Doug Wilson joins the Bayly Bros in heaping scorn on our good friend Scott Clark and the case for recovering the Reformed confessions. To Doug’s credit, he avoids the vituperative edge that characterizes the Baylys’ outbursts.
What unites Wilson and the Brothers Bayly in their criticism of Clark, apart from disdain for Meredith Kline, mind you, one of the true geniuses of twentieth-century Reformed Christianity, is nostalgia for Geneva. Of course, this is not the Geneva that sent Castellio packing or Servetus to the flames – well, it is, but most contemporary pining for Geneva manages to overlook the downside of Constantianism even when practiced by Reformer pastors.
Wilson is writing in response to a piece that Clark did for Table Talk on what evangelicals should expect from a Reformed church. Clark tries to cushion the blow that might come from the doctrinal, polity, and liturgical trappings that disorient the average born-again Christian. When Clark explains that “confessional churches are isolated from both the old liberal mainline and the revivalist traditions†and so offer an alternative to liberal and evangelical Protestantism, Wilson goes off.
First, Wilson laments Clark’s isolationism. Not only are Reformed confessionalists separated from evangelicals and liberals, but also “from the cultural potency of Reformed theology and piety.†This is lamentable because for Wilson, the Reformed theology that he has read and studied “built a great civilization.†In contrast, Clark’s brand of Reformed theology, that of “the truncated brethren,†“would have trouble building a taco stand.â€
Wilson also takes exception to Clark’s claim that confessional churches today approximate the churches of the sixteenth century more than other Protestant congregations. For Wilson, this is patently untrue because the sixteenth-century Reformed churches were actually Reformed cities – that is, they were more than merely religious institutions. They were civil polities where supposedly Calvinism shaped all of Geneva’s or Strasbourg’s or Edinburgh’s life (tell that to the magistrates who stuck their neck out against the Holy Roman Empire and hired the Reformed pastors). This suggests that Wilson regards Reformed Protestantism as a way of taking names and kicking butt.
Furthermore, when Clark claims that evangelicals coming to Reformed churches will need time to acclimate to the new spiritual environment, Wilson retorts that Clark has the picture “exactly backwards†because Clark’s otherworldly version of the Reformed faith turns out to be warmed over evangelicalism (read: pietism). According to Wilson:
As an evangelical, and the son of an evangelical, allow me to give my testimony. I was part of the exodus from pop evangelicalism (not historic evangelicalism). I was sick of the cultural irrelevance and impotence of “believe in Jesus, go to Heaven when you die.†I was sick of a pietism that couldn’t find its way out of the prayer closet. I wanted to stop confessing that Jesus was Lord of an invisible seventeenth dimension somewhere. Why not here? Why not now? It was a long story, but the trail to historic evangelicalism, God-honoring worship, and a culturally potent and world transforming faith led me straight to the Reformed faith — the same faith that John Calvin and his successors confessed. Calvin preached to milkmaids and Calvin wrote letters to princes. Calvin drafted catechisms, and he drafted ordinances for the city council. Calvin thought that the idea of a civil society without enforcement of the first table of the law was “preposterous.” Calvin was a loyal son of Christendom, as am I.
It is remarkable that Wilson would seemingly dismiss the idea of people going to heaven, unless he thinks that this world is more than a foretaste but an actual embodiment of the world to come. I mean, people who milk cows to the glory of God still die, at which point the realities of the after life become fairly pressing compared to a Reformed way to pasteurize milk.
Also odd is Wilson’s sleight of hand regarding “pop†and “historic†evangelicalism. My own testimony (both from experience and study) instructs me that appeals to historic evangelicalism generally depend less on historical realities and more to the point the appellant is trying to make. Does Wilson really mean to suggest that Clark has more in common with Joel Osteen than Carl Henry? Let me testify again and say that I’ve spent time with Clark and know that his locks cannot compete with Osteen’s.
But the really arresting aspect of Wilson’s critique of Clark is the idea that cultural relevance and effective change of this world is what characterizes Reformed Christianity. I get it that post-Niebuhr and post-Kuyper Wilson’s brand of transformationalism is par for the course. But what is shocking is the conceit that Reformed are more effective than evangelicals in changing things.
The history of Protestantism in the United States shows that the groups that were most influential in creating the Protestant establishment and its many institutions, along with a civil religion that made the greatest nation on God’s green earth unfriendly to Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other forms of infidelity, were those evangelicals like Charles Finney and Lyman Beecher, or the ecumenical and liberal Protestants like Josiah Strong and Reinhold Niebuhr. Funny how Calvinism did not characterize those influential voices.
The reason for evangelicalism’s can-do body (as well as spirit) has to do with the inherently activistic and this-worldly faith of born-again Protestantism. Here I am reminded of Mark Noll’s response to a paper by Nick Wolsterstorff about the need for evangelicals to become more engaged in cultural and social matters. Noll said that telling evangelicals to be more active was like pointing an addict to dope.
So Doug Wilson may be the real evangelical. He may be more culturally relevant and effective than Clark and other two-kingdom proponents, though I hear that even in Moscow, Idaho the work of cultural clean up is not perhaps a model for taking on the rest of the nation, globe, or cosmos. Granted, if Wilson can rid the United States of automobiles, Walmart, and illegal drugs, I won’t complain. But I would ask that he put church reform higher on his list. All the infidelity among churches that claim to be Christian (even some Reformed communions) certainly appears to be a matter of greater alarm than getting non-believers to conform outwardly to the manners and customs of Credenda Agenda ‘s readers.
Which means that if Wilson think’s Reformed confessionalism’s dualism is bad ju ju, his works righteousness is bad do do (is the works righteousness of do doism ever good?).
195 Comments
Jed: Could he have condemned the murderous, and xenophobic aspects of Nazi policy from the pulpit where he had clear scriptural warrant to do so? I would say yes. Could he have exhorted his parishoners to avoid any direct role (e.g. working in concentration camps) even at the risk of their own death in order to uphold a true and faithful witness to the gospel? Sure.
OK, this is what I’m talking about.
It would be helpful for SOTC advocates to outline the positive ways, as you have, in which a minister can or should speak out.
…even in the extreme examples discussed here that you are inclined to blur the lines that demarcate the role of the church in society.
Given that everything else in life is colored by Now and Not Yet hues, I can’t imagine why the church should have crystal clear markers.
Maybe that’s just me being all Framian again.
But you don’t suggest that at all! Your plan appears to be for the church to be the church and stay out of the world, even in NAZI Germany.
Well, first, I wouldn’t worry too much about “my plan.” Your views, which write exceptions to Romans 13 and Jesus’ own claims that his kingdom is not of this world or commands to render unto Caesar his due, are clearly the majority. You’re the guys who write all sorts of position papers on every worldly debate, togetherness statements, manifesto’s and declarations. I’m just sitting in the middle pew asking questions.
Second, I wonder what you think “be in the world but not of it” means in all this. And does it seem like utter foolishness to you to say that the response to everything from Ghandi’s to Nazi’s is Word and sacrament?
Jeff, I do think that 2k does offer a clearer role of the church in the broader society. Under the oversight of our officers we call sinners to repentance and encourage the saints on their journey homeward. Not a lot of bells and whistles, or social agendas, just a simple commission from the Master. As a saint who more often than not comes to the Lord’s table beleaguered, I find this refreshing. I come from an evangelical transformationalist background where the church and her leaders were championing their latest crusades and programs while the congregation was unwittingly left starving in the pews. I think there is a grave danger in transformational circles when the congregation is told more about what Jesus would have them do about abortion, or the environment, or world hunger than they are about who Jesus is and what he has accomplished on their behalf. If 2k’s danger is antinomian, transformationalists are in danger of loosing sight of the simplicity of the gospel.
