I see that Doug Wilson, who is reviewing Jason Stellman’s new book, Dual Citizens, has adopted the unfortunate adjective, “radical,†to tarnish two-kingdom theology.
(For some of Jason’s responses, go here.)
I guess Wilson’s refraining from calling it a disease, as in R2K virus, is a step up in name-calling. But to call two-kingdom theology “radical†is silly.
For starters, it is as old as Protestantism is itself. Now for some Reformed Protestants, historic Protestantism is tainted by Lutheranism. This is indeed a puzzle and deserves greater investigation. What is going on among conservative Presbyterians and Reformed that they so carelessly hurl around “Lutheran†as an epithet?
For the main course, two-kingdom theology among Presbyterians goes all the way back to the Adopting Act of 1729. Yes, the colonial church would eventually revise the Confession of Faith in 1788 on questions surrounding the duties of the civil magistrate. But those reservations were already obvious to the American church in 1729 when the Synod of Philadelphia took a corporate exception to the Standards’ teachings on the civil magistrate in order to adopt the Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the communion’s confession.
One additional consideration is the language of the revision itself. Exactly, how radical is the following (from the revised chapter twenty-three)?
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
I know of no two-kingdom advocate who would dissent from this moderate view of the magistrate’s responsibilities or the civil protection such teaching approves for Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and unbelievers. (We 2k folk, cabal that we are, stay in very close contact.)
On the other hand, the critics of two-kingdom theology prefer this formulation of the civil magistrate (from the original WCF) and regularly accuse two-kingdom folk of bad faith for denying it:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
Not to be missed here is that this conception of the magistrate not only denies freedom to Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Arminians, and Pentecostals to practice their faith (where Baptists would fit is also uncertain; the National Covenant knew no privileges for anyone denying infant baptism). It also grants Barrack Obama the authority to call and moderate the General Assembly of the PCA. (OPC GA’s generally do not meet at security-rich locations.)
Who’s the radical now?
So all parties should drop “radical†from descriptions of two-kingdom theology. Better terms are “historic,†“American,†“American Presbyterian,†or “mainstream Presbyterian,†words not synonymous with radicalism.
Old Life 
Imagine Mayor Tommy Carcetti conducting church discipline? So in theonomy, getting into public office is an alternative route to church leadership if one doesn’t fancy 3 years at seminary or seeking ordination? Sweet.
LikeLike
How about neo-two-kingdom theology? Because I think the point is that the current version differs in important ways from, and makes certain novel applications of, the two-kingdom idea as understood by the early reformers.
LikeLike
I’m totally on your side, but isn’t the point that Wilson et al would stipulate that there exists some “mainstream/historical” flavor of 2K that they would endorse, but what JJS and WSCAL and you (and I) are pushing is much more radical? It seems to me that, less than the role of the civil magistrate, the central issue over which we are labeled radical is our rejection of transformationalism — that we don’t see the church having an active role in the renewal of culture & society generally, but only administering Word&Sacrament within its own Kingdom?
LikeLike
But according to even the original WCF, that’s what the church is supposed to do.
LikeLike
Actually, they call it neo-Calvinism for a reason. Maybe it should be neo-theonomy because not even the Reformers attributed redemptive significance to the magistrate. He was simply to enforce the true religion. But it is an interesting problem to consider how NT Wright and Rousas Rushdoony wind up in the same place.
LikeLike
There’s nothing radical about it, no new direction that it’s being pushed. It’s actually as old as the 1536 Institutes, which I happened to read the other day just for kicks. Amazing stuff.
This was THE big split between Geneva and Zurich/Strasbourg at the time of the Reformation. The Erastians had Zurich by the #$lls and Zwingli and Bullinger were all on board with the civil magistrate playing the strong-man in the church (these churchmen agreed hoping that tides would turn and they’d have influence on society, imagining it might one day be a two-way street. Thus Bucer, Zwingli and Bullinger were sometimes theocratic, or what became Erastianism. This was the tradition that led to the first WCF. Fortunately, Thomas Erastes was more or less silenced in Heidelberg, and so had little effect on the Heidelberg Catechism, of which he was a co-committee member.
So in sum, there’s nothing particularly “neo” about either trajectory, the 2k tradition or the Erastian/theocratic/moral crusader tradition. 2 kingdoms goes back to the early days of the Reformed Reformation, and thankfully Geneva and later Heidelberg set a non-Erastian tone for the confessional tradition on the continent.
DG is right . . .what’s “neo” is neo-Calvinism, i.e. Kuyper and his ilk.
