that they are also norms for society. That would mean that non-Christians should worship, tithe and participate in the Lord’s Supper, and that if they don’t the church may discipline them.
It is a question of jurisdiction — who gets to minister God’s word, the church or the state. I think it would be beneficial if we could stick to this point.
Andrew Matthews
July 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Darryl, as you are well aware, Genesis provides the historical prologue for the old covenant constitution of Israel. Genesis provides not only the historical account of Israel’s immediate ancestry (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 12 patriarchs), but also records the origins of the primary social institutions: family, church and state. In addition to this, the Bible provides much information about the relation between theocratic Israel and the surrounding non-elect nations. This is all primary source material for the Christian political scientist. For example, there is a background of biblical precedent for St. Paul’s doctrine of the state in Romans 13 that must be taken into account in order to discern the apostles’s full meaning. St. Paul was a great student of the OT and drew his authoritative teaching from the OT scriptures, not ex nihilo out of new divine inspiration.
The Bible reveals the central story of human history. All other narratives derive their significance from how they relate to the meta-narrative of creation-fall-redemption. Biblical revelation identifies the logos of human history (its origin, process, and goal) thereby supplying value and meaning to the historical enterprise. Darryl, as a historian who has thought about his vocation, I’m sure you have a different understanding (I’m not sure how different) of these things, but this is where I am coming from.
The new covenant is the universal constitutional order that was established by the ascension & enthronement of Jesus, the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5). In the first century there was a change in administration of the covenant of grace; a new dispensation was inaugurated.
The anouncement of the Gospel of the Kingdom places its hearers under new responsibility. The non-elect, subject to death because of the original Adamic CoW (Rom. 5:12-14), are damned by their rejection of the CoG (Gen. 4:6; Matt. 23:35; Rom. 4:15), and the penalty is even greater if they reject the exalted Son (John 3:18; Cf. Ps. 2:6; 10-12 & Heb. 12:18ff.). All those who have heard of Christ (Acts 17:30ff.), especially those who were raised in Christian homes (and baptized!) are responsible to submit to him, submission which involves a repentant calling upon him for salvation.
Sure, the Spirit goes where it will, but it is a quite obvious fact that Christian people produce Christian offspring, and that a failure to disciple inevitably results in a decline of Christian profession in the population.
As far as jurisdiction, I believe that family, church and state should cooperate in the project of discipleship. The family will always break the cult/culture dichotomy, exposing a perennial inadequacy to define autonomous spheres of authority. The ideal social order should be coordinated harmony, not quarantined isolation or conflict, between these institutions. Coordinated harmony does not necessitate the totalitarian organization of society. Rather, privelages and responsibilites constitutionally accorded to these “three estates” would ensure a measure of ordered liberty and local self determination.
Such a social cooperative effort takes nothing away from the distinct role played by ministers of the Gospel. Catechesis is primarily the responsibility of the family, though the Church provides the cultic context for faith’s exercise, and the state organizes social order to facilitate (or impede) these church and family functions. The suppression of vice, the preferential protection of the Lord’s Day, and the setting aside of national days of repentance & thanksgiving are just a few of the many ways the state can legitimately assist in the common discipleship task.
I submit that the cultural mandate retains its coherence and purpose only if human society is understood to be organized as a whole toward the purpose of discipling all people into the obedience of faith.
D Hart
July 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Andrew, you have assumed that the functions of the state carry over from the Old to the New Covenant. The new constitutional order that Christ established with his resurrection was for the church, not any one particular state. That would explain why the NT says so little about the state. But your importing of everything that bore upon Israel for the modern state would explain why you keep trying to include modern day magistrates within the purview of redemptive history. What you may have trouble accepting is that Christianity is limited in its scope while also being less nationalistic than Judaism was. But Jesus, Paul, and Peter didn’t seem to have any problem with that new order.
I think I’ve asked this before, but the answer is all the more pressing now, if human society is to be organized toward the discipling of all people into the obedience of faith, what will your society do with Baptists and Mormons?
Phil
July 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
If one concedes “the comprehensiveness of Christ’s commands for my personal life,†the debate may be nearly over.
If the Word of God is comprehensive for “my personal life,†what happens? First, I will speak with my children in each of life’s contexts concerning that Word, and second, I will seek to disciple the little corner of the nations according to that Word. While I’m too insignificant for the secularists to be concerned, these actions are supported by Christ’s investiture of all authority in heaven and earth and his ever-presence. So in the long run, this two-pronged discipling cannot fail. When God sovereignly chooses for a critical mass to appear, like-minded Christians discipling both their children and their little corner of the nations, the Word of Christ will have already become life’s norms, including political norms.
No one suggests that the Bible provides a complete manual for statecraft, a calculus textbook, or a plumbing how-to manual; assuming that it must for the transformational program to proceed gravely misunderstands this position. Rather, every human endeavor from plumbing to baking to mathematics contains not only artifacts but social practices and even ideals. At the minimum, the Word of Christ addresses those ideals, if not the social practices (such as political details) or artifacts (such as plumbing tools).
(The fact that W2K advocates cannot speak to every context of life from God’s Word is evidence that W2K is sub-confessional—WLC 129 and 156).
Phil
July 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
How should society deal with Baptists and Mormons? If the Bible is irrelevant in the left-hand kingdom, then we will have nothing to say. On the other hand, we could let Romans 13 speak: “Then do what is good, and you will receive [the civil magistrate’s] approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.†So this question reduces to ethics: what does the Word of Christ say on what is good or bad?
