Jon Meacham wrote a less provocative piece than its title for the magazine he edits on “The End of Christian America.” Reactions have been mixed even if it is hard to argue either with the data that prompted the article or Meacham’s Augustinian conclusion:
The columnist Cal Thomas was an early figure in the Moral Majority who came to see the Christian American movement as fatally flawed in theological terms. “No country can be truly ‘Christian’,” Thomas says. “Only people can. God is above all nations, and, in fact, Isaiah says that ‘All nations are to him a drop in the bucket and less than nothing’.” Thinking back across the decades, Thomas recalls the hope—and the failure. “We were going through organizing like-minded people to ‘return’ America to a time of greater morality. Of course, this was to be done through politicians who had a difficult time imposing morality on themselves!”
Two years ago in the epages of Ordained Servant, T. David Gordon reached a similar conclusion, and he didn’t need to quote a columnist:
Indeed, if there is any real evidence of the decline of Christianity in the West, the evidence resides precisely in the eagerness of so many professing Christians to employ the state to advance the Christian religion. That is, if Ellul’s theory is right, the evidence of the decline of Christianity resides not in the presence of other religions (including secularism) in our culture, but in the Judge Moores, the hand-wringing over “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, and the whining about the “war on Christmas.” If professing Christians believe our religion is advanced by the power of the state rather than by the power of the Spirit, by coercion rather than by example and moral suasion, then perhaps Christianity is indeed in decline. If we can no longer say, with the apostle Paul, “the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly,” then perhaps Christianity is indeed in significant decline. If we believe we need Christian presidents, legislators, and judges in order for our faith to advance, then we ourselves no longer believe in Christianity, and it has declined. Christianity does not rise or fall on the basis of governmental activity; it rises or falls on the basis of true ecclesiastical activity. What Christianity needs is competent ministers, not Christian judges, legislators, or executive officers.
Sometimes when the church is really the church she even beats journalists to the real story.
231 Comments
Mr. Zrim, it occured to me this might be a shorter way to say it. The fact we’re citizens of the KOG does not mean we cease to be citizens of the KOM. As citizens of the KOM, we may act to protect our rights as citizens of the KOM, and the fact that a given action may incidentally also protect our right to present the gospel or worship doesn’t convert a KOM-action into a KOG-action. It doesn’t confuse the kingdoms. It doesn’t take away from our right to act as citizens of the KOM using worldly means. Because we are citizens of the world. Of course we must act in godly ways even as we act in the KOM. I think the radical 2K extremist-pacifist is the one confusing the kingdoms — confusing the KOM with the KOG.
I don’t know how much clearer I can be. If that doesn’t help, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The political/legal/religious spheres intersect at this point. The effect of any group being passive in the face of state infringement of civil liberties is loss of liberty, and if Christians don’t advocate for their freedom, who will? Sometimes the ACLU, fortunately, but they can only do so much. The way the system works, as I explained, infringement begets more infringement until in time, you had the spectre of no churches within 50 miles and existing churches being driven out of town. Not a good thing, as I see it. I gather he believes it would have been “wiser†for those churches to have allowed the government to shut them down and drive them out and go into catacombs. That strikes me as breathtakingly foolish, not “wise.â€.
I want to be clear that I appreciate the complexities you articulate so well, CVD. But this is really also part of the point in my exchange here. Like you, I am not saying that the “shutting down and driving out of churches†is a good thing either. What I am questioning are the presuppositions which seem suggest that civil liberty and freedom is our right as Christians.
I’m not asking whether we like our liberty, because that is obvious, and I won’t pretend I don’t. I am asking where do we get the idea that we even have these things? How do children of light come to expect the children of darkness to cut some slack? Are we at war with the world or is it just a lively spat? Likely you think I am thinking in black and white again. But, whatever else it means, doesn’t the death of Jesus indicate that a more realistic disposition might be that ours is indeed an out-and-out war, with real consequences not easily solved by Constitutions or Bills of Rights or any other traditions of men? How seriously do we take the war and, indeed, what caused it in the first place and what remedy it took to mend it? If we think civil polity can make a way for children of light to get along with children of darkness, I suspect not quite as seriously as Jesus’ own death suggests.
I would not say that civil liberty and freedom is our right as Christians (that’s a category mistake). I’d say it’s our right as citizens of a free land under a Constituion that guarantees civil liberties for all, and not just for non-Christians.
The balance of your discussion conflates the two kingdoms, and that is the source of your confusion, it seems to me. Of course there is an antithesis, or a “war” – Gen. 3. But that is in the spiritual realm, with spillover into the KOM, but it’s no part of my argument. I grant the reality of spiritual warfare, of course, and behind some of the conflict there may be spiritual warfare. And nothing in the KOM can change that. But the state was ordained by God to restrain evil in the KOM, and as citizens of the KOM, we can act in the KOM to restrain evil and do good. As citizens of the KOM, not KOG. And none of our actions in the KOM have a thimble full of redemptive significance. We’re not going to win the spiritual war with worldly weapons. But we can make proximate improvements on the margins, we can achieve proxmimate justice, we can to a small degree here and there help this or that hungry person eat even though millions starve. We can do a little good. And that’s all we can do. But that’s what we must do.
CVD,
If spiritual warfare “spills over” into the KoM but is not a part of your argument then why is my view rendered as helping the beast? But my thought is that you are under-realizing just what spiritual warfare is, as if it happens somewhere in ethereal world with little impact in the here and now. (I suppose that is what you mean by my conflating of the kingdoms.) But it seems to me that such an arm’s length notion of spiritual warfare could only be possible in a time and place that works so hard to tame Christianity and its claims in so many diverse ways (not just in terms of civil polity).
Yes, I quite agree that the state was ordained by God to restrain evil in the KOM, and as citizens of the KOM, we can act in the KOM to restrain evil and do good. And I’m a huge fan of proximate justice. But I tend to think much more ordinarily than extraordinarily. Putting food on my family’s table is my idea of all this, not a few feeding hungry people. Don’t you recall the point of “Easy to be Hard” from the musical “Hair”? I would contend that the typical American religionist is very long on sentimental ideal but quite short on ordinary piety. Ironically, in his proneness to “care about strangers, to care about evil and social injustice†he actually ends up risking the neglect of those who are actually ordained into his reach who are close, known and entrusted to him. Much as it might irritate, the truth is that each of us really only affects our more immediate environment, and even then only imperfectly. Even those who are afar off must be brought near and made ours first before having any lasting consequence upon them. And it just might be that a superior advocacy could actually be more ordinary, organic, local and familiar than extraordinary, panoramic, distinct and remarkable. I realize such a notion may be far from exciting. But when one considers the fact that the solution to humanity’s problem was played out in relative obscurity and disparagement that also may be the very point.
I applaud much of what you say, especially about ordinary piety (caring about those who are close at hand first such as family and neighbor). Very well put.
I think God calls each of us to different places. Some he makes lawyers to represent the victimized. So I naturally spend my days dealing with civil rights issues and representing the aggrieved and hurting and hungry and abused and victimized. That’s my calling. Others He places in quieter places. We each of us have a calling. But sometimes he places in our path opportunities to help improve the lot of others in little or large ways. I have Christian clients and friends whom God has blessed with great wealth and power. To their credit, they try to use their wealth and power and influence to do good as they have opportunity. They can do more than I, and I perhaps more than those less blessed.
I agree spiritual warfare can impact each of us, and in the KOM. But my understanding is that we triumph through standing firm in faith in the finished work of Christ and his imputed rightousness. To the degree there is spill over in the KOM, we are fortunate to live in a nation with a Constituion and rule of law that can mitigate some of the harsher effects of spiritual warfare where it manifess itself in opposition to Christians and the gospel. As common citizens of a free land, we can work side by side with non-Christians on matters of mutual concern, including preservation of liberty and civil rights and justice. And the rule of law preserves and protects, to a degree, more blatant persecution of Christians. Compared to Christians in China and other nations, we know almost no substantial persecution here. But the lawyer in me wants to remind us of the need for constant vigilence and warn of the “slippery slope” and how easily civil rights can be lost by a somnolent citizenry.
CVD,
Now there’s a post I can, more or less, live with. I still think there are some things very much worth considering when it comes to how our spiritual faith relates to our civil polity, and I gather we’d still have zigging to the other’s zagging. But to my radical and extremist mind, these differences are precisely the thing 2K means to protect. At the risk of confusing my kingdoms, one might even say it’s not too unlike the American experiment itself. It takes all kinds. Assuming we’re done, all the best in your endeavors.
Mr. Zrim, thanks for the good discussion. Hope our paths cross sometime. All the best.