Patribus nominus potentibus,
R
LikeLike
I believe the burden of Mr. Wilson’s critique is not that 2K theology is “radical,” but that Jason Stellman’s book is a radical expression of 2K theology. I must say that, while I agree with 2k theology, its advocates are not uniform in their applicaiton of the doctrine. Even the professors at WSC, where 2K theology is dominant, are not all of one mind on the details of application to the civil sphere. Some, while placing themselves in the 2K camp, would be comfortable with various forms of political and cultural engagement by the individual Christian that other 2K advocates would deem “transformationalism” or unsavory “Christian activism.” It seems fair to say that there are indeed some “radical” advocates of the 2K doctrine that push it to extremes that the Reformers would not recognize and that are out of the mainstream of Reformed theology, even of the 2K variety. Whether or not Rev. Stellman deserves that appellation or not is a question I’m not prepared to say.
LikeLike
So, 2K theology is “historic” because it’s “American”… really? Also, those who oppose 2K theology want to return to some sort of Erastianism (or at least give power to the state [in its current state] to enforce orthodoxy with the sword)? What in the wide, wide world of sport is a-goin’ on here?!? What a bunch of rubbish!!
This feeble defense sounds a great deal like my most-loathed bumper sticker: “Feminism is the radical idea that women are people too.” No, feminism is a WHOLE lot more than that. R2K bumper sticker: “2K is the radical notion that Christ’s church is a separate entity from the state.” No, R2K is a WHOLE lost more than that. The Puritans that drafted that detestable paragraph above (the one that the Americans changed, thus making it “historic”) also held a two-kingdom view, as do most Christians.
LikeLike
But isn’t Wilson “biting the hand” here? If the role of the civil magistrate is to suppress all heresies and preserve the peace and unity of the church, where does that leave the Federal Vision?
LikeLike
Say, Taciturn, was the Genevan reformation a Magisterial one or not? It’s fair to say that much of the Reformation was “non-Erastian,” but it’s tomfoolery to assert that it the church and state weren’t in pretty tight cahoots… that’s, like, why they call it magisterial. Thus, Geneva lead to Westminster every bit as much as did Zurich, if not more. Let’s not pretend that Calvin held to the early 19th-century notion (read: “historic’) views of the separation of church and state. He held to a 16th-century version of it: different domains all under one cosmic King, to whom they must offer obedience.
LikeLike
And did those Puritans tolerate Baptists or Quakers? Roger Williams and William Penn say a big no. So if you’re advocating that old 2k view, why are you willing to tolerate so much idolatry and blasphemy in this greatest nation on God’s green earth? Isn’t your beef not with the 2k cabal, but with yourself? How do you live with the RC parish down the street? Why aren’t you petitioning your local authorities to shut it down? Maybe the Puritans would kick you out of Massachusetts Bay too.
LikeLike
Dear Tim,
You write, “Thus, Geneva lead to Westminster every bit as much as did Zurich, if not more.”
Actually, that’s just wrong and you’re making stuff up; it may be difficult to quantify, but very few historians are on your side on this one. The channels of communication and theological cross-pollination were flowing between England and Zurich more than England and Geneva. And then Bucer left Strasbourg for Cambridge . . .
The magisterial support for the Reformation in cities such as Geneva was more coincidental than ideological. In fact, as refugees from France, many of the consistory members in Geneva weren’t Genevan citizens – a point which greatly irritated the city council but about which they could do nothing as the church elected elders. In Zurich, mind you, the magistrates chose the elders for the church, and this had Zwingli’s/Bullinger’s theological as well as practical support. Along these lines, this is why Calvin’s return from exile had as much or more to due with the insistence of the churchmen in Zurich and Basel who wrote to the Geneva city counsel demanding Calvin’s return. (Bossy churchmen!) I think this is one of the curious ironies for which we 2k folks should be grudgingly thankful . . . it was the ever-vocal theocrats in Zurich (speaking through the church in Basel) who helped to bring the more spirituality-of-the-church-minded folks back to Geneva in order to work their non-Erastian magic. That’s how messy these things were in the Reformation, which ought to remind us not to confuse the political intrigue for what the “magisterial” Reformers wished to see happen for their posterity. [Plus, I actually think the magisterial/radical distinction has more to do with the visible/invisible distinction than anything else (which of course the Anabaptists under-appreciated), that and the fact that it was a term coined much later and with more than a little ideological bias coming to bear in its application. But not knowing your theology, Mr. Prussic, perhaps you don’t care for that distinction either?]
I think, for the future, that the Ecclesiastical Ordinances should also help set the terms of the discussion about how “radical” our own 2k theology is. Calvin insists on a clear separation between church and city counsel, no doubt about it. Meanwhile in Zurich and Strasbourg there was a real fusion between religious and secular spheres.
