Do the micro-Reformed prefer Paul?

18 Responses to “Do the micro-Reformed prefer Paul?”

1. Travis Prinzi

   January 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

   I think one of the things that makes Paul the more attractive candidate for the Reformed conservative is this: Paul is the only candidate who would promote a governmental system that would allow us to be hobbits in peace. I can’t be a hobbit if Gondor is always in my business. Paul wants to “legalize prostitution” only at the federal level, meaning that if we here in the Shire don’t want it, we make our local laws against it. If we want to smoke our pipeweed here in the Shire, we can; if we don’t, we can make our laws against it. Mordor, Gondor, Rohan - they can all do what they do in their own lands, and if Mordor gets out of control, we can all rise up against it together. But for the most part, leave us alone in the Shire, and let us maintain our local traditions and laws without interference.

   Furthermore, the serious reformed Christian is skeptical of Huckabeevangelicals. He’s a poster-boy for everything the circus of American evangelicalism has become. We don’t like what American evangelicalism has done to Christendom, so we don’t like what Huckabee would do for America.

2. W.H. Chellis

   January 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

   Preach it Travis! Amen

3. Baus

   January 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

   Chellis, are you asking about Reformed “micro-denominations”? I can’t tell what “micro” intends to reference.
   Anyway, let’s not misrepresent (by omission or oversimplification) Ron Paul (or Kuyperians) on several issues you mention.

   Ron Paul on marriage says “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage. While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!”
   More HERE.

   Ron Paul on abortion says ” As a member of Congress, I authored the Sanctity of Life Act, which rightfully defines that human life begins at conception. In addition, I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, a bill which would put an end to Roe v. Wade.”
   More HERE.

   Ron Paul wants to end the Federal war on Medicine (prescription drugs) as much as anything else.
   Read up HERE.

   Ron Paul is clearly opposed to prostitution and does not advocate the national legalization of prostitution, but rather he understands its criminality to be a matter for State and local legislation. He has no campaign statements on prostitution. The principle he stands for is the rule of law. This means Constitutionalism, which means localism. All of us here should understand this. It’s not genuinely controversial.

   Lastly, the left-leaners in the CRC and Calvin College are simply not Kuyperians, as far as I’m aware (the only self-identifying neocalvinist here). Jamie Smith is the possible exception, but he takes a “Radical Orthodox” position more than anything, which is right-leaning in many ways. If he’s a semi-kuyperian hybrid, you can’t stick that on real Kuyperians.

   And what Kuyperian wants to “take back America for Christ?” That’s the mantra of non-pluralists. Remember the synonym for Kuyperianism is “principled pluralism”. It’s a meme of the two-kingdom secularists to lump everyone but themselves and secular fundamentalists in with the theocrats. Let’s not be so sloppy.

   All that said, Reformed believers of every denomination should certainly prefer RON PAUL to any other candidate because he is the only one who stands for rule of law, and the Creator’s sovereignty over civil government. In principle, “non-strict” views of the Constitution reject these axioms.

4. stevez

   January 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

   Speaking of wearing it on your sleeve (and bumper-sticker and checkbook and voicemail and office space)…You think Ron Paul is an odd man-out? Try selling that old time Presbie religion as distilled by the likes of DGH in the left-leaning Kuyperian CRC at ground zero; with a rearing in perfect unbelief and not a hint of anything remotely Dutch surname-wise, I kinda feel Ron’s pain. Maybe I’ll run in ‘10.

   Travis,

   If that’s the prescription for the “serious Reformed Christian,” I think shall require a refill on my Xanax. But while I couldn’t agree more and “don’t like what American evangelicalism has done to Christendom,” I am not so sure it translates so easily into what it means “for America.” There goes my Christian secularism again. Sorry…where’d I put that Xanax?

5. W.H. Chellis

   January 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

   Baus: Does side-line work better?

   You are preaching to the choir on Paul. My interest is more about the question, how did we get to this point? It seems to me that 100 years ago the RP’s and the Northern Presbyterians were saddled up with the progressive evangelical crowd that Huckabee represents.