Dear Brother Grimm,
I have been away from the computer (and this discussion has moved on) since my last of May 22, to which you replied above promptly, not only informing me that your position had been mischaracterized, but also because of that, closing with a foul (sic) lettered euphemistic acronym common to the armed forces. Obviously there is no such thing as “Christian†education – or even “Christian†sportsmanship or gentlemen these days. Thanks so much for the reminder.
Yet contrary to your parting eloquence, your position on the Alameda parents and LGBT evangelization is seriously confused and compromised. Neither was it sufficiently addressed. Hence the less than brief reply of the following propositions.
Homosexuality (and abortion) are such egregious violations of the natural law that consequently any parent has:
1. A NL right to object to their children being indoctrinated by the LGBT goon squad – which is far from being “accidental or mistaken†as some would naively tell us, the LGBT literature to the contrary.
2. An American constitutional right. This is not N. Korea and it is not a ‘measured dignity’ or an ethereal super spirituality, never mind an erroneous appeal to 2K doctrine to pretend that it is. Rather it is an absurd anabaptist, pseudo pious kenotic reply. (If those who lecture us so confidently, don’t know what the latter is, they may look it up in order to keep up the pretense of an omniscient and radical reformed chic.)
3. Much more Christian parents have a duty, right and responsibility. While they are not preaching the gospel, nor is that their calling, they are to be about raising their children in the nurture of the Lord. Somehow, however we care to confuse or obscure it, LGBT ain’t it. Neither are Christ’s little ones to be stumbled on the account of a “measured dignity†or prudence. Nor is it part of ‘going about our ordinary piety’.The Scripture after all does say something about millstones.
Granted, an objection shouldn’t have to rise to litigation, a quick trip to the principal’s office, informing them that one’s children are to be categorically exempt from such activities without being singled out and made an example of by the school, should suffice. Note: should, but very well might not these days. But maybe then, the govt. schools really aren’t public schools and maybe as a rule Christians shouldn’t be patronizing them, a can of worms we’ll save for another day. Never mind that a school which lets such slop in the door in the first place can’t be much of a school. But hey, it’s all pro forma. Just a pinch of incense in front of the idol. Christians need to go along to get along because ‘you really really can learn something in shop class. And it helps you get a job in the real world later’. Next question, does it profit a man or his children to gain the world, but . . . .
If things have deteriorated to the point of Sodom and Gomorrha, the Book of Judges and First OPC in San Francisco that the righteous must keep their head down and be quiet, then that’s a point of prudence, not principle and only temporary, the obvious and more eminently prudent thing being to get Christ’s little ones out of the “neutral†government schools post haste.
Neither is a recourse to litigation necessarily a theology of glory. Rather what we have here is the modern lukewarm suburban bourgeois yuppie mentality that is offended by the scandal of the cross, the scandal of the gospel. Christ died for sinners who actually sinned and yes, Virginia, there really is such a thing as sin however ecclesiastically incorrect it might be to hold those views in opposition to a radical 2K theology which compartmentalizes the Christian witness and testimony to the point of schizophrenia. One example again would be where we are naively told that LGBT propaganda is accidental or mistaken, a take which is clearly contrary to Rom. 1.
The conclusion? We are bold to say that any Christian parent that would willingly submit to, acquiesce in or tolerate their children being indoctrinated in LGBTism, should be considered delinquent by any Christian consistory worthy of the name.
But that’s just one of the problems with the compromised CRC wasting its patrimony. ‘We’re all such well meaning and genuinely hip reformed Christians, we listen to NPR religiously, grace is common, why can’t we all just get along with worldliness? There is no need to condemn or oppose it or even refrain from its vocabulary.’ IOW compromised beyond all recognition of a reasonable reformed Christian witness or testimony.
IOW when the blind lead the blind, in the ditch is where we find them in body, tongue and mind. My apologies, but I won’t be joining you, your erroneous arguments and gutterspeech to the contrary.
Thank you.
Bob,
Ouch. This must be what it feels like to be politically incorrect.
But, in response to your request, you’ll recall what I said were my conservative political views on abortion, as well as my conservative moral views on homosexuality. I suppose the distinction I was trying to make between politics and morality didn’t land. I shouldn’t be surprised since political correctness seldom sees this.
And I believe I was clear that the Alemeda case, to my mind, is really about more parental rights than “goon squads.†Sometimes institutions just do some really dumb things, and I am sympathetic to those who are injured by it, including the parents in Alemeda. Maybe what agitates you, Bob, like most indebted to political correctness, is that I have views instead of agendas. And I don’t mind if someone who disagrees with my views exists. If I worried about losing as much as you do I have no idea how I’d get through each day. I lose a lot. Those with agendas, well, get really keyed up. You seem keyed up.
Nope, Bro Grimm, you can’t make yourself clear to others as well as you think you can, though you have gotten better in the exchanges with CVD. If you want to pretend you are a hip and clever Luther and talk trash, go ahead, but some of us aren’t fooled. The issues remain regarding what LGBT really is in light of Scripture and natural law for that matter, the true nature of public “neutral” education and the role of the state, much more kenotic anabaptism.
This is not 3rd century Rome however spiritual superior you might think it is that we should live in catacombs if we are to be truly consistent with our reformed beliefs. Neither are we to insist on our rights per se, but Calvin for one dynamited the whole never go to law business.
Thanks again,
cordially
Bob,
This is not 3rd century Rome however spiritual superior you might think it is that we should live in catacombs if we are to be truly consistent with our reformed beliefs. Neither are we to insist on our rights per se, but Calvin for one dynamited the whole never go to law business.
Who said “never go to lawâ€? I just went there recently when my credit cards were stolen, tooth sweet. I’m no pacifist. Recently a friend of mine who teaches at the local Christian school was struck by a troubled student. The principal refused to adequately punish him on the grounds that “we’re all about forgiveness†(further aggravated by speculation that the boy “has a demon.†Fubar, the kid doesn’t have a demon, he has an absentee father, but that’s another story). The evil government school my kids attend would’ve roundly expelled that rapscallion. Ironic who gets law/gospel and who doesn’t.
But Calvinism, to the extent that it is shorthand for the biblical witness, places its accent on grace, Bob. As such, it is unclear to me how those who claim Calvinism take up law to defend themselves in civil/spiritual disputes. Civil/civil disputes are completely different. I know, Paul appealed to Caesar. But the bulk of the NT witness seems to suggest that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter is what should characterize our ordinary experience.
There we go again, Grimm, as confused and foulmouthed as ever.
Or is it that Calvinistic accent on grace?
How hip. How liberal/progressive.
Yet your choice of terms/euphemisms says more about you and your position than anything else. After all you did counsel refraining from litigation in re. to LGBTism, not spiritual/civil matters, if not that at one time you considered it to be a spiritual issue, hence I ‘spose your objection.
Whatever.
Have a nice day.
Mr. Zrim,
Your acknowledgement that it is proper for Christians to resort to the magistrate’s system of law when your credits cards were stolen, but not for Christians to remind the magistrate that it too must obey the law of the land when the magisrate tramples Christians’ constitutional and other legal rights, seems to be an oddly selective invocation of your principle of “grace” in the civil sphere. You are confusing categories and kingdoms again. Grace is a category in the redemptive sphere, not the civil. If you mean Christians should be gracious people generally, I agree, but not to the magistrate. The legal system within the magistrate’s civil sphere is a covenant of works not a covenant of grace. It’s every citizen’s duty and every Christian’s duty to remind and rebuke the magistrate when it violates the rule of law. (See Belgic Conf., art. 36).
I would agree that many Christians, especially on the religous right, have employed unduly harsh rhetoric and unwise means in some of their efforts. We have to remember that even when we are within our rights (biblicall and civilly) to act, we remain Christians and should comport ourselves in an appropriate manner. But I dissent from the principle you would lay down, that it is per se unwise for Christians to resort to civil courts, even after all attempts at informal settlement fail, to restrain the magistrate’s violation of law.
Luke 22 (Jesus’ rebuke of Peter’s violence against the soldier) is not to the contrary. This passage, which you often cite, does not stand for the broad propositions for which you cite it. As Calvin explained in his commentaries on this passage and the parallel gospel passages, Peter’s offense that elicited our Lord’s rebuke was that his violence was an unlawful action against lawful, divinely ordered authority, not that all resistance to the magistrate — even lawful resistance — is denied to Christians (or “unwise” to use your term). Peter was also seeking to prevent the cross. None of these considerations apply to Christian resorting to lawful authority to hold the magistrate accountable. Indeed, the Reformed tradition has a strong resistance theory, and Calvin acknowledge the rights of lesser magistrates to forefully resist tyrannical rulers. The “wisdom rule” you seek to enjoin on Christians — eschewing even lawful resort to courts to restrain a tyrannical magistrate — thus goes well beyond anything recongized in the mainstream of the Reformed tradition.
