If Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave today it is because he is doing cartwheels of delight. Mitt Romney’s speech hit all the right notes to mollify the concerns of believers, especially evangelical Protestants, about his Mormon faith. Non-believers may be less impressed than the so-called values voters. But all of those evaluating Romney’s remarks are debtors to Jefferson’s advice on how to live with someone who doesn’t share your views about things divine: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
The Jeffersonian moment in Romney’s speech came not when he said, along with John F. Kennedy, that his duty as president would be to uphold the Constitution, not the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whether they know it or not, American Protestants do owe a great debt to Jefferson’s understanding of the separation of church and state, and at one time evangelical denominations like the Baptists and Methodists knew this and gave their political support to politicians like the third president of the United States. In contrast, Mormons like Romney and Roman Catholics knew first hand that Protestants did not always play by the rules of separation to which they gave lip service. While Protestants could (and did) appeal to Jefferson’s ideal to prevent Roman Catholics from receiving public aid for parochial schools, those same Protestants required the residents of the Utah territory to prohibit polygamy as a condition for being admitted to the Union. American Protestants also had little trouble spotting the potential for conflict between vows to uphold the U.S. Constitution and, say, Alfred Smith’s or JFK’s beliefs as Roman Catholics or Senator Reed Smoot’s duties as an elder in the Mormon Church. They had greater difficulty detecting the possible opposition between their own reverence for God’s holy word as revealed in the Bible and their loyalty to the Constitution, which did not mention their God. American believers have generally played fast and loose with the separation of church and state, and yesterday Romney competed with the best of them.
The actual Jeffersonian moment came just before his appeal to the separation of church and state. Romney ran through the religious virtues of fellow believers, from the profundity of the Roman Catholic Mass to the prayer life of Muslims. He then said, “It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.” The “great moral principles,” he explained, “urge us on a common course.” Romney could have said it as bluntly as Jefferson did, but he affirmed Jefferson’s view that theology doesn’t matter compared to ethics. An American may believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, that there are three persons in one God, or that men and women have the potential to become gods. But as long as he or she believes in the nation’s great moral principles they make darned good neighbors.
In case they missed it, evangelical Protestants painted Romney into a corner, and he used their own brand of faith-based politics to escape. For over a quarter of a century the religious right has insisted that faith should be a crucial factor in national life. The logic varies, but the premises seemed to run something like this: public officials should be people of character; religious faith produces character; ergo public officials need faith. As long as the officials comfortable with this logic were Christian, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic (not to mention Republican), the argument retained its apodictic quality. But once a Mormon appealed to the argument, problems ensued. Some Christians began to think that generic faith is not sufficient but that the actual contents of one’s faith, namely, doctrine, is important. For some reason, that concern did not apply to Pentecostal politicians who believe in speaking in tongues or Roman Catholics who believe in purgatory. This is because most of the arguments for faith-based politics were conveniently silent about the dots connecting faith, theology, and ethics. Advocates for religion in public life sided with Jefferson by valuing ethics more than doctrine.
Of course, Jefferson was not the first president to take a pragmatic view of the intricacies of the divine mysteries. During the decade when Congress added “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins and “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, Dwight Eisenhower guaranteed that the deity being affirmed would remain vague and abstract: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Romney echoed that sentiment yesterday when he affirmed all of America’s major faiths.
Rather than being faulted for squishy ecumenism, Romney should be credited for cleverness to figure out that the advocates of religion in public life have never been overly concerned about theological orthodoxy. In a subtle way, he was saying to American believers that if you’re going to make an issue of my Mormon faith, then you should likely reconsider your great admiration for the likes of Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. And although secularists may have felt that Romney excluded them from his considerations yesterday, his warning has as much salience for those who take inspiration from Martin Luther King, Jr. as those who listen to James Dobson. Practically everyone in America these days is willing to live with Jefferson’s solution. As long as religion comes out on the right side of political debate, by all means, let’s affirm it.
(P.S. For the sake of full disclosure, this first appeared over at the blog for Religion and Ethics Weekly — http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blog
But of course, this generic civil faith trivializes the purity of our theological commitment. And so, we ought to jettison the traditional Jeffersonian pragmatic approach.
No thank you, I’ll take Jefferson’s political deism over W2K’s political atheism until something better comes along. It’s the proverbial lesser of two evils once again.
These are the only two realistic options at present. Since the 1960’s, the Democrat party has been taken over by the radical left with its creed of rights without duties, ethics without morality, freedom without restraint; with its assaults on the sanctity of human life, sexuality & marriage; with its attacks on associations like the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army; and its predisposition against any public expression of faith or use of legitimate (military or police) force. Listen to Limbaugh or any number of conservative commentators for confirmation of this.
W2K fails as a viable alternative for Christians to accept since it concedes the theoretical field to the radical left. It can articulate no public justification (as opposed to private motive) for the order it proposes, nor can it articulate a principle which can reliably guide judges in their interpretion of law. By suppressing the foundation of common grace ethics (the reign of Christ) & its hermeneutical principle (revelation), W2K guarantees the triumph of atheism in American public life.
LikeLike
[…] Friday Goodness December 8, 2007 Darry Hart posts a suitably provocative essay at DRC. One caveat, DG seems to suggest that the only basis for making monogamy a condition for […]
LikeLike
Here’s the specific PBS blog LINK:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blog/2007/12/d-g-hart-jeffersonians-all.html
LikeLike
This is rich. Rush Limbaugh beats W2K. Talk about Jeffersonian. But there is an alternative to both TJ and RL. One word, four syllables: Aristotle.
LikeLike
[…] D. G. Hart has now commentedĆĀ on Romney’s speech. You will want to read this: “Jeffersonians All.” […]
LikeLike
I was talking about viable alternatives among the choices currently available to us.
Sure…Aristotle’s great. His insights have been employed to great effect in our tradition. I just don’t see modern leftist-secularists rushing to embrace the ‘god of the philosophers’ in order to resuscitate our civilization. OTC, they seem hell-bent on tearing down what remains. I do see plenty of Thomists trying to revivify the American (read Jeffersonian) settlement, but not much else.
