If Not Two Kingdoms, Two Decalogues
December 21st, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart
In other words, you gotta serve some dualism.
I’ve had another worldview moment. I am struck that critics of the two-kingdom position, especially the ones who insist upon Christian schools, believe that a major issue in the disagreement is whether or not the Bible is the norm for public life (as well as other sectors outside the church). Fine, I get that. General revelation or natural law may not be sufficient to maintain the order that we desire in society. I suspect, though, that the objection is also that general revelation and natural law won’t yield a Christian society. But that’s another issue.
So let’s concede that the Bible should be the norm for political life. That would appear to solve the problem of abortion, same-sex marriage, and divorce. (Sorry, it doesn’t resolve the debate about Christian schools.) The sixth and seventh commandments would appear to be pretty handy for cleaning up American morality.
But what doesn’t seem to dawn on these Bible-as-norm-for-public-life folks is that we have not simply two but ten commandments. And the first four are particularly hard not on crime but on false worship, idolatry, blasphemy, and profaning the Lord’s Day. So if the Bible is to be the norm for public life, then all of a sudden not simply murder, divorce, adultery, fornication, lying, stealing are punishable offenses but so are Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, for instance, at least from the view of a Reformed world view.
I wonder if the implication of the whole integral law occurred to Dr. Kloosterman when he wrote the following in response to my piece in Christian Renewal. This summer he wrote:
The heart of my disagreement with religious secularism appears most clearly, I think, with this claim of Dr. Hart: “To suggest that Christian norms must be dominant in public life raises the threat of the very sort of religious warfare in which Protestants and Roman Catholics engaged in hopes of maintaining a uniform society.” A number of possible responses come to mind, but two will suffice.
First, if the worldly kingdom (public life) is to be governed by that natural law revealed
in creation, and if the Decalogue is nothing less than the republication of that natural law, then why would Christians not want the civil magistrate to proscribe what the Decalogue proscribes?
To play Rush Limbaugh for a moment: “stop the tape.” This is the heart of the disagreement over Christian schools – whether or not the magistrate enforces the Decalogue. So Christian schooling is really bound up with Christianizing America (and he quotes Machen for support – go figure). In other words, the whole debate over Christian schooling boils down to where one fights in the culture wars – is the Bible the norm for civil society, or is it not? Christian schooling is simply a way of fighting the culture war. We are very glad for the clarification.
“Mr. Snerdly, resume cut one.”
Kloosterman continuuueees.
Dr. Hart’s caution against having “Christian norms be dominant in public life” sounds very much like the warnings against “Christians legislating morality” and against “Christians forcing their religious convictions on others” that have become such common media mottoes in our highly secularized generation. What, in fact, is a “Christian norm”? Are the prohibitions “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not steal” peculiarly Christian norms?
Why is it illicit for Christians to appeal to the civil magistrate in the context of public policy relating to abortion, for example, using as only one among several arguments that the magistrate is called by God to honor the Sixth Commandment? If the magistrate’s authority comes from God, then why is it improper for Christians, as but one component of their public political testimony, to point the magistrate to God’s will revealed in Scripture (Ps. 2, Ps. 110, Rom. 13) for exercising that authority?
And if the civil magistrate’s authority comes from God, why go first to the seventh and eighth commandments. If the first and greatest commandment is loving God, why resort first to laws about love of neighbor? The answer appears to be straightforward. False worship and blasphemy do not trouble Dr. K. as much as sex and stealing. And always keep in mind that if you want to be tough on crime, send your children to a Christian school.
So again, to reiterate: if the law is good for the magistrate and it gives him (or her?) guidance about the culture wars, why does it not also give instruction about which religious groups to support and which to forbid? The good attorney from Indiana somehow thinks that this implication is silly because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of the Christian school lobby’s position. But which is more silly, to think that Christ governs the existing age through two kingdoms, one subject to Scripture the other to general revelation, or to think that we can have the Decalogue to prohibit the sins we most oppose but not to the point of making us look intolerant of other religions?
Last time I checked, both Israel and the church were to purge blasphemy and idolatry from their ranks – why – well, that first table of the Decalogue is pretty explicit. But somehow the Christian school advocates think that the state, which will be governed by the same Bible that governs the church, will be tough on sexual sins and murder but not on blasphemy and idolatry.
That leaves us with an interesting disagreement. The folks who condemn two-kingdoms for its dualism (among other things) have a dualistic view of the Decalogue. How integrated is that?
Tags: Christian education, dualism, Kloosterman, the Law, two-kingdoms
dgh: “You do think that we are obligated to devour each other in a religiously plural setting, constantly harranging the unbeliever about his lack of belief and his immorality.”
Devour? Constantly haranguing? No. But I’m sure you’ll agree that we are in the midst of a ferocious spiritual conflict against the Devil, the world, and the flesh. And God has put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Surely you’ll agree. But not devouring the unbeliever does not mean leaving his unbelief unchallenged. If he refuses to submit to Jesus Christ after concerted evangelistic effort (the task of the Church not state), then I suppose you shake the dust off your sandals and move on. But this does not render the unbeliever free from the Word of God as revealed in Scripture. We should live at peace with unbelievers wherever possible. But not by scaling back the demands of God upon them and us, nor by hiding special revelation under a bushel.
Conflict with the unbeliever. Peace with unbeliever. This is the tension we have to live with until Christ returns. But because of the existence of sin in this world until the Last Day I’m not going to choose peace over conflict, just as I will not choose conflict over peace. I’d rather simply have peace with the unbeliever, but many of them are hostile towards my Lord and Saviour, and therefore you and me. Common grace. The antithesis. Both. Get used to it.
dgh: “…you are a weak-kneed theonomist.”
But if we can play semantic games, then you too are a theonomist because you believe the unbeliever must submit to God in the civil realm according to GOD’S LAW revealed in general revelation. I’m just more consistent than you are in believing that people are subject to the authority of special revelation too.
dgh: “You somehow think America under the rule of special revelation will not exclude Mormons.”
What the Bible says about idolatry is one thing. What the Bible tells the Church to do about idolatry is another. What the Bible requires the government to do about idolatry is another.
dgh: “Do you really mean to imply that Mormons would have found a place in Calvin’s Geneva?”
If Calvin’s 2k distinction is exemplified in Calvin’s Geneva, then has Calvin been consistent with himself? Interesting.
dgh: “…I am the co-author of a book defending Reformed worship that first appeared as a series in another favorite periodical of the Dutch Reformed – The Outlook.”
And I’ve only ever heard good things about this book. In fact I think it was recommended to me while I was at MARS (seminary not planet). But not a Secular Faith.
dgh: “BTW, I don’t celebrate Christmas.”
You mean you celebrate Christmas every Sunday, along with Easter, Good Friday, Ascension – and indeed you celebrate such things throughout your life. Amen. Do they have significance for cultural life? Hehe! (Maybe I’m not joking when I ask that.) Well, Christmas dinner is soon, so I must be running along. I also have church tomorrow morning too – but only because my elders said so. Jesus Christ wants me in Church every Sunday but my elders are a little smarter than him, eh! Regards
You are not more consistent but the inconsistency grows larger. You say you believe the unbeliver needs to submit to special revelation. Hello!?! How can someone do that without the work of the Holy Spirit. What an unbeliever can do is submit to the laws revealed in the created order. Two kingdoms gives unbelievers that chance, and it also follows Paul’s advice about living quiet and peaceful lives.
And the inconsistency is compounded, as this post argues, by your separation of one part of God’s law from another. Is it really divisible? Can one have the second table for the magistrate while overlooking the first table? How is that possible when it was not true for Israel or the church?
And just to give you indigestion for following the non-Reformed practice of Christmas observance, if the unbeliever is supposed to submit to special revelation, aren’t the first four laws part of that revelation? So you’re back to your problem of what to do with Mormons and Roman Catholics, not to mention those who observe man-made ordinances. an.
dgh: “You say you believe the unbeliever needs to submit to special revelation. Hello!?! How can someone do that without the work of the Holy Spirit?”
