Paleo vs. Neo-Reformed (continued)
March 4th, 2009 by Darryl G. HartThe paleo/neo distinction for Reformed Protestants is not only useful for discerning different attitudes toward evangelicalism, but even for figuring out distinct understandings of Calvinism itself. After all, the Kuyperian or world-and-life-view form of Calvinism has always been known as neo-Calvinism. That reputation implies a distinction with paleo-Calvinism, and furthers the wariness that should accompany the use of the prefix “neo” — as in neo-conservative, neo-evangelical, and neo-orthodox.
Neo-Calvinists are prone to dismiss paleo-Calvinists as warmed over Lutherans because of either the two-kingdom doctrine or the spirituality of the church. This is not the place to elaborate on either of these, except to remark that when paleo-Calvinists distinguish between the sacred and the secular, the spiritual and the natural, the temporal and the eternal, neo-Calvinists go batty and think that paleo-Calvinists are following Luther and restricting Christianity to the realm of religion and ethics. (As if Luther’s view of vocation and the goodness of work in this world doesn’t suggest that neo-Calvinists are confused about Luther and Lutheranism.)
True enough, paleo-Calvinists do distinguish between redemption and creation and think of Christianity the way the Bible does, as a religion of redemption and not a program of cultural and social renewal (which is why so many neo-Calvinists are tempted by theonomy and a view of Israel as a program of cultural and social renewal). But paleo-Calvinists do recognize the goodness of creation. They simply don’t think that creation is the place to look for redemption.
At the same time, paleo-Calvinists understand that redemption goes beyond creation. Creation as good was not the aim of God’s plan. The idea was to go higher to a place of blessedness that was even better than goodness. Sin messed up that plan. But redemption puts glorification back into play by promising that saints will one day inherit what Adam would have had he kept the covenant of works. The Garden of Eden was not the goal, nor was Old Jerusalem, Grand Rapids, or New York City. The new heavens and new earth was.
Paleo-Calvinists object to neo-Calvinists, then, for not understanding that consummation goes beyond creational norms and structures. Neo-Calvinists seem to want to go back to the Garden. Paleo-Calvinists believe that the Garden was not and is not all there is to man’s chief end. Pale0-Calvinists also sense that ne0-Calvinists are not really comfortable with the goodness of creation as creation. That’s why they keep talking about the need to redeem the culture, or redemption as cultural or social renewal. The implicit point seems to be that if something can’t be saved, then it’s no good. The neo-Calvinist seems to have no place for an in-between state — one between holy and profane such as common or good.
Neo-Calvinists should not despair. Paleo-Calvinists have just what they need, that is a dose of paleo-Calvinism from the most paleo of Calvinists, John Calvin, who made a distinction that neo-Calvinists are loathe to make:
. . . whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace; and let us remember to keep within its own limits all that freedom which is promised and offered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle who bids us stand and no submit to the ‘yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1) elsewhere forbids slaves to be anxious about their state (1 Cor. 7:21), unless it be that spiritual freedom can perfectly well exist along with civil bondage? . . . . By these statements he means that it makes no difference what your condition among men may be or under what nation’s laws you live, since the Kingdom of Christ does not at all consist of these things.
This quotation points precisely at an in-between realm that is neither wicked nor holy — it is temporal, earthly, and provisional. It recognizes that some things in life are good even if they are not holy, and that their proper place is simply to be good and not to be saved (or made holy). It is the difference between a good meal and a holy meal. And the ability to see the difference between an exceptional home-cooked meal and the Lord’s Supper is one that allows paleo-Calvinists to see the difference between the creational realm of culture and society, and the redeemed world of the church. It is, in fact, the only way to make sense of statements like this one from the Belgic Confession:
Now those who are regenerated have in them a twofold life (2 John 3:6): the one corporal and temporal, which they have from the first birth and is common to all men; the other spiritual and heavenly, which is given them in their second birth (John 3:5), which is effected by the word of the gospel (John 5:23, 25) in the communion of the body of Christ: and this life is not common, but is peculiar to God’s elect (1 John 5:12; John 10:28). In like manner God has given us, for the support of the bodily and earthly life, earthly and common bread which is subservient thereto and is common to all men, even as life itself. But for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life which believers have, he has sent a living bread which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ (John 6:32-33, 51), who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers when they eat Him, that is to say, when they apply and receive him by faith and in the Spirit (John 6:63). (BC, Art. 35)
Too late.
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. My eternal devotion (such as it is … this week hasn’t been a stellar example of such …) drives my views on human needs v. efficiency, environment v. aesthetics, etc.
Ethics isn’t everything, but it is everywhere. Likewise, the Bible may not spell out road patterns in specific, but it does not follow that the Bible is entirely irrelevant to road patterns.
By all means, put me down in the latent camp, and blatant only if absolutely necessary. But that’s a question of means, not ends.
What I’m hearing from W2K is that the *end-goal* is a completely divorced church and state; and my response is, as long as the church is made of people (and it is), and as long as the state is governed by people (and it is), you can’t fully separate church and state without being Amish.
It may be that W2K has over-represented its arguments in absolute terms. Or that I’ve over-read the arguments that you and DGH have made.
Perhaps what you desire is simply a much lower degree of church-state entanglement. If that’s the case, then many of the objections evaporate. But if that truly is the case, then your arguments will need to become much more nuanced. We’ll have to move from sweeping absolute generalizations into more careful assessments of degrees of entanglement.
Example:
I can’t see how this can be maintained in the face of Rom. 6 or the “indicative/imperative” framework you mentioned above. I have to conclude that you’re making a rhetorical flourish here. Else, your words literally say that genuine Christians are no more able to obey God than non-Christians — and that runs headlong into a ditch (cf. WCoF 13.1, 3), since non-Christians are entirely unable to obey God.
JRC
I meant something slightly different. W2K is a species of 2K theology. Augustine and Calvin also espoused two other species of 2K theology. A’s and C’s 2K theologies are far, far from W2K. I’ll develop this more, but here’s the short of it: Calvin’s Geneva demonstrates clearly that he did not believe in a Secular Faith.