Peace,
FT
LikeLike
Wilson is not at home in the field of the history Reformed thought, as his role in the Federal Vision makes painfully clear (not to mention his rather embarassing historical contribution to the study of Southern slavery).
LikeLike
Tim,
Actually, the 2K bumper sticker is, “Yes, I’d vote for a Mormon or a Muslim, why do you ask?†And the tee shirt is, “I heart NYC—I wouldn’t change a thing.†So, you’re right, 2K has some practical implications that should scare the living life out of soft and hard theonomists.
Of course, there is that pesky issue of self-comportment versus self-expression, which means the bumper sticker and tee shirt are purely metaphorical.
LikeLike
Thanks, FT, for the thoughtful response. My reply had less to do with the specifics of cross-pollination of ideas from continent to British Isles and more to do with two other factors. 1) Modern 2K guys seem to present themselves as “nothing new going on here, folks” – but that’s simply not the case. Thus, your first comment above: “There’s nothing radical about it, no new direction that it’s being pushed” immediately rubbed me the wrong way. 2) It seemed like you were trying to stake claim in Geneva for the modern 2K ideas and plant theonomists (or whatever you all us) in Zurich, which is also simply not the case. There may’ve been more Erastian tendency in Zurich, but Geneva’s not modern 2K playground. The church and state are hopelessly intermingled through most of the history of the church and Geneva was no exception, even if Calvin is looking our direction more than most of his contemporaries.
Also, I’m happy with the V/IV distinction, so long as it’s applied thoughtfully, is not held as inspired terminology, and is not the only distinction used to understand the nature of the church.
-Tim
LikeLike
Mis-characterizing your opposition by way of false dichotomy may make you feel good (and may get chuckles from your students), but doesn’t help. Just because I oppose some of your modern extensions and applications of 2K theory, doesn’t mean I support state persecution. Your response to me is every bit as feeble as the original post… and that’s strange, I think, from a guy who writes such good books (at least the ones I’ve read).
LikeLike
His “role” in the FV is that of an orthodox spokesman. The book on slavery has nothing to do with “the history of Reformed thought.”
LikeLike
Is adopting the Reformed Two-Kingdom theology finding a legit way to disagree with my regional Christian students’ fellowship that keeps on pushing the same set of left-wing politics (which they call ‘Kingdom justice’) down the throat of every Christian freshman from every Christian denomination/tradition and still try to sell their interdenominational variety-loving shtick?
Just wondering how useful this would be. Can I still be postmil? I’m of the pietist brand, by the way. I hope this helps.
LikeLike
Flattery will get you no where. You say that the original WCF was 2k. Doesn’t that mean you are comfortable with that form of 2k theology, and not the one held here. So if that original 2k theology, to which you’ve appealed, excluded Baptists and Quakers, and since you think my 2k views have a whole “lot more” going on, what is your view of religious freedom? I suspect you are far closer to me than the original WCF. So why then call ME radical? You may be looking in the same mirror.
this is not rhetorical bluster. It is a serious question that anyone who wants to hit an American Presbyterian 2k view over the head with the “old” 2k view, needs to come clean about. How on the old grounds of the National Covenant, which the Westminster Assembly re-uppped in the form of the Solemn League and Covenant — how is it possible for you to tolerate the idolatry practiced in Roman Catholic and Mormon churches and feel good about your defense of the “old” 2k view?
LikeLike
Well, sure, the Reformers would not have recognized tolerance for Roman Catholics, Quakers, or Baptists (people who re-baptize and don’t baptize babies). So that means that the people who do recognize religious freedom are “radical” from the 16th century perspective, not just a certain flavor of 2k theology.
Also, I don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to radical applications and some 2k proponents taking different views on social and political engagement. That’s the point of 2k theology. Christians have liberty in the political sphere to adopt a variety of approaches to public life. Stellman is to the left of me politically. But 2k theology is only about uniformity on Christian politics — ecclesiology. Because the Bible doesn’t speak to health care insurance, federalism, highway administration, or tax rates, Christians are free in the political realm to take vote, legislate, and propose policy differently.
LikeLike
Mr. Prussic writes, “There may’ve been more Erastian tendency in Zurich, but Geneva’s not modern 2K playground. The church and state are hopelessly intermingled through most of the history of the church and Geneva was no exception, even if Calvin is looking our direction more than most of his contemporaries.”
