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)
Jeff,
OK, so the Venn analogy doesn’t work for you because it breaks down at some point. But don’t they all? I can find other breakdowns you’d also maybe like. But the point has less to do with the right explanation of Venn diagrams and more to simply say that the redeemed and condemned come together in the common sphere, and their previous status has no direct or obvious bearing on their common endeavor. Affirming or denying the resurrection of Jesus, for example, has no direct bearing on writing history, raising children or baking bread or in any other way participating in creation.
I’ve hinted before that there are features about American 21st century society that make REPT more challenging. I don’t subscribe to the view that society is always headed to hell in a hand basket. I would much rather live here, now, than in Germany in 1942 or in 942 for that matter.
And like I have suggested, my amillenarianism isn’t given to either sunny or gloomy views of human history. Your suggestion that you prefer your time and place implies that human history may be progressing more than digressing. But there really is nothing new under the sun. My neo-Kuyperians speak like this to me all the time, citing democracy, toilet paper and the eradication of polio to make a case for human progress (that was presumably kicked off by the Cross). It’s actually a form of prosperity gospel. I see some snickering here because, as we all know, prosperity gospel is only ever about money and stuff and the crasser felt needs of less than staid segment of the human population. But, like sin, prosperity gospel is an equal-opportunity affliction that can infest the learned, versed, cultured and sophisticated as much as those with cheesy comb-over’s. It leads some to ask, as I recall once being asked, “Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t rather live in America now than in Jesus time and place?”
I prefer my time and place, too, but not because it’s better than someone else’s, rather because it’s mine.
The main point here is that philosophy has some things to say about the wisdom of the REPT project, Whether my analysis is correct, or somewhat correct, or completely off-the-wall, it only makes sense for you guys to get input from the philosophers instead of holding them at arms’ length.
I’ve no problem with philosophy, Jeff. Like politics, it should be afforded its rightful dignity and place. It’s just that when it is suggested it plays a larger role than for that which it was ordained, I squirm. With all due respect Bavinck, Aristotle was not the (co) forerunner to Christ (“a pedagogy unto Christ”); that was the sole work of a baptizing cousin. This slouching toward worldliness your third objection suggests is precisely the problem I think 2K means to correct.
OK, I agree that that’s pretty ludicrous.
Unfortunately, what follows must be a series of flat denials. I can’t help it; it’s just that we’ve failed to connect here.
Nope. It implies exactly what I said: that history is not necessarily getting worse.
Nope. I was careful to qualify at the beginning that philosophy should not have prominence, and that my objection was merely that REPT appears to have not done “due diligence” in engaging with philosophy. The objection means neither more nor less than what I said.
Nope. It doesn’t work, period, because Venn diagrams are structures that express specific structures of thought. My own subjective likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it.
So now the question is, If a Venn diagram doesn’t work to express triadalism, then is it possible (just maybe?) that triadalism can’t be represented because it’s not a coherent idea?
That’s the point I was making.
If it is impossible to represent an idea in language — set language, in this case — then we either need whole new language, or else the idea itself is flawed. It sounds like you would prefer the former, but I would humbly ask you to consider also the latter.
JRC
How odd. I would think that affirming the resurrection of Jesus would have a direct bearing on whether or not one takes a Hegelian view of history. Or whether or not one sought to raise one’s children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Zrim, there’s a logical error here. You confuse, I think, the true statement “Jesus’ Resurrection does not explicitly direct my steps in bread-baking”, with the false one: “Jesus’ Resurrection is irrelevant to my baking of bread.”
This statement is a logical error because “does not say everything” is not equivalent to “does not say anything.” The U.S. Constitution does not direct our steps wrt. political speech. But it sure does have something to say about it.
Likewise, Scripture does not direct our steps with bread-baking, but bread-baking is an activity that occurs within a context, and the Scripture has a lot to say about our bread-baking within that context. We should use honest weights and measures in our bread-baking, IF it occurs within a commercial context. We should bake bread in the afternoon and not in the middle of the night, IF bread-baking in the middle of the night would keep the family from sleeping. And so on.
And the resurrection has bearing on all of this because the resurrection is the Father’s declaration that Jesus is Lord — and that therefore we are his bondservants (and sons).
Our activities never occur simpliciter; they are always embedded in context. Usually, what the Scripture speaks to is that context and not to the specific activities themselves.
I would like for us to try to find a different way of talking about this issue, because we (both) seem to be repeating ourselves:
“SZ: I don’t see how you could possibly think that Scripture says anything about X!”
“JRC: I don’t see how you could possibly deny it. Look at all these obvious ways in which Scripture becomes relevant in the following circumstances.”
“SZ: So you’re saying that we can’t do anything without finding specific directions in Scripture?”
“JRC: GAAHH!”
I’ve lost count of the number of conversations exactly like this (grocery stores; stoplights; turnabouts; etc.), but I get the sense that you aren’t saying what I think you’re saying. I know I’m not saying what you think I’m saying!
Here’s what I’m saying:
JRC
Jeff,
How odd. I would think that affirming the resurrection of Jesus would have a direct bearing on whether or not one takes a Hegelian view of history. Or whether or not one sought to raise one’s children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Debates are hot on the campus of Gallaudet as to what school of sign language should win the day (American Sign Language or English Sign Language). The Bible makes repeated reference to deafness, so should there be a Christian answer here, one that the resurrection directly has bearing on? And raising children in the fear of God is only for those who actually fear God. If someone doesn’t fear God he can still raise kids pretty darn well. God-fearers raise theirs differently than those who don’t fear God.
Likewise, Scripture does not direct our steps with bread-baking, but bread-baking is an activity that occurs within a context, and the Scripture has a lot to say about our bread-baking within that context. We should use honest weights and measures in our bread-baking, IF it occurs within a commercial context. We should bake bread in the afternoon and not in the middle of the night, IF bread-baking in the middle of the night would keep the family from sleeping.
Are you suggesting that you wouldn’t know to be honest unless the Bible said to be honest? How can this be when the second greatest commandment is written on the hearts of all flesh? What do you do with perfectly Christ-hating pagans who have never cracked a Bible but also seem to know the things of self-sacrifice, obedience and loyalty? Consider the scandal of the cross. What made it so shameful was the excellence of the Roman system of justice. If you hung on a tree it was because you belonged there. It typified God’s perfect justice while Jesus became our sin. Rome didn’t have any need of special revelation in order to do justice well.
Your point about context is quite well understood over here, Jeff. I keep saying that the Christian life (i.e. its ethic or imperative) is very narrowly conceived. Recall the points made about indicatives and imperatives. Indeed, context is precisely the point 2K is making.
…there’s a logical error here. You confuse, I think, the true statement “Jesus’ Resurrection does not explicitly direct my steps in bread-baking”, with the false one: “Jesus’ Resurrection is irrelevant to my baking of bread.”