Jeff, you are cherry picking here way too much for my comfort. Biblically, the parable of the good Samaritan is precisely in accord to SOTC. SOTC says what churches may do, not individuals like the good Samaritan — btw, helping someone beside the road is a long way from deciding to be a vigilante, which is what you do when you take the role of judge, jury and executioner into your own hands.
You reference “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” is also an incredible abuse. This would seem to give me license to correct any parent who is doing something to a child I deem to be wrong, or to pull over any driver who is speeding. You want to put some qualifications around that?
Also, you want to explain why Paul and Jesus did not condemn slave holders, but in the latter case he actually healed one of their underlings? Would also care to distinguish slavery from murder? In your taking shots at 2k you only seem to go for the juggular with these examples.
Confessionally, you cherry pick when you say that SOTC is not creedal. Well, ir sure is in WCF 31.4. Churches don’t meddle. There are cases extraordinary. That may be. That doesn’t give lone ministers the green light to do what their churches do not do. Plus, the WCF is even more 2k and SOTC after 1787 in the U.S. So you’re not being confessional in taking issue with SOTC.
Historically, you also cherry pick. Why simply blame 2k on the German Lutherans. What about the Dutch Reformed who also failed to do anything about Hitler? Or what about German Roman Catholics, or Polish Roman Catholics, or Italian Roman Catholics? Could it be that more was going on in Europe than simply the blight of 2k?
And while I’m at the history, I don’t think Bonhoffer is the poster boy for biblical exegesis or knowing how to apply the parable of the Good Samaritan. His involvement in the Bethel Confession and its teaching about God’s abiding faithfulness to his chosen people, the Jews, might not pass confessional muster. Which means that it is hardly legitimate to appeal to someone as a model of Reformed world and life view when that person wasn’t even Reformed (maybe not even good Lutheran).
Frankly, Jeff, while I appreciate your efforts to be reasonable and dialogue in all this, I don’t see your criticisms as understanding what SOTS means. BTW, it is only a fix for the politicization of the church because it is what the Bible teaches and prescribes what the church does. It is not a fix. It is the norm.
I’m sorry that we cannot agree here. I don’t perceive SOTC as advocating antinomianism. Rather, I perceive it has having a couple of large holes or vacuums into which all manner of things (some good, some not good) might be poured. I’ve mentioned these holes in the form of two different test cases: The Case of the Christian Magistrate, and What About NAZI Germany? In both cases, the response has been that SOTC doesn’t really need to provide an answer.
To my mind, this contrasts unfavorably with, say, the author of Proverbs who is eager to share wisdom with his son and is not reticent to put some definition on what wisdom looks like — even as he also partakes of the Ecclesiastes mindset.
So I think the divide remains.
For what it’s worth, my “ideal church” looks very similar to Jed’s. It’s not like I’m advocating a raging transformationalism. I just want 2k views to be well-grounded so that they can truly be “good and necessary inferences” instead of pious opinion.
Perhaps you don’t intend this, but by labeling SOTC as “doctrine”, you make it a test for orthodoxy. Tim Keller is not merely mistaken but unorthodox because he does not hold to SOTC. That’s what it means to label something as “doctrine” or “norm.”
I’ve mentioned these holes in the form of two different test cases: The Case of the Christian Magistrate, and What About NAZI Germany? In both cases, the response has been that SOTC doesn’t really need to provide an answer.
Jeff,
Not really. It provides you an answer, just not the one you want. The interesting thing about your litmus tests is that they seem pretty stacked with what appear to be relatively unexamined assumptions on your part: there is a Christian way to govern and the church must actively resist political tyrants, now tell me how SOTC meets those demands.
But the other query you’ve used is “Does It Pass the Good Samaritan Test?†And your set of assumptions seem to be very much like those held in the general public, namely that the point of Luke 10:25-37 is “Be good.†But you’ll recall that what precipitates the parable is the question (meant to test Jesus), “What must I do to inherit eternal life?†Then the parable is told, cinched up with the command to “Go and do likewise.†It’s not too unlike the rich young ruler parable. And if the take away from those texts is “Be good and you will show yourself approved†instead of “Woe is me, for I am a hypocrite who can never hope to inherit eternal life, who will help me?†something is askew, at least from a Protestant and Reformed point of view. These parables are about justification, they are not bare moral instructions. You seem to erroneously assume the latter as you examine 2K-SOTC, and, naturally, out pops something about 2K-SOTC engendering the Bad Samaritan.
Which makes “I don’t perceive SOTC as advocating antinomianism†a little bit if a head-scratcher.
Jeff, I also believe that exclusive psalmody is doctrinal. Reformed Protestants did not start to sing hymns until 1740. But you know, I’m a flexible guy. I’m willing to live with hymns. I am also willing to live with deniers of 2k. But it is clearly affirmed by the Confession of the PCA and OPC. Which is why most of the critics of 2k want to hold me and others to the original WCF or to Belgic Art. 36. (BTW, Zrim, there is not 31.5 in the American CF.)
You have not established that Nazism or the Christian magistrate are holes for 2k. You have asserted that. But the wisdom that you also promote would also take into account the Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants who went along with Hitler. How does Nazism become a hole only for 2k? This is a highly arbitrary way of looking at the history, one btw that works to your heuristic advantage. Same goes for Christian magistrate. Christian magistrate of what state? Christian magistrate of Soviet Union, Canada, Constantinople? Where? Wisdom might suggest you take account of the historical setting.
So I don’t think you have proved anything other than reveal your own objections, which you somehow imagine commit me to something you oppose.
So let’s make this specific: what would you have done in Germany? Would you have joined Bonhoffer (and do you really know all for which he stood)? Would you have merely spoken out against Hitler? Would you speak out against Bonhoffer taking the law into his own hands? Why Hitler and not Bonhoffer?
And another question: Which version of the Civil Magistrate do you adopt?
“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.”
Or
“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; yet he has 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 ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has 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.”
Both are views of the Christian magistrate. Both are Presbyterian. On whose side are you?
Zrim,
Let me retract the bit about the Good Samaritan. Clearly it has offended you, which is not my aim. But more importantly, my argument didn’t distinguish between individuals and the Church as an institution. And that distinction is obviously important, so the argument as stated fails.
At no point have I thought of you as the Bad Samaritan.
—
JRC: In both cases, the response has been that SOTC doesn’t really need to provide an answer.
Zrim: Not really. It provides you an answer, just not the one you want.
I hate to be disagreeable, but you’ve explicitly stated that SOTC does not give an answer to the Christian Magistrate question, and cannot without violating Christian liberty. I think this is a straight-up matter of record.
Zrim: You’re the guys who write all sorts of position papers on every worldly debate, togetherness statements, manifesto’s and declarations.
Who’s “you”, Dutch man? Did I miss my signature on some document?
Zrim: I’m just sitting in the middle pew asking questions.
Yes, and I’m just sitting on a blog asking questions and being skeptical. But you *do* have cards to show. One of those cards is an account of what qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance.”
Zrim: Second, I wonder what you think “be in the world but not of it†means in all this. And does it seem like utter foolishness to you to say that the response to everything from Ghandi’s to Nazi’s is Word and sacrament?
It doesn’t seem foolish at all. It’s the answer I endorse. It’s the answer I gave when the session asked me what the plan for middle-school youth ministry is.
But now what does this mean — “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
Given that James is not a moralist, what is he saying?
DGH: Jeff, I also believe that exclusive psalmody is doctrinal. Reformed Protestants did not start to sing hymns until 1740. But you know, I’m a flexible guy. I’m willing to live with hymns.
I’m glad to hear that. But how is it consistent with the RPW? Wouldn’t you pretty much have to attend a psalm-only church, given that you think that psalms are commanded and hymns are forbidden?
I’m not doubting you, I’m just thinking back to the strong language uttered over on the psalmnody thread.
DGH: I am also willing to live with deniers of 2k. But it is clearly affirmed by the Confession of the PCA and OPC.