Playground or no, we should remind ourselves that 2k theology was actually a CONDITION upon which Calvin INSISTED when the Genevan magistrates asked him to return from Strasbourg to save the city from chaos. I for one don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that without his insistence and the council’s acceptance of 2k theology, Calvin would not have returned to the city. For all we know, the city might then have replied to Sadoleto’s letter in their own way and re-Poped.
That is a very interesting historical tidbit that should serve as a caution for those radical anti-2k folks who go on and on about how foreign 2k theology is to the Reformed tradition.
Thank goodness for principled 2k churchmen like Calvin in 1541, who on the basis of 2k theology was willing and able to get his hands dirty mingling with the politicians and wealthy citizens of the city inside and out of the church. Of course it all became intermingled in practice in 16th century Geneva, but not with an Erastian justification. That point had already been granted. In principle and in practice Calvin was straight-up 2k, even though church didn’t always get its way. As I say, the principle point was insisted upon and granted in Geneva, as it should be for us today.
So Geneva was an exception in the history of the ancient and medieval church, thanks to Calvin, and there were others such as Heidelberg. It’s just silly to pretend that the Reformation didn’t include important ecclesiological reworkings, and even sillier to think that the practical messiness in various Reformation cities should serve as the blueprint for a similar confusion of civil and churchly spheres in our own times.
FT
LikeLike
Calvin’s view (insofar as I understand it) of the distinction between church and state authority is very easily distinguished from the 2K theology of today – especially that is coming out of Westminster West. Calvin didn’t have any problem with, say, compulsory worship service attendance. Calvin didn’t have a problem with the execution of Servetus (in principle, that is, of course he labored for his repentance and lobbied for a more merciful death). There’s no doubt in my mind that the Consistory or the Company of Pastors (with Calvin’s blessing) worked in cahoots with the various levels of city government in Geneva in a way that would make 2K all weak in the knees. That wasn’t just messiness, it was the way that Calvin and the pastors wanted it… even if they didn’t always get it the way they wanted it.
LikeLike
I wasn’t just blowin’ smoke about your books. I’ve benefited from them a great deal.
I too suspect that my views are closer to yours and most American Presbyterians than to our Reformed predecessors, but that doesn’t make my views “historic.” THAT was my original point, along with making it clear that all your modern trappings of 2K thought are quite distinct from a commitment to a simple two-kingdom distinction (to which almost currently everyone holds).
As to my views, they’re in flux. I’ve been highly influenced by Reconstructions, but I’m trying to explore other view. The 2K view has proved very difficult for me to access, even when I’m not mad at its handlers. I’ll hang in here and try to do more question asking than venting.
LikeLike
Like I said, flattery won’t work. Smoking is another matter.
I apreciate your admission that your views are closer to mine and farther from 16th-century Protestants. I suspect the same would go for Wilson and other critics of 2k theology. And that was precisely the point of the post. By calling my view radical, critics give the impression that theirs are more in keeping with Calvin or the Westminster Divines. As you concede, we are different from them, and not just on politics. I suspect our worship and Sabbath practices would shock them.
But here is an important point, at least to me: at least the current advocates of 2k theology, like Stellman, are trying to be self-consciously Reformed about their engagement of Christ and culture, or religion and politics, and do this in a modern context. That is, they draw on redemptive-historical notions of pilgrimage, exile, and differences between Israel and the church, to come up with a 2k theology that disentangles the gospel from a theology of glory, whether proclaimed by the Religious Right or neo-Calvinists. Meanwhile, the theology of glory crowd trots out defenses of state church arrangemens from the 16th and 17th centuries, as if committed to them, but all the while embracing Roman Catholics and Mormons in the public square for the sake of a faith-based America.
That’s not radical. It’s two-faced.
LikeLike
TP
Wilson’s role in the FV is that of an orthodox spokesman? Wouldn’t that be like saying that his brother Ethan’s role among the Open theists is that of an orthodox spokesman? Or how about saying that Brian McLaren’s role among the Emergent crowd is that of an orthodox spokesman? Come on Tim,if you are identified with groups like these then you are part of that particular herd- and if you don’t like the association then make that known and get thyself out.
LikeLike
Let’s invert the question, and see how it works? Instead of asking whether the state should tolerate various ecclesiastical bodies, let’s ask how the church should treat illegal aliens? Is your 2K really a two-way street? Should the church bar from membership illegal aliens? How about those who though entering the country illegally (or entered legally but overstayed their visas), but although have since contacted the INS, are still considered as illegal because their requests for asylum and refugee status was denied? Should the church countenance the repentance of one who continues in his illegal status, even if returning to his native country martyrdom is likely?