No disagreement here. The unbeliever is in a world of hurt. And even we – who by God’s grace have been regenerated and reborn – still do that which we do not want to do, and what we want to do we don’t. Who will deliver us from these bodies of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. H.C. Q&A 114: “But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly? No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with earnest purpose they do begin to live not only according to some but to all the commandments of God.” How dire, then, is the situation for the unbeliever. Everything about his life cries out for the need for special revelation.
dgh: “What an unbeliever can do is submit to the laws revealed in the created order.”
In light of what Scripture and the Confessions (Westminster too) teach about total depravity, I don’t think you can actually believe this. In fact, I don’t think you do. Here, then, is inconsistency. No. No man can keep God’s law after the fall into sin. Even common grace cannot be credited to man. Our best works are as filthy rags.
dgh: “Two kingdoms gives unbelievers that chance…”
No sinful man left to his own devices will take the opportunity to obey God.
dgh: “… and it also follows Paul’s advice about living quiet and peaceful lives.”
What Christian can disagree with Paul’s instruction to live quiet and peaceful lives? And what Christian can disagree with Paul’s instruction here: “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
dgh: “And the inconsistency is compounded, as this post argues, by your separation of one part of God’s law from another. Is it really divisible?”
I was arguing the opposite. The law is not divisible. Each commandment presupposes the others.
dgh: “Can one have the second table for the magistrate while overlooking the first table?”
No. The diversity of the ten commandments cannot be separated from the unity of the ten commandments. Neither loving God nor loving neighbor can happen when you take away but one of the commandments.
dgh: “…if the unbeliever is supposed to submit to special revelation, aren’t the first four laws part of that revelation?”
Here’s what Paul says to Timothy right after instructing him that believers live quiet and peaceful lives: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Of course the unbeliever is supposed to submit to special revelation, but this idea is not original with me but with God. And yes, the first four laws are part of that revelation.
dgh: “So you’re back to your problem of what to do with Mormons and Roman Catholics…”
But why does such a problem exist? Because we call on them to obey God as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures? Certainly not. What should the government do with Mormons and Catholics? Once again, this is the genius of Calvin’s 2k distinction in teaching that it is not the government’s role to do the work of the Church nor vice versa. Should the government punish people for being Mormon or Catholic? The Scripture does not teach that it is the role of government to do this. And notice that I go to the Bible to make this determination as I don’t have a clue what general revelation apart from special revelation teaches what the government should do with Catholics and Mormons. In fact, how would a sinful and totally depraved person even know that Mormonism is wrong apart from special revelation? Making the distinction between Christianity and Mormonism presupposes special revelation.
DGH: You say you believe the unbeliver needs to submit to special revelation. Hello!?! How can someone do that without the work of the Holy Spirit.
This part of the argument does not work and should be abandoned. A moral obligation does not imply or convey ability to fulfill it. Therefore, the need of the unbeliever to submit to special revelation (“Hello?! Repent and believe the Gospel!”) is universal; ability is not.
@ Jonah: DGH likes to distinguish (helpfully) between jurisdictions. That is, the church can proclaim the Law to those under its jurisdiction — that is, the Church — but not to those outside its jurisdiction. Do you admit to any separation of jurisdictions?
JRC
Hello Jeff. You might not have read my whole comment above. Here’s a snippet: “Once again, this is the genius of Calvin’s 2k distinction in teaching that it is not the government’s role to do the work of the Church nor vice versa.” (Of course the idea is not original with Calvin but he’s rather recognizing the teaching of Scripture.) Kuyper also spoke of different “spheres” beyond Church and state (family, school, business, etc.) which is helpful.
Does this answer your question?
Yes.
dgh – thanks for taking the time to reply to my question re Robert P George, Natural Law, & the Manhattan Pronounceamifcation. I’ll be amused if the result is that people start calling you Bishop
Greetings RL – that’s a good question, but one which I am not currently qualified to answer
Jonah, be careful how you appeal to Calvin. Mark Van Der Molen might come after you with Article 36 of the Belgic if you try to read two-kingdoms into Calvin’s thought. (Oh the irony here, two-kingdom thought getting dinged by appeals to two-kingdom Calvin. As I say, the inconsistency, like Pinnochio’s nose, lengthens.)
But let’s go with Calvin’s Geneva and the two-kingdom world of early 16th century. Did Geneva tolerate Roman Catholics? So how does this example prove your point that the magistrate does not enforce the first table of the law? I’ve tried to argue with MDVM all the good reasons for the American revision of the WCF, so that the state won’t have to do what Calvin’s Geneva did. Then the theonomist comes along and complains about the liberal impulse in that revision. But you don’t even make the revision. You somehow appeal to Geneva and think you can wind up with religious liberty for false religion. Huh?
And if unbelievers cannot keep God’s law, and the state is supposed to enforce God’s law — somehow going easier on breeches of the first table — then why wouldn’t the state lock everyone up, unless unbelievers can obey in some fashion God’s law?
Jeff, the point is not about whether a command implies ability. It is this crazy and inconsistent appeal to God’s law as the basis for the state and whether or not the state will lock up people who do not obey that law. Folks like Jonah seem to think that the 2k position moves in a secular and liberal direction, and so his teacher, Dr. K., likes to try to point out the less than faithful dimensions of 2k teaching. And yet, when pushed, the critics of 2k will not produce an argument for a society any different from the secular liberal order that we have, that also grants lots of freedom for false religion. So they fault us for trying to show that God is in control and carrying out his purposes even in the midst of these times. Meanwhile, their own conception of God’s rule never goes beyond sexual crimes to first table offenses like those enforeced in Calvin’s Geneva.
Wrong. Two-kingdom folk believe in two tables of the law.
Sorry, Dr. Hart. Another long one. Grab a coffee…..
dgh: “Oh the irony here, two-kingdom thought getting dinged by appeals to two-kingdom Calvin.”
The irony is that you appeal to Calvin’s 2k distinction to support your position, but turn around and criticize Calvin’s Geneva. Let’s just agree we shouldn’t be executing people for not believing in the Trinity.
dgh: “So how does this example prove your point that the magistrate does not enforce the first table of the law?”
But what do you mean by “enforce?” I was rather arguing that the government is not exempt from adherence to the first table of the law. (On a side note I was inKlined to think that Kline may have been correct in suggesting that the two tables should rather be thought of as one for the suzerain and the other for the vassal rather than the first corresponding to love God and the second to love neighbour. But I digress.) The question is not whether the government is subject to the whole Decalogue (for it is), but rather: what is the nature and scope of the government’s authority? I am saying that it does not include punishing people for not being a Christian. But it can “enforce” the first four commandments by maintaining a context and environment in which the Church can carry out the Great Commission. Another example: why should the government want people not to steal, not murder, etc? Because Allah says so? Because people just don’t like it? No, rather because the first four commandments are broken when the other six are broken. Each commandment presupposes the all the others.
dgh: “You somehow appeal to Geneva and think you can wind up with religious liberty for false religion.”
No I didn’t appeal to Geneva. And excuse my ignorance but I was not aware of any proposed change to the WCF. (Might I suggest you do a blog entry on this? I think it would generate some good discussion and would educate those of us not from Presbyterian circles.) I do agree, however, with the revision made to BC article 36. Speaking of article 36, perhaps you can understand why I believe the government is subject to the whole Decalogue, not only the second half: “…the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship” [emphasis mine]. I have to believe this otherwise I’m not being a good URCer. I also bring this up to once again make the point that the government can and must “enforce” the whole Decalogue, but the nature and scope of that “enforcement” is limited to what God has ordained. This means not burning people for not being Trinitarian.
dgh: “…then why wouldn’t the state lock everyone up, unless unbelievers can obey in some fashion God’s law?”
I’m sure you and I do not disagree over the unbeliever’s or believer’s ability (or lack thereof) to obey God’s law. The question is rather: what should be the foundation or standard of the state’s laws? General revelation only? NO!!! If you want to prevent people from being executed by the government for being Sabellians, then Scripture is required! Otherwise, how would we know what the extent or limit of the government’s authority should be? How would we even know what Sabellianism is if not for the Bible? How would we know that the state shouldn’t be doing the work of the church nor vice versa?
dgh: “Folks like Jonah seem to think that the 2k position moves in a secular and liberal direction, and so his teacher, Dr. K., likes to try to point out the less than faithful dimensions of 2k teaching.”
