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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

He is a old school in his conservative, Presbyterianism, and gentlemen.