America is divided. And it may well come down to something as simple as the old Vantillian disjunction of autonomy vs. theonomy. But in the judgment of some, Van Til’s transcendental argument is just an anti-intellectual way to avoid the other side’s arguments, isn’t it, Darryl?
So…how do you propose to enthrone Aristotle’s god in our time and place?
LikeLike
O.K. Darryl. Your speaking my language with Aristotle. I will up the ante with Plato (a la Weaver). But, can we have them unmediated? Would it be wise to go all ad fontes and divorce our pagan wisdom from its baptism? Why take Plato and drop Augustine? Why look to Aristotle and forget about Aquinas?
At the end of the day, Romney’s speech was acceptable to Christians because he did what he could- he stood by American Christendom with what vigor that can still be mustered. It isn’t much but it is ours… and worth preserving until better days come along.
LikeLike
Andrew, you strike me as the Van Tillian here — the secular left against the Christians. The American political tradition has portals that enter the world of the left — that’s why the Covenanters refused to bow the knee. That tradition also lets in folks like Rush, small govt. free market types, though Rush never seems to consider that big business needs big govt. to make the engines of commerce run. Even so, we’re talking about different parts of the American political spectrum. We’re not talking about a Christian political order. So to try to identify Christianity with either side looks to me like folly.
Bill, I don’t take much encouragement from a Mormon saying that Jesus is the Son of God. If we need a hermeneutic of suspicion when liberal Protestants employ that phrase, how much more a follower of Joseph Smith? (Have you been drinking too much well-water around Rochester again?)
BTW, I don’t think Aristotle will work for what ails the U.S. unless we break the whole thing up into small city states of no more than 7,000 citizens. The point of appealing to Aristotle is to suggest that pagans have some political wisdom going for them — that is, they can figure out a lot short of regeneration. One man’s Aristotle is another man’s Rush Limbaugh.
LikeLike
Romney reminds his audience of America’s tradition of religious liberty while speaking of a “common creed of moral convictions” in the supposedly interdenominational agreement on issues of “abolition, civil rights, and the right to life itself” when two of those were settled by the federal imposition of religious principles, and the last remains controversial if an examination is limited to Romney’s record, let alone the religious landscape.
He adds the equality of humankind, the obligation to serve one another, the steadfast commitment to liberty, and the belief that every single human being is a child of God. It might be worth examining the consequences of a candidate employing distinctively denominational language (for “every single human being is a child of God” has as specific a meaning to Mormons as “the chief end of man” does to Presbyterians) when that denomination only defines the terms of its creed in private to those who have already affirmed it as true, and does not permit discussion of them at any time. But the broader concern is how one maintains a commitment to liberty with the rest, as Dabney, or Ron Paul, or Cookie Monster (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48) would readily illustrate.
LikeLike
DGH- Pagans like Aristotle and Plato did have great insight without regeneration but not without illumination.
LikeLike
I only listened to a portion of the speech but the part I did listened to was that Romney was clearly anti-secular. As Romney attempted to appeal to Christians, my sense of what he was really trying to do was say, “come on guys, you really don’t care about my specific doctrinal distinctives about Jesus, all you care about is whether or not I will ban abortion and oppose gay marriage.” In a sense Darryl is right in his critique of this syllogism when he writes:
“For over a quarter of a century the religious right has insisted that faith should be a crucial factor in national life. The logic varies, but the premises seemed to run something like this: public officials should be people of character; religious faith produces character; ergo public officials need faith.”
You can be a pagan and be “moral” I mean we share a lot of ‘common’ morality with non-Christian/non-reformed Republicans, and they do exist no matter what they claim. But at the same time Darryl needs to point out in his arguments that though this may be true, that non-Christians don’t need to believe in a God to be moral, he also needs to clarify that non-Christians need to assume God in order to be moral. The only reason Jeffersonianism seems to work is because of the reality of borrowed capitol. It’s like in the movie, “The God’s must be crazy” when the tribesmen finds an empty coke bottle. Yeah it’s hard so it can be used to flatten out dough, it’s hollow so it can be used to make an instrument, but in the end it’s just an empty coke bottle. Jeffersonianism is a pagan attempt to explain the mystery of God’s common grace. In other words the philosophy of the separation of Church and State must assume on God’s loving kindness to all of His creation with His common grace in order to promote it’s desire to remain autonomous/atheistic (it’s refusal to worship and honor God) in their secular ideology. This is why W2K folks are just as inconsistent as those who believe in separation of church and state.
LikeLike
Yes, Darryl, I agree with Van Til on this point (though I agree he isn’t very persuasive to non-believers). Small “t” theonomy (not in the Reconstructionist sense) is basically equivalent to the love characteristic of the City of God, while autonomy is “love of self to the exclusion of God.” This is the “love” that for St. Augustine characterizes the City of Man. This is, of course, nothing other than the Calvinistic antithesis. (I realize I’m not enlightening you here, I’m just laying out my argument for the benefit of other readers.)
There are only two loves; there are not three. To the degree that the earthly city (which is distinct from the two eternal cities) approximates the love of God, it is legitimate. To the degree that it fails to acknowledge the LORD, it is illegitimate. I may disagree with Bill somewhat on the precise status of the earthly city’s telos, but we are in full agreement that it should be be pursued with the aim of serving, honoring and loving God. The explicit collective purpose of society should be oriented accordingly. This is a Christian synthesis of Plato and Aristotle: there are transcendent forms (Heaven & Hell) and there are immanent principles (the two loves).
Because the earthly city is neither the consummated city of either the beatified or the damned, it cannot be fully identified with either one. True, the NT speaks of the powers that have been dissarmed by Christ and a present evil order that is passing away. But this is the earthly city in its character of subjection to the powers of darkness. By becoming incarnate, establishing the Kingdom and sending the Life-giving Spirit, Christ imparted to creation a new immanent principle.
This is a robust inaugurated eschatology. In Jesus’ illustration, the yeast (the Kingdom) extensively leavens the whole sack of grain (the world). So, it is theologically permissable to consider the earthly city from the perspective of its being sustained by (“the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations”) and in the character of its service to the Heavenly City (the kings bringing their riches into it).