Depends what you mean by secular or liberal. My concern is a worldview concern. My concern is a philosophy of epistemology-ontology-ethics concern. Is it possible to have a rational, coherent worldview apart from presupposing the truth of Scripture? No. And if not, then why should we not insist that teachers, politicians, plumbers reason and behave accordingly? Why shouldn’t our schools and our governments be motivated, oriented, directed in accordance with the biblical Christian worldview so that they might seek to give glory to Jesus Christ, the King of heaven and earth? Some might argue that this doesn’t accommodate the unbeliever. I argue it does better than any other option.
Dr. Hart needs to expunge those “less than faithful dimensions of 2k teaching” he refers to. I know that he too wants to have a biblical Christian worldview, but for him it seems to include setting aside the Scriptures when it comes to matters cultural and civil.
dgh: “And yet, when pushed, the critics of 2k will not produce an argument for a society any different from the secular liberal order that we have, that also grants lots of freedom for false religion.”
I am not a critic of making a 2k distinction a la John Calvin, but rather Dr. Hart’s formulation of it. We do produce the argument that Dr. Hart says we don’t. It just not one that’s entirely consistent with Dr. Hart’s, and therefore he doesn’t like it because that would mean having to humbly admit he’s made mistakes. But then again, I’m no angel either. This is why we need to keep going back to the Scriptures and our confessions.
Darryl,
I have a series of legitimate questions I would greatly appreciate you answering. I am asking because I reject theonomy as a biblical system, and yet I am not fully on board with the WSC brand of “Two-Kingdom’s theology.” So, here we go:
Was Hitler’s Nazi Germany a legitimate government? Does abiding by NL determine whether a government is legitimate or not? Did the Nazi party abide by NL? If so, is NL situational or socially determined?If not, how do you determine what NL is? In the political arena, why would the last six commandments and not the first four be deemed offensive to God? Who determines what is law in NL theory? If we say “God does,” where do we find the doctrine of NL, in more extensive detail than simply saying it exists, in Scripture?
Jonah,
Well you brought Calvin up. Sorry for invoking Geneva.
So you want a coherent world view? Then could you possibly exemplify one. Govt. is not exempt from the entire decalogue. To break one commandment is to be guilty of them all. Govt. authority is premised on special revelation. Govt. also will establish conditions so that the gopsel will be preached. But . . . none of this means that govt. will oppose false belief. That is simply incoherent. You could say all of the first four assertions about the church and not come up with the one about exempting the church from prohibiting false belief. So where is your special code that allows you to take part of special revelation for the state — enough to give 2kers a problem — and then reserve enough liberty, secularity, and equality for yourself so that you don’t have to be a theonomist.
And while we’re talking about coherent worldviews. How do you come up with algebra or trigonometry on the basis of Scripture. I get it that theism of some kind is a big aid for establishing math. But I don’t get how the Bible is. Not to mention that lots of people other than Christians have been some of the greatest of mathemeticians. Is math false if it doesn’t start with the premise of the Trinity? I sure hope not because the chances of this comment being read depend on the truth of lots of works by non-Christians.
And since we were talking about Calvin, have you read this from the Institutes, 3.19.15 (props to Scott Clark’s recent podcast):
“. . . there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby, the consience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘temporal’ jurisdiction (not proper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life — not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiriutal kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.”
With this distinction in mind, it is possible to say that the unbeliever does obey God’s law — the laws that come from the created order and govern the political realm — and that he or she does so in an outward way. If the state were to try to enforce any of God’s law, first or second table, then it would need to look beyond external behavior to motives. That would be a scary place to live.
Hah! Jonah, you’ve been renamed. It works, though: you’re making the same points I did.
See: http://oldlife.org/2009/03/04/paleo-vs-neo-reformed-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-144
if you have a *lot* of spare time.
Jeff Cagle
Well, great minds think alike, eh!
If you’re like me, I look at Theonomy and think, no, that doesn’t make sense. I look at NL2K (or whatever we’re supposed to call it) and think, no, that doesn’t make sense either. I appreciate the zeal of the theonomists for Scripture, and I appreciate the respect of the Klinean 2kers for natural law/general revelation, but it seems like these are on different ends of the spectrum and are not entirely consistent with Scripture and Reformed theology. The good thing is that they both appeal to Scripture, the confessions and historical Reformed theology. At least we all share this common ground. I like to keep coming back here to Old Life to see what I can learn from Dr. Hart, even if I don’t entirely agree with the way he formulates the 2k distinction and what its implications are for our lives. I suspect that in the grand scheme of things he and I are not far off. But the fine points of disagreement nevertheless have significant implications for our political and educational philosophy.
Nick,
That’s sort of a loaded way to start your questions, sort of like, how often do you beat your wife. If I answer, yes, about Germany, then lots of folks write off the the idea of 2k. If I answer no, well, that’s an interesting answer. What standard would you or I use for legitimacy? Does the Bible talk about legitimate governments? Think of the empire in which Paul wrote Rom. 13. I’d argue it was less just than Germany under Hitler, but that is debatable. So where does the Bible speak of legitimacy? Or is it that whatever regime is in place has been ordained by God.
In which case, your notion of legitimacy may actually be a form of NL. You reason on the basis of the created order what a good govt. is and then deduce that one that doesn’t carry out this goodness is illegitimate. So it could be that we all resort to NL almost as much as Thomas Jefferson. Roberts Rules is a classic case of NL.
Figuring out the norms of NL comes from experience, reason, and a lot more, sort of like Math or Roberts Rules. There’s no blue print out there. People simple have a sense of what is right. I know that sounds crazy for a Calvinist. Even our confession talks about the good works of unregenerate men for commands God requires and for the good of themselves and others. That doesn’t answer all your questions, but I’m not sure I could.
What particularly do you find objectionalbe about 2k theology? Here’s something from Calvin that sums it up well:
“. . . there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby, the consience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the ’spiritual’ and the ‘temporal’ jurisdiction (not proper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life — not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiriutal kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.”
dgh: “But . . . none of this means that govt. will oppose false belief.”
Well, yes and no. It is the government’s job to oppose false belief only in so far as God has mandated, only to the extent of the limits of its jurisdiction, only according the means God has given it. Here are some examples of false beliefs: the government must disallow all churches from preaching the gospel; the government must allow abortion for any reason; the government must require all people to bow down to the statue of President Obama or, God forbid, the statue of Prime Minister Harper; the government must collect all earned wages and distribute them equally; etc. Now, I know what you mean by “false belief,” but how do we even know what false belief is if not for Scripture? Why should we not jail Mormons for believing in the book of Mormon? Because God has no eternal wrath against those who reject Jesus Christ? Rather, it is because He has not given that responsibility to government. We need to distinguish between how we know right from wrong and truth from falsehood on the one hand, and what the extent, duty, responsibilities of the government are on the other hand.
I suppose we could go on ad infinitum about all the details of what each of the government’s laws should look like, and what the precise limits are of the government’s jurisdiction. But I’d like to make a more general observation that I find odd you don’t seem to embrace, or maybe you do and correct me if I’m wrong: given the noetic effect of sin, truth and justice cannot be known apart from Scripture. In your heart of hearts I’m convinced you embrace this. And if you do, then I’m quite content to agree to disagree about the finer points of a Reformed political philosophy.
I know that unbelievers can have successes in their reasoning, but they only do to the extent they assume the truth of the Christian worldview. I know that unbelievers can have an outward form of good behaviour. But how do I know it’s good? Because of the Bible!
As for your points and questions about algebra and trigonometry, they are worth discussing but I’ll have to get to them later.
As for the quote you gave from Calvin, I like it. But how do you square it with this one: “I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations…” (IV.xx.14).
dgh: “If the state were to try to enforce any of God’s law, first or second table, then it would need to look beyond external behavior to motives.”
What is the standard for knowing whether the laws the state enforces are good? Has God given the state the responsibility to regulate motives?
What should be the government’s motive? Should it be to serve Jesus Christ?
Reed said:
“Yet I’m curious about the relationship, as clearly there has to be one. Maybe the problem is not reckoning that there is a proper relationship between the two. Observing it might help to retain their necessary distinctions.”