Some form of 2k is endorsed by the Confession, yes. Is it your form?
DGH: So let’s make this specific: what would you have done in Germany? Would you have joined Bonhoffer (and do you really know all for which he stood)? Would you have merely spoken out against Hitler? Would you speak out against Bonhoffer taking the law into his own hands? Why Hitler and not Bonhoffer?
Assuming my nerve didn’t fail, I certainly would have assisted Jews and Slavs to the extent possible. And I would have spoken out against the policies.
Would I have spoken out against Bonhoffer taking the law into his own hands? No. His situation is not at all clear to me.
What about you? You are dropped into Dresden in 1939. What now?
DGH: And another question: Which version of the Civil Magistrate do you adopt?
The 1789 version.
DGH: Both are views of the Christian magistrate. Both are Presbyterian. On whose side are you?
This question is revealing. It’s not merely a question of which version I adopt … it’s a question of whose side I shall be on. Shall it be Apollos’ or Peter’s or Paul’s?
None of the above.
Like Zrim, you take my questioning and criticism as an indicator of being on “the other side”, the guys who write position papers and sign manifestos.
Is that where we want to be? Is your advice to me to go throw in my lot with Jim Wallis because I have criticisms of SOTC? Surely not. Surely it can be the case that questions can be asked without picking a camp.
Jeff, I take your position as incoherent, and yet you continue to fault 2k for problems that don’t measure up to what? Your position? But your position is not at all satisfactory. You want a view of the Christian magistrate. WCF 1789 has one: “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.” 23.1 But you want more.
You say 2k and SOTC is not confessional, but later in ch. 23 it turns out that the confession does teach 2k, plus 31.4.
But then you say, mine isn’t the same as the confession. huh?
The reason for asking sides was not so you could play the Pauline tape about parties in the church. It was to try to figure out where you stand. I see you object. But I don’t understand by why criteria you object (though I think Frame’s fingerprints are on this).
And I didn’t bring up psalm-singing for you to ding me again. (Have you been taking advice from the Baylys?) The point was to say that many of my “odd” and “provocative” and “idiosyncratic” views are in the Confession. And yet I live at a time when I don’t get all that the
Standards teach. None of us do. Not even the divines. And so we live with that. But just because John Frame’s views on worship haven’t been tarred and feathered by all Reformed communions, doesn’t mean the RPW is unclear about Reformed worship.
I too would like to think that I would, as much as I knew what was going on, have aided all of those designated for execution. But again, your hindsight is completely selective. Many Germans did not know what was happening in the camps. And camps are what Americans constructed during WWII for Japanese Americans. You make it seem like it was easy to know all that was going on. And yet when you do know of a plot by citizen-vigilantes to assassinate a ruler, you say it’s not clear. What is unclear about do not take the law into your own hands?
And if you’d ever care to consider those Dutch, French, Italians, Poles, and other Europeans who went along with Hitler even though not holding 2k views, I’d sure be interested to hear. I’d be particularly interested in the case of the Dutch where dualism was always bad.
Jeff,
Re the Bad Samaritan stuff, I’m not sure why you want to retract it. I think it’s pretty consistent on your part. If you’re right, then my being offended is a good thing.
I hate to be disagreeable, but you’ve explicitly stated that SOTC does not give an answer to the Christian Magistrate question, and cannot without violating Christian liberty. I think this is a straight-up matter of record.
Let me try to clarify. I said “it doesn’t give an an answer” in the same way I mean “Christianity is irrelevant.” What I mean is that biblical truth is counter-intuitive, it doesn’t often answer the questions we ask because, well, frankly, we can often just be asking bad questions. I consider your question of the CM to be in the ballpark of trying to make the Bible a handbook for temporal living intead of, or in addition to, a revelation of how to inherit eternal life. If it’s a handbook for temporal living then it also contains answers for how to bake pies, in other words, answers for things that run the temporal scale from trivial (baking) to sophisticated (statecraft). I categorically deny the Bible’s project is to help us get through temporal life from baking pies or governing republics.
Given that James is not a moralist, what is he saying?
He is saying precisely what the third use of the law is saying: the Christian life can be summed up in one word–obedience. And in all this you’ll notice the 2K-SOTC point is all about obedience. Paul says to obey the magistrate is to obey God, to disobey him is to disobey God. I realize that’s one jagged little pill for 2010 Americans to swallow, but there it is nevertheless. But it may help to distinguish, again, obedience from worship. Daniel knew the difference. And directly civilly opposing one’s magistrate sure doesn’t seem anything at all like obedience. As you wax about just what you would have done in mid-20th C. Germany, I wonder if you import your Americanism into the opposition you imagine in the drawing boards of your mind. You do realize, don’t you, that to oppose Adolf is very different from opposing Barack? “Speaking out about the policies” in one may be embraced warmly, but in the other not-so-much. I think wisdom tells us to be careful what we die for.
FWIW, I’d reinforce dgh’s point about hindsight. Sometimes it isn’t so much 20/20 as it is a way to cast oneself in very heroic if unrealistic colors, as well as judge others who aren’t joining you from a very safe and warm distance. When I read Anne Frank’s diary in junior high, I had nice pictures of me hiding Jews in attics, too, or sailing the Atlantic to put an angry bullet in Adolf’s head; I know what it’s like to be American. But as time marches on from adolescence to adulthood I see the folly of such self-importance and the brutal complexities of the human condition.
Zrim, I beg your pardon for making the inflammatory insinuation that you are a bad Samaritan. I don’t think it, and I shouldn’t have implied it.
Don’t sweat it too much, Jeff. When I say “offended” I mean it in the old-fashioned way, the one that distinguishes between people and views.
, and yet you continue to fault 2k for problems that don’t measure up to what? Your position? But your position is not at all satisfactory.
DGH: You want a view of the Christian magistrate. WCF 1789 has one…You say 2k and SOTC is not confessional, but later in ch. 23 it turns out that the confession does teach 2k, plus 31.4. But then you say, mine isn’t the same as the confession. huh?
Well, the problem is that you have adopted the “2k” label for your position without acknowledging that there is more than one form of “2k” (for example, Calvin’s, which allows for theocracy, and yours which does not).
So the solution to the “huh” is that I think there is an apparent confessional problem with the version of 2k we’ve been discussing; not with all versions.
DGH: Jeff, I take your position as incoherent…
Fair challenge. Let me express the position briefly and then you can tell me which part doesn’t cohere.
On the negative side, I think there are some issues with the version of 2k we’ve been talking about, which I’ve taken to labeling as SOTC out of deference to Zrim, but which has been labeled as REPT in some of our previous discussions (not to mention the pejorative label R2K that we agreed to drop).
Those issues are
(1) The Confession requires the magistrate to “maintain piety”. By contrast, REPT calls on the magistrate to let the church alone so that the church can maintain piety.
While this might be the path of wisdom, it is not at all obvious that this is what the 1789 revisers had in mind.
(2) The Confession says that the magistrate is to defend and encourage those who are good, and to punish those who do evil.
REPT accepts this function of the magistrate, but is unclear as to how the magistrate should determine good or evil. Should the decalogue inform his thinking on this matter, or should natural law suffice?
Whichever is the case, should violations of the first table of the law count as “evil”? If not, why not; if so, then how does this fit in with the “protect the person and good name” clause of 23.3?
(3) WCoF 19.4 says that the general equity of the Law remains as the standard for nations. REPT appears to deny this; or sublime it into the functioning of the natural law.
On the positive side, I would say that
(4) There are two jurisdictions, church and state, whose officers are lawfully called servants of God in their calling and to whom is given authority over men.
(5) All magistrates are obligated to the moral Law of God, just as all men are
(5a) But failure to acknowledge the obligation does not nullify the magistrate’s authority.
(6) The Christian Magistrate occupies a unique position. On the one hand, he is a citizen of the kingdom of God. On the other, he is an officer of the state.