But let’s skip the Mormons and Baptists and change the question since W2K folks seem to like Luther so much: what should the prince do with Roman Catholicism? What did the hero of the two kingdoms say?
1. “Therefore, the Christian nobility should set itself against the pope as against a common enemy and destroyer of Christendom†(§2).
2. “Pilgrimages to Rome should either be abolished, or else no one should be allowed to make such a pilgrimage out of curiosity or because of a pious impulse†(§12).
So the prince (1) should oppose the papacy and (2) should truncate a common religious practice, the pilgrimage. More examples, all consistent with Romans 13, could be listed: support the good, suppress the evil.
How’s that for L2K (Luther on the two kingdoms)?
(Sources taken from http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/nblty-05.html.)
D Hart
July 8th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Errr, Phil, have you considered posting your Luther comments on Roman Catholicism to Andrew over on his post about the ubiquity of Roman Catholicism? I’m sorry, but I’m sensing a bit of confusion among the advocates of tranformationalism.
By the way, Luther’s admonitions have nothing to say about biblical teaching on the state. As matters of political philosophy his judgments are quite sound. Decentralization (freedom from outside sources of power) and local economic development (as in don’t take your tourism Deutsch Marks to Rome) have great wisdom in my book because of the “light of nature,” a notion that comes from the WCF. (I can be at least part way confessional.)
Phil, you also dodged the question. What do you do with Baptists and Mormons in your world where the Bible addresses at least the ideals if not the practices of state craft?
You also raise another question. What on earth do WLC 129 or 156 have to do with the Bible applying to all of life? I guess if you can read the Bible as expansively as you read the LC then I can see the connection. But those questions and answers have little to do with an affirmation that the Bible is for all of life. 129 addresses the fifth commandment and the relationship between superior and inferiors — a fair point in political theory but not the basis for saying the Bible contains the ideals of plumbing. 156 addresses who may read the Bible in worship, a great rebuke to the two-office Presbyterians but not much of a foundation for a Christian approach to baseball.
Phil
July 8th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Consider again the question of “what will your society do with Baptists and Mormons.†What to do? Possibly nothing at all. Duane Friesen wrote a paper (2003) in which he reconstructed Niebuhr’s scheme in a 2×3 table. As an Anabaptist, his first dimension was whether or not one’s view allowed the Christian use of the sword.
His second dimension considered the intensity of involvement. I’ll list them by (a) non-violent examples and (b) those allowing the Christian use of the sword. The examples are Friesen’s.
1. External observation of the state: (a) Amish, (b) L2K
2. External rebuke of the state or occasional interference with the state: (a) Mennonite Central Committee, (b) Chile’s Cardinal Silva who interfered with Pinochet’s government
3. Reshaping the state: (a) Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, (b) Calvin’s Geneva, 16th century Puritanism
Clearly category 1b does not include L2K since Luther was more than willing to tell the princes and the emperor what to do with the pope, so Luther belongs in 2b. However, W2K greatly desire to be in that first category, similar to the Amish: non-pacifist but biblically non-interactive.
Near the end of his article, Friesen writes that the “fact that we can identify four different ways of understanding ‘transformation’ explains why so many have identified with Niebuhr’ fifth type, Christ-the-transformer-of-culture.†Thus both pacifist and non-pacifist instances in categories 2 and 3 above are examples of a transformative approach to culture and the state.
As a result, we now have a pacifist, transformative approach to the state. It’s not my view at all, but it’s still available for those eschewing the use of the sword for heresy (or any other reason). Thus on the question of “what will your society do with Baptists and Mormons,†a transformational approach exists, thanks to the Anabaptists, in which nothing would be done with Baptists and Mormons at all. And it’ still transformational.
D Hart
July 8th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
But your not an Anabaptist, Phil, unless you’ve been re-baptized. So please answer the question.
BTW, the W2K view would follow the laws of the power God has ordained, just as Christ and the apostles did. But when followers of Christ gain the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, their approach may change. As a W2Ker, I’d oppose any effort by transformationalist Mormons or Baptists to establish their religion as the law of the land. In that capacity, I might write a letter or pamphlet to governors or legislators the way Luther did. I don’t see how that is at all inconsistent or contradictory since fundamental to W2K is the difference between what the church does institutionally and what Christian believers themselves do as persons.
I see no such wiggle room in the anti-W2K view, that is, until the anti-W2K view decides it can’t live the its implications, as in having the state discipline blasphemers, idolators, and wayward Christians. Do you really want a religious establishment, Phil? Even a Mormon one?
Phil
July 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Concerning WLC 129: “It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct†….â€
Concerning WLC 156: “Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families‡….â€
†Deut. 6:6–7
‡ Deut. 6:6–9
Please explain this passage if it does not mean that our love for God is demonstrated by speaking of God’s Word in every context, every context, every context (I’m not stuttering) to our children. This is our duty as superiors to our children in WLC 129, and it’s our duty outside the cult to do the same in WLC 156.
Phil
July 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Luther admonished the magistrates on how they should do their job. His expertise was theology, not political theory. Why should they listen to Luther the theologian if he wasn’t arguing as a theologian? His reasoning against the pope was clearly religious, that the pope was “a common enemy and destroyer of Christendom.†How does natural law tell us anything about Christendom?