As for the American political spectrum, I’ll admit that Christians on the right need to move past Limbaugh. I’ll also concede there are legitimate concerns I share with people on the left (e.g., concern for the poor). However, I disagree with leftists on the proper methods for dealing with such problems.
Finally, it cannot be questioned that revolutionary radicalism comes from the left and not from the right in our current context. A strong argument can therefore be made that given the alternatives, political conservatism is compatible with Christianity while leftism is not.
LikeLike
JHB: Jefferson did assume a god for his morality. Theism is key. I don’t know what to do with an atheist. But can Christians concede that theism is good enough for public life? Generally speaking they haven’t. Protestants didn’t even trust other Trinitarians (read: Roman Catholics) to join them at the so-called table.
So Andrew, what place do you make for unbelievers in your political scheme? May they be citizens? If so, Jefferson’s solution looks pretty attractive. It even lets Rush a place at the table.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Jefferson may have believed in a deistic God but that is not the same thing as saying that Jefferson, and all pagans, must assume the Christian God. Muslims, Hindus all believe in a god or gods, but they all share the common universal reality of every image bearer assuming the Christian God.
“But can Christians concede that theism is good enough for public life?”
Sure. But at the same time, Christians are not simply called to be content with a theism that is simply good enough to live peacefully among pagans. We are called to a higher standard than just being satisfied with a pragmatic attitude. We are called to live among pagans, which common grace enables to do without sinning, so that we can preach the gospel and provide the means of grace. Whether that means we can invite them to church or if the laity (oh, oh) can share the gospel as well with them. Living a quiet life in piety wasn’t so that we would go unnoticed. Paul says that so that we would be noticed for the sake of the Gospel.
LikeLike
So, JHB, I put to you the same question that I put to Andrew: what place is there in public life for non-theists or non-Christians? If we are called to a higher standard, is the toleration of non-Xians and non-theists governing us a form of infidelity? But if our Constitutional order is okay (and I admit it is contested — at least it used to be by Covenanters), then why not take what we can get when we see a theist seeking public office?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Your wrote: “what place is there in public life for non-theists or non-Christians?”
Because God is good to even atheists and non-Christians, everywhere in public life is fair game. I believe we can have some incredibly gifted and moral public officials. I have no problem with voting for a theistic or even pagan candidate as far as they are able to “functionally” work for the common good for everyone. But let’s acknowledge where this common good commonality originates from, the Triune God. That is my only point. I feel the seperation of church and state, though it is good in the sense of preventing any non-biblical political ideology to have the status of gospel truth, at the same time it is misleading in that it also allows people to live only for the good of the common grace realm, without realizing that God’s kindness to them in the common grace realm is for them to repent and believe the Gospel.
“If we are called to a higher standard, is the toleration of non-Xians and non-theists governing us a form of infidelity?”
Then you would be accusing God as well of infidelity since He tolerates and hold’s back His justified wrath for their sins. Jesus Himself told His disciples to let the weeds grow among the wheat. Is the wheat therefore being unfaithful to the Harvester for living among the weeds? No.
For future reference just JB is fine, since we already dialogue on JJS’s blog.
LikeLike
JHB,
The higher standard we are called to is found in our collective cultic endeavor, not cultural. That seems to be precisely the point; our forms are not at all content with mere theism and morality. But the forms are about the project of Christianity (i.e. the Gospel), not the world. Mitt has a truckload of problems when it comes to the questions and answers which the cult pursues (and, no, that is not a double entendre since, despite Walter MartinĆ¢ā¬ā¢s out-dated insistence that Mormons are Ć¢ā¬ÅcultistsĆ¢ā¬Ā I would reserve such slurs for Kool-Aid drinkersĆ¢ā¬Ā¦if I learned anything from watching PBSĆ¢ā¬ā¢s Ć¢ā¬ÅJonesvilleĆ¢ā¬Ā this weekend it was that). But it seems not a little telling that it takes a persecuted minority and false religionist to understand exactly how the lines between cult and culture ought to be drawn.
Ć¢ā¬ÅWe are called to live among pagans, which common grace enables to do without sinningĆ¢ā¬Ā¦Ć¢ā¬Ā
Um, come again? Even those who were simultaneously plotting to kill Christ knew that nobody is Ć¢ā¬Åwithout sin.Ć¢ā¬Ā What is this strange notion of sanctification? Maybe it was a slip of the keyboard stroke, but I canĆ¢ā¬ā¢t help but wonder if such comments reveal something larger about certain views, specifically that believers are less a part of the problem than unbelievers. Are we not more sinful than not? Where does Calvinism figure into this idea that donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t sin anymore? I donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t know about you, but as I observe myself in the world, much as I would love to believe that I am enabled to not actually sin, I seem to be more a part of the problem than not.
LikeLike
Steve,
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Simple sentence structures please!! But I’ll try to answer your question. This distinction between cult and culture I don’t find too helpful. This sharp distinction that Kline drew out in KP seems to work well in America but in Thailand or in fact anywhere else where post-enlighement secularism has not “transformed” (hahaha) it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. You convert to Christianity in Ching Mai, than you have committed a crime against the State and therefore tried for a civil crime not a cultic one. Why? Because most cultures don’t make a distinction between cult and culture. The fact is unbelievers are still cultic beings. You say that my ideas are arrogant, I think to deny that, which I think W2K does or at least implies is arrogant. Who do you think we are to say only Christians are cultic?
“Maybe it was a slip of the keyboard stroke, but I canĆ¢ā¬ā¢t help but wonder if such comments reveal something larger about certain views, specifically that believers are less a part of the problem than unbelievers. Are we not more sinful than not? Where does Calvinism figure into this idea that donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t sin anymore? I donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t know about you, but as I observe myself in the world, much as I would love to believe that I am enabled to not actually sin, I seem to be more a part of the problem than not.”
Oh don’t worry Steve I have no problem in telling you that you are a sinner and that you are part of the problem and not the solution and even that you’re no different than all the evil perverts out there. My point is, if we still live in the world, and yet are called to be holy (not necessarily successful at it) that God provides a commonality in which unbelievers are restrained in their sins and actually do good things that we as Christians in good conscious can engage without being of the world. To me you don’t sound Calvinistic at all but more modern Lutheran which pretty much has a warped view of sanctification.
