I thought I would move this from the comment section:
DGH accuses my view of society of being â€œvery Roman Catholic.â€ Well, if I had to chose between the tradition from Augustine to Aquinas vs. Kuyper to Dooyweerd, I am going with the former. 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 Melvilleâ€™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.
Christâ€™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, Americaâ€™s was very much a Presbyterian, Melvilleian, foundingâ€¦ no? O.K. so the state did not confess Christ explicitly, but the nation hasâ€¦ and in some flawed but continuing senseâ€¦ does. I am not a revolutionary. As Kirk and others have shown, drawing a line of demarcation between Christendom and America is a mistake.