Then he instructed the princes to constrain religious liberty, truncating pilgrimages to Rome. Where does natural law teach us (or him) to limit religious liberty?
Phil
July 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
You brought up plumbing and baseball. First, we could consider these as businesses. Does the Bible tell us anything about business and economics? Can we not learn a lot from Proverbs and the Gospels? Second, plumbing and baseball clearly are dependent upon various types of physics/biophysics, such as kinesiology in baseball or hydrodynamics in plumbing.
Would you be interested to discuss Roy Clouser’s chapter on physics in his *The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories*? Or maybe Vern Poythress’s first chapter in *Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach* in which he shows that even the scientific method is radically dependent upon theology proper? Or Wayne Grudem’s *Business for the Glory of God*? Or Miroslav Volf on *Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work*?
I guess what disturbs me so greatly about W2K is that it sounds very much like Norman Geisler’s dispensational Thomism concerning government: “Premillenarians need not work for Christian civil laws but only for fair ones.†Or in our respective secular vocations, it’s not important that my efforts be godly, but only that my work be good (and that “good†be defined only by natural law). That totally contradicts our duty to devote our bodies “as a living sacrifice†in which each experiences transformation “by the renewal of your mind.†It totally disregards our duty to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God.†(I’ve read your brief interaction with this passage in *Secular Faith*.) It ignores our duty to love God with every aspect of our beings, especially the non-cultic aspects of our beings.
More philosophically, and like Geisler, W2K appears committed to an individualist understanding of baseball, physics, baking, mathematics, etc. It does not consider the social or ideal structures of secular endeavors, and so it cannot see sin in the saeculum except for personal failings. Thus W2K appears to be sub-confessional (cf. 13:2): it denies that “there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part,†most notably the parts of me committed to mathematics, baseball, plumbing, etc.
D Hart
July 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Phil, what would you do if your boss fired you because you spoke God’s word all the time even on the job when in fact your duties called for you to do something other than speak God’s word (say, fix a leak in a pipe)? If you think that this fictional boss is wrong, then I don’t see much room in your view for the Protestant doctrine of vocation — something that tells me I don’t have to speak God’s word all the time — unless I’m a monk or a pastor. If you haven’t seen the movie, Big Kahuna, I’d recommend it for raising precisely this issue. (Beware of coarse language, however.)
Even if Luther’s expertise were theology, as a citizen and university professor he still had access to advise nobles. Doesn’t citizenship count for anything? Do you need to be an expert in civics to talk about civil society? But when would you have the time to acquire such expertise if you’re speaking God’s word all the time?
Why are you so troubled by Geisler’s line about the sort of laws Christians should pursue? Even on Geisler’s grounds, Christ and the apostles were woefully deficient since they weren’t pursuing any legislation or policy.
Andrew Matthews
July 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Darryl, I couldn’t help but notice that you haven’t explained how W2K people obey Christ’s commands as they move and live in the secular sphere.
You write: “you have assumed that the functions of the state carry over from the Old to the New Covenant. The new constitutional order that Christ established with his resurrection was for the church, not any one particular state.â€
Actually, my argument is that state functions operative before the old covenant and outside it (in the various empires that existed) are normative for today. Melchizedek, king of Salem, blessed Abraham and the “Most High God.†Later kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus all came to acknowledge the supreme “God of Heaven†and their responsibility to protect the Church, i.e., Israel. I don’t envision any one state as embodying the kingdom of God. Instead, I identify Christendom (in its broadest sense) as the visible kingdom, with the Church at its cultic center.
You also write, “What you may have trouble accepting is that Christianity is limited in its scope while also being less nationalistic than Judaism was. But Jesus, Paul, and Peter didn’t seem to have any problem with that new order.â€
Jesus and the apostles recognized Caesar’s legitimacy, as the “supreme [civil] authority†(2 Pet. 2:13). In other words, they accepted the legitimacy of the Roman Imperium. The political viewpoint of early Christians was not that authority ascends from the demos, but rather descends from God to the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1). As things turned out, the Empire eventually recognized Christianity as the true religion.
I do not advocate political revolution. I advocate working within a political system in order to transform it. This was St. Paul’s explicitly stated methodology (2 Cor. 10:3-6). I deny that Christianity is more limited in scope than Judaism, rather Judaism represented a temporary national limitation on the expanse of God’s kingdom.
You also write, “if human society is to be organized toward the discipling of all people into the obedience of faith, what will your society do with Baptists and Mormons?â€
Neither Baptists nor Mormons present a challenge to a Christian American state. These religions have produced some of the most loyal citizens our country has. Both of these religions have moved away from their initial radicalisms to become conservative pillars of the established American way of life. As long as our government avoids persecuting these groups, we can continue to count on their support. If America were to adopt Christianity as its official religion, we could count on their support even more, because it would be promoting their moral and social ideals.
In a revived Christendom, there would be no need to enforce a single Christian tradition upon all citizens. Rather, all orthodox (in its broadest sense) Christian groups would be allowed freedom to assemble and to own property (for their churches and associated organizations).
As long as they do not actively work to undermine the religious establishment, I am open on the question of whether non-Christian religions (such as Judaism and Mormonism) should be allowed public assembly and property rights (though on a limited scale). I certainly don’t think private individuals should be arrested and interrogated to determine their religious orthodoxy. To a degree, liberty of conscience can (and should) be respected in a kinder and gentler Christendom.
