I’ve started a weekly column here.
Probably the most significant abortion litigation in the country right now just became public: story here. (Let ‘er rip, SteveZ!)
Adventures in politics here. Email me if you want to contribute!
Regarding the last, and the previous post and comment—for all you BFers, I hear Chellis has political aspirations, you need to recruit him for Beaver County DA.
Sorry, let what rip? Despite the typical, swirling comments around whatever this is that is going on, sure sounds to me like America is working, more or less. Maybe not to the satisfaction of the various observers here and there who may have been duped by the notion of exact justice and the stuff of paranoid punditry and fantastical sensationalism which attends it. But something tells me such dissatisfaction means America is working. I’m good. Should I not be…?
Best on your aspirations; looks like heady times for the good Father.
Shucks, I was hoping for a food fight.
With all due respect to John Belushi, Darryl, all things done in a good and decent order. Besides, I’m still wiping mashed potatoes from my ears.
I wonder if I was supposed to say something about how Calvinism might suggest a veer from typical abortion discussions, like how so-called “pro-life” rhetoric can, in an age that outfits children in head-to-toe crash gear to pedal twenty-three feet to a neighbor’s, end up championing the doctrines of creaturely comfort and ease; or the denial of the realities with which all sinners must live; or the idea that one class of human beings somehow deserves to be less subject to the sort of discomforts, pains, sufferings and death the rest are? Or how, if the reasoning is an appeal to the dignity of life, why are some entitled to less of its indignities than others? Or was I supposed to ask whether it is really so unfathomable that a policy could reasonably be in place wherein some of us might end up losing our lives? I mean, it seems to me that happens every day and very few bat an eye. I realize certain forms of political correctness say we ought not ask such questions or that they are to be easily dismissed without merit.
But is that how one starts a food fight?
Well, Steve, I for one am interested in how you think Calvinism contributes anything at all the the abortion discussion. Isn’t the W2K line that Christianity has nothing unique to contribute to political questions?
I’m also interested in seeing how you argue that “pro-life rhetoric” ends up championing the social ends of creaturely comfort and ease, and how belief that the most vulnerable among us should be protected translates into a denial of the harsh realities of life. It seems very possible to me to deplore and work against the “culture of comfort” while at the same time honoring and protecting the image of God.
Does Steve, the fire-breathing Calvinist, have a robust doctrine of man that goes along with his doctrine of God?
You also asked Steve, “how, if the reasoning is an appeal to the dignity of life, why are some entitled to less of its indignities than others?”
It’s hard for me to understand what you mean here. Are you asking why unborn children should be less exposed to life’s indignities than others? Or, is this obfuscation to cloak the fact that you think unborn children should enjoy less legal protection than the born?
You also asked, “Or was I supposed to ask whether it is really so unfathomable that a policy could reasonably be in place wherein some of us might end up losing our lives?”
By “reasonable policy”, I suppose you mean the legal right to have an abortion. While it is true there are many policies where “some of us…end up losing our lives,” I can only think of one (policy) where the intent is to positively sanction the taking of human life (or the choice to do so) for convenience’ sake. And in this lies the vast moral difference between legal abortion and other policies that inadvertently result in loss of life.
What good is Calvinistic tough-mindedness when simple moral distinctions such as this can’t be made?
Andrew: I hope you’re not suggesting that the 2k position is pro-choice. I am more than willing to affirm that the 6th commandment forbids abortion. But what does that mean for policy or legislation? Think of the prophet Daniel. The first table of the Decalogue forbade most of the religious practices that he observed (and tolerated?) while he was in exile. Did he try to re-write the laws of the Chaldeans? The biblical record suggests he didn’t. Why isn’t that analogous to the situation that Christians find themselves today? One important difference is that Christians today are citizens and can work to change policies and legislation. But do they pursue such actions by making the Decalogue the basis for national policy and legislation? Or may they pursue such actions on other grounds based on what Christians share with non-Christians as fellow creatures and citizens (i.e. general revelation)?
I imagine he is suggesting that the 2k position pragmatically lends (or may lend if its not very careful) aid and comfort to the pro-choice position. Exhibit One: Steve’s crazy post. When acolytes start talking in such morally confused terms, it sends up red flags.