What concerns me, is that there are some who express their 2K doctrine as you do, but also press it to the point of maintaining that if the state criminalized Christianity, continuing as a Christian (in disobedience to the state) would be a sin. Those maintain that all civil disobedience is inherently sinful, and so even in such a state where Christianity is illegal, even attending church services held in secret is sinful. While I’ve never read or heard of you suggesting such a thing, you might want to consider that some of that baggage has been attached, in general, rightly or wrongly (I hope), to the umbrella term of 2K, that is often labelled as R2K, W2K or WSCal2K.
LikeLike
Andrew, as I’ve said, 2k is a cabal. I know of no one who espouses anything close to what you say. All 2kers would agree with Paul, who counseled obedience to totaliarian states, and who disobeyed that state in order to preach the gospel. You must obey God rather than men, right?
On the point about aliens, chapter 20 of the Confession would appear to cover this one. You can’t use Christian liberty to subvert or disobey state or church authorities. So while I’d admit an illegal (assuming I can understand the profession in a known tongue) to church membership, I’d also have to counsel the person to go to the state authorities. If they did not go to state authorities, I suppose a church trial would ensue. I’m not sure if the church would ever turn the offender in. After all, do sessions look over IRS forms to make sure that members are paying all their taxes?
LikeLike
Smoking, eh? Then, let’s say we get together, smoke a couple nice oily maduros, and I’ll tell you how bad your books suck?!
Back to the point: I think we’re making some progress. My original points, here, were that the modern 2K position may draw on historic Reformed ideas, but is not, in toto, the historic Reformed view. Remember, Dr. Kline called theonomy the Old-New error… that includes the old part. Your most recent response to me implicitly grants this, but I want more satisfaction than mere implication. My second point was that, while most of use hold to certain basic two-kingdom principles, 2K theology is far more developed and particular. So, one can hold to two-kingdom principles without being 2K. Similarly, not all opposition to 2K is necessarily from folks who deny two-kingdom principles.
All that said, I appreciate many of the 2K criticisms of faith in politics. Conversely, I marvel in unbelief at some of the predicaments that 2K guys seem to get themselves into, which seem quite radical. Irons is an example. Another is yer homeboyz over there at De Regno Christi seemed to have themselves wrapped up in knots trying to answer the question, “Is there a Christian argument against homo-marriage?” That fried my puny little brain.
LikeLike
Those maintain that all civil disobedience is inherently sinful, and so even in such a state where Christianity is illegal, even attending church services held in secret is sinful.
Civil disobedience is sinful. Cultic disobedience is a whole different question. That’s what Acts 5:29 is all about. We have to distinguish between worhsip and obedience instead of conflating the two. If our sheriff breaks up our home church, we resist him by going underground–not hiring a lawyer. I know it may work in the minds of some to have 2Kers playing along to Caesar when he tells us to obey his command to resist God, but either you’re making stuff up as you go or there are some confused 2Kers.
The Christian life may be summed up in one word: obedience. The spirit of obedience is much harder to pursue than the letter of obedience. Though it certainly must include this sort of honest citizenship, Mark 12:13-17 is about much more than filing honest tax returns. After all, would they all have been really so “amazed†when Jesus told them to do something quite so obvious, even easy? Or is it more likely that the amazement stemmed from nary a word about rebelling against an authority who gave no second thought to his own deity and trampling the sovereignty of God’s own?
Mark 12 is about authority and submission. If we’re being honest, these are not themes Americans naturally abide. Our very existence is the result of rebellion. We are nurtured on the virtues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, warnings to “not tread on me†and entreats to bestow liberty or (gulp) death. We have a polity that invites, encourages, even rewards, dissent. This is not to suggest our time and place is the realm of antichrist in a withdrawal-y, Anabaptistic-sort-of-way, or that America isn’t a great place to raise kids. Rather, it is to wonder, if the short hand for the Christian life is indeed obedience, just what sort of bearing our theological beliefs have on our ideological devotions, if any.
If the hearers of Jesus can gasp at his rendering instruction in light of obvious problems, is it really such a stretch to suggest that, despite popular sentiment to the contrary, American polity is more antithetical than encouraging to Christian piety? It could be that it isn’t quite as safe and happy to be an American Christian as sermons on Memorial Day and platitudes on July 4 might think. It might be that what we presume as a blessing is closer to what it means to struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
LikeLike
GLWJohnson: “If you are identified with groups like these then you are part of that particular herd” – you’re starting to sound a little FV yourself! Are you affirming that herd identification is objective?
