I have been kicking around for a while the way that some have kicked around the doctrine of the two kingdoms. (I myself prefer to call it the spirituality of the church, following the Old School Presbyterian tradition, which receives constitutional status, for instance, in the OPC’s Form of Government (3.4), which reads: “All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.â€) What still leaves me strangely intrigued is the Bayly Bros. kvetch that 2k (read: the spirituality of the church) leaves the resurrection without policy implications. Does this mean that states, counties and townships should establish new policies for burial procedures so that mourning visitors to cemeteries will not be injured when headstones suddenly pop out of the earth?
What it seems to mean is that the gospel must have direct bearing on government, particularly on the rule of law, what conservative politicians usually call, law and order. Here is how the Baylys put it:
How does a pastor preach the Law to Christ’s Kingdom without spillover into other kingdoms? How are we to preach God’s Law so that the Christian understands God’s demands without leading the unconverted to think he can keep the Law as well? How do we preach on cultural sins to Christians without addressing any kingdom beyond Christ’s? How do we parse the person, dividing earthly citizenship from citizenship in the Kingdom of Christ? How do we parse the Law, applying it carefully in Christ’s Kingdom yet avoiding its implications for the kingdom of man?
The two-kingdom concept seems simple enough initially. Two kingdoms: the kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ. Two forms of authority: divine and eternal; human and temporal.
In one sense it’s elementary, so basic I doubt any Christian would deny it. There are human kings and the King of Glory, kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God.
The problem comes in knowing how to deal with the inevitable collisions between kings and kingdoms.
If Christianity is about law, morality, and uprightness, then this view of the state and its functions, combined with a desire for a faith-based political activism that goes in the public square and takes no prisoners makes perfect sense.
What is baffling about this understanding of the gospel, however, is that it is all law and no forgiveness. And without forgiveness the gospel is not good news – a gospel of law, human righteousness, and condemnation of sin is not a gospel.
I was reminded of this point quite poignantly during a recent worship service where the New Testament lesson came from the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18 reads:
23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.â€
It is hard to listen to this passage and not worry that the world will hear contemporary Christian activists as unforgiving scolds. What is more pressing is whether our heavenly father thinks of such law-and-order believers? Will he look at them as unforgiving servants? Is it not possible that all the faith-based hectoring and finger-pointing in the public square is unbecoming of those who have been forgiven? Isn’t the point of this passage that the Christian’s public face should be one of forgiveness and acceptance?
Does this mean that the state, to be truly Christian, should be like the church, doling out forgiveness for sin? Should the state have mercy on repentant doctors and mothers guilty of abortion? Is that really what faith-based activists want? Isn’t this what the Democrats for the most part give us? In fact, the idea that the state should conform to the church is the way that many evangelicals wind up on the political Left. They believe that the ministry of mercy and compassion will fix the halls of power; the state should be about love, forgiveness, and compassion.
To counter the left, Rightist evangelicals invariably respond with a Christian message of law and order and thereby give the impression that the gospel is one of making people moral (or the world safe for Mormonism – thank you, Ken Myers for that bon mot).
In which case, the Religious Right is right to think that the state should execute justice rather than mercy. But they are wrong to think that the state’s functions are the fundamental building blocks of Christianity.
The problem we face today is that in so wanting the state to uphold standards of law and justice, and in trying to make a Christian case for this, we have turned the church into the state. That is, Americans have generally come to associate the conservative Protestant churches with those believers who advocate law and order (i.e., social conservatism) because the message these Christians invariably promote in public is not one of gospel but of law.
What we are now living through is a crisis of justification, not only within the churches who have members who should know better, but also one within the state, where Christian citizens have disregarded 2k in pursuit of a righteous society. Which came first, the chicken of moralism in the church or righteous activism in the state? It is hard to tell. But in both cases, the opposition to antinomianism has produced the over compensation of neo-nomianism. In both cases as well, sanctification precedes justification, good works and personal righteousness precede forgiveness and imputed righteousness. It is any wonder that justification-priority folks think the sky is falling?
What critics of 2k need to remember is that the doctrine is not about liberal or conservative politics. It is is essentially an effort to preserve the good news that Jesus Christ died to save sinners from the guilt of sin and the penalty of the law.
89 Comments
And once again, amen. I have friends that fill the spectrum, both politically and religiously, from socialists to Tea Party activists and Dominionists, and from hardcore atheists to Christian fundamentalists. Among my Christian friends there’s a similar spectrum ideologically, and I see in both a similar confusion of their ecclesiology and of course their soteriology. I especially appreciate your pointing out the underlying similarity of both the left and right wing versions of American Christianity, whether evangelical or mainline. We may technically be a disestablishment nation legally but certainly not psychologically in many people’s minds. Even non-Christians overseas see America as a “Christian nation” and think and act accordingly, either in a positive way or in a negative way, depending on their notional emotions. Equating a particular ethnos with a religious mythos is deeply embedded in our human psyche and only a New Covenant understanding and transformation can overcome it. But until that miraculous day, we’re still divided by walls of hostility. And especially sad is how many Christians spend so much time acting as wall-builders contrary to Christ’s work.
1. Dr. Hart, you are going to have to take that up with the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:12-16)
2. Zechariah did not seem to find any conflict in understanding gospel salvation as both relief from earthly enemies (Luke 1:69-75), and forgiveness of sins (vs 77).
3. How does Christ execute the office of a king? (WSC 26) I believe there is something in there about conquering all His and our enemies. I believe as well that this kingly office is “redemptive” (WSC 23) which would place it in the “gospel” column, right?
Ron,
You seem to be suggesting that a categorical distinction between law and gospel is not something very Pauline. But I trust you’ve read the book of Galatians. How much clearer could the apostle possibly be as when he plainly and clearly makes a stark divide between Hagar and Sarah, between slavery and freedom? But a condemnation of sin is law (not gospel); forgiveness of sin is gospel (not law). Is that really so hard?