I think I have already mentioned that political involvement, as distinct from civil rights, should be limited to those enrolled on the baptismal registries of orthodox Christian denominations. Church affiliation (or not) will determine one’s political eligibility. However, all state functions should be solemnized by the officially established church. This official church would in turn recognize the status of all legally recognized denominations as orthodox (though *perhaps* irregularly constituted) churches.
A condition for legal recognition would be that a denomination must recognize the orthodoxy of the other recognized denominations. Such an arrangement would promote cooperation among Christians, ushering in a new era of Christian unity. Catholic unity became an attainable ideal only when Constantine called the first council at Nicea.
I oppose all forms of political liberalism (i.e., republicanism) on the national level, envisioning a restriction of political power to a constitutionally defined ruling class. Christians and non-Christians alike can be persuaded that popular sovereignty (democracy) should be repudiated, for it is a radical ideology that undermines national unity and social stability. Therefore, the restrictions on political rights I propose for non-orthodox citizens need not be perceived as an attack on universally held democratic rights.
As the recent culture wars and past history (i.e., the American Civil War) attests, democracy fails when fundamentally opposed ways of life align to oppose each other politically. The best solution I can see is that a nation should constitutionally define its identity beyond the open-ended and ever-changing “will of the people.†Let it never again be doubted that America is a Christian nation.
stevez
July 10th, 2007 at 8:55 am
“I do not advocate political revolution. I advocate working within a political system in order to transform it. This was St. Paul’s explicitly stated methodology (2 Cor. 10:3-6).â€
I agree. However, there is at once a fine line and a wide gap between what this means if you don’t rely on Reformed hermeneutics or the analogy of faith. I see Paul applying such to phenomenon as the error of the Judaizers in Galatians, for example. Where is Paul anywhere concerned (yea, downright yanked off) that the cultural leaders of his time apply “biblical principles†to their ruling? There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for such an application to the KoM, unless one forces it in tortured ways. Paul was concerned for cultic truth, not cultural. This is what is meant by the “intolerance of Presbyterianism.†When the lines of are terribly blurred between cult and culture you end up saying things that are actually tolerant of a thing like Mormonism, that it is actually a friend to the endeavor of the faith once delivered. Talk about an “absolute failure of nerve.†You also end up actually suggesting that Judaism and Mormonism may be afforded public assembly and property rights, but on a limited scale. Yeow.
Steve
Phil
July 10th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Establishing Christian orthodoxy is highly confessional—French, Belgic, Thirty-nine, Westminster, Savoy, etc. I would follow the confessions to deal with Mormons and Baptists; this is my answer to your question. It follows that I would oppose a Mormon establishment. I should also say that I have many Baptist friends whom I can admire as Christians while disagreeing with them.
In the meanwhile, I would do as you to oppose “transformationalist†Mormons. I’m not concerned about the Baptists; they would have to give up too much to be as transformational as the Reformed confessions.
A big difference is that I am accounting for the possibility of becoming the “prince.†I do not think I will, but my children might, or those in my circle of influence. It doesn’t consume me, but I ought to have at least the germ of a vision of what a Christian ought to do if he came to power. W2K disallows such a vision, and that’s its weakness.
D Hart
July 10th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Andrew, what makes you think I am not obeying Christ in the secular sphere? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you? Christ told his disciples to pay their taxes and to submit to the powers that exist. Last time I checked, I’m good with IRS and aside from my idiosyncratic driving habits, I am generally follow the laws of the land. But you seem to want more. And let it be noted that you want more than our Lord does. As the local talk show hosts in Philadelphia say, “that’s a violation.” That’s putting the doctrines and commandments of men ahead of the Lord’s. True Christian liberty allows for a diversity of political theories in the church (as opposed to Israel where monarchy only later became the prevailing view).
To say that Baptists and Mormons are no challenge to a Christian American state. Well, tell that to 19th century Mormons living in Utah territory who had to give up polygamy in order to obtain statehood. Or tell that to Isaac Backus who had to pay taxes to support the standing order in colonial New England because Baptists were not part of the establishment. And then for you to say that political participation will be limited to members of orthodox churches, that doesn’t look very accommodating to non-Reformed.
And if you’re not a revolutionary, what does your opposition to all forms of political liberalism mean? That sure looks like some form of opposition to the United States is in the offing. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of the super power that the old US of A has become. And I’d be for efforts to recover our anti-federalist heritage. But your defense of Christian nationalism ends up looking as effete as the weakness of W2K that you denounce.
Phil
July 10th, 2007 at 9:33 am
If I was quoting Scriptures all day when I should be fixing a leaky pipe, my boss ought to discipline me, and if I persisted, he should fire me. But that’s not what I meant. Similarly, Joshua was to meditate on God’s Word day and night to effect military victory over the seven condemned nations, but I doubt that he walked around quoting Bible verses.
I see Joshua 1:8 and Deuteronomy 6:7–9 in a more expansive sense. Rather than walking around the battlefield quoting verses, and rather than quoting Scriptures as I walked with my children “by the way,†we must view all of life through the lens of God’ Word in the contexts where God calls us. So for Joshua, what did the Scriptures say about what he should do? How should he think about those fruit trees over there? What about the dwellings? What about those Canaanite children? Had God spoken directly, and what about legitimate inferences of His Word?