LikeLike
JB,
I am not clear on why “since certain parts of the world don’t make clear distinctions” that effort to do so is somehow futile. Nevertheless, I do think what is instructive is to distinguish between western forms of theocracy and non-western forms; such kingdom collapse seems to be what W2K wants to abet since it seems it was what sliced off ears in gardens and finally crucified the Son of God. I would say that here in the west we live in a somewhat muted theocracy, whereas in Ching Mai it is quite overt. It seems to be the case that all of the kingdoms of the world, by definition, collapse the kingdoms in one way or another. I might be killed for converting in China, but (if I believe I will be deified one day, at least) I have to make polite speeches in America to justify my desire to do statecraft. If we think we don’t live in a theocracy, if nothing else, Romney just proved we do. It just happens to be civil abou tit.
Yes, all human beings are cultic, since when we find ourselves in the common sphere we all still have cultic strings tied to our heels (either being reprobate or elect). I know it is supposed to be quite obvious, but just what does our cultic status have to do with our cultural endeavor? I don’t see the lines Kline drew as being very workable at all in America (it is curious as to why it seems to take a false religionist to make the case he is making; and why doesn’t anyone else have to make the point he is making?).
I guess I am not following your “called to be holy” point very well. Let me ask, what do you mean “We are called to live among pagans, which common grace enables to do without sinning”? What do you mean “without sinning”?
LikeLike
Steve,
A couple thoughts:
1. The fact that many if not most cultures collapse the two kingdoms, it makes me wonder if the distinct separation of those two sphere is really as clear cut as many Klinians believe.
2. Let say that I lived in Ching Mi and that I’m a Christian, because their policy demands that I persecute Christians, I cannot in good conscious go for public office. Here is an example of where the anti-thesis within the common grace realm prevents me from engaging the culture without falling into sin. However let’s say I’m a Christian in America and because of the “borrowed capitol” policy of church and state, to where I can still hold public office without compromising my Christian ethics (because of the commonality between Christian ethics and natural law ethics in America) than I in good conscious can run for public office and seek the common good of the city without sinning.
LikeLike
JB: you wrote: “But letĆ¢ā¬ā¢s acknowledge where this common good commonality originates from, the Triune God. That is my only point. I feel the seperation of church and state, though it is good in the sense of preventing any non-biblical political ideology to have the status of gospel truth, at the same time it is misleading in that it also allows people to live only for the good of the common grace realm, without realizing that GodĆ¢ā¬ā¢s kindness to them in the common grace realm is for them to repent and believe the Gospel.” So your difficulty seems to be two-fold. First, you are worried about 2k views that don’t acknowledge goodness comes from God. But when has any 2ker denied that God created everything and powerfully upholds it through his providence?
Second, you are uncomfortable with non-Xians being good and not acknowledging where their goodness comes from. If that’s the case, why would you ever vote for an atheist who is civically virtuous? Why wouldn’t you insist that he or she acknowledge dependence on God? Also, how else is an atheist or agnostic supposed to live? Isn’t the point of being dubious about God not acknowledging God as the source of goodness? Methinks you’re conflicted.
LikeLike
JB,
1. It seems to me that this is precisely the point of Klinean thought and what W2k intends on doing (for better or worse). The kingdoms are indeed not clear cut. That is the problem, that is why a deliberate effort needs to be made. Granted, one seems to have to be comfortable with a measure of fuzziness at the same time (sort of like how Calvinism in general cannot fully explain how God’s sovereignty and human duty co-exist yet strives to maintain both like revelation does).
2. Now your “without sinning” seems to make more sense, but still not much to me. How does a Xian “go for public office” in a country that “persecutes Xians”? Your illustration seems to have a fairly fundamental flaw. Nevertheless, I would be careful to assume that any quarter in the kingdom of man (including the USA) is not finally hostile to true faith. Yes, as a believer I’d much rather live here than in China. But if Israel can brutally crucify its own flesh and blood, isn’t it sort of naive to think it is out of the realm of possibility I won’t be strung up one day in Springfield (or Grand Rapids)?
LikeLike
“…without realizing that GodĆ¢ā¬ā¢s kindness to them in the common grace realm is for them to repent and believe the Gospel.Ć¢ā¬Ā
Really? This sounds like a version of “creation needs to be redeemed.” Not that you have ever accepted the collar, JB, but the more I listen to transformationalists who do the more I seem to hear assumptions that creation may be good but not “very good.” Whatever can be located as grounded in creation is “incomplete” until touched by faith. But ceation’s problem is not that it is “incomplete” but that it is sinful. True enough, redemption is played out on creation’s stage, but that doesn’t mean creation is less-than in its nature. At the risk of high-pitched howls, this is why “I love NYC and wouldn’t change a thing.” That it is located in an age that is passing away doesn’t mean it is inherently so bad it needs transforming; it means her inhabitants need the Gospel in order to get into the next aeon.
LikeLike
Steve- here is a howl! Nature, as you have noted, is fallen and in desperate need of restoration through grace. Grace perfects nature. To deny it borders on heresy. I say borders for the sake of R. Scott Clark. Still, it is a problem.
Further, the creation itself needed to be perfected long before it was sinful. Consummation was a category (I think a gracious category… in a way of speaking) even before the fall. Adam and the creation needed to be lifted up into a heavenly state.
Now politics cannot do the redemptive work but it can do much to restrain evil and to promote good. Since Christianity is included in the good, it seems obvious that the magistrate has duties toward the holy realm.
Sometimes I wonder if you have thought about the fact that the Word became flesh. The incarnation matters. It raises the stakes of the flesh and makes our faith more than otherworldly.
LikeLike
Bill,
If it all the same to you, I’ll stick with RSC’s survey of the nature/grace topic in church history, since what he tags as the historical Protestant view seems to comport with the rest of how I have come to understand the best of Reformed theology, piety and practiceĆ¢ā¬āto say nothing of his bona fides anyway. That said, I suppose instead of tossing about the H-word I’d rather see how what comports where: it seems that “grace perfects nature” is more aligned with Rome; that “grace obliterates nature” Anabaptist; that “grace is equal to nature” Pantheist/Liberal; that “grace renews nature” historical Protestant. If you agree to such a survey, I would rather say I am more Protestant than Catholic, Liberal or Anabaptist.