After reading the Bayly’s post and the subsequent comments, I couldn’t help but wonder if they would maintain their particular brand of transformationalism if the tables were turned, and our churches were under the threat of persecution that faced the early church, and many churches around the world today. Would a persecuted church take such a keen interest in the transformation of her society? Or would that church seek to strengthen and encourage those embattled saints that God has entrusted to her to hold fast to their confession and not to forsake the testimony of Jesus?
You don’t hear much of the transformationalist shtick coming from the church in areas of the world where having any association with the church has such dire consequences. Not many conferences in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea about how societies can be transformed to rule in conformity with God’s law (unless it’s Sharia Law). These believers aren’t out making waves in the culture at large, since any attention they might attract could even further limit their ability to gather for the sake of worship. Largely, they try to lead lives that are as quiet and as peaceable as possible so that they can worship and go about their lives without fear of harsh reprisal. In these areas, where the cost of being a believer is so palpable, the emphasis on the need for God’s gracious sustainance for basic faithfulness lacks the triumphalism that the Baylys seem to gravitate toward.
Are we beleivers in the West, whose persecution is more subtle than our brothers in foreign lands so different? I think that many take up arms in the culture wars because there is so little cost in fighting, and to many in this country it is lauded as part and parcel of the patriotic ethos that made this nation. But while these pastors take up their arms and march into battle to attack the ills of our time at their source, how are those embattled souls under their care faring? Since when has the simplicity of the ministry of Word and Sacrament and Discipline been anything less than sufficient means by which Christ establishes, sustains, and grows his church through the ages and so many forms of persecution? It would be nice if they could take off their culture-warrior garb, and focus more on shepherding God’s people with the means He has provided.
Jed,
since you brought up a question, I’d like to tweak it, then offer it back to you if you don’t mind.
Which stance is more compliant with the ways of the world (I mean where the rubber hits the road and the Christian lives and works among his unbelieving neighbors):
2-K theology with a Darryl Hart twist, or David Bayly’s emphasis? Essentially, which stance would give occasion for persecution?
Ron, so you’re pretty comfortable with the law? You’ll have to take that up with God.
Craig, are you presuming that Christians are to seek persecution? Doesn’t Paul say that we should seek to live quiet and peaceful lives? Maybe you have a Messiah complex.
Craig,
If I am following your question rightly, I would say that some form of persecution is the norm for the Christian. Persecution can occur overtly where life and limb are threatened for confessing Christ, and then it can come to us more subtly by the enemy’s constant bombardment with worldliness. So on one hand, it matters little what stance you take, you will, as a believer face persecution.
However, there is a form of persecution that Christians can unnecessarily bring upon themselves by confusing their role in the broader society. Here I think is the inherent danger of the Bayly bros emphases, they open the door for persecution by taking upon themselves the role of political/social agitators in a way that I personally see no biblical or confessional warrant for. It’s not as if they are making waves in society by saying that salvation can be found in Christ alone, non-xians who are at all informed expect us to proclaim this. They are out, using their platform as pastors, men ordained to shepherd Jesus’ sheep, to decry public policy, and insist that society at large conform in some way to God’s law.
I guess in one sense they aren’t entirely unwarranted in insisting that we all are liable under the Law. However, the remedy is the gospel, not policy. Instead of living as peacefully as they can in this society, their public rhetoric seems to indicate that they are out to win the culture war for Jesus. The problem I see with this is that Jesus hasn’t called his church or her ministers to win a culture war, or to transform the world per se. He has commissioned them to faithfully carry out the marks of the church.
I would have less of an issue with their political stances if they weren’t pastors. If they were politicians, or private citizens engaging the process to bring about positive social change, fine, let them bring their message into the public square. As ministers of the gospel, the only message they are called to carry into the world is the gospel, and if they are persecuted for this, at least it is for the right message.
Jed,
often in discussing the form of 2-K you seem to be amenable to, both sides tend to share their party-line speak. You find it from Reconstructionists and yes, you find it in the form of 2-K Hart promotes.
Having been on your side of the fence (and by the way, there’s more than 1 side with different emphases), I think I can spot it pretty quickly. I encourage you to re-read what you just wrote and see if you can find specific instances where the Baylys have said anything close to what you just asserted.
That’s a friendly recommendation.
Another question:
What issues have the Baylys raised that is somehow not impacted by the gospel? This is a pertinent question to answer considering Darryl used the following quote as a springboard where he (again) missed the board altogether:
“How does a pastor preach the Law to Christ’s Kingdom without spillover into other kingdoms? How are we to preach God’s Law so that the Christian understands God’s demands without leading the unconverted to think he can keep the Law as well? How do we preach on cultural sins to Christians without addressing any kingdom beyond Christ’s? How do we parse the person, dividing earthly citizenship from citizenship in the Kingdom of Christ? How do we parse the Law, applying it carefully in Christ’s Kingdom yet avoiding its implications for the kingdom of man?
The two-kingdom concept seems simple enough initially. Two kingdoms: the kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ. Two forms of authority: divine and eternal; human and temporal.
In one sense it’s elementary, so basic I doubt any Christian would deny it. There are human kings and the King of Glory, kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God.
The problem comes in knowing how to deal with the inevitable collisions between kings and kingdoms.”
Craig, who says it’s simple. Maybe the Baylys but not this 2ker. Yes, it does seem relatively simple that the church has one jurisdiction and the state another. But even those overlap. Township ordinances, stop lights near church buildings, road improvements that take away church property, fire service, police protection. All of these things are matters where church authorities might look to the magistrate for cooperation.
Where it gets especially murky is in the individual Christian life — someone who has a variety of callings and duties, who is trying to be faithful to God in those dimensions — the male gynocologist who tries to look at a woman’s body as a professional, the father who will not turn the other cheek to his wayward son, the woman who refuses to read the book with dark themes that the rest of the church ladies are reading. It’s a complex world out there, Craig, and 2k is a start at acknowledging it.