Darryl,
You asked three important questions, which I’ll re-phrase for the purposes of this reply:
1) Do I think 2K is necessarily pro-choice?
2) How should a pro-life Christian work for pro-life policy and laws?
3) Shouldn’t general rather than special revelation be the basis of our national law?
Regarding 1), my answer is no, though I don’t trust anyone from the Westminster school to do anything other than snipe at pro-life advocates and downplay the moral duty of confronting pro-choicers with the fact that they are destroying God’s image in their own wombs.
One of the features of W2K I find most objectionable is the view that the common grace sphere is an area where antithetical views of man (man is the son of God vs. man is a mere animal) can compromise and agree on the social good (i.e., which social order produces peace and justice).
In my view, the so-called confessional alternative to conservatism and liberalism is really a baptized pragmatic philosophy that too often translates into the unprincipled pragmatism of “we’ll legally sanction your immoral practices so you can allow us to practice our pure and undefiled religion.” There is no practice so vile this kind of thinking will not eventually allow.
W2K folk may be anti-abortion in their personal ethics, but there is nothing I’ve read from them that leads me to think W2K can’t promote pro-choice politics.
Regarding 2) and 3), which are basically the same question, I disagree that the Daniel case proves the secularist position. Sure, Daniel was in far-off Babylon and not living under the Israelite theocracy, but he still practiced kosher, refused to worship the king’s image, and practiced his daily prayers. These practices led to an inevitable confrontation with pagan rule. In the end, he was interpreting signs and dreams for kings and helping rule Babylon’s dominions. Ultimately, the practice of pagan Babylon was altered to conform to the righteousness of Yahweh manifest in Daniel’s person and deliverances.
Basically, there’s no such thing as general revelation abstract from special revelation outside of isolated primitive societies. The western tradition is thoroughly suffused by features assimilated from the Judeo-Christian heritage. This includes the Decalogue and Christian moral teaching which are fundamental (and foundational) to our own Declaration and Constitution.
W2K, a theory that denies the whole counsel of God’s word its chief place in determining the direction of national goals and laws is deistic (if not atheistic), anti-traditional and revolutionary in inspiration and tendency.
RE: Daniel’s example, if it is objected that all his practices were private/ personal actions, I’ll respond that they had public manifestations/consequences. When questioned on them, he made public declarations about his ultimate allegiance to Yahweh. Jonah’s example can also be cited as an instance of legitimate prophetic witness to a city outside the covenant community.
Andrew asked, “I for one am interested in how you think Calvinism contributes anything at all the abortion discussion. Isn’t the W2K line that Christianity has nothing unique to contribute to political questions?”
I would much rather say that is has nothing “immediate” to contribute rather than nothing “unique.” To the contrary, insofar as Xianity transcends the traditions of men and the affairs of this world but is constantly lassoed to serve those things, it sure seems absurd to suggest that it has nothing “unique” to contribute; it seems unavoidable. Before I go on, for whatever it may be worth, I, too, “am more than willing to affirm that the 6th commandment forbids abortion.” I don’t think that covers it exhaustively at all, but now that I hopefully pass the politically correct litmus test, maybe I may continue.
Though it is not a little predictable that my questions will be used to force it, my interest is not so much in lending aid to any one side of the immediate (and horribly failed) conversation about abortion/reproductive non/rights/whatever, usually signaled by these over wrought and loaded terms of “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” It is more to wonder why it isn’t all that clear what conservative Calvinism owes the pro-life movement. In other words, to the chagrin of both sides to this two-dimensional discussion, I am trying to see what might be more unique in Calvinism than what is immediately relevant.
While pro-life dogma may not always mean a conservative Calvinism (to wit, its being predominated by a doctrine of human innocence), it does seem that those who claim a conservative Calvinism easily assume a “pro-life” confession. But why is that?
As much of a third rail as this is in our circles, what my (crazy-crazy) questions are getting to, Andrew and Caleb, are why it might be that a conservative Calvinism couldn’t sooner be able to endure whatever policy imperfections exist and actually be more reluctant to uncritically get in line and walk lock-step with a movement that has resident within it everything from the suspect notion of human innocence to the irregularity that certain creatures should be able circumvent life’s injuries. There are lots of injustices in the world; why does this one get the lion’s share of moral indignation, and why do conservative Calvinists think they should be counted amongst its ranks?