Great Vosian point about “creation itself need[ing] to be perfected long before it was sinful,” or as the man himself might put it, “eschatology precedes soteriology.Ć¢ā¬Ā I couldn’t agree more. And great point about politics; I just wish you had stopped after the first sentence i sall.
If it’s any help, it was the very topic of the relation between Christ and culture that instigated my first steps out of broad, world-flight Evangelicalism and into confessional, world-affirming Reformation, concluding that the best of the latter is the most superior system to help navigate how a believer ought to relate to the wider world. Thus, despite what you may assume, I think about it all the bloody time since I owe so much to it. It is what nurtures my understanding that there is both good and bad kinds of both this-worldly and otherworldly piety. Moreover, I discern more world-flight piety in any and all forms of transformationalism, despite whatever appearances of world-affirmation, whether it’s more Modern, objective forms that emphasize institution (i.e. “outside-in”), more PoMo subjective versions that emphasize inward relations (i.e. “inside-out”), or hybrids of the two (which I think there is a lot of) that actually have low views of creation.
LikeLike
Steve, it really is all the same to me. You can side with Scott and in doing so you have an able friend. I am, of course, quite Scott friendly… except that he (and therefore you) are wrong on this point. I have, on various occasions, provided multiple quotes from Rutherford, Bavinck, and others to show that Thomist statement “grace perfects nature” is fully Reformed.
I think that the pretended distinction between “grace perfects nature” and a so-called “grace restores nature” is without meaning. The two affirm the same truth unless you want to deny that eschatology precedes soteriology.
LikeLike
And to top it off, even if that paradigm is right, I am not sure the Reformed have much to brag about when it comes to cult/culture relations. Unless, of course, you are a fan of modernist liberalism. Rather, I think it healthier to try to borrow from Rome as much as our soteriology will allow.
LikeLike
Darryl, clever trick here, but I’m not buying. You are right to say that Jefferson put ethics ahead of doctrine, but this ignores the McIntyrian question: whose ethics? Romney and his speach are objectionable not specifically because of his Mormonism, but because as a result of his Mormonism, he has adopted a public ethic that is decidedly anti-Jeffersonian and, I would suggest, anti-Christian (the fact that many evangelicals have also adopted this ethic is beside the point).
Your essay above leads a particular notion of separation of state and church in through the back door and under the umbrella of “ethics” that Jefferson would not have approved of. And it is essentially the Hamiltonian public religion of America as a “creedal nation” or an “idea” that transcends all parochialisms like religious belief, county of birth, or constraints of culture and kin. This was never Jefferson’s argument for separation of church and state.
Likewise, Jefferson followed Aristotle in arguing in favor of essentially a reinterpretation of the greek city-state in the American context. Besides, who says Aristotle was not regenerate?
LikeLike
Bill,
Fair enough; but I don’t find myself budging. I will continue to pretend that what may help in distinguishing perfection and renewal (not restoration) is the eschatological/soteriological categories: we are not so much “being made” righteous (soteriological) in this present age (eschatological) as we are “declared righteous” now and will be made as much in the future, while we are simultaneously *being sanctified* now. In other words, the “perfection of nature” language seems to comport better with those who may conflate justification and sanctification.
…but like JB says, I am a warped Lutheran anyway.
LikeLike
Getting back to you, Darryl, the question of the uneliever’s status in a Christian state is admittedly a very difficult practical question and I’ve tried to answer it before. However, the difficulty of answering this question has is irrelevant to the question of whether the king **should** acknowledge Christ’s Lordship and order national affairs in light of the coming judgment.
Theory is primary; tactics secondary. A seeker of truth must be willing to evaluate theoretical arguments before proceeding to pragmatic questions. I’m willing to suggest practical solutions all day long, but it would not be a good use of time if the theory wasn’t seriously engaged.
Since there is no agreement between the two loves on what defines the social good, Christians should promote the policy that best prepares society for the LORD’s return. This requires wisdom and circumspection on the part of influential Christians.
As I’ve said before, I’m no revolutionary. I’m willing to vote for the best available options & let things develop naturally. I’m certainly willing to allow the American experiment to play itself out. And play itself out it will. Like every other political system that preceded it, the American order is provisional and, therefore, temporary. All temporary orders must end.
LikeLike
“Second, you are uncomfortable with non-Xians being good and not acknowledging where their goodness comes from. If thatĆ¢ā¬ā¢s the case, why would you ever vote for an atheist who is civically virtuous? Why wouldnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t you insist that he or she acknowledge dependence on God? Why wouldnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t you insist that he or she acknowledge dependence on God? Also, how else is an atheist or agnostic supposed to live? IsnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t the point of being dubious about God not acknowledging God as the source of goodness? Methinks youĆ¢ā¬ā¢re conflicted.”
Oh no, Darryl, me thinks me not. How can non-Xn’s BE good? I think they can act good, but I don’t think they can actually BE good, isn’t that something only the imputed righteousness of Christ can do? (Sorry if that sounds arrogant to you but I actually believe in progressive sanctification) But I’m assuming that is what you meant and if so, doesn’t Scripture teach that God’s wrath is against those who refuse to acknowledge Him in all His glory, majesty and GOODNESS?
Just because an atheist isn’t a believer doesn’t mean he has no common good to offer. I don’t credit his goodness in who he is, because I believe it comes from God’s loving kindness to him as an image bearer as well as for the common good of our culture. So I can vote for a competent, fair and moral atheist for office because of God’s common grace without any inner conflict. The commonness I share with him in the political realm can allow me to have a friendship with him, invite him to church and preach the gospel at my pulpit. I can show how the gospel is the natural consistent conclusion to his political ideology and therefore implore him to believe in the God who has gifted him with gifts that benefit the common good. You see, no conflict at all!! I can vote for a pagan and I can preach to him too.
LikeLike
Caleb, I wasn’t selling. Romney was. But thanks for not kicking Voegelinian sand in my face.