CVD,
I guess what you are saying is that Peter’s rebuke is quite irrelevant to our ordinary American existence as citizens. What I am trying to say is that Paul’s appeal has relevance but for extraordinary experience, and Peter’s rebuke, to the extent that it seems much more characteristic with the rest of the biblical data, is relevant to our ordinary experience.
I don’t have anything against “reminding†Caesar that to persecute God’s church is wrong. I just want to know what we are supposed to do when he doesn’t heed our reminders. And it sounds to me like you are suggesting by-passing confessional reminders (which really seem to have more to say to the faithful than the unconverted) for pre-emptive bats so that we might not have to deal with these more difficult and vexing questions. One thing I don’t see in your view is any corrective that helps distinguish defensive action from offensive action. When does the former become the latter?
If instead of continuing to meet you want to get a lawyer when our worship service is erroneously broken up by the civil powers, go ahead. But I still don’t see why we shouldn’t better spend our time pressing forward (as in not forsaking the assembly). I know Americans are supposed to have it all, but my money’s tight these days and I’d rather pay my pastor for his faithfulness than that plus a lawyer to make sure he can. I know, I’m naïve, short-sighted, foul-mouthed, kenotic and confused.
I think you have to be very fact-specific in dealing with these situations. High-flying rhetoric like “ordinary experience” and “extraordinary experience” is too vague. Theology fans like to fly over real-world territory at 35,000 feet and deal in vague “principles” and generalities and such. Useless. Not until we get on the ground and deal with specific cases and specific facts do we really think clearly and carefully about application to the real world.
Peter’s rebuke applies to confused Christians who want to blow up abortion centers or murder abortion doctors. But Paul’s appeal to Caesar, standing on his rights in the civil sphere in defending an injustice committed by a lesser magistrate, applies to Christians who send cease and desist demands and file lawsuits to protect their rights as citizens under a Constituion. You have to exegete specific texts in context, and address real-world situations in specificity. Taking refuge in 35,000-foot rhetoric is an invitation to confusion. I don’t know what you mean by “confessional remedies.” Which confession, which article, in what context?
Your comment about paying lawyers is a red herring. As I mentioned before, no church or Christian denied his or her First Amendment rights in America needs to pay a lawyer because Christian lawyers and public-interest law firms do this work without charge to the client.
CVD,
Like I said before, I am not a theologian or exegete. I don’t know why you want to hold me to being something I’m not. Like my wife, you’re going to have to take what you can get out of me.
That said, thanks for being clear and to the point about Peter’s rebuke. It is what I always suspected. So, it only applies to fringe elements like the uber-violent. So, it has nothing to say to the sanguine like me. So, I can ignore the whole thing as only applying to really bad sinners like Jim Jones or the nutcase who just gunned down Dr. Tiller. There’s scripture for the socially upright (Paul’s appeal) and scripture for the socially maladjusted (Peter’s rebuke). That sounds really tempting, to say that a piece of scripture doesn’t apply to me or that everyone has their own text that uniquely applies to their disposition. Not only that, but that there are sinners whose sin goes deeper than mine.
But, in addition to sounding like an urban-legend line of reasoning, that sounds like a doctrine flowing from a sort of stylized utter depravity instead of total depravity. But aren’t we all equally given to sinful behaviors? Aren’t we all tempted to draw our swords, even as we conceive of ourselves as a Paul instead of a Peter? Doesn’t all scripture have something to say to all of us at all times? Are you saying Peter’s rebuke never has anything to say to you as you litigate on behalf of the faithful, that there can’t possibly (well, possibly, but not very likely) be a line you could cross simply because you use a pen instead of a bomb?
All Scripture has something to say to us, but what it says depends on proper interpretation and applicaiton. There’s nothing new or controversial about biblical exegesis. You intepret a text in context and make legitimate applications. Calvin and most Reformed exegetes intepret Jesus’ rebuke of Peter and his use of the sword as grounded in Peter’s use of an illegal act of violence against lawful, divinely instituted authority. If you want to broaden the interpretation or the application (such as by “good and necessary consequence”), you have to make a reasoned exegetical case and demonstrate that it applies to a specific cases in a reasonable way. You suggest “we’re all tempted to draw our own swords.” In what context? You might be tempted to draw your sword at lawyers (officers of the court, lawful officials) who annoy you, and that would be an unlawful act. That would strike me as a legitimate application of the text. Or you could apply the text to an attempt by Christians to overthrow lawful government without just cause in order to set up a “Christian state.”
But to apply the Lord’s rebuke of Peter to a lawyer filing a brief in the interest of protecting the constitutional rights of Christians to worship or proclaim the gospel? On what exegetical ground? You haven’t offered one, and you concede you lack the ability to do so. But I think you’re being too humble because you are bold enough to venture an application that flies in the face of Reformed tradition, so you must have in your head some exegetical argument you aren’t sharing. How do you know that Christians who protect their legal rights in the city of man, as Paul did by appealing to Caesar, are the moral equivalent of Peter drawing the sword to cut off the soldier’s ear? You haven’t told us, and before you publicly propound such a startling conclusion don’t you have a moral duty to have some biblical basis for it?
All Scripture has something to say to us, but what it says depends on proper interpretation and applicaiton. There’s nothing new or controversial about biblical exegesis. You intepret a text in context and make legitimate applications. Calvin and most Reformed exegetes intepret Jesus’ rebuke of Peter and his use of the sword as grounded in Peter’s use of an illegal act of violence against lawful, divinely instituted authority. If you want to broaden the interpretation or the application (such as by “good and necessary consequence”), you have to make a reasoned exegetical case and demonstrate that it applies to specific cases in a reasonable way. You suggest “we’re all tempted to draw our own swords.” In what context? You might be tempted to draw your sword at lawyers (officers of the court, lawful officials) who annoy you, and that would be an unlawful act. That would strike me as a legitimate application of the text. Or you could apply the text to an attempt by Christians to overthrow lawful government without just cause in order to set up a “Christian state.”
But to apply the Lord’s rebuke of Peter to a lawyer filing a brief in the interest of protecting the constitutional rights of Christians to worship or proclaim the gospel? On what exegetical ground? You haven’t offered one, and you concede you lack the ability to do so. But I think you’re being too humble because you are bold enough to venture an application that flies in the face of Reformed tradition, so you must have in your head some exegetical argument you aren’t sharing. How do you know that Christians who protect their legal rights in the city of man, as Paul did by appealing to Caesar, are the moral equivalent of Peter drawing the sword to cut off the soldier’s ear? You haven’t told us, and before you publicly propound such a startling conclusion don’t you have a moral duty to have some biblical basis for it?
CVD,
How do you know that Christians who protect their legal rights in the city of man, as Paul did by appealing to Caesar, are the moral equivalent of Peter drawing the sword to cut off the soldier’s ear?
I’m not pitting Peter’s rebuke against Paul’s appeal. What I am saying is that, instead of one being for the socially maladjusted and one for the socially fit, both seem to have something to say to all of us. I’m saying that it seems more complicated than you seem to be allowing.
I don’t have problems with filing a brief in the interest of protecting constitutional rights per se, but when does Paul’s appeal become Peter’s reach for a sword, or is that somehow impossible in our civil polity? Yes, it seems obvious that we mayn’t be grossly unlawful in our actions; we mayn’t blow up buildings and plot to kill our leaders. Not only might that render Bonhoeffer less a hero and more a lawbreaker to be rebuked, my own sympathies to Bonhoeffer as a 21st century American might suggest I am not as many hops away from Peter as I’d like to think. In other words, I’m not so sure Peter’s rebuke has virtually nothing to say to me.
You’re loosely and carelessly conflating texts and contexts again without any consideration whatsoever to the meaning of the texts to which you allude in their context. To sustain your argument that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for the sword has some application to a Christian defending his or her civil rights you have to at least attempt to make a biblical argument, and you haven’t offered one. This is not a legitimate or helpful way to develop theology.
CVD,
To sustain your argument that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for the sword has some application to a Christian defending his or her civil rights you have to at least attempt to make a biblical argument, and you haven’t offered one.
But what you have said is that Peter’s rebuke has no application to a Christian defending his or her civil rights, that it only applies to fringe or extreme behaviors. What grounds do you have for the large majority of us being able to consider a biblical text as appreciably irrelevant?
