Daniel Howe Can I try some Christian statements on civil government? (1) Jesus in his resurrection has defeated and de-authorized all governments. (With the anabaptists and “Christian anarchists”). (2) All governments are secular (they last only as long as the seculum), not eternal like the church. (3) Jesus has partially re-authorized the governments of the [...]
Archive for the ‘Hart’s Secular Faith’ Category
Is the faith useless for the life of the world?
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on April 3, 2007 | 1 Comment »
Why are we talking about this?
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on April 2, 2007 | 22 Comments »
This is in response to some of the comments under the Hussein post, but I thought it big enough to make a new post. Bill asked who disagreed. I knew I could find some people to disagree, if the issues were framed properly. Thing is, this is what I have been arguing all along, and [...]
Saddam Hussein, Under God
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on April 2, 2007 | 17 Comments »
I used this point in one of my comments in another discussion thread but I still think it’s worth a wider hearing, if only for me to hear how those in the Covenanter tradition might respond. Post-mill’s and Christian Americanists generally identify the advance of Christ’s rule with certain political, social and cultural trends. In [...]
The Covenant of Works and the State
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on March 31, 2007 | 6 Comments »
One of the most helpful features of Darryl’s argument is that it strips away the last remnants of theocracy and gives us an opportunity to be more consistent with our theological confession. There was unresolved tension in our 17th-century confession between our view of redemptive history as expressed in our covenant theology (covenant of works [...]
Antithetical Cities?
Posted in Corporate Confession, Hart's Secular Faith on March 30, 2007 | 2 Comments »
Question: Back in chapter 1: City on a Hill, Darryl wrote, “But as antithetical as the two cities were in Augustine’s mind, and as much as that antagonism might seperate believers from nonbelievers… (pg. 39). I am confused by this reading of Augustine. In this age, can the two cities be understood as really antithetical? [...]
Biographical Note
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on March 29, 2007 | 4 Comments »
A short biographical aside appears appropriate at this juncture. I am a lawyer and thus my approach to these matters has probably followed a somewhat different course than others (excepting perhaps Chellis). My curiosity began largely from sociological/legal interest in how people construct, adapt, modify, and deliver argument. Specifically, the various kinds of political arguments [...]
Kirk: For and Against the Natural Law
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith, Natural Law on March 29, 2007 | 5 Comments »
So far I have been accused of holding to high a view of the natural law and to low a view of it. I want to do justice to a proper view so will allow the venerable ghost of Kirk to speak. I appreciate Kirk’s view as it seems to me very close to that [...]
Who’s the Hauerwas now, huh?
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on March 29, 2007 | 16 Comments »
Daniel Howe Darryl, thanks for the props on Englishness. If you think about it, it’s not that weird that the Scots and Scots-Irish would be the British exceptionalists. Bad experiences with Cromwell notwithstanding, the Scottish and Scots-Irish comprise the survival of muscular puritanism in the three kingdoms. That puritanism was marked by both relentless reformation [...]
Is Self-Righteousness a Virtue?
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on March 28, 2007 | 11 Comments »
Protestants at the time of the War for Independence and since have talked a lot about the need for a virtuous citizenry to protect this freedom-loving republic. The rhetoric of virtue has always made religion necessary to the health of the U.S. From George Washington to Jerry Falwell, the American religio-political tradition has been to [...]
Some Provisional Answers to Bill’s Questions
Posted in Hart's Secular Faith on March 28, 2007 | 24 Comments »
In commenting on my review of Darryl’s book, Bill Chellis asks, I think that Darryl has a doctrine that makes Christianity applicable to politics. Darryl Hart is no heretic. He is no anabaptist. He affirms the soverign Kingship of Christ over both Kingdoms (one common and one holy). I am waiting to hear how, in [...]