Why wouldn’t I want to slight the tyranny of politicians over the church? I’m not sure I understand?

Rusty

Forgive my unspoken assumptions. The dictates of Jus in Bellum require discrimination in targeting the enemy. Citizens can not be targeted. So, assuming a war that engages in indiscriminate killing, I would liken adultery to killing non-combatants in that they are both grave sins. The church allows the latter but not the former.

I’m not sure I disagree with your kingdom conclusions. I would like a definition of “kingdom collapse.” But what I can’t grant is the assertion that the Nation-State is a kingdom. That kind of pre-modern language is of limited application when one is talking about a top-heavy democratic republic in the age of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, etc.

Divine-right monarchs were not impeded by a balance of powers, but they also never came close to the power of the modern nation-state. Monarchs, furthermore, could be excommunicated. The new Theodosius is inaccessible, unaccountable, terrible without sin, and can live for 100’s of years. It doesn’t make sense to call it to repentance. It’s not a person. It’s a unifying concept with offices and legal documents and lots of guns.

“Why do we tell Christians not to commit adultery with their bodies, but when it comes to military service we hand over Christians like they are all of the sudden out of our jurisdiction.”

Isn’t that a tad simplistic? How do you jump from a perfectly legitimate phenomenon (military service) to “the killing of innocents”; how are those two things mutually inclusive? And are you really equating adultery with military service? My guess is that you really don’t but are just trying to make a point. But that point seems to be something closer to kingdom collapse than kingdom distinction. I realize the former is a much easier way to relieve the inherent tensions of the kingdoms, but it seems a lot more like another form of worldliness than Christianity: kingdom distinction is very hard to do since we don’t seem programmed for it.

To take the body as an example: Why do we tell Christians not to commit adultery with their bodies, but when it comes to military service we hand over Christians like they are all of the sudden out of our jurisdiction. As if killing innocents in an unjust war can be done responsibility-free by Christians! It’s akin to the absolution given crusaders by the pope.

I didn’t say the Church is not an agent of mercy (I broke the pill in half). Do you make any distinction about just who the Church is supposed to take mercy upon? That seems a very important distinction, and you seem to draw no lines at all. When was the last time you neglected your own children to make sure your neighbor’s kid was taken care of? For that matter, are your own ever so attended to that you can afford to go next door and dole out resources? Mine never seem so well off. What sorts of thoughts would run through your head if your neighbor had the presumption to show up on your porch to make sure your own were being properly cared for and suggested you needed help?

Concerning the “false religion” statement, you said it, not me. Like I said above, I am not much for bandying about loaded and over-used terms (like heresy, antinomian, Liberal, fundamentalist, false religion—if it fits, ok, but I like to practice more restraint). My statement was really one of degree; I wasn’t calling anything “a false religion.” My point was really to say that the less grasp on the Gospel the more eagerness to fix the world; the less apprehension that God will make things right, the more the impatience to take matters into one’s own hands.

Bill, my point about virtue and the covenant of works is that the created order is shot through with the moral law, the original covenant being a reflection of that law. The distinction between the cov. of works and the cov. of grace points in the direction of the 2k distinction between the public realm and the ecclesial. But being in the church doesn’t mean the end of the cov. of works. It only means that the way to honor one’s obligations to the moral law is to receive the provisions of the covenant of grace.

But at the same time, I think Caleb and Eric are on to something with Luther being the end of ethics. The gospel invites the question, “shall I sin that grace may abound?” Even if it also says no to that question, that fact that the question naturally arises thanks to the imputed righteousness of Christ says something about the Stegelian point. I am less troubled by this than others, partly because I think modern moral philosophy has figured out the various selfish reasons why people try to be virtuous. I also believe that the original claims of God’s law on people prompt them also to justify themselves through some form of morality, from convention to full-blown asceticism. But I see no way to call the virtues of unbelievers truly good (read: moral) without denying the gospel. That’s why — sorry Caleb — I need to take my savior over my favorite philosopher (whom I don’t believe was regenerate).