Accidental Christendom?
Was Christendom an accidental mistake? Did a shrewd and manipulative Pagan politician named Constantine sully the purity of Apostolic Christianity? This is an increasingly popular reading of history. Is it accurate?
The Problem of Primitivism
Often, Protestants confuse purity with primitivism. What do we mean by primitivism? Have you ever heard a Protestant claim that their denomination (usually congregation) reflects the theology and practice of apostolic purity? If so, you have encountered primitivism. Primitivism presents a serious challenge to our doctrine of corporate confession. Critics declare that the idea of a Christian nation seems far removed from the concerns of New Testament Christianity. Rather, it is claimed, the pure church is the one that most closely apes what it believes to be apostolic Christianity. Do we suggest that the Church should have another standard than that of the apostolic church infallibly described in the Book of Acts? Allow me to explain.
The church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:20). Houses are built upon foundations. Christ’s church is a house that is being built by God (1 Cor. 3:9,10). As the church is raised, God sets its strong foundation upon the ministry of the Apostles and the prophets. The role of the Apostles and prophets was to infallibly expound the meaning of the person and work of Christ. Having done so, the Apostles left us with a canon of Scripture so that their foundation, once laid, would provide support for the ministry of Pastors, Teachers, and Ruling Elders to do the work of raising superstructure.
Considering the fundamental division between foundation and superstructure we must understand the progressive development of revelation that exists within the New Testament. Not all that occurred during the dynamic days of the Apostles is regulative for church history. One need only compare the description of church life found in 1st Corinthians 12-14 (penned by Paul around A.D. 55) and the relatively subdued, orderly, and normative descriptions found in the “pastoral epistlesâ€. Thus, Richard Gaffin warns against the danger of reading Acts, “as a more or less random samplings of earliest Christian piety and practice, as a compilation of the church—a more or less loose collection of edifying and inspiring episodes, usually with the nuance that they were the ‘good old days, when Christians were really Christians.’†(Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, pg. 23).
From Jerusalem to Rome
Why is primitivism so dangerous for a biblical view of Christianity? Should we not content ourselves with the faith and practice of the apostolic area? Count the cost. Recognize that truly biblical formulations of the relationship between the persons of the Godhead were not worked out until the 4th Century. The same is true for well-defined statements about the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Father, as well as the relationship of His divinity to His humanity. The biblical doctrine of justification was not well defined until the 16th Century. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most biblically satisfying creed in all of Christendom, was a product of the 17th Century. Primitivism adores the acorn but scorns the oak. Thus, the primitivist abhors Christendom. He never tires of telling the story of the good old days when the church was purified by the fires of persecution. Oh, the glorious days of the confessors and the martyrs, cut off, sorrowfully and abruptly, by the conversion of Emperor Constantine. The true church suffers, not only the sanctifying struggle against inward sin, but externally against the beastly kingdoms of men whose worldly interests share no common ground with the Kingdom of God established by Jesus Christ.
Primitivism is not a uniquely Protestant problem. Almost immediately following the conversion of the Empire and its official recognition of the Church, the desert fathers renounced the world and took to the wilderness. The monastic severity of St. Anthony owed its origin to a romantic vision of the primitive and suffering church. More dangerous forms of primitivism would follow. The Donatists of the 4th Century and the Anabaptists of the 16th would make suffering primitivism the mark of their heterodoxy.
With this in mind, I remind you of the risen Christ’s words to the Apostles, “You shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8).†Luke uses Jesus words to the Apostles as introduction to the organizing theme of the book of Acts. The book of Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. Do not miss the subtle suggestion. The gospel’s arrival in Rome is far from accidental. The capital of a world empire, Rome truly represented, and ruled, the ends of the earth.
Pagan Rome’s Natural Death?
Let us not jump to an opposite extreme. The early church was not filled with radical revolutionaries obsessed with political manipulation of the Empire to fulfill its worldly desires. Although ferociously persecuted by various Emperors, the church did not raise arms or defend its “rights†through violence. Rather, they responded by praying for their rulers and by showing themselves to be the best of citizens.