The problem with the Baylys, as I read them, is that they are itching for a collision of the two kingdoms. They make is seem that the Lordship of Christ will automatically lead Christians to protest all sorts of wickedness. Surely, the early Christians saw all sorts of wickedness but it is not clear that they were regularly egged on to show their difference and antagonism to others.
And then there’s the selectivity. The Baylys point to some sins but not others. I don’t understand why one commandment is more important for calling attention to the collision of kingdoms than another.
Dr. Hart continues to dodge any real interaction with opposing views. It’s almost as if he is bothered by them.
The Reformers did.
Jed,
Having myself been amenable to one form of transformationalism or another (soft, that is), I’d like you to re-read what you wrote and realize that the 2K you are championing is, ecclesiastically speaking, the biblical witness. That’s more than a friendly recommendation.
Craig,
If it’s specific instances you seek, how about this glorified anti-Obama speech tagged as a “sermon”:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/06/a-sermon-for-the-presidentand-for-the-people-of-god.html
No Zrim, that wasn’t nearly specific enough. See, I have not only read that sermon, I was there that Lord’s Day and heard it myself.
Was John the Baptist’s message to Herod regarding his marriage/sexual partner of choice “policy-making”?
David Bayly does say there are policy implications from the Resurrection, for instance…which got Darryl’s tweads in a twist. It is not without Biblical support, and the following rests on a victorious Christ who would take on flesh, die, and resurrect:
From Psalm 2
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
It seems the Holy Spirit sees “policy” implications when it comes to Christ’s majesty…that is NOT to limit implications to policy, but the implication is actually quite explicit…I mean, if you happen to think what the Holy Spirit says is binding…totally up to you, though.
Craig, great. The Holy Spirit “says” there “are” “policy” implications. So you want to “say” what the “policy” implications “are”? Or do you simply argue for the “generic” affirmation? “There are ‘policy’ implications” is not policy, have you never “seen” the “tax” code?
Ron, maybe you don’t understand the nature of a conversation or an argument. The post here — ahem — did precisely what you want. I interacted with opposing views. You in turn take snippets of what I’ve said or what others have said and think this constitutes interaction or a rejoinder. If you would care to express yourself, as opposed to merely cutting and pasting from others, fine. The Comments box at oldlife can take lengthy responses.
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.â€
Why is it Darryl wants to discuss tax code when anyone can see plainly that the people, and our governmental leaders, are breaking the bonds of the LORD’S Anointed?
Gnat straining belongs to another group Jesus dealt with…they also liked nullifying God’s Law, pitting paltry things against weightier. Darryl, aren’t you an elder in Christ’s Church, and you do not know these things? (John 3:10)
Craig,
Sorry for the delayed response, evidently I am supposed to put the human connection with, say my wife and kids above my incessant fascination with the interwebs. Regarding your first challenge, much of my opinion regarding the Bayly bros post came from the initial post and the comments. For example, Tim Bayly’s extensive and heated response:
“The overwhelming message I receive from Darryl Hart and his 2-kingdom men is that they’re an exotic species of Reformed men no other period in history would understand; but fat evangelicals wanting to escape shame and suffering and persecution today, here in the Western world, understand perfectly. And either we hate their arguments because we find them so appealing to our fatness and complacency, or we love them because we find them so appealing to our fatness and complacency.
Now some will cry “Unfair! That’s no doctrinal argument! You’re saying this is a matter of character and avoiding the (chop) logic of their position.”
Yes, precisely. I smell a rat and I don’t like rats. Anything that assuages my conscience in my indifference to the poor and the oppressed and the sojourner in our midst and the innocents whose blood is being shed and those suffering from injustice, as well as to my own lies and greed, is at war with my soul.”
Implicit in his assertion that the 2k position is replete with “fatness and compleceancey” and smells of vermen is that 2k-ers (at least of the Hart and Clark variety) are somehow disloyal to King Jesus because they do not address the broad social evils of oppression, injustice, and bloodshed. One of the main issues I have with this is one of hermenutics…I believe they are seriously misreading the thrust of salvation-history and how God is dealing with the problem of human evil in history; namely by calling men to repentance and faith in Jesus and thus becoming part of his pilgrim people, and by storing up wrath for man’s evil on the Last Day.
Now I don’t doubt that the Bayly’s believe this, and as commissioned officers of the gospel, their task is to faithfully execute the marks of the church. The problem is that their rhetoric often focuses on the secondary and tertiary issues of social evil, not on shepherding God’s flock in the interadvental period. Now, if transformation comes as a result of men and women coming to faith in Jesus, that’s great. However, the ebb and flow of human history since the ascension has shown that the problem of human evil will not be addressed by shifts in faith or ideology, but rather by God bringing history to it’s end and calling humans to account as individuals and collectively for their sin.
2kers aren’t fat, complacent, or cowardly as Bayly asserts. However, if we are to be persecuted, we certainly want to make sure it is over the primacy of the gospel, not periphrial issues of politics and the remedy of social ills. The simplicity of the SOTC might seem cowardly to those who see it as the churches responsibility to transform society (to whatever degree), however those of us who hold to it do so because we believe that Jesus intends to have his church fed and equipped for our journey home by the simple means he has provided, and that God is more than capable of addressing the problem of human evil in his own time.
Everyone, Craig says the resurrection and Ps. 2 (he’s cited it twice, does that make it Ps. 4?) have “policy” implications. Darryl asked Craig for a “policy.” Craig still hasn’t cited a “policy.” Could it be that the Bible doesn’t address “policy”? If anyone talks to Craig, maybe you could ask “him.”
Darryl,
the Psalm is there for you to read. The issue isn’t that the Psalm is too vague, rather, it’s far-reaching:
What do you think the “bonds” are that the Holy Spirit refers to? If your version of 2-K is correct, one wonders how a spiritual kingdom can have bonds to be broken by earthly kings and kingdoms.