JRC
Jeff,
My point isn’t that we are “entirely unable to obey God” (for the reasons you suggest) but to put an accent on our sin. I thought that is what Calvinists were supposed to do, emphasize sin?
Besides, I don’t know how else to explain that on any given day I get as much wrong as I get right and the Christ hating unbelievers around me fare no better.
Jeff, I understand that Philadelphia in 2009 is not Geneva in 1560. But if that is the comparison then again aren’t you putting yourself in a position to renounce, revolt against, despise the American polity? Calvin would not have approved of 1776 or 1789. So again, if you’re going to use Calvin against me, you better save some for yourself (if you are a loyal American).
Therefore, I believe that Christians may at times have to resist the government. Zrim thinks I’m crazy in this regard, even though I multiplied Biblical examples of civil disobedience.
Jeff,
Did I say “crazy”? You said it, not me.
Maybe it’s my being a buttoned-down, first-born mid-westerner adored by WASP-y and Fundy mothers alike, but the Christian life, as I understand it, can be summed up in one word: obey. (Mark 12:13-17 alone should be enough to make this point—they were “amazed” for good, compelling reason, being told to obey he who thought he was the deity and intruded on private lives like nobody’s business).
I’m not sure I can recall what biblical examples you catalogued for me, but just the phrase “civil disobedience” sounds way more American than Christian. Certainly, when I read real fast-like through the NT I simply don’t come away with any notion that disobedience is a virtue. This is doubly odd given how my attempts to guard liberty, etc. are always cast as somehow flirting with antinomianism (maybe not by you directly in so many words). Then I’m told disobedience is something to be nurtured. What gives?
Less Thoreau, MLK and Falwell, more Paul.
Weird. I would have used the word “believe.” Or “love.” Both of which entail obedience, of course. But “obey” by itself is insufficient, I think.
Here’re the relevant references. I’ll be happy to point you to further examples if needed.
The core problem here is that to dismiss civil disobedience entirely directly implies that civil obedience is always required, that laws of men are morally binding. This is not the case. Civil law restricts behavior, but it does not bind my conscience. I obey the magistrate because I am a citizen of heaven and subject to Rom. 13. But my primary citizenship is not of this world.
Jeff Cagle
I don’t think I intend to use Calvin against you. I’m not comfortable with Calvin’s Geneva! My only point is to think carefully about 2K theologies and get some agreement that they are not all created equal.
JRC
Actually, I’ll take the first sentence back. Clearly I think Calvin has some relevant things to say here. But the rest of my comment stands.
I do too, that’s why I quoted Calvin in the original post. When he wrote: “whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace. . .” was he thinking that Geneva was the coming of the kingdom, or a program for urban renewal? Those who claim Calvin seldom go near passages like this.
I don’t presume to know how to determine “the real” Calvin. When thinkers like Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Barth, etc, write as much as they do, trying to find the red-letter thoughts in their writings is tough and contested work. Even so, to make sense of Calvin’s views on the magistrate, his point in this quote would appear to be highly significant.
Jeff,
What I’m hearing from W2K is that the *end-goal* is a completely divorced church and state; and my response is, as long as the church is made of people (and it is), and as long as the state is governed by people (and it is), you can’t fully separate church and state without being Amish.
Telling 2Kers to complete their circle by becoming Amish the way 2Kers tell blatants/latents to do so by some form of ex-patriotism would be really cool, but Anabaptists have a completely different understanding of the spheres, body and soul, etc. Radicalism is a bifurcation, where Protestantism is triadalism; recall the Venn diagram analogy at Green Baggins—I quite agree that as long as humans make up church and state the distinctions are fuzzy and not always easy to make. But that fuzziness is precisely why a more careful distinction (different from “completely divorced” and “fully separate”) is demanded.
And, according to Protestantism, the tension of dual citizenship isn’t resolved by withdrawal (Radicals) or fusion (Rome). Indeed, when fellow Prot’s say 2K/SOTC is Anabaptist I really think they show just how under-tutored they are in church history.
Besides, I can’t see myself in those buggies. I’m way more Harrison Ford than Kelly McGillis.
Two thoughts:
(1) If you don’t like the first argument (and I can see why!), then why do you employ the second so frequently?
(2) Since we agree that the distinctions are fuzzy, why do you present yourself in such absolute terms?
Neither of these are intended snarkily. Rather, I’m really mystified at the inconsistent method: you get to live in a world of fuzzy distinctions, but others must choose between either W2K or else renouncing their citizenship.
Jeff Cagle
Jeff,
1) Because I think the second follows better than the first. Does it help that there is such a thing as resident or soft ex-patriotism? Blatants should probably take up arms or get out; latents should probably just talk about Christian turn-abouts or generally improving the world by applying redemption to creation. 2Kers simply participate.
2) I am not so sure the absolutism is mine. But you knew I’d say that, right? Well, OK, Jesus did say his kingdom was not of this world. I tend to believe he didn’t have any crossed fingers when he said it.
No snarkiness taken (really). I feel your pain on being mystified. I’m still trying to figure out what a Christian turn-about is.
It is, of course, a turn-about that has made a personal profession of faith and has been baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And attends conferences for like-minded turn-abouts.
DGH and Zrim, I have a final question and then I’ll move to Objection 2.
DGH, you’ve said that you can accept Christians using Christian arguments (”Second, I do not insist that Christians use natural law in the political realm, nor do I insist that they refrain from Christian arguments.”), though you think it might not be the most effective strategy.
It appears that you are concerned with means here, yes? And further, you do not oppose Christian magistrates being guided by Scripture in order to make wise decisions? Or do you?
Meanwhile, Zrim is entirely opposed: “But if that is the case I guess I still don’t know why you seem to want scripture to have even indirect bearing on the structuring of society when it belongs exclusively to the church.”
