Have you noticed lately what tends to make conservative Protestants mad? In public life we see a lot of consternation about abortion, gay marriage, the thievery of the federal government, and outrage over secularists. And let’s not forget a whole lot of anger doled out upon two-kingdom theology and the spirituality of the church. (If you wonder how the critics feel, just look for the word, “radical.â€)
But have you ever considered what made the apostle Paul mad? Well, his dealings with the church in Corinth were not pretty. There he found sectarianism, sexual immorality, insubordination, blasphemy, with a theology of glory worked in for good measure. But how does Paul open his letters to these Christians whom today many of the proponents of public righteousness would deem antinomian? In his first epistle he addresses them as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. . .†And he follows that with the apostolic salutation, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.†In the second epistle, even though many problems still exist at Corinth, Paul again calls them “saints†and adds the same salutation as the first letter.
But what about those Galatians, the church that may have been excelling in its zeal for the law? He refers to them as part of the church but not as saints. And while he does also extend an apostolic salutation he does not dally with affirmations of the Galatians piety or the encouragement he takes from them. Instead he cuts to the chase and says he is astonished that they have turned away from the gospel. And within 8 verses of his opening, Paul anathematizes any one who would turn from the gospel he preached. One could well imagine in our times that if a minister were insisting that believers picket at abortion clinics to show the authenticity of their faith, many would fail to object. What damage could be done by such a worthy cause? Granted, you don’t want the picketers to think they are earning merits with God because of their righteous deeds. But that is certainly not a danger in our day and besides, the wickedness of abortion is truly a blight on our nation. So why would it hurt?
But if a pastor was guilty of tolerating incest among his flock, well, the opposition would not be pretty and the minister would likely be out on his ear. But Paul’s reaction was just the reverse. He condemned those who added any works of the law to salvation through Christ. Meanwhile, he was willing to work with the church that had turned a blind eye to all sorts of immorality — even the sexual kind.
J. Gresham Machen detected a similar difference in the way Paul dealt with preachers in Galatia and those in Rome (who were preaching out of envy and strife). Machen observed that Paul was tolerant of bad motives among Roman preachers but intolerant of the Judaizers in Galatia because of the content of the respective evangelists’ messages. And this was a distinction that Machen believed his contemporaries in the Presbyterian Church were incapable of making. The differences between Paul and the preachers in Galatia, Machen wrote:
would seem to modern ‘practical†Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.
As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind. . . . Paul saw very clearly that the difference between the Judaizers and himself was the difference between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the difference between a religion of merit and a religion of grace.
I am no believer in historical laws, but I do see the pattern repeated throughout the history of the church that when Christians begin to make the faith practical by insisting that Christianity’s vitality can only be proved by its effectiveness in changing everyday life, the Christian religion becomes moralistic. At that point, Christians become indignant about urban crime, wayward elites, and national hypocrisy. But when the church is more concerned about the gospel and the forgiveness of sins that only comes through the shed blood of Christ, they may like Paul get indignant about moralism and neo-nomianism. The reason could be that like Paul and Machen, these forensic-centric Christians know that by emphasizing good works in public life the moralizers and neo-nomians implicitly embrace the idea that being good is what makes someone or a society Christian, not faith in Christ.
So here’s a proposal: if you want truly religious affections, start by letting Pauline indignation be the norm for your anger.
72 Comments
Brown and Schaeffer were speaking to both world and nation (as well as Christians and non-Christians). Both men thought they did have a commission from the Lord–to speak on behalf of the perishing who have no voice.
If we speak out more [against sin] will they lessen? I guess that’s the point!! The Spirit works with the Word. I thought the whole point of being saved by Christ was that we were created for good works (i.e., not for sinful ones).
By definition, the most pious women in our churches are not getting abortions.
Did David sin because Nathan was lax in his prophetic proclamation against rooftop adultery and murder? Was Jewish Klineanism preventing authoritative application of the Decalogue to the magistrate? Agreed on being created for good works, but I’ve understood this as meaning that somehow God works in us to bring glory to Himself in ways that we can’t anticipate or understand.
Jesus’s genealogy seems instructive there. Rahab gave up prostitution, but the Scriptural account focuses on her hanging a thread. That of Judah and Tamar is even subtler about the moral renovation element. And all those details fade in light of a larger purpose that God accomplishes through them despite themselves.