In true Caglian form I will now utterly dismiss your point by saying the magic word, “Nope.” Ooo, you’re right, that does feel good.
Jeff, I have never said belief in Jesus is “irrelevant” to vocation. If I have I either mis-spoke or was making the point by way of hyperbole. I hope what I have consistently conveyed is that is has no direct or obvious bearing on the cares of this world. That is entirely different from suggesting anything about irrelevance. I’m pretty sure you know that. I smell charges of neutrality around the corner.
What you seem to want conceded is that there is something called Christian ethics. This has never been denied; to do so would be absurd to say the least and the repeated points about indicatives/imperatives and “context” actually do more to make the case that 2K is cognizant of ethics in a superior way than any form of theonomy could ever hope to be. But what is curiously absent your argumentation is any conception whatsoever that there is a NT set of ethics that has a lot to do with the church governing only her own (1 Cor 5), or to live quietly, minding one’s own business and working with one’s own hands (1 Thess 4:11), or any conception of what it means to live as pilgrims in the inter-advental age.
I overdid it with the brusqueness, huh? I’ll try to dial it back a bit.
I need to get ready for the day, but I’d like to proceed on the assumption that I don’t understand your position, and that I need clarification on a couple of points. Here’s the first:
Right or wrong, I’ve always understood “has bearing on” and “relevant” as synonyms. So what do you mean when you say that belief in Jesus is relevant to vocation, but has no obvious bearing on the cares of this world. Is the emphasis on obvious? If so, then why does that word make a difference? If not, then what are you saying?
JRC
Jeff,
You forgot “direct and obvious.” And why that matters is that non/belief in any piece of orthodoxy doesn’t directly or obviously affect any common activity. Those who think it does usually mean a common activity is done better by those who believe in, say, the trinity. But my Hindi neighbors do common things just fine–even better–without submission to this doctrine. My Mormon friends raise good kids despite their heresies.
Jeff, A couple of thoughts regarding your objection about philosophy. First, I didn’t know John Frame did anything other than exegesis. That’s certainly the impression I get when he faults traditionalists for not doing exegesis. Now I find he’s doing philosophy? Well, what happened to biblicism?
Second, your assertion that the U.S. is dominate by utilitarian ethics is not a philosophical claim. It is a historical, sociological, or political science claim. I know this sounds like a technicality. But since part of your point about REPT’s weakness is its lack of attention to philosophy, it would help to stay in the same intellectual pigeonhole.
I mean, if you want to debate utiltarian ethics, that’s okay. But I’m not sure it’s a debate worth having if PUE are not as dominant as you say. I always thought the reigning tendency was post-modernism, at least in the academy.
I’m still not sure what this means for weakening the claims of REPT. I’m not sure what ethics dominate plumbing, but I could see them being fairly utilitarian when it comes to fixing a leak. I’d highly encourage a Christian plumber to follow those norms, especially if I hired him. And as for post-modernism in the academy, I actually believing historians have some benefits to accrue by not following an Enlightenment based narrative and allowing for post-modern themes.
Absolutely.
I rather think the opposite.
My objection is that you have not done enough cross-disciplinary listening. Wouldn’t it be self-defeating for me to limit myself to a single discipline, in the process of criticizing you for being too narrow?
Of course I feel free to make claims that overlap the disciplines! And when those claims wander into your disciplines — history — then I fully expect you to bring your expertise to bear. That’s the point of dialog, right? We don’t know everything; we need the wisdom of many counselors.
I think you’ve answered your own question. There are others out there who have thought about such issues; dismissing them leaves potential gaps in your work.
SF is a cross-disciplinary project. It is attempting to unify the history of Church-State relations in the U.S. with a particular theological perspective on the Church in order to give advice to the Church about how to conduct herself. That’s history, theology, and ethics all in one work. The ethicists deserve a hearing, not a pigeonhole.
JRC
May well be. And I think your statement is intelligible even without getting into the somewhat tired debate about “good kids according to whose standards?” We can agree, I think, that if we measured the outward morality (as defined by the Law) of your Mormon friends’ kids, they might well rate higher than any given Christian kids.
(Assuming, of course, that it would even be Christian to measure peoples’ goodness by the Law — I think that such a project is a misuse of the Law. But let’s not go there if we don’t have to. We’re conducting a thought experiment.)
But now, here’s the thing that I don’t think you understand about what I’m saying: I’m not interested in giving advice to Hindis and Mormons about their kids. For me, the question has never been about “Do we try to make non-Christians conform to the Law?”
My sole focus, from start to finish, is how to think as a Christian who is subject to the Lordship of Christ about “living as a stranger in reverent fear” in the common realm, which is what Peter is talking about in the passage above. I don’t care if one is able to plumb without the Scriptures; that fact (or non-fact?) is irrelevant to me, a Christian plumber, who still has to be obedient to Christ in his plumbing.
And the problem becomes particularly acute for a Christian who is a magistrate, who has a non-negotiable first priority, the Lordship of Christ, and a second priority, fulfilling his calling as a magistrate.
My interest is in solving that problem — solve it, and we know how the Church should relate to the State. Ignore it, or pass it off as a paradox without further guidance, and we have nothing to say to the Church about its relationship to the State.
The Christian magistrate is the “money problem.” He stands at his desk on Day 1 and asks, “How do I decide what to do?” That’s where the rubber meets the road.
If you read my comments through some other lens, like the lens of “trying to lay down rules that non-Christians can become righteous through”, or the lens of “how can we make our society a Christian society”, then you will get quite the wrong impression.
JRC
Jeff,
And the problem becomes particularly acute for a Christian who is a magistrate, who has a non-negotiable first priority, the Lordship of Christ, and a second priority, fulfilling his calling as a magistrate.
My interest is in solving that problem — solve it, and we know how the Church should relate to the State. Ignore it, or pass it off as a paradox without further guidance, and we have nothing to say to the Church about its relationship to the State.
The Christian magistrate is the “money problem.” He stands at his desk on Day 1 and asks, “How do I decide what to do?” That’s where the rubber meets the road.
If you read my comments through some other lens, like the lens of “trying to lay down rules that non-Christians can become righteous through”, or the lens of “how can we make our society a Christian society”, then you will get quite the wrong impression.
I understand you are not a hard theonomist. But the fact that you want to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist tells me that not all the theonomy has been shaken off, as it were.
Two Christian magistrates may stand at their respective desks and decide what to do in very different ways while still able to claim submission and obedience to Christ. You seem resistant to that idea from the start. But this is what is so quizzical to me, since this happens every single day in diverse vocations. Do you not teach your students differently than some of your Christian school colleagues? Are you not known by the student body as one who emphasizes this while your colleague emphasizes that? Likely. So why is this any different for the magistrates? (My hunch is that you still seem to presume ruling is purely ethical, which also points up how you may think Christianity itself is primarily ethical. But are you evaluated as a teacher by purely ethical standards? I never was, and my current vocation doesn’t either.)