I actually think Jefferson’s ethics are more Christian than Romneys’s. Tom did after all publish his own edition of the Bible, complete with Jesus’ ethical teachings. So his answer to McIntyre would have been Jesus’s ethics. I’m not sure Mitt could answer so univocally since his special revelation did not take away but added to the canon.
I agree on Jefferson on church and state and much prefer Jefferson to Hamilton. How could a manque agrarian not take Tom’s side? My point in invoking Jefferson on separation was only to save him from the scorn that evangelicals regularly heap on him because of his letter affirming the wall between church and state. Most Americans like that wall at some height. Why don’t we just admit it and plant flowers around it.
But I do disagree that what evangelicals make of this is beside the point. They are the ones who are responsible for painting Mitt into this corner. Faith was supposed to matter to politics and now they face the predicament of not being able to hold on to power with a true believer like Huck or holding their nose and voting for a pro-life Mormon. Like the mainline Protestants who insisted that RC’s couldn’t hold office because it would violate the separtion of church and state, evangelicals are leary of Mormons on the same grounds. Sorry, but I think adding some clarity to American Protestant hypocrisy on Jefferson and the wall is exactly what is needed at this moment. It certainly was the reason I wrote the piece the way I did.
And while I’m at it, Bill, what is this politics “can do much to restrain evil and to promote good” jazz? Are you calling for social engineering on the part of the state? Isn’t promoting the good precisely what informs the school teachers’ union and various nonsense teaching plans in public schools? Isn’t universal health care part of promoting the good? This doesn’t even get started on what the good is from the perspective of the covenant of works? What did Joseph Smith put in the water up there?
LikeLike
Darryl- I thought you were the one selling Aristotle? Did the good pagan say that virtue was the end of good government (I paraphrase)?
LikeLike
Exactly, Jefferson’s ethics were more Christian than are Romney’s. And not just because he kept Jesus’s ethical teachings. That was my point. I thought you were unfairly pinning Romney’s speech on Jefferson, when I imagine Jefferson would have shuddered at it, not done cartwheels of joy.
LikeLike
JB,
Ć¢ā¬ÅHow can non-XnĆ¢ā¬ā¢s BE good? I think they can act good, but I donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t think they can actually BE good, isnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t that something only the imputed righteousness of Christ can do? (Sorry if that sounds arrogant to you but I actually believe in progressive sanctification)Ć¢ā¬Ā
How can one act good if he is not good in his being? I thought we held to a more organic view of righteousness and not so much a mechanical one that divvies up acts from being. And wasnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t it a Remonstrant ploy to begin with observable action and then conclude about human nature? (Calvinists sometimes seem like they make this same mistake when they point to utter depravity [Hitler] to make the case for total depravity; but not only do we hold to the latter and not the former, but beginning with what is observable is a fatal mistake.) And isnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t Ć¢ā¬Åactually beĆ¢ā¬Ā language quite alien to Ć¢ā¬Åreckon, impute, forensicĆ¢ā¬Ā? To answer you more directly, no, the IAOC doe not Ć¢ā¬Åmake us holy,Ć¢ā¬Ā but reckons us so. This seems to be so much of the point (!). I canĆ¢ā¬ā¢t help but wonder if more conflation of justification and sanctification is going on in what you say.
If what you say is true, I am at a loss as to why I cannot tell my unbelieving neighbor that I am simply better than him. Forget being rude or some other civil, non-theological reason: tell me why canĆ¢ā¬ā¢t I tell him I am better than him?
I believe in progressive sanctification as well, JB. But the question seems to turn on what is meant by Ć¢ā¬Åprogressive,Ć¢ā¬Ā donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t you think? I mean, to look at the forms not only are they sort of downers, but it appears Ć¢ā¬ÅprogressiveĆ¢ā¬Ā might mean less than more. I read these to teach we are always in this life more sinful than not, despite the simultaneous truth of progressing. I wonder if you have a progressive definition of progressive:
BC Article 24
Ć¢ā¬ÅIn the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them.Ć¢ā¬Ā
HBC
Question 62. “But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer. Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.Ć¢ā¬Ā
WCF, XIII (Of Sanctification)
Ć¢ā¬ÅII. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.Ć¢ā¬Ā
LikeLike
“If what you say is true, I am at a loss as to why I cannot tell my unbelieving neighbor that I am simply better than him. Forget being rude or some other civil, non-theological reason: tell me why canĆ¢ā¬ā¢t I tell him I am better than him?”
Stever
What reason would you want to say that you are better than them? To be better than someone implies that you achieve or accomplished something others have failed in. That isn’t what I’m saying at all. If we ARE good, rather than just act good, it is due to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
On another note, justification, imputed righteousness has a foreign and domestic component to it as well. It’s forensic in nature but it is also looked upon as our own actual righteousness as well, just like Adam’s imputed sin is looked upon as our own personal sin as well, our forensic status and our being go hand in hand.
I don’t get it what this whole emphasis of undermining a real transforming change in our hearts, no wonder you W2K guys don’t want to transform anything! All the imperatives throughout the gospels and and the epistles clearly tell us to strive for holiness and growth in sanctification. You act like sanctification progresses like a leaky faucet rather than striving with all your might to fight for victory over besetting sins. By the way chapt 13 section 3 concludes that there is a growth in grace. You incorrectly conclude that just because I speak of progressive sanctification I’m promoting arrogant perfectionism; go back to my post and prove it, because I know I never stated that.
LikeLike
JHB: Welcome to the 2k club. All it takes to join is to admit you can vote for a pagan or atheist. I don’t understand why we get such grief for saying you can. Maybe as a club member you can help us explain.
Caleb, the Jeffersonian part in Mitt’s speech was that as long as my Mormon neighbor doesn’t break my bones or pick my pocket why does it matter if he believes Jesus was a brother of Satan?
LikeLike
Bill, actually I thought it was Plato who was the authoritarian. On Aristotle, I guess I only like the wise bits. Surely, though as a conservative you don’t think government nurtures goodness. Isn’t that why God ordained mediating institutions and civil society?
LikeLike
DGH- indeed, partially. Of course I affirm subsidiarity but can we have subsidarity without solidarity?