He therefore represents an intrusion of God’s kingdom into the state. Not that the state thereby becomes an arm of the Gospel proclamation; but that the Christian Magistrate in executing his particular common calling will be operating under God’s revealed will.
The question is then, how shall he then intrude? It appears that the revisers of the Confession recognized that the Christian Magistrate is to refrain from using the sword to prevent idolatry. But beyond this … ?
—
So: where’s the incoherence you have in mind?
Let me say a word about method. It will help to clear up where I stand and why our conversations go in the direction they do.
In the math world, conversation has refinement as its goal. This is typical:
JRC: All prime numbers are odd.
DGH: Really? What about 2?
JRC: What about 2?
DGH: Well, 2 has exactly two factors, so it’s prime. And 2 is divisible by 2, so it’s even.
JRC: Huh. I guess there is an even prime. Are there others?
DGH: I doubt it.
JRC: No, actually there aren’t. Because any other even number is also divisible by 2 and so has at least three factors: itself, 1, and 2. So all other evens are not prime. New theorem: There is only one even prime, 2. All others are odd.
This is de rigeur in my area of study.
From this, I hope that you understand my goal in pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in REPT is refinement. I’m not trying to overthrow REPT or make its proponents out to be antinomians or Bad Samaritans; but rather to say, Here are some holes. If you can fill them, your view will be stronger.
In other words, as a “something close to 2k-er”, I am aiming for an improved theory that leaves fewer open targets for the Brets of the world.
—
Second, I hope you can understand that I am non-plussed by some of the responses here. Imagine this conversation:
JRC: All prime numbers are odd.
DGH: Really? What about 2?
JRC: You’re saying that all evens are prime?
DGH: What? No! I asked, “What about 2?”
JRC: But look at 13 … 29 … 91 … they’re all odd and prime.
DGH: OK, but what about 2? You said that all odds are prime, and 2 is prime and even.
JRC: You’re just picking examples favorable to your position!
DGH: Gaah!
Now, I say this not to say that either you or Steve Z is irrational, as JRC is in this example, but to say that I perceive the responses as irrational.
Having thought about this a bit, I suspect that in the culture of history discussion, or English, or other fields, there is a different method of dialogue in which some of these responses make sense.
For example, if it is the custom in history for two people to pick opposing sides, and then debate which side fits the data best, it might make sense to knock the opponent’s position down so as to enhance the credibility of one’s own position.
In math, this never makes sense and is considered a logical error.
So the upshot is this: the reason I get frustrated is not because I’m trying to push a hidden agenda and you won’t let me.
The agenda is transparent – I want REPT to refine and improve.
The frustration is, I think, a clash of cultural methods of dialogue.
…except that 91 = 7*13. It’s 97 that’s prime. Failure to proof-read. Doh!
Jeff, first, Geneva was not a theocracy. That is a poor construction of church state matters. You are correct to assert that Calvin was living with Constantinianism. But again, I don’t see how this is a problem for 2k because most of 2k’s critics don’t want Calvin’s Geneva for today, only Calvin’s Geneva to show that 2ks are Calvin. It is highly selective.
I don’t see the Confession teaching what you do. I don’t see 23.3 telling the magistrate to maintain piety. What I do see is the magistrate being responsible to protect all citizens, believers and non-believers, a point that is very hard to do if you’re going to use the Bible as the norm for public law and policy. Where does the Bible tolerate unbelief in those institutions that use it for jurisdiction (Israel or the church).
I don’t see 19.4 applied to the nations. Ch. 23 governs the magistrate. You may want to argue that 19.4 could apply to the state. But it doesn’t say that.
And on the point about good and evil, this is a problem for everyone, not just 2k. We want public goodness. That goodness is not the same as ultimate goodness. Just because we know citizens can’t be ultimately good without regeneration, etc., doesn’t mean that we want to encourage citizens to live honestly and be wicked. So all Christian accounts of the state need to distinguish certain kinds of goodness from others. A magistrate in Geneva faces the same problem as Obama — a desire for good citizens no matter their practice on Sunday.
I’m not sure I follow all the math. In the case of history, you look at a variety of factors. You have brought up lots of historical examples whose factors do not always support your points.
WCoF 23.2 (1789): It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace…
What is this saying if not “maintain piety”?
WCoF 19.4: To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Is this not saying that the general equity of the sundry judicial laws may require something of other peoples?
Jeff, does 23.2 have in view non-Christian magistrates? Is that what is true for all states? Isn’t 23.3 the place to go for all magistrates?
I don’t see 19.4 in the chapter on the magistrate. It is speaking about the laws of the OT and how they may or may not still be relevant or binding. I don’t see that as informing what the state is supposed to do.
DGH: Does 23.2 have in view non-Christian magistrates?
Fair question. We have a couple of options. Either
(1) The Confession is speaking only of Christian magistrates. In this case, the obligations of the Christian Magistrate are different from those of the non-Christian, and we’re back to the Problem of the Christian Magistrate.
(2) OR, the Confession is speaking of all magistrates in terms of their obligation. In this case, we recognize that “ought” does not imply “can.”
I lean towards (1).
I don’t see 19.4 in the chapter on the magistrate. It is speaking about the laws of the OT and how they may or may not still be relevant or binding.
It is speaking of the judicial laws and how they may or may not still be relevant or binding. And the answer is, The general equity is still binding.
Since we’re talking judicial law here, wouldn’t that have to involve the magistrate?
He therefore represents an intrusion of God’s kingdom into the state. Not that the state thereby becomes an arm of the Gospel proclamation; but that the Christian Magistrate in executing his particular common calling will be operating under God’s revealed will.
The question is then, how shall he then intrude?
Jeff,
I wonder if it would help to think more in terms of intersection than intrusion. The believer stands simultaneously between the two kingdoms. While it may be said that, in some sense, the KoG intrudes or breaks forth into the KoM, I don’t think the same can be said about the individual believer in his particular common calling. After all, the Christian life in the inter-advental age is described as pilgrimage, and pilgrims do a lot more plodding shoulder-to-shoulder than intruding and laying it upon the shoulders of others.
But if 2k says there is no blueprint for plumbing as the believer plumbs, I am hard-pressed to see why there is one for ruling as he rules. There is, however, a two-tabled code he must live by as he does either. Maybe some consult idols or steal as they go about their common callings, but he doesn’t. I think what your view fails to do is distinguish between vocational demands and personal behavior. As long as you keep conflating these two things I don’t think what 2k is saying will ever finally satisfy you.
Jeff, I read 19 as dealing with Israel’s judicial law. If the Divines were going to appeal to it for the magistrate, wouldn’t they put it in ch. 23?
DGH, a reasonable question; but why mention it at all?
At least one plausible answer is that ch. 23 fleshes out what “general equity” means.
Any other ideas? Why mention “general equity” in ch. 17 with respect to judicial laws?
Zrim: I think what your view fails to do is distinguish between vocational demands and personal behavior. As long as you keep conflating these two things I don’t think what 2k is saying will ever finally satisfy you.
You’re correct that I haven’t distinguished these.
How would you distinguish them?
For example: Is refraining from cheating your customer a “vocational demand” or a “personal behavior”? Is plumbing to the glory of God a “vocational demand” (as in, this is my *calling*), or is it a “personal behavior”?
When I try to sort actions into bins labeled “vocational demand” and “personal behavior”, I do pretty well on the edges, but the middle gets really squishy. Something like “accepting $100M of taxpayer’s money for my district in exchange for my vote” is hard to put into an easy category.
I notice, for example, that John the Baptist had a lot to say to his baptizees about the way they carried out their vocations.
But if 2k says there is no blueprint for plumbing as the believer plumbs, I am hard-pressed to see why there is one for ruling as he rules. There is, however, a two-tabled code he must live by as he does either. Maybe some consult idols or steal as they go about their common callings, but he doesn’t.