Interesting. I asked Dr. Clark the same question on his blog before I saw you question.
I’m still not clear why the magistrate could not be confined to the second table since his only mission is human to human relationships via Romans 13.
Jonah, Are you kidding me? That quote from Calvin goes on to contradict the point that you are trying to make. It says that the idea of denying the legitimacy of a commonwealth that does not follow the political system of Moses — that idea is “perilous,” “seditious,” and Calvin adds, “It will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish.” Sorry to be snarky here, but how is your scriptural outlook, the biblical lens through which you read Calvin, proving that a Reformed worldview reads well?
As to this matter of what the state may enforce, your version of the state is found no where in Scripture. The OT follows Moses and you don’t want that. The NT submits to the Roman emperor, and you don’t want that. So you take a hybrid, a state that enforces the second table that won’t quite be theocratic, so that you have have your cake and eat it. But you haven’t shown anywhere from Scripture or from Calvin where such a blueprint for your state exists. If you say, neither have I, well that’s the point of 2k thought. It is possible to a legitimate state apart from Scripture. You’re the guy who keeps bringing up the foundational role of Scripture. But you have no biblical witness to your second-table enforcing state.
You skip over my point about math but it bears directly on your point about the noetic effects of sin. I don’t understand how you can account for the fact that many non-Xians are smarter than Xians, how you can explain the sheer brilliance of an Aristotle or a Shakespeare, if you think that sin darkens all human thought and only regeneration clears away darkness sufficiently for human insight, wisdom and creativity. If that’s your view, I’d hate to send my kids to a school on which you were a board member, because the students would likely not read the best literature ever produced but would read the schlock that Xian writers regularly write. But if the Bible is your only standard for good literature, I guess you’ll take the moralistic, sentimental lit that sells in the millions to Christians over the sort of lit that is as ambigous and as profound as the stories that lay at the heart of the Old and New Testaments — as in, Jacob and Judah were not good guys but they are OT heros, because God chose them.
What you need to consider is that a Christian worldview is not a theistic worldview. It is one thing to believe in a creator and that he has created creatures and the world, another to try to take every idea, action, and motive off the page of holy writ.
For myself, authors such as Leon Kass and Wendell Berry are far wiser about the affairs of this world than any Christian I’ve read, except for those Christians who have read Kass and Berry. Are they Christians? Kass is not. He is a Jew. Berry is a kind of Baptist though likely not orthodox. But both are theists and the idea of creation and creator pervades their work. If that is foundational to wisdom, as the beginning of Proverbs suggests, then perhaps you need to adjust your Scriptural thermostat.
I continue to believe that non-believers can be wise, good, great, in all sorts of ways that the created order reveals as wisdom, goodness and greatness — from Aristotle to Lebron James. And I also believe that none of this greatness is good enough for salvation. At the same time, my reading of church history indicates that whenever these categories — worldly greatness and salvation — are collapsed, liberalism or infidelity happens. I think you’d agree that liberal Protestantism committed such an error. What you don’t seem to recognize is that your own desire for continuity between the two-kingdoms heads in the infidelity direction (as it did with the Dutch Reformed Churches after Kuyper). By making the Bible the basis for culture, and by suggesting that non-Xian culture is sinful, you are headed for a fundamentalist version of the liberal Protestant error where Christian math, Christian science, Christian NBAs are the only places or cultural products for Christians because all else lackes a Scriptural foundation.
Darryl,
It was a loaded question indeed! Sort of like Jesus’ loaded question about the origin of John the Baptist’s office. I hope you know I’m kidding! By the way, I never said Hitler’s government was illegitimate. I do believe that Hitler abdegated his Romans 13, God-gvien right to bear the sword, but you assumed that was my position on account of my loaded question. Perhaps you also recognize that it was not, and that WW2 was in fact a just war–overturning a tyrannical ruler who should have been removed from power. If Nero told the early Christians that they had to kill one another you would have to conclude that it was not longer a legitimate government and that you must disobey the governing authorities. Romans 13 is limited by the clear revelation of God in other places of Scripture. Do you pay taxes to Hitler? Certainly. Do you obey Hilter’s orders to kill Jews, Christians and individuals with disabilities? Absolutely not!
I asked the question because of the ambiguity of the 2K (not Y2K) theology. Of course I believe that there is such a thing as “Natural Law” (not in the sense that RCs believe in NL). But, I believe, as did our Reformed forefathers, that it was simply the moral law written on the hearts of all men descending from Adam. This is the standard Reformed understanding of the “law written on the hearts of all men.” How that gets worked out in governments is dependent on “common grace.” But, the Klinian version of NL is way too ambiguous and unclear. With regard to church and state, I believe in separate functions and roles. The Westminister Confession of Faith’s section on Scripture (ch. 1) also explains that there are certain things determined by reason in regard to the way governments are ruled. I agree. I am simply asking what would be most pleasing to God, not what will suffice. That seems to be the real difference between our understandings. I actually appreciate a great deal of what Jason Stellman has to say. I just do not think you find it taught in church history–not even in Adrew Melville or the Southern Presbyterians of the 19th Century.
I also have a problem suggesting that ethics in the political sphere is like mathematical principles. You don’t have a spectrum of mathematicians disagreeing on mathematical laws, because they don’t come as close to human nature and the divine right over men, as is true of the ethical sphere. If God clearly reveals His will in the Decalogue, why would we think He wants something different in society? That makes absolutely no sense. Now, as I say this, I also want to affirm that I do not think we need to put to death all the heretics (as was true of Calvin’s Geneva). The Church has an evangelistic mission. God turns His people from idols to serve the living and true God. This will never be done by the sword. So, I recognize the tension that you and other 2K guys wish to point out. I am called to be a minister of the Gospel, not a politician. But, if I have a politician in my congregation, who actually cared enough to ask me what would be pleasing to God, I am not going to say, “Whatever you sense is right, brother.” That is my point. At least argue that the last 6 commandments (i.e. those that deal with man to man relations) are the foundation of NL in the world. That is what I am asking for!
Again, I do not
Nick,
I can’t tell if you mean to disenfranchise Hitler from legitimacy or not, but it sure seems like you do. Which only goes to show just how dicey it gets to be when we turn that that tired template for evil known as the Third Reich.
I’m as 21st century American as the next guy (and a Yankee to boot), so I like to think I know the impulse to disenfranchise Adolf from his legitimate seat of power and authority when I see it. But the problem is that this seems way more 21st century American than biblical. Consider not only who Paul had in mind when he commanded civil obedience but also Jesus in Mark 12. Chances are pretty good that we 21st century Americans would render Caesar and Herod men who “abdicated their Romans 13, God-given right to bear the sword,” what with all their trampling of rights, self-deification and baby killing, etc., etc. Yet Jesus says to submit to them without any qualification whatsoever; no amendments or Bill of Rights attached. If Paul’s and Jesus’ magistrates don’t pass our modern tests by long shots, yet we are called to their unqualified submission, it isn’t obvious to me how we can speak of ours any differently.
In other words, to the extent that the Jews were like us in that they wanted to “speak to truth to power,” they were amazed in Mark 12 for good reason.
Nick,
There are some political principles that are as clear as mathematical principles. For instance you probably cannot find a child who doesn’t understand that it is not right to punish innocent people while guilty people go unpunished. That’s pretty simple, and it goes a long way.
RL, I might not be able to find a child, but I can find a college professor or two.
Take a look at this (rather standard) exposition of utilitarian theory. Take-home quote:
Take a look at his case-studies, especially the “Town Sheriff” thought-experiment.
The overall point is this: in academia, the idea that ethics can be grounded in pure reason (either via natural law or deontologically as in Kant) has fallen on hard times. Instead, utilitarian thought reigns with relatively little challenge. The key feature of that meta-ethic is that there are no norms except to maximize utility.
In turn, utilitarianism has filtered down into various professions, notably medical practice and bio-research. You can see some of the practical fallout here.
I wish it were the case that we could just appeal to the conscience for our political principles. Unfortunately, we cannot. The Law written on the hearts was not ever given for that purpose (that I can find in Scripture).