And, again, just to be clear, a believer defending his/her civil rights as a citizen in the KoM is one thing, defending said rights as a citizen of the KoG seems like another. The whole of the biblical data just doesn’t seem nearly as concerned for individual or civil rights of believers as it does for the categories of faithfulness and obedience, as well as expecting these latter categories to be better tested in light of the former categories being violated. My questioning is meant to try and highlight the tensions and ambiguities dual citizens seem to have. So far, it seems pretty cut and dried for you. But it seems to me that, by definition, dual citizenship begets more tension than resolution.
Mr. Zrim,
You’re not hearing me. This is not an argument for either a biblical interpretation of application. I already gave you a summary of my argument for interpreting the Lord’s rebuke of Peter consistent with Calvin and the vast majority of Reformed and other Protestant exegetes. Since it is you who want to insist on a novel interpretation contraryt to the greater weight of interpretive authority, and since that verse appears pivotal to your 2k project, the burden is on you to offer a contrary argument. And you haven’t done so. I would simply again caution you that your method of reasoning, as evidenced in your posts, is problematic. If you want to analyze the “tensions and ambiguities”, as you say, you can’t do that with 35,000-foot clever hit-and-run tags. Phrases like “the whole of biblical data” are too vague. You need to parse individual passages and make a case for your interpretation if you want to sustain your burden. Otherwise it’s just blog palaver. You’ve also reversed your position on Christians defending their civil rights; you previously said it was “unwise.” My entire argument, to which you’ve been objecting, is that Christians are citizens of two kingdoms at the same time, and when they defend their rights under law, they are necessarily acting in the KoM. And as citizens of the KoM, they have the same rights as unbelievers and should not be disqualified by resort to vague nostroms like “worldly weopons,” “swords,” and the like. Hence all your arguments about “unwise” kingdom activity (“the Lord’s rebuke of Peter”) are inapposite in the KoM. If we agree, I’m happy.
I agree that dual citizenship can cause “tension” between the kingdoms unless we think clearly about which kingdom hat a Christian is wearing. And that requires nuance and clarity, which have been sorely lacking in most discussions of 2K issues, at least in my corner of the world and in the books and magazine articles I read. My first posts made this point: way too many 2K proponents, including popular authors, fail to make these distinctions and issue broad-based condemnations of Christians who act in the KoM using KoG arguments. This results in, effectively, denying that Christians are truly citizens of the KoM, citizens of the civil sphere, because we must suffer disabling restrictions on our political/legal/cultural activity. By the same token, much of the RR is ignorant of the KoG/KoM distinction and tries to further the KoG using KoM means — they effectively see the KoM as the KoG. That is also a category mistake and a confusion of the kingdoms. But the remedy for the RR’s confusion of the kingdoms is not for professing 2K advocates to also confuse the kingdoms — seeing Christians as only KoG citizens who must be muzzled/restricted when acting in the KoM.
CVD,
You’ve also reversed your position on Christians defending their civil rights; you previously said it was “unwise. My entire argument, to which you’ve been objecting, is that Christians are citizens of two kingdoms at the same time, and when they defend their rights under law, they are necessarily acting in the KoM.â€
Actually, what kicked the whole thing off had more to do with activism and forms of culture war than it had to do with defending individual rights. I think you wanted me to believe that sitting at a phone bank telling people to make sure Adam and Steve remain permanently single was a way of making sure we get to keep our religious liberties. And while I am sure you still object, I think behavior like that only obscures what the principled difference is between the worldly citizens of heaven (good thing) and just another glorified special interest group wanting to win an ideological battle (bad thing). (Do I think homosexuality should enjoy the sanction of marriage? Nope. But I can’t imagine sitting on a phone telling others that. I guess it takes a whole different breed.)
It also makes one wonder just what you have against the religious right (or left, don’t forget the left). Since you keep bringing it up with me, I wonder if it is just a matter of civility than principle. That is to say, maybe all you have against religious ideologues is how particularly obnoxious, self-righteous and smug they can be. That surely bothers. But for me it’s more a matter of principle. I don’t believe that true religion has direct bearing on or obvious implication for the cares of this world. Even as it is truly and utterly world-affirming it is also entirely and unequivocally otherworldly. Even as it conceives of the “very goodness†of creation it also sees this world as temporal and fleeting. I’m sure this is just more “blog pavaler,†but I really am trying to get something across to you.
Mr. Zrim, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. We do have a fundamental disagreement, and a strong one. Where we agree is a principled objection to much of the RR — their effort to “Christianize” the civil sphere, to see a geo-political nation state as God’s kingdom, is a confusion of the two kingdoms.
But your exaggerated “other-worldly” ethos, I believe, is the common ethos among so many 2K proponents, though they may not have self-consciously thought it through or articulated it as well as you have. You exhibit a general disregard for pursuing justice and goodness in this world on the misguided notion that pilgrims, because they are passing through, should be mere tourists who aren’t invested in the place they live or the people they interact with. I do believe that your view is unbiblical and a gross and dangerous distortion of the doctrine of 2K and “pilgrim” theology.
Your money statement is “I don’t believe that true religion has direct bearing on or obvious implicaiton for the cares of this world.” That statement is demonstrably false. Indeed it’s contradicted by your next sentence: “Even as it is truly and utterly world-affirming.” If “true religion” is “entirely otherworldly,” as you say, it cannot be world affirming. You are selective in what “this-world” elements you affirm and in an unprincipled way. Like many confused 2K proponents, have derived this without genuine, careful exegetical support. Your reasoning processes, as you’ve demonstrated them, don’t evidence any careful dealing with specific texts and the theological themes that tie them. There is too much sloganeering and vague generalities for my taste, and I think your (and their) flawed conclusions are the product of this flawed reasoning and lack of careful dealing with specific texts. You can only sustain this other-worldly perspective by ignoring or suppressing or distorting specific biblical texts, which make clear that the Lord has great concern for this world, even the civil sphere, and great concern for even unbelievers, great concern that natural law and creatonal norms be preserved and observed, and concern that Christians have an important role to play in this project. Even though this world is “fleeting and temporal.”
I love clarity more than agreement, and we’ve identified clearly the point of disagreement.
CVD,
Yes, we have struck pay-dirt I think.
Yours is more or less the same response I receive from my self-described neo-kuyperian transformationalists when I pass on signing the petition to close the local strip joint or vote to refuse pro-life literature to be displayed in the narthex (the latter was a vote, to my delight, in the majority). But if the gospel is even a hair relevant to the immediate concerns and traditions of men it is wholly relevant, and there are lengthy letters of apologies to be written the liberals and evangelicals. At the end of the day, what your view really ends up saying to the religious right and left (and all stops in between) is, “I can do cultural relevancy because I’m me, but you can’t because you’re you.†It’s a variation on the classic narcissistic syllogism that, translated for our discussion, says, “I’m Reformed; I think X; therefore X is Reformed.†But being relevant on man’s terms is being relevant on man’s terms, no matter what tradition anyone ostensibly claims.
While understandable and common, your implicit accusation of antinomianism and apathy never ceases to strike me as finally quite odd. Why is a satisfaction with proximate justice not good enough? “Not invested in the place I live or the people with whom I interactâ€? I have no need to prove how untrue that is of me to some dude on a blog, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. None.
Instead of being “contradictory†I rather conceive the at once brutally world-affirming and utter otherworldly piety to be precisely what it means to live in tension. It is the same sense of tension and duality that prompted Calvin to say that “we go to our deathbed with a sinner yet resident within.†It is the same duality that prompted Luther to understand what it means to be at once sinner and saint. It is what confesses that our good works are but dirty rags, that the holiest amongst us make only but the slightest advance in this life. It is the genius of Reformed Protestantism. Yes, we are passing through, but we are also full citizens. This is what it means to be “resident aliens.†You seem to fault those of us who would put the accent on the “aliens†part of that understanding. I don’t know why, since Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, told Peter to get behind him, refused the devil in the wilderness and to come down from the cross.
One thing does seem for sure: your view is the prevailing and dominant view of western religionists, true and false. Religion is relevant in one way or another, whether it’s a trivial concern, like losing weight, or a more substantive one, like preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think it is relevant at all, at least not on terms natural to us. It is relevant on God’s terms, namely, how to be right with God and enjoy him forever, in life and in death, in body and in soul.
Mr. Zrim, thanks for the useful exchange. It has helped crystallize the points of difference and, I respectfully submit, revealed that your radical 2K view (shared by too many 2K proponents) is well outside the Reformed, Protestant position, is utterly without any exegetical cr confessional support, is logically incoherent, can only be advanced through vague generalities and bromides, through the complete absence of any careful exegesis of even a single biblical text, through distortion and misinterpretation of the only biblical text alluded to, through straw men, and through formal fallacies. You have assidously resisted dealing in specific factual cases or specific texts, and for good reason. When analzyed, your view doesn’t withstand biblical scrutiny and is revealed to produce absurdities.