So at this point, it’s unclear what the true W2K position on the relationship of Scripture to governing. Should Scripture be excluded (Zrim) or merely stay in the background (Hart)?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
Jeff, As I’ve said before it’s a jurisdiction “thang.” Is the Bible the rule for an American magistrate, Christian or no? Conversely, are the rules and by-laws of the Rotary Club the norm for a session? The answers are obvious (to me, at least). So one of the problems I have with a Christian magistrate being guided and bond by Scripture is that this neglects the very laws he has vowed to uphold. The Bible and Bucks County’s legal code may not be inherently at odds. But I want the officials of Bucks County to know local laws before trying to apply the Bible to the polity.
And so my bigger point is that Christians in the American public square are often more familiar with the prophets or the sermon on the mount than they are with the Federalist Papers or the arguments of the Anti-Federalists. And yet, the disputes between those political outlooks are more relevant to America than the Bible (mainly, he added, to allow for some wiggle room).
Jeff,
Perhaps in my push to get you to explain how and why holy writ has even indirect bearing on secular enterprise it sounds like I am getting all exclusive-y. But I am with DGH that believers are perfectly free to try–I’m no theonomist. I’m just not convinced of the wisdom, especially when all I ever, ever see in holy writ is God jealously giving his word to his people alone. What is so bad with the Code of Hammurabi ruling Egypt while the Decalogue rules Israel? Doesn’t that just make sense?
And that bit just above about jurisdiction. The first three rules in real estate are location, location, and location. In 2K it’s jurisdiction, jurisdiction, and jurisdiction.
“Neo-Calvinists seem to want to go back to the Garden”. Actually, we want to move forward towards the City.
One of the interesting things about Natural Law, as Thomas defined it, was that it was in fact no different than Biblical law, just discovered by another means. The issue is the not the Truth, but the way of discovery. To set them up as two distinct systems, with different content is mistaken. It is to say that there are “two truths” that are acceptable under the Lordship of Christ. But to Thomas, and I assume to Calvin as well, there is only one Truth. And although there are distinct spheres of authority, all are to be subject to the Blessed Holy Trinity.
Dear DGH,
In the states of California and New York, the civil law is still common law, and this has its foundations in Biblical law. The laws are still there, but the will to uphold them is lacking. There would be no contradiction between a magistrates actions if he was to uphold the laws that are on the books, in this case. Besides, reforming law is OK, right?
Sincerely,
Chris Zodrow
Sorry to leave this hanging. I hope the leisurely pace is OK with all.
So to summarize where we are:
I object that W2K restricts the freedom of the Christian magistrate to decide according to true justice because it unnecessarily restricts the Bible as a source of public ethical norms.
DGH responds that there is some truth to this, but that he is not adamantly opposed to Scripture as a source of norms. Rather, he is concerned with the wisdom of making Christian arguments in the public square on the grounds that they may not be persuasive to all.
Zrim OTOH is willing to concede that believers are free to use Scripture in the public square, but they must be careful of “jurisdiction, jurisdiction, jurisdiction.”
Is this a fair summary?
If so, then my observation is that we appear to have more common ground than at first sight. I won’t say that my objection has evaporated, but it would take on a less stark form. Perhaps
Obj 1 (modified): W2K hampers the liberty of the Christian magistrate disproportionally by discouraging the Christian magistrate from using the Scripture as a source of ethical norms, while leaving nonChristians free to use any norms they wish.
On the positive side, “free to try” is an important and welcome concession to my objection.
On the negative, “free to try” is insufficient (to this objector) when coupled with the many discouraging things said by W2K-ers about Christians who actually *do* try to use Scripture as a source of ethical norms in the public square.
JRC
Jeff,
While I’d still say that there is a difference between the freedom and the wisdom to bring scripture to bear on public ethics, etc., there is another point about wisdom to consider beyond not being able to persuade those who don’t share our convictions: what are we telling ourselves when we do this? It light of Jesus’ own hermeneutic that all of scripture is about him (i.e. it’s about getting into the next world, not ordering this one), it would seem to me that a more careful wisdom would hesitate to make the Bible useful to man on his terms and in his immediate interests. (If the Bible is not a handbook for tips-for-living how can it be a handbook for public ethics? My own sense is that people make a distinction between the trivial and enduring, such that the Bible is relevant for the concerns of the serious-minded but not for the trivial-minded. But the trivial and enduring are still traits of the passing age; the gospel transcends the cares of this world, from the trivial to the significant, because they are passing. Otherwise, I am not sure what to make of Jesus telling me to hate my parents and that my highly valued marriage and family will be dissolved in the next age—family concerns are enduring, but as temporal concerns if they get in the way of my eternal views Jesus hates them.)
And I’m not saying that pagans are “free to use whatever norms they wish.” That language sure makes it sound like you’re stacking the deck so you can pull out the antinomian Ace of spades. We are all free to make any arguments we want. It would be best if everyone would appeal to the God-given norms as set in creation. To be honest, since it’s really hard to do other wise, I would suggest this actually happens way more than you may presume. But just because some may do it poorly doesn’t mean they are appealing to something which lies outside creational norms of what is right, true and good. Have you ever considered that much of what you think is satanic is actually just a disagreement over interpretation, or even he who doesn’t have your religious conviction may be arguing better per creational laws than you?
Jeff, why look at the Bible as a source of ethical norms? Isn’t it more a source of how God saves man?
Also, when you do look at the Bible for ethical norms, chances are you’ll go to the second table and neglect the first. But aren’t the Bible’s norms a package? Can you really have biblical prohibitions against murder without sanctifying the Lord’s Day? So is your ideal Christian magistrate ready to fine or imprison blasphemers and idolaters along with those guilty of abortion?
One last consideration, so much of modern statecraft is not about ethical norms. Now, we can debate the size of government and I’m all for anti-federalist agrarianism in principle. But today’s magistrate is engaged with tax incentives for home owners or best practices for the flow of traffic at rush hour. In other words, you could go to the Bible for a lot of the magistrate’s concerns and find nothing. (That’s not disrespectful to the Bible because what the Bible reveals — a savior from sin — is so much more important than ethical norms. The reason is that if you’re anything like me, you’re a breaker of those norms and need a redeemer who propitiates your sin.)
Jeff,
Those big quotation icons are boss.