I’m sorry if taking several hours to respond inconveniences you, but like Jed, I have a wife…and also 2 children. The internet is not my main priority.
Jed,
If you wonder if there is “fatness” implicit to Darryl’s version of 2-K, please read his self-indulgent comments…read his comments at the BaylyBlog which are rife with sniveling, posturing, and arrogance. I do believe his perverted version of 2-K facilitates his wickedly childish behavior toward others. Fruit means something, and something stinks here.
Having said that, your comment didn’t begin to address what I actually raised. You seem like a man who would discuss the issues…and while the stench of this form of 2-K does wreak, I think it would make more sense to begin with what I raised a few comments ago before Zrim and Darryl’s recent comments.
So I’ll restate my challenge:
“What issues have the Baylys raised that is somehow not impacted by the gospel? This is a pertinent question to answer considering Darryl used the following quote as a springboard where he (again) missed the board altogether:
‘How does a pastor preach the Law to Christ’s Kingdom without spillover into other kingdoms? How are we to preach God’s Law so that the Christian understands God’s demands without leading the unconverted to think he can keep the Law as well? How do we preach on cultural sins to Christians without addressing any kingdom beyond Christ’s? How do we parse the person, dividing earthly citizenship from citizenship in the Kingdom of Christ? How do we parse the Law, applying it carefully in Christ’s Kingdom yet avoiding its implications for the kingdom of man?
The two-kingdom concept seems simple enough initially. Two kingdoms: the kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ. Two forms of authority: divine and eternal; human and temporal.
In one sense it’s elementary, so basic I doubt any Christian would deny it. There are human kings and the King of Glory, kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God.
The problem comes in knowing how to deal with the inevitable collisions between kings and kingdoms.’”
Dr. Hart, you are right. My apologies. What I meant to say is that you did not interact with *my* opposing view. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, that is fine. You can just concede as you have done before
. I would just like to know from someone how Christ’s *redemptive* (WCF’s words, not mine) conquering (read condemnation) of His and our enemies fits into law/gospel? It is condemnation, so according to you and Z (I’ll deal with you in a minute, sir), proposing it to be gospel is false. But it is *redemptive*, so proposing it to be gospel is true. As you have pointed out, I know little about the nature of an argument, but how can a proposition be both true and false? I think in argument speak, that is what is called a “dilemma”.
Z, I trust you’ve read the book of Romans. How much clearer could the apostle possibly be as when he plainly and clearly declares God’s judgment to be what his “gospel declares”? Is that really so hard?
“The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s headâ€. That is an “evangelical promise“.
It seems the Holy Spirit sees “policy†implications when it comes to Christ’s majesty…that is NOT to limit implications to policy, but the implication is actually quite explicit…I mean, if you happen to think what the Holy Spirit says is binding…totally up to you, though.
Craig,
Appeals like this to the Holy Spirit are usually a red flag to the Reformed that fanaticism is afoot. It’s simply code for what the speaker wants the Word to say. And to disagree with the speaker means impiety. Frankly, it’s a really old trick (the bench-revivalists famously pulled it on the catechism-confessionalists, and Luther called it swallowing feathers). But, look, I get that you all have certain politics, and nobody is trying to take your politics away from you. And as misguided as it is, you can even be slobbery-mad about them. But you cross a bright line and trod on holy ground when you want heaven to sanction your worldly cares.
It’s mainly about abortion with you guys, right? I’ll admit, part of me would love to go for the groin and dive into the Word and surface with a states’ rights policy and tell choicers and lifers that heaven is on my political side. I mean, given that the modern debate is dominated by those who seem to think it’s all about the individual rights of women or fetuses, we statesers are really up against it. (For that matter, why not take this same strategy for any political disagreement, including zoning ordinances and tax codes, etc. and so on?) But I fail to see how being on the bottom of any political pile is any justification for telling Jesus to share his throne one iota with any tradition of men. Ironically, it’s actually this effort that smacks of impiety.
And if you don’t see how the glorified anti-Obama speech was a flaming example of Jed’s assertions, well, it’s highly doubtful anything will pass muster.
Ron,
You might consider that there is no way to get to sola fide, the material principle of the Protestant Reformation, without the sort of law-gospel hermeneutic being asserted here. To conflate them as you do is, at best, to hold to sola fide but with that much less consistency, and is, at worst, to admit Rome’s hermeneutic and take at least a dip in the Tiber. Law is isn’t gospel, which is why it’s called law, vice versa for gospel. Sorry, but I still don’t see what is so monumentally hard about that.
Craig,
I honestly thought I had answered your question, but I’ll take another stab. Can the Law inform our views on social issues? Yes it can, articulated as Decalogue or NL, there is no way to construe a public policy such as abortion as anything but a violation of God’s Law. I haven’t heard any 2k rhetoric that would deny this, in fact VanDrunen’s dealings with bioethics clearly demonstrate that 2k-ers care about the issue. The problem is how the Bayly’s appropriate the Law here, their platform seems to show how they move from (or parse) the fact of the Law being violated (in the political/secular kingdom) into the more problematic application to policy. The application of Law for the Christian minister primarily is to call individuals to repentance, not primarily to call for social reform.
The Christian character of these policies becomes more problematic when Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Catholics all are against abortion as well. I really don’t have an issue with individual believers engaging in activism in this, or any other political arena. The problem is when this is viewed as a distinctly Christian enterprise, because we aren’t the only system of belief that has a view about how the world we live in ought to be. The Christian message is distinct and otherworldly, even if it impacts how we live here. The Great Commission speaks to the duty of the Christian minister, as do the Pastoral Epistles and I just don’t see the mandate for ministers to get too bogged down with the affairs of this world. Shepherding a congregation is hard enough.
Plus, we firmly do believe that God will judge the nations for their rebellion, and he will set things straight. For now, our message is how we might escape that judgment, not how the state can adopt better policy.
If this doesn’t answer your question, I frankly am either to thick to see what you are getting at, or you are trying to steer me to agree with the Baylys, and respectfully, I simply cannot.