You’ve talked frequently about “blueprint” and “handbook”, but I never have.
Perhaps the difference is this. We can approach life in terms of rules: Do this; don’t do that. In such a case, a handbook or blueprint makes sense, because it provides a complete ethic. We know what to *do*.
But it’s also possible to approach life in terms of strategic goals. I want to accomplish these objectives… And in that case, a blueprint is actually counter-productive, since it may or may not help me accomplish my goals.
What I’ve been suggesting is that Scripture lays out a couple of non-negotiable strategic objectives for all Christians, objectives that cut across “vocational” and “personal.” Those objectives would be, roughly, to trust and love God; and to love neighbor.
When I talk about Scripture informing our lives, I mean that it provides some guidance about how those goals can be accomplished (and especially some negative guidance about how they cannot be accomplished).
But at no point do I have in mind a blueprint. Nor do I have in mind a flesh-based, “Let’s abandon the Gospel and fulfill the Law!”
Rather, much like you, I see ourselves obligated to the two-tabled code. But perhaps unlike you, (maybe?), I don’t see that obligation entailing a detailed list of rules.
How would you distinguish them [a vocational demand and a personal behavior]?
Jeff,
Well, in my line of work I have to carry out the decisions a client demands. Sometimes I think it’s the right decision, but sometimes I disagree. In the end, it doesn’t really matter either way because I’m bound by contractual agreements that couldn’t care any less about my personal convictions (and rightly so, I might add). In the process of carrying out these and other vocational demands with which I disagree, I don’t worship idols or bear false witness. I can easily see how civilians to my vocation looking in from the outside could construe my dealings with state departments of education as compromising my Christian duties, but they’d be confusing vocational demands with personal behavior.
You’ve talked frequently about “blueprint†and “handbookâ€, but I never have…What I’ve been suggesting is that Scripture lays out a couple of non-negotiable strategic objectives for all Christians, objectives that cut across “vocational†and “personal.†Those objectives would be, roughly, to trust and love God; and to love neighbor.
Well, what you have said is that general revelation is insufficient to inform general tasks, and that special revelation makes up for the deficiencies. To my mind, that counts as making the Bible a handbook for common living. But in all the years I’ve been at my vocation, the Bible has never been consulted by me or my colleagues in order to successfully execute our tasks. One option is to say that we haven’t been as successful as we have thought. But that seems unsatisfactory because it suggests that the Bible needs to be consulted to see where we failed, and I still have no idea what Scripture has to say about standardized student assessments. I suppose we could ask whether we have met the requirements of the first and second greatest commandments, but I think we’d be just as lost about how that helps us build a better mousetrap (er, standardized assessment, I get them confused sometimes). Besides, examining how we measure up spiritually is a question better asked each Lord’s Day in the presence of the Lord and his people. Asking that question there and then makes a ton more sense.
Zrim: Well, in my line of work I have to carry out the decisions a client demands. Sometimes I think it’s the right decision, but sometimes I disagree.
Understood. Happens in Christian education, too.
So … are there any demands that a client might make that you would refuse out of conscience? If so, why those and not others, etc.?
Zrim: Well, what you have said is that general revelation is insufficient to inform general tasks, and that special revelation makes up for the deficiencies. To my mind, that counts as making the Bible a handbook for common living.
Actually, what I’ve said is that general revelation is insufficient to inform general tasks.
The “special revelation makes up for the deficiencies” is your language.
The only reason I point that out is that I don’t think of special revelation as necessarily making up for all the deficiencies … certainly not in any obvious way, and perhaps not in any way all.
For example, I don’t think the Bible gives a clear answer to “Should we repeal HR3590″, the health care legislation that was signed into law today.
But it does give some clear norms against which that legislation can potentially be measured (assuming anyone can read it)
Special revelation provides a framework, not a blueprint or handbook.
I suppose we could ask whether we have met the requirements of the first and second greatest commandments…
Well, that’s a good point. You could ask those questions. Why shouldn’t one?
…but I think we’d be just as lost about how that helps us build a better mousetrap (er, standardized assessment, I get them confused sometimes).
When I think about performing my job with excellence, part of what motivates that is the sense of God’s calling; and part, the sense that it is loving to my students to provide them with timely feedback (i.e., grades) and meaningful, clear, and useful lessons.
To me, the excellence — to the extent that it obtains — and the love go hand in hand.
That doesn’t mean that I’m always completely clear on the details, but it does mean that my work is “normed” by love.
Why is that a problem?
…are there any demands that a client might make that you would refuse out of conscience? If so, why those and not others, etc.?
Travel on Sunday to be there for the Monday meeting, because it breaks the fourth.
But far be it from me to fault anyone pursuing excellence in his vocation and trying to norm his work with love. Not that this is you, but I have found that those who speak a lot about “vocational excellence normed by love” don’t seem to have a way to explain those days when mediocrity and frustration lace the day, to say nothing of the fact that most days are more ordinary than extraordinary. It’s almost as if they think that excellence and love are the marks of a believer instead of that which makes a believer, namely faith. But those who speak more of faith seem to make plenty of room for excellence and failure and the whole range of human experience. So, it isn’t a problem to speak of vocational excellence normed by love, it’s just that it seems so, well, limited.
You mean, like those who think of marriage as wine and roses 24/7? Sure.
But get past the mirage, and what’s my calling as a husband? *Still* to love my wife like Christ loved the church. It’s just that the huge size of what that really entails drives one to repentance and grace.
Jeff,
Please clarify, how is general revelation insufficient to inform general tasks, if at the same time special revelation doesn’t necessarily make up for all of the deficiencies? How do you see this gap bridged?
How do you see this gap bridged?
I don’t. If the gap were bridged, we would know everything.
One of the fallacies in this discussion is the idea that Something, Somewhere must provide all of the answers to us. But we aren’t guaranteed this.
Hence, my objection to natural law takes on two forms:
(1) It is urged that Natural Law is sufficient for governance, but there is no guarantee of sufficiency, and
(2) The supposed sufficiency of Natural Law provides a basis for denying the normativeness of Scripture in common endeavors, but this is not clear either.
So I’ve been pressing the insufficiency of Natural Law as a way of challenging (1), while pressing the universal normativeness of Scripture as a way of challenging (2).
Zrim’s response has been that yes, Scripture is universally normative; but it is not universally normative in the same way in church and in the commons. There are bins of activities, secular and sacred; and Scripture is fully normative in the sacred, while personally normative in the secular.
I’m trying to become clear as to what that means.
I can see some goods points in Zrim’s response, but it doesn’t fully persuade.
Jeff,
This is actually a helpful clarification. I think you’re mistaking the notion of sufficiency with, for lack of a better term, some kind of magic. It is not a premise of mine that “something, somewhere must provide all of the answers to us.†Natural revelation is insufficient for redemptive tasks and special revelation is insufficient for common tasks, but that doesn’t mean each “provides all the answers†to their respective domains. The point has been made here at various times that if special revelation was “magically†sufficient then the church militant wouldn’t be in such disarray. In the same way, natural revelation doesn’t solve everything with absolute certitude. This is because both natural and special revelation depend on sinful human agents to read and carry out their truths. This is Paul’s argument about why the law is weak (“insufficientâ€), because it depends on sinners.
In point of fact, if anything, the anti-2k outlook has the over-realizing tendency. The idea seems to be that general revelation isn’t enough because bad things happen when people use it instead of special revelation. But bad things happening in the world isn’t general revelation’s fault, it’s the fault of sinners; sinners sin because they’re sinners, not because they use the wrong book. So, until the church proves that using special revelation creates the perfect church, there’s little incentive to start breaking the rules and give the Bible to the world. If the indwelt church can’t even employ it perfectly, what in thee heck makes anyone think the unregenerate world will fare much better? It’s like saying we should give medical textbooks to untrained people who are sick: first, hello(!?!), they’d have no idea what they’d be looking at, second, even doctors get things wrong and have disagreements amongst themselves about how to treat illness. Send sick people to doctors (preferably those who consult their medical training and not the Bible to treat sick people).