Steve and Darryl:
The great thing about blogging is that participants can fully clarify their positions if they stick with the conversation long enough. You have both exploited the ambiguities inherent in your position long enough: Is either one of you pro-life?
It’s a simple question. I’m using the terms “pro-life and “pro-choice” here, not to refer to social movements, but a political position on whether abortion should be legal or illegal.
I’m sorry if Steve feels he is being subjected to a “politically correct litmus test” when he is questioned on the abortion issue. But at least we can all be relieved that men who claim to be Christian affirm traditional Christian moral teaching.
I’m not going to ask you, Steve, to be “march lock-step with a movement”, but I am going to ask that you acknowledge a few facts about the so-called pro-life movement:
1. The pro-life movement is comprised of people of many different religious persuasions (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists) and is therefore a common or secular movement. It would seem to be unreasonable to demand ideological consistency in such a diverse group.
2. Religious pro-lifers do and have appealed to natural law to persuade the public of the justice of their cause. For example, a common argument made is that human life was created in God’s image and ought to be respected.
3. Catholics, who started the movement and compose a large part of it, traditionally believe in Original Sin. Therefore, no faithful Catholic who has some familiarity with his tradition would say that neonatal human beings are innocent in an absolute sense.
4. Scripture itself, in its most famously predestinarian passage characterizes Jacob and Esau as “having done neither good nor evil” whilst they contending in their mother’s womb. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that infants are innocent in a relative, though not absolute, sense. I.e., Infants don’t deserve to be killed.
5. The bare position that abortion ought to be illegal in no way implies that life should be easier than it is.
An inability to acknowledge any of these commonly accepted logical and historical facts would appear to indicate a corresponding inability to clearly think through this issue, and quite possibly, something worse.
It needs to be said that a “conservative Calvinism” that is content to endure the abortion regime, avoiding taking theologically sound witness against such an abomination in the sight of Heaven, lest it be associated somehow with faulty theology is unworthy of the name Christian.
Lastly, Steve, I have no idea why the slaughter of innocent babies outrages me other than to say it must be some kind of pre-rational commitment to the preservation of human life.
Andrew, do you think the Lordship of Christ is necessarily anti-slander? I would hope so since I would like to think you believe in the ninth commandment. Then why would you write the following over at your blog http://unpopops.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-w2k-pro-choice.html:
“Proponents of W2K aren’t merely interested in promoting the modern liberal rights agenda. They work most effectively as public examples of a mythical creature both theologically conservative and politically liberal. This works quite well for the mainstream media that likes to trot out useful idiots like Michael Horton (a Christian theology expert) and Darryl Hart (a respected historian of American Christianity) to inform readers / viewers that one can believe in the Virgin Birth and not be Republican.”
Aside from the “useful idiot” remark — thanks at least for recognizing my utility — what school of hermeneutics did you attend to write that the W2K proponents are “merely interested in promoting the modern liberal rights agenda.” Shameful. I wrote A Secular Faith to try to defend the gospel, to prevent it being captured by an ideological or partisan agenda. You don’t need to buy that. But you do need to write with that expressed intent in mind. The ninth commandment demands as much.
I am pro-life, if that makes you happy, though I can’t see why since you seem to want ideological purity. I’m also pro-moderation. I would have opposed the 18th Amendment. For temperance folk that would have made me pro-drunkenness. Can you say parodoxical? Sure you can.
Darryl, at least Andrew said you were useful most folks just call me an idiot. I find you have to take your props where you can get them.
Bill, that’s why I have a cat.
It is why I have a dog. I need unconditional love.
Darryl,
I nowhere said W2K proponents are *merely* “interested in promoting the modern liberal rights agenda.” This cannot be properly inferred from what I wrote. Nevertheless, I certainly do believe you are interested in promoting the liberal rights agenda because you (mistakenly) believe such will secure your ability to practice your privatized Christianity without contaminating contact with—or interference from—larger society. I am quite familiar with this well-intentioned but faulty political strategy.