JRC
It’s interesting to me that you approve of nuance in lots of areas. But in the area of obedience to the ruler, no matter the ruler, you desire absolute obedience: “let God take care of him.”
I respect the sentiment as echoing Calvin, but I wonder whether the Scripture and our Confessional history support your absolutism.
Certainly Oliver Cromwell would register a protest!
We have instances in the books of Kings and Chronicles where God ordains revolts against established kings. Samuel was committing treason against Saul when he ordained David as king; yet he did so with God’s authority. The prophets spoke out against the sins of the various kings (and not only in the area of cult, either … Amos spoke entirely against issues that would be labeled “culture” in the SOTC scheme.
Here is a crystalline example:
In previous threads, I’ve already multiplied examples of godly disobedience, such as the Hebrew midwives who were righteous and disobeyed (and *lied*!?!) to pharaoh and his subordinate authorities. I mentioned this before and you tried to argue that the midwives were simply following natural law.
But the Scripture records that they did what they did “because they feared God.”
Apparently, a properly bracketed faith still includes considered moments of rebellion against ordained authorities, for reasons either cultic or cultural.
This is no doubt why Calvin concludes the Institutes with this,
Things are further complicated because Calvin allows that some can be called of God to take up arms against the magistrate:
It’s a little unclear what Calvin would consider to be “the call of God” in the post-prophetic age, but he obviously includes this section for a reason. No doubt Mr. Cromwell thought this section justified the English Civil War.
So could we agree that obedience is not absolute? That perhaps Bonhoeffer was justified?
JRC
You’re right. I did make a blunder in misreading Calvin there. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing. My foot tastes better with pepper and oregano. Yikes.
But I trust you’ll agree that it does not somehow settle the matter, for Calvin does not say that a commonwealth is duly framed only when it neglects the political system of Moses. Where I disagree with the theonomists is in believing that the concrete form of OT Israel’s civil/judicial laws have abiding validity. Where I disagree with you is in believing that their underlying principles or norms do not have abiding validity. Or perhaps you believe they do?
Man, that was embarrassing. Speaking of embarrassing, you wrote: “What you need to consider is that a Christian worldview is not a theistic worldview.” Huh? It’s too easy for me to refute this. Take this to your colleagues at WTS Cal. and they’ll expressly rebuke you for suggesting it.
dgh: “As to this matter of what the state may enforce, your version of the state is found nowhere in Scripture.”
Well, in fact it is. You know what Paul says: “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” What then is the good of which Paul speaks? What is the wrong that Paul says the governing authorities are to punish? The Bible has much to say about what is good and what is wrong. Are we to assume that Paul meant something other than the law of God when he here refers to good and wrong? And what does Paul say immediately before Rom. 13:4? “The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1). If they’ve been established by God, then to whom are they answerable? Here’s something from Calvin, IV.xx.6 – “For if they [the magistrates] commit some fault, they are not only wrongdoers to men whom they wickedly trouble, but are also insulting toward God himself, whose most holy judgments they defile” [emphasis mine]. According to what standard will God judge these authorities if not His own “most holy judgments?” Given the noetic effect of sin, can we rightly know God’s “most holy judgments” apart from special revelation? No.
I found something else in Calvin I’d like you to read where he discusses the jurisdiction of the Church in IV.xi.4 – “For, when emperors and magistrates began to accept Christ, this spiritual jurisdiction was not at once annulled but was only so ordered that it should not detract from the civil jurisdiction or become confused with it. And rightly! For the magistrate, if he is godly, will not want to exempt himself from the common subjection of God’s children. It is by no means the least significant part of this for him to subject himself to the church, which judges according to God’s Word – so far ought he to be from setting that judgment aside! ‘For what is more honorable,’ says Ambrose, ‘than for the emperor to be called a son of the church? For a good emperor is within the church, not over the church.’”
So an emperor does not have to be from the church, but it is to be preferred since such a godly emperor will not set aside that judgment of the church which judges according to God’s Word. Not only is this contrary to any assertion on your part, Dr. Hart, that the magistrate may not make decisions according to God’s Word, but rather, judging according to God’s Word is precisely what a “good emperor” ought to do! And this does not confuse church and state, even as Calvin says!
Whew! I hope that makes up for my previous blunder!
dgh: “I don’t understand how you can account for the fact that many non-Xians are smarter than Xians, how you can explain the sheer brilliance of an Aristotle or a Shakespeare, if you think that sin darkens all human thought and only regeneration clears away darkness sufficiently for human insight, wisdom and creativity.”
Let me respond to this from Van Til’s Apologetic: “Does this mean that for Van Til unbelievers know nothing whatsoever and cannot make any useful contribution to culture? Not at all. It means that the would-be autonomous man can never give an intelligible, coherent, or meaningful account of how he is able to know anything or accomplish anything culturally. The unbeliever’s failure is a rational or philosophical failure to make sense out of knowledge, morality, beauty, etc. But because the unbeliever is not actually what he thinks he is—and the world is not what he takes it to be—he can within God’s world, as a creature made in God’s image, make intellectual and cultural progress. Van Til held that ‘as for the cultural products of those who are not Christians, we would follow Calvin in ascribing this to the common grace of God that works in them. True, the natural man is not blind in every sense. True, he is not as bad as he could be and as he will one day be. Modern science, so far as it has been carried on by those who are not Christians, has made marvellous discoveries of the true state of affairs in the phenomenal world. But the whole point … is that unless it were for the common grace of God there would be no discovery of any truth and no practice for any goodness among those who are not born again.’ Even the achievements of the non-Christian contribute to the Christian’s apologetic, therefore, since such things would be unintelligible apart from the explanation of them which the Christian worldview can offer” (pp. 113-114).
dgh: “What you don’t seem to recognize is that your own desire for continuity between the two-kingdoms heads in the infidelity direction (as it did with the Dutch Reformed Churches after Kuyper).”
I’m not sure what you mean by continuity between the two kingdoms. They certainly do intersect one another and overlap. But this does not negate the distinction between the two. And the problem with a number of the Dutch Reformed churches after Kuyper is that they more and more abandoned Scripture and the confessions. The problem was not with Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty or concept of cultural transformation as you subtly suggest. Indeed Kuyper was not perfect (perhaps should have interacted with his buddy Warfield some more). But if only those churches like the CRC or GKN today would listen to Kuyper to be faithful to Scripture and the Confessions!
dgh: “By making the Bible the basis for culture..”
I’m not choosing between Scripture and general revelation when it comes to culture. Culture should be directed, governed, and oriented according to both!
dgh: “…and by suggesting that non-Xian culture is sinful…”
In motive and goal it is sinful. Often times outwardly it is not sinful. Or to say it another way: In terms of structure it is not sinful. In terms of direction, non-Christian culture is sinful. By making this distinction, we can avoid the liberal Protestant error.
You invited me to “take a look at his case-studies,” but you left no link or identifying information. I don’t know to which utilitarian philosopher you are referring.
Is his “Town Sheriff” thought experiment like this one:
Imagine you are the sheriff in a town that is deeply divided among racial, cultural, and economic lines. You have rich whites on one side and poor blacks on the other. The sides are suspicious of one another, and hostility between the groups is growing. Things reach a boiling point when a white woman is raped and murdered. The white community becomes convinced that a particular black man committed the crime; this man is especially poor and has no living family. A mob is formed to lynch this man.
As the sheriff, you discover evidence that this man is innocent, but you know it won’t convince the mob. You know that the only way to appease the mob is to publicly hang the innocent man. If you don’t the mob will kill him and ten other innocent people. (Assume that the evidence indicates that a person who is already serving a life sentence raped and killed the woman, so don’t consider specific deterrence). Utilitarian principles, strictly applied, means that you must hang the one innocent man to protect the other ten, right? Who can support that?
I wouldn’t want to live in a town with such a utilitarian sheriff!
Jeff,
It’s interesting to me that you approve of nuance in lots of areas. But in the area of obedience to the ruler, no matter the ruler, you desire absolute obedience…
Nuance in the common realm, narrowness in the spiritual.
So could we agree that obedience is not absolute? That perhaps Bonhoeffer was justified?