The Church Fathers make it clear that the church was anything but a revolutionary institution, at least in any ordinary sense. Christians exercised their freedom in Christ by glad submission to civil and social authority. Authority was to be honored even when it degenerated into tyranny (Roman 13:1-4). Yet, the gospel of Christ crucified, resurrected and ascended was revolutionary nonetheless. As Christ was preached, the old “gods†lost their power (Acts 17:5-8; Rev. 20:1-3). The temples decayed. The worship of the Emperor, the cult upon which Roman culture rested, faltered. T.S. Eliot’s Journey of the Magi captures the political and cultural realities of the dawning age:
…were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutch their gods.
I should be glad of another death. (Collected Poems 1909-1962, pg. 100)
In 313, Emperor Constantine began the long process of Rome’s conversion.
Three years later, in 316, amidst the provincial glory of his retirement palace in Split, Diocletian, the last pagan “godâ€, breathed his last. So expired the Roman incarnation of pagan divinity. Christ had conquered the old gods. Rome was daily being transformed. Nearly two centuries before, Latin Church Father Tertullian boasted, “We are but of yesterday, yet we fill your cities, islands, forts, towns, councils, even camps, tribes, decuries, the palace, the senate, the forum; we have left you the temples alone”. The effect of gospel preaching is organic transformation of all areas of life to the glory of Christ. Rome, once drunk on the blood of the martyrs, was being transformed from inside out. The Psalmist had declared the duty of nations: “kiss the Sonâ€. Was Christendom an accident? No, Christendom is the natural (or should we say supernatural) result of the gospel preached to the nations. Only a stunted and deformed sub-Christian primitivism could despise Christendom’s blessed fruit and comforting promise.
“Authority was to be honored even when it degenerated into tyranny”
I’m not sure I understand how Romans 13 proves that this a valid premise.
Just because a tyrannt claims athority (because he has the power of force) does not make it so, as far as I’m concerned.
Am I wrong to hold that tyrannts are never to be honored as legitimate?
Consider the reign of Caesar Nero and reread Romans 13 or 1 Peter comments on submission to civil governors.
Tyrants are never to be honored as legitimate? Not so. Tyrants can be the ordinance of God to chastise a sinful people. Tyrants can serve many functions… including imposing order on a rebellious people.
Are all tyrants to be honored as legitimate? No, there is a right to self-defense for individuals and communities. Where is the line? That is a tough question. Here I stick pretty close to Calvin and commend his thoughts in the Institutes.
Since I am not privy to the comments of Calvin in his Institutes as it relates here.
I would then have to wonder, who determines if we honor a tyrannt or rebel? Or perhaps you could help me understand exactly what you mean by “honor” a tyrannt. Aside from let him chop my head off, as an act of martyrdom, I cannot come up with too many ways to honor him.
Bill, I do think primitivism is a problem from which all people who can’t live with historical development suffer. If I want to justify my position, all I do is go back and claim it is the one held by the founders. This is what originalists do with the Constitution, and what Covenanters do with the covenant, even when there is a great gap between their time and ours.
But a good point on primitivism does not make your point about Christendom good. What if the oak that the acorn produced was infested? It may not mean we topple the oak. And I think that Protestantism is in continuity with western Christianity, the apple not having fallen far from the tree. But this won’t resolve the debate over Christian culture. And it certainly complicates that debate to have a Covenanter citing for support an emperor who presided over the Eastern church. I thought Covenanters believed in the Lordship of Christ, not Constantine, over the church. (I also thought Covenanters were Presbyterian.) Boy does the search for Christian culture make for strange bedfellows.