I look at the Bible as a source of ethical norms because it presents itself as such as a part of how God saves man. You both in your own way have raised a false dichotomy: “Either the Bible is a source of how God saves man, OR it is a source of ethical norms.”
In fact, it is primarily the first, and is therefore the second as a consequence. That is to say, when we are saved, we come under the Lordship of Christ and are therefore obligated to follow His commands. (Surely I don’t need to establish this from Scripture, right?!)
Right. Recall the point about indicative/imperative. Nobody is saying that the Bible has no category for ethical norms; rather it is a question of who those norms are for and for what purpose. We share with unbelievers in creational norms, but we don’t share with them our redemptive realities. We both resist stealing and murdering, but for different reasons and with different goals in view. However, see my following response for more twists and turns.
A separate question is whether the Scripture is given to man to “order his life” or to “be useful.” Zrim, I actually agree with you that Scripture is not given to man so that he may “order his life.” But this is as true in the public realm as it is in the private. I follow Christ’s commands (to the extent that I actually do follow His commands!) because I love Him, not because I will get something out of it. This is true individually and therefore true collectively as well.
My Calvinism tells me that, as justified sinners, we are a compromised lot. True, we act out of gratitude to Christ, but we are also still trying to “get something out of it,” not least is the abiding notion that we are still trying to justify ourselves. I’d like to have a higher view of myself, that I am not so compromised, but I’m a really bad prosperity type.
So to my mind, you are chasing a rabbit trail by trying to distinguish between “public” and “private” here. The central issue is idolatry, both public and private: do we obey God in order to get something out of it, or do we obey God in order to be obedient to our Lord?
Again, I do both. I’m a private/public idolater and a private/public saint. As such, I need the cover of a rabbit hole. I am an (imperfect) covenant-keeper who sins privately and publicly. Where in any of your reasoning is your confession, Jeff?
Dr. Hart: One last consideration, so much of modern statecraft is not about ethical norms.
I respectfully disagree. If you want to know the priorities of a nation, you look at its budget. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” Modern statecraft is entirely about ethical norms. American statecraft is primarily about utilitarian ethical norms. An argument can be made from Scripture that God judges (some?) pagan nations for failing to uphold ethical norms.
I know this one is for DGH, but if I might. It seems to me that if the day-to-day operations of modern statecraft are anything like my day-to-day operations, and I think they are, much of what happens is really more a question of how to get to the next day in one piece. This is not to suggest that ethics are not at play, because they certainly are. At the same time, I know it’s tempting to reduce worldly enterprise to moral or ethical categories, especially for religionists. But I do a hell of lot more maintaining than I do carrying out bare ethics in my typical day (to say nothing of transforming or improving much of anything). I gotta believe it’s the same for my senators, mayors and judges.
Why does Jesus command us not to worry about our lives, what we will eat or drink or wear?
I’m with you in terms of how I function: much of my day is maintenance, rather than self-consciously glorifying God in my maintenance. But to me, that state of affairs reveals how deep sin runs and how much I need a Savior. Or how much I fail to love my neighbor as myself.
Consider the “small” things that Jesus points out as sin: the barn-owner who thinks to himself, “I’ve got lots stored up for years to come, so I’ll take it easy.” The lustful look. The angry word.
Consider the sins that can occur in the ordinary process of self-maintenance: cutting off another driver by being in a bit of a hurry. Dissing my wife by spending my time on the computer instead of with her. Etc.
Self-maintenance is not morally neutral. As soon as we accept that our lives are “vocations” — spheres in which we are to glorify God — then failing to self-consciously glorify God becomes idolatry, a worship of the creation instead of the Creator.
And that fact makes us all sorry idolaters.
Speaking of, isn’t this the point that was being made in the Wal-Mart thread? That Wal-Mart’s “sound business practices” are actually a violation of the 8th Commandment?
I think you’re confusing what we *do* with what we want to advocate. W2K is all about giving advice to Christians about the proper relationship of Church and State. I’m pretty sure that your advice would not include trying to justify oneself with the Law, yes?
I don’t understand the question? If you mean,”Why are you not including a full-blown picture of how the Gospel connects to ethical reasoning?”, then you’re right — I haven’t presented one. But that’s NOT because there isn’t one in mind; it’s just because I’ve been focusing on what I consider to be a “hole” in W2K; namely, the (partial? apparent?) abandonment of Scripture as a source of ethical norms.
JRC
Jeff,
I really don’t understand the points you are making re maintenance. I’m not clear on what my point on maintaining has to do with Jesus’ Lordship. He’s Lord over my maintaining. And I am not clear on why maintaining is sinful. Am I sinning because I am minding my own business? Isn’t that the ethic with which we are charged? How is that not glorifying God? What’s any of this have to do with driving habits?
My point about gratitude/getting something was simply that we are compromised creatures as sinners; I’m not sure many really believe this, even those who confess it. And that was also the point of asking where your confession is in all of this. Why am I the one talking about abiding sin while you seem to have no discernible category for it?
I’m not quite as convinced about the Wal-mart stuff. While I think the points being made are good, I’m not clear on what a better conservatism has to do with Christian virtue anymore than a better progressivism. Conservatives appeal to commandment eight, liberals to commandment ten. It’s odd how both seem to end up having a beef with Wal-mart. All I’m trying to do is get some diapers and all my neighbor is trying to do is make a living. I sort of wish the conservatives and liberals would let us mind the square inch of earth over which we are actually ordained.
Jeff:
Where have I accused you of theonomy? You brought it up, and yes, I do think your construction of Christ’s Lordship and ethical norms makes the world safe for theonomy. But I didn’t bring it up. You did.
You didn’t answer the point about tax policy and stop lights. These are matters that lots of magistrates attend to. What is the ethical norm for the stimulation package?
Your understanding of Lordship seems to be that Christ is Lord whenever and wherever ethical norms prevail. But I thought Christ was Lord even when Nero was ruling. I also believe that Christ was Lord even when he died an unjust death on the cross. That’s bad magistracy. But it’s good gospel. You are trying to harmonize the two worlds. You don’t seem to have any room for Joseph — good coming out of evil, God’s plan coming out of wicked intentions.