I guess it’s debatable whether it happens to us to the same extent that it did those in the inscripturated drama of redemption. But the thought that I was chosen by God from eternity past because of something I could decide or accomplish intentionally on earth is disconcerting to me, even with the emotional cases that send Reformed-worldview hearts aflutter, like conscientious child rearing or not having abortions or whatever Christian thing we’re doing outside of the corporate church this side of redemption. Accomplishing which of these requires the blood of the Lamb of God? They may be means to God knows what, but they’re not the point of salvation, or at least I hope not.
Not sure that relative piety is that simple either, but at least we’ve jettisoned most of the efforts of the impious psalmist for that of the pious Methodist and blind lady. score.
This brings me to another point. Everyone I know who supports the 2K distinction (myself included) also advocates for the use of the catechisms both in the church and in the home. Doesn’t that fact alone debunk all these farcical claims that 2K is simply code for antinomianism?
RL, I guess it all depends on who one asks. Ask Rabbi Bret and I’m antinomian. Ask my daughters and I’m a legalist (catechism and Lord’s Day observances).
Jeff, re my hypothetical, instead of pushing the analogy down a host of rabbit trails, it was meant to make a broader point about what we’re asking ourselves to do in order to justify violating the SOTC. The price sometimes seems to be using our own in disingenuous ways and ultimately harming them. These tactics (“we have as much sin here as the world doesâ€) also seem to unwittingly give fuel those who would that the church is full of hypocrites. I rather think our problem isn’t that we abide blatant sin in the church so much as we want to vanquish it from the world. We’ll always have the charge of hypocrisy leveled, but I think some of the unnecessary heat might be reduced if we abandoned the idea that we are the world’s moral police and just minded the weaknesses in our own household.
By definition, the most pious women in our churches are not getting abortions.
Eliza, and that’s because they’ve been nurtured in the good or because the church has made sure to tell the magistrate what’s what about particular legislation? But I am also saying that most of our women are pious and don’t need position papers tacked to their bedroom doors. Evidently, what some need are reminders of the SOTC.
Jeff, you keep acting as if Christians who pray, thy will be done means that there is a Christian way of plumbing or being a magistrate? So Felix becomes a Christian? Then he makes George Washington his president?
I really don’t understand why you keep making it seem that 2k is messy, and why you don’t acknowledge the mess on the anti-2k side. I do not think it is messy that a father does not turn the other cheek (our Lord’s command) when his 12 year old son insults him. Meaning: the Bible is littered with commands, that need to be juggled. Sometimes the commands are at odds. Was it really God’s will for Solomon to cut the baby with rival mothers in half? Wisdom is also in order and I don’t see room for it in your view. God’s will is one thing. Now implement it. As if no muss, no fuss.
A big one that applies to magistrates is Rom. 13, submit to the powers that be. Felix was to submit to Rome. If he couldn’t submit in good conscience then he resigns. The same goes for plumbing. You follow the authorities of the trade. If you’re a radical Amish and don’t believe in indoor plumbing, then you don’t plumb. Why is that so messy?
And if you’re an apostle with a commission to preach the gospel, you preach the gospel, and if you’re an evangelist you preach outside the setting of the church. If the civil authorities tell you not to preach, you don’t picket, you continue to preach and face the consequences.
What is messy on your side is that praying thy will be done seems to mean not abiding by laws that do not recognize God as the will behind the law. I really do wish the critics of 2k could somehow come clean on 1789 and either revolt and try to establish a nation that follows God’s revealed will or went into exile and established such a kingdom in Iceland.
Bottom line, what you see as messy is not. You just don’t agree. But I don’t see an alternative from you. 2k doesn’t give you what you want. But what do you want? What is your Christian magistrate supposed to do if he gets elected in the U.S. or is part of the Roman empire’s officialdom?
Eliza, did Brown and Schaeffer have commissions different from ordination? Where did they get it? If not and they are pastors, why do they single out one particular sin? Why not state lotteries?
Look I get it. Abortion is a categorical wrong. But aren’t there other sins too? And what about all those who don’t get abortions? Do they need to hear the law so they can be convicted of sin and look to Christ?
In other words, what it the calculation by which you decide to rescue only some of the perishing?
Brown and Schaeffer spoke as they did because abortion is the slaughter of the innocent right up to the moment of birth. Before Joe Brown died in 2008, about 49 million abortions took place in the US. Would that not call for some kind of response? Brown called the task that of a “watchman-witness” and he noted (in Death Before Birth) the distinction between “moralizing” and “preaching the gospel.” He talks about the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 3:3). Brown even says, “It is no good to argue at this point that Israel was a theocracy and that God’s Word was also civil law.” His position, which I know you have no agreement with, is that it is our responsibility to warn our fellow Christians and our fellow Americans of the danger of death that comes with transgression of God’s moral law.” And to save the innocent as far as we can.