I can’t remember where I read it, but there was a religious historian who once defined one of the characteristics of “fundamentalism” (a dicey and nebulous term, for sure) to be both a romantic notion of a “golden age” and a call to return to that golden age. I have always thought that, however problematic that criterion may be, it may be a useful distinction between those who “have an eye” toward a movement of men and those who are seeking to recover something more objectively, something more churchly. I wonder if this might be the difference between the spirit of something like the Reformation and mere…”primitivism.” Another word might be Fundamentalism, which isn’t so much concerned for truth (as it contends), so much as it is a sentimentality about truth, accompanied by regular blather about some golden age that needs to be recovered.
I think one runs into a lot of this in Reformed circles, a sort of committment to a committment…Reformed Fundamentalism. It seems also charcaterized by an angry entrenchment. Just the other day I was skating around on the Puritan Board and saw a post by a Matthew McMahon which seemed a good expression of this in his explanation of how his second church plant has closed its doors. I think his tirading serves as a good anecdotal example of the difference between good conservative confessionalism and Reformed Fundamentalism, where primitivism is but one nasty ingredient.
Something tells me that a committment to Christendom is very different from a committment to the confessions, for example. One seems somehow compromised to follow the ways of men, while one seems entirely consumed with the testimony of Scripture. It seems like there is a difference between primativism and, say, recovery.
“The biblical doctrine of justification was not well defined until the 16th Century.” Really? I guess I have always thought of it as having been recovered and reiterated at that time, which seems to suggest it was well defined at some point. What do you mean exactly by this statement?
Steve
I appreciate what Peter J. Leithart wrote recently: “Christendom is as much about the church vigorously challenging imperial policy as it is about the church supporting it.”
Bill wondered a bit back, “But then I ask myself the question. What if the gospel takes root in China? Will China remain unchanged? Will its culture not be… transformed? Not on the basis of politics, but through the impact of souls who have been ordered according to the standards of a Christ and His law.†And then, “The effect of gospel preaching is organic transformation of all areas of life to the glory of Christ. Rome, once drunk on the blood of the martyrs, was being transformed from inside out…Christendom is the natural (or should we say supernatural) result of the gospel preached to the nations.â€
BC Article 24
“In the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them.â€
HBC
“Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer. Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.â€
WCF, XIII (Of Sanctification)
“II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.â€
I think Bill rightly wonders about this sort of “outside in†effort or more objective means to Christianize, etc. But what he seems to suggest as an alternative is what I find even more interesting. Specifically, it seems to assume that the old models of “outside in†are passé and to be highly questioned, but that, instead, we should perhaps go the way of the “inside out.†Simply put, to make people Christians. I have no quarrel there at all. However, the aim still seems to be in mind that just doing this for its own sake is not enough; that converting souls is below the threshold; that the final point seems to be to convert souls so that they may be rightly ordered so that they might, in turn, have an appreciable effect on the society in which they live in the here and now (which seems quite different from the paltry idea of merely converting them in order to prepare them for the life to come instead). Changing the world—whatever that might mean—is still the goal, only it should probably be an inside job. That sounds really good until I read the above sections from the forms.
I still wonder how we are to understand just what sort of dazzling “influence or effect†we should really expect to have on the world around us in light of such uninspiring words in the forms about our very selves. Their language seems quite pessimistic and not very good for rallying troops to take a lot of hope in their current state, to say nothing of ordering society; they don’t seem all that encouraging about how such projects might end. How can those who “can do no work but what is polluted by the flesh; whose best works in this life are imperfect and defiled with sin; or have corruption (yet) in every part†be the same ones in charge of ordering either self or the world?