Craig, I’ve read it now twice and I don’t see a policy in Ps. 2. You say it has far reaching implications. You say the Bible has policy implications. So what are they? I have faulted the Baylys for this claim. I’d think their claim would come with actual “policy.” But I continue to see none. So it must be that the Bible has no policy implications, at least none that anyone can identify. Which would mean that the Baylys condemn themselves. Don’t you love logic?
Ron, Christ is not the church. Yes, Christ does things that have judgment attached. But the question for you (from the post) is what the church is supposed to do and if that is the model for the state. The church conquers her enemies by forgiving sins of those who believe in Christ. The state gives a foretaste of Christ’s conquering that will come on judgment day. If you can’t see that the law is not merciful, I don’t know what you’re looking at.
The Christian character of these policies becomes more problematic when Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Catholics all are against abortion as well….The problem is when this is viewed as a distinctly Christian enterprise, because we aren’t the only system of belief that has a view about how the world we live in ought to be.
Jed, true, but don’t forget the pro-life atheists, agnostics and secularists. I understand Baylyittes don’t want their help, but I’d take them all if their political views were pro-states. Do Baylyittes also refuse correct change from atheist cashiers?
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://secularprolife.org/
Zrim,
I am with you here. I wish that evangelicals and Reformed believers were more interested in a political construct that respected the rights and beliefs of other groups. I think the brilliance of the US Constitution, a far too neglected document these days, is that it has set forth a rule of law that intended to give states proper rights and upholds the liberty of all citizens within the constraints of sensible laws.
If I had the inclination to be more involved in politics, which I do not, I would strongly support the pluralism implicit in the Constitution. Ordering a polity that upholds the rights of divergent faiths and cultures is foundational to the framing of an equitable modern nation-state. For the state to employ its coercive powers to enforce a distinctively Christian or particularly Reformed “worldview” would require abolishing rights that have distinguished American society and abandoning the very principles that have allowed religion to flourish in this country.
I am an ardent supporter of pluralism because I believe it is most conducive to the free promotion of the gospel in a modern context. I realize that pluralism means having to live with others who hold views we frankly find repugnant. However, a plural society allows for the free flow of the Christian message. It allows us to call homosexuality a sin for which gays must repent, it allows us to call Romanists idolaters, Mormons blasphemers, mainliners as perverters of the gospel, and evangelicals cultural accomodationists. I honestly do not understand why there exists the insistence on the part of some to legislate Christian righteousness, when legislation will not save, and leaves men still liable to the wrath of God.
Contemplating a good society isn’t a churchly exercise, it’s a human one. Overturning Roe v. Wade and other destructive policies should be our concern because it is bad statecraft. Abortion is, well an fundamental abortion of human rights that is as much of a concern to a conscientious atheist or agnostic as it is for the Confessional community. It is beyond me why some would decry such a position as somehow disloyal to Christ as King. For this Christian, Christ is fully capable of exercising his kingship in his way, in his time, and free from my help. He hasn’t called me to transform culture in His Name, he has called me to be a faithful member of the church He instituted, submit to those he has ordained to shepherd my soul on my journey home, obeying his commands, and to patiently endure and rejoice in the day when he returns and executes true justice throughout the earth.
Jed,
I agree. 1K can be as hard to understand as how anyone could think works play any part in justification. But think of it this way: 1K is the ecclesiastical version of the soteriological confusion of law and gospel. 1K is as natural as the natural notion that we are to justify ourselves. Heck, we were created to redeem ourselves, so in that sense it all becomes a bit less mysterious. Unfortunately for all natural variants of law/gospel confusion Christianity is an entirely supernatural project.
One thing that might be worthwhile for some here to contemplate is whether they really want the state to punish sin. For my part, there seems an important distinction to be made between crime and sin, punishment and discipline. All crime is sin, but not all sin is crime. I want my sheriff to punish crimes, not sins, and I want my elders to discipline sin, not punish it. Discipline has in mind reconciliation, punishment doesn’t. I don’t think 1Kers understand very well that without these sorts of distinctions we may well end up with not only elders locking up instead of administering grace to sinners but sheriff’s doling out grace instead of locking up criminals.
Darryl,
before I begin suggesting “policy” that would be informed by the Word, please ANSWER my question. You and Zrim have a penchant for poppycock bunny trails…for example, your disciple decided my appeal to the Holy Spirit was akin to zealous fanaticism…then trotted out non-sense about revivalism. Try to treat your theological A.D.D., boys, and maybe…maybe you will be capable of a discussion. At this point, it seems Jed is more able of the 3 of you to actually carry a discussion.
So, please, answer this question:
“What do you think the “bonds†are that the Holy Spirit refers to? If your version of 2-K is correct, one wonders how a spiritual kingdom can have bonds to be broken by earthly kings and kingdoms.”
Craig, you are interrogative-assertive, which means you are passive-aggressive in a discussion. You quote a Ps. that has far reaching policy implications. And now you want me to say that the policy implications are. This is like arguing with the wife. “You know what you did wrong, and if you don’t you’re doubly wrong.”
Maybe you missed it, but I’m the one who is questioning whether the Bible has policy implications. The reason is not because I think policy so grand that the Bible must justify itself to be important only if it speaks to “policy.” Instead, it is because “policy is an incredibly minor canvass on which to paint the significance of God, Christ, and salvation. No matter, you seem to think that only a gospel that has policy implications is one with sufficient testosterone for you and your manly, finger-wagging cohort.
So you need to do the work here. You can’t assert policy implications (aggressive) and then ask for the policy (passive).
Show some real manliness and come forward with “policy” based on Ps. 2 or any of your favorite proof texts.