I just don’t see any biblical category that allows for civil disobedience. I only see categories for civil obedience. As far as Bonheoffer goes, I don’t know how commands to obey Caesar and render him all his due, fear God, honor the emperor (Mark 12, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2) translate into conspiring to murder him.
I think this is very hard for those of us nurtured in a polity that invites, expects and even rewards civil disobedience to the point that it is construed as a virtue. Biblically, civil disobedience is a vice. Could it be that American polity wars against Christian piety?
To anticipate the common rejoinder at this point which appeals to Acts 5:29 (“We must obey God rather than men”), I think there is a difference between civil disobedience and cultic disobedience. Verse 29 is typically invoked for justification to resist civil authority over moral, cultural, social or political concerns, as if Jesus had his fingers crossed when he commanded rendering Caesar obedience, as in “Obey Caesar…but only to the extent that you agree with him.” But Acts 5:29 has to be read in light of verse 30 and following, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.” What we disobey and resist is being silenced on the gospel. The whole text has to do with fidelity to the gospel, not standing up to tyrants we don’t like. And for the record, I really, really don’t like Hitler. And this seems to be the test of a better submission and obedience, to submit to and obey those we detest instead of those we adore.
Nick,
I’m not sure what you’re saying about Hitler or legitimacy. You say first that you never denied his legitimacy. Then you say that since he ordered the killing of Jews (and others), that is the sort of action that qualifies for illegitimacy. Either way, I’m not sure where you go in Scripture to find such criteria for legitimacy. Calvinist debates about rebellion are long and filled with inconsistencies. Certainly, the NT gives little ground for thinking any govt. is illegitimate.
Mind you, I don’t think that Germany has been the only nation-state to ask Christians to kill other citizens or residents. The U.S.’s treatment of native Americans is not very honorable. And then there are those little blips like the federal government and the Branch Davidians. Do these things make the American state illegitimate? Does that mean I no longer have to pay taxes? Woo hoo!
I am puzzled by your apparent understanding that 2k somehow denies the second table of the law. Who among those advocating 2k have ever suggested that disrespecting authority, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and (well, who talks about envy) are permissible? Just because someone doesn’t believe in a Christian America, doesn’t mean they are soft on these sins. Just like someone who does not require Christian schooling is not opposed to Christian education.
On other comment: you write, “If God clearly reveals His will in the Decalogue, why would we think He wants something different in society? That makes absolutely no sense.” Why do you think the Law is a norm for society, as opposed to the covenant community? I suppose in other interaction that you think the church’s corporate acts of mercy are directed toward other believers, as opposed to word and deed models that take the commands for the church to care for the poor and extend them to all poor. Well, if mercy is meant for the covenant community, why not the law as well. The bigger question is why you think the Bible is given for ordering society.
Sorry. The link is on the word “this.” Here is it again: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-mill2.htm
I agree with you. I wouldn’t want to live in such a town. But a large swath of our country thinks that they would, or should. Utilitarianism was built for governance, and many of our elected officials are guided by it.
JRC : It’s interesting to me that you approve of nuance in lots of areas. But in the area of obedience to the ruler, no matter the ruler, you desire absolute obedience…
SZ: Nuance in the common realm, narrowness in the spiritual.
JRC: So could we agree that obedience is not absolute? That perhaps Bonhoeffer was justified?
SZ: I just don’t see any biblical category that allows for civil disobedience.
I’m absolutely baffled. This seems a significant departure from your normal good sense.
(1) The logic of it: Your slogan is, “Nuance in the common, narrowness in the spiritual.”
OK, but obedience to the magistrate concerns the common realm, so what’s with the narrowness?
(2) Even if we are going to be RPW-y about obedience and disobedience, there are a whole raft of Scriptural examples of godly disobedience. Some of them are NOT over cultic matters. I’ve waved them around and everything.
So … !?!
*head scratch*
In this area, it seems like your paradigm has overwhelmed the evidence.
JRC
Jeff,
I’m absolutely baffled. This seems a significant departure from your normal good sense.
(1) The logic of it: Your slogan is, “Nuance in the common, narrowness in the spiritual.”
OK, but obedience to the magistrate concerns the common realm, so what’s with the narrowness?
It has to do with the fact that a Christian’s obedience to the magistrate is a spiritual concern. That’s the whole point. A believer doesn’t stop being a believer when he’s dealing with the civil magistrate. Now, if he happens to be an American-Christian his plight is complicated, since, in some sense, his magistrate doesn’t distinguish between disagreement and disobedience and arguably encourages disobedience (“Hell no, we won’t go, chuck you, Farley!” “Well done, citizens!”). I see no problem with disagreement—it’s the good part of the American project. But I don’t think we think carefully enough about disobedience and how it is spiritual vice. It flows from a theology of glory, marked by impatience, greed and self-righteousness.
(2) Even if we are going to be RPW-y about obedience and disobedience, there are a whole raft of Scriptural examples of godly disobedience. Some of them are NOT over cultic matters. I’ve waved them around and everything.
Even if you interpret this raft as examples of civil disobedience instead of cultic, how do you square any of it with the NT imperatives to unqualified civil obedience? That is to say, speaking of being baffled, how do you interpret Bonheoffer’s plot to kill his magistrate to be a sound reading of “submit, honor” (e.g. Romans 13, Mark 12 and 1 Peter 2)?
As to the second: look at how Calvin handles it. The requirement to obey the Lord comes prior to the requirement to obey the magistrate. Your assessment of “unqualified” is in fact, false. There is an implicit qualification that obedience to God comes first, whether in the 1st Table (cultic) or the 2nd (common).
Now, you might question how DB gets from the commands of God to “and therefore, we must assassinate Hitler.” I agree that he bears a high burden of justification.
But the point is that he’s allowed to make his case. His proposed civil disobedience is not “out of order” (as it would be if civil disobedience is never justified), but rather a question that has to be debated.
As to the first: You have smuggled spiritual concerns over into the common realm. Fie and for shame, you implicit theonomist!
Any moment now you’ll be advocating executing all those who do not send their children to CRC schools.
Irony aside, I agree with you that much of what passes for “justified civil disobedience” is more likely self-will dressed up in clerical robes.
What is your opinion on the English Civil War?
JRC
Now, you might question how DB gets from the commands of God to “and therefore, we must assassinate Hitler.” I agree that he bears a high burden of justification.
But the point is that he’s allowed to make his case. His proposed civil disobedience is not “out of order” (as it would be if civil disobedience is never justified), but rather a question that has to be debated.
I have no problem with debate. But my sense is that the justification of DB will look a whole lot like creative end runs egalitarians do around Paul’s clear instructions on who may or mayn’t be ordained to ecclesial authority. How one gets from “submit to authority” to “assassinate authority” seems as dubious as getting from “I forbid a woman to have authority” to “ordain her.” Paging CRC Rabbi McAtee.
You have smuggled spiritual concerns over into the common realm. Fie and for shame, you implicit theonomist! Any moment now you’ll be advocating executing all those who do not send their children to CRC schools.
Actually, 2K “theonomy” would say that public school should be thoroughly secularized and Christian kids ought to be in them. Good thing liberty rules the roost.
Irony aside, I agree with you that much of what passes for “justified civil disobedience” is more likely self-will dressed up in clerical robes.
Word to your mother.
Jonah, you show lots of chutzpah, just as I’d expect from a strong-headed Dutchman. Embarrassment will not prevent you from trying to assert your will. Way to go.
But again, you have bitten off more than you can chew. If the magistrate is supposed to enforce the good, according to Paul, and the good includes special revelation, then what about idolatry and blasphemy? Somehow you keep stubbing your stubborn toe against the point of this piece. You don’t want to be guilty of a Christian state that prohibits false religion and yet you want a Christian state-lite, one that will impose Christian norms — minus the Servertus like moments. (BTW, this is exactly what liberal Protestants wanted. Welcome to the mainstream American Protestant club.)
Also, if a magistrate is a member of the church, and the church forbids idolatry and blasphemy, and the magistrate is in submission to his church officers, how is he not going to impose the rules of his church on his polity? If not, isn’t he then in a situation like the Christian politician who belongs to a church that forbids abortion but he himself will not impose anti-abortion legislation on his constituents.