2K isn’t ignoring your alleged problem, it is questioning its fundamental assumptions. You don’t like the answers you’re getting because of this.
Jeff, you seem to vacilate between either I’m only looking at history, or I’m doing history, theology, and ethics in ASF. You then say ethics demands a hearing. I’m not sure then whether you’re charging me with ignoring ethics altogether, or simply ignoring Framean ethics.
In my defense, I’d say that much of my writing has been informed by ethicists such as Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert Meileander, Leon Kass, and Wendell Berry (a lay ethicist but maybe as much an expert as Frame). Also, I devoted a chapter of ASF to morality, as in the role of public schools in teaching morality.
So I think I’ve given ethics a hearing.
Plus, I’m still not sure why you respond, “exactly,” to my claim that the United States is dominated by utilitarianim is not a philosophical judgment.
Thank you for a direct answer. It gives me grounds for reconsidering my objection.
No vacillation. ASF looked to me like a cross-disciplinary project (doing all three), but undertaken without sufficient engagement with all three disciplines.
Surely we can agree that ASF is much longer on history than either philosophy or theology, yes? There’s nothing wrong with that; it just left a lot of gaps in the philosophy area, on my read. That’s all: ASF entangles three disciplines, but majors on one. Is that a flaw? Who knows. We can’t do everything, of course.
All I’m saying is that it would be helpful if you anticipated likely objections and met them. It’s not unreasonable for someone to come to the end ASF and ask the exact questions I’m asking. The Christian magistrate is an obvious test case for a theory about Church and State.
So: where do you converge or diverge from Hauerwas and Meilander? (I’ve not read the other two, but you could talk about them as well.
JRC
Because I agree…
I’m making an observation that is not a purely philosophical judgment. Is that a problem? (Rhetorical question …)
No, not at all. Part of the communication problem here is that we are looking from two different perspectives. And part of it is that we are covering the space of “liberty” using two very different basis sets.
Perspective: Your concern, as I understand it, is with justification of one’s actions before men. Two different people can make different decisions and justifiably claim to be following Christ.
That’s an important perspective, and I don’t want to dismiss it. In fact, I agree with you. But it’s not the perspective of my question, so it provides an entirely inadequate answer to the question.
My concern is of an individual standing before God, desiring to be obedient to Christ in his vocation: How does he decide what to do? What is the process of understanding God’s will?
We both agree that this individual has liberty where the Scripture is silent. Where we seem to diverge is that you seem to be saying that if Scripture has no direct bearing, then the individual has no responsibility to Scripture. Not merely to the Church, not merely to other people, but he can (I’m hearing you say) disregard Scripture itself because of his jurisdiction. But then sometimes you seem to say the opposite.
So what I don’t like about the answer has nothing to do with “challenging my assumptions”, but because (a) it’s answering a different question, and (b) it’s an inconsistent answer. I also don’t like how the answer is laid out, as a series of challenges to opposing views, rather that in a clear synoptic presentation. I much prefer direct answers.
Really, honestly, I’m not trying to score debating points or grind this into the ground — #3 has been a tense objection — I’m trying to say that your answer is not as clear to me as it is in your own mind.
Liberty
For you, liberty is tied up with jurisdiction. For me, liberty is tied up with Scriptural restriction. I, as the individual, have liberty before others on areas that the Scripture leaves open. But I do not have liberty before God to use my liberty to indulge the sin nature, regardless of jurisdiction.
So because we cover the space of “liberty” differently, you with jurisdictions, and me with Scriptural restriction, it becomes hard for me to understand why you would argue (or appear to argue) that a Christian magistrate could disregard the Scripture just because he’s in the “civic” jurisdiction.
Way off on both counts. The problem with the first is that I rarely think things are “purely” this or that. Ruling is ethical, because it is making decisions about what we should do. But it entails a lot more than ethics. Or more precisely, it wraps up a lot of non-ethical considerations into decision-making.
The second — well, it’s an uncharitable assumption on your part. I don’t know what else to say. I don’t think I should have to brandish my Gospel-believing credentials on the basis of a “hunch”, do you?
JRC (yes, it does spell “jerk”, if that’s what you’re thinking)
I much prefer direct answers.
Jeff, how do treatises on jello computers fit that bill? Kidding. Sort of. I have been trying to offer up what I like to think are fairly direct answers.
My concern is of an individual standing before God, desiring to be obedient to Christ in his vocation: How does he decide what to do? What is the process of understanding God’s will?
We both agree that this individual has liberty where the Scripture is silent. Where we seem to diverge is that you seem to be saying that if Scripture has no direct bearing, then the individual has no responsibility to Scripture. Not merely to the Church, not merely to other people, but he can (I’m hearing you say) disregard Scripture itself because of his jurisdiction. But then sometimes you seem to say the opposite.
Let me direct and clear: the individual believer has every responsibility to Scripture; he mayn’t disregard Scripture at any time or place. When I say Scripture has no direct bearing it is like this: you govern state A and think taxes need to be raised; I govern state B and think they need to go down. Where do either of us have any scriptural warrant to justify our decision? It’s not a disregarding of Scripture, rather it’s to ask where does it blueprint for either of us how to figure temporal things out? In point of fact, where you seem to see disregard, 2K wants to be more faithful to Scripture by keeping it from being mis-used and abused. The ironic thing here is that those clamoring to apply redemption to creation are actually disregarding it.
For you, liberty is tied up with jurisdiction. For me, liberty is tied up with Scriptural restriction. I, as the individual, have liberty before others on areas that the Scripture leaves open. But I do not have liberty before God to use my liberty to indulge the sin nature, regardless of jurisdiction.
I don’t recognize my view here at all, either explicitly or implicitly. My view isn’t that liberty is tied up in jurisdiction or that one may “use liberty to indulge the sin nature.” I agree that liberty has to do with scriptural silence: how else to explain that your governance may zig from my zag on taxes? When I said the first rule of 2K was jurisdiction (thrice) it had nothing to do with liberty—it had to do with the principle that Jesus governs the two kingdoms differently.
Jeff: you wrote: “My sole focus, from start to finish, is how to think as a Christian who is subject to the Lordship of Christ about “living as a stranger in reverent fear” in the common realm, which is what Peter is talking about in the passage above. I don’t care if one is able to plumb without the Scriptures; that fact (or non-fact?) is irrelevant to me, a Christian plumber, who still has to be obedient to Christ in his plumbing.”
Wow! Where is the situational now? Is it really possible to live in isolation, as if it is just me and my Lord, damn the bystanders? But didn’t Jesus say that the second command, “love your neighbor as yourself,” is like unto loving the Lord our God with our entire being? So how does anyone plumb in isolation, as if the Lordship of Christ was not being lived out in the context of neighbors who hire plumbers, future owners who will use your plumbing, or other plumbers who need to be able to work on your plumbing when your dead.