Jokes aside, I get what you’re after and I’m somewhat sympathetic. I’ve distanced myself from guys like Rich Lusk and Ralph Smith, as I think they’ve personally compromised their teaching. I might find myself disagreeing with Wilson, Schlissel, Wilkins, and also Shephard, Wright from time to time as I read them. I don’t know any of them that well, but I’m not willing to distance myself from them, at least not yet. Now, Wilson knows all these men FAR better than I do and he has far more reason to hang with them when they’re under attack. Thus, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I know Wilson fairly well and trust him. In other words, if you want to have guilt by association, then I’ll have acquittal by the same.
With love,
Tim
LikeLike
Though I fear I’m moving a little too far away from the topic at hand, I’m curious what you would say to either civil disobedience or even rebellion when such actions are codified in the law to protect citizens from unlawful rulers, such as in rebellion clauses or our Declaration of Independence. Here’s another example:
“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
LikeLike
Tim Prussic says,
However, it cannot be true that “the book on slavery has nothing to do with the history of Reformed thought†when the authors of that book claimed, “the Christian and Reformed influence on ante bellum Southern culture was far more extensive than anywhere else in the world.†The authors made this claim writing as authorities on history, including the history of Christian and Reformed thought. How else could they make this assertion? And they prefaced this statement with the demand: “we must rememberâ€:
LikeLike
Joel,
I’d say that there seems to be yet another tension between what it means to be a dual citizen. Our American polity seems to nurture rebellion to the point that we understand “civil disobedience†to be closer to virtue than vice, while our heavenly citizenship demands an obedience I daresay our polity finds quite repugnant. I wouldn’t pretend to know how to solve these tensions, only suggest that it is more complicated than we tend to make it. I don’t like unlawful rulers anymore than the next person, and I like to see citizens protected, but it does seem to me that our heavenly citizenship calls us to endure things we don’t like. And last I checked, the NT (which contains Mark 12, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2) superseded the Declaration of Independence.
LikeLike
Tim wrote, “In other words, if you want to have guilt by association, then I’ll have acquittal by the same.” I would have to agree with him at this point. In no way can one be unorthodox in the strictest sense just because he associates himself with he or she. However, when there is an apparent doctrine that is outright heretical and the said person who espouses that view is a prominent figure, one must distance themselves from that person. So I agree with Tim reluctantly. I too am very cautious about the 2K doctrine. I frankly do not hold to it. I too think it is a Lutheran doctrine infiltrating Reformed thought unless proved otherwise. I am still reading VanDrunen on his Republication thesis, so that might change, but as on now I am still in the theonomic camp.
LikeLike
I’ve long ago dismissed Wilson entirely on all things Reformational. I like your title “Like Totally Radical.” Or, “Like wow, Doug, far out!”
LikeLike
My recommendation? Join a confessional church, worship twice on Sunday, read http://www.frontporchrepublic.com, and call me in the morning.
LikeLike
Joel, following up on Zrim’s point, how do you square the quotation you supplied with Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek. I’m not saying they can’t be squared. But don’t you think heeding Christ on non-resistance and Paul on submission to the state carries more weight than your quotation?
LikeLike
So, Tim, are you saying that Calvin’s Geneva is a model for today?
LikeLike
Like to paint with a very broad brush, do ya?
LikeLike
Well, I thought in our country that the highest (kingdom of man) authority is not the President or Congress, but rather the law in the Constitution and also the Declaration of Independence. So if a lower authority tries to subvert the higher authority, the higher authority ought to be obeyed over against lower authorities. Hence why we have have the Supreme Court. Perhaps I’m mixing apples and oranges on the term authority.
If every time a law was made that is unconstitutional, Americans began obeying it without regard to its actual lawfulness according to the Constitution, the Constitution would have been essentially null upon its writing instead of it taking a few decades.
LikeLike
To be a little more clear on the specific question, since rebellion clauses are a part of state constitutions which allegedly even the governors agree is the highest law in each of their respective states, then it ought to be obeyed over the wishes of the governors when the two come in conflict. The same goes with the Constitution of the US. I know the Declaration of Independence holds a little bit different place in US law, but I obviously think that the right of rebellion/secession is granted by it to the people of the US.
This is an interesting question as I think it would have been better for the colonies not have seceded in the first place. If only we could have a 5% tax rate ourselves and not have come to think that democratic republicanism works.
LikeLike
Joel,
Though I find myself sympathetic to outlook of the anti-federalists, I’m not much of a politico. So you’ll understand my hesitancy to speculate about specifics over things like higher and lower magistrates, rebellion clauses and tax rates. The point here, I think, is actually much more panoramic. How does an eternal text, which seems brutally clear and unforgiving about the virtue of civil obedience, square with a temporal text that esteems civil disobedience?