Jeff,
Along the lines of Zrim’s response to your helpful clarification, I think we need to clarify between sufficient knowledge in both kingdoms, and exhaustive knowledge in both spheres. We need not know something exhaustively to know it truly. I think this upholds the Creator-creature distinction.
For example, I am certain that God, as the author of physics, knows the laws of physics exhaustively whereas we know physics to varying degrees of sufficiency. In the case of space travel, our knowledge of physics, among several other domains of knowledge is sufficient to get us to the moon and back, however it is not yet sufficient for deep space exploration.
The same holds true in the theological realm. Dr. Clark’s explanation of the ectypal and archetypal distinction of God’s knowledge of theology and ours in RRC and the attached link ( http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/what-can-we-know-and-how/ ) is very helpful, does not diminish our ability to sufficiently understand from Scripture what should be believed and practiced.
To me it seems that the 2k view upholds these distinctions with more clarity than the framework view that you are espousing while conceding the limits of our knowledge in both realms.
I think you’re mistaking the notion of sufficiency with, for lack of a better term, some kind of magic. It is not a premise of mine that “something, somewhere must provide all of the answers to us.†Natural revelation is insufficient [sufficient?] for redemptive tasks and special revelation is insufficient [sufficient?] for common tasks, but that doesn’t mean each “provides all the answers†to their respective domains.
You’re correct that I hear “sufficient” in that way. So now, I have two ideas of what “sufficient” doesn’t mean. What does it mean?
The idea seems to be that general revelation isn’t enough because bad things happen when people use it instead of special revelation.
Ah, this is also a helpful clarification.
I can see that certain anti-2kers are saying this (akin to “We took prayer out of schools and now we have gangs!” … never mind the discovery of cheap ways to produce coke, meth, and acid, *and* the anti-drug policies that look eerily like Prohibition 1.5).
I’m actually coming from a completely different angle.
When I’ve argued in the past that Natural Law has been abandoned as an ethical metatheory, what I mean is that within the philosophical community, it has widely argued that Natural Law Theory commits one of two fallacies (or both).
First, it commits the naturalistic fallacy — arguing from what *is* to what *ought to be*.
Second, Natural Law is often used as a cover for importing another ethical theory by means of ethical intuitions. That is: Zrim might argue that sleeping with another man’s wife is wrong, but what’s really happening is that he’s lived so long under the 7th commandment that it just seems “obvious” to him. Someone else … say, Hugh Hefner … might not have the same intuition and Now Where Are We?
So the criticism is that Zrim’s “natural law” is really just the decalogue in disguise. Which, oddly enough, you believe.
So now we’re on the horns of a seeming dilemma. Either NL is identical to the decalogue, in which case you are open to the charge that “natural law” is just a cover. An atheist and you don’t really see the same set of ethical norms.
OR
NL is not identical to the decalogue, and now it appears that you’re advocating two different ethical systems, one for the sacred and one for the common. That goes all the way back to the “heteronomian” idea from long ago.
I’ve decided, pretty much, that the first is the case.
Then there are two theological objections.
(1) *if* it is the case that God requires His children to obey His Law to the full (speaking here of obligation, not ability), then it may be that NL fails to recognize the obligations of a Christian in the common realm.
(2) The van Til objection: if we allow the existence of a Natural Law that is independent of Scripture (grasping the second horn of our dilemma), then we would have an autonomous ethical system that could both judge differently from God and judge God Himself.
Clearly, (2) is a problem — but it doesn’t appear to apply to you if I’m reading you correctly.
—
But a practical concern — a slippery slope concern, in fact — is that if you really do grasp the first horn of the dilemma, it might well be that future generations might not be so inclined, and perceive of “2k” as a principled reason for grasping the second horn instead.
And that appears to be something like what has happened in the CRC. Haven’t they, at the church polity level, substituted “common sense” — meaning gender egalitarianism — for the Scripture?
The firewall that you erect is to say that Scripture norms the church. And that works, if you can keep the firewall standing. But does that hold up over time? In 50 years, where will the Old-Life movement be?
Jeff,
Your citation of the Naturalistic Fallacy is the product of Hume’s philosophy. I am not so sure the same can be derived biblically, or even confessionally. I am not so sure that I want to base my understanding of Natural Law based on Hume’s distinctions.
Briefly, the biblical argument of the is/ought relationship is rooted in Gen 1-11 as the consequences of partaking from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Some scholars, admittedly not all, maintain that the knowledge conferred in the fruit was functional. This is derived from the merism “good and evil” which connoted the sense of a working cosmic knowledge of that which was chaotic and did not work (evil) and that which did work (good). As we were able to understand the way the world is, we were able to understand what we ought to do with and in it. what Adam’s offense was that he essentially stole the knowledge of the way things worked instead of knowing in the Prov. 1:7 sense. Even in our fallen state we were able to figure out the basic implements of culture, such as music, metallurgy, and animal husbandry, and agriculture (Gen 4), this culminated in the urbanization of the ancient world (gen 11). The problem wasn’t that the knowledge contained in the fruit – it worked, the problem was how we acquired it. Therefore our knowledge is depraved and cursed with futility, however that does not negate the functionality of human knowing – it still works, and in many cases sufficiently for the current age.
I can see that certain anti-2kers are saying this…I’m actually coming from a completely different angle.
Jeff,
What remains a mystery for me is how you can at once maintain that general revelation is insufficient to govern general tasks and this distancing of yourself from anti-2k, especially when you explicitly characterize your views as “personal theonomy.†It seems to me that a basic building block to all anti-2k of whatever degree is the denial of general revelation’s sufficiency to govern general tasks. It may be a matter of degree, but, in the end, you’re really not “coming at it from a completely different angle.â€
Deny general revelation’s sufficiency to do its appointed task and needing some supplementation from special and one is way closer to theonomy than 2k. The parallel is to deny special revelation’s sufficiency to do its appointed task and needing some supplement from general (i.e. tradition or reason) and you’re way closer to Romanism or Liberalism than Protestantism.
So what do you mean by “sufficiency”?
Jed:
Thanks for the exegetical explanation. It seems like a plausible reading, but not a necessary one. A lot of weight is placed, it seems, on the City of Cain and its validity.
Your citation of the Naturalistic Fallacy is the product of Hume’s philosophy. I am not so sure the same can be derived biblically, or even confessionally. I am not so sure that I want to base my understanding of Natural Law based on Hume’s distinctions.
Fair point. We wouldn’t want to baptize Hume any more than Aristotle or Plato.
But in this case, we’re talking about the Natural Law as a common moral philosophy. And my point is that the NL is not actually common at this point in history. Even if the exegesis you offer is in fact sound, it still only establishes the credibility of NL for those who accept it.
For everyone else, there’s
MasterCardan is-ought problem.Thus, when I argue to Hugh Hefner, “Sleeping with someone else’s wife is wrong, and you know it”, his response is, “You’re just holding on to traditional morality. What goes on between two consenting adults is a beautiful thing.” He consigns his conscience to the realm of traditional morality, and the conversation is pretty much over.
So if the goal is to co-exist with the non-believer in the common sphere, I don’t see how NL accomplishes that.
Zrim: What remains a mystery for me is how you can at once maintain that general revelation is insufficient to govern general tasks and this distancing of yourself from anti-2k, especially when you explicitly characterize your views as “personal theonomy.†It seems to me that a basic building block to all anti-2k of whatever degree is the denial of general revelation’s sufficiency to govern general tasks. It may be a matter of degree, but, in the end, you’re really not “coming at it from a completely different angle.â€
Well, because I believe there are two jurisdictions. That pretty much ends the comparison right there.