Eliza, how do you “KNOW” what my position is, as if I don’t think the church has a responsibility to proclaim God’s will publicly (as in public worship every Sunday)? You assume I don’t believe that simply because I don’t agree with the means that you advocate. There are other ways to oppose abortion than the tactic chosen by Brown and Schaeffer. It is odd that you deem any other means than yours a violation of God’s word.
DGH: Jeff, you keep acting as if Christians who pray, thy will be done means that there is a Christian way of plumbing or being a magistrate? So Felix becomes a Christian? Then he makes George Washington his president?
…
What is messy on your side is that praying thy will be done seems to mean not abiding by laws that do not recognize God as the will behind the law. I really do wish the critics of 2k could somehow come clean on 1789 and either revolt and try to establish a nation that follows God’s revealed will or went into exile and established such a kingdom in Iceland.
I know you’re in a hurry, but this is a very strange construction of my words.
Jeff,
I think when you admit, as you have consistently here, that general revelation is insufficient to construct civil society it is then hard to imagine that you aren’t saying that special revelation bears on nation building and maintenance. And, if that’s true, it’s hard to know exactly what you have against any effort to either revolt against a secular nation or establish a sacred one. Maybe you don’t like “the sound†of such things, which is a step in the right direction. But as much as I like intuition, that’s just not enough to distinguish your views from scarier or otherwise dubious ones. You know?
Jeff, apologies if I misread your views. But I am really puzzled where you stand or what your complaint about 2k is, and this is after a lot of interaction here and at your blog. I suspect you are not where Rabbi Bret is. But then he is to the right of the Baylys since Bret actually embraces theonomy. You seem to have regard for Frame and his understanding of biblical authority and some things he’s written about politics play right into the Baylys’ hands.
So if you could at least isolate one point, either regarding Rom. 13, WCF 23, or the U.S. Constitution it might help.
Or you could answer as briefly as you like the following?
Do you think the Bible should inform the decisions of a non-Christian magistrate?
Do you think the Bible is at odds with the U.S. Constitution?
Do you think America’s founding was Christian?
Can a Christian submit to a magistrate who is not a Christian, and who doesn’t follow the teaching of Scripture?
This is where I am in my thinking so far.
—
(1) Yes; but the Church should not be the enforcer. This one requires the longest answer, so see below.
(2) Probably. Especially under the current interpretations of privacy and eminent domain.
(3) Marginally, inasmuch as Presbyterian theory of government influenced the Constitution. Otherwise, not so much.
(4) Certainly.
—
Why Yes on (1)? Because the moral Law, which is reflected in Scripture, is binding on every man, Christian or not (WCoF 19.1). So it is that the general equity of the civil law remains binding on the nations. (WCoF 19.4)
That said, it’s none of the Church’s business, in general, except in perhaps “extraordinary cases”, to tell the magistrate how to interpret or apply the general equity thereof. Opinions may be expressed; but they do not and cannot carry the weight of the authority of the Church as binding on the magistrate (WCoF 31.4).
In other words: the magistrate’s duty to Scripture (which does exist in the Confession, not only in 19.1, but also implicit in 23.1 and in the very existence of chapter 23 itself), is his business, his jurisdiction; and he is accountable coram deo for his actions.
—
I think the problem you have in understanding me is that when I say “duty to Scripture”, you think “duty to the Church”, since the Church is, after all, given broad authority to interpret Scripture.
But in fact, the Church’s authority to interpret Scripture is limited to explicit commands and good and necessary inference; whereas individuals, attempting to apply Scripture in their particular situations, may well have to go with “inference to the best conclusion.” (Think: a missionary to the Massai has to decide how to handle polygamous men who convert to the faith.)
Thus, because there is very little in the way of explicit command to the magistrate in Scripture, the Church has very little to say to him. Instead, his duty to Scripture is, again, primarily coram deo.
What if he fails in his duty? Well, the Church might issue advisory opinions, in extreme cases (I think abortion might qualify). But it cannot demand obedience, which is where I think Falwell and Wallis run off the rails. And to a lesser extent, the Bayley duo.
Zrim: I think when you admit, as you have consistently here, that general revelation is insufficient to construct civil society …
Yes.
… it is then hard to imagine that you aren’t saying that special revelation bears on nation building and maintenance.
Also yes.
Zrim: And, if that’s true, it’s hard to know exactly what you have against any effort to either revolt against a secular nation or establish a sacred one.