I think this is hard for westerners to think through, since we are nurtured on notions that our polity dropped from the clear blue in a nice, neat package, no questions asked. But if we can easily discern scriptural admonitions against the cultural virtues of sexual impurity, materialism and self-importance, it seems to me we should be able to also discern cultic imperatives to obey and submit and doctrines to resist dogmas of resistance.
LikeLike
Tim
I do wish Doug Wilson would re-evaluated the negative impact the FV has had on him personally, i.e.especially the various loose canons like the ones you mentioned. I have wrote to him shortly after the Auburn Ave. thing blew uo urguing him to disassociated from it but to no avail. Now the thing is a ball and chain around his leg.This is the puzzling thing to me: Doug has gone out of his way to critique NT Wright all the while ignoring the same kind of views that perulate in the FV.
LikeLike
Joel:
Can you provide any evidence to support your statement that state governors view their state constitutions as the highest law? Considering the history of the founding of our country, it’s absolutely unreasonable for a person to believe. To be a part of the Union, each state had to subscribe to the US Constitution, which contains the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Paragraph II. The clause is clear that not only is the Constitution the supreme law of the land, but also any laws made pursuant to it and any treaties lawfully entered into. In our system both federal law and international treaties are superior to state constitutions.
Though the Constitution was written by revolutionaries, there is no evidence to support that they enshrined some sort of right to rebel in the Constitution. The Constitution not only permits the government to punish rebels, but also disqualifies anyone who has part of any rebellion against the US from holding office. What would the right to rebel even look like? Could you raise arms against the US and claim that the Constitution prevents you from being punished?
The Framers thought that the need of rebellion was overcome by the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, etc). The Framers chose to replace bullets with ballots.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority in the United States. Some argue that as an almost contemporary document that it might be useful to understanding the Constitution. I agree with this. But it grants no rights to any people, and in no way does it restrain the government.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Surely if one was a worker at a business and the owner told the worker to do something, but someone else with higher rank told the worker to do something contrary, the worker probably should do what the owner would have him do. He should disobey the person under the business owner. Should this kind of disobedience be allowed or even encouraged?
If another country came along and conquered us and the constitutions were voided in that way, I wouldn’t think that people should obey the rebellion clause or anything similar. That was my point in agreeing with the Crown over against the colonies. Most likely, the idea of overthrowing the British rule was sinful for the reasons you bring up. However, as long as we all recognize that we are bound by these particular laws and they have more authority than do our Representatives when the two are in contradiction, I think that we ought to submit to the authority of the former and not the latter.
I’ll try to say it in a more frank way. When Paul wrote about being subject to governing authorities, I read in our context that we ought to be subject to the Constitution first and foremost. After all, our federal employees and military swear to uphold the Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. They don’t swear oaths to any President, because he is under the authority of the Constitution. If any lower authority says that we ought to obey him instead of the Constitution, we ought to defend the Constitution and consider the lower authority an enemy. As soon as the Constitution is gone, we ought to obey its conqueror.
That rebellion clause that I quoted before was certainly flawed in its reasoning, but for the people of New Hampshire, (I think?) they ought to submit to that law’s authority even if the reasoning behind the law is sinful. Just as they should continue paying taxes even if it is then used to pay for sinful purposes and the taxes were enacted on account of sinful reasoning.
If you simply say that the Constitution is not our highest authority, and instead the Congress and President overrule it in their every decree, your point is made and I understand it. The point I’m making is that I don’t think that is really the same category as just not submiting to governing authorities.
After reading back, it sounds like I’m more dogmatic in my reasoning than I really am. I’ve just been thinking this through a bit, and I’m writing this way in order to make my point clearer. So, thanks for your thoughts.
LikeLike
Joel,
I’ll try to say it in a more frank way. When Paul wrote about being subject to governing authorities, I read in our context that we ought to be subject to the Constitution first and foremost.
So then what’s an anti-federalist to do? But I think Scripture’s imperatives, when it comes to any matter, obedience being no exception, are pretty general for good reason. How to balance a dual citizenship can be complicated. I tend to conceive of “being subject to governing authorities†to be much closer to obeying he who has the most immediate authority over me. Obviously, that doesn’t cleanly solve everything, but tension is part of the territory in a dual citizenship. The spiritual question, to my mind, is closer to “How do I maintain obedience?†than “When can I rebel?†And it seems to me the American Christian is more preoccupied with the latter.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m trying to answer the question of “what’s this voluntaryist/anarchist (me) to do?” I suppose we’re probably in a fairly similar situation. By your stating that you are an anti-federalist, are you somehow implying that you disregard the Constitution as an authority?