And you don’t seem to have pondered the important point from Machen that finally got through to me the basic argument of A Secular Faith: The use of the Bible for the purpose of common public life “in which Jews and Catholics and Protestants and others can presumably agree, should not be encouraged, and still less should be required by law. The real center of the Bible is redemption; and to create the impression that other things in the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from that is to contradict the Bible at its root.”
Sorry for that “stimulation package.” Perhaps I’ve been corrupted by watching too many hours of The Wire. I meant “stimulus package.”
Hah! I need to quit reading this blog while I’m in the library, as it normally makes me laugh out loud at least once a day. (It’s a good thing I usually sit downstairs with the periodicals where there are usually few others around.)
Well, perhaps my memory is faulty concerning the long Election Cycle thread.
The main point is that we’re clear on the goal: in critiquing W2K, I’m not carrying water for theonomists; any more than in upholding the creeds, you are secretly aiding and abetting Catholicism. Two groups that happen to affirm the same thing, for different reasons, are coincidentally related only.
No, that’s precisely backwards. On my account, Christ is Lord, twice, over all: first, because of Creation; and second, because of Redemption. And where Christ is Lord, ethical norms are obligatory.
So Christ’s Lordship is not contingent. It’s not obedience in order to make Christ the Lord; but obedience because Christ is the Lord.
I think there’s a lot of merit in Machen’s quote; it’s putting the idea to work that becomes problematic.
JRC
I think that’s just a function of the territory we’ve covered. And the difficulty of reading out another’s entire theology across the ‘Net.
In terms of soteriology, I am heavily influenced by Jack Miller and friends, so the notion of abiding sin is quite comfortable to me. What Miller does best is to bring the Gospel to bear on the true state of our hearts, and that includes admitting the bad news up front: sin runs deep and into every tendril of our existence.
And in fact, that was the point of my discussion of maintenance: it’s not that maintenance is evil, nor driving, nor buying diapers at Wal-Mart. Those activities are just a part of the world, and can be done for good or ill.
But the doing of them is never neutral. Indeed, on this side of the Garden, our actions will never be purely good either. We will, as a function of being fallen humans, harm others or fail to honor God in ways large and small throughout the day.
That point doesn’t lead to despair, but to a knowledge of the need for grace.
So how do I account for abiding sin? By seeing it, admitting to it, calling it for what it is; and then thanking God for saving me from it, and relying on the Spirit to bring about a change of heart.
What makes me uncomfortable with your approach is that you appear (?) to place many activities outside the realm of sin and into a morally neutral zone. Perhaps that’s a reflection of the rhetoric rather than your true thought?
JRC
Funny you should mention stoplights. The light at the intersection right before my school just changed patterns. For fifteen years at least, it was a “turn left on green.” We’ve had several accidents over the last decade and a half. But there was a fatality there recently, so the pattern was changed to “stop at the blinking red arrow, and then turn left.”
That’s in accord with Maryland DOT policy: introduce a new light pattern only after a fatal accident (or so I’m told).
Now:
* Is there an ethical norm in Scripture that specifies how traffic lights should function? No.
* Is there an ethical norm in Scripture that’s relevant to traffic lights? Yes — the sixth commandment.
* If I were crafting the law about traffic lights, would I feel obligated to employ the sixth commandment in my reasoning? Yes. And especially if the arguments against making the intersection safe had to do with things like money or convenience.
* Would I pressure unbelieving fellow legislators to obey the sixth commandment? Pragmatically, no.
* Would I respect the decision of a Christian legislator who felt that the sixth commandment is satisfied by a different solution from mine? Yes. Given that the details are not spelled out in Scripture, there it is: there is some liberty in the administration. By the way, this hold true in the Church as well — liberty is not a function of the sacred/secular divide, but of degree of certainty: if the Scripture does not restrict in some way, then there is liberty[1].
* Would I mount a campaign to pressure people around the country to set up traffic lights my way? Absolutely not. That’s not my jurisdiction.
Now suppose I were a citizen instead of a traffic-light-lawmaker. Would I petition the government for a change in the law to take into account the sixth commandment? I might very well, but only if I thought such a petition had a reasonable chance of success.
But in my own driving, in my own jurisdiction, I would strive to keep the sixth commandment whether required by law (as in this country) or not (as in Eastern European countries, at least when I was there in the 90’s — cross the street at your own risk!).
But now the big question: are traffic light patterns an ethical issue? AbSoLUTEly. As soon as we ask the question, “What should we do?”, we are asking an ethical question which will ultimately come back to which outcomes or behaviors are desirable. Do we want more income equity, or do we want more property preservation? That’s the ethical issue behind taxation.
See, one of the places where we’re at loggerheads is that you view the ethical use of Scripture in terms of communal agreement. That’ll never happen, not without compromising Scripture. In fact, that problem is not unique to Scripture; any ethical system is subject to the problem of being compromised when consensus is sought.
Whereas for me, I look at the ethical aspect of Scripture in terms of individual guidance: today, with my slice of time and my resources, what should I do in order to fulfill God’s call in my life?
And my whole entire point can be summed up in one sentence: If God’s call in my life is to be the magistrate, then I am obligated to take Scriptural norms as the basis for my “magistering.” (to the extent that they apply).
Now, you might ask, “What if the civil law contradicts the Scripture? Don’t we have to obey Caesar — the Constitution, say — at this point?”
But ironically, you also would be subjecting the Christian magistrate to the Scripture — it’s just that you would be privileging Romans 13 over other ethical norms!
JRC
[1] The RPW does not contradict the general principle. In the case of worship, the Scripture *does* restrict liberty.
I think this is good example of unethical taxation:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/bonus.bill/index.html
JRC
Jeff, no offense, but I cannot think of a better premise for theonomy: “where Christ is Lord, ethical norms are obligatory. So what does a Christian magistrate do on your scheme with Roman Catholic and Mormon worship? The question of religious liberty in the civil realm hardly squares with your understanding of Christ’s Lordship. In my view, Christ’s Lordship exists even when it looks like it doesn’t. In fact, his greatest power may actually be displayed in his apparent weakness.