Your reading of Christ’s Lordship on you suggests that Paul was wrong to tell Christians married to non-Christians to remain married and not to divorce. After all, if it were simply about serving Christ, then being unequally yoked is impermissible. But then again, divorce is wrong. So you live in a compromised way.
It’s not just your rejection of compromise that is apparently driving your approach, it is also your unwillingness to acknowledge that you already live in a compromised way all the time because you are a justified sinner and you live in a fallen world. (BTW, it is the zeal for consistent righteousness that makes conservative Presbyterians such bad political conservatives, as if the Right is simply about behavioral standards or righteous conduct.)
Jeff: another iteration on your exchange with Steve: you wrote: “We both agree that this individual has liberty where the Scripture is silent. Where we seem to diverge is that you seem to be saying that if Scripture has no direct bearing, then the individual has no responsibility to Scripture.” Huh? How can someone have resonsibility to the Bible when the Bible is silent on something? You seem to be saying that even if the Bible is silent about plumbing, a plumber is still responsible to the Bible in his selection of materials, fixing of leaks, in the actual doing of plumbing. This makes no sense to say the Bible has authority even on matters upon which it does not speak. Pardon me, but I thought logic was part of philosophy.
On ASF I will concede that it is primarily historical. And I think the historical perspective needs more attention from philosophers and theologians. History isn’t normative. But if history shows that certain ideas have been tried and have major problems, it would seem to be smart for those who continue to affirm those ideas as valid and true to try to explain how they have updated and purged the older ideas of the problems revealed by history.
In my case, I see the current arguments of neo-Calvinists, soft-core theonomists, evangelicals, and other segments of the religious right following almost exactly those of mainline Protestants from 1800 to 1960. The mainline churches learned some lessons in the 1960s and adjusted their political theology. Granted, turning the social gospel from a Republican to a Democratic outlook was not the one for which I might have hoped. But they did adjust. The Religious Right is now simply making the Republic social gospel arguments. Both sides assume the validity of a social gospel and each chapter in ASF uses a historical episode to explore one of the assumptions of that gospel.
We can talk philosophy all you want — okay, probably not. But I feel like you need to take into account the failure of your political theology. It does not square with the polity we have in the United States. And this is why yours, I think, is a soft core theonomy. You want to be faithful to Christ no matter what you face now by God’s providence. You do not think that our polity is legitimate because it does not take God’s law seriously. The only way a polity can take God’s law seriously, in your view, is if Scripture is directly in view. (REPT says God rules even when Scripture is not directly in view. God was indeed Lord of Saddam Hussein, as much as he was over Herod.)
The Scripture-dominant view of the US was prevailing view in 1950. It is no more. Will your ethics adjust to contemporary social realities? Or is your understanding of your need to submit to the Lordship of Christ so incapable of compromise that you either need to move to an unsettled place and institute a new polity, or overthrow the current regime and establish in its place a Bible-derived polity?
Jeff,
Re these points over liberty and being responsible to Scripture, etc., I know I have used this before to relative boos, but I like the analogy (so nyah!). Plus, it seems really direct and simple, the way Presbyterian-Jello is supposed to go down.
When you and I meet for lunch we are in Grand Rapids and, of course, “go Dutch” (each one paying for himself). When our bills come you submit a generous tip while I submit a prudent one. Both choices have biblical warrant but neither may fault the other. The only thing each may hold the other accountable for is paying his bill—that is clear and non-negotiable. Tipping is liberty, paying is being responsible to Scripture. Your demands up to this point are a lot like me demanding from you a justification for your generous tip. In polite company this is considered quite uncouth and it just isn’t done.
You still seem to be doing RPW when you should thinking adiaphora and vice versa.
Zrim: I knew the Dutch would get to you, cheapskate.
Yeah, but a cheapskate in a metro way.
Light loafers are generally cheaper than heavy ones.
No, quite the opposite actually. At least, that’s what loafer wearers tell me.
Thank you. That’s what I wanted to know.
Let me be clear about why I’m here in the first place. Back in Oct.-Nov., the things I was hearing from you sounded like you were saying that Christians in government should ignore the Scriptures. I became really concerned about the basis for right and wrong that would replace the Scriptures. I was told, “the Natural Law can take care of it.”
So rather than assume that you are antinomian or something — which is certainly how you came across — I decided to raise objections to you directly and get a clear sense of what you are saying. (Perhaps you’ll notice that I have *not* joined the chorus of “antinomian!” going on on the current GB thread on theonomy).
That’s the goal here: to attempt to falsify the premise that REPT is antinomian, by means of moderately skeptical questioning. OR, to finally settle the question firmly in my mind.
And I have to say — I’ve not been seeing a lot of direct answers over on this end of the ‘Net. What can I say? Communication is hard.
I’m perfectly fine with that, as long as we’re talking from the perspective of justification.
If however we move it to the level of the individual believer and say either “Scripture doesn’t directly spell it out, so I can do whatever feels right, or whatever utilitarian ethics tells me to do”, then I object.
Or, if we try to truncate Scripture so as to limit its reach (in the conscience) to only those things that are “direct and obvious”, then I object.
I think we can be in agreement on this?
OK. The point is not obvious here. Are you not moving from
“Jesus governs the two kingdoms differently” to
“And so we have liberty in the common realm”
?
Finally, I was really offended by your supposition that I think of “Christianity as primarily about ethics.”
JRC
How do you get from being “personally subject to the Lordship of Christ” to “living in isolation”? That’s nonsensical.
I’m saying what Paul says in Rom. 14 — that I should judge my own actions, not those of another.
You missed the “direct” part. My point is that “indirect bearing” matters as well — to the conscience of the individual. As I said before, the plumber’s choice of material *does* come under the purview of Scripture, IF it begins to transgress, say, the eighth commandment or the sixth. That doesn’t mean that this will *always* occur; just that when it *does*, the Christian plumber is not free to ignore those indirect bearings.
General request of all three of us: can we tone down the rhetoric here?
JRC
Let me be clear about why I’m here in the first place. Back in Oct.-Nov., the things I was hearing from you sounded like you were saying that Christians in government should ignore the Scriptures. I became really concerned about the basis for right and wrong that would replace the Scriptures. I was told, “the Natural Law can take care of it.”
Jeff, to the extent that general revelation is a form of “Scripture,” I’d still say that NL is entirely sufficient for the ordering of society. But special revelation is only for the church. The two books have two different purposes. Jesus is the author of both. Does this still concern you? If so, why?
So rather than assume that you are antinomian or something — which is certainly how you came across — I decided to raise objections to you directly and get a clear sense of what you are saying. (Perhaps you’ll notice that I have *not* joined the chorus of “antinomian!” going on on the current GB thread on theonomy).
Yes, I have. But to be honest, as slur-y as it is, I might prefer to be assumed antinomian. Trying to walk this middle-ground between theonomy and 2K seems a bit Erasmian to me. It’s a bit like those who want to find a middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism and create a patchwork quilt out of two competing views without realizing they are both internally consistent systems.