   Today, at least among side-liners, that does not seem to be the case.

6. stevez

   January 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

   Oops…maybe I’ll run in ‘12…and…switch out “left-leaning” for Evangelical-leaning…

7. stevez

   January 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

   “And what Kuyperian wants to “take back America for Christ?”

   Why, just the other night one preached in our pulpit. Ascribing his view to Abe himself, he lamented the CRC’s take on Hollywood in the 20’s, saying that instead of institutionalizing a form of legalism by forbiding “theatre going,” we would have been better off “taking over Hollywoood and making wholesome movies–what a lost opportunity.” And by the general disposition amongst the pewry, seems that was a great idea (maybe, I couldn’t say with absolute accuracy as I was scrambling for my Xanax–bottle caps are loud when they fall onto cold tile).

   Or maybe the Kuyperian author who sits a few pews up and over from us who tells me things like, “I am thoroughly convinced that the world is much much better now than it was in Jesus’ day. Roman civilization was destroyed by the barbarian and Moslem invasions, but what happened in Europe after that? By the end of the millennium almost all the tribes of Europe had been converted and placed themselves voluntarily under the supervision of the Roman Catholic Church. A new civilization was beginning, formed under the strict supervision of the Church. There came to be eventually a new impetus toward political freedom, beginning with the Magna Carta. There was a powerful current in medieval Europe for education, exercised almost exclusively by the Church. Similarly in all aspects of human culture. Out of this medieval world has come what we call western civilization; and I am convinced that we would not have had this modern world in the west had it not been for the formative influence of the gospel in all of our cultural concerns. The driving spirit of western civilization is, accordingly, not the devil but Christ. Our problem, or a large part of it, is that we have clear eyes to see what the devil is doing, but very dim eyes to see what God has been doing through the gospel, Jesus, the Spirit, and the church.”

   Something tells me neither man has much trouble wanting to take things back…whatever on earth that really means.

8. Baus

   January 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

   Chellis, Ah, I see. By “micro” you meant something like “of small number” or “peripheral influence.” Right. So, the question is about Reformed believers who are much smaller in number than self-identifying “Evangelicals”.

   I do agree that, at least according to Hart and Muether’s Seeking A Better Country, many pulpits and presbyteries became (unbiblically) apologists for the Federal government and Lincoln’s candidacy/administration. (or, alternatively, for a Secession government for that matter).

   But if more confessional Presbyterians these days don’t see things the way their civil war fathers did, or haven’t been lulled by Huckabee’s brand of politics-carrying-a-cross, then maybe we’ve learned something? Hopefully, our (presbyterian/reformed) sacred assemblies will stay out of it this round, whatever the case.

   “Progressive” evangelicals is right. I would include anyone who doesn’t have a serious problem with the Federal Reserve System as “left-leaning”.

9. Baus

   January 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

   Stevez,

   I am not surprised that CRC folk are largely of the “America is Jesus’ Homeland” crowd, but anyone who thinks the church should take (or should have taken) over the film industry is not a Kuyperian by any stretch of the imagination.

   Anyone who so applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, etc is not a Kuyperian by any definition. To triumphalistically identify the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization is certainly NOT Kuyperian.

   Makes me wonder if you or your fellow CRC’ers have read much Kuyper. If you’re interested in talking more about what genuine Kuyperianism is… well, that’s why I’m here. We could start a new post and thread of comments, if you like.

10. RPReeves

    January 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    I think anyone whose theology has been shaped by the Reformed confessions, even those who might be critical of recent formulations of a strict two-kingdoms perspective, get a little squeamish when Huckabee starts talking about a foreign policy (or immigration policy, etc.) legislated on the basis of the golden rule. His might be a kinder, gentler, and more anabaptist-tinged Constantinianism, but he still can tell law from gospel any better than he can distinguish his elbow from a hole in the ground. Revivalists are bad enough in church; we certainly don’t want one in the White House.

    Plus, what confessional Presbyterian could abide a federal smoking ban?