Also, why is the sixth commandment the norm at play in traffic lights? Why not the fifth (honor those in authority), and also the tenth (be content with waiting).
Even so, despite these indirect relevancies of traffic lights to God’s moral will, is a traffic light established by a secular magistrate less binding than one put up by a Christian magistrate. Wouldn’t the secular magistrate think he is acting neutrally? And wouldn’t this be a violation of your understanding of ethical norm’s relevancy?
So again, with your own view of ethical norms suffusing all of life, you have set yourself at odds with a secular government. Isn’t that precisely what theonomy is?
@DGH and/or Zrim: Could you refer me to a (online) source with some kind of introduction in W2K? You make your case here quite well, so I’m interessted in the bigger picture, so to speak.
Machiavelli: I went over to Zrim’s blog and found this link: http://www.covopc.org/Two_Kingdoms/Two_Kingdom_Social_Theory.html
It should get you started.
Mach,
Here’s a nice reading list:
http://www.covopc.org/Two_Kingdoms/Two_Kingdom_Social_Theory.html
A more narrow suggestion I would make would be: Begin with David Van Drunen’s monograph, “The Biblical Case for Natural Law,” followed by a lengthier, “A Secular Faith” by some yahoo named, uh, Heart or Hart or something. The key to the latter is uttered here by its author for free:
And you don’t seem to have pondered the important point from Machen that finally got through to me the basic argument of A Secular Faith: The use of the Bible for the purpose of common public life “in which Jews and Catholics and Protestants and others can presumably agree, should not be encouraged, and still less should be required by law. The real center of the Bible is redemption; and to create the impression that other things in the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from that is to contradict the Bible at its root.”
Grasp this and all things will be made possible unto you.
Jeff,
If I might, you really seem to making things way too complicated. The simple truth is that you don’t need the Bible to do any temporal project, from changing diapers to traffic lights to UN resolutions to stimulus packages.
I know you think this is to denigrate revelation (because that’s what I used to think). But I lived for 20-some years without a speck of faith and got along quite well, thank you. I never cracked a Bible and somehow managed to figure out how to be a good citizen, friend, neighbor, student, son, employee, brother and husband. To boot, my father is even less interested in the Bible and I can only hope to be half the man he is one day.
If the gospel is as brutally counter-intuitive as Jesus says and Luther makes plain, then to suggest we need the Bible to do earth is actually what is denigrating to it. It is to co-opt what it lays jealous claim to, namely the salvation of flesh.
(I honestly thought I had beat you to that link. Blogdom is so weird.)
Jeff, don’t take this the wrong way, but I think it adviseable to avoid the position where the things with which you disagree are always unethical. It could make you appear to be a moralist and even self-righteous.
I’m not trying to call you any names. In fact, this is really just a suggestion and I could see all sorts of ethical objections to any number of tax policies coming down from on high the last six months. But it does raise the difficulty that sometimes the 2k-averse do not consider — they come across as self-righteous. I know this is one of the reasons for the reactions against the Religious Right not just by the media but also by college students who are Christians. They don’t like the Pharisaical nature of so much tsk-tsking.
Of course, sometimes ethical norms require believers to be scolds. But I hope you’d also recognize that self-righteousness is incredibly unbecoming of Christians, who are sinners just like everyone else. I know it’s a cliche to say that I’m not better than anyone else, just forgiven. But that starting place for social and political engagement might be a better one for seeking the welfare of the city, or the farms, or the burbs. (Heck, no, I’m not going to privilege the city even if I do live there.)
Ha ha.
I appreciate the blunt but gracious expression of concern.
It’s true — in my flesh nature, I can tend towards scolding at times. Still and all, that doesn’t prevent me from having ethical concerns about a confiscatory tax law (that’s likely unconstitutional to boot), does it?
Well, anyways, thanks again for the corrective.
JRC
Jeff, wow! May I give your email address to my wife? I never knew my advice could be taken so well.
At the same time, don’t be too hard on yourself. I’m concerned less with how you come across and whether you’re right. If you are correct about taxes, I need to hear it. But I need a lot more to be persuaded about the theory of ethical norms as well as its application to American federal legislation and policies.
Well, it’s time to move on, I think.
Obj 2: The Scripture does not sustain a clean division between “public” and “private” faith.
Dr. Hart, in Chap. 6 of SF, you make these observations concerning the Sermon on the Mount:
My understanding of the argument is this:
* Jesus commands privacy in the areas of almsgiving and prayer.
* His command suggests that important areas of devotion should be kept personal and private, so
* It should be possible for the Christian to keep his faith in the private realm and out of the public realm of politics (but not, of course, public worship).
My reaction is to consider the argument from two different directions. First, systematically, it appears that faith is *not* always private and personal in either the NT or the OT. Second, exegetically, it appears that your reading fails to locate Matt. 6.3, 6 within its context.
First, it will be helpful to distinguish “public” from “civic” or “governmental.” When I argue below that faith is sometimes public, I will not be arguing that the Bible legitimates a “civic faith.” There is a necessary distinction between Christians acting publicly and Christians requiring a nation as a whole to subscribe to a particular faith. Even if this difference is one of degree, we can nevertheless agree that a church that starts a housing project is doing something very different in kind from a church that takes over an entire government.
The difficulty is that in SF, you move freely back and forth between the terms “public” and “civic”, which obscures some of the issues involved, I think.
—
Systematically, I want to consider occasions and commands.
When Daniel was in Babylon, which was certainly outside of the classic Klinean “Intrusion Zone”, he prayed so that others knew of it. He and his friends SMA accepted Babylonian names but refused Babylonian food, on religious grounds. They worked for the king, but they refused to worship the king’s idols, even in public. What we see in Daniel is not a scrupulous avoidance of public religious expression, but rather a measured decision to fight the important battles.