Craig,
I may have ADD, but what sense does it makes in all this talk of Psalm 2 making political policy to make an apppeal to the Holy Spirit? Effectively, what you’re saying is, “Psalm 2 has policy implications. The Holy Spirit says so. So there, Mr. bunny trail.” Well, who could disagree with the Holy Spirit? Is that how you always argue and converse, telling your partner s/he is fighting God? I can see how this stacks things in your favor, but it sure seems to make for boring and short consversations.
But maybe you’re of the school that says Psalm 139 has policy implications for abortion. I think that’s the same school that says Leviticus 19 has policy implications for immigration. Unfortunately for both graduates, John 5:39 teaches Jesus’ own hermeneutic: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Or Luke 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” The Bible, the whole Bible, is about Jesus and Jesus alone (you know, solas christus). It’s not Jesus-plus-policy. Again, this is the hermeneutical version of soteriological confusion (faith-plus-something-else). Or is this another bothersome bunny trail for you? But growing up in the sticks of northern Michigan one thing I learned was that bunny trails have a funny way of always circling back to the well worn trail.
Zrim,
Not that I expect you to respond to my Romans 1 objection, but on to your objection. It is a matter of perspective. There are two seeds, and what is gospel to one is law to another. I don’t see what is so hard about that. The demand to repent and believe the gospel is intolerable law to the unregenerate. But at the same time, this “demand” is sweet gracious gospel to those who have been convinced of their sin and misery and made to embrace Jesus Christ.
Dr Hart,
The Church is the embodiment of Christ on earth. That is to say, Christ ordinarily operates on earth through His Church. Anyway, this is a side step (big surprise) because my question did not even pertain to what the Church ought to do, but simply how Christ’s redemptive conquering of His and our enemies fits into law/gospel. Converting His enemies to friends is only one way Jesus conquers them.
“We should pray that our enemies be converted and become our friends, and if not, that their doing and designing be bound to fail and have no success and that their persons perish rather than the Gospel and the kingdom of Christ.” ~ Martin Luther
Ron Smith,
I just had this conversation with Ron DiGiacomo on GreenBaggins on the First Ammedment thread. I guess we can do it here as well.
The law as understood in the OT was covenantal in nature, and thus was not binding on the surrounding nations. In fact for them to take it up, would have been a profaning of it. Even if I did grant the validity of the Theonomic thesis, I would say those laws could only apply to the church. They are holy laws picturing Christ the coming Redeemer and Judge. Assuming the WCF 3-fold division, which I don’t, by removing the ceremonial and retaining the penal laws, you destroy the Messianic typology intergral to the Mosaic arrangement.
To posit that the unbelieving Amercian public can either understand or even keep those laws flies in the face of NT Scripture. And I continue to argue, those who suggest fallen man can keep God’s law and please Him are teaching the theology of Finney and Pelagius. Fallen man is the enemy of God and his sacrifices are an abomination. To suppose that he can please God is to negate the work of Christ on the cross.
These questions of law and ‘policy’ are based on wrong assumptions. You’re asking the wrong questions because you seem to have forgot that the Kingdom of God is only visible to those who have been born again. You profane it and remove the power of Christ’s teaching by making it into a political entity. We end up having these discussions driven by questions that are wrong in the first place.
I see no Biblical data to support any notions of triumphalism but even if that were the case, do you not see? If our society were ‘Christian’ whatever-that-would-mean… we wouldn’t have to pass laws to get the corner store to quit selling dirty magazines. The owner would either be Christian and quit selling them, or since everyone was Christian they wouldn’t buy them and he would quit selling them. Since we are not under tutelage any longer, why would we want to go back the weak and beggarly elements? Why would we want shadows and types when we have the substance?
As far as laws concerning murder, theft, adultery, etc….you don’t the Bible to know those things are wrong. Every society in history has more or less according to the dictates of Providence accepted and implemented those laws by the light of nature. For the right metaphysical reasons? Of course not.
Fallen man needs a saviour, not a lawgiver. For the law came by Moses but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. That’s why it’s called good news!
I have no expectation of that, but instead am just baffled at the drive and energy you folks put into law. Were the Pharisees right? Were we looking for a Kingdom that would supplant the Romans and a King who would sit on the throne of Caesar?
Please think about it.
John A.
It is a matter of perspective. There are two seeds, and what is gospel to one is law to another. I don’t see what is so hard about that. The demand to repent and believe the gospel is intolerable law to the unregenerate. But at the same time, this “demand†is sweet gracious gospel to those who have been convinced of their sin and misery and made to embrace Jesus Christ.
Ron,
Law is law and gospel is gospel and never the twain shall meet. But where it becomes complicated is how law and gospel work even within the sinful saint. Calvin said unbelief resides in believers and the confessions speak of indwelling and abiding sin, as in Simul iustus et peccator. So demands that cannot be met even within the believing self are never sweet, they are always bitter. What is sweet is that what God demands he also provides.
But now, even if you still confuse law and gospel, you are making the conversation precisely what it should be about: how God saves sinners. So why do you, in your theonomy, insist on making the point geo-political? Jesus lived and died for his people, not for their institutions. Once you start applying his work to anything other than or in addition to the imago Dei you have the flip-side of works-righteousness.
Darryl,
you didn’t answer my question.
What are the “bonds” referred to in Psalm 2? I didn’t ask you to give policy…I asked you to share your thoughts on what these bonds may be. I could share what sorts of things would inform policy, but that’s not a very logical place to begin seing that we disagree at the outset. If you think my insistence sound like your wife, then I must say your wife thinks more clearly than you do. So I will assume you were complimenting your wife and not actually dishonoring her.
You believe there are no policy implications, I do. “Bonds” will very likely be where a fruitful conversation could begin.
Zrim:
“Again, this is the hermeneutical version of soteriological confusion (faith-plus-something-else).”
Actually, no. I’m not talking about soteriology or the ordo salutis when I say there are policy implications. Why do you think I am?
Why do I appeal to the Holy Spirit? Because Psalm 2 is blazingly clear. Why appeal to Psalm 2? Because it hits the perverted version of 2-K everywhere it hurts. If you’d like to disagree with me, I invite you, as I have your Rabbi, to explain what the bonds are that kings attempt to break off.