So I speak to my children about all of life through the lens of Scripture. But if you could listen in, you might not be aware that I was exploring biblical implications with them unless you were there nearly all of the time.
Why am I bothered by Geisler? Laws (or anything else) are good only if God thinks so; He (or His Word) is my only standard of ethics. But he (and W2K) split good from godly. That’s utterly baffling to me: why cut God off from “good�
As far as Christ, why should I be bothered when neither He nor His apostles sought any particular “legislation or policy� I’m not very active politically myself. Our calling in the Great Commission is to disciple the nations: governance is only one part of the nations, and sometimes it’s a small part. But it’s an important one. In my own life, it’s about 1/30th of my activities. (In my job, I can be precise.)
As to the Acts, it begins inauspiciously as far as Caesar was concerned, but by the end of the book, Paul was evangelizing Caesar’s household. So Paul’s missionary work was quite unlike American mission activities: half of the Acts is given to reporting Paul’s interactions with intelligentsia and royalty. Everyone needs the Gospel, but so do the social structures. W2K pays no attention to social structures—it’s too individualistic, apparently.
D Hart
July 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Phil, if you’re to view all of life from the lens of Scripture, where do you go for government? If you go to the OT, doesn’t that mean a theocracy?
As for separating good from godly, I do so because the Westminster Divines did. The make this distinction precisely in their teaching on the sanctification of the Lord’s Day. It is a good thing to work in various “secular” occupations and serve God during the week. It is to profane the Lord’s Day to engage in those good activities on the Holy Day.
This is why the W2K perspective is so significant. It avoids fundamentalisms which sees the world as either-or. W2Kers are not merely dualists but triadalists. The see that there is holy, good, and profane in the world. Fundamentalists and Kuyperians only see the world in terms of redeemed or lost.
stevez
July 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
It also avoids the kingdom collapsing of classic Liberalism where everything is holy and all is right with the world (i.e. the seeds of universalism). This is why I like the Venn diagram analogy so much. Whatever differences Neo-Calvinist Kuyperianism, Roman Catholicism, Liberalism and Evangelicalism (there has gotta be more ism’s) have they are covered by kingdom collapsing or blurring…or compromising.
Steve
Phil
July 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Where do I go for government? I go wherever the Bible goes (cf. WCF 19.4). Why should I disallow the OT a priori?
Does this imply a theocracy, as in the form of government from the Exodus to Saul? Not at all. Does theocracy means “rule by God?†Then an anti-theocrat is likely outside the faith (1 Jn. 2:3).
Concerning “good†and “godly,†separation is impossible because only God is the measure of what is good. A methodological atheist, however, can define “good†without resort to “God.†I don’t understand why you desire something like this.
I’m not expanding the cult from Sunday to the rest of the week; that would be an error. Clearly Sunday is distinct from the rest of the week, such as for cultic activities. But Christ, our Redemptive King of both kingdoms, is Lord of all our days. He doesn’t cease to be Lord of all when I enter the public square; He has been Lord of the public square since the Incarnation. Thus my concerns do not transgress the holy-good-profane distinctions.
In short, I don’t know how to justify part-time Christianity. W2K seems precisely committed to that.
Phil
July 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Transformationalism has nothing to do with saying that everything is all right with the world. How could this be if the OT is so informative? Just think of Joshua: did he think all was right with the Canaanite world? Could universalism follow anything modeled on Joshua’s campaign? This is a far sharper distinction from the City of Man than W2K which thinks that God hasn’t spoken with clarity in the left-handed kingdom.
W2K loves to talk about natural law in the left-hand kingdom. While this is quite useful, it’s worse than a wax nose: it can be so easily twisted to great perversion. For instance, see Wikipedia’s article, “List of animals displaying homosexual behavior,†for an indirect justification of homosexuality. After all, if so many critters do it, it must be OK. But this is what we get if when disregard the Scriptures in the left-hand kingdom.
How am I misunderstanding W2K?
D Hart
July 12th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Phil, I think you’re misunderstanding W2K because you don’t recognize how much you owe to it — that is, you don’t seem to realize how what is so daring and controversial is really part of the Reformed tradition.
Yes, your access to the public square does not mean that you are no longer justified when you enter it. But you can’t seem to understand that your being justified or being a follower of Jesus is what gives you access to the public square. Yes, Jesus, your Lord, is Lord of the public square. But you only have access because you’re a citizen of the U.S. You don’t have access because you are a Christian to the public square in England, even though Christ is Lord of the U.K. W2K is trying to do justice to important distinctions in the world of creation and providence, things that God sovereignly controls. Your critique of W2K obliterates all the distinctions that God himself has ordained.
As to part-time Christianity, again you don’t recognize how much you import W2K when you say you don’t want to expand the Lord’s Day to the rest of the week — an error you call it. Well, if only the Lord’s Day is holy, then holiness is in some sense a part-time reality. Yes, all sorts of qualifications are necessary. But again God himself in his infinite wisdom has determined that Christians need only rest from their worldly activities (the good ones) on one day of the week and engage in godly activities of rest and worship.
Why are you so insistent on cutting of Reformed brothers? Where’s the love?