None of the texts to which you allude above support the wholly “other-worldly” stance you embrace. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, told Peter to get behind him, refused the devil in the wilderness, and refused to come down from the cross. By what parody of reasoning can you extract from these texts the proposition that Christians should be as detached from the civil sphere as a tourist is detached from the Motel 6 he spends the night at, and should not even defend their constitutional rights? Of course the KoG is not of this world, and Jesus’ mission was redemptive. But it’a a non-sequitor to say on the basis of these texts that Christians should be almost entirely detached from the world in which they live and even pacifists. Christ may rule the civil sphere differently from the redemptive sphere, but He still rules it. And we are called to do good to our neighbor and to all in the civil sphere.
I agree wholeheartedly that the best we can get in this civil sphere in this world is proxmiate justice. But your pacifist stance, that Christians who are illegally barred by a county bureacrat from holding a home Bible study should go into catacombs rather than stand on the constitutional rights, that Christians should not defend their legal rights through litigation because that’s too worldly, is not proximate justice; it’s manifest injustice. Your pacifist stance condemns even Paul for asserting his rights as a citizen. When confronted with this specific biblical precedent for Christians asserting rights in the KoM, you ignore it, as of course you must since it’s fatal to your whole house of cards.
On your principle, pilgrims and “resident aliens” should not (you flip/flop between sweeping univerals negatives and modest “wisdom” suggestions)be invested in this world or its people (should not try to improve the civil sphere by actively working to improve the moral tone or even defend their own liberties from governmental encoachments through the courts) because they have no “stake” in this world (your word). That pushes “pilgrim theology” to “tourist theology.” It is rebutted by huge swaths of biblical texts, which of course you don’t deal with because you cannot safely come down from the Olympian heights of abstract bromides and slogans hurled down from 35,000 feet. Your view is a form of neo-pietism that is foreign to the Scriptures and confessionally Reformed theology. You have the right to it, I only hoped you would attempt a defense of it.
I of course agree with the tension between “the already/not yet,” and the tension of living in two kingdoms. I’ve written about it here frequently. But a tension is not a contradiction. Nothing in Luther or Calvin embraced contradiction. Paradox (Luther), and tension (Calvin), but never contradiction. If the faith is “entirely other-worldly” (your word), it cannot be partially “this-worldly.” To embrace contradiciton is neo-orthodox and Barthain, not confessionally Reformed or even orthodox. In truth, your statements make clear you embrace only one pole of the contradiction — you are entirely (or 99 44/100%) “other worldly.” You can only argue that by ignoring or misinterpeting biblical texts.
The Scriptures are not “relevant” to “losing weight” (another straw man of yours), but they are “relevant” to preserving life, natural law, upholding creational norms, and otherwise acting in the KoM. Again, thanks for the helpful exchange that has elucidated the core point of difference. I think your piety is commendable if misplaced and ill-founded. Kind regards.
CVD, I’ve been sitting back to watch this debate and finally need to interject because you have tightened my jaws. What biblical text can you cite in support of going to a city council to protest restrictions on home bible studies? (The early church didn’t have Bibles, and no case emerges where even for prayer meetings the church leaders went to civil authorities for protection of religious exercises.)
I think the problem goes beyond other-vs.-this worldly views. It seems to me that you view Zrim’s views as pacifist and other-worldly because they don’t match yours. It doesn’t seem possible for you to conceive of an average Christian, going about his duties as a worker and worshiper, not interpreting zoning laws as plots by secularists, and not feeling compelled to do more than cast an annual vote in the local elections. Fine if you want to be an activist and best of blessings doing so on 2k convictions — which is not the firmest of foundations for doing so. But please don’t turn those who fail to follow your example or interpretations of the signs of the times into worshiping idiots.
DGH, thanks for the helpful clarificaiton. I hope I can relax your jaw. To be clear, I never said and don’t believe that everyone is called to be an activist (I said some of us are by occupation), and I have no problem with the humble Christian who works and worships and casts an annual vote in the local elections. That would be most Christians I know. I would also have no objection if Mr. Zrim or anyone else said pacifism was merely their personal preference, whether due to temperament or busyness or lack of interest. We’re all different, fortunately, and have liberty to be activist or not. But Mr. Zrim said more than that, and it seems to me his view necessarily binds the conscience. He spoke of a “principle” binding on all Christians. I demurrer when Mr. Zrim (who is a stand-in for many I know) denigrate under color of universal “principle” (whether “wisdom” grounds or 2K grounds or theological grounds) those who are activists. Or who assert on what he calls a “principle” (not just his personal preference) that biblical principle asserts that Christians “should” flee to catocombs rather than avail themselves of a legal remedy as Paul did. Each case has to be judged individually, of course, with recognition that what is wise under one factual scenario may not be wise under another, and with sensitivity that reasonable Christians may disagree about what is wise in a give case. There may be times when a soft word spoken will get the magistrate to back off. But when I hear that Christians should as a matter of principle prefer catacombs to confrontration I don’t hear personal preference or nuance; I hear a universal declaration that binds all Christians and condemns those who disagree as acting unbiblically. This discussion is emblematic of a lot of what I read from fellow 2K adherants – an effort to persuade Christians to cease and desist from activism of all stripes on the grounds they are acting unbiblically. In light of their manifest intention to promote pacifism against acitivsm, it strikes me as frankly disengenuous of some to pretend that they are merely stating a personal preference for themselves.
CVD,
Despite articulating some key differences, I think we’re mor or less back to where we were a bit ago.
Look, I don’t recognize myself in any of your (mis)characterizations. I think this may have at least as much to do with certain zigs and zags as with the fact that you were on the losing end of some misguided 2K thinking in real life. And you are taking it out on me here in this little, bitty comboxes. I told you way above that it sounded to me as if your liberty was trampled by your own church. That is highly unfortunate. But I am not convinced this “puts me at odds with the entire Reformed tradition.” Perhaps the same switch has been thrown on that one that was thrown to suggest that certain marriage laws threaten religious liberty. But like I said before, do as your own conscience (lawfully) compells you, just don’t blame me for not being as compelled or having principled reasons to dissent from your views and practices. Again, that’s what 2K is all about. Well, mostly about. Well, a lot about.
Mr. Zrim, thanks for your reply. I’ve accurately represented your views, often with your own words, and I respectfully suggest that you’re just as uncomfortable as I with the logical ends to which they lead. But with that said, you’re entirely within your rights to hold to your position, and I respect you for your sincerely held convictions. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Think this has been a helpful exchange, and I appreciate it. Best regards.
CVD, why do you persist in calling Zrim’s position pacifist? Sorry, but this seems to characterize your mental composition. Even when someone denies a position, you still attribute it to them because in your mind it adds up that way. But I don’t see why a Christian who would bop over the head a would-be burgler is a pacifist if he also complies with the city board of governors who say that his home Bible-study has acceded zoning restrictions.
The point here — not to make this too personal — is your propensity to assign the worst meaning to actions or words. You do so — in my opinion — both with Zrim’s own arguments and with the actions of California magistrates. For what it’s worth, I’d advise caution about connecting the dots between implications and explications.
Granted, you may be right about the totalitarianism that is just around the corner in places like California. And paying attention to trends is part of wisdom. But so is having some historical awareness. American Protestantism is not without many examples of those who have said the sky is falling and turned out to be wrong.
An even bigger question is whether the sky can fall, as in, can America become as bad as its critics allege. Believe, I think America is bad, by the standards of the Articles of Confederation. But the question is how do we measure American badness? Is our standard a Christian one or a “secular” one? In which case, the sky may have fallen in 1776 and some Christians are still wondering what all the debris on the ground is doing there.
DGH, thanks for your post. You can be assured that I am by legal training and habit very careful about characterizing my opponent’s positions, and I have not mischaracterized Mr. Zrim’s as “pacifist” because that is the term he assigned to it. In a prior post, he expressly acknowledged that “hanging the pacifist frame” (his term) around his position on resisting the magistrate’s encroachment on Christians’ religious liberties was fair. Accordingly, that the term aptly characterizes his position on Christian resistance to civil liberties violations is undisputed, at least by him. Since that admission, the term has served as a useful shorthand in our exchanges for his view that Christians ought not offer lawful resistance through legal process when the magistrate violates a Christian’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment or other provision of law, but rather should suffer the encroachment as a means to live “the NT charge to live quietly, mind your own business and be at peace with the powers that be” and to “suffer injury with dignity.” Catocombs over courts. To his credit, Mr. Zrim righly acknowledged that as a “pacifist” position in the civil liberties realm, as candor compelled him to do. He’s entitled to his view, but I respectfully disagree that it can be mandated on all Christians as a “NT charge.” (His words.)