When we see Paul in public, we see him as an evangelist. In fact, he says, “Woe is me if I do not proclaim the Gospel.” Before kings, Jews, Gentiles, in courts of law and public assemblies, in the Areopagus, Paul asserts the Lordship of Christ in the context of Gospel proclamation. The same was true for the other apostles, and Stephen, and others whom Paul describes as “evangelists.”
Nor was the response a private one only. On one occasion, Paul’s hearers publicly repented of their sorcery by burning their scrolls (Acts 19, an event that Luke records in a positive light). On another, Peter’s 3000 were publicly baptized.
Nor was almsgiving always done secretly. The believers in Acts 4 gave in such a way that Ananias and Sapphira schemed together to give in order that they would receive glory for it. Likewise, Peter’s healings were done in public.
Importantly, Peter, when ordered to keep silent about Christ by the religio-civil authority (Acts 4), turn the tables on the authority and ask them to judge for themselves whether it is right to obey man rather than God.
Now at this point, you might say that evangelism is an obvious exception to the general rule of keeping religion private, since evangelism is by definition directed to non-believers. And of course, I’d be happy to grant that exception. But two problems remain: (1) The public giving in Acts 4, the public repentance in Acts 19 are not remotely in the category of evangelism. (2) Evangelism is high on the list of “problem activities” for liberals who advocate private religion. Recall that your goal as stated was to live in common society:
But in fact, evangelism is much more offensive to liberal sentiments than almsgiving in Jesus’ name (which is viewed as slightly misguided but eminently progressive).
As we further consider the commands in Scripture, the public/private divide becomes even less clear. James says,
Jas. 3.13-17 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.
Jas. 5.1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
Jas. 5.12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.
While certainly James here does not advocate civic religion, he nevertheless makes clear that a man who does not act in accord with his faith in the public realms of what he says, how he pays his workers, the giving of his word — he will be condemned. Public realization of private faith is required by James.
Likewise Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (to which you appeal!) says, “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matt. 5.14 – 16).
So somehow, while good deeds to be seen by men are prohibited, good deeds that men see and give to glory to God for are required.
Summing up, the Scripture simply does not present a paradigm of cleanly separated private faith and public common life.
So what about Matt. 6.3 and 6.6? Two features about the text shape our understanding of Jesus’ command. The first is location: Jesus’ commands are to be obeyed *not* in the context of the “common public sphere”, but rather in the context of the Church. It was not in the common sphere that alms were given, but in the temple. It was in precisely the location that you wish for faith to be expressed — public worship — that Jesus commands that we give in secret.
The second is situation. In the hearers’ lifetimes, sacred Israel and secular Israel were combined, not separate. It was in this context that Jesus commands that prayer occur in secret. And yet, he does not follow this up with a discourse about the need to separate Church and State; nor does he command his disciples to let their lights shine before men in the sacred sphere but not the secular (as if there were any distinction between the two in their situation!).
In short, Dr. Hart, I think that reading out of Matt. 6.3 and 6 a command to keep faith entirely in the private sphere is an over-reading of the text. Jesus appears to be clear about the purpose of his command: that the disciples avoid self-glory by performing religion to be seen by men. And Scripture at large requires us to put our faith into practice where-ever we find ourselves, whether Israel or Babylon.
Let me close with a practical illustration of an issue near to Hart. You are a strong advocate of strict-ish Sabbatarianism, yes? Consider what has happened in the last 30 years with the collapse of blue laws. I’m not a particular fan of blue laws, so this is not a lament for times gone by; I’m just interested here in cause-and-effect.
In 1978, if a worker asked for a religious exemption for working on Sunday, it was in general readily granted. In fact, many businesses were closed on Sunday. As blue laws were gradually repealed, this granted people on the one hand freedom to shop, or not shop, on Sunday. In other words, the initial result of repeal was an increase in individual freedom to obey the Sabbath, or not, without state coercion.
But in the 90’s, a new trend developed. Shop-owners began to make Sunday shifts a condition of employment, especially for low-paid workers like teens. Likewise, recreational sports teams found new freedom to schedule games on Sundays.
The result was that freedom was transferred from individuals to corporations, so that individuals actually lost the freedom to observe the Sabbath, without making other lifestyle decisions. Teens in my church, for example, have to choose between not participating in soccer teams, or else missing worship on some Sundays. This is not a particularly hard choice in my mind, but the point is that their religious expressions cannot be kept private here.
In other words, Sabbath-keeping in the year 2008 is matter that impacts one’s public life: work and sports.
JRC
Jeff,
I’m not sure the argument is so much a “clean division” between private and public faith as it is a better, more careful sorting out of what private and public faith mean—which actually can be a complicated project. You seem to be inferring that faith has no public aspect or any place in the public domain. But if that were true then it would seem we’d have no use for church buildings, confessions, councils, presbyteries, books, etc. and so forth. That is not what is being said.
Maybe an analogy. Consider your own family unit. Surely there private and public aspects to being a member of the Cagle family. Surely there are appropriate and inappropriate ways members should behave in private with Cagles and in public with non-Cagles. Is it necessary to bring Caglehood to bear on non-Cagles indiscriminately, or is it only appropriate to bring Caglehood to bear on those who already reside within and/or those who are looking to become Cagles (i.e. adoption)?
Or do you imagine that when you go grocery shopping, where nobody cares about Caglehood and where it is completely irrelevant to the immediate task, that somehow you have to bring Caglehood to bear on how everyone else does that activity? If so, what exactly would that look like: Cagles do not eat Ida Red apples, therefore Cash-N-Carry ought not sell them? What do the peculiarities of Caglehood have to do with how Cash-N-Carry does its task? Cagles and the managers of CAC both agree that stealing butter is not how we do things, but the latter group doesn’t need the former to know that. But beyond the agreement over stealing butter, what does anybody care what Cagles think of how it is manufactured, displayed, marketed, priced, or purchased? In other words, if you’re right in all of this then a trip to the grocery store will likely get a lot more complicated for you than it currently is (I hope), and not a little, well, silly.