If however we move it to the level of the individual believer and say either “Scripture doesn’t directly spell it out, so I can do whatever feels right, or whatever utilitarian ethics tells me to do”, then I object.
Tips and paying bills. Sorry, but if you are compelled subjectively to be generous who am I to raise my hand? I’m sure you have your reasons. (Actually, in real life I get accused of being too generous by my wife. But she never worked tables or general hospitality in college like me—my reasons have to do with having walked in another’s, uh, loafers. Take that, Darryl.) Why is this so objectionable?
Or, if we try to truncate Scripture so as to limit its reach (in the conscience) to only those things that are “direct and obvious”, then I object.
If I understand, what then do you make of something like Dt. 29:29 where it seems pretty clear that we are to be concerned only for the revealed things not inscrutable ones? Again, you can’t skip out on paying your bill because that’s stealing. But how are you to decide when to be generous and when to be prudent?
“When I said the first rule of 2K was jurisdiction (thrice) it had nothing to do with liberty—it had to do with the principle that Jesus governs the two kingdoms differently.”
OK. The point is not obvious here. Are you not moving from
“Jesus governs the two kingdoms differently” to
“And so we have liberty in the common realm”?
Not really. What I mean is that the KoG is governed by grace, the KoM by law. It isn’t that grace cannot be experienced in the KoM (pardon for execution) or that law has no place in the KoG (church discipline), but these are the guiding principles. But when we move to the KoM there are still at once clear rules and places for wide disagreement. You seem to keep saying “liberty” as if that’s a bad thing.
Finally, I was really offended by your supposition that I think of “Christianity as primarily about ethics.”
If you recall, I said that was my suspicion and was my way of trying to explain what I think are your abiding presuppositions. Why was it offensive?
Jeff, does rhetoric become more appealing with emoticons? I was pushing back on your philosophically challenged point but trying to do so tongue in cheek. No offense intended.
Lots of different thoughts here.
(1) Without disparaging the “infallibility” of general revelation; still, I don’t call it “Scripture.” That is, contra Hodge, I don’t place the two in the same epistemic category. There’s a simple reason: general revelation is not written in words.
There’s a lot at the back of that thought — as in Richard Rorty and Romans 2 and 10 — so we may not want to go there.
(2) I’m not persuaded that NL is sufficient for the ordering of society. NL has taken quite a drubbing in the ethical world. It seems to me that NL requires Scripture as a backdrop in order to know which “laws” are truly normative and which are not.
That said, I don’t think NL is any worse than current secular projects. So, hey, in a fit of post-modern pluralism, “Why not?”
(3) Is special revelation only for the church? How do we know this? Is that premise consistent with the word of the Lord coming to Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, or Pharaoh?
You’re crossing the streams here. I’m talking about the level of the individual believer; you’re talking about a 3rd-person audit of someone else’s behavior. As I indicated in the comment previous, 3rd-person audits require a much higher level of scrutiny; they are subject to greater liberty.
I hear you. But I’m going to continue to seek middle ground until I can take either one side or the other with a clear conscience.
More later. Gotta teach harmonic motion.
JRC
Without disparaging the “infallibility” of general revelation; still, I don’t call it “Scripture.” That is, contra Hodge, I don’t place the two in the same epistemic category. There’s a simple reason: general revelation is not written in words.
Jeff, it was a figure of speech. I’m not sayiing they are in the same epistemic category. All I am saying is that God created both books. He just happened to write the special one down because the gospel is not in our nature.
I’m not persuaded that NL is sufficient for the ordering of society. NL has taken quite a drubbing in the ethical world. It seems to me that NL requires Scripture as a backdrop in order to know which “laws” are truly normative and which are not.
That said, I don’t think NL is any worse than current secular projects. So, hey, in a fit of post-modern pluralism, “Why not?”
That’s like saying my feet aren’t good enough to use to walk across a room, I need something to help them out. Granted, I may have flat feet, but they are good enough for walking.
Is special revelation only for the church? How do we know this? Is that premise consistent with the word of the Lord coming to Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, or Pharaoh?
And you wonder why you keep getting pegged a latent theonomist? Look, the exegetical, theological and historical arguments for 2K have been made in plenty of places, informally here and formally elsewhere. This question has been asked and roundly answered for you. What I think is at bottom is that you simply don’t agree with the arguments. Either that or you haven’t been listening. Since I think you’re a pretty honest person I’m going to go with the former.
JRC: If however we move it to the level of the individual believer and say either “Scripture doesn’t directly spell it out, so I can do whatever feels right, or whatever utilitarian ethics tells me to do”, then I object.
Zrim: Tips and paying bills. Sorry, but if you are compelled subjectively to be generous who am I to raise my hand?
You’re crossing the streams here. I’m talking about the level of the individual believer; you’re talking about a 3rd-person audit of someone else’s behavior. As I indicated in the comment previous, 3rd-person audits require a much higher level of scrutiny; they are subject to greater liberty.?
OK, so you want to know how an individual can decide to be generous. But your problem is that you presume that if he cannot find the answer in holy writ he must be leaning on “utilitarian ethics,” or something otherwise dastardly. But I thought God gave us a conscience, a brain and all the rest in order to make decisions. It’s like the feet thing, Jeff. You seem to have a really low view of what God has created to get us from day to day or from A to B. Maybe you think to rely on one’s faculties is bad Calvinism? I admit my feet are flat, my mind is dim and my eyes are batty. But this isn’t the same as total depravity. Calvinism is to admit these faculties are sin-strewn and highly compromised, it isn’t to dispense with them altogether. That’s utter depravity.
Yes, I do. It’s not nearly as clear to me as it is to you that one must be “either” 2K or theonomist. I mean, was John Calvin a latent theonomist or a latent 2K-er? Or both? And what would that mean?
I tend to resist pigeonholes pretty strongly.
Yes, exactly. I’m interested in the meta-ethic: On what basis do I, in the absence of a “direct and obvious” Scriptural command, make a decision? I don’t want a dictionary of outcomes (“in a pub, tip 10% unless the waitress spilled your beer on your date, in which case you can give 5%”). I want some basic description of method.
Indeed God did give us a conscience. But that observation doesn’t explain ethical reasoning any more than the observation that “God gave me feet” explains how walking works. Yes, people can come to ethical conclusions using their consciences.
But if they want to examine their decisions, they need some basis for it. The conscientious Christian magistrate wants to examine his decisions — partly to justify them in the context of legislative deliberation, but mostly to have a clear conscience. He wants to know whether he should support a “civil unions” bill for gay couples, and he wants to know that his decision is grounded in something stronger than a gut feeling.
If you want to use Utilitarian Ethics, or Natural Law Ethics, or Hedonism, or Objectivism, or whatever as the meta-ethic, then just say so. If I “don’t like it”, then I’ll say “I don’t like it” and move on with my life. But as it is, I have no idea what you have in mind. For a time, I thought that Natural Law ethics was an integral part of REPT. But Dr. Hart doesn’t seem to agree.