Andrew Matthews
July 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Darryl, you write: “what makes you think I am not obeying Christ in the secular sphere? … Christ told his disciples to pay their taxes and to submit to the powers that exist. Last time I checked, I’m good with IRS and aside from my idiosyncratic driving habits, I am generally follow the laws of the land. But you seem to want more. And let it be noted that you want more than our Lord does.â€
I guess my misgivings about W2K go beyond its recognition of basic civic responsibilities. I’m asking, Darryl, whether you find Christ’s ethical teachings relevant to every area of life or in just the “sacred†sphere. Since there is a moral aspect to all human activity, how do you relate the fuller knowledge of God’s moral will which comes through biblical revelation?
For instance, do you agree with Steve that we should only turn the other cheek and bless our enemies when they are explicitly persecuting us for Christ’s sake? I’m wondering if you endeavor to “take the lowest place†and “give to everyone who asks†in the normal course of life. I’m also wondering if you think it proper to offer thanks for your food in public—if even to bow one’s head and pray silently. I’m trying to determine how consistently you abide by the absolute separation you say obtains between sacred and secular.
And, to press a question I’ve been raising, if it is proper to pray for special blessing for a family, even to consider a particular family “Christian,†and if this is a good thing, why isn’t it desirable to have a “Christian†nation?
You write: “As the local talk show hosts in Philadelphia say, “that’s a violation.†That’s putting the doctrines and commandments of men ahead of the Lord’s. True Christian liberty allows for a diversity of political theories in the church (as opposed to Israel where monarchy only later became the prevailing view).â€
As the Westminster Confession says, that which may be deduced by “good and necessary†consequence is compelling for Christians. For instance, we think it sin that paedobaptism (a practice not explicitly commanded in the NT) is not practiced by all churches. So, as anti-monarchists point out to me all the time, Israel before Saul had a monarchy. God was Israel’s king and his rule was administered by prophets, priests and judges. Why do Christians feel they have the right to subscribe to a social revolution that radically overturned centuries of precedent?
Of course, at this point you’ll say we do have a King—in heaven. My response then, is why wouldn’t we want to have a form of gov’t and laws that reflect this reality?
Does Christian liberty give one the right to believe error? For instance, is it adiaphora to believe that property is theft? That the roles of men and women are interchangeable? That an egalitarian society is preferable? That authority derives from the consent of the governed? At root of all these political questions is an erroneous theological opinion: That God created the world’s goods to be shared equally among all men, that God didn’t endow Adam with authority over Eve, that the priesthood of all believers implies the abolition of class distinctions, that God first endowed humanity as a whole with political authority without respect to Adam’s prime fatherly authority. Do we agree with Thomas Paine that monarchy was the original sin of mankind, or do we agree with Peter and Paul that the king has been endowed with supreme authority (1 Pet. 2:13) as God’s civil minister (Rom. 13:4-5)?
I don’t think Christian liberty gives anyone the right to believe and propagate something as plainly false as popular sovereignty, the idea that political authority derives from popular consent. Democracy arises from a particularly bad theological viewpoint: Vox populi vox Dei. Christian liberty provides no cover for the mistaken notion that majority vote equals the will of God, as if God’s moral will operates through the democratic process.
Besides clearly being idolatry and flattering everyone into thinking their opinions are valuable for the sheer sake of having them, democracy corrupts the morals of the people. Democracy enables the envious mass to pick the pockets of the successful few and feel justified in doing so. As Theodore Dalrymple wrote, “There is more rejoicing in Britain over the bankruptcy of one self-made millionare than over the enrichment of ninety-nine poor men.”
The idea that moral principle, wise judgment, and honest & competent leadership are made more likely by periodic elections is disproved every day by the corruption and demagoguery we see practiced in Washington. What we have seen instead is the creation of an irresponsible lawyer-politician class. The buck always passes and no one is held responsible.
Finally, democracy provides no consistency as the policies of one administration are superseded by the next. A constitutional republic such as ours is meant to maintain stable rule and not to be continuously swayed by the winds of uninformed public opinion. As various methods of direct democracy are implemented (recalls, referendums, term limits) and as mass media facilitates it by constant reference to what the majority feels (polling), the best qualities of our republic erode further. There comes a point when it can be said that a constitutional republic is not functioning as it was intended by the framers. At that point, a fundamental evaluation needs to take place.
You also write: “To say that Baptists and Mormons are no challenge to a Christian American state. Well, tell that to 19th century Mormons living in Utah territory who had to give up polygamy in order to obtain statehood. Or tell that to Isaac Backus who had to pay taxes to support the standing order in colonial New England because Baptists were not part of the establishment.â€
What! You want us to legalize polygamy to accommodate the next sect that comes along which practices it? (I just heard about another one the other day.) I’m not trying to put words in your mouth—so could you clarify your statement here?
I am primarily thinking of mainstream Mormons and Baptists living today, and my judgment is that they don’t pose a threat.
“And then for you to say that political participation will be limited to members of orthodox churches, that doesn’t look very accommodating to non-Reformed.â€
Well, my thought is that all denominations that confess the Nicene Creed could be considered “orthodox†in a broad sense. Yes—I think the RCC is orthodox—and no, I’m not going to bother defending that here.
“And if you’re not a revolutionary, what does your opposition to all forms of political liberalism mean? That sure looks like some form of opposition to the United States is in the offing.â€
America is not eternal; all things must pass. The republic is failing and I see no remedy for it. I’m prepared to bide my time and work toward explaining to people why a more traditional order should be established after the American experiment ends.