Craig French,
My note to Smith was just as much pointed to you. You’re asking the wrong questions. Please answer mine. No one else has said anything, but I have a feeling they would like to see the points I raised addressed by you and your colleagues.
John A.
Craig,
The kings of the earth in Psalm 2 desire to break free from Bonds…the governing authority of the Deity.
These in the Psalm seek like the Sons of the gods in Genesis 6, like Tower of Babel builders, like Pharaoh, like Rome to be a Kingdom unto themselves. They seek a Pseudo-Kingdom of God.
Satan also deceives Sacralists into embracing the same vision. We’re warned of it in the Apocalypse. It’s the story of Church history.
John the Baptist was bringing the Covenant Lawsuit to the Covenant People. Herod was in some sense, fulfilling that role. It’s within the Covenant.
To tell a pagan ruler to obey God’s Covenant Laws and believe he can honour God by keeping them, would be a profanation of those Laws and Covenant….which seems to be what you’re arguing for.???
Rather, I would say a pagan ruler needs the gospel before he will be able to ‘see’ the Kingdom of God.
Is the Christian life to you about keeping laws? Or is about being reconciled to God, honouring Him by a trusting and living faith, trusting in his Word given to us in all its forms? And then yes, obediently living our lives which in the NT social vision means learning to be quiet, minding our own business, working with our hands, being salt and light to those around us…praying for peace in the land. Our very presence….the Oracular Word in our assemblies is a proclamation of the Heavenly Kingdom. Let all Beware!
I don’t need to go and play marketing and politics with the fools of the City of Man. I walk on Mt. Zion. The City of Man cannot be transformed in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Satan TRIES to transform the City of Man into the Pseudo-kingdom. Don’t get caught in the trap!
What is the Kingdom imperative? What is it’s nature and purpose?
I really urge you to think through some of these questions. I don’t think you’ve wrestled with them enough. I’m not trying to be mean, but I find this to often be the case with Theonomically minded people. I don’t think you’ve understood the main theme of the Bible.
Blessings,
John A.
Craig,
Actually, no. I’m not talking about soteriology or the ordo salutis when I say there are policy implications. Why do you think I am?
I know you’re not talking about soteriology. It was a comparison. If your biblical hermeneutic leads you to say that the Bible is as much a handbook for political ordering (law) as it is about the revelation of Jesus (gospel) then what stops you from saying justification includes law keeping?
But the policy implications of Psalm 2 are only blazingly clear when one begins with geo-political presuppositions. What is the principled difference between the geo-political presuppositions of theonomy and the presuppositions of those who thought Jesus came to overthrow the governments of the earth instead of save his people from their sins? Again, if instead of a some geo-political hermeneutic we take Jesus’ own hermeneutic and say it’s all about him then Psalm 2 is a prophecy about how the powers of the earth would take down the Lord’s annointed one, as in the ensnaring and killing of Jesus.
John,
Errr, Proto (sorry I couldn’t resist) I think that you are definitely on to something here, as your brief description of Ps. 2 makes clear. Prior to the 2k-transformational-theonomy debate is a fundamental principle of heremenutics and how one sees the bible put together and how salvation=history unfolds.
Paul,
First off, your characterization of Dr. Hart as a rabbi suddenly makes me crave a tasty Hebrew National hot dog and a glass of manischewitz, not sure why. Second, I think that your question re: Ps. 2 and where you want to lead it (godly v godless political policy) really misses the point on several biblical-theological categories both within the Psalter and canonically. You miss the function of foreign powers, enemies, messianism/sonship, and eschatology if you seek to collapse the discussion into issues of contemporary political policy. That sort of discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread, and can’t be fairly addressed through a few drive-by liners here. If you are interested in pursuing this discussion off-line let me know.
Craig, you have a blog, write your own post about “bonds.” My post here was about “policy” “implications” of the “Bible.” So what are they? It looks increasingly like the Baylys and their fans are all talk and no “policy.”
This is why I get such a kick out of you guys. You state a proposition, an argument is made against it, and then as a “rejoinder”, you simply restate the proposition. Awesome. Does the gospel declare judgment as Paul states? Isn’t it the law only that declares judgment? *crickets*
Jesus lived and died to reconcile all *things* to His Father. Colossians 1:18-20. *Institutions* are *things*. Therefore, Jesus lived and died to reconcile *institutions* to His Father. To quote the good professor Kirke, “Why don’t they teach logic in schools these days?”
John A., sacrament is a subclass of law. There is that which was and is required of God’s people alone (sacrament), and that which is required of all man, including God’s people (law). Now, if you want to start separating those two when it comes to an Old Covenant understanding of Law, you might be interested in the writings of a soon to be former Anglican Bishop by the name of Tom Wright.
Ron,
The law declares judgment and the gospel declares forgiveness. Again, why so hard? Whatever it is you think Paul is saying do you really think he’s saying that gospel judges or law forgives? Yeow.
So, Jesus lived and died for fish and government? How do you baptize either one of those “things”? Be careful of logic, Ron, in the hands of the wooden it can lead to really strange ideas. Double yeow.
LOL man, Z. You sure do now how to assert, re-assert, and re-re-assert propositions. But can you defend them? I have yet to see it.
Yes. Jesus lived and died for fish (Ezekiel 47:8-10) and government (Psalm 2). I wouldn’t know how to baptize any of those things since Jesus only commands baptism of disciples. I reject the implication that Jesus couldn’t have lived or died for a thing if there is no instruction on baptism of said thing. Have fun trying to substantiate that or any other assertion you have left lying around this post naked.
Ron,
Your assertion that the sacraments are a subclass of law is flatly false(cf. WCF 27-29), and I am not even sure that your transformaionalist friends wouldn’t go with you there. Law is not conferred rather grace, as they are signs and seals of the covenant. The gospel is embodied in the bread and wine and offered to the partakers through the work of the Spirit and faith. Baptism signifies regeneration, something that the Law cannot do.