Is that a “low view” of our faculties? No more than is expressed in the Confession:
Notice that the “light of nature” and “Christian prudence” apply to worship and the government of the Church — a bit of a jurisdictional kludge, no? — but these circumstances are common to human actions and societies — another jurisdictional kludge — and both are to be followed according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. Not merely in the Church, but always.
Very different from the “two spheres, two books” view, the Confession uses both books certainly within the Church, and (it appears) within the common sphere also.
Additionally, Christian prudence is to be observed within a framework, “the general rules of the Word.”
And again,
So the conscience, even of a believer, can be directed by the Spirit, and yet still needs the Word to expose ongoing sin.
Now, I suspect that you don’t entirely disagree. In fact, I think at this point that we have agreement that “Christian prudence” is to be used “according to the general rules of the Word.” My point is not that we are necessarily in dispute — except perhaps about “two spheres, two books.”
But the point is that when I question the all-sufficiency of the conscience, keep in mind that I have WCoF 1.6 and 19.6 as the backdrop. The conscience is not nothing; but it’s not all-sufficient, either.
There is another option. Perhaps the answers that have been given have not been as clear and direct as imagined. Or another: that I’m slow to understand.
So humor me and give a direct answer: How do we know that special revelation is only for the Church? If I don’t like the answer, I will say so; but at least I’ll stop asking the question. Which would probably be a relief.
JRC
Interesting thought. Very crypto-Lutheran and 1st-use-y.
(BTW: I don’t think of “Lutheran” as a pejorative. Just FYI). So is the Kingdom of God entirely co-extensive with the Church, in your view? Perhaps WCoF 25.2 is in mind?
Not at all. I’m just trying to keep “liberty before men” separate from “libertinism before God”, the first strongly encouraged by the Confession and the second, not; the first, having to do with “3rd-person audits” of behavior; the second, with conscience.
—
It’s less so now that things have cooled off a bit (i.e.: I forgive you), but I’d like to explain.
A belief that “Christianity is primarily ethical” is really a heresy, an inversion of the Gospel. I think that we both recognize J.G. Machen when we walk down that road. He more than any other pointed out that “Christianity as morality” was an entirely different religion from Christianity.
Given that you know the history, I interpreted your comment to mean, “You (JRC) are not actually a Christian. You believe the Galatian heresy. Christianity for you is a matter of keeping the law.”
I may well have over-read your comment; it would be a rather explosive thing to say. But it’s not an unreasonable reading at face value and in the shared context of the works we have read.
JRC
But if they want to examine their decisions, they need some basis for it. The conscientious Christian magistrate wants to examine his decisions — partly to justify them in the context of legislative deliberation, but mostly to have a clear conscience. He wants to know whether he should support a “civil unions” bill for gay couples, and he wants to know that his decision is grounded in something stronger than a gut feeling…
…But the point is that when I question the all-sufficiency of the conscience, keep in mind that I have WCoF 1.6 and 19.6 as the backdrop. The conscience is not nothing; but it’s not all-sufficient, either.
Just to be clear, I do not think “gut feeling” and conscience are synonymous. And who said the conscience is all-sufficient? I didn’t. All I’m saying is that it should be given a lot more credit than is being given here. I certainly appreciate wanting a clear conscience, as well as being able to justify one’s own deliberation. But it sounds to me like you want answers you’ll, well, never get. It sounds like a quest for certainty instead of a contentment with proximity. I don’t think I can answer you to your satisfaction because I simply don’t share this quest. I’m good with being confidently persuaded in my conscience while also equally holding out that I could as wrong as the next guy. Sorry.
Given that you know the history, I interpreted your comment to mean, “You (JRC) are not actually a Christian. You believe the Galatian heresy. Christianity for you is a matter of keeping the law.”
No, no, no, no and no. Yeeech. I am not in the habit of speaking this way. It is one thing to point out what one believes to be errors, quite another to make any sort of comment on another’s status. I have no interest in the sort of discussion that entertains the latter. But that doesn’t mean I can’t suggest one might have some shared space with those who are in error. Yes, you quite over-read my comment. It may be that the aforementioned quest for certainty is yet afoot.
To sum up:
I have objected that REPT drives an unnecessary wedge between theology and philosophy. DGH has defended himself by citing his philosophical influences, suggesting that the philosophy in ASF is less overt rather than entirely absent.
This is a plausible claim.
Along the way, we have discovered that JRC’s concern and Zrim and DGH’s concern are significantly different; I am primarily concerned about the Christian decision-maker, finding a reliable process for making good decisions; while Zrim and DGH are concerned primarily about allowing the Christian decision-maker to have freedom wrt. the judgment of others.
This is a helpful distinction, and I hope we all can continue to to keep it in the front of our minds.
There are still some questions that have not received direct answers. The foremost is, “How does the Christian magistrate go about his decision-making?” The answers so far have been “I have no answer”, “no plan”, ‘we’ve answered this before” (!), “This is a non-problem” (!!)
So let me ask the question another way so that the problematic nature can become more clear.
—
Let’s suppose from your answer (“no plan”) that you wish to give the Christian magistrate maximum liberty in decision-making, that he can use a variety of approaches.
(1) Is any approach permissible? Objectivism? Hedonism? Utilitarianism? Totalitarianism? If not, then on what grounds? If so, then
(2) Why not Divine Command Theory (i.e., some form of theonomy)?
Note that the second question is NOT an implicit argument in favor of theonomy. I’m just trying to understand the picture you have in mind for the Christian in the public sphere. I’m assuming you have a clear picture in your mind, and I’d like the cards on the table, if you please.
JRC
And yes, it was very tempting to leave an elaborate April Fool’s post declaring my sudden conversion and undying allegiance to REPT.
Jeff,
I suppose what I don’t understand is the idea that some –ism has to be landed on and others need to be vanquished. I have Mark 12 in mind. If, when he has everyone’s ear as he is questioned about how we deal with this man named Caesar, Jesus simply tells us to submit to him, going against probably every conceivable argument for dissent, I think your questions are really wide the mark. In other words, Jesus commands submission. Nowhere is there any hint that rulers are subject to anyone’s critique. Think of it: Caesar is everything the Israelites conceive of as anti-Yahweh. I can just hear Rabboni Bret’s arguments now. And Jesus could give them credence. Yet, we are told to…submit. He turns his questioner’s assumptions on their heads. And Paul explains that this is because all authority is appointed by God—undermine Caesar and you undermine Yahweh.
To be frank, I don’t think this is at all easy for 21st century westerners to grasp. It irritates, nay offends, our sensibilities more than I think we’re willing to admit. We’d rather construct an –ism that is permissible. These just aren’t the questions or categories of Scripture; they are way more American than Christian. What all this means is that it seems way more important to Jesus and Paul that we are submissive citizens, whether our leader is Adolf or the Gipper.