“And I’d be for efforts to recover our anti-federalist heritage. But your defense of Christian nationalism ends up looking as effete as the weakness of W2K that you denounce.â€
Well, on this point I’ll reply and say that exerting Christian influence (in a theologically informed way) through the political processes we have now seems more likely to get us to the kind of society I want than the W2K approach will.
MarkPele
July 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Not to be entirely “me too”, but it seems like Dr. Hart clams up every time we get to the logical conclusion of his argument. I’ve challenged him on this very point many times, that many of the state goods and evils are derived SOLELY from the Bible. Without a Biblical view of morality, we cannot declare homosexuality, fornication, theft, murder, treason and a host of other things “wrong”. Thus, Dr. Hart’s secular state cannot have ANY law, because all law finds its basis in morality, and all morality must find its basis in a God-created, Biblically-understood order.
Thus, Dr. Hart is always backed in the corner, through multiple means, of justifying any law and why it should exist on our books. Instead, it turns into a cliche fest about “Christian coffee mugs”, Magistrates “turning the other cheek”, etc. I, for one am tired of debating something so ridiculous as arbitrarily and purposefully misrepresenting the context of Christ’s words. Dr. Hart, remember, this is the same Christ who told his disciples to “buy swords” - was that for the purpose of turning their cheeks, or do you want us to just ignore the parts of the Bible that don’t jive with your pluralistic view of the public sphere?
D Hart
July 27th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I hope MarkPele doesn’t own a sword.
Sounds like he’d use it on me. But Mark, if you’re so tired debating, how do you think I feel?
And for what it’s worth, how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality? (Is a biblical view of morality the same as biblical morality, or a redaction of it?)
Andrew writes: “Of course, at this point you’ll say we do have a King—in heaven. My response then, is why wouldn’t we want to have a form of gov’t and laws that reflect this reality?”
Swordless Hart answers: because that would immanentize the eschaton. Maybe this is why patience is a Christian grace.
stevez
July 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“…how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality?”
I wonder if the explanation would cover how “whiter” governments (i.e. those with Christianly influence) at once upheld strictures against these things and persecuted Christians? I don’t think the Third Reich tolerated either homosexuals/treason/theft or Christians. I don’t think Stalin did either. If the thumbnail litmus test about how “biblical” a society is, how does one explain societies that officially point to institutional Christianity, attempt to prove that influence by how it upholds certain moralities, yet also have crushed God’s own people?
Steve
Andrew Matthews
July 29th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Darryl, I’m not a professional historian, but I thought I learned somewhere that Islam arose in an area that the Gospel had already reached. Mohammed self-consciously constructed his new religion out of the pre-existing materials of Judaism and Christianity (as well as pagan sources, I believe). Biblical morality was common intellectual currency in that time and place.
If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon? If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle’s validity.
You say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That’s an assertion which has yet to be proven. It certainly isn’t obvious to me.
And just because the Church doesn’t possess the power of the sword per se, it does not therefore follow that the wielder of the sword isn’t answerable to the Church’s judgment. Just because the bar of justice is not holy as the communion rail is holy, it does not follow that Christ’s rule is parsed into discrete redemptive and providential dispensations. A lot more is required to establish W2K’s unassailability than constant reiteration of stale theological jargon (theology of cross/glory, immanentizing the eschaton) with anachronistic appeals to Augustine, Calvin and Westminster. These appeals are anachronistic because no account has been given of how these revered men of the past understood the relation of their theory to their own practice. Are we really to believe these fathers in the faith were blind to an inconsistency that moderns find self-evident? I submit that this “inconsistency” is neither so obvious nor so self-evident as W2K men suppose.
D Hart
July 29th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Andrew, regarding the staleness of ideas, the theology of the cross/theology of glory is hardly old news. I’ve actually been accused of being Lutheran, and that was not meant as a compliment. The ideas that are stale are actually the Lordship of Christ minus some tension with the NT language of exile and alienation. Covenanters, Kuyperians, theonomists, evangelicals and mainline Protestants have all trumpeted the Lordship of Christ. To dissent is to be dismissed as fundamentalist or Lutheran. You, Andrew, are in the majority, and your tactics against the minority position are ironically defensive. Live large. Modern Protestant history is on your side.
These comments might also shed some perspective on Andrew’s aside that W2K is unassailable. If only.
Andrew also writes: “You (DGH) say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That’s an assertion which has yet to be proven.” Read Voegelin, read any number of books on millennialism in the U.S., think about Reagan invoking the city on a hill, read A Secular Faith. None of these items may prove it to you. But it is not exactly an obscure position to suggest that establishing Christ’s rule leads magistrates to think of themselves or their state in millennial terms. It is what humans — you know the fall and making ourselves gods — do.
BTW, if Andrew wants to claim that Muslim prohibitions against certain forms of wickedness stems from a prior influence of the gospel, wouldn’t the same cultural logic apply to secular forms of thought which originated in the Christian West?
MarkPele
July 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Don’t worry, I’d only use the sword to cut your connection to the internet ;). I guess a Red Herring is the same as walking away. The point is not whether or not other cultures have similar laws, but that those similar laws, of necessity derive themselves in the truth. I think it was Greg Bahnsen who talked of the two buildings. Both buildings have light, but upon careful inspection, you see that there is a wire plugged into the Christian building running into the non-Christian building. So, in effect, his notion is that all of the “truth” that the secular world enjoys is derived from the Christian faith.