11. GAS

    January 4th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    As someone who was raised in the CRC what a pleasure it would be to come to a complete knowledge of all things kuyperian and am humbled that Bossman would condescend to impart the final interpretation of Kuyper, and perhaps, if we prostrate ourselves, he might grace us with the final interpretation of all things biblical?

    I believe Bill’s analysis is at least partly correct in reference to Southern Presbyterianism’s affinity for libertarianism and that attitude reverberating all the way back to the Civil War.

    I doubt any such correlation could be made with the northern Dutch Reformed who are less prone to isolationism and radical federalism.

    As evidence, the results show that the “psuedo-kuyperians” in Sioux County, IA voted overwhelmingly for Hucklebee with “true-kuyperian” Ron Paul finishing with a measly 6%.

    The funny thing is that when it comes to what extent the two aforementioned candidates are committed to the most fundemental concern of goverment, and especially for the executive branch, that is, the commitment to protect the citzenry from enemies foreign and domestic, both of these candidates principles are sorely defective.

    I believe the analysis by a previous poster concerning Hucklebee with his “golden rule” govermental principle is accurate and when that it is extended to foreign policy it can only lead to disaster and certainly doesn’t comport with Romans 13.

    Ron Paul is lost in the fog of idealogy. With a stupid naivete he believes this ever shrinking world will comport with his simplistic notion that no harm will be possible to us if only we minded our own business. Paul would have us believe those insane Moslem facists will respect our non-interventionism and lose all desire to enact their eschatology. Laissez-Faire ad adsurdum.

    Thus both candidates, in their own way, fail on First Principle.

12. Baus

    January 10th, 2008 at 2:49 am

    GAS, as a CRC-raised person you should feel free to explain how believing either 1) that the church should take (or should have taken) over the film industry, and/or 2) applauding the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, and/or 3) triumphalistically identifing the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization is Kuyperian.

    Go ahead.

    If you can’t do it, then consider yourself schooled. For more help, you’re welcome to direct all your Kuyperian related questions to me.

13. stevez

    January 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Baus,

    It was sort of funny. The Sunday evening after I posted last we had a professor from Kuyper College (formally RBC) preach. My friend who “applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, and triumphalistically identifies the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization” sat just in front of me. The sermon was glorified American patriotism. I believe the point was that “there’s a heap of grace here but not so much anywhere else.” I couldn’t help but recall one Covie’s comment around here at one point that “the Gospel hasn’t taken root in China.” I believe the “proof” was something about the form of government, etc., etc., which seemed to also imply that it sure has taken root here in the West, you know, since we can vote, etc., etc. Both seem to read “grace” through the lens of…well…worldiness.

    Nevertheless, by all means, feel free to address how all of that ISN’T Kuyperian. I am all ears since, when I read Kuyper, I don’t have much trouble seeing how these nice fellows of mine come up with what they do…

14. W.H. Chellis

    January 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Old Thunder once wrote, “the faith is Europe and Europe is the faith.” Burke would not have disagreed. I read Kuyper as a Burkean rather than a neo-Kuyperian. I think he would not have dissented with to great a vigor. Nor do I… except I would replace Europe with the West.

15. Baus

    January 11th, 2008 at 3:06 am

    stevez, one of Kuyper’s principles (and also of ‘kuyperianism’ and ‘neocalvinism’) is called “sphere sovereignty”. I’m sure you’re familiar with the term, but were you familiar with Kuyper’s conception, you wouldn’t be wondering how the jingoist-CRC isn’t Kuyperian.

    Sphere sovereignty is an understanding of how the various societal communities normatively relate. Since only God in Christ has absolute Lordship, each kind of community in society is bound by its own distinctly delegated responsibility. This principle excludes the legitimacy of ecclesiasticism (the church taking over or running anything but the church). This principle also militates against all forms of ‘civil religion.’ The institutional community of faith cannot be legitimately blended with any state or nation or political party or any other societal community. In fact, Kuyper’s own political party, the Anti-Revolutionary Party, was highly critical of “Christendom” and saw it as responsible for a major post-medieval animus of the West, namely “Enlightenment” (or Modernism).