I don’t know where I have “assigned the worst meaning” to a California magistrate’s actions or words. Neither I nor the law have any concern with a magistrate’s purpose or motive, except insofar as it may be relevant to an element of a cause of action. I am concerned with the effect of the actions, whether actuated by mistake or malice. Where those actions abridge protected constitutional or statutory rights I’m concerned as a lawyer and a citizen; where they have the effect of constricting freedom to advance the gospel I’m concerned as a Christian. Most of the time, at least in my experience, local officials’ actions are simply the product of mistake or folly rather than a gambit of dark villainy aimed at Christians (though sometimes they are). Either way the violation of law is the same.
I don’t know whether the sky is falling in America or fell long ago. My concern is that there has been a contraciton of religious liberties and free speech, and not merely for Christians. This is not disputed among most lawyers (at least among the law faculties with whom I associate and in the law journals I read). It is owing to a shift in the Left’s thinking about free speech. Those on the Left formerly were champions of the First Amendment, to their credit. That has changed for the most part. Scholarly thought now questions whether boundless free speech is the moral good or the utilitarian good previoulsy thought. We used to think government had no right to meddle in the marketplace of ideas except as a referee. Now much scholarly opinion thinks otherwise, and they are ready to free the hand of government to punish speech that formerly was protected. I don’t know whether this means the sky is falling, but it is a major shift that bodes ill for civil liberties, in my opinion, since courts historically follow scholarly opinion. And since much of the speech that is being stripped of protection is speech from the pens and mouths of religious people of all faiths, that is troubling. The job of a civil liberties lawyer–professor–advocate is to advocate for free speech — not becaue we think the sky is falling, not because we are “paranoid” — but because persuasive advocacy at the trial court and appellate court level and in scholalry law reviews is the means to prevent the sky from falling, i.e., the serious eclipse of important liberties, not least of all for Christians.
Is America bad? I think it’s more useful to be more specific. From a civil liberties perspective, in my opinion America remains the freeest nation; our constitutional liberties are more expansive than those of any other nation. I think that’s good civilly and good for Christian freedom to worship and proclaim the gospel. From an economics perspective, that depends on one’s political persuasion. From a Christian perspective, I think it’s generally a wicked society in rebellion against God. From a churchly pespective, I personally think it’s very, very bad.
.
A footnote. I should have addressed your specific case of the San Diego pastor’s home Bible study. Mr. Zrim argued that pastor should have submitted to the County zoning bureacrat’s contention that he needed a Major Use Permit to host a Bible study rather than contest it through a lawyer. It’s important to understand — because the case is instructive — that the lower official’s position was acknowledge to be in error by a higher County official, who rescinded the citation. The official did so acknowledging that applying a zoning ordinance whose language fails First Amendment standards (established in the case law) on “substantial overbreath” and “void for vaguness” would violate free speech and free exercise guarantees. Here is a case where a lesser magistrate erred, and the pressure brought to bear upon the County by a laywer facilitated an overturning of the lower magistrate’s decision. This is the kind of thing I face very day. In my opinion, it was wise and proper for the pastor to resist an admittedly unconstitutional violation of his liberty. I see much good that came of his decision. The Bible study went on, the church plant may go forward, other Bible studies are not threatened, and all citizens’ rights are protected from governmental abuse. I see no good and much harm that could have flowed from a contrary decision to accede to a violation. Because the law works through precedent, one violation would beget others.
I assume a civil-rights pacifist (if you don’t like that word, choose another), having the legal landscape explained to him, would still stand by his decision that the pastor erred biblically and acted unwisely. I’m not sure the reasoning that would support that position. Perhaps the pacifist doesn’t agree with the position that a constitutional right was being infringed (and disagrees with the County’s admission that it had overstepped). I would then asks what is your legal reasoning, because the violation is clear under law. Perhaps the pacifist feels that a greater spiritual good would be achieved in the long run even if the pastor and all other Bible study leaders in the County refrained from arguing with and threatening the County with a lawsuit even if it came at the expense of silencing the pastor and many other Bible study leaders in San Diego County. I don’t know what that good would be. Perhaps the pacifist has another reason for his or her contention. I haven’t heard one articulated by Mr. Zrim or others.
I raised a specific case because — forgive me — I’m a lawyer, and we train students to think through issues by applying general legal propositions to concrete, actual cases and hypotheticals rather than to abstract propositions. That at least works for me in clarifying issues, testing theories, and reasoning to sound conclusions. Other disciplines have other habits of mind, but that is ours for better or worse.
CVD,
Granted, just what “activism†is can be fuzzy, especially since there is a difference between “being active†and “being activistic†(sort of like the difference between simplicity and being simplistic). But I have suggested to fellow 2Kers the very same things about their activism (or sympathies for it) as I do to you, but I don’t ever recall being interpreted the way you are. I recall principled disagreement. But I don’t recall being heard to “denigrate†or champion “a universal declaration that binds all Christians and condemns those who disagree as acting unbiblically.†Yeow. That sounds like an activist to me. I wonder if you realize that you are actually enjoying the benefits of my views on liberty and dissent generally from the spirit of activism. Were I that rabid I might have your address by now, so to speak.
Again, I think you’re mistaking me for those who trampled you. But it also might be that one hears activism in another precisely because that is how he negotiates his own world. I have great respect for your vocation and your work. I just think that it isn’t quite as invulnerable to criticism as you seem to assume. I realize my points are very unpopular. But I do find it very hard to understand those who would claim a conservative Calvinism to be so resistant to the idea that their own projects can cross over into trespass. (Just once I’d like to hear a pro-lifer say, “Yeah, you know, maybe I shouldn’t daily make easy comparisons to the Third Reich.â€)
Re this business about pacifism, I conceded to the term to make a point, not to say my views are pacifist. And the point was that we are told to turn the other cheek and not to resist being persecuted. If you want to call that “pacifist,†go ahead. But I think that would be to misconstrue what it means to be obedient. Moreover, just as bravery necessarily assumes a measure of fear, obedience presumes an impulse of disobedience. In other words, fear and disobedience are our natural dispositions and to counter it is actually hard work. It’s not as if I don’t understand wanting to defend myself against persecution, and I’m not beyond admitting that I could be inconsistent one day and take up arms against my oppressor. But I don’t think that diminishes the fact that we’re called to something better.
And making the point that we are called to something better just isn’t the same as “a universal declaration that binds all Christians and condemns those who disagree as acting unbiblically.†Or don’t you think there is a difference between binding and exhorting? It seems to me that the only way you can interpret me to be binding anyone is to not distinguish between brow-beating and beseeching. Frankly, your complaint does not seem too unlike my children telling me I am an “unfair meanie-head†when all I am trying to do is suggest that when on the playground they don’t retort in kind when taunted for going to church.
Mr. Zrim, I’m not sure quarrels over semantics are very helpful. You led me to think the “pacifist” metaphor was acceptable to you as a shorthand for your non-resistance ethic in the civil rights sphere. It seems to me an apt metaphor, but since you find it cloying, I’m happy to use another term — but one word is easier to type than 10. I didn’t mean to offend — is “non-resistance” acceptable? You choose the term.
I don’t think you understand my point. You keep defaulting to “persecution” as if you see me seeing persecution-boogeymen under every rock. I don’t. I haven’t been speaking of persecution for the most part at all. Rather, as I’ve said before, often — perhaps most of the timne — government actors intend no “persecution”; they’re just foolish or mistaken. The San Diego zoning bureacrat, I’m guessing, had no anti-Christian bias and intended no persecution. Maybe he did. But’s it’s legally irrelevant. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. It sometimes just takes a letter and phone call to his superior or a threat of a lawsuit to reverse the decision. I personally don’t think your “something better” is achieved by caving to a legal violation. But you do. Fine.
I sincerely think what we have here is a clash of cultures. I don’t know yours, but it obviously isn’t the legal culture. Most would say that’s a point in your favor.:) In my culture, we are trained to run arguments to logical conclusions, to press witnesses and advocates to see the effect of their positions, to help judges and others recognize the buried fallacies in their arguments or reasoning proceses by forcing them to see the logical effect of their position. They usually don’t like that. You don’t. Fine. I don’t either. But it helps improve clarity and thinkinbg. No, I don’t see in you my former tormentors. I see in you an eloquent advocate of a popular (in my corners) position among some Reformed and Lutheran pastors, sem students, professors, authors, and theologians. I wrote papers on this subject and find it of interest. And I at least find it helpful to dialogue with a bright and articulate advocate of a position I don’t agree with. It’s not personal, and I hope you’re not offended. We lawyers can be too strident at times, and don’t mean to offend. If I did, I apologize.