Construct that in syllogism form. I’m not being snarky; it’s just that
(1) Scripture has bearing on the governance of nations, so
(2) Revolting against a secular nation is a positive good.
is like the famous
(1) Make a product
(2) ??????
(3) Profit!
The missing steps are non-obvious, at best. And counter-examples are ready to hand:
(1) Scripture has something to say about parenting, so
(2) Rebelling against a non-Christian parent is good.
(1) Scripture has something to say about church worship, so
(2) Railing publicly against the elders for not being exclusive psalmists is good.
Jeff,
Then maybe the question for you should be: what keeps you in submission to a secular state? If your answer is something akin to Romans 13, I don’t see how that is really any different from anything 2K is saying. But, the thing is, you seem to consistently carve out special space for the churchly influence of the state, and it isn’t clear to me how this isn’t some form of wanting to see a sacred nation result.
P.S The “extraordinary circumsatnces” argument is tricky. Have you ever noticed how examples of extraordinary circumstances almost always ever have to do with the same triad for evil: abortion, slavery and the Third Reich. Aren’t there lotsa things that could be deemed extraordinary? What about preemptive war? That seems pretty extraordinary. I don’t know–somehow it always seems like “extraordinary” is code for “whatever really irks me.”
Jeff, Thanks. I certainly understand differences better, though I don’t understand the coherence of your view. For instance, if the non-xian magistrate is to conform to Scripture because of the moral law’s claims on all men, then shouldn’t the magistrate enforce Scripture on all men? It seems you have a recipe for non-Christian theocracy. Plus, I don’t see the advantage of this arrangement. On Christian grounds it actually suggests that someone can follow biblical morality (whether magistrate or citizen) without the work of the Spirit. I don’t see, in other words, why natural law doesn’t give us all we need in the state.
That’s especially the case with privacy and eminent domain. Why do these cases reveal that the Bible and Constitution are at odds. Why not the silence of the Constitution about God or religion?
And I don’t think it’s crucial, but I don’t see any real evidence of Presbyterianism influencing the American political order.
dgh: First, I don’t think opposing abortion “by any other means” a violation of God’s Word. I was explaining the rationale of Brown and Schaeffer and recommending their stand. And, I was answering your question–why pick on abortion instead of state lotteries?
I think it’s odd that people say–We can’t tell such and such to obey God’s Word (even though God’s Word is for everybody to obey–everybody is required to do so), because–they aren’t Christians so they don’t accept the Bible. We have to use reasoning, logic, natural law. As if anybody came into the world believing the Bible (John the Baptist and few others, I suppose). Seems like people want to throw in the towel before they’ve even begun.
Eliza: I agree with you on the principle: the incoherence of the 2k position (to me) seems to be that the Natural Law agrees with the decalogue, but we aren’t allowed to use the decalogue to illumine the Natural Law.
But I with DGH on the jurisdiction question. Who is the “We” who is going to tell the magistrate to obey God’s Word?
For example: do I have the right to walk into your church and start exercising discipline, since I’m an elder in my church?
No … because your church is not in my jurisdiction. Likewise, while the church might issue advisory opinions on abortion, they don’t have the right to start making demands on the magistrate, because he is out of the church’s jurisdiction. Even if he’s a member of a church, unless his work as a magistrate is clearly and obviously and directly against a command of Scripture. Abortion-on-demand is very close to that, and I think the RCC has actually been correct in withholding communion from its pro-choice members.
The fact that our system allows the church to make such demands doesn’t mean that it’s right to do so, just as the fact that our system allows 50 pieces of junk mail per day to show up in my mailbox doesn’t mean that it’s right for companies to do so; or that our system allows “gentlemen’s clubs” to advertise up and down I-95 doesn’t mean that it’s right for them to do so.
To put the most positive construction on SOTC that I can, its best point is that the church needs to self-police its use of free speech and cease pouring (as much) energy into changing the culture, diverting those resources into evangelism and worship instead.
Zrim: Then maybe the question for you should be: what keeps you in submission to a secular state? If your answer is something akin to Romans 13, I don’t see how that is really any different from anything 2K is saying.
Yes, there are similarities. Like I said, I’m some kind of 2K, just not your kind exactly. I think “personal theonomy” probably best describes my view.
Zrim: But, the thing is, you seem to consistently carve out special space for the churchly influence of the state, and it isn’t clear to me how this isn’t some form of wanting to see a sacred nation result.