In other words, in case you missed the beam that just hit you across the face, the redress you seek for abortion is no different from the redress that follows from special revelation’s prohibitions on idolatry and blasphemy. You can’t have the sixth commanmdent without 1, 2, 3, and 4.
But if you do want a Christian-society lite, I’d encourage you to look into Natural Law. It might help you out here.
As far as the difference between theism and Christianity, are you so deeply rooted in the Dutch REformed ghetto not to realize that lots of people believe in God but not in Christianity? Believing in God is a great incentive for trying to be a law-abiding citizen. Just look at the MOrmons. But I also make room here for Leon Kass, one of the wisest people I’ve read, a Jewish believer of some sort, who does not obviously believe in Christ. Even the WCF ch. 21 acknowledges that the light of nature shows that there is a god who should be worshiped. Now some people supress that truth. But others do not and for them it is the basis for reflecting on this world as a place created by a creator. Regarding yourself as a creature is pretty important in my book for living with some restraint.
One more question, if the Bible is the basis for culture, what exactly is Christian cuisine? I know what kosher is and if you’re pastor Bret you may keep a kosher kitchen. But didn’t the abolishment of OT cermonies and laws do away with kosher and allow Christians to say Opa! and have flaming cheese?
Since you like to appeal to Calvin, I’ll see you and raise you a quote. Can you appreciate the ancient philosophers the way that Calvin did? And please remember when reading this excerpt from 2.2.15, that Plato and Aristotle did not have Scripture as the lens through which to read nature.
“we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls ‘natural men’ were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.”
This, as I see it, is THE difference between the 2k people and their critics — it is the capacity to live with non-believers in a plural society and to recognize their “goodness.” Critics of 2k think we have sold the farm for thinking unbelievers are good. But as Calvin shows, there are ways of holding on to the anti-thesis between the church and the world, or the difference between jurisdictions of church and state, without saying that all non-Christians are untrustworthy.
It seems that the debate could almost be boiled down to: What is the role of the church in secular society? Is it to be authoritarian and enforce the sword of the law upon society (the decalogue) or is the church to preach the gospel purely, to warn of sin and judgment, to baptize households of faith, and teach all that the bible says to her disciples? I believe Christ and the apostles taught the latter not the former.
On the other hand: What are the responsibilities of secular society to the churches in it’s midst? I may be blind, but I don’t see that addressed in the bible. I do see warnings from Christ and the apostles that we will be hated, persecuted, and killed. I do not see any biblical unction to pursue a societal utopia and I find I must accept that sin is a permanent feature of this world until Christ returns. It looks like we are stuck with similar challenges as Daniel had living in Babylon and Luther’s concept of two kingdoms can be helpful in living out that reality.
I may be wrong, but I see the majority of problems with Christian engagement in the culture wars as caused mainly by a lack of good ecclesiology. I also think that a lack of understanding of vocation (eg: citizens under Caesar) and a lack of understanding of our Christian liberty to employ wisdom and prudence in our personal decisions (eg: our choices of where to send our children for their general education) plays a role too. Natch, coming to agreement on these things and living out our convictions is much easier said than done. Marantha – come quickly Lord Jesus!
Almost. There are two differences.
(1) There is a power (or jurisdictional) difference: *who* will be allowed to make the rules. Dr. Hart, you fear, rightly, that if we require laws to be grounded in Scripture, then laws will be subject to scrutiny from the Church, which will place elders in the office of the magistrate.
This is, more or less, what happened in the Middle Ages in which there was theoretically a separation of church and state but practically a power struggle between the two *because* the pope could always play the Interdict card.
If jurisdiction were the only issue on the table, we would all be REPTers.
(2) There is a meta-ethical difference: *how* will our laws be justified? Jonah, I, and others fear, rightly, that natural law cannot serve as an adequate justification for laws.
Put it this way: If the magistrate is required (as Calvin desired) to use the Scripture to justify his rulings, then there is an objective standard to which we may appeal for redress.
But if the magistrate is following natural law, then where is that law written? On his heart. So there is no redress, no appeal.
Now, maybe you think that justification is over-sold. Civilizations have existed for centuries with basically arbitrary monarchical laws.
But the American experiment came about because the English and colonial experience proved that there was something *wrong* with that arrangement. That in fact, there are inalienable rights that the monarch must respect. The point of the Constitution was to create a basis for appeal for redress.
Fast forward two-and-a-half centuries, and we are now at the point where people are arguing over *which* inalienable rights are actually rights. The right to marry whomever we want? The right to control our own bodies, even at the expense of the life of another? The right to privacy or the right to national security? The current food fight is over justification. If we cannot supply an adequate justification, then utilitarian theory stands ready to do it for us … and it is a jealous god, sweeping natural law and the Constitution away before it (think: “living document”)
What has changed? Our underlying meta-ethic. Regardless of how the Constitution was written, it was culturally accepted in 1800 that the Good Book told us the difference between right and wrong. The success of “Natural Law” (reflected in common law) during this time was a function of underlying quasi-Christian assumptions.
Those assumptions are gone now.
(Clearly, I’m making a historical argument to a professional historian, so I expect you to take issue here and there. But try to hear the core thesis: Natural Law doesn’t function properly when God has been self-consciously rejected)
JRC
(The “almost” in the post below is to Dr. Hart)
@Lily: echoing my post below, I would say that the roles of church and state are *one* of two questions that must be asked.
And with regard to that one question, I pretty much agree with you. Christians have never been given the keys to earthly kingdoms.
But the other question, equally important, is “What must the Christian magistrate do?”
In other words, if I am a Christian working at FDA, the written laws (which I must obey, unless they require me to sin, in which case I quit) only go so far. All manner of judgments must be made in executing those laws. Here’s our second question: Where do I turn for guidance, or a theory, that helps me make those judgments
An inside baseball example: During the 1990s, there was debate within the FDA over whether or not to approve RU486, the abortion pill that was already in use in Europe. The director of CDER at that time, a political appointee, made the decision that approval was an administration priority. Some of her second-tier advisors demurred, some on health grounds and some on moral grounds. (They were overruled).
So the question is put to you: Abortion is legal. But it is also wrong. Do *you* approve a drug that makes abortion easier to achieve? No? Then on what grounds? Yes? Same question.
What is conspicuously missing in REPT (2k) theory is any account of how the Christian magistrate goes about his job.
Some consider this a “feature”, others a “bug.”
JR
Jeff,
Your concern isn’t really any different from what DGH is suggesting. 2Kers can penultimately live with others who don’t share their ultimate devotions precisely because we think NL or general revelation is perfectly sufficient for ruling society (the way special revelation is perfectly sufficient for ecclesial rule). 2K critics can’t, or at least can’t even seem to bring themselves to admit that they live like 2Kers even as they plead these things.
Your problem seems to revolve around the reality that at some point somebody screws up in the course of doing general revelation, as if that is a legitimate reason to call foul on the 2K claim. Your argument seems to have no category for the old-fashioned notion of making mistakes or getting things wrong. My insurance company currently wants to rip me off for a recent doctor’s visit. Should I appeal to what we all know to be right and wrong about promises made and dues paid, or should I quote the Bible over the phone when they keep maintaining I owe what I don’t owe?
Jeff,
Are you kidding? An appeal to the Bible gives an objective redress? Hello! Have you heard that OT Israel had two kindgoms. Have you heard about this thing we call denominationalism. Have you remembered that the eastern and western churches split in 1054? So if the Bible doesn’t resolve creed, liturgy, and polity, you actually think it will solve health care, taxes, or state vs. federal power? I know you likely think that it will at least solve abortion. Well, if you actually think that is a question up in the air for this confused republic, remember that the pro-abortion party refuses to call it murder, why? Because they know murder is wrong.
Consider also that the American revolution occurred between two God-fearing, Bible believing polities. And I’d really disagree with your interpretation of the Revolution. It sounds very whiggish, especially in its appeal to inalienable rights — a phrase used quite vigorously by our heterodox presidents, Jefferson and Lincoln. The American revolution was a conflict over local, provincial rule, and the rights of Englishmen according to English law. If you don’t see the common law and natural law traditions spilling all over the debates from the 1640s to the 1770s, you’ve been reading too much Frame.