As to your take on Colossians is simply off, since in this age the only recipients of the redemption bought by the Son of God are people, not other *things* or *institutions*. The redemption of “all things” lies hereafter when Christ consummates the new creation in his second advent. Before final restoration, this old creation will be judged by fire (2 Pet. 5: 5-7). To the degree that the material stuff and institutions of this world will withstand judgement has been an arena of legitamate debate. However, the radical transformation and/or re-creation of the new creation will be so substantial that it is inappropriate to say that God will somehow transform these *things* without judgement and fire first. Unless you want to claim that the transformationalist movement, whatever brand, has the inherent ability to overcome the inherent depravity that exists in these fallen human systems such as government, commerce, science, etc; and that you possess the creative power to transform the material stuff in the universe, it is probably most prudent to eagerly await the return of the Lord, and trust that He alone has the ability to bring this to pass.
I have less of a problem with transformationalists who attempt to unpack their system with exegetical responsibility, but frankly your citations here are wreckless, and your conclusions stretch Scripture beyond any reasonable, good, or necessary consequence. You are playing fast and loose with the text here, at least tighten up your exegesis and make biblical arguments here, not a few quick “so there” proof texts.
Darryl,
your post was not about specific policy implications, rather, the notion of the gospel having no policy implications. The onus is not upon me to give you particulars when your post was about the notion itself…and that is precisely what I’m trying to get you to talk about: The very subject matter of your post.
My refusal to speak about certain policies only says that I would prefer to keep you on task. Why prate on about particulars that hinge on a presupposition we disagree about? Would it not make more sense to talk about the hinge?
I have talked about particulars on my blog. That’s available for anyone to look at (just to show no one needs to claim Freedom of Information, just click my name…you’ll see my blog)…so it’s not like I’m hiding my cards, but why does it always seem like you are when you’re pressed to argue your point rather than trot out one-liners and play dodge-the-question?
Zrim:
“If your biblical hermeneutic leads you to say that the Bible is as much a handbook for political ordering (law) as it is about the revelation of Jesus (gospel) then what stops you from saying justification includes law keeping?”
My biblical hermeneutic doesn’t lead me to say the Bible is “as much a handbook for political ordering as it is about the revelation of Jesus”. You’re the one saying that’s what my position is. Please stop it.
“Psalm 2 is a prophecy about how the powers of the earth would take down the Lord’s annointed one, as in the ensnaring and killing of Jesus.”
This is much closer to answering my question, thank you. If Jesus didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom (and He did NOT…I AGREE), then in WHAT sense could the rulers “break bonds”? How would killing the God-Man, the One who didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom, have bonds which rulers can break?
JohnA, I invite you to answer that question as well. Your response to the Psalm seems to acknowledge (perhaps not fully) what the Psalm is saying:
“These in the Psalm seek like the Sons of the gods in Genesis 6, like Tower of Babel builders, like Pharaoh, like Rome to be a Kingdom unto themselves. They seek a Pseudo-Kingdom of God.”
The Psalm says:
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
“Let us break their chains,” they say,
“and throw off their fetters.”
Followed by: “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
and then: I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter [f] ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
It seems that the victory of Christ includes recognition of His rule…He is the King.
So when you consider that the Father and Son demand recognition of the Anointed One by the nations, then the policy implications would be far-reaching. You can see why talking about one or two would be silly. Christ’s rule is all-encompassing. He is demanding recognition of that fact.
Craig,
He has installed his King on Zion, the holy hill…….but there’s something called the already and the not yet. We all look forward to the day when all things shall be under his feet….we’re right with you on that!……but He has to come. That’s why we’re laying up our treasures in heaven and not on the earth…our hope of victory, of life, if there, not here.
Meanwhile we’re the suffering people, the weak overcoming the strong, slaughtered like sheep, we’re more than conquerors. Don’t you see?… His wisdom makes the wisdom of the world as nothing….fallen man would never even conceive of it. He is glorified by a bunch of losers like you and me persevering and overcoming everything and I mean everything the wicked one throws at us.
We all agree the Kingdom is established. Nobody here is arguing the premil position. But again, when the Kingdom is defined as not of this world and that you must be born again to see it……how does it manifest itself politically? Was the Pharisee’s hope of overcoming Rome, and a Messiah on the throne of Caesar the right vision of the Kingdom?
Major hermeneutical difference……even Psalm 2, awesome Psalm 2 has to be read in light of the NT. The New Testament hermeneutic tells us how to interpret the old. Look at Acts 15, where James appeals to Amos 9. The tabernacle of David being rebuilt is the gentile-inclusive Church. We need to read what Jesus and Peter say about the Kingship and Kingdom, Realm and Reign of the Messiah before we go back to Psalm 2.
Sacraments are simply the Word made visible for us. They are the way in which God administers the Visible Covenant……but there it is again, Covenant. The Law is a Covenant for the people of Israel…with many sacraments. But all of it pointed to and has been fulfilled in Christ. Where can you point to in the Bible that tells me the Covenant was for Edom or for Moab?
They were included in the ‘them that are far off’ re-iterated by Peter at Pentecost, but that was the Abrahamic Promise Post-Messiah….the New Covenant. Moses was but a parenthesis, an interlude, a tutor that was done away with.
Don’t worry, the kings of the earth will bow, when He comes again.
Craig, you are absolutely correct…the policy implications will be far reaching. Let me tell you how far reaching they will be……….a new heavens and a new earth!
John A.
Ron,
Sorry, on that last note I mean to include your name…….the sacrament line. While I would probably be a little more sacramentarian/visible covenant than most BT guys, I can’t agree with your definition. Interesting idea though….
Does NT Wright actually say that? I’ve not read anything of his. I’ve only heard as in mp3 some of his interactions with people. He’s interesting, but I didn’t agree with him.
John A.