Despite what Michael Horton says, there is a real culture war going on, and while conservatives can’t be identified with divine righteousness, liberals can definitely be identified with the forces of moral anarchy and lawlessness. Therefore, I don’t take it lightly when representative Christians appearing on mainstream media outlets render aid and comfort to the godless left by downplaying the legitimate inspirational role Christianity plays in conservative American politics.
Finally, Darryl, it’s not so important that I (Who cares what I think?) understand you are pro-life, which happens to be an issue of fundamental importance, btw. Rather, it’s important to the readers here to know whether you are committed to the legal protection of human life or not. (I assume you mean “pro-life” in this sense.) And if you’re only “moderately” committed to protecting the unborn, we’ll take what we can get.
Andrew, I appreciate your zealous defense but I would step in here on behalf of my friend Darryl Hart. While I do not know if this is the case for all the men who advocate the W2K position, I do know that Dr. Hart’s conservative credentials (like his intellectual father J. Gresham Machen’s) are unimpeachable. The man works for ISI. Most Reformed ministers/scholars would not have the fuzziest clue what ISI stands for much less give you the name of three books published by them. He may seem a contradictory sign to many but he is anything but a liberal (at least in the bad statist sense). I am constantly learning from him.
He is a old school in his conservative, Presbyterianism, and gentlemen.
While Darryl’s books have ultimately been more influential in my understanding of Christianity, the first book that had me rethinking Christian political responses to sin was Olasky’s “Abortion Rites”, a survey of American legislation contra abortion and the respective results. I’m unsure of his ratio of usefulness to idiocy, but in the spectrum of W2K sympathies, he falls somewhere between D. James Kennedy and a screwdriver.
Andrew: you’re right. You didn’t write that W2k folks are merely interested in promoting the modern liberal rights agenda.” You suggested that we are worse than that, useful idiots.
Actually, it is important to you what I think about pro-life since YOU also speak for the readers of this blog on what they want to know. I can’t think of any reason why someone would think I was pro-choice if he looked for just a few of my writings or my professional associations. Elders in the OPC are not usually known to support abortion rights. But in your manichean outlook, anyone who departs from your understanding of law must be guilty of much worse.
I think I’ve suggested this before, but I still wonder how you manage to exist in the world. Most people in the West, rightly or wrongly, have been able to separate civil law and divine law. I’m grateful for that since on my commmute it means that many drivers, most of whom are not RPCNA, still obey the traffic lights and stop signs. But according to your view, most of your neighbors and fellow citizens are on the side of moral anarchy and lawlessness. How do you ever manage the courage to leave the house?
Darryl,
I believe W2K men are entirely politically committed to classical liberalism as well as modern liberal rights as much as their consciences will allow. These commitments function as a hermeneutical grid that keep them from championing the social reign of Jesus Christ. But, I’m thankful for every “blessed inconsistency” (e.g., the providential reign of Christ doctrine) that keeps an ideological adversary from embracing the worst logical implications of his system.
There’s not much else to say except that I will continue to say until I can say it no longer that there’s something rotten with a way of thinking that in principle denies societies can and ought to confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. There’s something unChristian about cordoning off a huge realm of life, on principle, from the benificent reign of redemptive grace.
BTW, Stevez seems awfully quiet. Is he also willing to affirm a commitment to anti-abortion legislation of some sort?
Andrew: just curious, but did the Roman Empire affirm the Kingship of Jesus Christ? I don’t seem to recall that it did. So then why weren’t Christ and the apostles visiting Rome or leading protests in Jerusalem or posting blogs (Christ, unlike Al Gore, could have invented the super highway) against a “rotten way of thinking” in the corridors of Rome’s power. You cannot find a single instance in Scripture where the Kingship of Christ was actually the proposal of the church. You can try to find texts that would seem to teach this. But for some reason, neither the authors of those texts nor the readers took them the way you do.
Also, if you’re going to pester Steve, then why don’t you answer a conservative litmus test: what think you of Ronald Reagan? Was he a great president? Was he conservative?