The difference between me and, say, Elder Hoss on education is that I have (I think) a lower view of outside influence. That is, I don’t believe that public school education (or other influences) can cause my daughter to abandon the faith, any more than living in Babylon caused Daniel to abandon the faith.
And as a corollary, I don’t see the magistrate’s job as trying to cause righteousness through influence. He’s not a social engineer, but a restrainer of the evil and an encourager of the good.
Anyways, why is this so mysterious? Calvin argued that the magistrate is obligated to the moral law, both tables, in his magistrating. Yes, he denied the ongoing validity of the Jewish civil law; but he distinguished this from the ongoing validity of the 10 Commandments.
So Calvin also, by your reckoning, denies the sufficiency of general revelation for governance. And yet he’s a 2k guy.
Perhaps the “basic building block” to which you refer is not in fact the basic building block?
Jeff, I don’t know what you’re reading from Calvin which says he denies the sufficiency of general revelation for governance.
What do you make of these quotes?
“Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.
“I do not dwell upon the dissension and conflicts that immediately spring up. Some, like thieves and robbers, desire to overturn all law and right, to break all legal restraints, to let their lust alone masquerade as law. Others think unjust what some have sanctioned as just (an even commoner fault), and contend that what some have forbidden is praiseworthy. Such persons hate laws not because they do not know them to be good and holy; but raging with headlong lust, they fight against manifest reason. What they approve of in their understanding they hate on account of their lust. Quarrels of this latter sort do not nullify the original conception of equity. For, while men dispute among themselves about individual sections of the law, they agree on the general conception of equity. In this respect the frailty of the human mind is surely proved: even when it seems to follow the way, it limps and staggers. Yet the fact remains that some seed of political order has been implanted in all men. And this is ample proof that in the arrangements of this life no man is without the life of reason. . . .
” Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, 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.” (Institutes, II.2.13, 15)
Jeff,
When Hefner gives you a wrong answer I fail to see why NL needs to be dispensed with, unless you think the point is perfection. I’m pretty sure that’s not how you respond to your students, is it? When they give you a wrong answer you don’t really say that the fundamentals of math are questionable, do you? Maybe you think of another way to explain it, but you don’t turn tail on the fundamentals.
Again, the problem isn’t with truth, it’s with those who get it wrong. You seem to assume that just because some of us in the common sphere get things really wrong that means the idea of natural law is dubious. But co-existence means we endure with those who are pretty confused, just like you endure with your dimmer students. It may make for a messy looking classroom, world, and even church, but that’s just part of the territory east of Eden.
Zrim, I explained the problem. The point, I’m told, is co-existence. We want to co-exist with the unbeliever in the common realm. But at this point in history, NL is no longer common — so that the co-existence goal is no longer achievable via NL.
You’ve articulated a goal; you’ve articulated a means; the means don’t achieve the goal.
DGH, I would say that, to get the complete picture, we should interpret Inst II.2 in light of Inst IV.20 (long quotes … sorry):
But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed, (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together;) this, I say, is not its only object, but it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man’s property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men.
Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.
But the reader, by the help of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three: The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he governs; and the People, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let us consider then, first, What is the function of the magistrate? Is it a lawful calling approved by God? What is the nature of his duty? What the extent of his power? Secondly, What are the laws by which Christian polity is to be regulated?
Those who are desirous to introduce anarchy object that, though anciently kings and judges presided over a rude people, yet that, in the present day that servile mode of governing does not at all accord with the perfection which Christ brought with his gospel. Herein they betray not only their ignorance, but their devilish pride, arrogating to themselves a perfection of which not even a hundredth part is seen in them. But be they what they may, the refutation is easy. For when David says, “Be wise now therefore O you kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth,” “kiss the son, lest he be angry” (Psalm 2: 10, 12,) he does not order them to lay aside their authority and return to private life, but to make the power with which they are invested subject to Christ, that he may rule over all. In like manner, when Isaiah predicts of the Church, “Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens and nursing- mothers,” (Isaiah 49: 23,) he does not bid them abdicate their authority; he rather gives them the honourable appellation of patrons of the pious worshipers of God; for the prophecy refers to the advent of Christ.
This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice.
The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of Him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule.
Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased, (Judges 21: 25.)
This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety.
In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, “Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood,” (Jer. 22: 3.) To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, “Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked,” (Psalm 82: 3, 4.) Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgement; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgement is God’s,” (Deut. 1: 16.) I say nothing as to such passages as these, “He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;” “neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;” “he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;” “and it shall be with him and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;” “that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren,” (Deut. 17: 16-20.) In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. “A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that has an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me,” (Psalm 101: 4-6.)
In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law.
As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men.
This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.
We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.
The moral law, then, (to begin with it,) being contained under two heads, the one of which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him, and mutually love one another.
The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures, (Gal. 3: 24; 4: 4.)
The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly.
And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual.
But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.
A careful reading of these, taken together with your quotes from Inst II.2, reveals the following:
For Calvin,
(1) The seed but not the fulness of the knowledge of righteousness is planted in all men.
(2) The magistrate’s duty is to both tables of the law, for God is a person — the primary person, in fact — whose rights are to be respected.
(3) The laws of nations can be and are to be tested against “the law of charity” and the two tables of the law.
(4) The duties of the magistrate include promotion of piety (this provides the interpretive background for WCoF 23.2 “they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace”)
(5) That a sharp distinction is made between Jewish judicial laws and the general equity of the decalogue.
Jeff,
I think we have to back up here to evaluate the commonality of NL. For instance, our legal tradition often cites Hammurabi’s Code as a critical movement in the history of law, some concepts are still present in our laws. Hamurabi’s goring ox, manslaughter, adultery, and talionic laws among others were also found in the Mosaic Law. Hammurabi predates Moses by several centuries. Now we can evaluate this on a couple of ways, maybe Moses was just borrowing from Hammurabi and modifying from there, or the NL was present in Hammurabi’s conscience and/or deduced reasonably from observing nature (but you are disinclined to accept the is/ought relationship. Were Hammurabi’s NL derivations perfect? Of course not, but they were sufficient to govern a just society.
Given the fact that the lex talionis is still present in our legal system, manslaughter, et. al. gives us some reason to concede that while we come from a Judeo-Christian legal heritage, a good deal of our laws are not unique to our heritage. NL is looms even larger in our regulatory laws such as OSHA, building codes, and industry standards (ISO’s), here we are entirely dependent on regulations that astutely observe what works and what doesn’t in our natural world. These don’t carry the same moral force as the Moral Law, however they are a crucial component of our legal system, and it would be a major stretch to attribute these to special revelation.
So, even if NL is not always interpreted or applied properly, or even accepted in our modern era does not mean that it doesn’t occupy a major place in it. If there is such a thing as Natural Law it really doesn’t matter if people except it or not, it exists independent of belief.
As an aside, our buddy Hef is actually opposed to adultery, and every indication from his marriages suggests that he was actually faithful while married. So even the lawless pornographer holds to vestiges of morality that are aptly attributed to NL.
Okay, Jeff, how do you square II.2 with IV 20, especially when Calvin introduces the entire discussion in IV 20 by distinguishing sharply along the same lines in II.2, as in between earthly and heavenly things, and that to fail to distinguish them is to commit a Judaic folly. It seems to me that Calvin is saying religion is important to a regime, and that the Christian religion is the best. I see that anti-2kers get that. But they don’t generally get the point about distinguishing between the things of the spirit and the things of the body, and so locating redemption in the former. If that premise is accepted, Calvin is on the road to WCF 1789 and a revised understanding of the magistrate.
BTW, the French Reformed who stayed in France argued differently. They didn’t want the king enforcing the true religion because that meant killing Protestants.
As an aside, our buddy Hef is actually opposed to adultery, and every indication from his marriages suggests that he was actually faithful while married.