I would like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that the immediate authority is the one to submit to rather than the higher authority. I admit that I hadn’t thought about that possibility.
RL,
I think you have had a misunderstanding of what I meant (likely my fault) in your first point, and after that we have some disagreements that I don’t know that we could or should reconcile here. Or maybe I’m too lazy.
Anyway for your reading enjoyment, here’s a section of the US Code that could explain my confusion:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+uscnst+3+0++%28declaration%20of%20independence%29
LikeLike
I Joel,
I would like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that the immediate authority is the one to submit to rather than the higher authority. I admit that I hadn’t thought about that possibility.
This isn’t to set local magistrates against higher authorities or to somehow suggest a rebellious stance against the latter. I don’t “disregard the Constitution as an authority.†It’s more “along with†than “rather than.†The latter sounds closer to seeking opportunity for disobedience than obedience.
But I suppose since I run into more tax-men, mayors, cops, bosses and elders in my daily life that an accent is placed on a localist outlook. And if scriptural imperatives apply to all believers in all times and places, it seems natural to read “governing authorities†to be those who daily govern me at a local level. At the same time, that isn’t at all to diminish the authority of those who govern from a distance. I suppose it’s more a matter of perspective than dogma.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I don’t know to what extent Geneva’s a model for us today, but this is the same silly argument you continually throw out there to change the subject. Here’s how it seems to go:
Modern 2K guy says, “Golly gee, Boss Hog, our 2K ideas aren’t radical and aren’t new! Why they’re as old as Geneva and who knows what else!” Guy like me responds, “Hang on there, Plato, our Reformed history if chalked full of theonomy, dominionism, and all sorts of stuff that’s at odds with YOUR 2K ideas.” Dr. Hart comes back with, “Shouldn’t you be petitioning your congressman to kill Jews or run Catholics outta town or something? Do you think Geneva’s our model for today?”
Dr. Hart, you’re simply avoiding answering the charge of modern 2K theology’s lack of historical roots by changing the subject. Quit changing the subject! …unless you wanna talk about smoking.
LikeLike
Pastor Johnson, I suspect that Wilson holds is friendships dear, doesn’t see the same errors in his friends as, say, NTW, and wants to aid his friends through their politico-ecclesiastical difficulties. I think it’s very easy to look at Wilson and wonder why he hasn’t “disassociated” himself, but how much craziness goes on in our own denominations and how much have we “disassociated” ourselves from our friends because of it?
LikeLike
Tim, golly gee, did the original post appeal to Geneva or the 1788 revisions of the WCF?
Drum roll . . . . 1788. So what’s your point. I know of no 2k person who would claim that his or her understanding of the contemporary state is like Calvin’s. I do know of lots of critics who say that the 2k view is a huge departure from Calvin. And then when the 2k folks respond with, “well do you want a state like 1560 Geneva,” people like Tim say, “I’m not sure.”
What 2k people do claim is that Calvin’s teaching on the nature of the church and Christ’s mediatorial kingdom is the theological basis for 2k views. If you think that is so odd, then think that a pre=modern figure like Luther could come up with a 2k doctrine and still believe in a state church. (Constantinianism dies hard.)
Of course, the other point is that we all live on the other side of 1789. Turning back the clock to a pre-revolutionary time is radical.
LikeLike
I’ll leave a response here, as the reply option under your last comment to me disappeared. MY original critique of your post what your 2K notions shouldn’t necessarily be called historic, in that they’re American (see my post from Oct 7 @ 7:38 PM), NOT that it’s represented in Geneva. The Geneva comments were on a different thread.
You said: ‘when the 2k folks respond with, “well do you want a state like 1560 Geneva,†people like Tim say, “I’m not sure.‒ Sorry to say, but I don’t have my biblical political theory completely ironed out. My guess is that there’s a great deal of wisdom at play in Geneva’s statecraft and also a good deal of folly in our own. My American sensibilities don’t prove that the American way is better or correct. You can appeal to them, as you often do, but contemporary sensibilities are so often viewed as indications not of truth, but of falsehood.
Anyway, Dr. Hart, thanks for the discussion. I’ll be around. I’m trying to follow Wilson and Stellman and see if I can’t learn a thing or two.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that your property is eventually packaged correctly to avoid damage. While this move has caused consternation among employees unable to cope with the enormous performance expectations, and who call the company ‘Taco Hell’ the fact remains that such an initiative has helped the company and effect a remarkable turnabout in the last couple of years. This will enable them to bargain well and save money.
Here is my webpage; moving companies in charlotte nc
LikeLike
Thanks, moving companies in.
LikeLike