Darryl,
I’ll agree with W2K folk that the Church’s primary task is not the propping up of the civil order, but the building of the Church through the preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments & discipleship. Where we differ is that I see the Church as a supernatural society that carries within its bosom seeds for the regeneration of the natural order.
So, while Christians of the apostolic and post-apostolic periods were not political ideologues, they were fervently praying for the conversion of the Emperor and other potentates. These prayers were abundantly answered in Constantine. (And, I feel justified in taking Constantine at his word rather than assuming other less-than-pure motivations for his conversion.)
The reason Christians ought to become politically active now (individually & institutionally), even to engage in polemical battles in blogdom, is because the West has apostatized from its Christian profession. Christ, himself, did not merely pray for the conversion of the Jewish leaders, but forcefully confronted them for, among other things, neglect of the weightier matters of the law.
As for Ronald Reagan, who I greatly admire, he must be judged in the context of the American Republic and Ideology (which are a mixed bag, at best) as well as the conflict with Communism.
Reagan was certainly a great President, but in Andrew’s monarchical universe, he couldn’t possibly have been anything other than a conservative who didn’t know the full extent and roots of our civilational sickness.
Isn’t “litmus test” just another word for “standards”?
Well, Caleb, the term is politically charged, as you well know. For the benefit of all readers here, it is generally a term used by Democrat politicians who don’t want judges confirmed who meet a Republican “litmus test” of opposing the Roe decision.
Andrew, thanks for your explanation. I disagree. I still see no reason why Christ and the apostles is not the model for the church in all ages. If they merely prayed for the conversion of the emperor (a disputable point), why do their successors need to do more than that? Your answer seems to be that we have abandoned your Christian heritage. But isn’t it possible that doing more than praying is also guilty of abandoning our Christian heritage.
On the matter of the church having the seeds of cultural renewal, this assumes a post-mill reading of church history, and something called a Christian culture. I’m still wondering what Christian law, language and art look like. I know what it looks like on the Lord’s Day when the Christian commonwealth assembles.
Darryl,
I do take Christ and the apostles as the example. I just don’t take Acts and the epistles as the only data. I look at the Gospels. And there we see Jesus confronting the Jewish political leaders of his day for their unfaithfulness while counseling submission to them as well as the Roman authorities. Paul was sent to Gentiles and their kings, as I never tire in pointing out. The apostles openly proclaimed the Lordship of Christ in city streets and marketplaces, not just in synagogues or homes.
To say that Israel was a theocracy, and therefore we ought not to confront professing Christian rulers in our day, is to beg the question. Do we have Apostles? Do we regularly exercise miraculous charismatic gifts? Are we writing inspired Scripture? Does our Church government and liturgy follow the exact pattern of primitive Christianity? Does the Jewish Temple still stand? Are we living under a persecuting Roman regime? All these circumstances are unique to that period, and therefore place the early Church in a different historical context than ours. Therefore, there is no biblical model in the strictest sense of the term.
The fact is that no churches today function as the Church did then, because they can’t. We can’t follow every example the Apostles set due to historical circumstances, and in matters where we can, we are too often not following their example!
Primitivism is pointless because the Church is being built into the stature of the fullness of Christ’s body, which is his fullness, who fills all in all (Eph. 1:23; 4:13; cf. v. 10). Scripture couldn’t possibly provide detailed instructions for every cultural-historical eventuality anyway.
I don’t go around paralyzed for fear God might not like the Christian life I live, because there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Why, then, should Christians fear because they will inevitably fail to a degree in their cultural efforts? We do not know such efforts are predestined to ultimately fail. Do you, Darryl? And if you do, how do you know?
As for eschatology (I fit into neither of the traditional categories), the Church exists under no other dispensation than the New Covenant established by Messiah Jesus. Certain modern forms of amillennialism miss the boat in this regard because Scripture teaches nothing about a parenthetic exilic age intervening between Christ’s two advents. The eschaton was inaugurated and immanentized when Christ first came, proceeded through the A.D. 70 judgment, and continues throughout this era. The full reality of the Kingdom is here because the dead are coming to life, and we ought not to place limits upon what Christ is able to accomplish from his position of absolute authority in Heaven.