So, as Andrew already pointed out historically in the case of Islam, laws concerning homosexuality stem from the Christian understanding of marriage. As Romans 1 points out so eloquently, there is a progression from truth to wickedness. The first step is to replace the truth of God with folly, and then the subsequent steps lead to worship of creation. Maybe Muslims have laws regarding homosexuality, but they also allow polygamy, condone terrorism and murder of “infidels”. But Romans put this clearly into perspective - the basis for this is primarily a rejection of God.
So, Romans 1 says that the eventual result of rejection of God is gross immorality. I may be a bit on a logical limb, but, since Romans says “they”, I will say that I can arbitrarily replace it with any group of people, let’s say, nations.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of NATIONS who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to the NATIONS. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though the NATIONS knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, NATIONS became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave NATIONS over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For the NATIONS exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave NATIONS over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although NATIONS know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
We see that groups of people (they) must acknowledge their creator, or they, of necessity end up in the darkness of human depravity. Maybe this is why the sole judgment of kings in the Old Testament was whether they served God or rejected Him. Those who rejected God drove their people to do the same, and those who served God encouraged their people to do the same.
Thus it seems evident that the critical mistake (or rejection) of the Founding Fathers was to ignore the Creator and instead pay homage to the created (We the people). Now, we are paying the price with a nation that not only is unrighteous, but encourages others to be unrighteous.
MarkPele
July 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Dr. Hart, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “immanantizing the eschaton”. In following the logical conclusion, the argument “do not sin so that grace may abound” applies. If it is a Biblical and noble goal to bring everything in subjection to Christ, then how do people following a Biblical and noble goal thus draw your scorn? If it is more than the mere attitude of bringing in eternity, as you seem to be saying, then what other things ought I to disobey God in to prevent your scorn? Maybe a well placed smack on the faces of those I love will keep eternity far away? Seriously, though, you’re poking holes in the Great Commission by saying that “discipling the nations” is a sinful and counterproductive goal.
D Hart
July 30th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Mark, the entire point of this exercise is a debate on what is noble and Biblical. I have yet to affirm that Christianizing America is noble or biblical. And if I have scorn it is only because many today have not considered efforts in the past to Christianize America and how those efforts invariably compromised the gospel. Why would you, then, threaten someone who is trying to defend the integrity of the gospel with the sword? Scorn indeed.
MarkPele
July 30th, 2007 at 10:14 am
In fact, Dr. Hart, you disagree that Christianizing America is noble and Biblical. And, it seems that you’re unwilling to “dig in” to any of my arguments, but instead throw out Red Herrings to get me off of the scent. Let me restate my arguments so that you can deal with them:
1) Justice and morality are uniquely Christian and reflect a view of the creation that only Christians can obtain. While other religions and non-religions may claim morality, their view of morality is, of necessity, skewed. Thus, only a Christian state can offer justice and morality. God through common grace has allowed the reprobate to show some level of these in an external way, but that is not the same. “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal,But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” (Prov 12:10)
2) It is impossible to separate secular (temporal) from eternal in any meaningful way with regard to the state. The Christian cannot turn off his soul to deal with politics, or tell God to “take a hike” while he decides matters of policy. Church and State divide along this boundary, yet the Church must, of necessity, deal with temporal matters in guiding her members to eternity. In the same way, the temporal actions of the state cannot be removed from their eternal consequences, like the wicked kings of Judah who led their people into idolatry.
3) Like it or not, the Bible has a “national” view, as well as an individual view. Search for “nation” in the Bible and it’s pretty hard to deny that. Thus God is particularly interested in the actions of nations, as is seen in Psalm 72: 1-2, “Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s son. May he judge Your people with righteousness And Your afflicted with justice.” and Psalm 2: 8-9 “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.”
4) Our desire to bring all of creation under the rule of Christ is a noble and Biblical goal. Jesus Himself, in teaching us to pray said, “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven.” Also, as is seen above in Psalm 72, we ask for God to give the king (our leaders) righteousness, why? that he may “judge Your people with righteousness”. To “immanantize the eschaton” as you seem to sneer at, is not condemned, but is in fact what we are to pray for in our model prayer. Do you sing Psalm 72, or do you sneer at verses that say, “And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him.”, or do you eternalize it to say that it should never be our goal that nations serve Christ before He comes again?
stevez
July 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon?”
Reliability doesn’t seem to imply perfection–at least to me. Doesn’t a (high and rigorous Augustinian-Calvinist, which is to say, biblical)doctrine of sin figure in to explain why things go amuck? And if the question is to imply that special grace helps in transcending humanity (either instituionally or personally), how do you explain Christians who have mucked things up?
“If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle’s validity.”
Really. I happen to agree; I am in that minority when it comes to the particularities of justice (sigh…yet another minority for me. Darryl’s right, Andrew, live it large, guy But why is that some sort of litmus test? As persuaded as I am, why can’t the other side of the table exist without being notched up as, at best, culprits to the fall of justice in the west, or, at worst, God-haters who need to watch over their left shoulder? And, why has this abandonment not made the narrow list of “why God should burn down America” per the co/belligerents of the Right? Let’s see, we have the abortionists and all within a 100 mile radius and the gay marriage folks (then other rather minority platforms)…where are the CP abolitionists? I never see them on the monger list. Maybe it’s because that’s the only rule they keep: stay two-dimensional at all costs (that and “admit nothing”).
Steve