At this point, some seem to suggest a cumulative and strangely osmosis-like, almost magical, effect. There seems this idea that we “emit influences†into the unbelieving world which is so drastic that the latter begins to change; and anything perceived as good in human history can only be the result of the Church’s presence. But it seems like the forms suggest we should expect that each successive generation of believers may only hope to make a start, then it dies, then a new generation rises up and begins from the very same place, makes only a hint of progress and dies, and so forth. When is there any time to have any appreciable impact on society when, in our limited time and bodily frame, each one of our generations can only hope to “make a start,†and that barely noticeable? Meanwhile, the Church hobbles along in various fractures and in-fighting and all sorts of lamentable things, while the unbelieving world metaphorically basks in the sun of our very presence, getting the lion’s share of the vitamins. But how does that work? If anybody, the Church be getting better and better instead of the world…shouldn’t it? How can the unbelieving world get better when it doesn’t even possess faith? We have faith and yet we can’t even hope for things to look up very much in this life, evidently. Or maybe I read the forms wrong. Maybe I should read such “pessimistic†words to be in the order of a cordial “nobody is perfect†kind of way, a sort of polite put-on piety that feigns humility but where deep down we know it’s a different story…I mean, after all, we are called a “royal priesthood.†Instead of being aghast regularly by such a title maybe we should get comfortable with it?
Steve
I am unable to keep up with the likes of Dr. Hart or Steve; I get distracted to easily so I must return to where I started on this post.
I yet contend with the statement “Tyrants are never to be honored as legitimate? Not so.”
I suppose I need clarification on what you mean by “honor”.
I cannot see how scripture instructs us honor those that oppose God’s law from a position of power, and I would say tyrany does not comport with the law of God.
Further, it would appear to me that honoring a tyrant flies in the face of the sixth commandment.
Frederick, how would a bunch of ministers who haven’t gone to a school of government ever think they knew enough to challenge state policy? By what authority would they ever think they could do such a thing? Wouldn’t it be like historians telling the president how to conduct his affairs? Even then, the historians would have more knowledge of public, domestic and international policy than ministers of the Word.
Dave,
I hear what you are saying. As Brutus said, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”
Q. How are you defining tyrant? I wonder because of your comment on the 6th Commandment.
Another Q. Does God only call those without a personal armory to be martyrs? Is a martyr the guy who looses the shooting match?
The early church did not think so. Rather, they submitted to death but never to sin.
I think this is the distinction we are looking for… tyrants are to be honored as authority providentially established by God in all things lawful. That is, when confronted by a sinful law or command, the church knows the answer to the question, “is it better to obey God or men.”
Thus the church is a conservative and not a revolutionary institution. We do not call for the overthrow of governments, even bad ones, although we do call them to obedience to Christ and His law.
How do you read Romans 13?
Romans 13:1-7 NKJ Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear…
Leithart also says,
“As Bediako says, churches “will have to continue learning to worship God and his Christ, witness to the Gospel, survive in joy, and strive for peace and justice and democratic freedom for all. Christian evangelisation and nurture, and hence the Church, are essential elements in the process whereby a society’s outlook, value-systems, thought-patterns and social and political arrangements become permeated with the mind of Jesus.”
Something tells me I could reach back into 20th Century American Liberalism and find a similar sentiment, a veiled way of exporting human systems under the guise of true religion. No, that is not a guilt-by-assocation move (although hopefully it gives those with nasty things to say about Liberals some pause). It’s simply to wonder, what’s the difference?
What a low view of the Gospel and the Church. It just isn’t strong enough elixir, Frederick. Sounds attractive…to 21st Century American Christians, I suppose, to think the faith is single-handedly responsible for “democracy, joy, peace, justice and freedom.” But didn’t unbelievers have that figured out well before the Advent? Were they not called Athenians?
No, it sure seems the Gospel *still* transcends even that.
Steve
Dr. Hart,
You ask: how would a bunch of ministers who haven’t gone to a school of government ever think they knew enough to challenge state policy?
An excellent question. First, the earliest bishops had educations that were as good if not better than most emperors (before modern specialization, the cult of the expert, and the retreat of the church from the world). Second, the challenge from the church is not limited to religious experts (clerics, ministers, bishops), but more than ever demands that lay people in every sphere of life follow Christ without counting the cost.
I’m no scholar by any means, but I have been reading two works that address these questions head on: Church and State in Early Christianity by H Rahner (which is 55% original documents) and – believe it or not – The Laity and the Life of the Counsels by HU von Balthasar.