    Chellis, that Burke was also opposed to the secular revolutionary spirit, does not mean Kuyper favored Burke’s alternative. Kuyper offered a distinct non-Burkean and non-Christendom alternative to Modernism. And, just to be a stickler, there is no “neo-kuyperianism” yet.

    For more help with Kuyper, you may also find this site helpful:
    The Kuyperian
    http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/

16. GAS

    January 12th, 2008 at 1:34 am

    Bossman,
    I’m down here beating the tower door and you throw down strawmen?

    Isn’t the Reformational project to redeem all of life, ya know, Christ owns every square inch?

    I think you’ll need to provide a list of the intellectual leaders of Kuyper, or those who claim to be a part of the tradition, and delineate between the orthodox and the hetrodox. Who has their spheres lined up correctly and who don’t?

    How about we take a look at C. Plantinga in his book, “Engaging God’s World”?

    “Everything corrupt needs to be redeemed, and that includes the whole natural world, which both sings and groans. The whole natural world, in all its glory and pain, needs the redemption that will bring shalom. The world isn’t divided into a sacred realm and a secular realm, with redemptive activity confined to the sacred zone. The whole world belongs to God, the whole world has fallen, and so the whole world needs to be redeemed- every last person, place, organization, and program; all “rocks and trees and skies and seas”; in fact, “every square inch” as Abraham Kuyper said. The whole creation is “a theater fo the mighty works of God,” first in creation and then in re-creation.” -p.96

    Now I would think this is a good summarization of Kuypers view, is it not? So if all things need reforming, including all corporate things, then it is quite easy to see how some corporate entity would need to redeem other corporate entities. Hardly a laissez-faire approach.

    In addition, because of kingdom theology, Christians will individually and through their various spheres try to initiate the kingdom shalom as they interpret what that shalom should entail. It should come as no surprise that some would try to initiate a broad shalom through the broadest sphere. Thus, someone’s kingdom theology could be such that they believe that the shalom of health is a kingdom priority and to redeem the world from sickness the broadest sphere, ie federal government, should be engaged maximally to acheive this shalom.

    While I’m down here enjoying my strawman bonfire would you mind discussing the boundaries of “thy kingdom come on earth”?

17. Baus

    January 14th, 2008 at 3:25 am

    GAS, I’m sorry? To what strawmen do you refer?

    There’s nothing problematic with the C.Plantinga quote you offer. In what way do you suppose that he says the church should take over the film industry, and/or applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, and/or triumphalistically identifies the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization?

    C.Plantinga doesn’t suggest any of those things –not in the quote you provide, anyway.

    In a tremendous non sequitur you write “then it is quite easy to see how some corporate entity would need to redeem other corporate entities.”
    To what ‘corporate’ entities do you refer?
    How does C.Plantiga suggest that a ‘corporate entity’ is the agent of redemption here?

    You go on to write “because of kingdom theology, Christians will individually and through their various spheres try to initiate the kingdom shalom”
    What do you mean by ‘kingdom theology’?
    What do you think a ’sphere’ is?
    What do you think ’shalom’ is?
    How does C.Plantiga suggest that this shalom is ‘initiated’ through spheres and individually by Christians?

    You also write “to redeem the world from sickness the broadest sphere, ie federal government,”
    Does C.Plantiga somewhere suggest that the world can be “redeemed from sickness” previous to glorification?
    Does C.Plantiga (or anyone) speak of ‘broader’ and ‘narrower’ spheres, let alone identify “the broadest sphere” as ‘federal government’? Does anyone even refer to ‘federal government’ as a ’sphere’?

    While you’re down there by the bonfire, give some thought as to whether you really know what you’re talking about, because you’re making very little sense. If you can straightforwardly answer the simple clarifying questions I’ve asked you here, I’ll be happy to respond further.

18. Baus

    January 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    This is a must read for all you nonKuyperians, especially for the 2k’ers among us. Andrew Compton (a 2k’er) gets it right on Kuyper:
    http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/abraham-kuyper-the-transformationalist/

    Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.