Of course, mediating institutions include some civil authorities. Village, town, county governments are mediating institutions, no?
I am a conservative… not an authoritarian but also not libertarian. Still, I feel the weight of your argument and am wary of the problem.
From Kirk’s essay on Libertarianism:
“Fifth, the libertarian asserts that the state is the great oppressor. But the- conservative finds that the state is natural and necessary for the fulfillment of human nature and the growth of civilization; it cannot be abolished unless humanity is abolished; it is ordained for our very existence. In Burke’s phrases, “He who gave us our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. – He willed therefore the state – He willed its connection with the source and original archtype of all perfection.” Without the state, man’s condition is poor, nasty, brutish, and short – as Augustine argued, many centuries before Hobbes. The libertarians confound the state with government; in truth, government is the temporary instrument of the state. But government – as Burke continued – “is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants.” Among the more important of these wants is a “sufficient restraint upon their passions.”
LikeLike
“Caleb, the Jeffersonian part in MittĆ¢ā¬ā¢s speech was that as long as my Mormon neighbor doesnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t break my bones or pick my pocket why does it matter if he believes Jesus was a brother of Satan?”
Yes, but Mitt wasn’t talking about being your or my neighbor.
We are virtually all liberal pluralists when it comes to our neighbor’s beliefs (as opposed to acts, which is implicit in Jefferson’s statement–and even Cromwell could say the same**) and thus Jeffersonian in that sense. But Mitt is running for President, and his Mormonism is not what is objectionable. Rather it is his particular version of pluralism which results in and is infused with an ethical understanding of America that is most unJeffersonian.
**Oliver Cromwell’s mandate to Catholics: “As to freedom of conscience, I meddle with no man’s conscience; but if you mean by that, liberty to celebrate the Mass, I would have you understand that in no place where the power of the Parliament of England prevails shall that be permitted.”
Or as our Supreme Court has remarked: “The distinction between belief and behavior, is susceptible to perverse application.”
LikeLike
JB,
I don’t want to say I am better. I just want to know why I can’t when so much of the rhetoric implies that I can. I still don’t understand this need to bifurcate being and action. Why the low view on “just” acting good?
Only those who are better at things can transform anything. That seems fairly clear and basic. I can understand political candidates telling us s/he can fulfill the “time for change” and go on to explain how his/her ideas are superior to the others’. But savvy constituents know this is mainly hot air since nobody really is better and things don’t really change all that much, etc. Do we really want to ape politicians and salesmen who simply want to carry the day and win? Seems to me the project of Xianity should surpass bright-eyed assumptions and be much more sober in its regard for human ability. Moreover, there was One Who was indeed better than anyone and He seemed curiously uninterested in “transforming” anything, as well as those comissioned to carry out His mission. He even said stuff like, “The poor you will always have with you.” Yeow, not very inspiring.
Now that you have the “I can vote for an atheist” tee shirt, might I interest you in a “I HEART NYC (and I wouldn’t change a thing)” lapel pin? I have plenty. Feel free to substitute any place in the world you really like, maybe a favorite vacation spot. It seems a high view of creation is easier to swallow the less one imbibes on novels and films prejudiced against NYC (or the big, bad world).
LikeLike
DGH: Is all virtue a recommitment tot the covenant of works? Does our justification allow us to be unjust be content with being “unjust” in our daily situation?
LikeLike
Bill, wouldn’t all virtue be a reflection of God’s moral law? And didn’t that law inform the covenant of works?
On this matter of change, I do wish Christians would at least use another c-word as much as CHANGE. Communists and lots of utopians trumpeted change. Maybe they gave change a bad name, or maybe change is in some tension with being content (the c-word of choice). I see nothing in the decalogue requiring change. I do see one law demanding contentment.
LikeLike
Steve,
I love New York with a passion, but Steve, have you actually lived in New York? No one in their right mind who has lived there would say “there is nothing I would change about it.” Sounds like someone who just hangs out in Times Square for a few days and comes back to their nice home in the suburbs.
The poor we always have with us, right, and yet the Scriptures clearly teach that we are to remember them and to minister to them, even the non-Christian poor. Sorry Steve, but the Church is an institution that is called to be the arm of mercy. Where in Scripture does it call the state to take on that responsibility? W2k guys seem to always want to go “either/or” and I’m a “both/and.”
LikeLike
DGH: Sure but the COW is a sacred category that you are trying to confuse with civil categories. Again, I am thinking your arguments confound the kingdoms. The moral law/virtue was known to the Pagans as well as to Israel. It is known ay all men and informs what virtual should attain to.
To dismiss virtue as a vestige of the covenant of works and to instread rely on our justification in the covenant of grace fails to recognize that love is always united to faith even in the covenant of grace seems to prove Caleb/Voegelin’s point about Luther being the end of ethics.
Say it ain’t so!
LikeLike
Caleb: I wonder if you could outline what you think unbiblical about Romney’s ethics. I understand from the perspective of his personally legalistic Mormon setting, but what about his civil views is unbiblical? The thing that bothered me about the speech was its relativism and his claim that biblical ethics committed us to civil rights and equality. Here I see a real point where Jefferson’s ethics would be more biblical- is this what you see… or is there more?
LikeLike
Well, I don’t think I said unbiblical, but anti-Christian, which is not the same thing. But to summarize, I object to the idea that pluralism is possible because despite our different religious beliefs we all share a fundamental commitment to the “doctrine of America” as a “creedal nation.” This is an anti-Christian pluralism. It is not Jefferson’s pluralism which was far more Augustinian, and basically held that pluralism of belief was possible because citizens had a shared commitment to loved things held in common, like our towns, our countryside, and our minor league baseball teams.
LikeLike
JB,
WouldnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t a both/and guy want the tee shirt and lapel pin?