…and if it’s the stuff of more general state-building we should be either after or tearing down, or, specifically, justice we seem to want to be all about, we could always look to Jesus’ own Rome. You know, the one that hoisted Him up high.
Part of the scandal of the Cross at the time was that Rome was an exacter of justice. If you were nailed to a tree it was because you should have been. The two thieves on either side were there because Rome was so good at maintaining law and order. The scandal on the ground, so to speak, wasn’t that we were killing God so much as it was that, to human eyes, the cause was lost at the hands of exact justice; it was foiled because it should have been foiled. (Providentially speaking, God’s use of this kind of Rome actually shows at once how just the sentence on us concerning our sin is and unjust that it was placed upon Him.)
It’s one thing to want to pursue “law and order†or just state craft for temporal purposes. It seems quite another to want to link it up with eternal purposes. They seem like two great tastes that, in point of fact, do *not* go great together (sorry, Reeses). The last time those two met up, well, you know.
Steve
“First, the earliest bishops had educations that were as good if not better than most emperors (before modern specialization, the cult of the expert, and the retreat of the church from the world).”
Yeah, but even so, why do I get the feeling it’s not their level of education that is being pointed to but rather their status as Christians, the implication that no matter what endeavor it is such religious figures are always at least one step ahead of everyone else?
Steve
I’ll reiterate. What is this thing Bill calls Christendom?
Christendom is the historic, real world, application of the mediatorial Kingship of Christ over the nations. It includes the unity of Europe before the Reformation, the magesterial reformation as developed in England, the Continent, and Scotland, and within America as a peculiar tradjectory of the Anglo-Saxon, Scots-Irish tradition. With Russell Kirk, I affirm that American tradition is British. Thus, Americans are are legitimate heirs of Anglo-Christendom.
Against my better judgment, I’ll throw in a few cents to this discussion. First, this article comes from an understanding that the church and state are separate spheres with separate authority. So, our response to tyranny is guided by two separate questions, what is my response as a citizen, and what is my response as a Christian. These both need to be resolved with integrity – having a single front.
So, the difficulty with tyranny is that we’re asking two different questions with respect to tyrants: first, what is my response to tyranny as a citizen, and second, what is my response to a tyrant who specifically targets Christians as enemies. I think that it is valid for a citizen to oppose “secular” tyranny through the use of force. For example, the Revolutionary War opposed the tyranny of King George through the use of force. But “religious” tyranny is opposition to Christ and His Kingship rather than mere abuse of power. In those cases, we act in subjection to Christ, who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18:36). Thus when we face spiritual opposition, we do not respond physically.
Now, just so Mr. Hart is not off the hook, a Christian desires to live with integrity, and thus he desires that both the “secular” state and “religious” church conform to the Lordship of Christ. Thus Christendom, as Chellis suggests is the integration and proper balance of a state and church both under visible subjection to Christ. Thus, we as Christians should desire to see Christ’s authority made manifest in our state, and not let the state go to Hell as seems to be the only alternative.
Bill, Europe wasn’t unified before the Reformation. That’s what all that business about the barbarians and the missions to them and the rivalries between kings and electors, and kings and popes, was all about. Christendom actually produced — count ‘em — three popes. Unfortunately, I think your version of Christendom is too neat to suit your abstract definition of Christ’s kingship. BTW, it was also very Roman Catholic. Is that the best you can do for the manifestation of the kingship of Christ? A Roman Catholic society? Bless him, Kuyper would be doing cartwheels in his grave.
If the only alternative, as Mark puts it, is for the state to go to hell if Christ’s authority is not manifest, then why didn’t Christ, when he was here, or his apostles, when they had the chance, see that the state manifested their Lord’s authority? Think of how delinquent Paul and Silas were in Acts 16 when given their freedom in jail they stayed and witnessed to the jailer. Why didn’t they use that liberty to protest outside the palace?