How about that! One learns something every day. Do you have any documentation?
I think we have to back up here to evaluate the commonality of NL.
Certainly, there are commonalities. And I would certainly chalk up those commonalities to the law of God written on the heart.
…maybe Moses was just borrowing from Hammurabi and modifying from there, or the NL was present in Hammurabi’s conscience and/or deduced reasonably from observing nature (but you are disinclined to accept the is/ought relationship…
Almost. I recognize that the is/ought relationship is no longer commonly accepted, and cannot be supported except by the additional postulate that “God made us with the law written on the heart.”
So my contention is not that is/ought is wrong, but that it is not common and is therefore not a suitable basis for common life.
Which leads to So, even if NL is not always interpreted or applied properly, or even accepted in our modern era does not mean that it doesn’t occupy a major place in it. If there is such a thing as Natural Law it really doesn’t matter if people except it or not, it exists independent of belief.
Well, it depends on what we’re trying to do with it. If we’re trying to create a just society, then Calvin at least says that some common laws are wrong, and some are right, and they should all be measured against the decalogue.
If we’re trying to live in a common sphere with unbelievers, then NL won’t help in a society that doesn’t accept NL.
So that brings us back to
Were Hammurabi’s NL derivations perfect? Of course not, but they were sufficient to govern a just society.
How do we know this? That is, what pronouncement of “just society” do we have on Hammurabi’s accomplishments? Just as we don’t want to baptize Hume, so also we do not wish to baptize Hammurabi unwarrantedly.
The point, I’m told, is co-existence. We want to co-exist with the unbeliever in the common realm. But at this point in history, NL is no longer common — so that the co-existence goal is no longer achievable via NL.
I don’t follow. If, as Paul argues, it is written on every human heart, how can natural law no longer be common? Are you disagreeing with Paul, as in, “Sure, Paul, that was true in your day, but you have to understand that the modern world is different nowâ€? Are you saying that Hugh Hefner trumps Paul? Do you mean to be so modern?
If we’re trying to live in a common sphere with unbelievers, then NL won’t help in a society that doesn’t accept NL.
Again, I don’t buy the premise that just because anyone denies what is true about what is internally written that it means he’s right and it isn’t there. But let’s assume you’re right. So natural law is rejected, and, presumably so is special revelation because unbelievers by definition don’t subscribe it. So, what are we left with, Jeff, to govern society? What is anyone going to appeal to in order to make his case about anything?
I know you don’t like me saying that to deny general revelation to govern general society means you have to use special revelation to supplement, but special revelation is really all you’re left with when you claim general is insufficient (because there are only two books). And then you’re left saying unbelievers must subscribe a book they by definition deny. When was the last time “Because it’s in the Bible†settled any disagreement you had with an unbeliever? Isn’t that like the Muslim telling you “Because it’s on the Koranâ€? The point is that we all, in our brutally divergent religious devotions, must have a common book we can appeal to get anything done. And you keep taking it away.
Jeff,
The Hef info was on an A&E biography I watched a few years back, and as I recall there was adultery in his first marriage, which he viewed a very damaging. In his second marriage he maintained that he remained faithful to his wife until after their separation. I am sure there is a wealth of information about this online, however it is probably best that I do not link to it for conscience’s sake. Suffice to say, I don’t think he was an adultery proponent, even with his disdain for monogamy.
The flipside to your Mosaic Law assertion, is that many in our society do not hold to it, so it is not common, so it shouldn’t govern modern society. If we apply that on either side of the argument it quickly breaks down. The most common feature in modern society is individual autonomy, and many (I would include you here) see this as highly a highly problematic paradigm to govern a society from. Even if you look into the most radical postmodern constructs, I doubt that these (theoretical) interpretive communities and cultures would maintain that stealing, or murder, or contractual mischief are okay, so though they might deny it until they are blue in the face they can’t escape some of the fundamental tenets of NL.
The OT Law and NL has a lot of overlap, which I don’t think any would contend here. NL arguments however do not carry the same religious import as the Mosaic Law. In a secular society it is probably less imposing to make a case for NL than for a code that is steeped in religious and spiritual mandates.
As to the effectiveness of Hammurabi’s laws in bringing order in the Ancient Near East, I would commend the scholarship of John Walton (his bibliography is here – http://wheaton.edu/Theology/faculty/walton/ ) from a Christian perspective, and from a secular perspective Amelie Khurt’s two volume history – The Ancient Near East is a fantastic resource. His laws were not perfect, nor was his society, however they have had a massive impact on the history of jurisprudence. If you would like actual citations I will have to take some time to dig them up.
I definitely don’t want to baptize a pagan king, however his political and social philosophy of Hammurabi is much closer to Moses’ than Hume was, and for that he is a valuable figure to have some familiarity with, especially in OT studies.
Zrim: Are you disagreeing with Paul, as in, “Sure, Paul, that was true in your day, but you have to understand that the modern world is different now�
Goodness no!
But Paul doesn’t say anywhere that Natural Law’s use is to build civil society. Rather, he says that the Law written on the heart convicts men’s consciences.
I’m saying that *if* your goal is to press Natural Law into service as the basis for a common society, then you will find that our society is not willing to play along.
I know you don’t like me saying that to deny general revelation to govern general society means you have to use special revelation to supplement, but special revelation is really all you’re left with when you claim general is insufficient (because there are only two books). And then you’re left saying unbelievers must subscribe a book they by definition deny. When was the last time “Because it’s in the Bible†settled any disagreement you had with an unbeliever? Isn’t that like the Muslim telling you “Because it’s on the Koranâ€? The point is that we all, in our brutally divergent religious devotions, must have a common book we can appeal to get anything done. And you keep taking it away.
Again, define “sufficient.” I’m not trying to be pedantic here. The problem is that you’re asking me to accept that Natural Law is (warm fuzzy word) without telling me what it means.
Speaking of sounding modernist, what’s up with insisting that there has to be a common book to which we can appeal?
I think we’re working at cross purposes. My question is, “To what standard am I as a Christian accountable in my common endeavors?” Yours appears to be, “How can we build a common society?”
But Paul doesn’t say anywhere that Natural Law’s use is to build civil society. Rather, he says that the Law written on the heart convicts men’s consciences.
Paul also doesn’t say the Bible’s use is to build society. So, if neither one builds society, what does? But are you saying the law on the human heart has only the pedagogical use? What about the first use? I assume you affirm the first use as defined in Reformed (and Lutheran) orthodoxy. If so, how can it not be said that the law builds, and maintains, civil society?
I’m saying that *if* your goal is to press Natural Law into service as the basis for a common society, then you will find that our society is not willing to play along.
Jeff, my goal isn’t to press anything on anybody. The point is that the law is written on the human heart. And it makes not one iota of difference if anyone denies they know right from wrong. Any parent knows this, and it is common knowledge that ignorance of the law is never an excuse for breaking it. You bring up Hugh Hefner as an example of not playing along. You realize, of course, that Hefners existed in Paul’s day; Corinth alone proves this. Yet, there is no argument by Paul about how we can’t tell men who take their mothers-in-law they shouldn’t because they’ll dismiss us by saying we’re fixated on traditional morality and the conversation is over. Fubar. He says that even the pagans know this is evil. It’s not complicated.
Again, define “sufficient.†I’m not trying to be pedantic here. The problem is that you’re asking me to accept that Natural Law is (warm fuzzy word) without telling me what it means.
Pardon the potential but unintended put-down, but now you’re sort of behaving a little sophomoric, like my children when they claim they have no idea what I’m talking about when I point out their misdeeds: “you’re telling me to behave, but you haven’t defined that.†More fubar. It is sufficient to tell children, “You know how to behave, so do it.†Something tells me that I could do all sorts of contortions for you in defining things but that it still won’t suffice because you fundamentally deny the tenets of general revelation.