I didn’t realize it was April 1 until I was actually punked at the end of the day. I’m getting old.
Jeff: I understand that you’re interacting with two people. I also understand that in blogging you don’t respond to every remark or question. But I am surprised that you have not responded to my defense of ASF as history, and what that narrative does for religious conservatives today who sound a lot like the old Protestant mainline when it was trying to preserve Christian America. My comment was on March 31 at 4:01 am.
As for the legitimate options for a Christian magistrate, of your four options, “Objectivism? Hedonism? Utilitarianism? Totalitarianism?”, I recognize only one as a political theory — Totalitarianism. And given how the United States fought one World War and a Cold War against Totalitarianism, I’d say it would be unwise for a Christian magistrate in America to adopt it. Russia? Maybe.
Seriously, why do you think of politics in ethical terms almost always? I don’t think you grasp the essence of politics which is ordered compromise. It even happens in the courts of the church — session would like a red carpet but Mrs. Davis will never let that stand, so we go with blue. Does Mrs. Davis rule? Are the elders being wimps? Politics means compromise.
Also, I don’t think you’re dealing fairly with America. We are a federated republic of states with greatly diminished sovereignty. Our political options are federalism, liberalism, republicanism, anti-federalism, and democracy, with lots of mixing and matching. You may object that these are not ethical categories. But then you would be resisting the political philosophy that God has ordained providentially. Among these options, I myself think that anti-federalism (which is really a hyper-federalism) is the best for preserving local communities and preventing the establishment of a super power. But do I think anti-federalism is more Christian than a New World Order? Hardly. It’s a question of wisdom, not right or wrong.
Jeff, just to piggy-back on DGH’s point that politics is compromise: consider just how brutally political the most intimate human institution is–the family. It might be that the family is the most political institution known to man. Ethics is certainly in there somewhere, but when I consider how shot through my days are with compromise…heck, I just might run in 2012.
If we lived in a monarchy I wouldn’t be asking the questions. The very fact that we can discuss “forms of government” comes out of the fact that we *are* the source of government, here in the 21st century. Or more precisely, that we have the ability to affect governance through electing representatives and being representatives ourselves.
I’m not talking about overthrowing the existing order; I’m talking about taking seriously our role in the existing order and trying to do a workmanly job. Such as showing up at school board meetings (good for you!).
JRC
Jeff,
“Being able to ask the questions” is a nice thing, but I am not so sure it’s all it’s cracked up to be. My point is that our time and place makes it very difficult (impossible?) to understand something like Mark 12. It could be that living under a monarchy would actually nurture a better Christianity wrt the kingdoms, submission, etc. than living within a liberal democracy. I know that sounds odd since we have been trained to think that the west is God’s second blessing on humanity, but the categories of scripture assume a form of governance quite alien to ours. If we think Xianity cannot thrive in any time and place, under any regime, I think we have to seriously re-consider our assumptions.
I know you’re not advocating something like overthrow, etc. It’s just that one wonders what corrective is in place to keep you from it, or from at least lending even modest sympathy to those who do. And for it’s worth, I don’t know of any better view than 2K/SOTC (REPT, whatever) in order to make for “taking seriously our role in the existing order and doing a workmanly job.”
Sorry; no attempt to evade there. I have some grading to do, so I’ll spin out some answers piecemeal as time permits.
In exchange, I would appreciate some answers as well:
* Are there any political theories that are unacceptable for a Christian? If so, then on what basis; if not, then why not theonomy?
* How do we know that the Scripture is only for the Church?
—
I’m actually not so concerned with political theory as with individual responsibility. And I’m not amazingly knowledgeable about political theory OR the history thereof, so my thoughts are probably naive.
One of the core arguments of REPT is that political entanglement led to theological compromise. I wonder whether this is the case. It seems to me that the shift in theology preceded the political entanglement. Before Schweitzer, there was Wellhausen. Long before the Social Gospel, there was New Haven theology. So I wonder (naively) whether the evangelicals really are compromising the church in the way you fear. That’s not to entirely dismiss your model. It makes sense intuitively that engagement is a two-way street; I just don’t accept intuitions as the final word. I wonder whether our intuition actually works out in history. And hey — that’s your area — so maybe you can school me a bit on this.
Second, it may be that evangelicals are (as in many areas of culture) taking a look at the liberals and thinking, “Dang, that worked well. We need to catch up!” I don’t know whether that’s wise or not — it seems a bit “also-ran”-ish — but it’s often hard to parse whether catching up, or finding a new method, is the best.
See above. I am not interested in transforming polity, but in guiding individual magistrates.
Gotta run.
JRC
Yes, I’m looking rather for *answers.*
I think Rom. 13 covers both issues. I think we agree here, right?
Right, we’re not living in a monarchy nor likely to return to such — unless I’ve underestimated the audacity of O.
Which means that each person is not merely a submissive cog in the wheel of government, but rather each of us (and especially the Christian magistrate) is a part of the government, with an active influence on legislation and the execution of legislation. My questions are directed entirely towards giving guidance to people in that situation.
I don’t really care whether “liberal democracy” is a great thing (I don’t think so). I *do* care how best to live in a liberal democracy, being fully cognizant of my active role as a part of government.
JRC
Perhaps we use the word “ethics” in different ways. In my personal lexicon, “doing ethics” means “answering the question, ‘What should I do’?” How do you use the term?
So I think of politics in terms of ethics because politics asks the question, “What are we going to do?”
WRT the various options I mentioned, all four are politically-oriented ethical theories. Objectivists have a definite governing philosophy in mind: Free-market Libertarianism. As in Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Likewise, Hedonism and Utilitarianism were specifically constructed as ethical theories for governments. If one reads the original papers by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill, their concern to guide legislation is apparent.
JRC
Jeff, I’m not sure how you can separate personal responsibility from responsibility for society. I understand you are only looking for answers for a Christian magistrate. But shouldn’t the magistrate first decide whether he is able to take the vows of public office before he decides what political theory by which he will govern. If he thinks that monarchy is the Christian form of govt., which it is actually — think David, Christ — then can he really decide to run for office in a republic?
This exchange reinforces my earlier point about how the desire for Christian or biblical politics has blinded evangelicals to the actual polity under which they live, as in a federal republic (which became the greatest nation on God’s green earth, thank you Mr. Medved — shouldn’t he be saying that about Israel?).
One can’t separate them cleanly; see Obj. 2. Personal responsibility is distinguishable from responsibility for society, but not fully separable from it. That was the point of the much-maligned “jello computer” analogy: we can distinguish objects but we can’t draw pure and bright lines that separate them.
(Hence, I don’t think that a project that proceeds on the basis of a “pure spirituality of the Church” is possible).
What if he thinks that the form of government is a matter of wisdom, and that individual decisions are the meat of governing?