DGH accuses my view of society of being “very Roman Catholic.” Well, if I had to chose between the tradition from Augustine to Aquinas vs. Kuyper to Dooyweerd. But my defense is this, did Luther or Calvin want to destroy the nature of the society in which they lived? Or reform its soteriology and ecclesiology. Are you confusing the 2 Kingdoms?
Further, I agree that Christendom was messy. Politics is always messy. I do not want to introduce to eschaton, simply to honor the fact that God created the world and Christ governs it from His right hand for the good of the church.
Now, beyond that fact, I think we would agree on much. I am extremely comfortable with the American church-state settlement as a proper application of Andrew Melville’s Two Kingdom view. I am happy for the state to be institutionally seperated from the church and vice-versa. I am happy for the state to use its sword to defend my property and to prevent injustice as best as possible in a fallen, sinful world.
Christ’s reign of nature is not the same as His reign over grace. I do not wish to confuse the two.
Therefore, to be clear, I do not have a Roman Catholic view of Christendom (i.e. church over state). And although I love these boys (Hooker, Burke, Eliot), I do not have an Anglican view of Christendom (i.e. state over church). Rather, I have an American view of Christendom (church and state as seperate institutions each answering to God according to their respective callings).
In this sense, America’s was very much a Presbyterian, Melvilleian, founding… no? O.K. so the state did not confess Christ explicitly, but the nation has… and in some flawed but continuing sense… does. I am not a revolutionary. As Kirk and others have shown, drawing a line of demarcation between Christendom and America is a mistake.
Bill, to be precise, I was accusing you of pining for a Christian society in which Roman Catholicism was the religion of choice — the very same Roman Catholicism that prompted Luther’s and Calvin’s reforms.
As your own clarification implies, soteriology is a problem for Christendom. And as I’ve been trying to argue at length, the move to Christianize society leads to bad soteriology. It’s happened to both Protestants and Roman Catholics.
Where comes then this sense that our iteration of Christian society will keep all the balls in the air? Is it really “morning in America?”
DGH, to that charge I dissent. I prefer the America of 1789 to either the Rome of 312 or the Scotland of 1643.
It is the tradjectory of Anglo-American (a Protestant tradition, no?) Christendom that is my interest. I pine for no golden era yet I admit that I am not without a sense of nostalgia. The American tradition is robust, diverse, and has is the inheritor of a number of important tradjectories (including both the Scottish Reformation and Scottish Enlightenment).
It is only against the tide of god-hating radicalism that I stand.
Dr. Hart, these are all arguments from silence. I don’t know the answers to them, but I might offer a similarity. In Matthew 15:24, Jesus says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Now, if we contrast that with what we see in Romans 3:29-30, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.” We are either faced with a Biblical contradiction (that Jesus came only for the Jews, and yet Jesus also came for the Gentiles), or we see a difference between the ministry that Jesus conducted while He was on the earth and the ministry that he conducts throughout history.
So, I argue that the mere fact that Jesus (and Paul and Silas) did not force themselves into the political realm does not say that Christians should avoid the political realm at all costs. I find it quite interesting, alternatively, that Paul witnessed to the Sanhedrin, the Governor Festus, Herod Agrippa, and finally Caesar. Why do you think that it was so important that God made himself known to Caesar? “Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar;” (Acts 27:24)
Bill, I’m no fan of god-hating radicalism. Nor am I partial to idolatrous Roman Catholicism or Mormonism. But the American tradition has made room for them all, not simply at the insistence of the god-hating radicals.
Mark, if it was so important for God to make himself known to Caesar (which, by the way, before Paul arrived Caesar already knew God according to Paul in Romans 1), why didn’t he send Jesus instead of Paul?
Darryl, point taken and I am thankful for it (the tradition not the point… but that also). Rather let me clarify. I have not interest in “christianizing” America. That work has long been accomplished. Rather, I wish only to defend what good we have recieved and strengthen some of that which has been weakened.