See above. Think again about our test-case. An official of the FDA who is a member of a PCA church (we have two, and our pastor is a former official also) will likely not receive direct instruction from the church. They never have, in my 16 years with the church.
BUT
Scriptural teaching will, cannot help but, have an influence on this question: What is Good? And thereby, Scriptural influence will enter the government. (For example, a Christian FDA official is more likely to think of scientific truth in objective terms, instead of in utilitarian terms.) We can’t help that influence, unless we want to say that (a) church members cannot be government officials, or (b) church members are strictly forbidden from using the Bible to think about what is Good.
—
I’ve been in conversation a bit over the past year with my pastor about our online discussion. His first reaction was interesting: “Of course there is a Christian way to carry out one’s common calling. A Christian magistrate, like Daniel, will see himself first and foremost as a servant. And that servant mentality puts a completely different frame around one’s work.”
—
Zrim: The “extraordinary circumsatnces†argument is tricky.
Well yeah! But it’s in the Confession, so unless you want to re-revise it to say “under no circumstance”, then you’re stuck with the messy problem of figuring out what qualifies.
And yes, I think the state lottery is a problem — a Tax on the Mathematically Challenged.
And to the larger point, Dr. Hart: Yes, I think that indignation over a corrupt gospel is more important than indignation over social issues. Cultures will be cultures, but the church should police itself first.
DGH: On Christian grounds it actually suggests that someone can follow biblical morality (whether magistrate or citizen) without the work of the Spirit.
Only if one confuses “should” with “can” … which of course we shall not do.
The biggest shoulds in the world, Love God and love neighbor, fall under the category of “can’t.”
DGH: I don’t see, in other words, why natural law doesn’t give us all we need in the state.
Well … since should != can, what we “need” in a teleological sense is the second coming.
What I’m getting at is that you’re jumping straight to “what we need” (means) without first asking “what is the goal?” (ends).
If the goal of the magistrate is to defend and encourage those who do good and punish those who do wrong (and I’ve heard a rumor that this is so), then one “needs” to know what is Good.
And if the natural law is written on the sinful heart, and is therefore inconsistently seen — as Paul argues, then providing Scripture to illumine the natural law is an improvement, even if it doesn’t lead to perfection.
That’s my take.
We can’t help that influence, unless we want to say that (a) church members cannot be government officials, or (b) church members are strictly forbidden from using the Bible to think about what is Good.
Jeff,
Both A and B make little sense to me. But so does the idea that believers are influential the way you seem to imply, which is to say positively. Not only do I think believers do way more maintaining than they do influencing, but I think that when we do influence it is at least as problematic as it is positive–we’re part of the problem. The idea that we positively influence seems an odd way to interpret the doctrine of abiding sin.
Well yeah! But it’s in the Confession, so unless you want to re-revise it to say “under no circumstanceâ€, then you’re stuck with the messy problem of figuring out what qualifies.
Am I? Actually, it seems to me that the burden is on those who want to qualify something to demonstrate why the church needs to take it up. Moreover, you have the burden of where to draw the line and say to another who wants his cause taken up, “Yeah, that’s not extraordinary enough.†I don’t envy such an arbitrary burden. All I think the church’s task is in relation to the world is the unfettered gospel, which is why “the church reformed and always reforming” is the better slogan over “the world sets the church’s agenda.” Taking up extraordinary tasks seems like hiding our light under fettering bushels, despite anti-2K charges of cowardice, etc.
I think the 2K answer to this is that what you are actually arguing for is that the inconsistency in recognising natural law is necessarily greater than any inconsistency that Christians might experience when using Scripture to illumine natural law. Which given both common grace and that Christians are also simultaneously sinners and saints is by no means guarenteed.
But verses such as John 13:35 or 1 Peter 2:12 would seem to suppose that on aggregate santification leads to a real difference between the two communities, so maybe this is where such differences in capabilities bubble up from.
Jeff, I think 2k does have ends or goals in view. The Natural Law is what maintains a semblance of order in this world. It is not going to give us the end of the new heavens and new earth. That means a non-christian magistrate has all he needs to govern well.
And while I do think that NL matches the decalogue in broad strokes, the 2k view of the law is of a first use sense. It restrains evil. Again, it seems to me to work as well as can be expected in a fallen world.
But once you think about Christian America and the good old days (not to say you do this), then you begin to think we need more special revelation.
One Trackback
[...] on the subject of cultural critics of evangelicalism, we visit historian Darryl Hart’s blog for a provocative piece. I heard Hart at the recent Wheaton conference on the early church, where he jokingly called the [...]