One substantive point. I do believe you are advocating a position that you commend to all Christians as more consistent with sound theology. I don’t hear you saying, “Activism, defending Christian liberty by lawyers and courts is not my choice, but I’m speaking only for me. Far be it from me to suggest this is a better view for you. If it’s your choice, you can lobby Congress and city hall and act to pass Prop 8 and file lawsuits all day and be as consistent with biblical and theological principles and Christ’s call as I.” Rather, I hear you saying what some popular authors say: “All Christians are called to live as pilgrims just passing through, and if they understood Christ’s calling better, they would not oppose government oppression or persecution or work for Prop 8 or whatever.” That’s what I understand you saying, in effect. If I’m wrong, and you want to put a finer point on it, go ahead. But that’s the way many speak and write. But if that is what you’re saying, or close to it, it will not do, when someone disagrees with you, to take a dive and say, “O no, that’s just my opinion and I’m not expressing a principle that should be followed by all Christians.” You call your task “exhorting” or “beseeching.” But based on a theological principle you’ve devined about our “calling” to non-resistance, and a “call” to Christians is not a call to just you. (In my opinion, you’ve miscontrued “turn the other cheek”, especially as to government. Our tradition has a strong resistance theory, and I personally agree with the “lesser magistrate” teaching of Calvin. It’s your right to venture outside the tradition, but good to be aware of it.) If the “call” you speak of is a call to me, then I’m in error or disobedient to ignore it, no? And aren’t you binding the conscience where Scripture leaves us free? If I exhort a brother to stop drinking beer because assertedly God is calling us to be alcohol-free, and because it would be more consistent with biblical principle to be alcohol free, am I binding the conscience? If I exhort or beseech a sister to stop watching R-rated movies because God calls us to pure thoughts and minds, and you would be acting more consistently with biblical principles if you watched only Christian movies you purchase at the local Christian bookstore, am I binding the conscience?
I spend time on this point about resistance because your view, while a minority among all Christians, has gained traction due to some popular writers and speakers within the small Reformed pond. It has led to great confusion and divided people at churches. I regret that and have worked to change minds where I can. I can’t change yours, but I appreciate the diaglouge anyway.
CVD, I think what may be throwing Zrim and me off is the difference between the second two paragraphs in your latest comment. On the one hand, San Diego officials may simply be mistaken and harbor no anti-Christian bias. On the other hand, there is a culture/worldview war going on out there, at least in the legal profession. I’m not sure how to reconcile those two tones in between which your comments seem to veer. So you are not paranoid the way (I think) the religious right is, but then you have your Jay Sekulo moment.
It’s the Jay Sekulo stuff that has me worried.
DGH, LOL. I don’t want to say anything negative about Mr. Sekulo as he’s an effective advocate much of the time and a decent guy, but I’ll just say that I would not share a lot of his political or theological convictions.
Maybe this is the best way to go at it: I personally don’t find it useful to attribute to my opponents demonic inspiration or ill will. Usually they’re doing what they think is right. And I don’t worry too much about what may be their pscyhological or theological motivation. I love working with and against ACLU lawyers and other public interest law firm types because, while they’re pretty hostile to religious faith of all kinds and Christianity in parituclar, they’re very smart and capable advocates for the First Amendment and other constitutional rights. They do good work for a lot of disadvantaged people. I think they are useful in holding government to account. Sometimes they are wrong. But I get along better with them and can enjoy a beer with them if I don’t see them as wearing red tights and holding a pitchfork.
So a lot of the culture war RHETORIC and such is not helpful, in my opinion. It unnecesarily scares the secularists who just want to be free from religious oppression so they can live a secular lifestyle and enjoy prosmiscuity and the gay life and the movies they want and such. I agree tshey should be legally free to do so, and we do ourselves no favors by rhetoric that makes them think we hate them.
I want to protect civil rights of all persons, and I think that also helps preserve rights for all Christians to worship and do what only we can do. As I understand 2K (and I’m influenced by Kline), one of the functions of the civil sphere and the legal realm within it is to preserve a platform within which God can accomplish his KoG purposes and the gospel may go forth. That stable platform is preserved better if the government is held in check and we iive peacefully with all our neighbors. Most of the government actors I deal with are just foolish, not malicious. Just drunk with power, not hatred of Christians. Some are, but not most.
With that said, within the legal realm there started back in the 70s a movement to re-formulate First Amendment doctrine. I know the men and women who speerhead that project. And they are motivated by two things: a desire to protect women from being demeaned by pornography (so they want to remove protection for disseminating images that demean and offend women) and a hatred of Christianity because, I believe, they see it as holding to principles that are not congenial to their political agenda. They want get rid of the fundamental, core First Amendment conviction expressed in Mosley: “Above all, the First Amendment means that government has no power to declare any idea false or wrong.” They don’t like the marketplace of ideas metaphor that has been the reigning ideology in constituional law throughout most of the 20th century. They want to allow government to declare some ideas so pernicious that they very uttering of them should render their speakers/authors vulnerable to lawsuits or criminal or regulatory sanction as “hate speech.” The Left has picked up on this idea that came from the Critical Legal Studies movement at Harvard originally, and it is now in the popular media. I know one Democratic senator who routines calls “Fox News” “hate speech.” He is a lawyer who loves the CLS movement. (There may be much to hate about Fox News, but be aware that to affix the label “hater” on Fox News comes straight from the CLS playbook and behind it is the desire to silence all who oppose the agenda by affixing civil and criminal and regulatory sanctions to those who hold the politically incorrect view. Whether you share the political views of this movement or not (some of their ideas I agree with), I find the movement to silence those with whom we disagree alarming. What makes it alarming is it is no longer a narrow fringe movement, it has moved to the law reviews and some of the federal bench.
I don’t think they get up in the morning and say they want to go after Christ and his sheep. But they want breathing room for their agenda. When they were the opposition culture in the 60s, they championed free speech. But now that many of them are part of a majority culture, free speech is not so essential to their project and can be an obstacle to it. Some of Many of my ACLU friends share that view, most, though coming from the Left, are as alarmed about this movement to re-define core constituional doctrine as I. I don’t think this movement’s advocates are demonic or necesarily hate Christ as such, but some of them hate our theology, Bible, and all religion (except the vague spiritual kind that has no threats to it) because, as they say over a beer, religion oppresses people, misleads people into false thinking, and leads them to do wrong things like oppose the gay lifestyle or gay marriage or whatever. Many of them — fortunately not many ACLU friends — think they are doing a service to the world by silencing religious voices by imposing sanctions on the expression of religious views or political views that are motivated by religious conviction. While not all hate religion, this is a growing number. Since this radical re-thinking of consitutional protections at has gathered steam and been accepted by many district court judges, lawyers advising school districts and government, and such, it is alarming.
So is there a culture war/worldview war going on out there? I don’t know if that’s the best way to put it. I sometimes use “culture war” as a shorhand becaue people get what it means and to offer the above nuanced explanaiton takes too many words. I’d prefer not to demonize anyone and work with them to protect civil liberties for all. Yet there is a conflict between competing political agendas, and some on the Left, now that they have the power that the old Establishment used to have, are as tempted as the old Right-wing Establishemnt to use Law to silence their opponents.
The motivations of the legal Left are very mixed, and it’s too simplistic to say they are demonic or Christ-haters. Some of their ideas are good, some bad. But it’s not healthy to the body politic or the church to allow them the legal power to silence opponents that they crave. I wouldn’t give that power to the Left or Right.
DGH, it occured to me that you misunderstood my statement to Zrim “we have a clash of cultures. I didn’t mean that in the “culture war” sense, but in the sense that lawyers have a culture that conflicts with whatever culture Mr. Zrim hails from.
CVD,
Yes, amongst some fundamental differences we’ve established, I do think this may be a clash of cultures. Along with not being a theologian or exegete I am also not a lawyer. But I fail to see why that should diminish any of the points I am trying to make here. I’m an elitist, too, but blogs don’t seem to play by those same rules. Can you make an effort to take off your lawyer cap and just enagage as a fellow believer?
There is a lot you provoke in your last several posts. I don’t want to address all of it, since it would be repetitive as well as a bit unfocused for me. But there is one thing I am interested in. I’m still choking on the notion that Peter’s rebuke only applies to the fringe and thereby being virtually irrelevant to most of us (if it had been Simon the zealot I think you’d have a much better case).