I may get fired for saying so but I am more a conservative than a covenanter… more a Burkean than a Cameronian. No radicalism here.
Dr. Hart, again, an argument from silence. As I said, Jesus answered this: he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The gospel was symbolically opened up to the Gentiles through Peter’s vision, the conversion of Cornelius with the subsequent fallout and resolution in Acts 15. As to God’s hidden purposes in sending Paul and not Jesus to Caesar, I try not to speculate too much.
Let me flip the argument on you, though. You seem to be saying that every good and important work must have been demonstrated (and recorded) through Jesus Christ first, otherwise it is either not good or not important. Thus, pretty much any vocation is unimportant except perhaps being a pastor. Because, well, if God thought Christian scientific inquiry were important, Jesus would have been a Christian scientist.
I contend that while politics and claiming the nation for Christ is not of utmost importance, it is also not appropriate to say that the Bible has nothing to say about how Christians should work within the state to claim it for Christ.
Bill,
I wonder if you might so good as to humor me, because I am honestly interested to connect the dots you seem to want to draw. Throw a dog a bone.
“I have not interest in “christianizing†America…It is the tradjectory of Anglo-American (a Protestant tradition, no?) Christendom that is my interest.”
When the latter statement seems quite laden with religio-speak…what is it that you see as the difference between these two sentiments? I guess I don’t understand what is so wrong with Christianizing America if it’s a “Protestant tradition” (the Anglo part) you want to see mingled with a civil one (the American part). At least when Andrew says he is a co-belligerent with the religious right it makes sense to me; his lines of argumentation lead to such a logical conclusion (he may claim to want to zig a little here or there, but essentially he and the Jerry-Jim’s are on the same page). Is it a matter of degree for you…or something else?
Steve
Thanks Steve. Good questions. My claim is that the Christian faith does, necessarily, impact nations and cultures. Second, that impact has occured and continues to occure here in the West.
Maybe this puts me in the middle of things. I have little use for the Christian Right unless you consider Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and other traditionalists (who were heavily influenced by Christian thought) the Christian right.
I am not a revolutionary who has a plan to “reconstruct” America or the West. I am happy to defend the patrimony we have recieved and to think through a Christian defense of that tradition. My goals are modest.
Thanks for enduring me on this. I am trying to get a bead on why there seems to be a measure of agreement, but then something you say seems to indicate that you’ll really have none of it. The answer, as I suspected, seems to be in degree…
“My claim is that the Christian faith does, necessarily, impact nations and cultures. Second, that impact has occured and continues to occure here in the West.â€
OK. So contra Darryl, you would say that you perceive that culture is vulnerable cult and not the other way around; and, despite whatever foibles here or there, this impact has been and continues to be necessarily a good thing.
“Maybe this puts me in the middle of things. I have little use for the Christian Right unless you consider Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and other traditionalists (who were heavily influenced by Christian thought) the Christian right.â€
So you see your views as being moderated somewhere between what Darryl and Andrew Matthews puts forth. This is what seems confusing, because…
“I am not a revolutionary who has a plan to “reconstruct†America or the West. I am happy to defend the patrimony we have recieved and to think through a Christian defense of that tradition. My goals are modest.â€
So it is a matter of degree. However modest, you would contend that Christianity necessarily has something to say to how the temporal world is ordered, etc. This matter of degree is what I cannot reconcile. If you are allowing for that rule to stand, I don’t understand how much of the criticism against a phenomenon like the RR (or left or whatever) makes much sense. If I tell my daughter she is forbidden from listening to certain music due to its content, it matters little how softly or loudly she plays it; putting on headphones doesn’t solve our problem since there is a principle at stake. At the end of the day, don’t you really have to side with the views Andrew takes?