Jeff: I think Zrim’s response gets at the dynamic I was trying to address on the public-private distinction. In SF I was not trying to make hard and fast rules. It was a historical treatment that used particular instances to show how Christians may have misapplied efforts to make their faith public and therefore civic or political. And the point about Jesus’ instruction in the Sermon on the Mount was to suggest that if on some occasions our faith should be private, then we don’t have to conclude, as many pietists do, that our faith should be evident all the time. That certainly seems to be the practice of Daniel, who administers laws of a regime that denied the true and living God. He was a first-rate politician, and a faithful Iraelite, carrying out his private worship and drawing the line at certain of the king’s laws.
I also agree that public worship is public. But it happens in a private building.
As for blue laws, one of the interesting aspects of liberalism is that in this greatest nation on God’s green earth, I still have liberty to keep the Lord’s Day holy. I don’t see how a change in blue laws has changed my freedom to worship and rest. If Christians had not tried to regulate the Sabbath through blue laws, they’d like have a much easier time pointing out how liberalism at times binds their conscience. But because Christians for a long time bound the consciences of others through laws, their complaints now about the unfairness of the state looks hollow.
P.S. You probably know this, but Christ’s lordship over all things, and our belonging to Christ does not make us lord of all things. Christ delegates his authority. His authority delegated to the Zrims does not give Mr. Zrim authority over the Cagles. Christ’s authority delegated to me as citizen does not make me lord over the magistrate. And Christ’s lordship over the magistrate does not give the magistrate lordship over my family.
Just as jurisdiction is important. So is the idea of delegated authority. Christ doesn’t give the same authority to all people, and he doesn’t even give more authority to Christians than to non-Christians. He delegates authorites to parents, magistrates, and church officers. The only one of those authorities that needs to be a Christian is the church officer. For the other two, they may actually possess authority delegated from Christ and not even know it. Ignorance does not invalidate the authority.
That’s right, Darryl.
But if Jeff is right here, not only does his shopping become complicated but so will our relations as neighbors become more busy-body-ish, that is, unless Jeff can conceive of my coming over and suggesting or demanding he raise his Cagles in Zrimian fashion (actually Zrimecian). If Christianity is supposed to bear on non-Christian domains what exactly keeps me from poking my nose in his business?
There’s a lot to be said for sphere sovereingty.
Fantastic! I am truly encouraged that this is where we are, since this also is where I am: we cannot consign faith entirely to the private domain; nor do we seek for Christ’s kingdom to be realized this side of the eschaton; so therefore, we must sort out the instances or categories in which the Christian *must* act, where is *is free* to act, and where he *should refrain* from acting, for the purpose of giving guidance to those impacted the most: Christians participating in ways large or small in the public sphere.
Unfortunately, every time I suggest this, the W2K rhetorical response moves to the extreme and places me in a totalitarian category. The pattern of reductio refutations employed by my esteemed counterparts carry with them the assumption that any expression of public faith entails every possible expression of public faith.
From this, I infer that either (a) W2K is a dualistic meta-theory about Church-state relations, in which any public expression of faith is prohibited, or else (b) W2K proponents are incorrectly reading out all objectors as belonging in the same boat.
I had concluded (a), but perhaps (b) is the case.
Let me give some examples of what I mean:
Granted that you are employing an analogy, Zrim, but still you have shifted from “… put faith into practice where-ever …” into a much more aggressive, “… require others to put my faith into practice.” Which I didn’t say and have explicitly disavowed.
and another:
and another:
Back in November, I thought that this kind of reductio shift (Oh man — I inadvertently left out the ‘f’ in that last word — what a way to blow the conversation sky-high!) was just a ploy, but I’ve since come to understand that it’s seriously intended.
But what assumption underlies it? Since I haven’t expressed the ‘extreme’ position that the reductios imply, it must be that in both your minds, my milder position entails or ought to entail the extreme one. Indeed, Zrim, you wrote:
Statements like this lead me to believe that W2K is all or nothing: if we don’t have total public/private sphere separation, we have theonomy.
FWIW, I think a lot of the resistance you encountered on the Election Cycle thread was not so much because you opposed theonomy, but because you took much milder positions and lumped them all in together (by means of the reductio strategy).
There’s one more point, as well. Dr. Hart, in SF you explicitly state that you will not be addressing the pragmatic question of how to actually conduct one’s faith in the public sphere:
And of course, the intent is that since Christ’s kingdom transcends the kingdoms of this world, then we should not try to shoe-horn Christians into our liberal democracy as if we needed permission to sit at the table.
But also, your book concludes that Christianity requires very little of its adherents politically. And so, rather than working out a careful sorting as Zrim suggests, this flagship volume of W2K offers up only an argument for separation of spheres.
If more needs to be said, then great. But in the absence of any such signal, I think a reasonable reader would conclude that W2K wants entire and total sphere separation; that its solution to the problem of Church-state relations and of Christians operating in the public sphere is don’t (except as common citizens).
So Objection 2 doesn’t yet know whether it’s aimed at the actual W2K view, or the rhetorical strategies of W2K adherents. Which would you say?
JRC
Zrim, I think the grocery store analogy is a good one for exploration.
In fact, there are private and public aspects to Cagledom. However, being in public does not nullify the private aspects.
Let’s separate out some issues:
(1) Does being in public change the private rules?
(2) Does having private rules justify requiring those rules be followed by others?
(3) If I were a public magistrate, would my private rules inform my public rules?
In short:
(1) No, mostly.
(2) No, mostly.
(3) Yes, often.
Example of (1): One of our private rules is, “We are loyal to each other.” (it’s not a spoken rule, exactly; but my kids are pretty little, so the time may come…) In public, I would, Lord willing, honor that private rule even if a “common good” could be served by breaking it. More on this concept in a further objection.
Example of (2): I would not, in general, require others to be loyal to their family members, even though I think of it as a basic norm that should be followed.
Example of (3): If I were a public magistrate and the opportunity arose to decide on a law that would encourage or discourage family loyalty, I would be swayed by the ethical norm that ‘loyalty to family is a basic value.’
So it turns out that the answer to your question, “Is it necessary to bring Caglehood to bear…” is not simple.
JRC