How is natural law not functioning well now. We have moral certainty in our culture about seat belts, smoking, health care, racial integration, equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, the wrongness of hunger, poverty, and war, the rightness of democracy and “people.” We also have a consensus on Tiger Woods. NL seems to be doing a heck of a job.
The problem we face in the U.S. is not moral but political. If we were not so keen on preserving the union and keeping things centralized for the sake of coherence and integralism (beware dualism!), we might be able to let communities decide how to order their affairs. I recommend a piece my former colleague at ISI, Mark Henrie: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=501
But whether centralized or decentered, NL is working. And if it doesn’t sound too devilish, it seems to be working as well in the U.S. as the Bible is working in the church worldwide.
Jeff, we do have an account of how the Christian magistrate does his job. He puts on one leg at a time, goes to work, and does his job. Do you want a manual for everything?
Along the way, I’d recommend Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and the Federalist Papers. Do you really think the Bible would tell the Christian magistrate more?
Or is politics only about morality?
No, I’ve actually never heard of any of those things.
(Seriously — I’m not McAtee. Could we cool it a bit? The sarcasm and belittlement tests my sin nature too severely.)
But seriously: I thought the Confession taught that Scripture was the basis for appeal in the church:
It seems to me that, despite all of the above, that Scripture is the go-to. So I’m confused about your argument. Are you suggesting that “These things prove that Scripture doesn’t work, so let’s use something else?” Or are you suggesting that Scripture won’t lead to utopia, so let’s use something else?
I think you wish to conclude that Scripture is not the appropriate controlling authority in the civil realm, but I don’t see how your examples lead to that conclusion.
JRC
OK. But why not Mein Kampf or The Little Red Book? Somehow, you have a private assessing theory that allows you to sort what you would recommend and what you wouldn’t; which advice from Aristotle you would accept and which you would reject.
What is that private assessing theory?
I do. If the Natural Law is simply the Law writ on the conscience, then I think the Bible would make that Natural Law clearer.
JRC
Jeff,
I am arguing the following:
NL is working. You don’t concede this.
The Bible isn’t nearly as effective as you think. The church is in disarray. Why would the Bible solve the nation’s problems.
The woes that we face may likely be political more than moral. The problems are centralization and homogenization. Christians in politics only add to this problem by wanting one standard to rule the nation. Federalism, my man, federalism — autonomy for local governments to order their own affairs. And that leads to diversity, and that leads to moral disapproval of gambling in Nevada and contraceptives in Connecticut.
But for those who think that Christian plumbing is honest and respectful of property, Christian politics may be all about ethics. The trouble is that politics and plumbing are not first about ethics.
Jeff, do I go to the Bible before grading papers on Gilgamesh? Do I have a quiet time to figure out what a good essay is? Or do I have a lot of experience both as a student, teacher, and writer, that allows me to figure out a good paper from a bad one. The same “assessing theory” is in place for poltiical theorists. I read them, figure out the nature of what appears to be a good society, and then read more of those authors that fit with that good society.
Why is this so hard?
I go to the Bible to learn about Jesus and salvation from my sins. I know that sounds pietistic. But the effort to make every aspect of life a Christian moment is actually pietistic, as in not being able to recognize the difference between things holy, common, and profane.
DGH: NL is working. You don’t concede this.
Correct, I have not conceded it. I don’t see NL as “working.” It may be a matter of definitions or personalities.
DGH: I read them, figure out the nature of what appears to be a good society, and then read more of those authors that fit with that good society.
Why is this so hard?
Well, because it seems prone to making yourself the measure of all things. How does introspection or change in view work for you?
DGH: I go to the Bible to learn about Jesus and salvation from my sins. I know that sounds pietistic. But the effort to make every aspect of life a Christian moment is actually pietistic…
Since pietism is neither defined nor praised/condemned in Scripture, I hope you’ll allow me some latitude for difference here.
First, by “salvation” are you talking justification or the broader package included in our union with Christ?
If the latter, then is not all of life a matter of sanctification? You do believe, after all, that sin pervades all that we do, right?
The bottom line for me is that the Confession claims this: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…”
Somehow, you seem to be claiming that God’s counsel does not cover man’s life? I know you don’t desire to set yourself against the confession, but it seems that some nuance is called for here. It seems like you want to throw sanctification into the same bin as pietists.
Gotta run, time to go see Avatar with my sweetie. Maybe I’ll see the Christian version
JRC
Jeff,
Thanks for making the connection between union with Christ and the deficiency of Christ’s righteousness that we receive by faith. I sense that it is there, but your claim about salvation being bigger than Christ’s righteousness is helpful.
So if the Bible teaches about all of life, why do we only have chapters in the confession on things pertaining to salvation. Not much there on health care, math, food and cooking, or child rearing. If the Bible teaches about everything, and the church ministers the Bible, then the church runs everything.
You keep lapsing back into pietistic theonomy.
Jeff,
You ask, “What has changed?” I’ll provide some events that I think reshaped the American political (and jurisprudential) landscape in drastic ways, and I agree that this change has not been for the better. But I disagree that the change was due to any more or less reliance on the Bible.
We need only look at the Constitution itself. As you well know, it has changed sense it was first ratified. Here are the major Amendments that I think have contributed to the present state of political unrest and uncertainty:
The 11th Amendment, which granted each state sovereign immunity vis-a-vis the citizens of any other state, was ratified in 1795. This amendment blocked the sort of “redress” that you talk about above.
The 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, injected much more populism into our politics by requiring senators to be elected by popular vote.
The 26th Amendment, which was ratified in 1971, of course, lowered the voting age to 18. The impact of this amendment is self-evident.
(I left out the 14th Amendment–perhaps the biggest culprit–because the issues surrounding it are so complex that I would have been writing till midnight just to cover the basics).
I don’t see which biblical principles were abandoned when these changes were made. Can you point to any? Do you deny that these few changes had a major impact on our government?
You seem to think that the Constitution was meant to end the debate about fundamental rights. Why then the First Amendment guarantee of free speech?
Moving on. To see that natural law was central in the American Revolution, you need look no further than the Declaration of Independence. It’s explicit. The inalienable rights (unalienable in the Declaration) that you make so much of are said to be “self-evident.” Though revealed truth is never mentioned, the Declaration does make much of the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
The English Common Law was not based on Christian principles. In fact, it is almost exclusively based on a retributive justice model, a model that Christ explicitly rejects in Matthew 5:38-42. The Common Law looks a lot more like “an eye for an eye” than “turn the other cheek.” Speaking of which, how does your model square Christ’s command to turn the other cheek with the Second Amendment right to own a gun?
In that same passage Christ commands us not to defend ourselves if someone sues us for our tunic; instead, as I’m sure you well know, he told us to give our tunic to our oppressor and our cloak too! Does this not abolish all civil law in a biblical society? Christ seems to have little interest in a “right to redress.”
Hi Jeff,
You seem to be tangled-up by a number of peripheral issues. Sometimes, we wrestle with things because we are looking at them from the wrong angle or because we have made what is secondary primary. May I make a suggestion? Drop the peripheral issues for awhile and change your focus. Shift to looking at Christ and seeing him as the central locus. Focus on the meta-narrative of the bible, the person and work of Christ, and remember that all of scripture is about Christ. Things become clearer when Christ is kept central and the peripheral issues begin to fall into place easier. Some questions even disappear. It may take some time and effort to change focus, but it’s immensely worth it. I hope you will find this suggestion helpful.
Exactly! Here are some examples of a political reliance on the Bible gone terribly wrong:
President Clinton, while speaking to the Knesset in 1994, repeated this theologically charged gem of foreign policy advice that he received from his pastor: “If you abandon Israel, God will never forgive you!” He went on to add, “it is God’s will that Israel, the Biblical home of the people of Israel, continue forever and ever.” At the end of his speech, Clinton succinctly stated the policy to which his religion leads: “Your journey is our journey, and America will stand with you now and always!”
Franklin Roosevelt often defended The New Deal by citing the King James Version of 1 Cor 13:13: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” In fact, he quoted this verse in his 1933 inaugural speech.
Let’s also remember two more recent examples of the Bible in the public square: the ravings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the apparently widely held belief that “Jesus was a community organizer.”