You got me. I have never lived there. I do come home to the comforts of suburbia. The irony of it is that I come home to a cradle of neo-Kuyperian Trasformationalism. What is it that Ć¢ā¬Åneeds to be changedĆ¢ā¬Ā in NYC that GRusalem doesnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t have? Are you thinking petty crime, because we have plenty of that; are you thinking prostitution, because Broadway and Lexington have nothing on Division Avenue; are you thinking the corruption of public officials, child abuse, theft, what? We have got it all. How can that be with so many transformers running about? There is plenty that Ć¢ā¬Åneeds to changeĆ¢ā¬Ā even here. But we have lots of good stuff too. (Transformers like to point to the good stuff and seem to have little answer as to why the bad stuff still hasnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t gone away.) Moreover, this sort of diversity seems to be more or less wherever one goes in the world, donĆ¢ā¬ā¢t you find? I mean, when I escape the big, bad city and go to my small hometown there is still the same bad and good stuff. Granted, it may be different in character and quality, etc. And some places are more palatable than others, but that seems merely a matter of preference. Maybe NYC gets picked on because itĆ¢ā¬ā¢s louder?
Where in the Scriptures does it say that is NOT the role of government (Romans 13 might be a place to consider)? Sounds like you may have been another perfect constituency of KarlĆ¢ā¬ā¢s that brilliantly tapped into more Evangelical Republicanism and general religiosity that Christianity: Ć¢ā¬ÅWe all know that 1) true religion shoulders the disenfranchised and 2) that the government is limited in its capacity and effectiveness, so voila, faith-based initiatives.Ć¢ā¬Ā Not so fast on the first assumption, and I am not sure what makes anyone assume the Church is anymore able to shoulder such a monumental task than the government (if anything, it seems less so). But sorting all that out is for the KoM which may result in more or less State duty; it shouldnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t be lazily foisted onto true religion. Seems to me the falser the religion the more eager it is to accept such tasks. I am not at all convinced it is a good thing for Christians to line up next to false religionists to meet that burden. I find such assumptions much more American than Christian.
LikeLike
Caleb: Thank you. I heartily agree.
LikeLike
Steve,
Okay, I read Romans 13 and sorry, nothing in hear of the State being a balm for those disenfranchized, AT ALL. All is see is governing, sword, but no mercy. (by the way Kline’s section on the city of man in KP, is so beautifully written but not fully correct). I’d say let the State do what it was commissioned to do, to govern and to exercise the sword, and let the Church do what the Church is commissioned to do.
“Transformers like to point to the good stuff and seem to have little answer as to why the bad stuff still hasnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t gone away”
Gee, if all the bad stuff went away, I would assume there wound be no need to feel the burden to be transformational? What do you think?
“Where in the Scriptures does it say that is NOT the role of government”
Haha, this is so funny. Are you a regulative princples guy or not? I assumed you were. Perhaps the fact that Jesus tells His disciples and the Apostles tell Paul that they should remember the poor seems to make it clear that what Scripture is silent about concerning the State, it’s loud and clear concerning the Church. Go figure.
If we want to go Stephen Covey here, right first things first, the priority of the Church is the Gospel, no disagreement. But to say there is no call of the Church to be an agent of mercy is just crazy, are you taking crazy pills bro? (Just kidding on that, don’t take seriously)
By the way, I’m not a Karl fan at all (Van Til convinced me of that).
“Seems to me the falser the religion the more eager it is to accept such tasks.”
Wow, this is a bold and amazing statement. So a church that practice mercy to those outside the church is false religion? i guess postmils fall under this category? (by the way I don’t consider myself postmil but i at least call them my brothers in the faith). Let’s just end the discussion.
LikeLike
JHB, does putting the mercy in ministry extend to merciful reading? Steve didn’t write that mercy ministry is false religion. He said something about the church (which I think included you) being next to false religions in dispensing mercy.
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).
LikeLike
Of course, no one is suggesting taking your favorite philosopher over Christ. Unless you are GWB, then you can have both.
LikeLike
JB,
I didnĆ¢ā¬ā¢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 neighborĆ¢ā¬ā¢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 religionĆ¢ā¬āif it fits, ok, but I like to practice more restraint). My statement was really one of degree; I wasnĆ¢ā¬ā¢t calling anything Ć¢ā¬Åa false religion.Ć¢ā¬Ā 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 oneĆ¢ā¬ā¢s own hands.
LikeLike
The assertion that the modern nation-state should in any way care for the poor assumes the nation-state’s legitimacy and neutrality with respect to the church. I see the nation-state as being inherently competitive with the church (they’ve been collecting whats God’s for centuries now: money, bodies, mercy ministries, moral judgments etc.) You guys insist on equating a “kingdom” with the modern nation-state. How is this not grossly unjust equivocation? The Nation-State is a parody of the church!! This is different than a kingdom, but some of the same competitions remain.
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.
LikeLike
Rusty O: are you implying that kings and emperors have never sent Christians to lose their lives in unjust wars? Why is the nation-state inherently more culpable than a monarchy or empire? At least the modern nation-state has a balance of powers, at least in theory. Divine-right monarchs had few such impediments.
LikeLike
Rusty,
“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.
LikeLike
Kings and Emperors have indeed. But with a change in regime society would change drastically (Constantine, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc.) Society was complex with fealties to church and baron, so identity was much less between the citizen and the king. The nation-state does not balance power but concentrates it to offices and bureaucrats and corporate boards. The identity of the citizen is thus as an American with fealty primarily to the federal gov. which maintains no residence and will not die allowing for a regime change. If Huckabee or even Paul were elected president there is very little they could do to the self-perpetuating offices of the feds. The king’s hope for eternal succession (like the reign of David through Jesus) is closer to realization in the nation-state where the headless monster lumbers on exerting direct authority over every life in its borders.
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.
LikeLike
Steve,
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.
LikeLike
Rusty, you said, “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.” Can you (I assume you’re a Covenanter) really be forgetting the Stuart Monarchy. Politicians make mistakes all the time about war. But do we really want to slight their tyranny over the church?
LikeLike
I am not questioning the capacity to kill of any given monarch. My point, to use the Stuart example, is that everything changed with the head of the government. When Charles I lost his head, things looked drastically different under Cromwell. If an American President is killed, the oligarchy continues. And the oligarchy can keep tabs on every citizen through surveillance.
Why wouldn’t I want to slight the tyranny of politicians over the church? I’m not sure I understand?
Rusty
LikeLike