Steve
With clarity… let me again affirm… Christianity impact the whole of the man including his social and cultural relationships. I believe this as a fact revealed from Scripture but am strengthen in this belief by the history of the West. I have affirmed before (and will continue to do so) that culture flows from the cult. This is the insight of Toynbee, Voegelin, Dawson, and Kirk. It is testified to by the Noahic Covenant of Common Grace.
What is the alternative? Cultural revolution? If you are opposed, as a matter of principle, to the impact of Christainity on culture, what are you left with? French Jacobinism? Pealing away the unacceptable incluence of Christianity upon our institutions?
As for comparing my position to other, whether they be to Andrew or Darryl, I will leave to you… but please do not link me with Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson.
“Pealing away the unacceptable incluence[sic] of Christianity upon our institutions?”
By this, do you mean those aspects of “christianity” that are unacceptable? Ergo, dogmatacism lending to church over state? If so, isn’t wanting to peal that rubbish away a far cry from Jacobinism?
I would percieve it to be a good example of rejectiing, as Dr. Hart said, “…idolatrous Roman Catholicism or Mormonism”.
Here’s a great example of how Rev. Chellis’ statement that every aspect of the man is impacted by their faith and yet another reason I’m more than just a touch displeased with Rome: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28842
Dave, apart from the Rome bashing (that would include excluding Pat Buchanan, Justice Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas, Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, ect.), I agree with your first point.
I am afraid you have missed my point. I was responding to Steve and asking him to clarify his alternative vision. Such a position, alienated from historical experience, must end in revolution.
Notice: it is Rome bashing and (without remorse), not individual bashing.
Its the dogma of superstition that is rubbish, not necessarily the people. No need for you to justify anything based on an appeal to the intellectualism of some RCs.
Interestingly, it might be argued that Buchanan, Kirk, and Buckley all argue think like Protestants. I believe that this created a bit of a probem between Buckley and Brent Bozell.
The a-historical charge is a bit hazy and the prediction that “cultural revolution†is the logical consequence is even more abstruse. But so be it.
I am sure I can clear up exactly nothing of my “alternative vision†to any satisfaction for the good Reverend. But speaking of history, I recently came upon some—in my middle-minded work—that seems simply packed with commentary; hopefully he will allow it for some measure of levity: “The ‘fortune cookie,’ while having far-eastern roots, is an American phenomenon. A Cantonese immigrant named David Jung slipped Bible verses and sayings by Benjamin Franklin and from Aesop’s Fables into his cookies and handed them out to the homeless and downtrodden near his business. Eventually, his efforts spawned a company that was able to mass produce the little treats at 3,000 in one hour.†How’s that for summing up the interplay of American cult and culture?
Steve
Steve, what do you make of Solzhenitsyn? What do you make of his 1978 Harvard Address?
Steve, your a smart guy. I assume you read more than this blog and the Heidelblog. Yet, when it comes to your view of culture, politics, ect., I cannot discern what you are reading. Help me here. Someone must have influenced you other than D.G. Hart.
Bill,
It is one thing to be smart, another to be right and another to be interested. I will settle for the latter at the moment and hope for the next attribute, as I have completely given up on the first.
I appreciate your desire to try and connect the dots and ascertain “texts” behind how I seem to view things. Unlike some, I don’t pretend to be at all well read. Sorry. I wish I were if only for your sake; maybe this helps explain the guilt-laden sensation I get as a double-English Language and Literature major who can’t step into a bookstore or library without seizing up in the face of all he should be consuming but doesn’t and has no good excuse (although I have recently managed to check out Keillor’s “Book of Guys†without losing consciousness). I hope such an admission doesn’t preclude me from being able to actually have a perspective, as irritating as that may be to some. But as someone once said “I fear some of this will be more about experience than reading.â€
You ask about Solzhenitsyn. I could fathom why, but I try, albeit not always successfully, not to put words in others’ mouths. I find much wisdom in his views; but so do I others whose perspectives may not dovetail with his assessments or even my own when “doing earth.†And the Gospel stands in everyone’s way. Is there something more you are looking for?
Steve