Now you say I have misunderstood what it means to turn the other cheek or not resist our persecutors. While I could’ve fairly easily predicted the business of Peter’s rebuke only being for extremism, I’m stumped as to what you think turn the other cheek means. Does it mean to play nice? If so, I learned that from my mother; I don’t need the Bible to tell me anything that can be derived from both nature and nurture. I need it to tell me what I don’t know or what doesn’t come naturally to me. The gospel itself offends my natural sensibilities. I don’t understand “turn the other cheek†the way Anabaptists do, which is to say pacifistically. Like DGH suggests, I have no problem bopping erstwhile thieves on the head. I have a sweet mini-Louisville slugger under my bed. But I understand turning the other cheek to be gospel, not law.
I freely admit it is complicated when self-defense becomes resisting our persecutors or disobedience to our Lord’s command to turn the other cheek. But I think it does at some point. What I don’t see from you as any acknowledgment of that. I see a lawyer defending his vocation, which is really quite admirable—more power to you. But I think what I want to see is a Christian acknowledging that we are called to turn the other cheek, even if we may diverge about when that happens or how best to negotiate obedience to that command (so much for your sustained complaint that I am legalistically binding your conscience). I take great exception to your notion that Peter’s rebuke is for extremism. I hope you won’t spirit away the command to turn the other cheek in a similar way: does turning the other cheek apply to all of us? If so, how do you think it might apply to lawyers defending the civil rights of believers?
CVD, Thanks. That’s helpful and explains your work and perspective. It leaves me wondering if you think Christians are derelict who choose not to protect their civil rights. Because you see a trend in the legal field, it would seem that you could argue that believers have a responsibility to go to court if they perceive their religion has been ill-treated. Otherwise, it sets back the protection of civil rights. Sort of like the family which decides not to pursue charges against a burglar — I could see how a cop or DA would prefer a family to go after the law breaker.
So is that part of the dynamic between you and Zrim?
DGH, yes, that is part of the dynamic. If all Christians accept the categorical imperative not to protect their civil rights, the government power grab accelerates, and the worse for Christians and for all citizens. I think all citizens should or perhaps have a civic duty to do what they reasonably can to challenge serious government abuse. We’re all better off for it. The old ACLU lawyers like to recite the old saw about how after the dictator has come after my enemies and silenced them, he’ll come after me. So I stand up against government when it wants to silence the Nazi’s right to march in Skokie becuase though I hate them the same powr to silence the Nazis will allow the government to silence me. That’s basic FA doctrine — or has been since the post-McCarthy era. It’s now in jeopardy.
If all citizens have a “civic duty” to protect our freedoms, it seems to me Christians are part of the body politic as citizens of the KoM and aren’t exempt from that moral duty. And as Christians, why prefer self-flaggelation? Out of self-interest if not the interest of preserving our freedom to worship and speak as conscience compels, it would seem the kind thing and neighborly thing to do to do what we can to protect our liberties? The beneficiaries will be not only Christians, but all citizens. Of course I’m realistic. Not every Christian has the same amount of time, resources, temperament, and emotional resources to stand up to government bullies, but some do and there are resources available to help. I wouldn’t say a Christian mom who chooses to allow the school board to silence her Johnnie’s right to say “Jesus” is committing a sin. Every Christian has to decide these things using wisdom, it seems to me. I’d just like to not have fellow Christians telling other Christians that categorically Christians are in principle wrongheaded to go talk to the principal or school board or, in a worse case scenario, call a lawyer, but instead should generally just keep their head down and head to the catacombs.
CVD,
I can see your points. But mine is still simply that I don’t see it naturally arising from scripture that our default setting is to stand up for ourselves. In fact, I see the opposite. If we are to stand up for anyone it sure seems like it’s supposed to be for others. But ourselves? I can see where something like the Constitution compels citizens to “have a civic duty to do what they reasonably can to challenge serious government abuse,” but I don’t see where scripture compels believers to rise up and slap Caesar’s wrists. That sure doesn’t seem what Mark 12 teaches.
My DA may want me to pursue my daughter’s killer, and I would. But shouldn’t my pastor tell me to resist my persecutor?
Er, that is, “My DA may want me to pursue my daughter’s killer, and I would. But shouldn’t my pastor tell me to NOT resist my persecutor?”
Mr. Zrim, you raise a very large subject. I’ve written on this from a legal and Christian point before and will have to post to this when I have more time to think how to boil down a concise answer to a large and complicated subject.
Mr. Zrim, put out of your mind the Caesar and the Christians to the lions images. What if the government isn’t persecuting you for your faith per se, just grabbing for power? I stand up for Nazis and Communists. I even stand up for Christians. In that way I and you help preserve liberty for Nazis, Communists, Muslims and even Christians. The system we live under is designed this way. Is it ok for me to stand up for Nazi’s rights to spew hatred of Jews but wrong for me to stand up for Christian’s rights to preach the Gospel?
Mr.Zrim, is it ok for the ACLU to stand up for the civil rights of a Christian? If so, is it wrong for the Christian to stand up for his or her rights? What if the ACLU lawyer becomes a Christian during the case. Should he/she resign?
Mr. Zrim, I wonder how far you carry the non-resistance ethic or what criteria you use for judging. Many Christians of course operate in the business world. Suppose a Christian owns a business. His family depends on the income. He has 20 employees who depend on the business to pay them a salary. The Christian’s business, John Smith & Co., has a dispute with its main supplier (Supplier, Inc.) and the city (Tyrannical Falls), which are both unjustly making it impossible for the business to operate. The business needs to bring a lawsuit against his supplier and the city to obtain injunctive relief or it will fail within 60 days. John Smith goes to his URC pastor seeking advice. Should his pastor advise him it’s acceptable to sue or discourage him from suing?
CVD,
Mr. Zrim, put out of your mind the Caesar and the Christians to the lions images. What if the government isn’t persecuting you for your faith per se, just grabbing for power? I stand up for Nazis and Communists. I even stand up for Christians. In that way I and you help preserve liberty for Nazis, Communists, Muslims and even Christians. The system we live under is designed this way. Is it ok for me to stand up for Nazi’s rights to spew hatred of Jews but wrong for me to stand up for Christian’s rights to preach the Gospel?… is it ok for the ACLU to stand up for the civil rights of a Christian? If so, is it wrong for the Christian to stand up for his or her rights? What if the ACLU lawyer becomes a Christian during the case. Should he/she resign?
I’m not much for telling people what to do, nor declaring what is right or wrong.
But here is my concern: where in scripture are we told we have a “right†to preach the gospel? I only see the categories of “command,†as in, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.†I don’t see things like “…and make sure the powers that be leave you unhampered to do what I command you.â€
We are commanded to be faithful and obedient to God to preach the gospel. “Rights†seem to imply that the preaching of the gospel is somehow for us to enjoy for our sake instead of to obediently do for the sake of others. If that is true, I don’t see what difference it makes if you are representing me or the ACLU, because my concern isn’t so much whether I have a right to my beliefs and practices (and that they are being protected) but rather if I am being faithful and obedient to what God has commanded. Do you see the difference?
Mr. Zrim, I never said we have a “right” under Scripture to proclaim the gospel. Of course it’s our calling and privilege. I said we have a right under American law.
I’m disappointed you avoided my hypotheticals. I would tell you what I tell law students. Dealing with concrete cases produces clarity. Only by doing the hard work of thinking through concrete cases and hypotheticals can we test the limits and boundaries of our general principles, think through their application, and produce clarity. By sticking with vaporous generalities our thinking remains mushy.
CVD,
I never said we have a “right†under Scripture to proclaim the gospel. Of course it’s our calling and privilege. I said we have a right under American law.
But this is my point. As dual citizens, we have two books that seem to be saying two different things. A command to do something isn’t the same as a right to do it. And if our supreme allegiance is to scripture instead of the traditions of men then shouldn’t the accent be placed on the former? Shouldn’t we be worried about our faithfulness to the Great Commission rather than our right to carry it out?
But it seems to me that the default mode of the western Christian is just the opposite. When there is a challenge to our right to proclaim (real or perceived) it seems as though the first response is not to ask how we can continue to be obedient and faithful in the midst of it, but rather how we might circumvent—even pre-empt—the challenge.
Re my avoidance of your hypotheticals, perhaps this is our clash of cultures. My culture is education where we ask a lot of questions and traffic in “vaporous generalities at 35K feet.†I’d say I’m sorry but I’m not.
5 Trackbacks