That’s why I don’t care so much about the political theory and much more about the decision-making process.
JRC
Jeff, sorry to play the heavy, but do you understand how dismissive or even rude your remarks might sound to someone who studies deeply in political theory and knows the history of the West that informed the American founding? You seem to think it is a trifle that a Christian may or may not pay attention to depending on his inclination. Our Constitution and our history is part of God’s providential ordering of our situation. To take seriously our political tradition is to submit to the powers that exist. You don’t seem to think that those traditions or laws are binding. Sorry for the excitement, but wow!!! I find that nonchalance troubling. (But it does fit with the idea that Christians are above it all and don’t need to play by the rules of all sorts of social arrangements. Please don’t take this personally. But I have to raise some real reservations about your apparent flippancy regarding our nation and its founding, not to mention its history.)
Blue is the spiritual color. That’s why I’m bitter that the Dems. got it. Just kidding. Though I prefer blue.
Seriously, though. Let’s consider the nature, means, and ends of compromise.
Entering into negotiations, I have a bunch of different factors in mind:
(1) What are my non-negotiables?
(2) What are my priorities?
(3) What are the non-negotiables and priorities of the other party?
(4) Can we reach a creative win-win?
(5) If not, can we agree to mutually sacrifice priorities in exchange for some benefit?
That’s the nature of compromise. The means include things like
(6) How can I communicate clearly and effectively?
(7) How can I give the other party “space” to as to make his case and retain his dignity?
(8) How can I avoid unnecessary landmines?
The ends are simple: To preserve my non-negotiables and allow the other to do the same, while making some kind of progress.
—
Now, how does that fit in with governance? Well, I think what you’re suggesting is that, living in the fallen world, there are few *truly* non-negotiables. And I might agree with that.
For Bret M, for example, abortion is a non-negotiable. For Elder Hoss, schooling is a non-negotiable.
And your response to them, and I agree, is that if everything is a non-negotiable, the system breaks; instead of purity, one gets nothing.
In my view, it’s better to give-and-get than to get nothing. In this respect, I agree with the practice (if not the theory?) of REPT.
In another respect, I agree with the practice of REPT: it’s better to give up priorities than to use force to compel them. True force ought to be reserved for in extremis, non-negotiables. I don’t think I need to justify that from Scripture, do I?
But there is, buried in my description, a point where I feel certain we disagree. In preparing for the act of compromise, I must first decide what the non-negotiables are. On what basis do I do this?.
This is a very pragmatic question. If I walk into negotiations without a clear idea of my non-negotiables, I will walk out having been taken for a ride. Especially ’cause I can be a bit of a push-over at times.
This question, “How do I decide my non-negotiables?”, is equivalent to the question of “What’s my ethical meta-theory?”
I think Bret’s view is that y’all have been taken for a ride because you have no meta-ethic by which to decide the non-negotiables, and that Scripture points the way in this regard.
I think your view is that Bret is broken because he wants everything to be non-negotiable all at once, and he’ll get nothing at the end of the day, and that the non-negotiables ought to be found in the first Table of the Law, practiced in the Church, where we actually have a chance of controlling the non-negotiables. Among other things, you want the Church to be wise in not over-extending its reach.
How’m I doing so far?
My view is that liberal democracy is the system we currently have; it is the practical outworking of Mill’s utilitarian ethical theory; that utilitarianism is a jealous god, and it will swallow all *if* I walk into the public square without a clear idea of my non-negotiables. Thus, I am very, very chary of a political theory that is not clear-eyed about how the non-negotiables are derived.
I think those non-negotiables ought to come from Scripture; that’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
But contrary to theonomists, I think that force of government is not required by Scripture to get to those non-negotiables.
So on the abortion question, if I were president, I would pursue a holistic approach to abortion reduction, trying to maximize the goal, not trying to enshrine the principle in law. The sixth commandment (and not some natural law intuition) is the source of my norm, but persuasion and economic incentive/disincentive rather than outright illegalization would be my means.
So where are we? Any chance of getting some of my questions answered now?
JRC
Ooh. No, I didn’t. I was cheerfully oblivious. And actually, I’m trying to understand which remarks you meant. Clearly, I’m blind on this; I can’t even see any remarks that were intended to dismiss the history of our nation, nor your expertise on the matter.
Sheepishly,
Jeff
I think those non-negotiables ought to come from Scripture; that’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
But contrary to theonomists, I think that force of government is not required by Scripture to get to those non-negotiables.
This is what I can’t get past, Jeff. Maybe it’s just been a long day in the common sphere, but…whad’ya mean? It sounds like, “The Bible ought to provide absolutes, but it shouldn’t.” Seems like you’re giving us the come and go gesture at once.
And how exactly does one tell those not convinced around the table that the Bible is more than literature that he’s bringing it to bear on his absolute non-negotiables? Like it or don’t, that sounds like saying your basing your absolutes on Moby Dick.
And as long as we’re solving the world’s problems by pretending to be president, I’d make it mandatory that everyone get along, but not until the jet pack gets invented.
Jeff: when you wrote: “That’s why I don’t care so much about the political theory and much more about the decision-making process,” that’s when I saw a cavalier attitude to politics and how our system works. It’s like an elder in the PCA saying, I don’t care about the BCO or how we got Presbyterian polity, I just want to be a good ruler in Christ’s church.
Jeff, believe it or not, abortion is a non-negotiable for me. Somehow you seem to think the 2k view means it is not. But for some of us it is. The point of the 2k view is how that non-negotiable translates into life now. And the reason 2kers don’t line up with pastor Bret is that he can’t distinguish his various roles or vocations. Personally, my non-negotiable means I would never support my wife or a daughter having an abortion. It also means that I would likely work to discipline a mother or physician in my congregation involved in an abortion. But when it comes to politics, it’s a much more complicated question. 2k tries to recognize that complication, the difference between my own ethics and the ethics that provide order in a society made up of people who share my ethics and people who don’t.
This is why the constant search for ethics, or for what is personally possible by a Christian magistrate, misses the import of 2k thinking. It’s not personal. It’s public, and how do I negotiate my personal convictions in a public setting with a diverse group of personal convictions. That calls for compromise, discernment, and knowledge of how the political order operates — what are its rules and laws?
So to answer your question — which question have I not answered — there is no political order that is Christian, except for either Presbyterianism or divine-right monarchy. If I’m in a system that operates according to utilitarianism, and this violates my conscience (my non-negotiables), I don’t become a magistrate. And if it is so bad that it affects my life all the time and causes me to sin, then either I move or I rebel.
2k gives options for handling this conflict by saying the rule of the one sphere is not the same as the other. It takes the pressure off so that pastor Bret doesn’t blow. Your view only adds to Pastor Bret’s build up.
BTW, Pastor Bret’s non-negotiable allows him to live a life in this society very little different from mine. He is functionally 2k, and therefore a dysfunctional theonomist, as most are who allow this terrible regime to exist just one more second.